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.

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate on third reading of Bill C-9, an act to establish the economic development agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec.

This is a public policy matter of profound significance for communities everywhere. Although the bill deals specifically with community economic development in various regions of the province of Quebec, the concept we are discussing is critically important for the future of many communities across the country.

I would like to take a moment to address the essence of this proposal and the whole meaning of social, economic development or political involvement at the grassroots level because that is what we are talking about.

This is about communities having the means to ensure that community development occurs in ways that are relevant to that community. It is about turning around our priorities as politicians and as members of Parliament. We ought to stop saying how communities must perform. We ought to stop making decisions from on high about what communities need and what is best for people at the local level. We ought to begin by saying that no one knows better about what is in the best interests of a community than the people who work day in and day out building communities and creating cooperative arrangements for improving life in that particular neighbourhood.

I have a very relevant example in terms of my own constituency of Winnipeg North, a community that is a typical, inner city, north end neighbourhood. It is an older neighbourhood with old stock housing and many very significant problems in terms of economic and social development.

We are talking about communities where many people live on a day to day basis trying to make ends meet for their families, communities that are struggling in terms of some external factors that are hard to address. It may be an influx of people from other communities without proper housing and other services available to those individuals. We are talking about all the social determinants that come from economic indicators that are indicative of many social ills and problems that we all have to deal with on a day to day basis.

Economic development is central for every region and every community in every one of our provinces to overcoming great difficulties and ensuring we have a long term strategy for overcoming economic and social inequalities.

There is an old expression we have all heard that if we give a person a fish, they will eat for a day, but if we teach that person to fish, they will be able to provide for themselves and their families forever. One could even take that a little further and say that if one gave those families access to the pond, to the lake or the river where the fish are plentiful, then the future of that community is guaranteed forever. It is about giving communities the resources they need to develop, to grow and to provide for all of the people in that community.

We cannot do that in isolation. We cannot do that from government speaking on high and we cannot do it in terms of dealing with things on a piecemeal, ad hoc, band-aid, pilot project basis, which has been the tendency of the government.

It has not tended to look at communities in terms of holistic needs and in terms of working to find solutions with a community, not for that community, not telling that community how the job must get done.

My experience also comes from a community where in fact there is a very high aboriginal population. These are people who want to gain control over their own lives. They are people who know that they will continue to suffer social injustice and economic inequality until we as politicians are prepared to share power and are prepared to empower people to look after themselves, to care for themselves and to make communities work for one another. That is the essence of this concept and why this bill is so important.

Let me now focus specifically on Bill C-9. It is a bill that has gone through all the stages and has had serious study by the committee.

In that regard I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology. She has been very much involved in the work of that committee in developing recommendations and amendments to this legislation to make it better, to make it more effective in terms of dealing with the very objectives at stake here, that is, how to give communities the means by which they can shape their own future.

At the committee stage of the bill, many amendments were proposed and many were passed. I want to indicate for all in this House that the New Democratic Party certainly supports the amendments, recognizes the hard work of the committee and wants to support the bill as amended.

Specifically, the amendments state very clearly that social economy enterprises will be included as eligible organizations. That will help community economic development opportunities in the province of Quebec.

As well, the amendments focus on how this money will be used to promote the Quebec economy. I want to look specifically at those amendments that do just that and speak about why we are so supportive of the amendments and the bill including these amendments. The first of these amendments states that there shall be means to:

(a) promote economic development in the regions of Quebec where low incomes and/or slow economic growth are prevalent, or where opportunities for productive employment are inadequate.

That is fundamental to the task at hand and to the very essence of Canadian economic development.

The second part of the amendment states that through this bill it will be emphasized that “long-term economic development and sustainable employment and income creation” are explicitly stated as fundamental goals. The amendments also include reference to a focus on small and medium sized enterprises and the development of entrepreneurial talent.

All these amendments are important, all establishing very clear boundaries that will help direct how the funding that is available will be used and to whose benefit. Very clearly, these are critical steps in terms of this whole process, integral to the whole legislation we are dealing with.

As recent events in Montreal have shown, it is very important that bureaucrats understand the limits of how funds should be used.

I again want to spend just a moment on the importance of literacy in any social economy program. I am sure that members of the Bloc will agree when I say that Quebec, like Atlantic Canada, has more adults with low literacy skills than the rest of Canada. As we agree to the new status for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, it is very important for us to emphasize that literacy skills are the most important for people who are in transitional and emerging economies.

I want to point out that ABC CANADA is a great organization working to improve adult literacy skills. The following is stated on its website:

Statistics Canada released a report called Literacy Skills for the Knowledge Society in 1997. This report confirms that we have a serious literacy problem in Canada. Here are some of the facts:

Literacy skills are like muscles--they are maintained and strengthened through regular use.

The higher an individual's literacy level, the more likely he/she will be employed and have a higher income.

Canadians use their literacy skills more in the workplace than at home.

--'good' jobs are those that provide opportunities to maintain and enhance literacy skills.

Let us stop for a moment and take a look at the third point I mentioned: that Canadians use their literacy skills more in the workplace than at home. It makes sense in that context, then, that any economic program, any community development initiative, needs to consider absolutely the need for lifelong learning, especially when it comes to adult literacy and numeracy training programs.

There is so much one could talk about in the context of the bill. I simply want to indicate our support for the bill as amended and to urge its final passage by the House of Commons.

I want to end by referring to some work prepared by the Canadian CED Network social economy round table consultation. I will refer specifically to the briefing notes the group produced. The document outlining the discussions at the round table consultation lists the main points that CCED Net believes should be common concerns during all consultations regarding the federal social economy initiative.

Emphasizing those three points really says it all in terms of what we are trying to achieve and what can be accomplished by providing the funds that are referenced in the bill and providing the framework for its implementation.

The three points made by CCED Net include, first, “strengthening social capital at the local level”. That means “building the local capacity of communities to systematically address the problems of their economies”. That is a very important point, because without acknowledging the need to increase local capacity so that the community itself can overcome the problems it is facing, we are only putting a band-aid on a problem. We are only allowing social injustices and economic inequalities to continue.

The second point about this approach involves “strengthening human capital at the local level”. This means “increasing the competence of local citizens to get and hold good jobs or build their own businesses, as well as to provide essential local leadership for the development process”.

This kind of investment in human capital cannot be done in isolation of all the parts of that individual. If we do not look at this on a holistic basis, it becomes almost impossible to see results by investing money strictly on the basis of a particular economic project. That means looking at the whole identity of an individual and of a community. That means considering the heritage, the culture, the skills, the particular expertise, and the practices of collaboration and working together: networking; the involvement of unions and businesses; the involvement of synagogues, churches and temples; the involvement of schools and universities; and the involvement of family associations and teacher-parent groups.

All of these various aspects of an individual's life, all integral to the health and well-being of a community, must be included in this concept of strengthening human capital at the local level.

Finally, let us get to the nub of the matter in terms of the wherewithal to do all of this. We have the people who want to do it. We have organizations at the local level with people who want to give their lives to making a difference at the community level, who are prepared to work on a volunteer basis and to work tirelessly doing community work, but they need the financial support of government to make that happen.

The third important point made by CCED Net about a community development or economic development initiative is “strengthening financial capital at the local level”. This means improving “investment resources available for local businesses, for affordable housing, and for alternative financial institutions”.

In this context, it is very important to reference the two budget bills passed by this House of Commons just last night, and in particular to reference the better balanced budget proposed by the NDP in Bill C-48, which in fact flows from this imperative and came from the need to address community needs and to support communities to help themselves. The money we have fought for and worked through with the Liberal government is critical for community economic development, the money for housing, education, retrofitting of homes, public transit and other environmental initiatives. All of these initiatives are critically important for feeding into the notion that the best communities are those that are able to help themselves.

By providing the resources to work with community groups like those I have in Winnipeg, the North End Community Renewal Corporation, Just Housing, Habitat for Humanity, North End Housing and other residents associations like the Point Douglas and William Whyte residents advisory groups, by providing assistance to those organizations and groups that are prepared to take on the challenges of a community that needs to be renewed and strengthened, we surely see the light at the end of the tunnel and know that the goals we all share can be accomplished.

This last point also references the need for every community to have access to financial institutions, and if those financial institutions are not there, to provide the resources to develop alternatives. When a community loses all of its bank branches and has no immediate direct access to financial institutions, then it is through community development and economic development proposals, like those we have been talking about under the auspices of this bill, that we can actually provide and ensure that a community has such access.

It is not easily done and it takes a lot of work, but I can tell members from firsthand experience how possible it actually is.

In the case of Winnipeg North, we have lost all of our bank branches in the last 10 years. In a very large and strategically significant area in Winnipeg, that being the north end, stretching many miles on all sides, there is no bank branch. The community realized that without access to financial services there would be no way to keep attracting new businesses. There would be no way to deal with the vacancies along main street and to get local initiatives housed and thriving in those vacant buildings without access to financial services.

That community, my community, decided to first take on the banks and it said to those banks that they had no right to desert a community that had been loyal to them for years and years, for decades and decades, and in some cases for more than 100 years. Those banks grew and became profitable because of that loyalty, only to desert that community when it was convenient for the banks because they wanted to make more profit in other areas. That community, my community, decided to take things into its own hands and to say to those banks, “If the banks will not stay and be loyal to us, then we will switch our allegiance and we will find our own way to deal with the situation”.

The community, through the North End Community Renewal Corporation, has developed an alternative financial institutions plan, has tested it and is now in the final stages of putting it into effect, but it needs money and it needs support from all levels of government. I have actually pursued this matter with the Minister of Finance and said to him that he had an obligation to support such community initiatives and to ensure that if the banks desert communities and we cannot legislate them to stay, then surely we, as representatives of this place and as members of a government, have an obligation to help communities help themselves and provide the necessary economic development and financial institutional resources that they need. The essence of this project is helping communities to help themselves.

I urge members of the House to support Bill C-9.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[The Speaker]

I don't know why hon. members keep doing this to me. The Clerk has announced that there is an equality of votes for and against the motion. In these circumstances, it is the duty of the Speaker to break the tie.

The Speaker's vote is not based on his or her political affiliation, but rather on parliamentary traditions, customs and usages. I will therefore vote in accordance with parliamentary procedure, as I have done in the past.

The House tonight has been unable to reach a decision by majority vote. Parliamentary precedents are clear: the Speaker should vote, whenever possible, for continuation of debate on a question that cannot be decided by the House.

On May 4, 2005 I voted in favour of second reading and reference to committee of a private member's bill sponsored by an opposition member. At that time, I was guided by precisely the same procedural principles as I am following tonight, though my decision has arguably more momentous consequences.

Therefore, at this stage in the debate on this bill, since the House cannot make a decision, I cast my vote for second reading of Bill C-48 and its reference to the finance committee to allow the House time for further debate so that it can make its own decision at some future time.

I declare the motion carried. Consequently, this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-48.

(The House divided on the motion:)

An Act To Authorize The Minister Of Finance To Make Certain Payments

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to think the hon. member was in that sweaty hotel room when the NDP cut Bill C-48. We are on debate on Bill C-48. I am not sure where the hon. member has been all this time.

Let me just say something very quickly. On Bill C-48, the leader of the Conservative Party was very clear. In fact he was standing in my riding when he made an announcement that because of the deal with the devil--and we all know who that is, the leader of the fourth party in the House--he said he would come back to caucus and recommend we put the government out of its misery. That was because of Bill C-48. I do not see any inconsistency in that. Quite frankly, it would be really nice if we did put the Liberals out of their misery tonight.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple. When we defeat Bill C-48 tonight and bring down the government, I will be happy to match our platform against anybody's on behalf of auto workers, on behalf of the environment and on behalf of farmers.

I have been fighting for farmers in the House. I have not heard the hon. member over there fighting for farmers, but I have certainly been doing it. We will be glad to go to bat for our farmers.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to debate Bill C-48. I believe that a member on the other side of the House once called it the people's budget. I am going to talk about the budget that hurts people. That is why Conservatives, including myself, will actually be opposing Bill C-48. It hurts seniors. It hurts farmers. It hurts auto workers. It hurts our children, because ruining our nation's finances will be stuck with our children. Runaway spending is not what this country needs.

Since betrayal is the story of the week on the Hill, I want to talk about some very important people, the people of Essex, people who were left out of the budget both by the Liberals and the NDP. One would think if the Prime Minister was desperate to maintain his slipping grip on power, a better deal might have been struck. He was ripe for the picking. Perhaps the deal was made in a sweaty back room in a hotel somewhere and the air was thick, I am not sure, but there are a lot of things missing from the budget, things that harm communities.

For example, there is no new border infrastructure money for the Windsor-Detroit corridor. After allocating maybe $150 million some two and a half years ago, there is about $50 million left in the fund.The very first project allocated under that spending was a very simple pedestrian overpass: ramp up, ramp up, go over the street, ramp down, ramp down. That was agreed to two and a half years ago. It has been a year and a half in design and redesign. Now it comes out with wind turbines and a little swamp bog on the front lawn of a high school that is off the side of that street. The saddest thing is that the simple project has not been built.

The thing that is important is putting pavement between Windsor and Detroit. That is going to cost some money. There is no money in the budget for that. There is no money in Bill C-48 for that. There are trucking companies and owner-operators in our communities whose livelihoods depend on getting this solved. It is clearly not a priority for the government. It is going to take more than $50 million to solve it.

In fact, a third crossing may cost some $300 million to $400 million. Hundreds of millions of dollars more will be required for roads that will connect to a third crossing from Highway 401. The Liberal solution is $50 million. That is shameful. It says that the Liberals did not make a very strong commitment to the region of Essex and Windsor. The NDP had the opportunity to get that with a Prime Minister eager to consolidate his slipping grip on power. There are two NDP members of Parliament in Windsor and they received nothing for the community. It is clear that both the NDP and the Liberals care nothing about Essex and Windsor.

Maybe judgment gets clouded when people cut back room deals, I do not know, but there is no help for farmers in Essex County in this budget.

I rose in the House in February and called on the government for assistance for grain and oilseed producers who are facing foreclosure on their farms. There are 1,200 grain and oilseed producers in Essex County alone. Many of them are facing foreclosure this spring. The CFIP cheques according to the government are rolling in, but for those who actually got some cheques, they were for $100 or $200. That is not enough to cover the cost of fuel to run the combine across the field let alone pay down a short term operating loan that the bank is calling in on them.

As a result, farmers are trading in their equity. One producer told me he has cashed in his RRSPs to hold off the bank, desperately hoping that he is going to make it through the spring. He is not going to make it through the spring. He will not make it through the summer. His farm is done. There is no help for farmers.

When the NDP members had the Prime Minister on the ropes and were going to cut a deal in the back room, they should have thought about Tommy Douglas and the CCF out on the Prairies who said they loved the farmers, but the NDP did nothing for our farmers. Bill C-43 fails our farmers. Bill C-48 fails our farmers as well. The New Democratic Party budget has left farmers to fend for themselves. How apropos for a week of betrayal on the Hill.

I do not know about the stale air in the back room where the leader was cutting a deal with the Prime Minister, but the NDP also forgot to help those Canadian seniors who collect U.S. social security. The New Democrat member for Windsor—Tecumseh and I petitioned the Liberal finance minister to include a rollback of an onerous 70% tax hike that was foisted on Canadian seniors collecting U.S. social security as the basis of their retirement income. We lobbied that this would be a line item in the Liberal budget.

As was expected, the Liberal government refused. It has been fighting against these Canadian seniors for eight long years. Many of the seniors have been dying off. The government has taken the wait and die attitude. That is how the government treats Canadian seniors.

Many of these seniors were forced from their homes. Do we want to talk about housing? They were forced from their homes. They were living in homes and now they cannot afford homes. All the affordable housing in the world will not compensate dead Canadians. These seniors were forced from their homes precisely at a time when the Prime Minister as Liberal finance minister was registering ships in Barbados in order to only pay 2% tax in Canada.

These seniors have been waiting eight years for justice. The New Democrat members from Windsor--Tecumseh and Windsor West have talked about this issue in the House, but when it came time to prop up the government with an NDP budget, they did nothing for these seniors. Let the record show that the New Democratic Party sold out Canadian seniors who collect U.S. social security.

I know that Buzz Hargrove was in the negotiations behind closed doors. Here is the real kicker on Bill C-48. I have heard a lot of talk here about auto policy and helping auto workers. Interestingly enough there is no help for auto workers and their families in this NDP budget.

I am Parliament's first auto worker ever elected and not from the New Democrats or the CCF. I spent three and a half years at the Pillette Road truck assembly plant before it closed and two and a half years at Windsor assembly living in constant anxiety about job security. The global market is even more fiercely competitive.

The Liberal government says that it does not care how many jobs go overseas, but we in the Conservative party actually do care. International competition from cheaper foreign labour markets and a higher Canadian dollar have put the squeeze on our automakers here in Canada.

The New Democratic Party has deep-sixed tax relief for large corporations like automakers. It would have increased their productivity and their competitiveness. It would have allowed automakers to not only fulfill their collective bargaining agreements but still turn a profit and do it here in Canada, preserving Canadian jobs and Canadian families and allowing them to survive. That would have been a win-win situation.

Coupled with its last supply day motion on an outrageous job killing mandatory fuel efficiency regulation, it is clear that the New Democratic Party wants to drive auto jobs out of Ontario and over to China. The 9% unemployment rate in the Essex-Windsor region is not good enough. The New Democrats want it to be 12% or 13% the way they are forcing auto jobs out of here.

The New Democratic Party did not get an auto policy. It left crushing high corporate taxes to kill auto jobs. The New Democratic budget did not fight for tax relief for hardworking Canadian auto families.

I recall for years the New Democrats bemoaning the Liberal government for doing nothing about reinvesting the $45 billion EI surplus in workers. When I look at Bill C-48, where is the $45 billion EI surplus reinvestment that the New Democrats thought was so important? Nowhere.

The 5,500 people I worked with on the line at DaimlerChrysler and their families deserve a better budget than this New Democratic budget. It is an NDP budget that hurts workers.

Finally, this NDP budget hurts families. Governments should be designing budgets to encourage strong families. On the child care initiative, $1 billion a year is what the government says and $10 billion a year is what the CAW says. Where is that going to come from? It is a hidden agenda of $9 billion per year when the government is promising $25 billion. That is going to mean program cutbacks or it is going to mean deficits and debt, a return to red ink. That hurts Canadian families.

This NDP budget is financially ruinous. It hurts communities in Windsor-Essex. It hurts farmers in Essex County. It hurts seniors, auto workers and families. As a result I cannot in good conscience support Bill C-48. I will oppose it tonight, proudly on behalf of those people in Essex who deserve a fair shake.

An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Newton--North Delta to participate in the debate on Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments.

The proposed legislation would enact the $4.6 billion deal struck by the Liberal government with the NDP to make payments in 2005-06 and 2006-07 from surplus moneys exceeding $2 billion to fund environmental initiatives, including public transit and an energy efficient retrofit program for low income housing; training programs and enhanced access to post-secondary education to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians; affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians; and foreign aid.

I am opposed to Bill C-48 for a couple of reasons. First, I oppose the bill for the politics behind it. This is a $4.6 billion deal using taxpayers money to keep a corrupt party afloat in government.

The Liberals and the NDP have joined together and written a fiscal plan on the back of an envelope. The only motivation behind the deal is an attempt for political survival by the desperate and corrupt Liberal government. This is a recipe for economic disaster.

Second, it takes government spending to a new dangerous level. There are any number of worthy ways in which to spend taxpayers' hard-earned money, some under federal jurisdiction, some under provincial jurisdiction and some under municipal jurisdiction.

The government cannot seem to decide what its priorities should be and as a result is throwing money around regardless of jurisdiction. This is not in the best interest of Canadians and must be strongly opposed by all those who wish to preserve the fiscal integrity of the federal government.

Even before this budget side deal, the government was ramping up spending. I have said it before and I will say it again. This year's budget demonstrates that tax and spend Liberals are back with a vengeance. If there was any doubt about the truth of this statement, it has been washed away by the Liberal-NDP budget and the tidal wave of new spending announcements that cabinet ministers have been making on a daily basis for the last month.

A Prime Minister who made his reputation by taking tough fiscal decisions, whether by choice or, more likely, as a result of pressure from the reform party and later the Canadian Alliance, has now revealed his true colours.

He is a tax and spend Liberal, the likes of whom this country has not seen since the darkest days of Liberal excesses in the 1970s and early 1980s. It was runaway spending under Prime Minister Trudeau that took this country to the brink of bankruptcy. At the rate the government is spending taxpayer money, Canadians will again find themselves in the poor house.

Last year the finance minister promised to demonstrate unequivocally the principles of financial responsibility and integrity. He promised Canadians to better control spending, which is another broken promise by the government, another promise made but again not kept, even before the budget side deal and the billions in additional spending promises of the last month the government was proposing.

Last year the finance minister projected program spending at $148 billion for 2004-05 but he ended up going $10 billion over the budget. As a result, in the last fiscal year we witnessed a spending increase of $17 billion over the previous year. So much for controlling spending. At 12%, this is the largest single spending increase in over 20 years and the fourth largest in the last four decades.

Since 2000, program spending soared by 44% and judging from what we have witnessed in recent weeks, Canadians should hang onto their seats because they have not seen anything yet. I could almost forgive this runaway spending if there was some demonstrable evidence that Canadians' lives were improving as a result, but that is not the case.

My constituents in Newton--North Delta are at pains to see how all this spending has made any difference. Despite billions of dollars being spent, child poverty continues to grow, health care further deteriorates, roads and bridges remain congested, public transit cries for funding, and there continues to be a strong demand for good, well paying jobs. After all of the government's spending, hospital waiting lines will continue to get worse, students will continue to plunge deeper into debt, and our soldiers will be stretched as thinly as ever.

People in my riding depend upon Surrey Memorial Hospital for their health care. Our community is fast outgrowing its hospital in the community. The hospital, built in the 1970s to accommodate 50,000 patients a year, now handles between 70,000 and 72,000 patients annually and has the busiest emergency ward in western Canada. Surrey Memorial Hospital's facilities now cope with the demands placed upon it by our community's soaring population. There have been recurring complaints about waiting times, a lack of beds, insufficient staff, sanitary conditions, and questionable procedures at the hospital's crowded emergency room.

The root cause of the problems we now face goes back to the Prime Minister and the cuts he made to the CHST in the mid-1990s when he was finance minister. These cuts left successive B.C. governments to find extra billions of dollars for health care. The new money for health care in this year's budget will not provide Surrey Memorial Hospital with the money it needs and of course there is nothing in Bill C-48 to help that.

The health care agreement, which the Prime Minister hyped as a fix for a generation, will only allow B.C. to increase health expenditures by 3% annually over the next six years. Not only will this amount not fix health care, it will not even cover the rising costs resulting from inflation and population growth, while the dollar figure spread out over such an extended period amounts to little more than a band-aid solution to our critically ill health care system.

Bill C-48 is heavy on the public purse but light on details. It commits to hundreds of millions of dollars under broad areas without any concrete plans as to how that money would be spent. The Liberal-NDP deal, which is reflected in this bill, has been denounced by business groups, particularly the small businesses that favour allocating this federal surplus to debt reduction and tax relief over additional spending.

This bill is a reflection of the new federal budget, an NDP budget, one that the Liberals had amended after they said it could not be done. The Liberals are willing to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars to fund their addiction to power. This is a direct result of the loss of their moral authority to govern. Not only should this bill not be passed, but the finance minister should resign for tabling it. Clearly, the NDP leader has more influence on the budgetary framework than the Prime Minister's own finance minister.

A Conservative government believes that responsible exploration, development, conservation and renewal of our environment is vital to our continued growth. The Conservative Party also believes that all Canadians should have a reasonable opportunity to own their own homes and have access to safe and affordable housing. The Conservative Party believes in greater accessibility to education by eliminating as many barriers to post-secondary education as possible.

The Conservative Party is committed to strengthening Canada's record in foreign aid. A Conservative government would reduce business taxes. Reducing taxes would encourage foreign and domestic businesses to invest in Canada. I believe that a Conservative government could manage the finances better than this budget. Therefore, I will oppose it because I cannot support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, it would be better deployed if it did not go through a program started by the government where 50% or better is lost in administration. Farmers in Saskatchewan have waited over a year for a response. When they do get a response the government is asking for more information that is already there. That is the kind of program we have.

If we go back to the previous bill, Bill C-43, the finance minister himself said that the government could not take away the corporate tax cuts. He stated, “If the gentleman has a serious proposition, please bring it forward and I will give it the consideration it deserves”.

I point out, however, that changes in the corporate taxation are intended to assure jobs, jobs, jobs, and that they stay in Canada. The agreement that was made in the dead of night talks about both parties agreeing to take steps to eliminate those cuts but they are not in Bill C-48. That, plus the workers' protection fund of $100 million, is missing. What happened to it?

It is born in confusion, it is born in duplicity and it will die when the election takes place.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that my friend Bernie Collins will not be running because I am sure he would do very well against the member.

Knowing what is in budget and what went on with respect to Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, it is obvious that he has not studied the matter very carefully.

He raised a very serious issue having to do with farmers in Canada. I represent an urban riding but it is very important that we have a very strong agricultural sector in Canada. The one thing I find quite interesting is that the government has actually supported farmers in Canada with billions and billions of dollars. I am troubled by the fact that this does not seem to be having any impact.

I wonder if the member could comment on how that money could be better deployed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member I will be back. Bernie Collins will not be back and neither will that member. What is more, I would ask the member to find out which particular bill we are speaking to. It is Bill C-48 which is the cooked up deal that was done in a hotel room and not the previous bill. The member is confused, but if he wants to debate the previous bill, that was an hour ago.

The bill before us now does not even set out what the objectives are for the $4.5 billion. It simply says:

The Governor in Council may specify the particular purposes for which payments referred to in subsection (1) may be made....

We had something like that in the gun registry. It was supposed to be $2 million and it ended up, according to accounts we have, being almost $2 billion. It is not a question that we want to throw money around.

The government wanted to fixed the problem in Davis Inlet so it moved a whole community at a cost of $400,000 per person. What happened? The problem followed the people. We need to have a plan. We cannot just throw money and buy votes. At least the Liberals did this much, they did not promise a lot. They said if, maybe and whatever.

What does concern me is what is in Bill C-48. It states:

For the purposes of this Act, the Governor in Council may... authorize a minister to

(e) incorporate a corporation any shares or memberships of which, on incorporation, would be held by, on behalf of or in trust for the Crown; or

(f) acquire shares or memberships of a corporation that, on acquisition, would be held by, on behalf of or in trust for the Crown.

That is like setting up the sponsorship scandal all over again.

The Auditor General said that only the tip of the iceberg has been talked about. She said that another $850 million has not been investigated. Set up a corporation for this government and do it arm's length from the Auditor General and let us see what happens. This bill is half-baked. It was cooked up in the middle of the night to buy votes and stay in power at all costs, and that is wrong.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties with respect to the present debate on Bill C-48 and I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of the present debate on the second reading stage of Bill C-48, but no later than 5:30 p.m. this day, the motion from the member for Scarborough Centre concerning that the question be now put on second reading of Bill C-48 be deemed carried on division,

And that the main motion for second reading of Bill C-48 be deemed put, a recorded division requested and deferred to the end of government orders this day, just after the vote on Bill C-43.

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

Mr. Speaker, I fully believe the gaze of history is upon us. Our country is undergoing the stress of change. Bill C-48 is a symptom of what has gone wrong in politics and with this government.

Bill C-48 was born out of a sheer desire to hang on and cling to power, that pure desire for the sake of power alone. It is about being prepared to do what one has to do to cling to power. It is pathetic, really. It is not so much what is in the bill and it is not exactly what the NDP thinks is in the bill: NDP members have been duped.

What is more important is that whatever the negotiators would have required would be in that bill because they are prepared to sell principle to simply stay in power. The principle and what is in it are not so important to them.

The time has come for this government to be defeated. It shall fall and it must fall today or in the next short while. It has used every rule in the book to stay in power.

Let us look at the first budget bill, the precursor of Bill C-48. The finance minister said:

--this budget was not designed for election purposes. I am sure that it will stand the test of an election if that comes about, but what I was doing was listening to the clear voices of Canadians....

He put together a budget that he said encompassed comprehensively everything that he felt should be there and nothing more. He said:

When we vote on the budget we cannot cherry-pick one thing we like and one thing we do not like. We have to take the package together.

Just a few short weeks ago the finance minister warned that opposition to the budget could spark a financial crisis if one tried to play politics with a money bill. He said:

You can't go on stripping away the budget, piece by piece...If you engage in that exercise, it is an absolute, sure formula for the creation of a deficit.

He stood up in the House and he spoke on the throne speech and said “sound financial management” is very important. He said:

This is not just good economic management. It is good common sense. It creates the discipline of pay as you go, not spend as you like.

That is what he said and that is what the government's principle was, but what have the Liberals done? Since that time we have seen $40 billion and $30 billion, $70 billion for health--good--and also for the equalization payments, the Atlantic Accord, $2 billion, $830 million only after they were forced to do that by the opposition. Then they tried to make political hay out of that. For Ontario we saw $5.75 billion and then rent breaks for airports at $8 billion.

We have a finance minister who said that it is not really new money, that it is just new announcements. If we add them up since February 23, we are at $23 billion. What has happened to being fiscally responsible? What has happened to the statement that we do not touch the budget? It has gone down the tubes.

Then the finance minister said, “But really, when we look at what was announced in the budget, the $4.6 billion, plus the new announcements, that is $9 billion or $10 billion”. That is $9 billion or $10 billion since February 23 and this is from a minister who said that we should not tweak the budget, who said that we should not change any part of the budget. Where are we now?

When the farmers were in a crisis in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and western Canada, this government could not find any money to help. Where were the farmers when this new deal was negotiated? Where was the money for them? The government said there was no money for them.

Some of the farmers are going through the greatest crisis of their lives. My learned friend from Alberta indicated that there were four suicides in Saskatchewan. They have the pressure of bankers, the pressure of suppliers and the pressure of not being able to get the crop in the ground. There is no money. There is no way to do it. But if the Liberals can cling to power they will pay whatever they pay to cling to it without any principle.

The minister went on to say, in the fiscal responsibility part of his speech, “It ensures that the decisions we make today do not become the debts our children will have to bear”. He said the government would “keep the federal books solidly in the black” and continue to set aside reserves.

What has happened to that? What have we come to?

Let us look at another point. This particular party attempted to have a motion of no confidence put on the floor and the government took away the supply days to ensure that it could not happen. It used every rule in the book to prevent it from happening and plugged up the House with legislation from committee.

The Liberals filibustered their own bill. They did everything in their power to prevent a confidence motion. They were running from the ability of Parliament and the people to decide whether they should stay in power. What is worse, as they were doing this, they were spending money, making announcements and attempting to buy votes.

If there was ever a time when there was a clear issue of confidence raised, it was when there was an indirect motion. At that point there was an obligation on the government to put its own issue of confidence before the House at the earliest opportunity. It failed to do so. It was either last week or Monday of this week and the Liberals chose not to do it. They postponed it to today. I think that constitutionally they lost the right to govern. At the first opportunity this motion should have been brought to the House, but they continued because it did not suit the whims or the desires of the Prime Minister.

What kind of country do we have? What kind of democracy do we have when it is the Prime Minister's convenience and not the constitutional law of the land that governs?

We have passed that point. During that time moneys have been spent on the Liberals flying back and forth throughout Canada, using taxpayers' money and using government jets, making announcements of millions in Regina, millions in Edmonton and millions in New Brunswick and Ontario, while we are past that constitutional point and the government should no longer be governing.

The responsible thing to do would have been to have the Liberals bring the motion before the House on Monday. What do they do instead? They try to influence people, to buy them through money, power or position, and in some fashion cling to power.

There is something wrong in politics. There is something wrong when we come to this place. There is something wrong when we use every available ruse. It is worse than what happened in the sponsorship scandal in Quebec. That was done under the cover of darkness. That was done with another set of books. What is happening here is happening in broad daylight and it is wrong. Sooner or later, the government will go down.

That is why I will not support Bill C-48. It was born in duplicity. It was born in the wrong place. We cannot support that.

We saw the leader of the NDP go fishing one day and ask if there was some chance that the budget could be changed, yes or no. The finance minister said:

The principles of the budget are the principles of the budget and we stand firmly by those principles. If there are technical issues to raise...[we will] hear them.

Since when is $4.6 billion a technical issue? And $3,000 for a family of four? What has happened to principle? It was sold out for the simple purpose of hanging on to power at all costs. That is wrong.

The price will be paid when the people of this country have a chance to pass judgment. It will not be Gomery but the people of the country who pass judgment and the sooner that happens the better.

That same leader of the New Democratic Party said:

Mr. Speaker, it is a little hard to determine if that was a yes or a no. Our frustration with trying to work with the Liberal government is growing day by day. Putting aside the issue of corruption....

How can that leader support a government that he believes is birthed in corruption for the simple purpose of gaining some money? It does not matter if one gets paid $4 billion or $2 billion or $1. One should not sell out one's principles for that. Since when has the NDP come up with the deal he thinks he has? When the NDP asked for this favour, 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.

Maybe he is not prepared to buy a pig in a poke, but the NDP was certainly prepared to buy a pig in a poke. Let us have a look at Bill C-48 and see what the government actually promised to get this deal. It states that “the Minister of Finance may, in respect of the fiscal year 2005-06, make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund” provided there is a $2 billion surplus. The Minister of Finance “may”, in 2006-07, make a payment if there is a surplus of $2 billion.

A paragraph in the bill states:

The payments made under subsections 1(1) and (2) shall not exceed in the aggregate $4.5 billion.

The government did not say that the NDP deal will get $4.5 billion; it said if the money is there it might happen, but it will never be more than $4.5 billion, so no guarantee. In fact, let us look at the budget bill agreement. I have 10 seconds left and I have not even started yet.

Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise in the House today to speak in support of Bill C-48. It is a significant bill that vastly improves the budget, Bill C-43, which is also before the House.

I am very pleased to say that the bill was the result of participation, discussion and an agreement between the Liberals and the NDP. When we look at the aspects and the specifics of the bill, we can begin to see the significance of these investments. Over a two year period we are talking about a significant investment of $4.5 billion in areas that are really critical to the quality of life for people in the country, and I am proud of that.

Members of the NDP and our leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, came to this minority Parliament with a real sense of priority about what we had to do and accomplish. We came here with a mission that our job was to fight for those things, the bread and butter issues like housing, help for students and education, help for our municipalities and to ensure that our environment would not destroyed for future generations. We came here with a strong sense of mission about what it was that we needed to accomplish.

I am proud that we saw the opportunity to significantly improve the budget, to make it more progressive and to zero in on the kinds of investments that were needed for Canadians. The fact that there is now an additional amount of $1.6 billion for affordable housing is very important. I know that the minister responsible for housing is probably very happy that the money is now in the budget. We have been saying for years that we want to see a national housing strategy, that we want to see the federal government get back into the housing program and that homelessness in the country is a national disaster and crisis. It is not something that people make on their own, it is because of a lack of supply of affordable housing.

We were very disappointed that there were no new provisions for affordable housing, other than a small amount that was earmarked within the aboriginal community, in Bill C-43. The NDP, in working through this agreement, was able to secure this amount of amount of money over two years to ensure that there would be a federal supply of housing dollars and to ensure that it would not be based wait on provincial matching funds. This is a very important aspect.

I know that there are activists across the country, from the National Housing and Homelessness Network, the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association and the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada who see this measure as something very significant and important.

We have a need for social housing and for cooperative housing in the country. I just heard the member from the Bloc pan over Bill C-48. I want to tell the member that housing coalition in Quebec, FRAPRU, was very happy to see the amendment. It was happy to see Bill C-48 and the $1.6 billion for affordable housing. I know it has been making its point of view known to the Bloc members, that it is very disappointed that the Bloc will not support this housing investment.

When it comes to other areas, another significant investment is in post-secondary education. What is really important is that the investment of $1.5 billion will go to the students. That is very clear in the agreement and the bill. How many budgets have we seen where supposedly there was assistance provided for post-secondary education to improve accessibility, but in actual fact the debt load of students was increased? Again, this is a significant investment as a result of the bill. It will mean that money and funds actually will get to our students, students who have suffered under enormous debt loads. Why? Because of high tuition. Why? Because federal transfers have dried up for post-secondary education.

An important precedent has been set. A federal transfer has been dedicated to post-secondary education. We have not seen something like this for many years. That $1.5 billion is not contingent on provincial matching funds. It is real money and it will assist students in our country. We hope it will assist in reducing their tuition.

A lot of work needs to be done in implementing that proposal, and we recognize that. We have to start at the beginning. We have to start with step one, and this legislation provides these solid investments.

Other elements of the bill include $900 million for the environment, specifically a 1¢ increase over the next two years, and the gas tax transfer. The leader of the NDP, the member for Toronto--Danforth, has led the way both as president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and now as our leader. He has pushed solidly and has campaigned to have a significant investment for municipalities. He has been pushing the Prime Minister to deliver on his commitment on the gas tax for infrastructure and municipalities.

As part of the agreement and as part of the bill, it is important that there be an increase in the transfer of the gas tax. This will help our municipalities deal with their horrendous costs around public transit and infrastructure. Large urban centres as well as smaller communities in rural Canada are struggling with infrastructure costs and they cannot keep up with them. It is important for money to be in the bill that is directed toward helping those communities, whether they are small communities or large urban centres, to meet the fundamentals that move people around a city and that hold the infrastructure together in a smaller community.

These things are important for our environment. All of us are concerned about increasing smog days. We are concerned about the increasing rate of asthma in our children. We are concerned about increasing visits to hospitals because of asthma. These things are a direct result of climate change and of a lack of action to implement Kyoto. This is one specific measure in the bill that would deliver priority dollars where they need to go to help meet that commitment.

By no means is this the full picture. By no means is this a perfect budget. We would love to do more. Given the first budget and the addition of Bill C-48, we believe this is a much more progressive budget. It is based on fiscal responsibility. It is based on sound financial accounting. It will not result in a deficit. These things are affordable. They will be paid for through the contingency surplus. It is a very sound plan.

The last element of the bill is the $500 million increase to foreign aid. This is consistent with Canada's commitment to accelerate progress toward the international target of 0.07% of the gross national income being invested in overseas development. This is a special element of the bill. The three leaders of the opposition parties signed a joint letter to the Prime Minister urging the Government of Canada to live up to its international commitments and responsibilities to meet the target of 0.07% of GNI so Canada would be doing its best to meet its obligations in the international community.

Many time we have seen the commitments of the Liberal government fail. We have seen the government come up short on where it needs to be. This element of Bill C-48 is very important because it accelerates the progress that we are making to meet that goal.

I think Canadians believe we have an obligation and a responsibility to meet our commitments here at home. Our commitment is to ensure that people are not homeless on the street at night. Our commitment is to ensure that we take care of our environment. Our commitment is to ensure that we take care of our students. I think people equally believe that we have to meet our international commitments and the agreement does that.

I am very proud to stand here today to speak in favour of this bill and to give credit to the leader of our party for taking the initiative, for coming here to this place and working hard, for getting the job done for Canadians and for delivering on the commitments he made.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to take part in the debate on Bill C-48, which sets out the agreement between the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP.

This is an opportunity for me to condemn a two-part hoax. First, the leader of the NDP thinks he won points for the agreement set out in this bill. Second, the Liberal Party of Canada, through the current Prime Minister and with the help of the leader of the NDP, is inferring that this bill improves the budget, known as Bill C-43, which was totally unacceptable to the NDP and to us when we first debated and voted on it. We voted against it, as everyone knows.

Unfortunately for the Liberals, only the NDP truly believes that this agreement will do something for Canadians and Quebeckers. I saw the embarrassment of some NDP candidates in Quebec as result of this agreement. They had a great deal of difficulty understanding why, in exchange for so little, the leader of the NDP agreed to support a government that, clearly, according to witness after witness before the Gomery commission, appears to be led by a corrupt party.

Obviously the leader of the NDP and his MPs will say that they obtained $4.6 billion for social housing and the environment, among other things. It is all just smoke and mirrors. I will have the opportunity to easily demonstrate this.

I want to come back to the fact that the Liberal Party of Canada and the federal Liberal government specialize in this kind of hoax. Its other specialty, obviously, is believing that taxpayers' money belongs to both the federal government and the Liberal Party of Canada.

That said, I want to come back to this series of hoaxes. Unfortunately, I have just a few minutes, so I will not be able to name them all.

The 25th anniversary of the 1980 Quebec referendum on sovereignty- association is approaching. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Liberal Party leader who campaigned for the no side said, in the Paul Sauvé Arena “—we are willing to lay our seats in the House on the line—”.

With what result? A unilateral constitutional agreement that Quebec is not party to and has never signed, despite the fact that both the Liberal Party of Quebec and the Parti Québécois have formed the Quebec government. It caused a constitutional crisis that has yet to be resolved.

In 1995, in response to a question on sovereignty and a partnership with Canada put to him while he was campaigning for the no camp, Jean Chrétien declared his love for us, “We love you, stay with us”. I do not think he convinced very many people. He was nonetheless confronted with a very close vote on referendum night.

What came out of this great declaration of love by Jean Chrétien and the rest of Canada? The clarity legislation. While this does not make any difference, attempts have been made and continue to be made to convince Quebeckers that they are not the masters of their own destiny. That is another federal Liberal hoax.

During the election campaigns of 1997, 2000 and 2003, we were promised a massive overhaul of the EI system. Each time, the elephant gave birth to a mouse. I clearly recall that, in 2000, the member for Bourassa travelled to Jonquière, where the steelworkers were furious. Before this audience, the Liberals made the promise to carry out this reform if they voted for them. The steelworkers did not believe a word they said; they are clever, they realized it was a hoax. As it turns out, the Liberals did not do a thing.

They did the same thing in 2003. They carried out a mini-reform, adding $300 million to the program, when the surplus in the employment insurance fund was $46 billion. That money was diverted to pay back the federal government's debt. In fact, my colleague from Chambly—Borduas questioned the minister on that earlier. The minister recognized that this was a very complex issue. Why would it be so complex? The Liberals, who have been promising reforms since 1997, should know how long it takes to examine an issue. Committees have made recommendation upon recommendation. One more hoax.

I am sorry to say that the Liberal Party of Canada attracts primarily billionaires, be it as leader or as Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. I hope that, unlike the Prime Minister, the minister is not building her fortune on tax havens.

I can guarantee that I will conduct an inquiry into this matter.

During the last election campaign, at the leadership debate in French, the Prime Minister made a public promise to overhaul EI to make it accessible to the unemployed by reducing the number of qualifying hours. Nothing happened.

I could mention the foundations used to hide the surpluses. I could mention the equalization program, which was unilaterally amended, amendments that have cost Quebec dearly. I could mention the fiscal imbalance that only the federal Liberals, in Canada and Quebec, deny. I could mention supply management, which the government boasts about defending, while it lets in modified milk products from all over the world, thereby jeopardizing this supply management system.

I could also mention Kyoto. Major international commitments are being made, but there is no action plan to ensure that we will achieve the objectives we have committed to. What is more, this is going to hurt Quebec.

Today, we heard another hoax. Yesterday, it was announced that a $750,000 trust fund had been set up. On the one hand, we have learned today that this trust does exist, but that it does not contain $750,000. On the other hand, this amount represents a very small percentage of the dirty money taken by the Liberal Party of Canada. This trust fund is just an empty piggy bank. It is a small empty pig created, once again, to try to deceive Quebeckers and Canadians.

Today, there was yet another hoax in the shape of Bill C-48. It implies that the government is going to improve Bill C-43, the Budget Implementation Act, 2005, which was tabled by the Minister of Finance in February. The leader of the NDP must have been surprised when he realized that his agreement with the Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party was not attached in amendment to the budget, but was instead a separate piece of legislation marked Bill C-48. This means he will have to vote in favour of Bill C-43, although he voted against it at first reading.

I must say, moreover, that the only party that has been consistent since the start of this budget debate is the Bloc Québécois. Quebeckers know that. We were opposed to the budget from the start, we still are, and we will be tomorrow. The little amendments brought in with Bill C-48 will not convince us otherwise.

In fact, when one reads the bill, one can see as I have said that it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. I will therefore read an excerpt from Bill C-48.

Subject to subsection (3),...in respect of the fiscal year 2005-2006—

This paragraph says that all payments made by the Minister of Finance may not exceed $4.5 billion over two years. So:

subject to subsection (3), ... in respect of the fiscal year 2005-2006—

The same thing for 2006-07.

the Minister of Finance may... make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund up to the amount that is the difference between the amount that would, but for those payments, be the annual surplus...and $2 billion.

This means that above $2 billion, if there is a surplus, the Minister of Finance will be authorized to use this surplus to comply with the agreement with the NDP. Well, last February, the Minister of Finance was telling us that there was no leeway and he had gone as far as he could go. Suddenly, he finds money. Over the last few weeks, he has discovered $22 billion for promises. This is much more, by the way, than what the leader of the NDP obtained. And why $22 billion? Because the government is under pressure to have an election. I must say that this has paid off much better for Canadians and Quebeckers. Half of this amount is going to Ontario. These are not election promises? It is totally unacceptable.

Earlier I described a bit the federal Liberals' propensity for hoaxes. The only thing that the government can do therefore—and knowing this, it will surely do it—is spend money all over so that there will not be a surplus if it does not want to comply with its agreement. And that will be completely consistent with the bill.

The leader of the NDP failed, therefore, to obtain any guarantees at all regarding this $4.5 billion. It also states in the bill that the maximum is $4.5 billion. For each point, it is the same thing.

Bill C-48 does not guarantee any improvements to social housing, absolutely no correction of the fiscal imbalance, and no improvements insofar as the Kyoto protocol is concerned. In view of its mandate to advance the interests of Quebec, the Bloc Québécois therefore has no other choice, in all logic, than to vote against Bill C-48, as it will also vote against Bill C-43. Thus it will demonstrate both its disagreement with and its lack of confidence in this government, which does not deserve to govern the country any longer.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I regret but I cannot clarify that because I think it is like so many things that the government does. It says one thing to one group of people and says the opposite to another group of people. That is one of the sad things about democracy and government in this day and age since the Liberals have been in office.

People can no longer have confidence in their political leadership. No longer can they listen to their government and count on what it says as being the truth. That is something that corrodes the process of democracy.

It does not matter what the Liberals have promised or what they have said, when they are putting forward the amount of spending talked about here, $25 billion, $3,030 for each family, it is academic what is promised. The possibility of any tax relief is eliminated as the government sucks up that amount of money and takes it into its own coffers to put into programs.

There can be no future, no hope for tax relief for working families if Bill C-48 and the Liberal program proceeds.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents have told me not to vote for the NDP budget because they said that the Liberals are corrupt, they are ruining the country's finances, which this bill is proof of, and that in the process they are putting Canada's unity at risk with the damage they have done to the federalist cause in Quebec.

When one looks at the bill, on the face of it, it is $4.6 billion. We hear the Liberals sometimes say that it is only $4.6 billion. That means $205 for every voter. That is the cost of the agreement to buy the support of the leader of the NDP.

However it is only part of the bigger spending spree that we have seen in recent weeks.

Bill C-48, this NDP budget, is part of a larger fiscal framework but it is really a spending and pre-electoral vote buying project by the Liberal government. It has announced $25 billion since April 21.

What does that money mean for each voter? It means that the cost for each voter is $1,114. That is the cost for each vote they are trying to buy with this spending spree. However, guess what? That cost also comes from those voters. In fact, if we were to take the whole population of the country, that cost is $757.50 per person.

Therefore it is no surprise that the people in York--Simcoe do not like this budget. For a typical family of four, with the husband and wife both working, what is their share of the Liberal pre-election spending spree? It is $3,030 which has to come from somewhere and that is from that family. They cannot afford $3,030 of their money to prop up a corrupt Liberal government.

For years now, spending has been out of control up here in Ottawa. Program spending has been going up over 10% a year. Ask my constituents if they have enjoyed 10% more in services from the federal government. I have yet to meet a single constituent who tells me that he or she has. They are not getting more services but all along the public service continues to grow and the spending continues to grow.

Bill C-48, the NDP budget--if I can paraphrase the comments of the hon. member for Newmarket--Aurora today for her comfort--is not a complex bill. In fact it could have been written on the head of a pin without using special equipment. It is but a few sentences long and about only chunks of money that will be thrown at target areas.

That is too often the way the Liberal government works. It takes a chunk of money, identifies it and throws it somewhere. There is no plan and no details. I know we would find a more detailed financial breakdown on a McDonald's menu than we have in Bill C-48. A grocery bill has a more detailed financial plan and breakdown than we find in Bill C-48.

The substantive part of the bill is about four sentences long and about seven or eight figures get stated. That is not a plan. That is simple, straightforward vote buying. It is $4.6 billion out the window and overall, in this whole $25 billion spending spree, $3,030 from each family in my community that they have to find a way to pay. Those are their tax dollars.

What do they really want? My constituents tell me that they want a chance to achieve their dreams. What would $3,030 mean for each of them, if it were in their pockets, to achieve their dreams? Having $3,030 less while the government tries to tell them what their dreams are and tries to force its solutions on them is not what they had in mind. They had other plans for that $3,030. They had plans to pay down their mortgage, to pay for some long overdue car repairs, to put the kids in hockey for another year or buy a couple of new bicycles as the kids get older. That is why $3,030 lost to them means a lot.

What they want is the opportunity to spend that $3,030 on the things that are important for them. Why are they losing that $3,030? It is because a deal was made with the leader of the New Democratic Party to prop up a government that is corrupt, that is desperate and that is willing to do anything to win. What they want to see is an end to this government waste.

My constituents are not unique. All Canadians want to see this. None of this is here. There is just a new bunch of more government waste. This is a typical government solution: identify the money, throw it at the target but have no plan for what to do with it. To me the worst example of how government waste happens is when there is a chunk of money looking for something to do.

Let the people of Canada and the people of York--Simcoe choose how they want to spend their $3,030.

Housing is supposed to be a priority in this bill. Well, $3,030 would go a long way for each family in my constituency to help deal with their housing challenges; $3,030 would go a long way to help pay down the mortgage; $3,030 would go a long way to help pay their rent, because that is what the Liberals are taking from them in spending priorities elsewhere that they cannot spend on their housing.

What could $3,030 do for training and post-secondary education? If each family could have that money they could put it away and save for their children's education and for the future. People could go through an entire community college program for $3,030 in tuition. If that was their dream, if that is what they wanted to do, to make a brighter future for their families, is that not what they should be allowed to do. Instead the leader of the New Democratic Party is taking that money from them, along with the Prime Minister, to prop up a government and make it look like they are doing something for Canadians. In fact they are really taking from Canadians.

We want to see Canadians achieve their dreams.

Another priority, supposedly, in Bill C-48 is the environment. My constituents in York--Simcoe want to see money spent on the environment in their community to clean up Lake Simcoe. For years and years the federal Liberal government has stubbornly refused to part with any money to support cleanup and environmental improvements to Lake Simcoe. It will do it for the rest of the Great Lakes but it will not allow any money for Lake Simcoe which is the centre of the Great Lakes basin.

Tens of thousands rely on Lake Simcoe for their clean drinking water. It is a critical part of their environment. The government talks about helping the environment and yet stubbornly refuses to allow that money to be spent right here in Canada, right in York-Simcoe where people have real priorities. Those are the priorities that we find the people of York--Simcoe want when they want to see spending on things like the environment.

I ask how I can in good conscience, knowing the dreams, hopes and aspirations of a typical family in York--Simcoe, support the waste of money, the confiscatory taxation, the fact that this NPD-Liberal budget means $3,030 out of the pockets of every family in my constituency?

I see some Liberals over there smiling but they should know that $3,030 is not a small amount of money to the hardworking families in York--Simcoe. It is a serious amount of money. It takes a lot to earn $3,030 and to have that taken away from them is taking away the freedom to achieve their dreams, the freedom to build a brighter future for themselves and their children, the freedom to pay off the mortgage and the freedom to save for their future and their education. It is taking away from them the opportunities to do that.

I have a high regard for the typical family in York--Simcoe. The people in that community do not believe the government owes them a living. They do not believe anyone owes them a living. They just want the freedom and the opportunity to go out and work to achieve their dreams. They just want someone to allow them to keep a little more in their pockets for the hard work and toil they do. They want the opportunity to make a better life and have a brighter future for their families. The spending plan of the Liberal government in Bill C-48 leaves them $3,030 further behind in achieving those dreams.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear. The government supports and continues to support tax reductions. We had the largest personal income tax cuts in Canadian history of $100 billion over five years. I heard a member over there earlier talk about 10 years, but it is five years.

Bill C-43 includes tax cuts for small and medium business. If the member's party votes against Bill C-48, then those reductions will not be there. On the corporate side, the member well knows that he will have an opportunity after this evening to continue to support the government when legislation is introduced on the corporate tax side.

If the member wants to support tax cuts generally, he has to vote for both Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. If the opportunity arises, he will be able to deal with the corporate issue.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my Liberal friend seems to get his lexicon a bit mixed up. He keeps on talking about investments instead of expenditures, an additional $4 billion of expenditures.

He also seems to have picked up the NDP disease. Those members do not realize that corporate taxes are not paid by corporations. Corporate taxes are paid by the corporation's customers.

The member seems to know a bit about business. Surely to goodness he would not think that telling the NDP that the government is not going to be going ahead with the corporate tax reductions is a good move. The member, particularly coming from Ontario, knows it will cost thousands of jobs if we do not get those corporate tax reductions. How can he possibly vote for Bill C-48?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the party across the way originally supported the budget. I assume at that time the hon. member supported more money for the environment, which is in Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. I assume at the time the member across the way supported more money for affordable housing. I assume he supported assistance for Canadians in terms of affordable housing, which was very important. We announced that. It is an enhancement within a strong fiscal framework. I am surprised that the member's party would say that it would support Bill C-43 tonight, but not to enhancing it, making something even better.

We said from the beginning in the House that the government was prepared to work with other parties to ensure that we had good government for Canadians. We worked with the NDP and now have a budget which Canadians support even more so because it is fiscally responsible and is a good investment.

If the hon. member is going to stand up tonight and say that he supports the environment so he will vote for Bill C-43, then I applaud him. However I presume the member is then going to stand up on Bill C-48 and say that he cannot support it because it has another $900 million for public transit, for wind power, et cetera. The member cannot have it both ways. He cannot support one part of the budget but not the other part, because obviously the government would fall.

I hope the member will reflect and realize that if he really supports these good investments, he will have to support them across the board. We are committed both in terms of small and medium tax cuts, which is in Bill C-43. The minister has made it very clear in the legislation dealing with corporate taxes.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has me a bit confused and I hope he can help me out.

He has gone on about how important the things in Bill C-48 are, but they did not show up in Bill C-43 when the government had the first crack at it. This really makes me question how sincere the government is in these so-called priorities. It looks as if the government is buying the votes of the NDP.

We all saw the agreement on TV. It looked like they borrowed a Sharpie from somebody, found a blank page and scribbled out these things on a napkin. These do not look like real priorities to me. I would like to see the plans for them. If they are so important, why were they not in the original budget that the Liberals thought was so good that they said it could not be cherry-picked?

I am confused about another thing too. The corporate tax cuts are not reflected in Bill C-48 as far as I can tell from my reading of the legislation. My recollection is that this agreement between the Liberals and the NDP committed to removing certain corporate tax cuts. I am not sure if this is in Bill C-48 or whether it is going to be done separately or is the government pulling the wool over the NDP's eyes? I would like some clarification on that too.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

In the G-7 and in the world. We have a plan for Canadians to deal with the issue of climate change.

There are some in the House, unfortunately, who do not believe the ice age occurred and they do not believe that climate change is a problem. We on this side are realistic. We know there is a problem. We know that Canada must take an active leadership role. This country and the Minister of the Environment are doing that.

Bill C-48 proposes a further $900 million for further environmental measures focusing primarily on public transit and a low income energy retrofit program. This investment builds on the government's continued focus on the environment, including the measures contained in budget 2005, which is the greenest budget in Canadian history.

Who could vote against the greenest budget in Canadian history? If members really believe in climate change, if they really believe that the environment is important to Canadians, they will make a difference tonight when they vote for Bill C-48. And if they do not, any rhetoric I hear on that side is simply that.

In the budget there is $1 billion over five years for the clean fund, the climate fund. This is very important. It will encourage cost-effective projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is very important. We have the fiscal instruments to move forward on climate change.

There is $250 million in the budget to create a partnership fund for projects that are best achieved through cooperation between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments. We will work in partnership. Again, who could argue against working in partnership?

In the budget there is $225 million over five years to quadruple the number of homes retrofitted under the EnerGuide for houses retrofit incentive program.

There is $200 million over five years to further stimulate the use of wind power. We talk about alternate energy sources. Again, here is an opportunity for members to stand in their places tonight and vote for it.

I could go on highlighting how important Bill C-48 is, but I know hon. members and all Canadians know it is important. Tonight we will demonstrate that leadership.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-48, particularly given the fact that the government has had eight balanced budgets or better. Canada is the only G-7 state paying off its national debt. We have been able to do that because of good fiscal management. That is what has characterized the government and its ability to invest in the social priorities of Canadians.

Clearly the budget Bill C-48 is important in terms of ensuring that the social foundations which are key to Canada's identity are enhanced. They are enhanced in Bill C-48. This is a natural extension of the initiatives the government has pursued over the last few years. It is clear that the priorities of Canadians are to ensure that we have affordable housing, post-secondary education, a good environment and foreign aid. That is what the budget in particular and the bill deal with.

We are investing in a way that ensures we do not in any way affect the financial gains that we have made as a nation over the years. We will never go back into a deficit. That has been a commitment of the government. At the same time, it is because we have managed well that we are able to make these important investments for Canadian families, cities and communities. That is extremely important in terms of the fiscal foundation.

The government is committed to spending $4.6 billion on these investments which will be financed through fiscal reserves that are in excess of $2 billion in 2005-06 and in 2006-07. A guarantee of $4 billion over these two years will be committed to pay down the national debt. This is extremely important. We are the envy of the western world. We are the envy of those whose major concern is how to deal with balancing the books. In our case, we have the ability not only to pay down the debt but also to make these important investments.

One of the areas is affordable housing. The bill proposes $1.6 billion for affordable housing. It is very important to note that this is not tied to matching funds from the provinces. It also includes aboriginal housing. This builds on government investments totalling $2 billion in the homeless and affordable housing over recent years.

In 1999 the government launched the three year national homelessness initiative. A key element of this was the supporting communities partnership initiative which provided $305 million for local community groups to offer support services and facilities for the homeless.

Budget 2003 provided a three year extension of that initiative at $135 million. Furthermore, budget 2001 announced $680 million over five years for the affordable housing initiative to help stimulate the creation of more affordable units. Bilateral cost sharing agreements were subsequently signed with all 13 jurisdictions in Canada. A top-up of $320 million over five years was announced in budget 2003, bringing the total federal investment in affordable housing to $1 billion over six years.

The government continued to do more in budget 2003. It announced a three year renewal of the government's housing renovation programs at a cost of $128 million a year.

In addition, the government currently spends $1.9 billion per year in support of existing social housing units. Who could be against that? It is an investment for Canadians. Clearly when members look at themselves in the mirror, they will realize that this is important for Canadians as a foundation. Social housing has played an important role in Canada. I cannot believe anyone would contemplate voting against it.

The bill also provides $1.5 billion to increase accessibility to post-secondary education. We have heard a lot in the House about the needs of students. Although the Government of Canada does not deal with the issue of tuition, it can, and in the bill does, assist students who come out of university having acquired significant debts, particularly low income families. As well there is training money to supplement labour market agreements.

Since balancing the budget, the government has provided significant new funding in support of post-secondary education through increased transfer support to provinces and territories and increased direct support to students and universities. We are ensuring that future generations will be able to come out of university in much better financial shape. I cannot believe that anyone in the House would not support assistance for students.

The government continues to transfer support for post-secondary education through the Canada social transfer, a block transfer to provinces and territories. Each province and territory is responsible for allocating federal support according to its respective priorities within that jurisdiction regarding post-secondary education and other social programs.

Overall, the Canada social transfer will provide $15.5 billion in 2005-06 and more than $8 billion in legislated cash levels and $7 billion in tax points. In addition, the Government of Canada provides about $5 billion annually in direct support for post-secondary education, and among other things, helps families save for their children's education.

When we look at that, we really wonder how anyone could not support that kind of assistance for students anywhere in this country. I would be really surprised to see any member stand up and have the audacity to say that he or she cannot support students. Why would members not support students? Why would they not be investing in our future?

When it comes to the environment, the government has been a leader. The Minister of the Environment, along with the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Industry, unveiled the most aggressive climate change plan in the G-7.

[Réal Lapierre, Bloc, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48 is in fact nothing more than a manifestation of the NDP's grievances with the federal budget, on the pretext, among other things, that it did not consider the social measures it contains to be equal to Canadians' needs. It then went on to hold out the possibility of an alliance with the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party if the budget were not reworked to their satisfaction.

Given that ultimatum, and the precarious status of the Liberal Party, a scenario was concocted in order to satisfy the NDP's demands by enhancing the scope of Bill C-43. This agreement in principle translates into reinvestments in the order of a total $4.5 billion over two years for social housing, education, the environment, international aid and protection of seniors' pensions. As well, the Liberals would temporarily step back from corporate tax breaks.

Now there is a fine wish list.

I have my doubts. Unfortunately, I do not believe it. It is a fact that it would be a very good thing to improve the sectors I have referred to. Everything we can get out of the government, we will take. But wait.

Why, assuming that they were sincere, did they not just amend the budget implementation bill, namely Bill C-43? Why have another bill? How can they commit themselves to two different things at the same time? Have my hon. friends developed the gift of ubiquity?

First, specific measures are established through the passage of Bill C-43, and corporations enjoy a substantial tax cut. Then a contradictory measure is proposed that can only sow dissatisfaction in the ranks of manufacturers—dissatisfaction that can lead, as we well know, to the withdrawal of funding from the party in power. That is the risk that they do not want to run. Bill C-48 does not meet the NDP's demand that the tax cuts for business be cancelled. Bill C-48 is conditional on the government running surpluses. Conditional—therefore without any real significance.

Even the leader of the NDP acknowledged in this House that the simple act of not making those tax cuts could create a surplus and therefore prevent it all from happening.

They try to take us to 2008 to justify keeping this measure in the original budget. The Minister of Finance himself offered this interpretation to the leader of the New Democratic Party in answer to a question in this House. What lovely evasion! What sleight of hand!

The government does not want any amendments to its budget because that would confirm a measure that is unpopular with an elite that has a long reach and is very powerful.

Let us look at other provisions in the extra budget. There is an additional $900 million for the environment. That could be interesting. Unfortunately, this melody is playing in a minor mode. Despite the importance of the sectors that were identified, namely public transit and energy efficiency, this additional money will not produce convincing results. The gist of it is bad.

The famous Project Green, announced last April 13, is like Swiss cheese. The polluter—the oil and gas industry—is paid through subsidies, while the government still refuses to encourage people to use public transit by making the cost of their passes tax deductible.

And yet these people are doing something concrete for the environment. The people responsible for half the greenhouse gas emissions should logically be forced to come up with an effort proportional to the damage that they do. Instead, the financial burden is shifted to the taxpayer.

If we extrapolate, the cost of a bus pass has just trebled.

And on top of that, this budget provision on the environment infringes on areas under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec, such as public transit. Whatever works.

Quebec's greenhouse gas emission profile differs significantly from that of the other provinces. Why would it be penalized for being cleaner? It should instead be congratulated and encouraged and get its fair share of the tax base provided for implementing the Kyoto accord in order to improve its performance.

Under the circumstances, Quebec should have the funds to enable it to choose what best suits its plans for the future. The approach should be territorial, as the Bloc has already suggested in this House. Otherwise, the government should grant full financial compensation.

Holes in cheese give it some style, but do not improve its flavour. In other words, I prefer Swiss cheese to Project Green. We can take pleasure in the fact that some low income earners will perhaps be able to improve the energy capacity of their homes Maybe, we will see.

In the area of social housing, the government is in a sorry state. It consistently remains far below the level of the needs and therefore the expectations of social groups. While the official budget made no provision in this vital area, the government is now offering $1.6 billion for two years. Investment would certainly be welcome.

The Bloc, however, is calling for a progressive investment over three years, in order to reach an acceptable peak of nearly $2 billion a year. The demand is realistic and necessary. The urgency of the situation has been amply demonstrated by the growth in need since this government took office.

The amounts conceded to the NDP must not be the subject of electoral blackmail, but rather serve the most disadvantaged.

Housing responsibilities and the corresponding budgets must be sent to Quebec as quickly as possible.

If we look at the proposal on education and post-secondary education, we can see yet again that it is open to blackmail. It is all the more unacceptable because we, along with the Government of Quebec, are calling for federal funding for education to be 25% of spending. The political agreement with the NDP is unsatisfactory, because the $188 million Quebec might receive is paltry compared with the $12.2 it spends.

The federal government's commitment to international assistance remains clearly inadequate. While assistance in any amount is welcome, an additional $500 million will not change the fate of the planet. We absolutely need a long term plan to achieve the international target of 0.7% of GDP by 2015. It is outrageous for a rich country like Canada to claim not to be able to achieve the minimum before 2033.

Obviously, it cannot be any other way with the 8% annual increase proposed by the government. That is a disgrace. We are proposing an increase of 12% per year for three years and 15% per year after that, up to 2015. If the NDP is prepared to settle for $500 million, so be it, but I am not.

So, what does Bill C-48 do for my own riding?

Cull producers will continue to suffer because of the underfunding with respect to the mad cow issue. Only fair compensation could have made things better for them. The problem is still there for beef producers.

Would there be any possibility of providing recovery assistance to our shipyard, which, hon. members should know, is a major economic engine for my riding? There is nothing in the budget or Bill C-48. Canada would have much to gain, however, from a real shipbuilding policy.

Was the Summer Career Placement program in my riding designed on the basis of real needs, and is the funding allocated adequate? Certainly not, since an indefensible cut was made to the program.

Is there anything for the tourism and leisure industry, which is a path for the future? No.

Has the funding earmarked for the community sector, which is essential in our area like in any other, been increased? Again, no.

So, to Bill C-48 I humbly say, no, thank you.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member was attempting to show some civility. He has great difficulty in doing that.

After completing the debate on the budget bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, the House will take up third reading of Bill C-9, the Quebec development bill; Bill C-23, the human resources legislation; Bill C-22, the social development bill; and Bill C-26, the border services legislation.

We would also like to deal with the census bill, Bill S-18 and the RADARSAT bill, Bill C-25. If there is time, we would start Bill C-46, the corrections and conditional release bill; Bill C-47, the Air Canada bill; and Bill C-28, the food and drugs bill.

This list of legislation will carry the House well into the week of May 30, the week in which we return from the break.

In addition, three days that week shall be allotted days, namely May 31, June 2 and June 3. On May 31 the House will go into committee of the whole to consider the estimates of the Minister of Social Development.

I look forward to working with all of my colleagues in the House because I know, and all members know, it is in the interests of Canadians to get this Parliament working on the issues that are important to them.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to possibly change the subject a little to that bill which we would like to discuss and to which I would like to speak in opposition, that being Bill C-48.

In reading the introduction, “An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments”, I think the House would want to be much more precise than that. That certainly concerns me, as I am sent here to represent my constituents and I am sure that they would be very concerned about that also.

The past few weeks have seen anger and recrimination in the House, and so in fact have the last few minutes. Frustration with legislative paralysis and personal and professional insults hurled across the floor like a bunch of kids in a sandbox is not productive.

I speak today in an effort to remind the members of the Liberal minority government that Canadians deserve a government which inspires the nation with its vision and which brings Canadians together with its leadership. Rather than use my 10 minutes to turn up the heat or chase partisan quarrels, I want to talk directly to my constituents and to Canadians across the country to explain why the Conservative Party cannot support this Liberal-NDP budget amendment.

As I mentioned, I am opposed to this for a number of reasons. The first one I would like to raise is the fact that this is an NDP budget. I might remind those people here, as I would remind my constituents, that we did not elect an NDP government, and I would suggest intentionally so. In that case, why are we dealing with an NDP budget?

I would also suggest that if the minority Liberal government had consulted with Canadians and with the other parties in the House, we might have actually had a budget that could have passed back in March and we would not have had to go through all of this.

The Conservative Party of Canada at that time voted to continue this Parliament, to make things work and to make it better for all Canadians, as opposed to the NDP, which voted on March 9 to defeat the government. It is an interesting twist of fate that we find the NDP members suggesting they will vote with the Liberals on this NDP budget. That day, the NDP and the Bloc both attempted to defeat the government. The Conservatives have been working hard trying to make this work, but when we see a bill like this before us, we are having a difficult time supporting it.

I know my constituents. I have heard from many of them. They are frightened by this sort of bill being put forward with these unspecified spending qualifications, with $4.5 billion from a surplus. We are not sure what that surplus is now that the government has spent the billions of dollars it has in the last 30 or so days, with the Liberals flying back and forth across this country handing out money with no plan. It is money that should have gone to debt relief. That is a fundamental concern of my constituents, as it is of mine.

We have committed hundreds of millions of dollars with no plan whatsoever. It is a last minute plan, I suppose. Getting the Liberal government re-elected is the only reason I can see for the Liberals putting this kind of money out there in that form.

Conservatives want Canada to become more competitive. What we have seen in the last few days does not make this country more competitive. We have heard comments from this side of the House on the reality of how the economy works and what stimulates the economy. This budget is not good for the corporations in this country, so it will therefore not be good for Canadians. We need to recognize that. We need to be more relevant in trade. Trade is our future and we see nothing in here that stimulates trade.

We see nothing to get to the goals that we all recognize are very important in foreign aid. There is $500 million talked about here, again with no plan. We do not see any plan for any of the spending. We would like to see the foreign aid money be more targeted and more effective. The spending needs to be targeted, not just scattered wherever it may fall.

On this side of the House we would like to see a budget put forward that creates more jobs and does not overtax the employers. We all know and have heard how that will affect the taxpayers, our constituents. We need to provide good, accessible health care. We do not see that effect coming out of this NDP budget.

We need something very important in my riding, and that is some effective help for the agriculture industry. In the first budget that was tabled, I believe agriculture was mentioned once or possibly twice. There is a serious disaster going on in the agriculture industry, specifically with respect to BSE. Not only is there a disaster in the cattle industry, in the ruminant industry, but also in the grains and oilseeds industry.

All of the debate in the House has done nothing to help my constituents who are still suffering from the effects of the BSE situation. In fact processing plants have been applying for the money that will backstop processing facilities. The government announced a loan loss provision, but from my understanding, not one penny of it has gotten through to be poured in concrete. That is the sign of a very ineffective plan, but we have not seen anything to replace it.

The Conservative Party launched a process where we would be intervenors in the court case going on in Montana and moving on to San Francisco. The Liberal government attempted it, was rejected on the first claim and walked away. How is that going to help our producers? By ignoring them, ignoring the issue, it has not gone away; it has just gotten that much worse, in fact to the point where we may see the beef that is going across the border, as it flows now, being stopped in the next few weeks. That is a very real possibility with the new challenge coming up in Montana.

The NDP had a chance to deal with this. It had an opportunity to at least address the issues that affect farmers. Again I see nothing in here that will improve agriculture. That is one of the many reasons I have a difficult time accepting that this is a good budget because I do not see that it is at all.

There is a plan for CFIA to help expand markets. My understanding is that has not moved ahead. The agriculture minister stood in this House back in March and told us that the CFIA was going to work diligently to open markets. I do not believe that has happened. Once again our ruminant industry has been let down.

I have spoken about the CAIS program several times in the House. That program is not effective. It does not help the grains and oilseeds sector at a time when commodity prices, the grains and oilseeds prices in this country are probably the lowest in real dollars that we have ever seen. We have a program that our agriculture minister tells us will help farmers out, will buy them some time until we can see those commodity prices come back. In my own personal situation, I had applied for some of that money when I was an active farmer, before I came to this House. I owe half of that money back because that is how ineffective the system is. It does not put dollars into the pockets of farmers where it is needed.

My time is almost over and I respect that. I am enjoying what I am saying but I realize that we do have a time limit on debate.

We realize the corruptness that has gone on in the government and that is fundamental to my opposition to this bill. I cannot with any conscience support a piece of legislation like this bill, which in effect props up the government that we have watched demoralize the country and drive a wedge between the provinces.

I would like to close by reminding everyone that the type of behaviour we have seen is probably an indication of the demoralizing issues that have plagued the House. I certainly hope we see an end to it, which might even be as soon as this evening.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put a few thoughts on the record where Bill C-43 is concerned and perhaps to speak somewhat as well, flowing from that, on Bill C-48.

However, first, there were some things in Bill C-43 that we as a party appreciated and could support, but there was more in it that we could not. Because we could not support it, we voted against it, primarily because of the surprise in it, the Trojan Horse so to speak. It contained the next round of corporate tax breaks which we thought were unnecessary. They were not in keeping with the discussions our party and our finance critic had with the Minister of Finance on the Liberals' commitment during the election.

Based on the Liberal platform and the conversations we had with individual ministers, the commitment was not in any concrete way included in the budget. All of sudden, in an agreement to win the support of the Conservatives, significant corporate tax breaks were included in the budget which would take another $4.6 billion out of the public treasury. We felt that money should have been, and will be if we pass Bill C-48 tonight, spent on the priorities of Canadians for their communities, their children, their aging parents and their infrastructure.

The tax breaks in our view were yet another gift to those in our country who already had more than enough. They have been getting corporate tax breaks for the last 10 to 15 years. When I go back and speak to my constituents, they ask me these questions. When is enough, enough for the corporations of this country and the world? When is another increase in wages to the CEOs of some of the corporations enough? When is another stock option to executives in these corporations enough? When is more income for the wealthiest of our provinces enough? When does it turn to greed?

I believe we have gone beyond that point. It is time now for us who have been given responsibilities as leaders in the country to look at those things that we need to invest in, things that will support a standard of living, which we know we can afford, for our families, our neighbours, for everybody who calls themselves Canadian.

We were not happy with the corporate tax break. However, we were pleased with the commitment that the government made to a national child care program. Unfortunately, as it rolls out, the government now finds itself in a hurry, as we seem to be going headlong toward the possibility of en election. Agreements are being made with provinces that do not fit with the framework we believed was there, those of us who were involved in the discussions, lately me more than others.

Some people in this province have been working on child care for 20 to 30 years. They have done the research and the work. They know that if we are to have a national child care program that is worth its salt, that will deliver the services we know are needed by families, by children and by the economy, it needs to be framed in legislation. It needs to be based on the quad principles. It needs to be delivered through a not for profit delivery system.

We were very excited with the first two agreements that were signed by Manitoba and Saskatchewan, two New Democrat governments that understand those principles. They understand why it is important we stick to them. We need to a program that is right from the start. This is the first national program in over 25 years. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have committed to a framework of accountability. They also have committed to a not for profit delivery system, with which we are pleased. However, we now see that Ontario, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia are getting less and less of that commitment.

However, we are getting more anxious and nervous about the way the national child care program is beginning to roll out. We know that once it gets away, it is hard to get it back into shape. We need to ensure that it truly is a national child care program, not another patchwork of child care with more money. We need to ensure that the money is spent in an appropriate way so we get the best value as an investment in our children, families and the economy.

However, money has been allocated. Reference to a national child care program was first promised by the Liberals in 1993 and the Conservatives before that. Finally, there was a reference this past year because of a significant presence of New Democrats here pushing the Liberals in that direction. It was referenced in the Speech from the Throne and then it showed up in the budget. We were pleased about that.

The economy in my community is beginning to change its direction. We used to have some valuable high paying jobs in the resource based sector of steel and paper. Those jobs are becoming fewer and fewer. We are now looking at a growing sector of call centres where people do not make as much money. They do not make anywhere near the kind of money they used to make in those valuable, unionized jobs, in the industries that were industrial heartbeat of northern Ontario.

Ontario now has jobs that are less dependable. They do not pay as much. It is important that we have a good, affordable child care system in place for parents who want to participate. If they want to make ends meet, or want to buy a house, or pay the mortgage, or feed the kids, and all the things we want for ourselves and for our families, they probably will have to work two jobs. Some work two and three jobs in the same family. If they do not have good, affordable, high quality, safe child care available to them, they will be unable to do that.

The national child care program, however incomplete it is as it rolls out, because of the lack of commitment by the government to the principles and to the not for profit delivery system, is still very important. That is why we need to pass Bill C-48, the budget we negotiated with the Liberals, tonight. We need that money in our communities and in Sault Ste. Marie. It represents a significant growth in that sector, not only spaces for families and for children, but jobs for child care workers, good jobs and more money for those people already working in the child care sector. They will have benefits, pension plans, all the things we all want for ourselves.

The national child care program is a very important. We encourage members of the Bloc and Conservative Party to ensure that the bill goes through tonight so we can move forward with these.

I want to talk briefly about the criticisms by the Conservatives over the national child care program, which are misleading at best. They talk about an investment of $5 billion to $10 billion in our young people, our children, as somehow pouring money into a big black hole. Their suggestion as to how we might do this, which would be to give tax breaks or tax credits to parents to buy their own child care, would not create a national child care system. Also, it would cost us four or five times as much money to put in place. We are talking $20 billion to $25 billion if we add up all the money.

That is not to speak of the reduction in the economy if we remove those people who are skilled and trained, women in particular, from the workforce. The analysis that has been done by people who know, the economists, tells us that it could be anywhere from $70 billion to $80 billion a year. We are talking a cost of close to $100 billion a year if we follow the plan that the Conservatives have suggested is better than the plan in the budget, which would give us a $2 return for every dollar we spend in early learning and early child care for our children.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member opposite. He is a person, over the few years I have been here, who has a social conscience, as I hope many of us here do, and his concern for the needs of society are probably second to none.

I have no argument whatsoever that people need money for education. One need only to check Hansard to see how often I have raised the need for investment in education. I have no doubt that we need shelters for the homeless. We have abandoned the people on the lower end of our society, people who cannot help themselves.

However I do have one concern. If the Liberals have the feeling that we must help people, that we must invest in education and that we must invest in housing to help the homeless, why is the money in Bill C-48, which he says must pass because we need to do this for these people, and not in the original budget? Why did the Liberals not think about these people when they brought down the budget? Why was it not brought in until they had to buy the NDP for a quarter of a billion dollars each to get its support to stay in power? How can they justify that in the eyes of the public?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to Bill C-43 before the subsequent amendments and motions to be put.

I would first like to thank the Conservative Party for agreeing to support Bill C-43 today. The first inclination of the leader of the Conservative Party was that it was a good budget and that it was one his party could work with. We appreciate that.

The issue, however, has gone a little farther now. In my view, the debate has gone on for some time with regard to the amendments or the additions that have been made for the budgetary purposes included in Bill C-48.

In the main budget, Bill C-43, and I do not want to get into great detail, but members will recall that the range of the key items include health care, the Atlantic accord, the exercise of transfers of additional funds to our cities, the gas tax, day care, the military and a range of other important initiatives which have been well debated in this place.

The reality is that the Government of Canada is a minority government. I think everyone knows from the lessons of history what happens when a minority government tries to govern as if it has a majority. It is an untenable situation in which to be. It means there has to be a higher level of cooperation and give and take within Parliament. It has been so long since the last minority government , which was in 1980 and which fell in nine months, that it is taking a bit of time for the various parties to find their niche as to how we can make Parliament work.

Bill C-48 was the first concrete effort in which cooperation was made to show Canadians that a minority government could work. It is not the only item. Members well know that a large number of bills are at various stages of the legislative process, many of them in late stages in committee and ready to come back to this place for debate. They are important.

One of the bills that is very important to me is the whistleblower protection bill in government operations. It was here in the last Parliament. We are very close and I want the bill to come back. I want public servants, the important people who serve Canadians, to have whistleblower protection. It is a commitment of the government and in fact has the support of all parties. I think it would be a real shame if the budget were to go down and that legislation would die yet again before the House has had an opportunity to take it through all stages.

With regard to the so-called budget amendments, one thing I learned just recently was to look at the calendarization of the incremental spending that is being proposed in Bill C-48 and what impact it has. Interestingly enough, when one calendarizes the $4.6 billion, one sees that in the first year the impact is 1% of the total budget. It is a 1% increase in the total budget.

It is not an exorbitant amount in which someone would start to question whether the financial fundamentals on which the original budget was based have been compromised. If I could remind members, those are to include things like the $3 billion contingency fund on the principle that Canada will not go into a deficit. A $3 billion contingency fund has always been built into the budget.

There are also prudence factors which take into account that there are always estimates about what economic growth might be over the budget period and what short and long term interest rates might be. In the budget process, and I believe this has been articulated in every budget since 1997, there will be a conservative estimate of each of those made so that we err on the side of prudence. There is a prudence factor, which has varied from time to time, but it is in the range of about $2 billion.

When the Minister of Finance goes before the people of Canada and announces that we will have a balanced budget, the documents will show that it includes the assumption that the contingency of $3 billion and a prudence of $2 billion or $3 billion have in fact been necessary to be used. In fact, members should look at the budget as being the worst possible case that we can project, which is a balanced budget, no deficit but no surplus.

Because we have not had a recession in Canada for a long time, as members well know, and I am not sure whether any of the experts had ever anticipated that would be the case, we have gone through a very healthy economic climate in Canada as a consequence of the work of business and the people of Canada. We did not go into recession when the U.S. went into recession in the last round that it did.

As a result of the economic performance in Canada and the prudent budgeting principles that were included in the budget, surpluses have been created. Some would say that if surpluses have been created then obviously the people are being overtaxed.

Part of the equation of making a resilient economy, a resilient prudent and responsible fiscal position, is to manage the debt.

When we came here some 42¢ on every dollar was going to pay interest on the debt. Since that time we have paid down almost $60 billion of debt. The savings on the interest is what some economists have referred to as the fiscal dividend. When we get our economic house in order and there are savings, where do those savings come from? The permanent savings are the savings on the interest of financing the debt. That means that we have saved $2 billion to $3 billion annually on interest payments. These numbers keep going up because of the interest rate scenarios. This is an additional $3 billion each and every year available to sustain the important programs that Canadians want and, as time permits or as the finances permit, to introduce new programs, such as the additional moneys that have now been put into day care, another important initiative that Canadians want, or into cities, Kyoto, the military and foreign aid. We have certain priorities but they all cannot be dealt with in every budget at the same time.

However Bill C-48 brings in some other aspects. I know some members have suggested that this is just buying votes. I am not sure whether there is anyone in this place who would say that assistance for post-secondary education is inappropriate. I am not sure if anyone would vote against that. I think it is helpful. We need an educated workforce. We need to help those young people coming up to have the best possible education and be able to afford it.

Another element in Bill C-48 is additional moneys with regard to foreign aid. I do not know about other members but when I hear the details of the situation in the Sudan, particularly in Darfur, I get very concerned. How can I feel comfortable as a Canadian or happy as a person when I know there are people elsewhere in the world who have no chance to be happy, who are hungry, who do not have a roof over their heads, who have no security and whose lives are at risk? Foreign aid is an important aspect and it is important that Canada continue to play the appropriate role it can in leadership ways, as well as in providing aid to people.

What else is included in Bill C-48? Additional moneys with regard to the environment, for housing retrofits. Every little step that we can invest in ensuring our air is safe and clean and that we are dealing with greenhouse gases that affect climate change is important. Everyone knows that what comes with the creation of greenhouse gases are the health impacts created by the particulate matters. The investment in the environment is very much a health issue. Who in this place would be against the health issue?

Finally, with regard to Bill C-48, there is affordable housing. I will have to tell members that I will debate anybody in this place at any time about the importance of providing affordable housing for those who need it. Every time we touch one level of housing, if there is more affordable housing that means people who are currently in social housing may be able to now move forward into the next level, it will free up social housing.

I believe this is a good news story. I am very hopeful that Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 will pass. All Canadians in all regions of the country will benefit from this and it will demonstrate to Canadians that Parliament is working.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, when my colleague talks about a budget that should not be changed, he should remember we are in a minority government right now and that is when change occurs. That is when there is an opportunity for other parties to have an input. That is what happened during the time of Tommy Douglas. During a budget debate he said that if the government wanted the budget to go through, that it would have to give Canadians public health care across the country.

That is the practice when there is a minority government. Instead of just fighting in the House of Commons, we can do some work instead. I am proud that this is what the NDP has done. In two days we have done some work for Canadians. Ordinary people who vote can say that finally there is a change. The people who live on the street in Toronto in front of city hall and sleep on cardboard say that maybe they will finally have a home.

It is not a shame to change one's mind in a minority government. It has been done in the past. Canadians will say that the best government they can get is a minority government because other people can have an input. Other countries like France are used to working with a minority government. It is not the first time that France has a minority government and good stuff happens to ordinary people.

However, the Conservatives only want to look at big corporations. They want to cut taxes. They do not care if we are going to have money for highways. They do not care if we are going to have money for schools. They do not care if we have money for health care. No, they are going to privatize. If people are sick and have money, they will be served in a hospital, but if they are poor, they can stay on the sidewalk in Toronto and die there. The Conservatives do not mind that.

I say that is wrong. This is a good budget, especially with the additions put in Bill C-48. In the past we know that the opposition parties always vote against the budget. That is the practice. However, when the budget came into the House of Commons, the leader of the Conservatives said that this is a good budget. He said that his party would not bring down the government because this is a good budget. He broke the practice of the House. That is what has been done.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could have had a chance to raise a question for my colleague from the Conservative Party. I stood up, but two Liberals in a row were recognized instead of another party.

I wish I could have raised a question for my colleague from the Conservative Party on his saying that Bill C-48 is so vague. It is on one page, he said, and he asked what the government will do with that money, saying that it is pretty vague.

I remember, though, when the budget came down in the House of Commons from the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance had not even had the time to finish it when the leader of the Conservative Party ran outside and said he would vote for it. He did not even know what was in the budget at that time. The only thing he knew was that the taxes would go down from 21% to 19% for the big corporations. He ran outside saying he could not vote against the budget because it was a good budget.

The Leader of the Opposition never raised a question about what big business would do with that, what presidents of companies who are getting paid $10 million per year would do with that. He did not raise any questions about that. He was not worried about big corporations.

Let us look at the accord with Newfoundland and Labrador, which we agree with. There was $2 billion for the accord with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, negotiated very fast not too long ago. Tonight the Conservative Party members will probably vote for the budget bill, Bill C-43, because they want that $2 billion going to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia without knowing what is going to happen with it.

It seems to me that the problem, as always, is that when the NDP wants to have a good budget to bring to the ordinary people, it is wrong. That is what the Conservative Party stands for.

As I said, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to speak to Bill C-43 and the improvements to it contained in Bill C-48. The Liberal colleague from Prince Edward Island said that Bill C-43 was a good budget. The only thing he neglected to say is that, thanks to the NDP amendments to it proposed in Bill C-48, after two days of negotiations with the NDP leader, Canadians' interests are really being served. For example, and I cannot say this often enough, $1.6 billion will go to affordable housing construction, of which there was not a word in Bill C-43. This investment will put roofs over the heads of the homeless.

That is what causes a problem for the Conservatives. They say they can support C-43 but not C-48. They are not concerned for ordinary Canadians. It is as if they wanted people to stay out on the street, since there is no place and no money for them.

As for post-secondary education and worker training, there will be $1.5 billion to reduce the cost of post-secondary education and thus to help students and their families. The Conservatives are incapable of voting in favour of such a measure, because they want Canadian students to be in debt. Is that the message they want to send? The Conservatives will apparently vote in favour of Bill C-43 but against Bill C-48, which includes $1.5 billion to reduce the debt load of young Canadians. The Conservatives cannot vote in favour of that. They accuse the NDP of being too fond of spending because it wants to lighten the debt load of Canadian young people. Nothing could be more ridiculous. One hopes that Canadians will see through this.

Then there is $900 million for the environment. How can anybody argue that they do not want a clean planet for future generations? This planet does not belong to us. It belongs to everyone now and in the future. We have responsibilities toward the entire planet and we all need to do our part. How can the Conservatives vote against Bill C-48 and its $900 million allocated to the environment, which is so dear to us and so essential to our health?

This evening, how can the Conservatives vote against Bill C-48, after voting on Bill C-43, which will allocate 1¢ more per litre of gas? In the budget, the Liberal government agreed that a tax of 5¢ per litre of gas will go to the towns and municipalities in our country for infrastructure. How can the Conservatives vote against allocating 1¢ more to the municipalities of Calgary and Edmonton, in Alberta? This evening, how can the Conservatives rise in the House and vote in favour of Bill C-43, indicating that the Liberals have a good budget, but then vote against Bill C-48? When it is time to help our municipalities, students in debt and poor people in the streets, the Conservatives are absent.

Unfortunately, I do not approve of one part of the budget. Unfortunately, the government did not give more for employment insurance. The parliamentary committee issued a recommendation on February 15, asking the government to consider the best 12 weeks worked and to eliminate the divisor of 14. This would have helped all Canadians in regions where employment is seasonal. It would have helped people in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, the Gaspé and the North Shore, in Quebec. Unfortunately, the government decided not to consider the best 12 weeks, and this is too bad. I am asking the government once again to reconsider.

Today, people entitled to EI benefits after working for 12 weeks receive only 55% of their salary.

These women and men work in industries that pay very little, almost minimum wage: $8 per hour. If you take 55% of that, it is less than welfare. The government has set the divisor at 14, assuming that workers would abuse the system by quitting their jobs. That is wrong. That is a totally false assumption, because those who quit their jobs are not eligible for employment insurance. That is why I find it terribly unfortunate that there is nothing for them in Bill C-43. When we look at the government's budget, we can see that it contains no details about employment insurance. Any details were provided only in the press release issued by the minister the same day as this budget bill was introduced.

Today, the government still has the authority to make it the 12 best weeks. The federal government has had a new Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development for two days now. I would like to ask the new minister to show sensitivity to the plight of these workers. There are women working in fish plants in the Acadian peninsula, the Gaspé and Quebec's North Shore. These women and men working in Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia cannot pick and chose their jobs. This is not Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Calgary or Edmonton. These people need an income to feed their kids, buy clothes for them and send them to school.

The best thing we could do to promote economic development is whatever can be done to ensure that people are educated and healthy. How can one hope to achieve that while driving people to poverty? How? There is no way anyone can succeed that way.

Many of the studies that were conducted and presented to the House of Commons were adopted by the government. But when it comes to ordinary people, it is a very different story. And Bill C-48 is a case in point.

The Conservatives voted against changes to EI knowing that they involved improving conditions for ordinary people, the workers. This is not acceptable, but their political party was entitled to do so. People will decide democratically whether they will vote for them or not. However, those watching now must remember that that is what the Conservatives will be doing this evening.

The Liberal government, however, has a responsibility to respond to the request of the Subcommittee on the Employment Insurance Funds, which proposed the 12 best weeks and 360 hours to qualify for EI. The government has not made the necessary changes to help these people, but there is still time for it to do so.

There is a $46 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund. The Conservatives are concerned because $250 million is missing in the sponsorship fund and $100 million could have been invested elsewhere. I do not support that. However, $46 billion, which belonged to workers, was withdrawn from the employment insurance fund. I wonder which scandal is bigger.

I hope that this evening all the political parties will use common sense and vote for bills C-48 and C-43 so that ordinary folks have a chance for a better life.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to the member, the matter before the House now is Bill C-43. He talked a little about Bill C-48 and now he is talking about the Gomery inquiry. I believe it would be time to get the debate back to the relevant matters before this place.

[Gary Lunn, Conservative, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on behalf of all of my constituents in an incredible part of this country, Saanich--Gulf Islands, to talk about the budget.

It is coming up to eight years that I have been a member of Parliament and it has been a great honour. To see what is happening now is absolutely unbelievable. There is a media frenzy as we lead up to tonight's vote. I want to talk a bit about exactly what is happening. It is important that we talk about the facts.

I do not think Canadians are fooled by what has been going on. The facts speak for themselves. The government is obviously in a desperate situation because of the Gomery commission, because of the vote buying scheme by the Liberal Party of Canada to try to prop itself up to save its existence. The only way it can do that right now is through the budget. It has taken away all the opposition supply day motions. To be quite frank, I fully expect that the Liberals will be successful tonight from what has happened. However, let us talk about they have done.

Bill C-48 could be called the NDP budget. Applaud the NDP. It was successful. It was able to go to the government and say, “No. What you told us two months ago, just toss that out the window. This is what we want”. In order to save itself that is what it has done.

It is important for every Canadian to know that Bill C-48 is exactly, in English and French, two pages long. In other words, the English version of Bill C-48 is exactly one page. When I flip the pages of Bill C-48, there is nothing on them. It is quite remarkable. The pages are blank. There is not even any ink on the page. Some staples are pushed through the paper, but the pages are absolutely blank.

I want to focus on what happens when the Liberal government comes in with legislation that is blank, with no specifics. What has been the record when we have seen that type of a slush fund?

The gun registry was about a $2 million expenditure. It was very short on details. I am unable to tell the Canadian people exactly what happened. The government sort of panicked, put money into that, and now it has grown into a $2 billion unmanageable database. It is incredible.

In the mid-1990s there was the sovereignist movement in Quebec. Of course the Liberal government was in power when all that happened, the last people to try to keep this country united. The Liberals responded by saying, “We need a sponsorship program. We are going to save the country”. Again what happened? The Liberals came in with no details and said, “Here are buckets of cash”. It is no different from this NDP budget bill. Buckets of cash. Imagine spending $4.5 billion in just a few sentences, maybe about five paragraphs. Not bad. That is probably millions of dollars per word. It is incredible.

We have found out how the government goes about spending money with no details, no substance. Let us look at some of the facts.

Between 1994 and 2001 Lafleur Communications earned 78% of its income from the federal public works department and crown corporations. Jean Lafleur earned more than $9.3 million from the sponsorship program. That one individual earned $9.3 million of taxpayers' money, but that was not enough. The government needed to throw in a little tip. His family members got another $2.8 million. Those are hard-earned taxpayers' dollars. I suggest what is in here has likely ended up with the same type of activity.

Jean Brault of Groupaction testified that he made $1.1 million in contributions to the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party and that those contributions were covered up by fake invoices. Luc Lemay, whose companies took in $36 million in sponsorship contracts, testified that he paid Jacques Corriveau, a close friend of Jean Chrétien, nearly $7 million in commissions over three years. The list goes on and on.

Numerous witnesses have come forward. Benoît Corbeil, former executive director of the federal Liberal Party's Quebec wing, the very top of the pyramid, the boss of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec, said that he received $100,000 from Jean Brault and used it to pay volunteers in the 2000 election campaign.

Liberals ran around across the country and sprinkled around taxpayers' money. It is unbelievable. That is the record of this Liberal government in managing the public purse. It is unrefuted. It has never been denied.

I will accept some members' comments that there are discrepancies in the testimony, that there is conflicting testimony. Absolutely there is conflicting testimony, but it is uniformly bad. Witness after witness talks about phony invoices. It is about putting Liberal Party workers on campaign payrolls.

All Liberals should hang their heads in shame, because silence is consent. None of the Liberals are standing up. They are not denying this. How this was done is the most offensive thing I have ever seen. Even worse, to add insult to injury, what have we witnessed in Parliament in the last weeks and months? A government that is embroiled in the largest scandal in Canadian political history.

What was that scandal? Let me sum it up in a few words. In essence, it was a vote buying scheme. It was taking taxpayers' money, stuffing it to their friends in the Liberal Party and volunteers in the campaigns and buying some votes. That is the essence of the sponsorship program.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kelowna--Lake Country said that there were some good things in the government's budget Bill C-43 and that he was going to vote for it on balance because he thought it merited his support. However, I understand from what he has said this morning that later tonight he will vote against Bill C-48 which will ultimately cause the defeat of the government, or would work toward the defeat of the government. This would undo all of those good things that he was supporting a few minutes ago in the main budget bill.

What does the hon. member have against ensuring that there is more affordable housing in Canada that will help people who live in poverty, who need housing, and who spend way too much money on housing right now? This budget will benefit the economy. We all know that the housing industry is a key aspect of our economy.

What does he have against post-secondary education spending and helping students who need assistance to get the education that they need so they can participate in the economy? What does he have against public transit and helping the environment, and all of those kinds of things which will benefit both our economy and our society?

[Werner Schmidt, Conservative, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to speak to Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill that the government has presented to the House. However I do so with mixed feelings because we actually have before us two budgets. We have Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 which will be debated right after this particular debate collapses.

We need to recognize that certain elements in Bill C-43 are actually quite encouraging and we can support them, particularly the business of implementing the Atlantic accord. This is a very significant issue and we will be supporting it.

However there are some things that I believe the people of Canada and particularly the constituents of Kelowna—Lake Country need to be aware of. This budget implementation bill is not as great as it appears to be.

I want to speak in particular to the personal tax cuts and to tax cuts a little bit more generally because there seems to be a feeling among the Liberals of “Look at how benevolent we are. Look at what we are doing. We are cutting personal income taxes”.

Yes, indeed, the Liberals are cutting them: $16 next year. Most of us know there are 12 months in a year. If we divide 16 by 12, it does not leave us very much per month, does it? I suggest that there are not even enough tax cuts in each month to buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

The Liberals then go on to tell everyone what they will do in the future. Yes, by the time we get to 2009, four or five years from now, it will be $192 in savings. That is a pittance. If there is to be a tax cut, let us make it a real tax cut.

The interesting thing is that in those tax cuts and counterbalancing those tax cuts, we need to look at what the budget also does. It increases the overall spending of the government. If we look at it in some detail, we discover that in 1996-97 the real federal program spending per capita was $3,466. It will have risen to $4,255 by the year 2005-06, the year we are talking about now. That is an increase of $800 per capita in volume terms, or $3,200 for a family of four. The current Liberal spending plans will take it to $4,644 by 2009-10. That is a projected increase of almost $1,200 per person.

However increases in real government spending do not necessarily equate to solving problems or getting better results. Imagine if that same money had been left in the pockets of the citizens of Kelowna, for example. If they had put $1,000 of tax savings into an RRSP, which they should all be doing, and if that had been invested at 3.5% per year, and that is a very low level but is, at the same time, very realistic, that would result in a nest egg of $29,200 in 20 years and $53,000 in 30 years. A return of 5% would result in a nest egg of $34,000 and $69,000, almost $70,000 in 30 years.

It is pretty evident that if that money had been left in the hands of individual citizens and they had invested it as they wanted to do it and at these very minimal rates of return, they would have benefited far better than a measly $16 tax cut or, in 10 years, $192. That is on an individual basis.

We need to cut the taxes of industry. I have been an advocate of cutting taxes to business for a long time. There is a reason for this. What does not seem to be clear is that business employs people and it is business that actually is the economy of a country and makes the country work. It is business that creates new ideas, that innovates new products, that commercializes the findings of research, that actually conducts research to make better products, that makes the process of manufacturing a little bit more efficient, that provides employment for all kinds of people and that focuses the application of money in such a way that it gets the greatest resources.

We have a tremendous industrial sector and a great manufacturing sector in this country. However, by increasing the taxes and making the tax burden so heavy, these people are finding themselves hamstrung to do the innovation they know they can do but cannot implement because they do not have the capital to make it possible. They do not expand their plants or invest in machinery and equipment because the tax burden is too high.

There was a time when the government even had a capital tax. It really did not matter whether a business was doing anything at all. Simply by having invested millions of dollars in equipment and machinery, they were taxed on the fact they had put that money to work.

Can anyone imagine anything less economically stimulating than a capital tax, and yet that was done? It cost many people their jobs. It is such backward thinking to do that sort of thing and yet we do no have a reasonable tax cut for businesses in this budget. I cannot help but encourage members to think about increasing the tax cuts for business.

The other point I want to make has to do with trust and the management of our country's affairs. We will soon be debating Bill C-48. I will not go into it in any great detail but I want to refer to a provision in the bill that essentially provides $4.6 billion without a plan as to how that money will be spent.

We are in the business at the moment of listening to the discoveries of Justice Gomery. He is revealing what happened over the last number of years because there was a fund designed to build stronger unity in Canada, particularly with Quebec. Two hundred and fifty million dollars were spent in the advertising program to build things up but with no plan as to how that was supposed to actually be done. The result is that the money was spent not only willy-nilly but very clearly through fraudulent activities. We now know it as ad scam.

How did that ad scam program actually work? There are essentially three points. First, advertising agencies overcharged the federal sponsorship program with fake invoices for work that was never done. Second, the agencies then gave the money to Liberal Party workers and riding associations. Third, in some cases the agencies hired Liberal Party campaign workers and paid them using taxpayer money gained from the sponsorship program. I am sure some people listening want us to provide some evidence of this because we make these broad, sweeping statements. We had witnesses and testimony has been presented. Let me read into the record some of the testimony that was actually given to the Gomery commission.

Lafleur Communications took a commission of $112,500 for simply delivering a $750,000 cheque to VIA Rail. It received $112,500 to carry a cheque from one corporation to another? Those were taxpayer dollars.

Bernard Thiboutot of Groupaction funnelled cheques totalling $57,000 to Liberal Party organizers through an employee consulting company. These too were taxpayer dollars.

This is all sworn testimony.

Luc Lemay, whose companies took in $36 million in sponsorship contracts, testified that he paid Jacques Corriveau, a close friend of Jean Chrétien, nearly $7 million in commissions over the years. He said that Corriveau did little or no work for this money. These were taxpayer dollars.

Those are three examples.

In conclusion, I want to thank the people who voted for me in the last election. It has been an honour to represent them in this House, but at the same time I feel honour bound to tell them this about the budget. We will support this implementation bill at the end of this day because it has some good things in it, but I want them all to know that there are some things in this budget that are very wrong and they will see why in the debate on Bill C-48.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are on the eve of a confidence vote that is going to take place tomorrow on the budget. This budget seems to have become one of the main issues now facing Canadians with respect to the continuation of the Liberal government. The Liberal government has been going around the country touting that if the government were to fall, there would be major and severe impacts because of the promises it made in the budget it tabled in February 2005.

Today we are speaking on Bill C-43, a budget implementation bill which followed the budget and of course tomorrow we will be speaking on Bill C-48, the other budget implementation bill. We will have votes on both Bill C-43 and Bill C-48.

As we rise in the House to speak to these main issues all we hear from the Liberal government side are all the expenditures that have been promised to everybody in the budget. Should the budget not pass and should the government fall, the Liberals say there is going to be a major impact, as if everything is going to come to a stop. They talk as if the Conservative Party does not have a plan, as if the Conservative Party members would suddenly close their eyes and not do something about faults in the Canadian economy addressed by the budget.

I have stood in the House many times in the past eight years to speak about budgets which contained many of the issues that the government is now saying it will implement. We talked about the gas tax, about royalties to the provinces, infrastructure, raising money for seniors living on fixed incomes, and tax relief for individuals and businesses.

The Conservative Party members have been standing up in the House and pinpointing all those issues. We know that the current Prime Minister, who was the finance minister for eight years, has been talking about surpluses and surpluses, and how he brought the books under control. Let me ask this question. Where do surpluses come from? Obviously, there was something wrong in the way that they were being forecast or Canadians were being taxed and were not being told the truth. They were being taxed and we did not need their money. They should have reduced taxes a long time ago and not announced surpluses over that eight year period.

Today, on the eve of this vote, the Prime Minister is signing and writing cheques all over the country because he says these are moneys that are needed. Obviously, the government did not address this before, and now it has become so urgent. We are talking as if the whole structure of the country will come to a stop if the government falls. No, the Conservative Party is saying that if it forms the government, it has a fiscally responsible platform that talks about where investment would be made in the Canadian economy, starting with tax breaks and infrastructure.

As a matter of fact, the leader of the Conservative Party just met with the Liberal leader of Ontario and told him that the Conservatives would honour whatever has been signed. The Canadian public should not expect that there would be no money to address many of their concerns and issues that we have talked about if the government falls.

Let us talk about infrastructure. The mayor of the city of Calgary has been writing to us for a long time about the gas tax. This was an issue in Calgary that I talked about when I ran to become a member a year ago. Many years ago we pointed out how much tax the government was taking. Why was the government not returning the tax dollars back to the cities.

We have been talking about this for a long time. As a matter of fact, I remember having taken part in a demonstration in Calgary to point this out. Lo and behold, today, after the Prime Minister made his deal, he says that this is the most important thing.

If the Conservative Party were talking about that deal, why would we not fulfill that deal? As our leader and finance critic have said, we know where to invest in this country. We have presented a plan on where we have to invest in this country, and that plan is a sound, responsible plan.

There are certain things with which we do not agree. The example is in Bill C-48, the deal that the Liberals made with the NDP to stop corporate tax cuts and, as the NDP likes to say, to make investment in some social areas.

We recognize there is a need for investment in social areas, but not to the extent the NDP expects. The NDP thinks that business is some kind of entity which has a bottomless pit where it can always go and grab money. We have to present a responsible economic environment and we have to see it that way.

Business is already talking about the need for tax cuts as well as for individuals. Money in the pocket of a Canadian business is better spent than money in the pocket of a government run by the Liberals, which we note from the Gomery inquiry that is going on and what the Liberals were doing with the money that they were taking from Canadian taxpayers.

The Conservative Party platform will address the issues. It is wrong for Liberal Party members to stand up and say that if they are defeated tomorrow, all these promises will stop.

The Atlantic accord was signed with the provinces and it is part of Bill C-43. We said we could support that, but it must be changed. Of course, the government did not want to change it. It wanted the whole thing. There are provisions which we cannot support. The government knew that. We said that if it removed the Atlantic accord from the budget, to ensure that it passed, we would expedite it. We believe that the Atlantic accord was and is important for that province and that region.

However, the spin doctors on the Liberal side of course are saying that if the budget is defeated, the Atlantic accord would go. Let us put it another way. We have said that we will support the Atlantic accord. What would it take if, say, tomorrow the government goes and a Conservative government is returned after an election? It would only be 37 days. We would put the Atlantic accord before Parliament and pass it as quickly as possible, so the benefits would go to that region. We know it is an important benefit for that region.

In conclusion, the Conservative Party has a plan. The Liberals say that if they are defeated tomorrow on the budget, all of these implementations will not take place. I want to say that the Conservative Party has a plan and Canadians do not have to buy that kind of propaganda and spin doctoring from the Liberals.

[Paul Forseth, Conservative, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-43 is an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005. However I am critical of it because, in the usual Liberal fashion, parts of it sound good but it falls short of the goodness it could have been.

For example, right off the top, printed in the summary of the bill is the following:

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Application Rules to

(a) increase the amount that Canadians can earn tax free...

That sounds good but when the calculation is done, the average person would benefit from that provision by about $16 for the whole year, about the cost of taking the kids to McDonald's once. The Liberals give the kids a happy meal and in exchange they want to be kept in power and thanked for their benevolence to us all.

In this bill we are rightly concerned with the Liberal approach to this country's finances: spending without a plan; the Kyoto measures in Bill C-43; the wasteful potentials in Bill C-48, which is about the misguided and hurtful NDP; and the $25 billion in spending announcements in the last few weeks. This irresponsible fiscal approach will hurt families, children, seniors, government workers and new Canadians.

However there are some initiatives in Bill C-43 which Conservatives support and will implement if we form the government, such as the Atlantic accord, better tax relief, gas tax money for municipalities, RRSP initiatives, increases to seniors' pensions, et cetera.

However this bill must be looked at in the context of the overall Liberal-NDP budget. The Liberals have mixed some policies of going in the right direction with initiatives that would prove hurtful to the well-being of Canadians.

Then along comes Bill C-48, the Liberal-NDP deal, that undermines Bill C-43. It should be apparent to all who follow these things that the government is now ruining the country's finances with runaway spending commitments without real implementation or monitoring plans. It is sad to observe that the Liberals are spending billions in an effort to buy votes.

First, they bought 19 NDP votes for $4.5 billion. Now the Prime Minister is travelling the country trying to buy votes of sectors of Canadians by making huge promises. He then attaches a threat that the power hungry Conservatives want to take away this Liberal joy. This Liberal vote buying spree is nothing more than an attempt to distract from its ad scam, which itself is a vote buying scandal worth about $250 million.

It has all come down to the axiom that a vote for the Liberals outside of Quebec is a vote for separation inside Quebec. Voting for the scandal ridden Liberals sends the wrong message to Quebecers who do not like corruption in their name. In view of their sense of being insulted, sadly, Quebecers are choosing the separation option. The Liberals have been creating separatists and this budget bill is part of it.

Canada could have more and better paying jobs and a much higher standard of living but Ottawa taxes too much, spends too much and winds up still owing too much.

Since 1999-2000, program spending has gone up 44%, a compound annual growth of 7.6% when the economy itself managed to grow only 31.6%. That record is a fundamental flaw in Liberal management which will come to haunt our country if continued. It is not surprising that there is so much waste in the government.

Often the government responds to problems with a knee-jerk way of throwing money at a problem. It does not know what to do but it sounds good if money is sent along the way. The Liberals confuse spending money with getting results and value.

Throwing money at the firearms registry, for example, is their way of dealing with the criminal misuse of firearms and the gunplay on our streets and it reveals the general unprofessional approach of Liberal administration.

The gun registry was to cost $2 million. Media reports now say that the actual cost is about $2 billion and the program does not work. One can imagine the community benefit if Alan Rock had taken my advice in the beginning when I told him, in very strong terms in a consultation meeting I had with him, that I would rather have the registry money assigned to various crime prevention and community protection measures than waste it in the registry. Time has shown that I was right and he and his many advisors were wrong, very wrong.

In Quebec, the 1995 referendum was a scare for the nation. The Liberals responded by throwing money at it but without a real plan or a system of accountability. The result was the sponsorship scandal where $250 million were wasted, $100 million probably illegally funnelled to Liberal friends in the Liberal Party. It had the opposite effect of the intended purpose. In fact, it reinvigorated Quebec separation.

Between 2003-04 and 2004-05, the Liberals could not help themselves: program spending skyrocketed by 11.9% and per capita program spending by the federal government has reached its highest point in over a decade and is scheduled to go even higher in the future. However increases in real government spending do not equate to solving problems or getting better results.

Imagine if some of that money was left with families, in the form of lower taxes. The multiplier effect of that would bring more jobs and eventually greater tax revenue for health care and education. An administered tax dollar is an inefficient dollar for our general welfare, in comparison to the same dollar that was never taken from the taxpayer in the first place.

Of course, we need public services and it is for that reason that compassionate Conservatives are so concerned about wise fiscal management, for without care there will not be the revenue available to pay for the social programs that we want.

The NDP-Liberal finance bills have it all backwards and that is why NDP spending on services beyond the capacity of the economy puts into play a doomsday financial problem, when the predicted job losses surely will come and the welfare rolls will skyrocket. The heartless social consequences of NDP thinking and economics hurts people.

I believe it is more compassionate and wise to ensure that we have more people working than just getting by on a meagre public subsidy. A growing sound economy is the most compassionate thing a government can provide so that we are able to help those who cannot help themselves. In the long term, it is a truism that NDP socialism hurts people.

Recently, while government spending went up, according to Statistics Canada, Canadian families saw their after tax income stall in 2002 and in the fall of 2003.

Under pressure from the NDP to remove the tax relief for business, the finance minister told the House that his budget could not be “stripped away piece by piece”. However, within days, without telling his minister, the Prime Minister tried to cover up his sponsorship vote buying scandal by buying the votes of the NDP.

The $4.6 billion, now Bill C-48, will be allocated through order in council in 2005-06 and 2006-07 to programs for the environment, housing and post-secondary education. However the money will not flow unless there is a surplus of $2 billion in those years, and that will not be known for 2005-06 until the books close in August, 2006. That means that the money will not flow for at least 18 months. If it ever does flow at all, it will be at the discretion of the cabinet which again has not designated a plan or even stated a purpose for the money.

What we see is a familiar pattern of vague objectives, deception even of their own NDP partners and no concrete plans.

The Liberals and the NDP are falsely giving the impression that money for the budget initiatives will flow immediately after the Thursday vote. Following regular parliamentary protocol, the bill is closer to its beginning stage and needs to go through many steps and many more months of study before the money would flow.

Last year's budget implementation bill just passed the Senate this last month, a year late.

The bottom line is that the Liberals are corrupt. They are trying to distract the vote buying scandal of the sponsorship program by buying NDP votes and now the public's votes.

In most Canadian families, both parents need to work just for one to pay the taxes. We must never forget that a dollar left in the hands of a worker, homemaker, small businessperson or entrepreneur is more beneficial to the economy than a dollar taken into the hands of a government bureaucrat or politician.

The Conservative Party wants to clean up government. It looks like the finances of the Liberals say they want to clean out government.

Consequently, from a financial administrative perspective, we need an election because the Liberals are corrupt and they are ruining the country's finances. The government has lost the moral authority to govern, has not secured the legal financial authority to govern and, by ignoring Parliament, has become illegitimate.

What Canadians have seen in the last few weeks is truly unprecedented: a government already steeped in corruption attempting to cover-up one vote buying scandal by looting the treasury regardless of the long term consequences for average Canadians.

Canada cannot afford the unholy collusion of the Liberal-NDP financial deal.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I rise to speak on the budget bill I wish to congratulate Carole James, who is the leader of the B.C. New Democratic Party, for her tremendous breakthrough yesterday with over 40% of the vote in British Columbia. I would also like to congratulate the new member of the legislative assembly for New Westminster, Mr. Chuck Puchmayr and the new member of the legislative assembly for Burnaby-Edmonds, Mr. Raj Chouhan, for their clear victories in that election yesterday.

I mention my communities because the context of this budget discussion is extremely important. When we arrived on the Hill last fall, we were dealing with a series of crises that have not been addressed for over a decade. We are talking about a crisis in homelessness where there are increasing numbers of homeless across the country. In my region of the lower mainland we have tripled the number of homeless at a time when we are reaping record corporate profits.

We have an increase in child poverty. As we saw last fall, we are now looking at over 1.1 million poor children in Canada which should be a source of national shame.

When we talk about the education system, I met, when I knocked on over 6,000 doors in the election campaign last year, dozens of young people who could not go into post-secondary education because of tuition fee increases. Not being able to go into post-secondary education is not just something that affects those families, it affects the entire community. It affects the entire nation when young people cannot go on to post-secondary studies because they are cut off. Increasingly post-secondary studies are for the wealthy.

We have also seen the environment deteriorating. There was a the Kyoto plan to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. We have actually seen an increase of 20% in greenhouse gas emissions.

That is the context in the community for the budget bill that was originally presented earlier this spring. This budget bill as we all know, presented as one of its foremost planks corporate tax cuts of $4.6 billion. We had just gone through an election campaign and there had been promises made and commitments made as they had been in previous elections by the Liberal Party, and indeed by the Conservative Party, to address some of these issues.

One of the fundamental aspects of the bill was corporate tax cuts of $4.6 billion and to my surprise, we saw the Conservative opposition actually supporting this kind of budget mismanagement. Some $4.6 billion shovelled out the door to the corporate sector that is currently experiencing record profits and the Conservatives did not say a single word.

That is the context for the NDP budget amendment, Bill C-48, which now makes Bill C-43 much more responsive to what we are actually seeing in communities across the country. I understand the Conservative opposition is going to oppose this because the Leader of the Opposition actually stated a couple of weeks ago he did not want to listen to what the MPs were hearing from their ridings and the public. Indeed, he said he would disregard those comments when it came to forcing an election.

However, in reality Canadians have had over the past 10 to 12 years a deterioration in their quality of life. The original budget did not address in a meaningful way all of those substantive issues that needed to be addressed.

The NDP pushed the Liberal government and negotiated effectively with it in order to bring in budget amendments that finally dealt with those issues. There is $1.6 billion in investment to finally start dealing with the housing crisis and the homelessness crisis that is growing, particularly in British Columbia. It was an issue in the provincial campaign and led to the substantial breakthrough that I mentioned earlier.

There is $1.5 billion to deal with the post-secondary education crisis to finally start lowering tuition fees, so that more young people and more adults can access training, post-secondary education, and those things that should be a right of all Canadians, and also in that way contribute to our economy and communities.

There is $900 million for the environment, finally providing back to cities support for rapid transit which is something extremely important if we are going to deal with the environmental crises and the environmental issues that we face.

At a time when we must be seeking more stability around this planet, there is $500 million in foreign aid, so that Canada starts to meet its commitment for foreign aid to address the appalling poverty that people around the world and that children around the world are facing.

We know that today, in this 24 hour period, 29,000 children will die of starvation and disease. These are preventable deaths, but they die these horrible deaths in part because there is not sufficient foreign aid to address the grinding and horrible poverty in which they live. The NDP budget amendment, Bill C-48, that now takes Bill C-43 and makes it a better balanced budget, addresses that in talking about $500 million in foreign aid.

What has been the response to these issues and the fact that the NDP has stood up on these issues that for so long have not been addressed? I would like to read into the record some of the comments. From the chair of the Canadian Urban Transit Association:

This move shows true leadership in making transit a focal point for sustainable urban development.

From the chair of the National Coalition on Housing and Homelessness:

Thank goodness reason prevailed. Canadians need to see real progress on social housing. We don't need another time out for an election. This revised budget should be passed.

From the president of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation:

With this deal, the NDP has pushed the Liberals closer to meeting Canada's international aid obligations.

From the Canadian Federation of Students:

The [Liberal-NDP] deal ensures that the funding will be available for provinces who are willing to take steps to make post-secondary education more accessible to low- and middle-income families.

From the Sierra Club of Canada:

There is no more time for politics on this issue. All parties must work together and for now that means passing the budget and getting action underway.

These are the kinds of comments that are being voiced in communities and main streets across Canada from coast to coast to coast. This budget now, because of the NDP amendment, finally addresses urgent needs that Canadians are facing.

The question we must ask ourselves is this. Given that the issues of education, homelessness, with numbers on the rise unfortunately, and the environment are being addressed, why do the Bloc Québécois members object to a measure that moves forward on things that Quebeckers need so much? Several elements of Bill C-48 are designed to improve people's the quality of life. That is not insignificant; it is important. I know that the Bloc Québécois shares these values.

This is incomprehensible to me, given that we are trying to introduce improvements. Granted, not all needs are covered. But there are only 19 NDP members. Had there been more of us, we might have been able to do more. Nevertheless, this budget is a definite improvement that will make a difference for Quebec, with $1 billion over two years. It will make a difference for Montreal and for public transit, as $20 million is earmarked for that. That is not insignificant. These are important elements.

I mentioned that, with 19 members, we had nevertheless managed to make considerable advances on issues of concern to people in the regions of Canada. We will continue to work in that fashion, to improve legislation in the House of Commons to ensure that Canadians can benefit from it.

Transfer Payments

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple solution to the hon. member's inquiry, and that is on Thursday night support Bill C-43 and Bill C-48.

Budget Implementation Act

[Christian Simard, Bloc, Beauport, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bills C-43 and C-48, in short on the implementation of the budget.

A budget is a government's most important political statement. Beyond rhetoric and hollow speeches, choices are made. In its budget, this government illustrates all of its duplicity. It is a government we cannot support. We cannot place any confidence in its main political statement, born of torment, in the context of a party that gave rise to this government and that, to fund itself, resorted to vile methods. Certain members and ministers, former and current, have been involved to varying degrees in this scandal.

Here, it is a question of ethics. This budget, like the government and party that created it, is not ethical. People need to believe in values and integrity. How can anyone believe in this government?

On February 23, the government presented Bill C-43, a rather conservative budget, with a view to pleasing the Conservatives so they would stay in their seats and pass it. So, an investment of $13 billion will be made in national defence, but no provision was made for social housing, there was nothing for Quebec, nothing to resolve the fiscal imbalance, nothing for employment insurance. If they are dividing the opposition in order to rule, they are succeeding.

But that is not enough. What are they doing? They change strategy to shift slightly left. They promise bits and pieces to the left and others to the right. The government has lost its bearings, its will, its vision and its principles. It is motivated solely by the desire to remain in power and spend money as it likes. These two budgets are the stuff of future scandals and inquiries.

In fact, we cannot expect results in response to essential needs. Furthermore, it is impossible to know what this government values. Does it value the military exclusively and has it adopted almost identical values to those held by the United States, as the February 23 budget shows, or is this a mishmash of social values, like the measures the NDP threatened and begged for before offering its support to a government it has called corrupt?

This attempt, through Bill C-48, to please the NDP and purchase a kind of political virginity, to make people forget about the scandals staining this government, is evidence of its true face, its wastefulness and its lack of both rigour and will to meet the public's essential needs. Instead, it is trying to hold onto power by any means.

Even this morning's upset, when the government announced that it was changing the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development for the third time, shows just how much this government really wants to help human resources and resolve the problems with EI. In less than one year, three different ministers have headed that department. What will the new minister, know for her leftish leanings, do at Human Resources? Once again, this government has no direction or principles.

Recently, we learned of the government's interest in Darfur. Once again, it is an attempt to buy an independent member, without consulting the Organization of African Unity or even the new Senator Roméo Dallaire, who is himself criticizing the government's position on this.

So this budget comes from an immoral government of cheaters. This budget is unethical, it lacks direction and tries to please everyone. It is not a respectable budget and it will not get any respect. Already, there is no respect for the agreement reached with the NDP, since the tax cuts are going ahead despite promises to the NDP.

What will happen with social housing tomorrow morning, when things calm down? The government had a $3.4 billion surplus at CMHC that will increase to $7 billion by 2008, if nothing changes. It has not done anything in the past 12 months. Now, it is promising to act, but it is resorting to blackmail. It is telling people that if they do not vote in favour of the budget on Thursday, they will get nothing.

Where is this government's heart? Where are its convictions? It is travelling around the Rockies, in the east and west, and threatening people that they will get nothing if they do not vote for the Liberal Party and the budget.

This is a government of petty shakedown artists. Do people want to stick with that, and to vote to keep them in office? One Montreal area MP has even said “Hold your noses but vote for us anyway, despite the bad smell, despite our disgusting politics”.

Even in connection with the Kyoto protocol, there is an announcement of $10 billion for the next 8 years. This is just one more scandal. They do not want to change the orientation of Canadian industry. They do not want to decrease our dependence on non-renewable energy sources.

All they want to do with this budget is to look as if they are doing so. This government is very big on empty show. This government looks pretty foolish with its two budgets heading in two different directions,desperately scrambling to hold on to power. They are like pallid vampires trying to find a vein. This is disgraceful behaviour.

The people watching us are entitled to ask questions. They need to know what is going on. Can anyone trust a government that changes its policy statements—the most important of these being the budget—as often as it changes its shirt? Can anyone trust a government that promises to do something about climate change but does nothing whatsoever to force the oil and gas industry to make changes, or to reorient any sector of our economy?

People feel that climate change is important. Yet the Kyoto protocol is not about $10 billion of baloney, of voluntary measures and the like. It is not a matter of encouraging polluters, not polluter-paid. People need to believe in values and actions, and not in announcements made just to buy some time, or in budgets created just to hold on to power, come what may.

As for this budget, and this approach to international aid, even Bono, the Prime Minister's singer friend, is ashamed to see a country as rich as ours unable to set a goal of investing 0.7% of GDP in international aid. These are also values. If there are three or four votes to be bought before Thursday, perhaps they will throw in that 0.7%, or maybe they will cut down the figure. If they want to win the vote of some ultra-rightist Conservative MP, maybe they will cut international aid.

Just how far are they prepared to go? How far are they prepared to go with concealment and corruption?

It is a government without the morality to govern or to manage public funds appropriately. It is unbelievable. It is rolling in surpluses. By giving $1.6 billion for housing without resolving the fiscal imbalance, it is creating poverty.

It does not have money to invest in the provinces, like Quebec, for education. Nor does it have money for the health care system either. It has no money to address poverty effectively and it says it will invest a little in social housing. In addition, it has not resolved anything when it comes to employment insurance.

Contradictory measures still exist. These are measures we cannot rely on and for which there is no timeframe. It is still a petty shakedown. If we read Bill C-48 carefully, we see that something might be done provided there is an adequate surplus—at most. However, tomorrow morning, they could change their minds. It all depends on what direction the wind is blowing for this party.

I predict this party will fall apart, since it no longer has morality or ethics. We cannot trust any of its policies. It does not know how to manage public funds, it is swimming in billions of dollars, it finances its friends and abandons individuals in the provinces and Quebec. It is vengeful, does not settle anything and does not even understand the concept of the fiscal imbalance.

It is a government without governance. It is a government without direction. It is a government that is headed straight for a loss. We will be able to say the government earned that loss, that it did not steal it—which may be the only thing this government will not have stolen at the end of the day.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today on this bill and the budget in general with great interest. The Bloc Québécois opposes this bill. Our logic is quite simple. We opposed the budget right from the start, because it is incomplete and inadequate, and it does not defend the interests of Quebeckers.

However, Bill C-43 should have been the opportunity to make significant amendments to satisfy the interests of Quebec. This was not the case. Not only did the Liberal government refuse to make the recommended changes to EI but, as my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain said earlier, it also refused to correct the fiscal imbalance. It even went so far as to add things that are completely unacceptable to Quebec, such as the agreements with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. Furthermore, it has adopted the polluter-paid principle with regard to the Kyoto protocol. Clearly, this budget does not protect Quebec.

We can name at least five reasons to vote against Bill C-43 and against all potential corrections to the budget.

The fiscal imbalance is one major reason. Even the word makes the government afraid. It cannot even say it, so it is far from recognizing it. The budget contains no additional measures to loosen the financial stranglehold on Quebec. Ottawa refuses to acknowledge this problem. Anyone who follows the political debates in Quebec City at all can see the effect of this financial stranglehold on Quebec's development and evolution. There is nothing in the budget for this.

The same goes for the agreements on health and equalization. Once again, it is clearly not enough, at the very least, to pay down the deficit.

The problem is that there is a contradiction. The federal government has the financial means to do so much more. What is lacking is the political will, or else it is acting in bad faith and directing its interests elsewhere. It has the leeway. The Liberals have enough financial leeway to do much more. Now, there is talk of $50 billion over the next three years. This is a significant amount of money that could have been distributed to the regions to resolve the fiscal imbalance or, at the very least, alleviate it.

The second reason has to do with employment insurance, a topic we constantly come back to. A subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities called for a comprehensive reform. However, no improvement to employment insurance be can implemented immediately. The 2005 budget goes even further and prevents any improvement to the employment insurance system. That is the second reason Bill C-43, the Budget Implementation Act, 2005, or Bill C-48 resulting from the agreement reached with the NDP, cannot work.

There is a third major argument that we have always defended and will continue to defend: respect for jurisdictions. For some time now, regardless of what bill is being considered, the practice is to encroach on Quebec's powers.

On the issue of parental leave, an agreement was proposed. Simply put, Quebeckers' money would be returned to Quebec. It is like a circle. It has nothing to do with asymmetrical federalism.

The same goes for child care, as mentioned earlier. I think that, currently, five agreements have been reached. However, in Quebec, the child care agreement is still unclear. Even the Prime Minister promised to allocate federal money for child care with no strings attached. We are still waiting. Again, even though Quebec is a model in this matter, pan-Canadian standards are still applied as well as accountability. Respecting jurisdictions is a problem that is seen not just in these bills, but also in Liberal Party legislation in general.

In connection with the gasoline tax, there is another important piece of evidence involving the municipalities. It concerns the distribution among municipalities, a matter also clearly under Quebec's jurisdiction. Here again, interference is systematic.

The fourth reason concerns the Kyoto protocol. A number of people have spoken of it. It is a blank cheque for the major polluters. It is a failure of the Minister of the Environment. A voluntary approach is being proposed to the major polluters. Obviously, they will stick to that. The standards are not very strict or precise. There are a few, but they are within easy reach of these companies. This way, the objectives can be reached in part, but surely not the greenhouse gas emission reduction objectives.

Under the Kyoto protocol, the public assumes the financial burden, not the major polluters. The budget penalizes Quebec in connection with its progress, the infrastructures it has set up and the model it created under the Kyoto protocol.

Obviously, there are others. My colleague for Saint-Maurice—Champlain spoke of social housing. The federal government has totally ignored the repeated calls of the Bloc Québécois in response to social consensus in Quebec, where the needs are critical. Meanwhile, it invests, as we have mentioned several times, in sectors that are not priorities of Quebec or the people of Canada.

In terms of international aid, the government's commitment is very timid. However, it may be bumped up at some point in order to attract votes, as we saw with Darfur. It was a one time thing and served the interests of the Liberal Party.

There is no new money in the agriculture budget either. We will come back to the francophone community in Canada. Based on this bill it is impossible to say whether there has been any development in economic or infrastructure terms.

As far as Bill C-48 is concerned, a new bill has been introduced. It enables the Minister of Finance to make certain payments. This is the outcome of an agreement with the NDP on this matter, but proper scrutiny will show that the agreement in question has not been respected. We wonder how the NDP could have been so taken in, and yet still support this government. First of all, the government has not done what the NDP asked. It has not cancelled the corporate tax breaks. Second, new measures have even been presented in a new bill, which will not be effective.

Quite simply, we see this as just one more last minute addition to the true budget, which is why we were opposed to the budget. It is unacceptable to Quebeckers for the reasons I have already given: fiscal imbalance and employment insurance. They are thumbing their noses at everything Quebec has developed.

In conclusion, we will be voting against this bill, just as we voted against the federal budget in February, because once again it is ignoring the priorities of Quebeckers. We cannot therefore support this bill, and even less so its implementation. It is, in fact, obvious that this bill will have a negative effect on Quebec.

The federal government has, however, decided otherwise. It has decided to refuse to make any improvements to employment insurance and fiscal imbalance. Rest assured, we are going to vote against Bill C-43, that is, against the implementation of the budget and the budget itself.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, we have certain challenges in Atlantic Canada as we move from the traditional economy to the knowledge based economy. Some of the initiatives that have been led by the minister and by the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency have helped immensely.

The minister referred to the Rising Tide initiative which was developed by the members of the Liberal caucus. The executive responded with a certain funding increase to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which will increase the amount going to industry-led innovation, to skills training in Atlantic Canada.

Is this funding, which I believe has the support of all members of Parliament from Atlantic Canada, conditional upon this House passing Bill C-43 and Bill C-48?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to ask a question of my colleague about the budget and the upcoming initiatives that we hope will benefit Canadians sooner rather than later.

One thing we negotiated with Bill C-48 is the elimination of large corporate tax cuts for the immediate budget. Does the member believe that instead of having those large corporate tax cuts in the future, we should invest in infrastructure, for example, to rebuild the trade routes and the ability for our economy to move via rail, sea or roads and highways as a priority as opposed to a general tax cut that has seen our infrastructure deteriorate over the years?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from Cambridge had two very good questions. I will take them in order.

We have advocated for many months that we should be separating the Atlantic Accord from the budget. If the NDP supported that position, we would be in total agreement. Let us get it done. Let us get money to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia as quickly as we can.

I find it very interesting that the members opposite, in their unholy alliance with the NDP, would not support their partners in crime on this one. If they are truly sincere in wanting to get money to the Atlantic provinces quickly, why do they not join with us and let us get it done?

The Liberals do not. Why do they not? For one reason and one reason only. Politically, they want to try to put the blame on the opposition. That is the only reason they are doing this. They are trying to make it a political issue. Once again, they are playing with the lives of people for their own political purpose.

Any time we have a knee-jerk reaction to something as serious as the budget, we will have problems. We have seen $2 billion unnecessarily wasted on the gun registry. We see examples like the sponsorship scandal, designed exactly for the same purpose, which was to try to buy votes for Canadians in Quebec, the biggest criminal and corrupt scandal in Canadian parliamentary history. We should not support Bill C-48 because it has all of the elements of the same problems.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Because the members opposite have said that they want to get money to the Atlantic provinces quickly.

We were the ones, if members recall, who were for years pressuring the government to do this. It was only because of a political commitment the Prime Minister made during the heat of last year's election that this ever came to fruition. Then, after the election, for several months the government tried to renege on its promise.

We pressured the government. Premier Danny Williams from Newfoundland and Labrador pressured the government to the point that the Liberals had to admit it and say, “All right. We will come forward with our election promises”. But if they were truly sincere in a desire to get the money to the Atlantic provinces quickly, there was no need to put it in the budget. It could have been a stand-alone piece of legislation.

We have asked for it to be taken out of the budget. Members of this House could pass that if we wished. If there were unanimous consent in the House for all three readings we could get the money that is desperately needed in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to them quickly, but this government refuses to do so.

The member asks whether that is cherry-picking. Those members have already set the standards for that. We already know what cherry-picking is and we see it in Bill C-48. The Atlantic accord should not have been included in the budget to begin with. That was our position at the time. That is our position today.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I am sure that all the political junkies who are tuning in to get their political fix today have nothing better to do, so this debate will probably fill a void for them. I am pleased to speak and help those people get their political fix.

I should say at the outset that even though this is a debate on Bill C-43, I feel we cannot really speak to this legislation without also speaking to Bill C-48, because the two are obviously intertwined.

I think we have to put things in context. These two bills are rather unprecedented. This is the first time in recent memory that I can remember not one but two budget bills being delivered. In fact, it is my understanding that both of these bills need to be passed on Thursday evening for the government to avoid a non-confidence vote, so let us talk about the fact that these two bills have been brought down together, what that means and what the impacts are.

Members may recall that Bill C-43 passed the first stage a few months ago. At that time, although Conservative Party members abstained from the vote, we did so because we felt that the government deserved to go forward. Our party did not think that Canadians wanted a general election, at least at that point in time, so our members abstained from the vote. Shortly after that, of course, in fear of the government going down, the NDP proposed a solution, one that is a political solution, I might add, and not a financial solution, and introduced and cut a deal with the government that ultimately led to the creation of Bill C-48.

I have to set the record straight on a few points.

First, the Minister of Finance has said on several occasions that it was the Conservatives who flip-flopped on our position of support on Bill C-43 and that is why the government was forced to seek an arrangement with the NDP. In fact, that is not true. What happened was that the revelations coming out of the Gomery inquiry were of such magnitude and such impact that we felt the government then did not deserve our support to remain in office. We then clearly indicated that we would be trying to take the government down at any and every opportunity. It was only because of this situation that the government then entered into negotiations with the NDP. The ultimate creation was this bill called Bill C-48.

It is this bill, quite frankly, that gives me quite a bit of concern, because we all know that this was a political deal made not in the best interests of Canadians but in the best interests of the Liberal Party of Canada. In fact, this deal was cut in a hotel room in Toronto without the presence of the Minister of Finance.

We hear all the spin from members opposite, who are saying that the Minister of Finance was involved. I have never seen a budget consultation that created a budget bill for Canadians while the Minister of Finance was on the phone listening to House leaders from two different parties create a budget bill. It is unheard of.

It is incumbent upon all Canadians to understand that this was a political solution to a problem the Liberals felt they were facing, and that was the defeat of their own government. This was not a bill that was constructed to help Canadians. This bill was constructed to help the Liberal Party of Canada.

Now that I have provided that framework, I think I can talk a bit more about Bill C-43.

I must admit that there are elements of Bill C-43 with which I agree. There are certain things contained in the bill, particularly with respect to the RRSP provisions in the elimination of the 30% restriction on RRSPs. This alone is something that many people in my riding had been asking for over several years. Over many elections the government talked about implementing that provision, but in my recollection, this is the first time it has actually brought it forward in a budget. That is something I applaud.

There were a few other points that I could agree with, but here is what happened when Bill C-48 came into the mix. This was a plan, and I use the word “plan” very lightly because I think there was no real forethought put into it, and a bill brought forward that literally could be contained on a page and a half. This was a bill that was put together on the back of an envelope, to use the vernacular, in order to try to save the political hide of the Liberals.

What happens when a budget is put forward that has spending commitments of over $4.6 billion without a true plan on how to implement it? It is a recipe for disaster.

I think the Minister of Finance also understood that, because at the time Bill C-43, the original budget bill, was brought forward, the Minister of Finance was effusive in his praise about his own bill. All members opposite were lauding this budget as one of the best budgets in years.

However, when questioned by the media and by members of the opposition as to the potential of amending that bill for political purposes, the Minister of Finance was quite clear. He stated unequivocally that we cannot .cherry pick budgets. We cannot take certain elements out of a budget and put other elements in because that is a sure recipe for deficits, for deficit disaster.

Those were the words of the Minister of Finance, but what happened only a few short weeks later? There was a political deal cut, without his knowledge, I might add. The very things he was warning all Canadians about happened. Why did they happen? Once again, it was for political purposes: to suit the Liberal Party of Canada.

Frankly, I feel sorry for the Minister of Finance because his legs were cut out from underneath him by the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance was not consulted about this. He was told, “We must enter into an agreement with the NDP to save our political hides”. Now, across Canada, the Minister of Finance, to his great embarrassment, is trying to defend Bill C-48 when in his heart of hearts he knows as well as I know and as well as most Canadians know that Bill C-48 is an unmitigated disaster. It was only done for political purposes, and that is the worst thing that Canadians expect of any political party and any Minister of Finance.

Budgets, whether we agree with them or not, should be crafted to try to represent the views of the government of the day and hopefully to represent the views of the majority of Canadians, to help Canadians but to be financially and fiscally responsible. Bill C-48 destroys all that credibility, Whatever credibility there was within the original budget bill, Bill C-43, Bill C-48 goes to great lengths to destroy it. That is something I simply cannot support and I do not think most members of the House should support it.

We are in the situation right now where there is a lot of political tension. That is obvious. Many political observers are saying that we are on the brink of an election. Clearly today's announcement puts that in some doubt because of the numbers shifting a little, but I do not think Canadians should have to expect that budgets affecting the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast should be put in jeopardy for political purposes. I do not think Canadians expect that budgets should be crafted and designed in order to better prop up the political fortunes of any party. Whether it be Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats or the Bloc, Canadians expect and deserve better, but it is just not happening.

If there was going to be an attempt by the New Democrats to craft a deal with the Liberals to amend the budget and to bring in a new budget, or a better budget, as they like to call it, then I would think that at least there should have been consultation with all members of the House and with all parties. There was not. The NDP tried to further its own political purposes in a hasty deal with the Liberals. It totally ignored the reality of what people in my province wanted to see.

For example, in the original budget bill, Bill C-43, there was literally no mention of agriculture, none whatsoever. The NDP then suggested a solution, an amendment that it said would help Canadians in all provinces across Canada. I can tell the House with great certainty the people of Saskatchewan are absolutely opposed to Bill C-48, because once again, with an amendment and the opportunity before it to bring something to the province of Saskatchewan, the NDP totally ignored agriculture. The NDP had the government over a veritable political barrel. It could have introduced some significant changes and benefits for Canadian agriculture and farmers in Saskatchewan, and yet it did nothing.

Let me close by saying I think it is a travesty that this government is trying to promote a bill that was crafted strictly for political purposes, thus reneging on its own commitment to Bill C-43. This is unconscionable, and at least Bill C-48 should be defeated.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have never seen an MP less concerned about her constituents. She is absolutely remiss in her duty.

Yesterday, I had the sad task of having to explain in this House why the budget and the two budget implementation bills do not recognize the realities and problems currently in place in Quebec. Hon. members will recall that there was a farmers' protest yesterday on Parliament Hill. Last evening, I got a call from a forest products company, Tembec, announcing that four of its plants were going to shut down or cut back on operations.

For years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling upon the government to come up with an effective plan to assist the forest industry and its workers. We have yet to see any sign of it. For years we have been demanding a government plan to assist older workers. At the very least, when plants are closed, we want to see assistance programs made available to those who lose their jobs.

I hope that the hon. member will come to my riding to explain how Bill C-48 is going to help the unemployed of Saint-Raymond and Saint-Léonard. There is another plant in Brantford, Ontario, where I hope she will go as well. I also invite her to my colleague's riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue, where another will be closing. I hope the hon. member is going to look out for the real interests of her fellow citizens.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I still would like to hear more details of what the minister has in store for the agriculture and rural communities of Canada. To have a quote from Germany does not help us in western Canada. I would like to hear some quotes in western Canada of how we will have some incentives to meet our goals. I was disappointed that I did not hear any made-in-Canada solution.

I would like to speak today about the budget. Bill C-48 is not just about the environment. It is not about child care. It is not about affordable housing. It is not even about anything the Liberals or the NDP alliance would have us believe. The legislation is all about political survival because this government seemingly has one goal, one purpose and one objective: the retention of power, at all costs.

The government is willing to trash today's cherished principles for the political expedience of tomorrow. For example, the Minister of Finance was adamant a few weeks ago, stating that any changes to the budget would be inconceivable because any opposition tampering with this budget would spark a financial downturn in Canada. I quote the finance minister:

You can't go on stripping away the budget, piece by piece...That's not the way you maintain a coherent fiscal framework. If you engage in that exercise, it is an absolute, sure formula for the creation of a deficit.

The absence of principle and conviction usually makes the once inconceivable a reality in politics. Consequently, only a few weeks later, the finance minister was undercut by his Prime Minister, who allowed the leader of the smallest party in the House to gleefully rewrite the budgetary framework of Canada.

We should take a moment to ponder the magnitude of that act. The finance minister had his agenda dictated to him by the leader of the major national party which consistently garners the least support across Canada. There is a reason for that.

While some limited portions of the NDP agenda may be somewhat appealing, Canadians know that entrusting the public purse to the NDP is about as smart as giving kids caffeine before bedtime. They will tax our energy all night and keep on asking for more.

Canadians cannot endorse the reckless spending and the anti-growth agenda advocated by New Democrats. We only have to look at my home province of Saskatchewan to see how the NDP-managed discourages innovation and drives people away. Accordingly, this new budget represents the beginning of a significant realignment in Canadian politics. The Liberals have abandoned a mainstream approach to governing defined by fiscal prudence to one ripe with billions in unaccountable spending dictated to them by the least popular party in Canada.

Amazingly, the government is demanding members in the opposition endorse the legislation. Not only would this course of action jeopardize Canada's economic future, it would turn the public purse into a prize on what the Waterloo Record has called Canada's news game show, “Let's Spin the Taxpayers' Wheel of Misfortune and Make a Deal”. In a frantic attempt to cling to power, the government has made the first winner of this game show the smallest party in Parliament and its leader.

What did the leader of the fourth place party have to do to win this prize? It is simple. Change his tune completely on this government and agree to prop it up.

The NDP just months ago voted against the budget. The NDP just months ago did not have confidence in this government. The NDP just months ago was prepared to force an election. The NDP was ready to, and in fact did, play politics.

Even more, the leader of the NDP publicly chided my party for having the audacity for refusing to bring down the government and force an election this past February. Why? Because apparently the budget of a few months ago was all wrong, especially for the residents of my home province of Saskatchewan. The NDP went to great lengths. According to the leader of the NDP, the budget did nothing for Saskatchewan and he was extremely concerned about what had happened in the budget.

Let me quote from the February 25 Globe and Mail :

New Democrats said that if the Tories vote for the Liberal budget, they will revel in pointing that out to voters on the hustings, especially in the West, which has several ridings that are Conservative-NDP races. One NDP adviser said the party would have a field day pointing to a Tory vote for a budget that funds the gun registry and does little for farmers.

However, when the government, like a parent desperately trying to silence a pouting child at the toy section of a department store, caved into NDP demands, something odd happened. While the NDP demanded some really expensive toys, $4.6 billion worth of them, paid for with Canadian taxpayers' hard earned money, it demanded nothing for Saskatchewan, and everything that was left out of the first budget was left out again. There is nothing for farmers, nothing for rural communities and nothing for Saskatchewan. I look forward to hearing the NDP explain that on the hustings.

I would also like the Liberal-NDP alliance to explain how this legislation resembles responsible financial management, or how this budget will improve the quality of lives of Canadians because we all know it is not and cannot.

This legislation is not responsible financial management. It represents the worst of the worst in unrestrained spending of the Liberal government. People in my riding and across Canada will not accept this. People like Russel Marcoux, the CEO of the Yanke Group of Companies, said, “we're hearing about a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there. Where is it all coming from?”

There is no fiscal responsibility evident right now. People know that if they were to model business decisions after the Liberal-NDP budget, they would not have to worry about making other business decisions for a long time after that. Insolvency will do that for them. Even more troubling, Bill C-48 lays out no plan for spending. It only lays out a lot of spending. It commits millions to a large number of areas with absolutely no plans on how the money will be spent.

Ironically, while the Gomery inquiry is examining sponsorship spending in the 1990s by the Liberal government, this legislation would allow cabinet to again create and implement programs with absolutely no framework. It would allow cabinet to make payments in any manner it deems fit. The Liberal Party of Canada, the party of ad scam and the party of Alfonso Gagliano, wants Canadian taxpayers to trust it with their money, to implement programs with no framework and no accountability. Those are not shrieks of delight from hardworking, overtaxed Canadians.

Nancy Hughes Anthony, the president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, recently stated that one would have thought, what with ad scam and these sorts of things, that the accountability would be increased, but we are seeing that the accountability seems to be decreased. How any rational individual could seriously consider endorsing this total absence of a framework is puzzling at best?

The Liberal Party of Canada created a problem for themselves with ad scam and the resulting tales of deceit and corruption emanating from the Gomery inquiry. Now the Prime Minister and his party want to use the Canadian taxpayers to bail them out.

Like the bank robbers who throw money into the air to confuse the authorities during a getaway, the Liberal Party is trying to deflect attention from ad scam with an unparalleled spending blitz. While the NDP has been a willing getaway driver setting its price for cooperation, the Canadian public cannot and will not easily comply.

If a CEO of any reputable company wanted to increase spending and reduce revenue in the midst of a major crisis, the board of directors would surely ask for his or her resignation. Canadians are the directors of the Canadian government. We should expect no less and demand no less. This is no way to run a country.

We in Saskatchewan have an NDP government. We know what we are talking about when we see our hard earned taxpayer dollars go to a government that has no clue about responsible government and spending.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of trust is really being flushed out with the member for Newmarket—Aurora. At least as New Democrats we negotiated a deal as a party position under what we stood for as Canadians but Conservative members are now crossing the floor to join cabinet positions. We stand by our principles in terms of the things that we fought for at election time to make a better Canada. We are very pleased with what Bill C-48 does.

The fact is that this is a better balanced budget and it is also one that is very reasonable. We were very pleased, for example, to take the opportunity to extract corporate tax cuts to the largest corporations and redirecting that elsewhere. We think it will be very successful for the economy. For example, we think there will be a housing boom for many of the different construction industries. We do know that many people need affordable housing which will then put that money back into the system as opposed to having to pay rent at a higher level which makes it difficult for them to be able to sustain families. We believe it is very much a family issue.

The government has historically over the last 12 years, via major surpluses, underestimated the budget, so we are quite confident. Our party did due diligence with different economists, those in the party system and outside of our party system, to ensure what we were doing was reasonable and was achievable. That is something that we believe will see fruition and that is important for Canadians.

When we went to the break week, while the leader of the official opposition said that he would talk to Canadians about whether to go to an election and then consider voting against the budget because his party did not vote against it when it first came forward, we did not sit around and wait to see whether the Conservatives and the Bloc would team up to bring this country to an election or, alternatively, live with a bad budget. We voted against it because we believed it did not represent the views of our constituents.

We sought to make changes to make Parliament work. We negotiated something that is of benefit to Canadians, something that makes me comfortable as an individual and something that is above board. We did not do it in a way that was disrespectful of the House. When we came back from the break we had a position that we could now support. As New Democrats, that was better than sitting around waiting to see if the other parties would bring this to an election or have to eat a budget that did not suit the needs of Canadians.

This budget still has a lot of holes in it and is not as good as we would like it to be but it is balanced and fair. It is a compromise for some of the things that we have asked Canadians to support us on. We will be proud to hopefully get those achievements into our communities to have a better Canada for all of us.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-43 and to talk about some of the things that are important to Canadians with regard to this budget. We want to make sure that there is some stability in this country. Moving forward on this budget is important. If a potential election is looming, this country should at least have a budget before that. The New Democrats have been working on Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, the amendments that we proposed, to make sure that Canadians do not go without a budget.

I want to touch on a couple of topics. One of them is a specific reference to students.

My constituency of Windsor West has thousands of students because of our great St. Clair College of applied arts and technology and the University of Windsor. Those two institutions have been at the forefront of training and educational opportunities for young people. Those institutions have been important not only to the growth of their students' knowledge in specific areas related to the arts and humanities but also in terms of training. One example would be with respect to the automotive industry, through research and development at CARE, the Centre for Automotive Research and Excellence. St. Clair College has specific programs, such as the Ford Centre for Excellence.

Students have been moving successfully through a process to obtain skills and abilities that lead the way to ensuring that our auto industry has trained professionals that will contribute very much to the economy in the short term, but also in the long term to be progressive with some of the newer technologies. The automotive industry is the single most important industry that contributes to the coffers of this nation. It also provides stable employment for thousands of people across the country, be it through the initial manufacturing and assembly process or through servicing the vehicles later on. We need to protect that stable economic pillar of Canada.

The two budget bills, Bill C-43, now amended through Bill C-48, are not perfect by any means. Certain things give me some concern. There are some things that are being done now but not to the degree that I would have wished. However, it is a better budget . I will be supporting it because the students at the university and the college in my riding will be receiving some type of an offset in terms of tuition. This is a very important part of our future progress.

The government has downloaded educational costs over the last 12 years to students. Not only does it affect them, but it affects the country because literally, students are leaving post-secondary institutions with tens of thousands of dollars of debt. They are also graduating later in life. Not having the opportunity to start their careers earlier leads to a couple of problems. When they leave university with such massive debts, they are not likely to purchase vehicles and other manufactured goods, and they are not able to purchase new homes or renovate old homes. Servicing such massive debts is a major burden for them.

It also hampers something else which I think is overlooked. They leave school later and therefore, they start their families later in life. For example, my wife and I wanted to service our debts first. We decided to wait a little longer before starting a family. Many delay having their families. The consequence sometimes is there are smaller families because people do not start them until later in life.

One thing which young people face today and which is a major shift and is really critical is that they have less pensionable earning years. They are servicing these massive debts in their late twenties and it is taking them until their mid-thirties to erase those debts. They are delaying purchasing things, whether it be a car, a house or other things they need because they are paying massive interest. They are delaying economic growth. Their pensionable earnings are condensed because of the current types of employment. Getting a pension is very difficult and having the same job over one's life cycle now is more difficult.

The colleges and universities in my community are setting up programs and services that will allow people to go back to school and upgrade their skills and abilities. Previously more support was given to individuals to get those skills and abilities through their employer or through some type of program training. This is now being put on the backs of students again. Having student relief in the budget is important. The last 12 years have been extremely negative in terms of our educational system by placing the entire burden on the backs of students.

People in my constituency are giving up on some career and educational opportunities because they do not want that type of burden placed upon them. As a result we are eliminating some of the new people we need to contribute to our economy.

We can apply the same thing to the automotive industry. Newer technologies are out there now and our party has been pushing for a green auto strategy, something that David Suzuki has supported. We have proposed a number of different positive initiatives that would get newer vehicles on the road.

The government has claimed that this budget is a green budget. It is certainly an improvement but I think more could be done. One of the things we could do to clean up our environment would be to get some of the older vehicles off the road. This would not only be good for the environment, but it would be good for the automotive industry itself.

Older vehicles, even though they could be compact cars, often have higher emissions than some of the newer vehicles on the road today. This is a result of the different standards that are in place now and the way they operate. Getting those newer vehicles on the road would improve our environment. We need to ensure that the government's commitment to the automotive industry is stronger.

This budget is a good step toward giving students some basic relief. Students delay purchasing vehicles because they are servicing a massive debt load. Constituents have told me they would like to purchase some things but cannot afford to because of the financial burden they are facing. That financial burden gets worse as people go to the next level of post-secondary education where they are looking at graduate degrees or looking at specific training because they already have their under-graduate degree.

In terms of continuing to expect people to have a higher degree of education and to have the skills and abilities required for the workforce, we were faced with the issue of putting the entire burden on them. I think this budget is the first step in the right direction.

I hope the government takes my message strongly that other industrialized nations have been reducing the cost of tuition. In fact, some countries actually do not have tuition fees, which is what we could do here in Canada. The issue is not always about how much money is actually put into a budget.

One of the things I would like to see changed is the policy relating to interest rates on student debt. Why is it that an individual can get a car loan or a couch loan at a lower rate of interest than a student loan? This predatory practice of having high interest rates on student debt is something that could be adjusted and it would be very worthwhile. It would generate that income back into the economy and allow people to pay off their debt quicker as opposed to the predatory basis of having them borrow money and the government making a profit off the backs of individuals who want to improve their educational and vocational stature.

I will be supporting this budget. It is the first step of many toward ensuring that our young people leave college and university with a lower debt load while at the same time having the skills and abilities necessary to make Canada a competitive nation for the upcoming challenges.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address Bill C-43.

At the outset I would like to pay tribute to the Liberal member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell who I just spoke with a minute ago. He has been in this place for a long time and is retiring, and will not be running again. Although we have often been at odds in this place I respect him as a parliamentarian. He has put many years of public service into this place. I believe it is over 20 years now. I certainly wish him well in his retirement whenever that may actually come.

The Conservative Party deeply regrets how the government has changed this legislation and weakened it. We have other concerns about this legislation, but we regret that some of the changes that the government has made to Bill C-43 will hurt families, seniors, and large employers, the people who employ so many people in this country. The changes will also hurt farmers and people who provide necessary vital services in this country like our military and front line police officers. Those are the people who are going to be wounded by this legislation. Many people will be hurt by the changes that have been made to Bill C-43 and the adoption of Bill C-48, and I want to talk a bit about that today.

I just heard an NDP member ask a Liberal member about the removal of the tax relief for large employers in Canada and then talked about how it was important that the money instead go to affordable housing for instance. I would simply make the observation that if the tax relief for large employers is taken out, that will pretty much guarantee the need for more affordable housing in Canada because there will be a lot fewer jobs.

A study came down recently from the C.D. Howe Institute that pointed out that if the government had actually followed through on the tax relief for large employers, it would have created 340,000 jobs in Canada. I thought the NDP was the friend of labour. I thought that was the party that wanted to see more good paying jobs, jobs that would allow people to look after their families and put their children through university, and do the things that ordinary Canadians want and deserve. What they really want is some hope. Unfortunately, by the government doing the kinds of things it has done with Bill C-43, it is taking that hope away from a lot of people.

I want to argue too that there are other problems in Bill C-43. There are concerns about how tepid the personal tax relief is for Canadians. The income tax cut for individual Canadians in the upcoming tax year amounts to $16. That is it.

As I pointed out in the debate yesterday on Bill C-48, many Liberal advertising agency executives received their money. They received bags of money, literally, from the government through the sponsorship program. They received suitcases full of money amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars. What do rank and file Canadians get? They get a $16 tax cut. That is not enough to buy a large coffee at Tim Hortons once a month. It sounds like Canadians are rolling up the rim and losing with the government, but Liberal ad executives have done extraordinarily well.

When the government wants to deliver money, it can deliver it by the suitcase full to the people it wants to deliver it to. However, when it comes to rank and file Canadians, the Liberals are all too prepared to sacrifice their principles to look after themselves. We saw it in the sponsorship scandal. We are seeing it now in Bill C-43. The government caved in to the NDP with the creation of Bill C-48. We will reap the whirlwind for this legislation.

I am not just talking about the impact on jobs and the standard of living. I hasten to point out, as other members have pointed out in this place, that since 1989 the standard of living, the take home pay in Canada, has only gone up 3.6%. It amounts to an $84 a year increase. That is unforgiveable in a country that should be so extraordinarily wealthy.

We should be the wealthiest country in the world. We have resources that are the envy of the world. We have tremendous human resources, people who are knowledgeable and have an education. We have a diverse population. However, that is not translating into a higher standard of living.

I argue that the reason is because of poor government policies. One of the greatest advantages of all is that we have this access to the U.S. market, the richest market in the world ever and 25% of the world's economy. We should be mining that, but unfortunately, we have very bad government policy. I am afraid that the government has just made it worse again. It has made it worse again by removing the tax relief for large employers which would have encouraged more investment in Canada. Many investors would use that to start businesses in Canada and then use the more or less open border to the U.S. to sell their goods and services.

That is what has happened in the past, but we are losing that. We are taking it away voluntarily now for some reason. We know why. It is because the government is too prepared to sell out Canadians in order to save its own skin by getting 19 votes from the NDP. That is simply wrong.

I want people to think about what could happen if we did not do the sorts of things that are being contemplated today. In Bill C-48 the government is giving the NDP $4.6 billion to play with. I did some quick math and that works out to about $150 per person in Canada.

I think about a family that I know, a great family that lives not far down the road from us. They have four children. If we took that $150 per person and allowed them to keep it, it would be $900 with six of them in the family. If the members of that family were able to keep that, imagine what they could do with that every year. That extra $900 could go into an RESP for education or an RRSP.

Let us say that they put it into an RRSP and let us say they got a really good yield on that. Let us say they got a 10% yield on average. I know that is a high yield, but I did some figuring and over 30 years it would amount to about $150,000 which would be a nest egg for them when they retired.

Let us say that they only get a 7% yield. It would still be $80,000 or $90,000. It is a tremendous amount of money that they could use for their retirement. Why not allow people to keep more of this money in their own pockets, so they can make decisions for their families?

I think it is time for Canadians to get their cut. Liberal bagmen and the Liberal Party got their cut. There is no question about that. We have had confessions from three executive directors of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party, basically confessing to all the money coming back to the Liberal Party out of the sponsorship program. Bureaucrats and politicians got their cut. In fact, the bureaucracy in Canada has grown by 77% since 1997-98. That is a tremendous amount, but what happens to the take home pay of Canadians? It has gone up 3.6% in 15 years.

It sounds like the ones who are getting the short end of the stick are families, farmers and fishermen. When the NDP cut this deal, it claimed to be concerned about farmers, but did it think of farmers when it got all this money out of the government? No, not one penny for people on the farm.

We have the worst crisis in agriculture today since the Great Depression. That is not an exaggeration. That is an absolute fact. In 2003 we saw incomes fall on the farm into negative margins for the first time since the thirties. Did the NDP think of farmers when it cut its deal with the Liberals? No, it did not.

We must defeat Bill C-48. Bill C-43 has become deeply flawed. I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to consider this as we prepare to vote on both of these measures on Thursday.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his insights. These comments are not often brought to the floor of the House within the context of the budget, comments that reflect on our international responsibilities and accountability which we have shared over the last number of decades, from a developmental and an exchange of ideas with the developing communities of the world. This is nowhere more reflected than in the cities' relationships through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the city to city, municipality to municipality international exchange that exists with developing countries.

One of the highlights of the budget is to emphasize that the new deal is more than a gas tax for infrastructure in Canada. While that may be very important, it is also to empower municipalities to reach out as part of that Canadian signature that reflects our compassion and outlook to the global community, in particular, developing countries.

Would my colleague perhaps expand a little on how he thinks municipalities could be more effective, given that they have been given the empowerment, through the highlight in the throne speech of the new deal and through Bill C-48, which increases the capacity of cities to become part of a much larger new deal at home and perhaps an international new deal in the global context?

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in the House today in support of budget 2005. I believe this budget will bring about real investments in real people that focus on real priorities of people in communities across New Brunswick and in Saint John, Rothesay and Quispamsis.

Our government has eliminated deficits and recorded our eighth consecutive budget surplus while reinvesting in our social programs and paying down our debt. We can now move forward and focus on our number one priority: improving the quality of life for all Canadians.

In my home province of New Brunswick and in my riding of Saint John, we are working hard, together, to improve our quality of life and grow our community. We need true growth. We have made great strides forward, but there remains much work to be done.

In September 2004, first ministers signed a 10 year plan to strengthen health care, which has provided $41 billion over 10 years, $927 million of which goes to New Brunswick. Budget 2005 builds on this. This money goes to reduce wait times at hospitals and to support for nurses. Our hospitals are the largest employers in Saint John, New Brunswick and our government is committed to ensuring that health care and our health care system remain strong in our community.

Saint John also needs more units of affordable housing. We have one of the oldest housing stocks in Canada. I am glad that the Minister of Labour and Housing was able to visit Saint John in January and assess the specific needs of our community. The minister has already responded to a request made by the Saint John community during his visit and opened a new housing office to address the distinct affordable housing needs of Saint John.

Budget 2005 invests a further $1.6 billion in affordable housing in Canada. I am committed to building 100 new units of affordable housing per year in Saint John. I am working together with our provincial government and our non-profit housing sector to ensure that this happens.

I am excited by the work currently being undertaken as part of the vibrant communities initiative and the non-profit housing sector in greater Saint John to provide safe and affordable housing for individuals and families. We recently announced $150,000 to assist this organization, which came from the Minister of Public Safety. The Government of Canada will continue to be a proactive partner in improving the quality of life and reducing poverty in Saint John.

Child care is another important item in the budget of 2005. Last week we were hoping to have the Prime Minister and the Premier of New Brunswick visit Saint John and announce a child care agreement. It is unfortunate that the province has decided not to sign this agreement yet, but we believe that Saint John and New Brunswick need this agreement, especially in Saint John, a city where one in four children lives in poverty. It is my hope that we can put partisan politics aside and sign this agreement as soon as possible.

The children of our province are our greatest asset. Budget 2005 provides the funding that will help them make a better tomorrow for our future.

Budget 2005 is also good news for the seniors of my riding. The guaranteed income supplement benefit for low income seniors is rising by $2.7 billion in this budget. Simply put, by January 2007, for a single person in my riding of Saint John, New Brunswick, that is $36 a month and $58 a month for couples.

The new funding for the new horizons program for seniors is also being increased in this budget. I recently announced funding for new horizons projects in Saint John, New Brunswick, for St. Joseph's Hospital's community health centre. I look forward to more announcements for seniors in the months ahead.

Clearly, budget 2005 also recognizes the enormous debt of gratitude we owe our seniors and this is especially fitting as we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the end of the second world war, for the year 2005 is the year of the veteran.

Budget 2005 also reaffirms our commitment to regional development by supporting agencies like ACOA. Projects in Saint John like Lily Lake, Harbour Passage, the Quispamsis Park, Fundy Trail and Enterprise Saint John have all been beneficiaries of ACOA. ACOA continues to help Saint John, New Brunswick and Atlantic Canada build and grow.

Finally, budget 2005 delivers on the Government of Canada's new deal for cities and communities, providing a commitment on the gas tax for revenues to increase important infrastructure for Saint John, Rothesay, Quispamsis and Grand Bay. These are important benefits that we need in this community now. New Brunswick's share is about $116 million and the funding is absolutely critical to greater Saint John.

The new deal recognizes the reality that municipalities need reliable, predictable and long term sources of funding. I am happy that this budget is able to do that. The renewal of existing infrastructure programs is of critical importance to Saint John because, let us be clear, our number one future priority is the Saint John's harbour cleanup. This is the number one environmental issue. It is a public health issue and an economic development issue.

Our port in Saint John needs to balance finding new jobs for our workers with the recent development of our cruise ship business in the harbour. If we are going to attract new ships and new industry in tourism, we must clean up our harbour. If we are going to improve our health, we must clean up our harbour. If we are going to attract and convince young people to stay in our community, our harbour needs to be cleaned up.

Looking for new opportunities for our port workers and harbour cleanup go hand in hand. This is not something that the city of Saint John can do alone. In this regard, we have been working hard as a team in Saint John to bring forward our common priorities for Saint John and our region. Last fall I brought the mayor and council of Saint John to Ottawa for meetings with various ministers of the government, including our Prime Minister and the Minister of State for Infrastructure, and of course our regional minister for New Brunswick, the hon. member for Fredericton.

We continue to present a united front for our community. Our community is committed to harbour cleanup. Earlier this month, Team Saint John meetings continued with our minister for infrastructure, where we had councillors Glen Tait and Chris Titus, along with our commissioner, talking about the follow-up to important meetings for harbour cleanup. The federal, provincial and municipal governments are all working together in our community of Saint John. We realize that the renewal of existing infrastructure programs is of critical importance to Saint John.

In conclusion, our work has just begun. We need to work with the province to develop solutions for Point Lepreau. We need child care. We need to further reduce wait times at hospitals. We need to equip our nurses with better tools. We need jobs for young people and jobs at our port. We need safe housing and we need a clean harbour. I urge the House to put partisan bickering aside and get to work passing the budget bill, Bill C-48, and doing the work that Canadians sent us here to do.

I move:

That this question be now put.

Bill C-48

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion:

That Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, be deemed to have been read a second time, referred to committee of the whole, reported without amendment, concurred in at report stage, read a third time and passed.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I genuinely thank the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his enthusiastic support of Bill C-48. He was pretty straightforward in saying that this bill, in terms of his budget priorities, reflects both his personal philosophy and that of Canadians.

I have to say, without any disrespect, that the member for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour, who enthusiastically supports Bill C-48, must have been profoundly disappointed in the budget that was brought in by his own party. Even though Canadians saw that these were the priorities that made sense and that he personally felt that, his party clearly did not. It was not until there was incredible political pressure brought to bear that these priorities emerged.

I want to speak to the question raised by the member from Abitibi. He is not the only one who has asked this question today or on previous occasions. He wants to know why the NDP would be so trusting or naive to think that the government would actually deliver on the priorities that are now contained within the NDP enhanced budget.

I would raise the following question and ask the member to address it. Should Canadians not think about the fact that it took 19 New Democrats to work with the government to say that we are responsible to make this work and we got these kinds of changes? However the combined forces of the 153 members sitting on the opposition benches from the no longer progressive conservative party and the Bloc were not sufficient to actually make a difference in shifting the priorities of this budget.

How will the member explain why he is asking people to vote for him in the next election, instead of Anne-Marie Foote or Peter Mancini, whose party also supports these priorities, in addition to Canadians personally supporting these priorities?

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, the member raised a lot of questions. I will try to go from memory and pick them off one by one.

The member spoke about affordable housing. He asked why we needed to have the NDP to bring that money into the budget. We in this government have done a lot in affordable housing in Canada in the last few years; last year we campaigned on it. One of the problems we have had is that some provinces, including my own province of Nova Scotia, would not match the money. There was $13 million put aside for Nova Scotia that was not matched by the provincial government.

The federal government identified this as a priority. We said we would actually make it easier for the provinces to match those moneys. We said we would increase the flexibility; so perhaps rent supplements are a way to go. We are going in that direction. I mentioned the announcement we made in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for people who cannot not afford housing, who do not have access to decent housing, and who are mental health consumers. We have now reached a deal with the province of Nova Scotia to address that.

In terms of the environment, this was already called the greenest budget in Canadian history, with huge investments in the environment: retrofitting, energy efficiency and a whole slate of initiatives. I think anyone on this side of the House would be pleased to debate the environment with anyone else in the House.

If we do go into an election soon I will certainly take the budget with me. I will be going with the environment, with affordable housing and with international development, and I will be saying that we have a record: we have made promises, we have kept them, and Bill C-48 only makes it that much better.

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to lend my voice to the support of Bill C-48. This bill reflects not only my personal philosophies but those of this government and I believe those of Canadians.

We as Canadians sometimes forget how fortunate we are to live in this country. We hear a lot of bickering and complaining in the media and indeed in the House, more so recently, about this government policy or that government proposal.

When it comes right down to it, though, Canadians are proud of who they are and where their country is going. I believe Bill C-48 builds on that feeling of pride Canadians have, that diversity and compassion, and that belief that we are stronger when we help those who are weak and we are better together than we are apart.

Let us look at the areas to which this bill targets funding. One is $1.6 billion for affordable housing. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to be in my riding when we announced cooperation with the province of Nova Scotia on some very important initiatives. One in particular in the riding of Dartmouth—Cole Harbour was with Affirmative Industries, a project that will help mental health consumers and not only give them a place to live but allow them to build up a bit of equity and increase their dignity.

In my own province of Nova Scotia, a lot of money from the federal government has not been used; it has not been matched by the province. We are taking steps right now to make this more flexible so that the province can in fact build those houses.

There is $900 million for the environment and $1.5 billion for post-secondary education following the massive investment of the federal government on research in universities, Madam Speaker, which I know you are familiar with. We are now the highest public investor in research in the G-8.

There is also a $500 million increase in foreign aid.

How can one argue with those initiatives, initiatives that build on the priorities that are already in the budget?

I do want to address one issue, though. People say the budget is no longer our budget. The enhancement of certain measures as a result of the agreement with my colleagues in the New Democratic Party was the right thing to do in this Parliament, because Canadians want to see this Parliament work for all Canadians.

Let me be clear. The minister's budget as introduced in February was an excellent budget by any measure, a budget that is widely supported by Canadians and by the many stakeholder groups. In fact, the budget was immediately supported by the Leader of the Opposition, who said there was nothing in this budget that would necessitate a second election within a year. Shortly after that, the member for Central Nova said that “Canadians want to see Parliament work”, an interesting comment.

One of the key items in this bill calls for an increase in foreign aid, a particularly important issue for Canada. We are respected around the world and well known for our generosity when it comes to helping the less fortunate. It is to this portion of the bill that I would like to direct my comments this evening.

In recent years, the Government of Canada has significantly increased the amount of assistance that we provide to developing countries. Budget 2005 builds upon previous increases in aid by providing an additional $3.4 billion in international assistance over the next five years.

With these commitments, Canada is well on its way to meeting its goal of doubling its international assistance budget by 2010-11 and supporting the ambitious poverty reduction agenda of the United Nations millennium development goals. Clearly we are moving in the right direction.

There is no question that there is more we can do. On a personal level, I think we need to reach the Pearson goal of 0.7% as soon as we possibly can. It is our duty to the citizens of the world who need our help. I have spoken to that issue in the House before and I suspect I may again, but we are making great strides.

Canada's efforts are very much centred on helping the poorest countries, particularly those in Africa. This budget, in addition to increasing international assistance over the next five years, provides an additional $342 million for African health issues. This funding is helping to eradicate polio worldwide and to reduce AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. Furthermore, the budget commits Canada to double our assistance to Africa by 2008-09 from our 2003-04 levels.

International assistance also involves helping countries and regions affected by conflict and humanitarian crises. Afghanistan and Haiti are examples. Stability and the absence of conflict are necessary for effective development cooperation. Accordingly, budget 2005 announced $500 million over the next five years to focus on promoting global peace and security.

Let us not forget the countries affected by the tsunami just after Christmas. Canadians were deeply affected by this tragedy and, in true Canadian style, responded generously with personal donations of approximately $200 million to help the victims begin to rebuild their shattered lives.

Immigrant communities in Canada were also galvanized into action. I had an opportunity to meet with the Sri Lankan community in Dartmouth a few weeks ago and talked to people whose relatives had been washed away in the tsunami. This money has been remitted to relatives and friends in the region and has played an important role in early efforts to build new homes, schools and businesses.

For its part, the Government of Canada recognized that these recovery efforts required both immediate and long term commitment of resources and responded with disaster relief and rehabilitation assistance. I am proud to say that Canada was also the first country to offer an immediate moratorium on debt payments owed by these countries.

Speaking of debt relief, Canada will continue to provide leadership on this issue. Our Prime Minister has a long record of international acclaim for his role as finance minister.

Most recently, on February 2, 2005, Canada announced a debt relief proposal that aims for donors to provide 100% debt service relief on all payments owed by up to 56 low income countries to the International Development Association of the World Bank and the African Development Fund until 2015.

Canada has committed to provide $172 million over the next five years to implement our share of this proposal. Our new proposal builds on a legacy of Canadian action on debt, such as the Canadian debt initiative. Under this initiative, Canada has gone beyond the international consensus and has put in place a debt moratorium on all payments owed to Canada by eligible poor countries.

In total, 13 countries have received over $600 million in bilateral debt relief and a further $600 million will be forgiven once the initiative is fully implemented. This past April, for example, the Minister of Finance announced the cancellation of all debt owed to Canada by Zambia, Honduras and Rwanda.

If I may, I will say a few words about the Minister of International Cooperation. She has led her department with but one overarching purpose: to help people in the developing world. I can think of few others as committed to the cause of justice as this minister.

The proposal in Bill C-48 authorizes the government to spend an additional $500 million on foreign aid. Canada is making its contribution as part of the global community. Passage of this bill will allow us to do even more.

The Minister of Finance has said that too many resources in developing nations are being soaked up to pay for yesterday's debts. That is true. Would it not be better for these countries to be able to invest in social and economic initiatives today so they can have a better quality of life tomorrow? The government has shown its commitment to help developing countries overcome the terrible burden of debt so they can reinvest in their own growth. Bill C-48 is a great step in that direction.

The bill is about making Parliament work and about making Canada better. It is the fiscal dividend of an economy that has been solidly managed over the past 12 years. The bill builds on a budget that reinvests in Canadian priorities, because we are now strong enough to do so and because it is the right thing to do.

This morning I was present when the Prime Minister and the premier of my province, Dr. Hamm, signed the Nova Scotia child care deal, part of our national child care strategy. The woman who acted as MC for this event is a long time child care champion from Dartmouth, with over 20 years of providing care to children, who runs a centre for those who are most in need. She spoke to the federal budget and said it is the most significant advancement that she has seen. She is not a partisan person by any means, but she said that this budget must be passed and she was right.

The federal budget is the most important investment in Canadian social and international priorities in recent times. Bill C-48 builds on that success and reflects the values and the beliefs of Canadians.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not have time to have a full debate on Keynesian economics or Reagan economics, but I would ask the hon. member this. The member is an experienced member. I have referred in my comments to the NDP-Liberal deal and the possibility of a purchase of the NDP votes or perhaps just a renting of them for a period of time.

If one examines Bill C-48, there is no obligation on the part of the government whatsoever to honour any of the expenditure commitments which the NDP has agreed to with the government. Is the NDP not concerned that it has been had? There is absolutely no obligation on the part of the government to spend any money in pursuit of the NDP priorities. This is a rental agreement that is unlike any I have ever seen. I caution my friends to be careful.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I know we have heard again and again, it is like a right wing mantra from the no longer progressive Conservatives, that the priority should have been to pass on more tax cuts to big corporations because that is what strengthens the economy and generates the jobs. However, I cannot believe for a moment that the hon. member and his colleagues are not aware of the considerable research on the most cost effective forms of job generation and the most effective ways to strengthen the economy.

It is literally true that detailed economic analysis would show that tax cuts are not the most cost effective way to generate jobs. It is direct public investment in things that not only have the job generation pay off but also the benefits of direct delivery, predictable, targeted, intended delivery, for high priority things that Canadians want.

On that alone, Bill C-48 should be supportable by anybody who makes the pretense that jobs need to be a more important part of this budget. It is absolutely well established and well documented that affordable housing, that housing construction and energy retrofitting are some the most job-intensive forms of investment that can be made.

Regarding post-secondary education, not only is there considerable job generation in post-secondary education funding investment, but in the other parts of that agreement for better training. What better way to strengthen our economy than to make that kind of investment? Let us not pretend there are not a lot of jobs directly in post-secondary education.

I could go on with more examples. If we take the four priorities contained within Bill C-48, the evidence is overwhelming that if we are only concerned about jobs, it is still clear that a more cost effective investment with lasting benefits to Canadians is to invest not in tax cuts for big corporations but direct services.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, clearly this is a scheme by which the Liberals and the NDP are working together to overtax Canadians, to engage in vote buying on a massive scale, $4.5 billion, in a way that is not in keeping with parliamentary history and our constitutional traditions.

What about everyone else who has been left out of the budget in the first place? What about the municipalities, fishermen, farmers, seniors and aboriginal Canadians? Why are we not pursuing at this time cuts in taxes?

My friend from Langley has raised that question. If we were to give everyday Canadians a tax cut of $1,000 per year, they could invest that in a RRSP instead of having that money gobbled up by increased government expenditures, which is what we have seen over the last five years to six years in the country. If we gave Canadians an extra $1,000 to keep in their pockets, they could spend it on their child care choices, or on senior citizens or on helping their parents. They could spend it on a wide variety of things.

If we as Canadians received that kind of a tax cut, $1,000 per year invested at 5% over 20 years would amount to $35,000 that Canadians could save. It would be $70,000 if we looked at it over 30 years. Those are the priorities of Canadians, saving money, being conscious of the needs of one's children, choice in parental care, choice in day care, choice in taking care of one's parents and working with them through their retirement. Those are the choices that Canadians would make. Many people would save that money and create jobs. Those should be the priorities of Canadians today.

Those are the priorities of the Conservative Party and that is how we would administer the finances of the Government of Canada, not in a way that we see in Bill C-48, which is such a flagrant abuse of the nation's finances.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing with us his perspective on Bill C-48. He brought up very good points. Canadians are overtaxed, they want to have some relief and the Conservative Party will offer that.

Bill C-48 is not what was originally presented to the House. It has been modified. We have $4.5 billion that was used by the government to crack a deal with the NDP. I would like to ask the member this. Why has the government has done that. Why would it take $4.5 billion of taxpayer dollars, not government dollars, to crack a deal with the NDP?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the citizens of Calgary Centre-North to address Bill C-48, legislation which carries a rather euphemistic title “An act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments”.

The “certain payments” which the legislation refers to total $4.6 billion and the net effect of this legislation is to create a fund of surplus taxes from which the Liberals can purchase 19 NDP votes in the House of Commons. Never before has a government spent so much to acquire so little. In fairness, the NDP has not been purchased, it has just been rented.

This is surely no way for the Government of Canada to go about its business. My objection to this legislation starts from the fact that the Liberal government has become completely confused about the difference between taxpayer money and its own.

Let me cut to the chase. This bill purports to create a $4.6 billion political slush fund which would be financed from surpluses that the government expects to record in the 2005-06 and the 2006-07 years. The Liberals have promised the NDP, with all the sincerity of a daylight burglar, to spend that money on NDP priorities.

This is one of a number of very curious things which the Liberals are attempting to do in their efforts to cling to power at all costs. However, nothing which they have proposed is more curious than this. They are proposing to tax everyday Canadians at tax levels which would generate surpluses of $4.6 billion, so that they can have a blank cheque to spend those surpluses on purposes which suit their narrow political agenda. Only a government which has completely lost its fiscal and moral compass would propose such a thing.

As nearly as I can tell, the taxpayers of Canada have never consented to be governed in this way. Certainly the taxpayers in Calgary Centre-North have never agreed to that.

Where I come from, the taxpayers play by the rules. We pay our taxes and we expect that we are being taxed to pay our fair share of the cost of running this country. No one in my riding has ever consented to pay taxes at artificially high levels which would cover the cost of administering the Government of Canada plus the cost of accumulating a $4.6 billion slush fund to allow the Liberals to engage in partisan vote buying to mask their own corruption.

This is a vision of fiscal responsibility stood on its head. It is a legislative commitment to $4.6 billion in overtaxation coupled with a written commitment to squander it.

I object to this proposal on many grounds but also on constitutional grounds. This approach to taxation is unprecedented. In my view, it is entirely inconsistent with 817 years of parliamentary history, since something called the Saladin Tithe of 1188, in the reign of Henry II, in a far off place quite distant from here.

I would not want to lose my Liberal friends on a journey through parliamentary history, but it is noteworthy that since that time governments, parliaments and taxpayers have had a fairly uneasy but successful truce according to which Parliament approves the government's spending plans and Parliament consents to taxation to support those expenditures. No more, no less.

This approach has actually worked reasonably well throughout parliamentary history. In fact, the Saladin Tithe of 1188, which I spoke of, financed the third crusade which was, like the Liberal government, pretty much a complete disaster. On the third crusade, Frederick I of Germany drowned before he reached the Holy Land and Philip II of France retired, returning home, shortly after leaving. It all has a ring of familiarity to it.

However, after 817 years, the Liberals have a better crusade, that of overtaxation without representation. They will now ask Parliament for a blank cheque.

The government proposes to overtax all Canadians to the tune of $4.5 billion, and in return it offers to spend those surplus moneys on an assortment of promises which one would generously call ideas. Clause 3(c) of the statute would allow the government to make payments to anybody. Clause 3(b) would allow it to enter into an agreement with anyone.

It is all very perverse and it is all very irresponsible. Frankly, if there is no precedent to call it unconstitutional, it is only because it is so perverse that no one else has tried to do it in modern parliamentary history.

The chief economist of the TD Bank, who understands what is happening here, noted in a May 7 National Post editorial as follows:

--for years government has wanted an instrument that would allow it to allocate spending without having to say what it's for. This act will do it.

The residents of Calgary Centre-North want no part of this. The constituents of my riding will never submit to overtaxation, especially institutionalized overtaxation administered by a corrupt Liberal government.

The legislation undermines our nation's finances. What we need in the country is less government, not more, more efficiency in government expenditures, not less and more responsible and accountable taxation, not less. What we really need in the country is a responsible government with a strong new prime minister, aided by a group of decent men and women who would provide some stability and restore some common sense to our fiscal path. The hon. Leader of the Opposition will bring all of that to Canadians in the days ahead.

We need smart fiscal policies, not I would submit, Liberal fiscal policies. We need to reduce marginal tax rates. We need to reduce average tax rates. We need to constrain government spending and ensure that the men and women, for example, in my riding of Calgary Centre-North are able to keep more of their own money so they can make their own child care choices, their own choices for taking care of senior citizens and their own spending choices.

We need to eliminate taxes that penalize investment, that penalize savings and are punitive toward job generation. We need to free up the genius and the financial flexibility of the private sector, especially the small business sector which creates many of our jobs.

We need less regulation, less red tape and less punitive and confusing tax legislation. Instead the government brings forward a bizarre proposal of institutionalized overtaxation.

Who supports the government? It is not the people in my riding. The people of Calgary Centre-North pay their taxes and they do not support an artificially inflated tax regime that accumulates $4.5 billion of vote-buying money. Where are these citizens who want to be overtaxed so the Liberals can accumulate a $4.5 billion budgetary surplus, which I describe as a slush fund? They do not live in my riding.

I hear from parents who are struggling to raise their children. They do not want to be overtaxed. I hear from elderly Canadians, senior citizens in my riding. They do not want to be overtaxed. I hear from new Canadians, especially Asian Canadians in my riding struggling to make their way in this new country that they have chosen as their home. They do not want to be overtaxed either. I hear from single parents, students, white collar workers, blue collar workers, working mothers and stay at home moms. None of them have told me they want to pay taxes at a level that leads to surplus overtaxation.

Perhaps I am wrong in understanding my constituents. I can make a mistake just like anyone else I suppose. My staff and I checked through all the emails, letters, notes, cards and petitions that we have received. It turns out there is not a single person in my riding who has ever contacted me and asked that they submit to overtaxation.

I do not support the bill, which I regard as a perverse use of Parliament. It is overreaching and overtaxing. It undermines our nation's finances. It purports to be a finance measure when in truth it is nothing more than a naked attempt to impose surplus taxation, to write a corrupt government a blank $4.5 billion cheque so it can criss-cross the nation buying votes, attempting to distract itself and voters from its own corruption, scandal and criminality. I want no part of it and neither do the good citizens of Calgary Centre-North.

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are five areas in the budget which I would like to talk about.

There are five commitments that I made in the last election. Members will remember during that period, which was not that long ago, the number one issue facing Canadians. Right across the country, in Atlantic Canada, including the riding of my hon. friend from the Edmundston area, Quebec and every other province, health care was the single most important issue in the last election.

The Prime Minister made a commitment in that election campaign to deal with the health care issue. I was very proud to stand with him in Oakville at a meeting with people from Cancer Care Ontario when he said he was going to tackle the issue. It was a very moving dialogue. We talked about the problems with cancer. The Prime Minister gave them a commitment that he was going to put money into health care.

There is a lot of cynicism about the political process and politicians keeping their promises. The Prime Minister when he was the finance minister cleaned up the finances left by the previous Conservative government. He brought us back to being able to invest in the social programs. He made a commitment to people that he was going to put money into health care, some $41.3 billion. He had an agreement with all political parties. All provincial leaders representing every political party signed it, as did the territorial leaders.There were premiers from NDP governments, Liberal governments, Conservative governments.

The Prime Minister got the deal in the single most important issue facing Canadians. He did it not two years down the road, not three years down the road, not four years down the road. He did it after the election, which was on June 28, 2004, and by September he had a deal signed by every premier and every territorial leader of every political stripe.

That was the single largest reinvestment in health care since the introduction of medicare. On that particular issue the Prime Minister came through and did what he said he was going to do.

There are four other areas I want to talk about and explain how they relate to building on the priorities in Bill C-48.

On cities and communities, in the last budget we had already put in $7 billion in the GST rebate. We then promised we were going to increase it by $5 billion more and we came up with that commitment. Agreements were signed with Alberta and B.C. recently.

Child care is a very important issue as well. We have put $5 billion over five years into child care. We are very proud to have an agreement with the Ontario government to virtually double the number of child care spaces in the province of Ontario. That is a phenomenal record for a government that has been in less than a year, in making a commitment to the people on the child care issue and doubling it in the province of Ontario to $5 billion.

On health care we met our commitment. On cities and communities we met our commitment. I have met with mayors and the regional chair in my riding. They all want us to pass the budget, along with Bill C-48. On child care we have met our commitment as well.

I want to talk about the balanced budget provision. There was a lot of talk on the other side that we have to be fiscally responsible. It is a little rich coming from the Conservatives. At the end of their mandate when they left government after eight years there was a deficit of $40 billion. In the year that they were booted out and left with only two seats in the House, the deficit was actually heading toward $50 billion. A deficit of close to $50 billion was left for the Prime Minister when he was minister of finance to clean up. He had to clean up the mess left by Brian Mulroney. The Conservative government destroyed this country economically, politically and socially for many years to come.

When I look across I see some of the members who were part of that Brian Mulroney government. They are now back again. I say to them that the people of this country are never going to let them ever have control of the finances after what they did to this country and bankrupted us to the tune of $40 billion.

This Prime Minister when he was the minister of finance made a commitment to the people of this country to balance the budget. My hon. friend the parliamentary secretary will know that we have had eight straight balanced budgets. That is the first time since Confederation that we have had balanced budgets.

The people on the other side whose party gave us the largest deficit in the history of the country are trying to say that we do not know how to run the finances of the country. I look across the way and obviously there are some very young members who may not have been around in 1990 in terms of political careers, but there are some members over there who actually sat in the cabinet of the government that created a $40 billion deficit after eight years in government. And they are trying to tell us that we do not know how to have fiscally responsible budgets, when for eight straight balanced budgets we have done it.

It is not only a commentary to the current Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary, for whom I have a deep respect, but also to the Prime Minister who as the former minister of finance set that in place and cleaned up the mess. He did what he said he was going to do and balanced the budgets. Every other major country in the G-7, Japan, Italy, Germany, France, Britain and the United States, are all running deficits.

All the members opposite, the right wing group that came out of that reform ideology, who like George W. Bush and the tax cuts in the U.S., I will remind them that President George W. Bush is running a $1.4 trillion deficit over the next five years. I did not say billion; I said trillion. The U.S. cut taxes too much and ended up with huge deficits, to the point where in U.S. magazines some people are saying that is a bigger impediment to the security of the United States than some of the security measures in the rest of the world dealing with terrorism. That is how fundamentally difficult it is for Americans.

Members opposite have come out of that right wing reform ideology, including their leader who came through all that process. Those members have changed their party's name so many times it is as though they are in the witness protection program. They do not want anyone to know who they are. We all remember they were the reform party. Then they were the conservative-reform-alliance party, and I do not mean to be impolite, but it was known as CRAP in those days. Then they changed the name to the alliance party. Those members have changed their party's name so many times it is as though they are in the witness protection program. They want to hide their past.

The Conservatives look to George W. Bush and the Americans as the be-all and end-all. I say to those on the other side, look at the deficit he is running. It is an absolute disgrace with a trillion dollar deficit which will affect us. It is affecting the dollar and interest rates. The men and women on the other side who worship George W. Bush and his fiscal policies should be embarrassed for advocating the same thing that is literally bankrupting the U.S.

I will not even get into social security. We have a pension system that is well funded and will be there when I retire. When Emily, my hon. friend's baby daughter retires, the money will be there. In the U.S. the social security is not even secure. People say there will not be money there.

When I hear members on the other side say that Bill C-48 is not fiscally responsible, I say to them that they have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a few questions of the Bloc Québécois member who has just spoken.

I listened very carefully to the member's speech. I was with him when he condemned the government for the introduction of a budget that failed to deliver what was needed for affordable housing and energy retrofitting. I was with him absolutely all the way when he condemned the budget because it did not put money, as promised, into post-secondary education and training. I was with him all the way when he talked about how disgraceful it was that the original Liberal budget introduced in the House did not commit in any meaningful way to overseas development assistance. It did not even come close to putting in place timetables and targets to deliver on our longstanding commitment, actually a standard set by Canada in the first instance, of moving to commit 0.7% of our GDP to overseas development assistance.

Then he lost me, because he then said that his party could not support Bill C-48, which actually brings in concrete remedies for every one of those things that the Bloc members say was wrong with the original budget.

Let me make it absolutely clear that the budget does not deal with all of the shortcomings. It does not deal with everything we would like to see remedied. However, it is absolutely not accurate to characterize the budget as failing to address any of these things which the member himself outlined as priorities, because it precisely commits to deliver $4.5 billion. I get excited at the thought of that money being directed to the very priorities the member talked about.

I wonder if he could explain how it is that the very priorities he mentioned now are addressed in Bill C-48, yet he is rationalizing his way to a partnership with a party that he absolutely knows would not stand behind any of those priorities. It never has and never will. The damage and destruction caused by that party, by the ultra cons, the no longer progressive Conservatives, is exactly why we are in desperate shape trying to rebuild commitments to affordable housing, post-secondary education, energy retrofitting, public transit, all of the things that have been torn down because of the responsiveness of the Liberal government to those pressures not to do those things. Now the member wants to enter into an alliance with that party and call it progress. How does he explain that?

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to quote the start of the budget speech by the Minister of Finance:

Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to all those who have helped in the preparation of this 2005 federal budget—from the many organizations and professional groups that presented expert briefs, to Canadians from every corner of the country who submitted individual letters and ideas.

Their contributions, their counsel and their concerns have helped shape the budget I am tabling today.

The minister was telling tales. Bill C-48 makes this clear. At the first sign of significant pressure, he introduced a bill devoid of logic that negates all the consultations that occurred in the months preceding the tabling of the budget, including those held by the Standing Committee on Finance.

The Bloc Québécois voted against this budget when it was tabled. I simply want to briefly remind the House why. First, this budget did not propose any solution to the fiscal imbalance. Also, it made no attempt to respond to the needs of Quebeckers, with regard to EI, for example. There was no specific plan to implement the Kyoto protocol. Things have even gotten worse, since a bad plan for implementing the protocol was tabled. Today, farmers protested in front of the House of Commons. This budget did not meet their needs whatsoever. The same is true of international aid. This budget, like Bill C-43, has no respect whatsoever for Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

We voted against the budget and we will vote against the budget implementation bills, meaning Bills C-48 and C-43.

What is even more disturbing about Bill C-48 is that it is nothing but an empty shell. I may not have as many years in this House as some, but I do not believe I have ever seen such a senseless bill. It contains no minimums, only maximums, and no specific time lines. The amounts are contingent on whatever surplus there will be at the end of a fiscal year.

Mind you, I am not worried about the existence of a surplus. I am, in fact, sure that the actual surplus at the end of the fiscal year will be far more than set out in the budget. This is an old trick, one used by the previous government, and still being used by this one.

This bill does not reflect a number of realities, including the realities of Quebec. Once again, it encroaches on Quebec's jurisdiction, over education in particular.

This is, without a doubt, a hollow bill, and I find it hard to understand why the NDP got involved in this with no guarantee that its requirements would be respected. That was made clear when the NDP leader had to remind the Prime Minister that the corporate income tax reductions, which he required in exchange, were not in the bill. The Prime Minister then had to suddenly pull a rabbit out of a hat and say that this bill was going to apply only to fiscal years 2006-07 and 2007-08, and that the reductions would come the year after, anyway, so he did not need to cancel them.

This is a fine example of a fool's deal. I am sure they meant well. I have to say, however, in this House, that the NDP has been had. These are last minute add ons, the desperate efforts of a Prime Minister to try to buy another election. This time, perhaps, with dirty money—we will see—but certainly with taxpayers' money.

If Bill C-48 at least resolved the problems in the budget or in Bill C-43. But no, not even. To some extent, it is worsening things.

Once again, Bill C-48 ignores the fiscal imbalance completely. They will invest money in Kyoto, but the plan remains a bad one. I note that there is neither a minimum nor a timetable. They continue to invest in areas of jurisdiction, without a specific plan. They talk a lot about lowered tuition fees. In Quebec, we were not consulted a whole lot. Had we been, they would know that tuition fees are already very low, the lowest in Canada.

In terms of social housing, we immediately supported the requests of various groups in this regard. The latest budget made no provision at all. At the last minute, they aligned figures, but no string is attached. Nothing in this bill will require the government to spend these amounts.

After years of draconian cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, they claim to be reinvesting in postsecondary education. That represents only 11.5% of the money the federal government is investing. Is there a little money in this bill? Perhaps. Once again, no minimum amount, no timetable for the conditions attached to the payment of these amounts and no guarantee it will be done.

It is a last minute announcement. The worst of it is that this government has no qualms telling people, voters, that, if it is not re-elected, the money will never be invested. It is trying once again to frighten voters by saying the money will disappear if the government is defeated. This is the government that ignored education when it presented its 2005 budget.

In the case of the environment, as I mentioned earlier, the Kyoto plan is a bad one. I am far from convinced that an injection of money will improve the situation. In fact, it could even worsen it. The Kyoto protocol is badly suited to the situation in Quebec, specifically.

In terms of international aid, the February 23, 2005, federal budget does not provide any new money, as you will recall. The Bloc Québécois demands that the government draft a serious, long-term plan to achieve the UN target of 0.7% of GDP by 2015.

Bill C-48 authorizes the government to reach agreements with municipalities, agencies and individuals. In the case of municipalities, again, it is a clear encroachment on the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Worse yet are the foundations. This has come up quite often in this House. The government, with no real plan and not knowing what to do with its surplus, gives money to the foundations. For the most part, this money has not yet been used. I have even raised certain cases of foundations that have more money in the bank now than when they received the payments. It is important to say that Bill C-48 seems to authorize payments to foundations.

In closing, we will vote against the budget because it is bad for Quebec. Implementation bills, including Bill C-43, just keep repeating the same mistakes. Bill C-48 is an empty shell designed to buy votes with taxpayer dollars.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am curious about one thing. The member is urging us to support this budget but this stuff was not in the budget. If we look at the original budget that the Minister of Finance read to the House, these things were not there. I wonder whether he has any concern at all about the fact that the protocol on the budget and budget speeches is being destroyed by the Liberal government.

It used to be that if there was a leak from a budget, the Minister of Finance resigned because it was considered so sacrosanct. Under the Liberals, leaks have become sort of the play of the day. It also used to be that once the finance minister delivered the budget in the House the things that he announced were pretty well written in stone so that businesses and individuals could plan because they knew the new rules.

We now have things in Bill C-48, which were not in the budget, that are massive changes in the spending patterns and the reduction of the amount that is attributed to the reduction of our debt and he is saying that we ought to support the bill. In a sense, he is supporting a totally ad hoc procedure in terms of government budgeting, which I do not think is worthy in our country.

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to speak to an important document, Bill C-48.

It is becoming increasingly clear from what we have heard today that Bill C-48 is not as disgraceful as the leader of the official opposition has said. In fact, I would like to take a moment to congratulate my colleagues on this side of the floor for highlighting just how important the measures contained in Bill C-48 are to Canadians and how out of step the official opposition is with the Canadian public in terms of it priorities. After all, we are talking about a bill that strengthens the social foundation of a budget that the official opposition once endorsed.

When people talk about a hidden agenda, I cannot blame them. From what we have seen in recent weeks, it has become evident that the official opposition will say just about anything to score political points. Take for example the case my colleague made earlier about federal gas tax sharing with cities and communities. The official opposition voted against this at its policy convention.

Then, after realizing how popular this budget initiative was with Canadians, it reversed its course and said it supported it. It sometimes seems like it wants to adopt the entire budget as its next election policy platform even though those members say that they will be voting against it. I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but this is getting ridiculous. It clearly illustrates where the official opposition is looking for leadership. It is rather sad and somewhat telling that it is not within its own ranks.

Why is the official opposition dithering? In short, because the official opposition knows full well that both the budget and today's bill reflect the highest priorities of Canadians and it is beginning to appreciate the consequences of delaying and compromising Canadians' aspirations for a wealthier and more secure society.

Today marks a defining moment. Canadians will remember how each and every one of us vote because it is their future at stake. Bill C-48 and the budget that it complements are the litmus test for where we all stand on these matters. It will separate those who care about Canada from those who care about scoring political points.

What is in Bill C-48 that the official opposition finds so disgraceful? Is it the $900 million more in federal transfers for municipalities so they can make crucial investments in public transit, cut pollution and reduce gridlocks?

For the riding of Mississauga--Streetsville, which is located in Mississauga, the sixth largest city in Canada, to connect Mississauga to Toronto is a great priority. It would be environmentally friendly. It would help families spend more time in their homes and with their children. It would improve the quality of life for Canadians who live in our communities and cities.

Perhaps the official opposition does not like the $1.5 billion more to make post-secondary education more accessible or the $500 million more in foreign aid. Maybe it is the low income housing energy retrofit program that the official opposition finds so distasteful.

For Canadians, the merits of these initiatives speak for themselves. Given that some hon. members are so out of line with the priorities of Canadians it may be appropriate to explain in greater detail why these programs are so important to Canadians.

Support for affordable housing for low income Canadians is money that will reinforce the Government of Canada's commitment to help alleviate problems associated with the affordability and stock of adequate low income housing.

As some hon. members are no doubt aware, the Government of Canada invests $1.9 billion each and every year in order to support 640,000 families living in existing social housing units across the country. Funding for these social housing units has been in place for many years and represents the cornerstone of federal support in this area.

That is not all the government has done. Let us look at the 2001 budget's affordable housing initiative. This program invested $680 million over five years to help increase the supply of affordable rental housing. It did so by providing capital grants to builders to encourage the construction of new affordable rental housing. The success of this program led to an additional investment of $320 million over five years in the 2003 budget.

Again, that is not all the government has done. Budget 2003 extended the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's housing renovation programs for an additional three years at an annual cost of $128 million. This will preserve the existing stock of affordable housing through renovation and renewal and help low income persons with critical housing repair needs.

In short, the Government of Canada has made new funding commitments for almost $3 billion since 2000 to help ease the housing affordability challenges faced by low income Canadians. Bill C-48 strengthens these efforts because that is what Canadians want.

I think it is very telling indeed that the official opposition considers these types of measures disgraceful. It points to its overall disdain for investment to help those who are least able to help themselves. Fortunately, most Canadians would disagree very strongly with the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Most Canadians understand that Bill C-48 reflects the principles of social justice that inspire this government and defines us as a nation.

Canadians understand that it will create cleaner, safer and more productive communities. It will help ensure that more of us are able to share in the promise of our society. It will lower heating costs for those who need them lowered the most. It will help thousands of low income Canadians put a roof over their heads. It will not compromise the gains that Canadians have realized from the elimination of the deficit and the ongoing reduction of the debt.

I myself just do not understand what is so disgraceful about this but I am not the one who ultimately will be judging. Canadians will be the ultimate judge of that. It is simply my hope that hon. members will bear this in mind when they vote on this bill.

This bill affects the very lives of people. Canadians expect us to do what is good by them. Canadians expect their government to invest in the programs that are the envy of the world and affect their very lives.

I urge my colleagues in the House and members of the Conservative Party to please support this bill and the budget, and do not let the Bloc divide us. Let us make Canada strong and let us look after Canadians as they expect us to do.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to stand in this House on behalf of the constituents of Cambridge, and North Dumfries in my riding, to speak to the government's various budgets.

I will speak to Bill C-48, but I will also make reference to the other budget, the NDP-Liberal alliance, which I feel must be stopped in order to save Canada from the economic perils of overspending and job loss.

The Liberals have introduced an institutional type of child care legislation that they say will cost $5 billion over five years. That is $1 billion a year, but yet unbiased experts say that will never happen. The Canadian Council on Social Development says that the program will need at least $12 billion per year. That is an $11 billion shortfall. Where do we expect that extra money to come from? It will come from taxpayers, on the backs of taxpayers.

The offer that the Liberals have made is only for some children, not all children. What about all the other children who will be left out of the program? I am gravely concerned that too many parents in my riding will have to drive over an hour to partake or use one of these publicly funded centres. I am also concerned that there will be huge waiting lists, as there are in the Quebec system, and the extreme budget overruns into the tens of billions of dollars will occur at the expense of taxpayers.

Who chooses which children get to participate in this program? If we cannot afford health care today, how can we afford such a ridiculous over-funded endorsement. The Conservative Party has a much better plan that will work to address the needs of all parents without bankrupting all taxpayers. The Liberal system discriminates against stay at home parents, shift workers, and those living outside larger centres and ethnic traditions.

We now live in a country so overburdened with tax that one parent must work just to pay the family's taxes. We will put money directly into the hands of parents, so they can make their own child care choices. We believe that Canadian parents want and deserve child care options. It should not be up to the government to dictate the only option for parents nor how children must be raised. The only option that I have is to vote against something that removes choice, is completely without proper funding, and as such will either immediately or eventually let parents down.

I also have serious and grave concerns about our firefighters, police, border security personnel and corrections officers. Rather than redirect wasteful spending to shore up and protect those who are required to protect us, the government still refuses to cancel the failed and completely useless gun registry. Despite grand Liberal promises to reduce costs for a registry that was only supposed to cost $2 million in the first place, Canadians continue to see their hard earned tax dollars poured into this black hole.

We think that money should be put into the hands of our police, so that they can get criminals off the street. The government promised to put in place a national sex offender registry, but where is it? My riding of Cambridge, and North Dumfries, has over 200 offenders. Recently, one reoffended and the police had no idea that he had been returned to Canada.

The Deputy Prime Minister's office officials said that the police should have been told. The Canada border security said something completely different. The fact is that the registry, if there is one, appears to be a typical Liberal program that is voluntary. Heaven forbid we offend the offenders.

I am concerned about our border officers. Liberals believe our security is okay and that we have smart borders. The fact is that we have approximately 225 unguarded roads between Canada and the United States. I stood here in the House while members opposite defended what must be one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever heard. It was something to the effect that less border security is more safe.

That is not smart borders; that is dumb borders. What next? Are we going to nail pictures of guards into the booths of the rest of these border crossings? These crossings have hundreds of cars cross them, unseen, undetected and unsearched. Well, I guess that is voluntary, too. Maybe a few bucks spent here would catch all these illegal drugs and firearms this government thinks we need to register.

However, I cannot figure it out and that, too, is why Canadians will be pleased that we cannot support this budget. People are growing sick and tired of policies that put criminals ahead of victims, lawbreakers ahead of law abiders.

It is businesses that create jobs and the hardworking Canadians who drive our economy. It is these very people who have had the door slammed in their faces by the new NDP-Liberal alliance. This deal shows just how out of touch these parties are with real Canadians. This is simply a massive spending exercise by the Liberal government in an attempt to cling to the perks of power.

The NDP and Liberals think that businesses somehow take these tax cuts and stuff them into mattresses, and that they have billions of dollars in surpluses stuffed away in trust funds and trust accounts inaccessible to Parliament. However, the fact is these businesses reinvest. They build another wing to their factories. They buy more equipment. They spend money to become competitive, and guess what? They hire people to fill those new wings and to operate that equipment.

This budget proposes that we buy what looks like $10 billion in clean air credits from other countries. That will not give us one molecule of clean air for my constituents in Cambridge. The asthma rate in southern Ontario is at a life threatening increase. It is a life threatening danger to our children and a preventable burden to our health care system. I cannot support a budget that pretends to emphasize clean air and provide environmental protection.

I cannot support a budget, or this budget in particular, or the new NDP one frankly because it would kill jobs at Budd Automotive and other vital industries all across Ontario and Canada. It would not guarantee one molecule of clean air for Cambridge, Kitchener or Waterloo, which is very important to me. It would not provide one more doctor, save one life or help anyone secure a job.

I support the Conservative Party plan that would give parents choices, allowing them to make decisions on how their children would be raised. That is the way I believe it should be done. I support the Conservative Party plan to fight crime and criminals, and to protect our borders, not just talk about it. I support the Conservative Party plan to reduce taxes and put more of these huge surpluses back into the pockets of the very people who earned them and know best how to spend them.

Canadians need truthful fiscality. They deserve transparent accounting and accountability. Neither of these budgets, frankly, is good enough for Canadians. I understand the members opposite cannot do better than this, but Canadians deserve better just the same. I cannot support this budget or the other budget.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to enter the debate on Bill C-48.

In December 2003, the Prime Minister announced the creation of a new Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness. The creation of this new department and portfolio integrates, under one minister, the core activities of the previous Department of the Solicitor General, the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness and the National Crime Prevention Centre and the new Canada Border Services Agency.

The Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness serves as the central nervous system for a security portfolio that includes the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canada Firearms Centre, the Correctional Service of Canada, the National Parole Board and the Canada Border Services Agency.

In the face of the complex times in which we live, Canada requires, and the public expects, a comprehensive and integrated approach to public safety. Through the public safety and emergency preparedness portfolio, the Government of Canada has demonstrated its belief in protecting the safety and security of its citizens.

Since 9/11 the government has invested more than $9.5 billion in initiatives to strengthen domestic security, improve our emergency preparedness and response and contribute to international security efforts.

We must, however, continue to invest in stronger and smarter borders to protect both our security and our economic interests; to ensure safe communities by supporting crime prevention, gun control and Canada's corrections and parole systems; and finally, to maintain anti-terrorism measures, policing and preparedness for all types of emergencies.

This is just what the government did in budget 2005. By allocating the necessary funding to maintain the forward momentum of this important work, it reaffirmed a commitment to both public safety in Canada and meeting our global responsibilities.

Specifically, budget 2005 allocated more than $1 billion to support key elements of the national security policy. Hon. Anne McLellan, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, tabled this policy in this House just over a year ago and this week tabled a report on the progress of this important policy.

Under the national security policy, we are investing in emergency management, including $56 million over five years for emergency management initiatives and $34 million over five years in pandemic influenza preparedness.

We are also strengthening transportation security, by allocating $225 million over five years to further enhance the security of the country's marine transportation system and $88 million over five years for Canada to work with the U.S. to increase targeting and sharing information on high risk cargo.

As well, we are creating a more secure border through additional funding of $433 million to enhance the government's capacity to manage the flow of people and goods to and from Canada.

We are also investing $117 million over the next five years in the integrated proceeds of crime initiative, to seize profits and assets from criminal organizations in an effort to combat organized crime.

Finally, we are working to tackle crime before it happens by investing an additional $30 million a year over the next three years to support community based crime prevention initiatives as part of the national crime prevention strategy.

I have seen the benefits of that crime prevention program working in my riding of Etobicoke North, where we have had a record of some gun related and drug related crime. These programs are working.

This whole suite of issues and elements of the budget that I have described is comprised of these important initiatives. That is why we need to support the budget before the House.

There is no question that we are making progress. In fact, just this week, former U.S. homeland security secretary Tom Ridge praised Canada's cooperative efforts to guard our border and defend against terrorism. He said in Toronto on Wednesday:

I don't accept the thesis that Canada is lenient or hasn't done what it needs to do to...advance their interest and do their share to combat terrorism.

He said further:

The law enforcement and intelligence community collaboration is excellent.

Doing our share is also demonstrated by several other actions that have taken place within the public safety and emergency preparedness portfolio.

The government operations centre and the Canadian cyber incident response centre have been established and are operational on a 24/7 basis.

The Government of Canada is implementing the national emergency response system, which ensures that Canada is prepared for any type of national emergency by adopting an “all hazards” approach.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments have established a permanent, high level forum on emergencies. It held its first meeting in more than a decade in January 2005.

Finally, 18 federal departments participated in Triple Play, a joint Canada-U.S.-U.K. counterterrorism exercise from April 4 to 8, 2005.

That said, we clearly have a full agenda ahead of us. We will continue to strengthen cooperation with the provinces, territories and first line responders and look for new ways to leverage our capabilities. We also will aim to develop an integrated approach to emergency management and national security across government so that we are ready to adapt to changing circumstances.

Let me close by saying that we can be proud of what we have accomplished in a relatively short period of time. The public safety and emergency preparedness portfolio is becoming much more efficient and effective at delivering a truly fundamental public service: helping to protect the safety and security of Canadians. That effort now has a solid foundation on which to build, a foundation enhanced by the allocations in budget 2005.

The Government of Canada must play a fundamental role in securing the health and safety of Canadians, while ensuring that all Canadians continue to enjoy the benefits of an open society. That is why it is committed to ensuring that Canada's public safety and security systems remain effective, fair, progressive and uniquely Canadian, building on a culture of cooperation and engagement from neighbourhoods to nations.

The investments of budget 2005, rather than being just a reactive response to threats facing our country, represent investments that Canada needs and that Canadians want and expect to ensure their collective safety and security.

Such expectations by our citizens are their fundamental right, which is why we as a government must honour such a right and why we in this House need to keep this Parliament working, keep this legislation moving and pass this budget: so that Canadians can benefit both from these measures that affect our public safety and national security and from the many other excellent measures contained in budget 2005.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP budget, Bill C-48, proposes $4.6 billion in spending left out of the Liberal budget, Bill C-43.

The member for Davenport earlier said that this was money for Liberal priorities. If these are priorities, why have they been left out of the Liberal budget? Did the finance minister not get his priorities right the first time and needed a napkin passed to him to remind him of what Liberal priorities were?

We know the NDP priorities are fiscal ruin and a return to deficits. Could the member for Medicine Hat tell us what real Liberal priorities are?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that I am not seething with rage right now. I want my friend across the way to know that we oppose the budget because we think it is dangerous for families, for farmers and small business people.

In response to her question about enjoying the support of the Bloc Québécois, I have to point out to the member that in the last election campaign it was her leader who said that he would support a unilateral declaration of independence. It sounds like it is the NDP that is the biggest supporter of separatism of all.

In response to her question about the issue of supporting deals that the government has struck, we have said that we oppose the NDP-Liberal budget, Bill C-48. We will not support the expenditure of $4.6 billion. In fact, even the finance minister of the government does not seem to support it.

Setting that aside, we do support a number of the deals that have been struck under Bill C-43.

As the member knows, we said, at the time Bill C-43 came down, that there were a number of things that we supported in it. Therefore, we are being completely consistent with that. We believe that some of these things need to be done. What pains me is the government has now taken some of the things out of there that were the best parts of that budget, including the tax relief on large employers that would have created 340,000 jobs.

I am disappointed that my friend, who is supposedly a friend of labour, does not support that aspect of Bill C-43.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

My friend across the way is sounding a little bitter and angry. However, I want members to know that RDI, which is a media outlet, an arm of the CBC, reported it would cost around $2 billion. If my friend takes issue with those figures, he should take that up with RDI.

I will also point to another situation where the government saw a problem and just threw money at it. I remember very well those shocking images on TV of young children who were stoned on gasoline at Davis Inlet. It was an awful thing. Prime Minister Chrétien, at the time, was shocked by it. We were all shocked. However, the government did not have a plan. It just took a lot of money and threw money at it. It said, “That is terrible. We have to deal with it”, and just threw money at it.

What happened? The government moved some 900 people from the community of Davis Inlet to another community a few miles away and gave them new housing. It cost $400,000 a person. Guess what? All of the problems went with them, not surprisingly. Again, that is what happens when we react without a plan and just throw money at things. All we do is create more problems. We do not get results.

What we have now is the government trying to hide from one vote-buying scandal in Quebec, the sponsorship scandal, and spending $4.6 billion to acquire the votes of NDP members in this place in the hope that it could hang on in a confidence motion.

I am worried that this same problem is being replicated all over again. There is real evidence for that. When we look at the bill itself, Bill C-48, what does it say? It does not say that money would go into specific programs, programs that are established today that we can scrutinize. It says that money shall be spent via order in council. It would be up to the cabinet to decide how to spend it. I worry about that. I guess as the opposition finance critic I should worry about it. It is my job.

However, Canadians should worry about that because this looks like another blatant attempt, initially, to get over a vote-buying scandal in Quebec and, second, to buy votes from the NDP. Now it looks like the government is going to use this to buy the votes of Canadians in order to support it in possibly an upcoming election.

I would urge Canadians to say no. This is our money. We know that there are other ways to spend this money. If we do not have good plans in place to spend it, then we should not spend it at all. Leave it in the pockets of homemakers, farmers, fishermen and the business people who create jobs in this country. They could use that money, very often, far more effectively than a bureaucrat or a politician. That is certainly my experience.

When I think about what we could do if we left some of this money in the pockets of taxpayers, I think of a family I know, who are goods friends of my wife and I, who have four kids and a modest income. Of course they want their children to go to university. Would it not be a great thing if they were allowed to keep, say, $1,000 extra every year because their taxes were a little bit lower and they were able to save that money to put into a fund for higher education for their children?

Maybe they have other priorities. Maybe they have children who have to go to the dentist. Maybe they have children who have extra needs medically. They could use the money for those things. My point is that parents know better than anybody else what is important to them and how to use that money. Believe it or not, they know more than bureaucrats and politicians about what is good for their family.

Simple decency requires that if the Liberals have no plan and if they are swimming in cash, then this money should be allowed to stay in the pockets of the people who earned it in the first place. That is just being decent.

The government has not skimped on spending. Spending has gone through the roof in the last number of years. Since 1997 and 1998 spending has gone up 50%, not including the February budget, and not including the $4.6 billion that is in Bill C-48.

I would argue that the government has spent more than enough money in the last number of years and now it is time for a substantial break for Canadians. Many friends across the way may say they are going to lower taxes in the budget for everyday Canadians. The tax break in the next tax year for Canadians amounts to $16. That is unbelievable.

There was no shortage of money for Liberal friends when it came to the sponsorship scandal. There were envelopes and suitcases of money for Liberal friends, for Liberal ad executives, and ultimately for the Liberal Party. What do the regular working people get? They get a $16 tax cut. That is shameful. That is ridiculous. That speaks volumes about the government's real priorities.

I want to speak about some of the myths that the government across the way has been perpetuating. I have heard members in this place say that if the budget does not pass then the offshore accord will not go through. Atlantic Canada in particular, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, will not get the money due to them as a result of the signing of the offshore accord. I want the House to know that a Conservative government would deliver that money as soon as humanly possible.

The member for St. John's East and the member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl have worked relentlessly to push the government to allow that piece of the budget, the offshore accord, to be split off, so it could pass through the House quickly and be delivered to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador right now. The government opposes it every time. Does the government really care about Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador? If it did, it would split that part of the bill off right now and get that money delivered to those people.

It bothers me as someone from Alberta, someone who comes from a province where at one point we received equalization at the same time as we were getting revenues from oil and gas. We on this side of the House had to fight hard to get the government to accept that point of view, and now it is playing politics with it. The government is now holding Newfoundland members of Parliament hostage on this issue, knowing that it could push this through right now if it wanted and get the money to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, but it will not.

On the issue of the gas tax, some of my Liberal colleagues across the way, and frankly some of the big city mayors who basically may as well be a part of that caucus over there, are playing the same kinds of games. We have made it very clear many times that we would deliver gas tax revenues to the municipalities via the provinces to ensure that they could look after their infrastructure.

We made that case way before the government ever conceived of the idea. In fact, we moved a motion in this place some time ago calling for the government to do that. The government voted against the idea. Government members thought it was a crazy idea. Imagine taking the excise tax on fuel and giving it back to municipalities. That is basically what the government argued.

A few months later the then finance minister, now the Prime Minister, went to the FCM in British Columbia and argued that should be done. It is going ahead and doing it. Now Liberals are telling Canadians falsely that we would not deliver that. We would move heaven and earth to get that money to municipalities so they can look after their infrastructure. We know how important that is. It is very unfortunate that the government is telling people things that are not true about what our plan is. We absolutely would deliver that money.

I want to say a couple of words about some of the games the government is playing today with the fiscal framework. It was not very long ago that the finance minister argued how important it was to maintain a contingency reserve and prudence factor of $4 billion a year. He wanted to increase it by $1 billion a year going out over the next number of years because he was worried about uncertainty in the world. He was worried about the impact of things like terrorist attacks and what it would mean to our economy if those kinds of things occurred. We could go into a tailspin and it could mean that we could end up in a deficit again.

He was worried about the high cost of oil and what it would do to the world economy or the U.S. housing bubble. There were all kinds of uncertainties that the finance minister pointed to and said that it was essential the government have a big contingency and prudence factor. No sooner had those words quit echoing in this place, the Prime Minister was undermining his own finance minister saying that it really did not need $4 billion. It only really need $2 billion. He wanted so badly to strike the deal with the NDP that he was prepared to possibly sacrifice the financial well-being of 31 million Canadians. That is unforgivable and it is simply wrong.

It comes on top of sacrificing the well-being of all the people who would have had jobs if the government were serious about following through on its commitment to lower taxes for the large employers. However, it cast that out as well.

I am arguing that it is very cynical for the government to do this in the face of the sponsorship scandal. It was so desperate to hold on to a few more votes from the NDP that it completely caved in and threw all its principles out the window simply to cling to power. That is not acceptable.

I argue that if there is a party in Canada today that is standing up for families, seniors, small business people and people in businesses of all sizes who create jobs, it is the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatives are opposing Bill C-48 because we think it imperils the ability of Canadians to have a bright future.

I will conclude with this. The most dangerous thing of all about Bill C-48 is how the government is trying to cover its tracks on sponsorship by buying votes in a way that I am afraid will drive federalists in Quebec into the arms of the separatists. Instead of dealing with the corruption problem head on, what the Liberals are continuing to do is allow federalism in Quebec to be tainted. By refusing to deal with this issue head on, they are breathing new life into the separatist movement in Quebec.

If this is allowed to go forward without dealing with the separatism issue and the corruption, it will be on the heads of the members of the Liberal Party of Canada if this causes the breakup of our country.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address Bill C-48. I want to start by underlining that the Conservative Party believes strongly that Bill C-48 will hurt Canadian farmers, seniors, people who are trying to create jobs in this country and families with children.

We believe strongly that Bill C-48 is taking Canada off track financially. We also believe that it is a pretty obvious attempt to cover up the allegations of corruption being levelled at the Liberal Party and the government. We believe that is a pretty important reason to oppose Bill C-48. I will expand on some of those things in just a moment.

I want to go back to a point I was making earlier about how fundamentally Bill C-48 completely contradicts the government's own finance minister. Going back to last February, I was in this place when the finance minister spoke about how important it was to follow the principles laid out in Bill C-43. One of those principles was that there had to be tax relief for large employers in Canada.

If we go to the budget documents, we can still find the page where it talks about how important that is for attracting investment to this country and accumulating capital, so that businesses can take that and invest it in training for their employees, buy new equipment and expand their operations. These are things that would put people to work.

Since that time a study came out from the C.D. Howe Institute saying that if the government followed through on those tax breaks for large employers, it would generate 340,000 jobs. I believe that. I believe what the finance minister was saying about that. I think those things are so important.

Canada is in competition with other countries around the world. When we do things that create jobs, do hon. members know what that does? It is not just creating 340,000 jobs. Those are jobs for real people, people who live in my community and the communities of all the members in this place, people who, today, do not have jobs and want nothing more in the world than to have some meaningful employment and the ability to earn a decent wage, so they can look after their families. That is a pretty reasonable thing.

That is what the finance minister argued very persuasively, persuasively enough that, although we did not support the budget, we did not bring down the government on the budget. We basically abstained from voting on that.

Later on we found out that the government added some things into the budget, like some of the Kyoto provisions that we did not agree with, but after that point, I heard the finance minister on many occasions defend his budget against the NDP. He said that we cannot cherry-pick the budget. We cannot just pick and choose what we want in the budget. He said it when he was standing right there. He said, “You can’t go on stripping away piece by piece by piece of the budget”. That is what he said. It is in Hansard. If we check the record, we will find it right there, and he defended that.

When it became apparent that the government could lose a vote on the issue of the budget on a confidence motion, the Prime Minister struck a backroom deal with the NDP while the finance minister was back in Regina. The finance minister obviously knew nothing about it. All of a sudden a deal was struck where the tax relief for large employers was cut out of the budget, so that the government could increase spending dramatically on other programs.

We should remember that we have already had the largest increase in spending back in the February budget that we have seen in 30 years. We have seen spending go up by about 50% since 1997-98 in this country. That is 50%.

We have seen the cost of bureaucracy go up by 77%. However, that was not enough. The government added more in the February budget. Now it has added even more spending again in Bill C-48. That troubles me because the reason we are doing all this spending is to allow the government to cover its tracks on this corruption scandal. It knows it is up to its ears in trouble because of that scandal, so it is trying very hard to get people's attention away from that.

However, what worries me is that by rushing to do this and by just throwing money at things, we are going to replicate exactly the same situation that led to the firearms registry. Where the government was faced with the problem of gun violence, it threw a bunch of money at it, hoped that would fix it, and created a firearms registry. It said it would cost $2 million, as my friend from Edmonton pointed out a while ago. It ended up costing $2 billion. We saw the same thing--

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member across the way for some clarification.

We are discussing Bill C-48 today which is not the Liberal budget. The Liberal budget is Bill C-43, the budget I thought the government believed in and which contained its plan for the country for the next year.

The Liberals, essentially, have gone to the NDP in a move to hang on to power. Although they think that Bill C-48 is the life preserver they have been looking for, I actually think it is a noose.

Some of the things in this budget were definitely not included in the finance minister's initial budget because they were not deemed important enough back in February when he tabled the budget. What they are doing here is bringing forth a very hastily put together bill that, in their own opinion, would not accomplish the things that the NDP hopes they will.

Does the member honestly believe that the policy announcements being made in Bill C-48 will ever come to fruition? I also want to know if they will accomplish anything. I really think that what is laid out in Bill C-48 is something that will cost our children and grandchildren a pile of money without any real plan. It opens up the possibility of hastily put together programs that will not be administered properly and could lead us to more government mismanagement and corruption.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments but I have to challenge him on something he just said. He said that he could not imagine anyone opposing some of the things in this budget.

It was his own finance minister who opposed many of the things in Bill C-48. If the member will think back he will remember the finance minister responding to NDP questions a little over a month ago asking for some of the things that are in Bill C-48. The finance minister said that the budget could not be “cherry-picked”. He said, “it cannot be stripped away, piece by piece by piece”. He said that we could not do the things that are in Bill C-48. He said that we could not take out the corporate tax relief because corporate tax relief would create thousands and thousands of jobs. One study says that it would create 340,000 jobs.

Does my friend across the way understand that by accepting the NDP demands, not only is he being irresponsible with the fiscal framework of the government, but he is also undermining his own finance minister?

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, as the Conservative colleague made quite clear, the bill before us was thrown together at the last minute.

In fact, this bill lists a series of figures that mean absolutely nothing. No formal commitments, specific programs or minimums set out in any area of this bill are associated with any of these figures. I fail to comprehend or imagine how the NDP could have been naive enough to form an alliance with such a corrupt government.

My question to the member is as follows. Is my assessment right or wrong? Ultimately, all this government needs to do next year is to prepare a budget with a substantial increase in the number of expenditures. This will allow it to say that it did not achieve the expected $2 billion surplus. As a result, Bill C-48 will go nowhere.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, just as a point of clarification, I want to point out to the hon. member that every budget initiative always starts with the word “may”. It is discretionary spending on the part of the finance minister and the Government of Canada.

If the member reviews Bill C-43, he will find that “may” is in the legislation. That is true of pretty well any budgetary bill that appears before the House; it is not “an obligation on the part of”. I want to assure my friends in the NDP that there is no differentiation between the phrasing in Bill C-43 and the phrasing in Bill C-48.

I want to address the hon. member's issue. Bill C-48 has a number of initiatives, all of which are coincidental to the initiatives of the Government of Canada. I know the hon. member is concerned about fiscal propriety; I want him to understand and realize that the moneys to fund these initiatives are only to come out of unplanned surplus moneys.

Does the hon. member realize that the only commitment in terms of the financial impact is that the contingency money is taken down from $3 billion in 2005-06 and $3 billion in 2006-07? That is a commitment to reduce the contingency money from $3 billion to $2 billion, but beyond that, any other moneys to fund these initiatives are to come out of unplanned surpluses. Did the hon. member realize that when he was making his speech?

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

He was double-crossed. He was betrayed. I could use all sorts of words, but I do not want to get into that area, Mr. Speaker, where you are going to have to stand instead of me.

The member was really upset. Why would the government, having made the commitment to bring in a bill, then renege on it after getting the NDP to do its part?

Right now we have this deal where the NDP has said, “We will vote and support this corrupt Liberal government in return for some promises in the budget”. But it is common knowledge that we cannot trust these guys. This Liberal government will never deliver to the NDP even if this budget passes. These are all just empty promises.

In fact, Bill C-48 starts with these words: “An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments”. That is the heading of the bill. It just “authorizes” him, which is a whole other topic that I could talk about in terms of the wide open spending that this bill permits.

It is really a very short bill, but basically what it says is that the Minister of Finance “may”--it does not say that he “shall”--in respect of this year “make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund”. It is basically everything over $2 billion in excess of government spending. If the government had a $2 billion surplus only, then there would be zero there. Also, even if there were a $4 billion surplus and it looked as if that would commit $2 billion in the next two years each for this particular budget program, it still says the minister “may”. It does not say he “shall” and these NDP members have fallen for it. I should not laugh. I should not do that--

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting just before question period to hear the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell give an impassioned speech about his years in the House. I have not been here as long as he has, and unfortunately I was not recognized by the Chair in order to also give a short intervention during that time when really we did not talk about the bill before us at all. We talked about the member's service.

When he was talking it reminded me of my own parliamentary career, which I am happy to announce will not be ending at this election as opposed to that of the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. I remember that when I was first elected we had a government at the time which, still fending off the Liberal debt it inherited in 1984, was still engaging in debt and borrowing. In the 1993 election campaign, when computers were just barely invented, I had a little computer running that showed the rate at which the debt was increasing. It was increasing at around a thousand and some dollars per second, which made for an interesting display on the screen.

Of course I pointed out to the people who I thought would vote for me that we were not doing our duty in terms of preserving the well-being, financial and otherwise, of our children and grandchildren in allowing that kind of debt to grow. It is very interesting that at that time our youngest son was younger than these young people here who serve as our pages. Now he is almost a old man. He is not really, he is a only little over 30, but that is certainly old compared to the young people we have serving us here as pages, about 50% older.

My wife and I had only one grandson at that time. Now we have five grandchildren. I think that this particular bill we are talking about today, Bill C-48, is a colossal failure and takes us right back to the passion that I felt in 1993 to manage properly the finances of our country on behalf of our children, grandchildren and all subsequent generations.

It occurs to me that the reason for this budget bill, Bill C-48, is totally ill informed. I would like to use a few minutes of my time to give some free advice to the NDP members. I would bet I will not get an ounce of protest from them today when I say anything here. I am going to give them some advice and just inform them how ill advised they are to make a deal with the Prime Minister.

They are hoping that they are going to get all this expenditure and here we have Bill C-48, which basically is the NDP side of this budget. They have cut a deal with the Prime Minister in order to try to get this deal. I am amazed that they would do that.

Now I have a little sidebar, as have nowadays in our lexicon. There was a private member's bill before the House under the auspices of John Bryden, who was a previous Liberal member, on access to information and the revision of that law. It was a good bill and we would have supported it, but unfortunately it died on the order paper.

It was then brought in by an NDP member from Winnipeg in pretty well identical form to what the previous Parliament saw. The member from Winnipeg made a deal with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said to him that the government was going to bring in legislation that would pretty well reflect the member's bill and asked that the member withdraw his bill, saying that the government would go ahead with its own.

In good faith, that NDP member said okay, He withdrew his private member's bill on access to information. What happened? About six months or eight months later, the Minister of Justice showed up at our committee. We were all anticipating that he was going to show us at least some draft legislation on what the bill would look like.

Instead, what we got was a great big long report on a new discussion paper, which means that we are going to start talking about it again. Needless to say, the member from Winnipeg was somewhat miffed.

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-48 today.

When I spoke to Bill C-43 in this House, I pointed out how the budget presented in February by the government would only see 3% of the announcements flow in this budget year.

Bill C-48, which is being debated today, is weaker than that. This bill has its origin in a deal made in a hotel room in Toronto. This is not how government legislation should be undertaken. This is not how budgets should be developed. This is not how Canada's economy should be planned. This is not responsible nor accountable governing.

This is deal making; a desperate deal to maintain power. It is a deal to spend $4.6 billion, maybe, of taxpayer dollars. Will these dollars flow to deliver what the NDP has been promised? There should be substantial real doubt.

Bill C-48 stipulates that payments may only be made in either 2005-06 and 2006-07 if there is a $2 billion surplus and, in fact, in this budget year there is no requirement to spend $1.00.

Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park.

The only stipulation in this budget is that no more than $4.6 million be spent over two years or before the end of the 2007 fiscal year. In other words, Bill C-48 gives the government the power to spend billions but does not actually require it to spend the money.

My experience in business is that surpluses are not determined until the end of any fiscal year. This means that none of the moneys in Bill C-48 would even have a chance of flowing until the 2006-07 budget begins. Is there a real deal here or not? More important, will the deal deliver and improve the lives of Canadians?

Canadians want more than words, whether just spoken or written on paper.

The citizens of my riding and all Canadians are hard-working and they are now questioning the intent of the government. If people in my riding ask what is in the NDP-Liberal deal I cannot answer that in all honesty. I have to say that this bill, a one and a half page document, has no plans and no specifics on how $4.6 billion would be spent.

My constituents are telling me that they are fed up with waste and mismanagement. They want their representatives to ensure that their tax dollars will work for Canadians, not for advertising firms and party followers.

Yes, I, along with my constituents, care about the environment. We care about infrastructure. We care about post-secondary education. We care about housing. They care about, as all Canadians, the same things as every other Canadian. They are also willing to pay their taxes so needed services can be delivered by every level of government to meet their legitimate responsibilities.

The citizens in my riding have watched the environment, our roads and infrastructure deteriorate. They have seen how our youth are struggling to find a future in Canadian society. However for the past 12 years they have seen only higher taxes and little improvement in the delivery of government services. The level of frustration is peaking. What has peaked now is the lack of trust, faith and respect for the government.

Therefore, can I say with any level of certainty that any of the matters in Bill C-48 will be delivered? The answer is no.

I believe Canadians deserve greater certainty. They should have a level of confidence that the budget presented in February which was the best budget the government could responsibly deliver. How solid was that budget when only weeks later another $4.6 billion was tacked on?

Why were the matters in Bill C-48 for housing, tuition and the environment not in the February budget? The budget making in Bill C-48 is compounded by the flurry of announcements made by the government more recently. Why were these announcements not in the February budget?

There is no plan. The only plan behind these announcements is to continue in power. Canadians want sound fiscal management. They want real programs, not just speeches and announcements. They want accountability and responsible program spending. They also want a fair deal and a balanced fiscal policy to meet the needs of both urban and rural communities.

The February budget and Bill C-48 do nothing for the farmers in my riding. Bill C-48 is spending without a plan. I cannot support the bill. It would be irresponsible to support a bill that takes $4.6 billion of taxpayer dollars without any accountability, particularly from a government and a party whose track record has created a sentiment in Canadians of mistrust and cynicism.

Canadians need to have faith that Canada will flourish and that they will have their needs met, first by themselves with the resources they have worked hard to earn and keep, then by the community as friends, families and neighbours because we are a caring people, and by a government, every level of government, which will fulfill the responsibilities given in a responsible, accountable way with full disclosure of not only how much is going to be spent but how and in what programs.

The Budget

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the introduction of Bill C-48 the House has heard repeated concerns challenging the fiscal sustainability of the bill, particularly in what is claimed to be new spending for post-secondary education, additional support for cities, affordable housing and immigrant settlement services.

Would the Minister of Finance please clarify for the House whether the majority of this money was contained in the budget and whether this, together with the recent agreement with the province of Ontario, was fiscally prudent and economically consistent with the last seven consecutively balanced budgets?

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious what that member's party is against. Members opposite appear to be against additional moneys for foreign aid and the cities initiative. They appear to be against further moneys for child care initiatives and affordable housing. All of those initiatives are contained in budget Bill C-48. They are natural extensions of the government's priorities within our fiscal framework.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak today to indicate my support for Bills C-48 and C-43. Before I go on, I want to talk a bit about what was just said. In other words, just like at the beginning of this Parliament, the political parties passed a motion to amend the motion to adopt the throne speech. Why? Because it was the best way for all parties to reach a consensus to ensure the smooth operation of this Parliament. We are currently debating Bill C-48, improving support for the House of Commons, but which makes this Parliament operate in accordance with the demands of Canadians.

I want to talk about the months ahead. Nearly 39 years ago, on October 25, 1966, I came to Parliament Hill. My arrival was far from glorious. I was not a minister's chief of staff or an officer of the table here. I was assigned to a table, but it was as a busboy in the parliamentary restaurant. After many promotions, I learned what parliamentarians did, work I continue to respect. I admired the dedication of those who sat in this House back then and represented their constituents. I told both my amused co-workers—I was laughed at on occasion—and myself that, one day, I too would be a member of this House.

Thanks to the people of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, my political career began in 1976, when I was elected to the municipal council. I had run but been defeated in 1974. Thanks to them again, I was re-elected in 1978 and 1980. Again, thanks to my constituents, I was elected as an Ontario MPP and served at Queen's Park in Toronto, starting in 1981. Finally, I was elected to the House of Commons in 1984 and re-elected in 1988, 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2004, thanks yet again to my constituents.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien appointed me to his cabinet in 1996. Thanks to him I remained in cabinet until 2003. For this I thank him from the bottom of my heart, but it is thanks to the voters of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell that I am an MP and therefore eligible to be a minister because, of course, defeated candidates are seldom appointed to cabinet or to anything else.

The good book Ecclesiastes tells us:

To every thing there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted.

Today I announce to this House, as I did to my constituents, that I will not be a candidate in the next general election, whenever it is called. I hope that the present Parliament lasts for a long time yet because I am convinced that the people of Canada, to whom we are accountable, do not want an election at this time. They want us to work together in this Parliament, as the hon. member who spoke immediately before me said, to defend their interests and to make Canada an even better place in which to live.

Whenever the election is held, it is important for me as a partisan parliamentarian and as a representative of my people to ensure that we choose the best Liberal candidate worthy of the support of the electors of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

I thought I would announce that ahead of any possible election call in order to ensure that we could have a good nomination convention to choose the right person who eventually, although I hope it is not immediately, will be called upon to go to the people and hopefully to be elected.

Last week, my wife Mary Ann was here and came on two occasions in hopes of hearing this speech. I thank her for all she has done, and I also thank my two children, Daniel and Julie, both public servants now and previously ministerial staff. I greet their respective partners, Paule and Richard, and express my gratitude for all their help and support throughout this long career in politics. I thank them for supporting my decision, although I am sure it will take a while to really sink in for them, and even for me. Although they are not yet aware of their contribution, I thank all four of my grandchildren whose presence in my life has helped me remember what is really important.

Democracy exists because of the contribution in time, energy and personal funds by the volunteers who help people get elected to various democratic institutions, this House of Commons in particular. They must be encouraged, celebrated and recognized by all political parties, particularly in these turbulent times, when some of the volunteers who have supported us— and I do not mean this as a partisan remark—are sometimes faulted for having given of their time and energy to causes in which they believe strongly.

We must encourage our young people in particular to get involved, to volunteer for a political party, to study the history of this wonderful and vast country, to do their civic duty, and to run as candidates. By definition, our young people will be around a lot longer than you and I will. I have had an extraordinary opportunity and recommend it highly to others. I know there are those who leave this institution with some bitterness, but not I. This is as great a day for me as my first day in this place. Like Edith Piaf, I must say, “Non, je ne regrette rien”, I have no regrets.

To the executive of the Glengarry—Prescott—Russell federal Liberal Association, under the able direction of René Berthiaume and Arlette Castonguay, I owe a debt of gratitude and I would ask them to continue to serve the process of democracy through a smooth transition. I would encourage them to make a careful choice of a good Liberal candidate who will represent us ably and, I hope, win the election.

I wish to express my loyalty to the Prime Minister of Canada and solicit his support in helping us chose the best candidate for our region.

I have a few words now for my successor, whoever he or she may be. I ask them to continue to support agriculture, specifically supply management, to continue to work to improve our recreational trails for the pleasure of the people of my riding, to continue working on the eastern Ontario economic renewal program to keep our region prosperous, to protect the Alfred bog, a heritage site of ecological significance worldwide. In addition, I would ask my successor to celebrate the linguistic duality and the plurality that make us strong. Our region is what Canada should be: strong, united, diversified, bilingual, tolerant. We must be proud of this heritage and optimistic about the future.

To my campaign directors over the years, Roy Murray, André Tessier, Sergine-Rachel Bouchard and Bill Woods and their team, I offer my thanks for these successes. An election campaign is not an end in itself. It is the start of the job of representing the public, at the risk of saying what former MP Alexandre Cyr once told me: you always have to ask yourself what will happen if you win, because being elected means getting a job done and carrying out responsibilities.

I want to thank everyone who has worked for me over the past three decades and who has enabled me to help my electors and the people of Canada in general.

I want to thank the people working for me now, including Louise Guertin, the dean of my employees for 24 years, Helen Horvath, Luce Payer, Julie Chartrand, Mathieu Dupont, JoAnn Blondeau and Dobrija Milicevic.

Countless interns and volunteers have worked in my office over the years, including Jonathan Manes and Greg Lancop who assist me now. Without them I would not have served my electors nor my country nearly as well.

It has been a long and sometimes winding road altogether but overall a wonderful experience. My constituents and I cried at the closure of the CIP mill in my riding. We laughed and rejoiced at the openings of the Highland Games. We smiled at the opening of new bridges. We mourned in the aftermath of the fire in which we lost the Angus Grey Hall in Maxville. We travelled on buses to Montreal to keep Canada together in 1995. We shivered through the ice storm in 1998. We applauded the visits of prime ministers and led efforts of generosity such as Hay West to help our fellow citizens in western Canada.

I have had five party leaders in my long career: Stuart Smith and David Peterson in Ontario and the Right Hon. John Turner, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien and the current Prime Minister. I thank all of them.

I want to tell my colleagues in both houses of Parliament what a privilege it has been to know them all. I ask them to be very tough in holding governments accountable while respecting each other in this great institution. Love this great institution as I have loved it and always will.

Parliament here, and in the United Kingdom where it is 900 years old, is greater than any one of us. I only hope that I can work in the House and its committees and particularly its parliamentary associations for a while yet.

To the members of the media, with whom elected officials have a stormy relationship, I say thank you for putting up with me, especially when I lost patience with them and when parliamentary procedure was involved. I would ask them respectfully to learn the rules of Parliament, so vital in a democracy. They will find it is not a bad thing to learn procedure.

On November 9, 1984 I gave my first speech in the House, in which I said:

I have the utmost respect for this institution, Sir, and as I said, I worked here previously [as an employee]. I was a member of the Legislative Assembly of our great Province of Ontario, and I was a member on three different occasions of a municipal council. I believe, as my Leader very correctly said only a few days ago, that no greater honour can be paid to a Canadian than to be elected to the forum of this nation. I believe it was our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who said it is a great country when a truck driver can aspire to be Prime Minister. I would like to think that this is not a bad place where a busboy in the Parliamentary Restaurant can some day return [to this place] as a Member of Parliament.

I hope to say something more about this in the future in my book, which maybe to no one's surprise, will be entitled Busboy: From Kitchen to Cabinet .

Former prime minister John Diefenbaker once said that there was no greater honour and no greater privilege for a Canadian than to serve in the highest court in the land, the Parliament of Canada. I have been lucky enough to serve in this high court for 21 years, making me now the dean of Liberal MPs in the House of Commons. I am proud for the honour given to me by the voters of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell to whom I will be grateful forever.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my NDP colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. I am disgusted and outraged by his remarks. First, where in Bill C-48 or anywhere else did he get a guarantee from the government that there would really be tax reductions for the major corporations? The Liberal government has made no commitment in this regard.

The Kyoto plan is a bad one. It makes taxpayers pay, while it increases the stock values of Canada's major polluters. A bad plan remains a bad plan even with government support.

Third, how could my colleague join with a government that has put families in the street? In 1993, 1.3 million families required social housing following the savage cuts made by the current Prime Minister, who was Minister of Finance and who signed an agreement. The NDP has in fact signed a pact with the devil. Now, 1.7 million families need social housing. Many are currently spending over half their income on housing. A family spending a quarter of household income on housing is close to the poverty line.

How did the hon. member become involved with a party responsible for a widespread increase in student debt? Since 1995, at least $35 billion has been cut from the transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education, health and social assistance. Now the government is giving back a few hundred million dollars, and he is prepared to shout himself hoarse, work himself into a state and accuse one and all of bad faith because we did not make the same deal with the devil.

I would like to ask him a question. He has fought for employment insurance. At the moment, 60% of people who are unemployed, who should receive benefits, are excluded from getting them, and $45 billion was stolen from the fund surplus. How is the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who is lashing out at everyone this morning, going to return home and tell the folks there that he signed a pact with the devil on something he has fought for admirably for years? That is selling his soul. We are not having any part of that.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-48, an act to amend Bill C-43, the Budget Implementation Act, 2005.

After two days of negotiation, the leader of the NDP managed to convince this minority government to allocate $4.6 billion to ordinary citizens. The Conservative Party across the way says this agreement should not have been made. I hope Canadians, social housing organizations and students in Canada will remember that the Conservatives said there should be no changes made to the budget, or Bill C-43.

Do not forget that before the end of the reading of the budget in the House of Commons, the leader of the Conservatives left the House and announced that his party could never vote against this budget because it was good. However, he was singing a different tune when it came time for the leader of the NDP to negotiate with the minority Liberal government to make changes to the budget that would help ordinary citizens.

Since 1992, and even before then, since the days of Brian Mulroney, Parliament has introduced cuts in budgets, which have left Canada in a human deficit. The leader of the Conservatives said he could vote in favour of the Liberal budget, Bill C-43, but he describes Bill C-48 as abysmal. He even said the Prime Minister had made a deal with the devil and that we needed another election to put him out of his misery.

That was in the middle of a week when he was supposed to be finding out whether Canadians wanted an election. He is ignoring what Canadians want since 61% of Canadians have said no to holding a general election at this time.

They want the budget to pass. Most of them want the proposed changes to be made to the budget, especially changes that impact affordable housing. How can anyone say no to affordable housing? This issue involves people in the street who need housing here, in Canada, one of the most beautiful countries in the world. We have reached a point where we have a human deficit.

In the past, when I used to go to Toronto, I never saw anyone sleeping in front of city hall on cardboard boxes or on hotel heating vents in the middle of the street or on the sidewalk. No one ever saw that. Now, this is happening in Montreal, where we see people on the street. We have to provide them with homeless shelters, in the absence of real homes.

How can there be opposition to Bill C-48? It might give people the chance to have a home. Some $1.6 billion would be invested in affordable housing. How can the Conservatives oppose such changes, today? It is disgraceful. They should be ashamed of opposing a $1.6 billion investment in the construction of affordable housing. They should be ashamed of saying no to $1.5 billion to reduce the cost of post-secondary education of our dear students, who are our children. They should be ashamed to say that they are unable to support such a budget.

I hope that, today, Canadians understand this and know who the Conservatives will be representing. They will be representing the major corporations. They were angry when they realized that the income tax reduction from 21% to 19% would apply not to major corporations, but solely to ordinary Canadians. I hope that ordinary Canadians will remember this when it comes time to vote. Company presidents are not the only ones voting, individuals are too. I hope that the latter will consider what the Conservative Party has in mind and what the NDP is proposing.

In terms of labour force training, we must remember that, although people may have worked for many years, as a result of new technologies, they will need to take training so as not to lose their jobs.

The NDP leader negotiated amendments to this budget with the minority government. Our desire is not just to complain and have an election. We were after something for ordinary people, money for training in order to remain employable. Our youth also need training, as do others needing jobs the most.

People find it hard to get another job if they are 48 or 50 years old and need to change industries, unless they can get training.

As for the environment, $900 million is being injected into the program in order to improve energy efficiency. I get a number of calls to my riding office in Acadie—Bathurst about the high cost of electricity. People need to insulate their houses better and replace windows to keep the cold out.

I am certain that this problem is not restricted to Acadie—Bathurst. It is the same all over Canada. Canadians need help on this.

How can the member for Medicine Hat do an about-face and say that the government cannot do this? SInce 1986, governments have been making cuts that affect ordinary Canadians. People have ended up in the street. Workers have been affected by the cuts in EI, despite the $46 billion surplus in the fund. People lose jobs and are not eligible for employment insurance. The Conservatives have always been opposed to any changes to EI.

It is regrettable that the Liberals have laid hands on that money. It is to be hoped that, between now and Thursday evening, the minister will announce the change to best twelve weeks for workers and do away with this dividing factor. It is to be hoped that they will go still further as far as Bill C-48 is concerned, because it would be regrettable if they did nothing for the workers whose contributions have created our employment insurance fund.

As for infrastructure, five cents a litre needs to be transferred to the cities, towns and municipalities. The NDP has negotiated one additional cent to help the municipalities within the next two days.

The City of Toronto is asking that we support the budget because it needs it. As for the mayor of Shippagan, he stated over the weekend that he wanted the budget to be voted on because the cities need money for their streets. The streets are in such bad shape that they have to be repaired. Be it in Bathurst, New Brunswick, or anywhere in the Gaspé I am sure, there are municipalities that need money. The City of Montreal needs money.

This is a budget that was improved in the context of a minority government. It would be interesting to see Parliament vote on this budget. Finally, we have a budget not only for major employers and large corporations, whose CEOs are pulling salaries of $6 million or $10 million, but one that also provides for individuals who are really in need: ordinary people, students with debts, young people, our children who are studying and getting out of school $40,000 in debt.

It is shameful what the Conservative Party did after supporting the Liberals' budget. Before the budget speech was even over, the Conservative leader stepped out of the House of Commons. He announced that he had no choice but to vote in favour of the budget, and that it had to be supported, because it was a good budget. We managed to get $4.6 billion for students and ordinary people, for the environment and continuous learning, all this to help ordinary people. But when the time comes to vote, the Conservatives will figure they cannot do that and they will not vote in favour of the budget.

Let us hope that the people of Canada are following the proceedings of the House of Commons and hearing the kind of speeches the Conservatives make when there are changes. Their leader declared that the Liberal leader had made a deal with the devil. But he would have liked to have the devil on his side to make the government fall. That is the problem for the Conservative leader.

I support Bill C-48. We need it for ordinary people, for the people of Canada. I would also like the people of Quebec to ask their representatives to support this bill, so that, like us in Acadia, cities like Montreal, Quebec City or municipalities in the Gaspé and across Quebec can finally benefit from the change made to the budget.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to ask a question of the member across. I believe that the budget bill, Bill C-48, does not deal with the concerns of Canadians. I think it misses opportunities. It is a lot of misdirected talk but no action.

For example, we have heard about the Liberals' desire to focus on clean air and clean water, but it is only the Conservatives who, in action, have been fighting for clean air, clean water and a clean environment. Let me give an example. In the Fraser Valley we have an issue of air pollution. Just 500 metres from our border is the Sumas Energy 2 project, which wants to pump tonnes of pollutants into the air. It was the Conservatives, and not the NDP or the Liberals, who fought against it.

As well, the Liberals and the NDP have had years to stop the dumping of raw sewage into our oceans. Have they done anything? They had the opportunity. They were in government, they have done nothing and now we are talking about them dumping in more money and making more empty promises to Canadians.

I will give another example. I would like to have the hon. member across the way tell me about the compassionate care program to keep loved ones together in the last days of their lives. This is something that we have been fighting for; I have a resident in my riding of Langley that I am fighting for. It is the Conservatives who have been putting pressure on this government to come up with a solution to this problem. Unfortunately, the NDP has been doing nothing and what the government has proposed is to reduce the funding from $191 million to $11 million. People are dying. They need loved ones to take care of them. Why are we not seeing that in Bill C-48?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Acadie--Bathurst.

I rise to speak in favour of Bill C-48, which will provide Canadians with some much needed money for important areas of social spending. It is important to note that when Canadians talked about things that were really important to them and their lives, the New Democratic Party listened and worked hard to get their issues on the government's agenda. This is an example of how we can work closely with groups and our communities to bring important things forward.

We heard from groups across Canada who told us that this is a good deal for Canadians. I would like to quote from a policy paper from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, entitled “Can We Afford It? The Case for the New 2005 Federal Budget”. It states:

In a context in which many forms of social spending have been neglected for so many years, the revised budget addresses a number of glaring priorities. Its provisions for affordable housing construction and support to provinces to reduce the costs of post-secondary tuition help to fill significant holes in the February budget.

Additional funds for international development, energy retrofits and public transit are also welcome supplements to the original budget. These funding commitments not only provide important social investments, but also address some of the election commitments made by the Liberals in the 2004 election campaign. And since the Liberal Party did not include corporate tax relief in their election platform, we are pleased to see the removal of these costly tax cuts.

The agreement negotiated with the NDP builds on some of the other positive developments in the original February budget bill. For example, the commitment of $5 billion over five years is an important step toward establishing a pan-Canadian child care program. The transfer of gas taxes to municipalities will help to renew Canada's deteriorating municipal infrastructure and to create jobs.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is a voice that has done a great deal of good work over the years in analyzing budgets. It has some very credible economists who are able to bring a more balanced blend to the kind of government spending we are talking about.

I would like to focus on the first area: affordable housing. This agreement will provide $1.6 billion for housing, with a focus on aboriginal housing agreements. In my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan, we have one of the largest concentrations of on reserve first nations in Canada. It is a growing and vital community with many young families needing their own homes.

This agreement sets aside some of that $1.6 billion specifically for a dedicated fund for aboriginal housing construction to improve the appalling living conditions many aboriginal people face. This money is not contingent upon provincial matching funds, since this requirement has been proven to fail in the delivery of affordable housing construction. This money is not to supplant any money already promised to aboriginal communities.

I need to talk specifically about some of the conditions on some of the reserves in Nanaimo--Cowichan. They are shameful. We would expect some of these conditions to be seen in developing countries, not in a very rich country like Canada. Some of the housing on first nations reserves in British Columbia is shocking. In my riding, raw sewage is running through front yards. Water has to be boiled before drinking. Dumps are leaching into the water table. First nations have mould in their homes and face substandard housing construction.

It is outrageous that we have these kinds of conditions in this day and age in Canada. I applaud the fact that the New Democratic Party was able to work toward having funds committed to aboriginal housing.

The February 2001 report by the B.C. Ministry of Social Development, entitled “Homelessness--Causes & Effects”, a lovely title, talked about an insufficient supply of affordable housing. The report stated:

An insufficient supply of affordable housing is the key factor contributing to homelessness in British Columbia. While existing housing policies and programs are exemplary compared to some other provinces, the supply [of housing] remains insufficient. The existing stock of affordable housing is a valuable resource. However, this stock...continues to be vulnerable to demolition and conversion despite some positive provincial and local government actions to preserve it.

BC Housing's waiting list for social housing consists of approximately 10,500 individuals--

Let me repeat: the waiting list consists of 10,500 individuals. The statement continued:

--an increase of 50 per cent since the federal withdrawal from new housing supply. (This does not include those on non-profit and co-op housing waiting lists).

HOMES BC unit allocations, while a step in the right direction, are insufficient to fill the gap left by the federal government. New stock continues to be essential, particularly with a focus on those who are homeless and at risk of homelessness. Rent subsidies do not address the issues of supply.

The most frequently used method of counting and describing the homeless is through the use of emergency shelter records. This approach does not capture the full extent of homelessness. It excludes those who do not use shelters but sleep 'rough' and specific sub-groups such as women, youth and Aboriginal people for whom there are few suitable shelters.

Women and children are said to be the 'invisible homeless.' They avoid living on the street or using emergency shelters by doubling up with other families or living in inadequate accommodation. However, shelter data often tends to be the best information available.

I want to add a couple of other facts. We know that affordable housing has wide-ranging impacts on people's lives. We have an affordable housing unit in Nanaimo that has demonstrated how this can save us health care dollars. This affordable housing unit is for people who are emotionally or mentally disadvantaged. Studies on this housing unit have shown that having adequate quality housing improves people's quality of life. A pre- and post-study was done on this housing shelter. Before people had access to this very high quality housing unit, the number of hospital stays and also the length of time in a hospital were substantially different than they were after they had access.

The study done on people after they had access to the unit showed that both the number of times people were admitted to hospital and the length of time they spent in hospital were substantially decreased. This was directly attributable to having safe, secure, affordable housing in their neighbourhood, with access to all the services that they needed. We need to see more of this.

This budget agreement also includes $1.5 billion to reduce the cost of post-secondary education for students and their families. Again I have to talk about my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. The average amount of student debt among British Columbia university graduates was $20,100, which exceeds the national average of $18,900. For college students, the average amount of student debt among British Columbia graduates was $11,400, which was slightly less than the national average debt of $12,700, but it is still a very high amount.

Everything we look at points to the need to have quality, affordable, accessible education in order for Canada to remain a competitive economic unit in the world. Our students must be able to attend college and university and come out without crushing debt loads, which means that they cannot actively participate in their communities. Students with high debt loads cannot do things such as get a mortgage for a house or buy an automobile. We must be able to provide quality, affordable, accessible education for our students and we must move on that quickly.

We just need to point to the example in Ireland, where post-secondary education was made broadly available to students. Now people are talking about the economic success of Ireland, of which education was a key factor.

The final point I would like to discuss is the $900 million for environmental initiatives such as the energy retrofit program, which helps homeowners reduce energy bills and pollution through efficiency, and a 1% increase in the gas tax transfer to municipalities for public transit, recognizing our cities' central role in building a strong economy.

I was previously a municipal councillor. Our community has struggled with providing adequate public transit. Many parts of our community do not have access to public transit. This kind of environmental initiative is absolutely critical in maintaining the efficiency and accessibility of our communities.

In conclusion, I would urge all members of the House to support Bill C-48. This bill is an important step forward in making Canadians' lives more livable. We talk about quality of life and we talk about things such as social determinants of health, but let me say that people need to have access to housing and they need to have access to affordable education. And we certainly want to make sure that our children and our children's children have access to clean air and clean water.

I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-48. Let us demonstrate to Canadians that we can actually work together and get something done.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me be more explicit so that people understand. Let us just put it this way. The member from Edmonton wanted money for Darfur. The next day there was an announcement that a whole bunch of money would go to Darfur. It just happens that this is on the eve of a very important vote that could be decided by a single member, so people can draw their own conclusions.

Will the member admit that Bill C-48 actually contradicts everything that the finance minister said up to the point that Bill C-48 was announced?

The finance minister said that he could not change the budget. It could not be cherry-picked. It could not be stripped away piece by piece. He said that we had to have corporate tax cuts because corporate tax cuts were a tax on large employers. They would create 340,000 jobs for Canadians. Will he admit that Bill C-48 completely contradicts and undermines his own finance minister?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to address Bill C-48. It pains me to see how bitter and angry my friend across the way is over all of this. I do not think that flatters him. These are important issues, but they should not cause people to be so poisoned that they lash out the way my friend has across the way.

I want to go to the substance of what he has said in his remarks, correct some of the things that he said, and ask if he will acknowledge that perhaps he has erred in telling the House some of the things he has said.

He said a minute ago that there is going to be money in Bill C-48 going to the military. That is not true, of course. That is absolutely incorrect. In fact, Bill C-48 will ensure that money cannot go to the military because it jacks up spending so much. Not only does this bill hurt the military, families, homemakers, small business people, children, it hurts people who care about this country and that is what bothers me. My friend is selling Canadians a bill of goods and I must correct a few of the other things he has said.

He said that this is about democracy. He made a case about why we need to deal with this right away and why we need to pass it. I must point out that the government took away the supply days of the opposition in an attempt to subvert democracy. We have not had a supply day since April 7 in this place. That is something that democracy in this country hinges upon. If people care about democracy, they cannot accept what my friend has just said.

My friend talked about Darfur and the need to get money to Darfur, but we find out that the government of Sudan has said no to the government's plan to send money and troops to Darfur. In fact, this is one of those cases where the government tried very hard to buy the vote of a single member with this big spending announcement. It was so anxious to do so that it forgot to check with the actual country that this money and these troops were supposed to go to, which I think does not really flatter the government. In fact, it sort of speaks to a hidden agenda--

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss Bill C-48. At the same time, I am also sad with what has gone on. Through my presentation I will allude to that simply because we are given the opportunity once a week to go home to our ridings and gauge with our constituents, hear their views and comments, given the unusual circumstances that are unfolding here in this honourable chamber, and come back and work with our colleagues to see how we can positively move forward initiatives, efforts that the government brings forward for the betterment of our country, our people, our youth, our seniors and every other generation in between, so we can continue staying at the pinnacle where our country has been for many years.

As I said in the past, it is no coincidence that our country is recognized as one of the best countries in the world in which to live.

Today I will be speaking to Bill C-48 which proposes investments from unplanned surpluses. What this means primarily is that, as the Liberal government traditionally has done in the past, it looks to making the right kind of key investments within our Canadian society basically because Canada as a whole has been recognized and noted as a very different country, a compassionate, caring and giving country, a country that always comes to the calling and always stands up, whether it be domestically or internationally.

In past budgets the government has made significant investments in priority programs such as social programs. At the same time, this bill is simply an extension of what we traditionally have done in the past.

I will make two or three brief points of what this bill would do.

This bill, first, invests in, as I have put it in the past, the future of our country, which is our youth. In essence, it supports post-secondary education, post-secondary programs. What better investment can we make? We talk about staying competitive as a nation. We talk about creating a smart society. We talk about creating a society that is productive, peaceful, safe and secure. That is where this investment, I believe, would bear fruit.

Beyond that, what would it also do? It supports areas such as transportation, for which the cities, for example, have continuously asked us for support. We know very well that a strong city makes for a strong province and, as a result, makes for a strong country. We have that obligation.

Housing, which is important, is another element of Bill C-48. What best can families or individuals have, as we have often said, than a roof over their heads, which is the foundation of any safe society. This government, in its wisdom and in consultation with other parties, said that we must move forward on this issue and we are doing so.

Another area is our environment. If we do not look after the environment today, 10, 20, 30 years down the road we will be saying, “God, what mistakes. What did we do?” We hear how our health system is being impeded. We have an aging population. Any initiative toward protecting our environment is a great investment, and that is part of what Bill C-48 would do.

A nation is not only noted for what it does within its borders. A nation also gains respect by what it does outside its borders.

In Canada, historically speaking, Prime Minister Pearson did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize just because he was the prime minister of Canada. He received it because he stood above the rest. His initiatives then make us proud today as a nation.

We cannot just take one step forward and then take ten steps back. As difficult as it is sometimes, if we want to be international players, if I might use that word, we need to participate and there are different ways of participating. We can provide physical presence, which our proud military has done and performed so well over the years, but just being there is one aspect of it. There has to be financial support at the same time.

Bill C-48 in essence would do that as well. Our military has repeatedly said that if they are being asked to do a job and to put their lives at stake they need support and Bill C-48 would do that.

Our foreign aid contribution is toward our military. We have heard that over 300,000 people have lost their lives in Darfur. We cannot sit back and say that we do not care. We do care. Aside from caring, we talk about creating security for our nation. If we have nations that are hurting, rest assured that the hurt will be expressed in different ways, and generally it is not in a good way.

If we help these nations find peace, security, stability and economic development where their people can seek work that will give them the opportunity to provide food and shelter for their families, they then will have no need to go out and react in adverse ways which does harm to nations such as ours.

If we create a stable and secure environment in Darfur for example, or other hot spots, we would in essence create security for Canada. Those obligations are part of Bill C-48 as well.

As Bill C-48 unfolded we know the New Democratic Party was very supportive, and I believe it still is. Some very good proposals came from the New Democratic Party. It is said that in order to be a good healer one must be a good listener. The Prime Minister and this Liberal government has been listening. Maybe not all the proposes are good but surely some good can come out of listening and in this case a lot of good has come out of it, good that has been applauded by Canadians. I know because I hear about it in my riding.

Once a week, as I have said, we have the opportunity to go back to our ridings to be with our families and talk to our constituents. We receive calls, emails and letters. People in a free and democratic society, like the one we have in Canada, have the right to express their views, whether we agree or disagree is beside the point. Through Bill C-48, the message is very simple. We have listened and we have responded in the way the vast majority of Canadians want.

Another element I omitted, which is very important, is that Bill C-48 would enhance small and medium sized enterprises. When we first assumed government after the election of October 1993, we said that the engine that drives the economy is the small and medium sized enterprises. The bill contains tax reforms with respect to small and medium sized enterprises.

Larger corporations have benefits coming down the road, I believe slotted for 2008. It is not like it has just disappeared and we are only looking at one segment. Let us not forget that the vast majority of jobs have been created through the small and medium sized enterprises, and the government in Bill C-48 does that as well.

Now that I have talked a little bit about Bill C-48, I want to get into what is happening here. We have a moral obligation, if I may put it that way, to bring to this honourable chamber the views, frustrations, call it whatever, from our constituents.

In the past several weeks I have heard comments like, “God, it's like kindergarten all over again in that chamber. They are a bunch of rowdies, a bunch of grown up kids”. It makes me so sad and it hurts me to hear these comments. However I have to accept them because that is what is happening here in this honourable chamber.

One example is what happened last week when a motion was put in the House. The Leader of the Opposition, for some odd reason, did not get his way and he just got up and walked out. This reminds me of the bully on the street who comes out to play hockey and when he does not get his way he takes his ball, his net and he leaves.

That is not how we build a nation nor is it how we find compromise. When the going gets tough, the tough get going and they sit in this chamber and debate. Members stand up in the House and express their views if they want their constituents to know exactly what is going on.

Over the past several weeks people have said that Parliament is not functioning. People want Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 to move forward. There are great ideas in these bills. Bill C-43, which I will not get into, what a budget. It has been continuously applauded throughout the country. There was not one area that was not covered. Even in a small way tax relief was covered.

The reason tax relief was not covered, if I may remind my hon. colleague, is that in the 2000 budget the largest tax relief in the history of our country was put forward; a five year program of $100 billion. Today, in 2005, we are into the fifth year of that five year program. I say that it does not make sense to add another tax relief budget when this country is in the fifth year of that five year program.

This government has produced not only balanced budgets and eliminated the deficit way in advance, but we have provided seven consecutive balanced budgets. This is unheard of in the history of our country. This government has provided surpluses never heard of before. These surpluses have given us the opportunity to reinvest in the country. For example, the Romanow report, a very good report, not only did we meet that report and its request, but we exceeded that report and the expectations.

We have the cities agenda, need I say more. Supposedly $400 million was allocated in the last budget and that amount has been jacked up to $600 million. Why? It is because more money was there.

What did we do with it? We have no deficit and the debt has been reduced faster than anyone ever expected. I believe in 1993 the debt to GDP ratio was at 71% or 72% and today we are below 50%. It is projected that in the next four or five years it will be at 25% or 26%. No country out there can say that. In the G-7 we are the most advanced country in terms of job growth, surpluses and balanced budgets and we have the fastest growing economy. We have invested wisely in the new economy. We have invested in research chairs as no other country has done before.

We have these so-called clusters of excellence situated throughout the country. Universities have benefited tremendously. We have been able not only to retain the best and the brightest, but we have been able to attract the best and the brightest.

I remember visiting the Hospital for Sick Children a couple of years ago when I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of industry in relation to an investment that we made in cancer research for youth. A highly regarded specialist from England was there and I asked him why he came to Canada. He said that it was because the best was here. He said that the government had invested, that we were on the right track and that as a professional it was here that he could do better work.

We often do not talk about these stories but the time has come to talk about these stories and really call a spade a spade.

Today we find ourselves in the very unusual situation where we come with great interest in this House to debate. Yes, we will argue with the opposition. Yes, we will debate. Yes, the temperature gets a little bit high. The nature of this environment is that we yell and scream sometimes in frustration.

I apologize for that to Canadians and to my constituents, but we only experience what we do because we are in this chamber. When we have so-called immunity, we are protected in the House and we say what we want to say and get away with it. Who are we really hurting? We are hurting the average Canadian and that is the sad part about it.

Let me give one example, if I may. The other day I was watching a news program on CBC. The member for Calgary Centre-North was on the tube and he had the audacity again to say that his constituents wanted an election. He was being intellectually dishonest by saying that because he was on the tube a week before that when the House was in recess. He went home, supposedly, to gauge his constituents and to determine if they wanted an election. The first thing that was shown on television was the hon. member unpacking and setting up his campaign office. The reporter asked him what he was doing because he was supposedly there to gauge his constituents and to get a sense of what they wanted him to do.

We have often been told by members of the opposition, the new Conservative Party, that they will represent their constituents, and say and do what their constituents want them to do. The hon. member went home and opened up a campaign office. What did he do then? He went out on the street to canvass his constituents about the election and 9 out of 10 constituents told him, on television, that they did not want an election. They did not want another $350 million wasted for an election that is not necessary. The 10th constituent did not really care because he or she was probably turned off. The hon. member then came back to the chamber and said that his constituents wanted us to have an election. That is malarkey. I dare the Conservative Party to go back and look at exactly what happened that day.

I have to get back to the bill because there is important stuff here. The transport critic made a comment. He is a good friend of mine who worked very well on committee. Look what we have done on reducing rents at airports. We see that things are different and times have changed. We are trying to accommodate, we are trying to help out, and we are trying to make things work. That is the problem.

We have been trying to get to the bill for a long time. I have been trying to get on my feet to talk about the bill for a long time. What do opposition members do? They interrupt proceedings and shut the House down.

This reminds me of a saying that the future is always affected by the past. Let us go back in history for a moment on a bill like this and what happened? We had an unholy alliance before this one. We had Mr. Mulroney, who was in cahoots with the separatists to form government. What happened? We had the birth of the Reform Party to break up the country. We have now gone full cycle and the Reform came together and kicked out the Conservatives. It is now in bed with the Bloc Québécois and all of a sudden, the country simply is not working. We have been asking for weeks to put forth Bill C-48 and we cannot do it.

The bill wants to work. The budget has so many good things in it. I have talked to students who told me they want a good education because they deserve a good education.

I ask the opposition and all members in the House to do the right thing for the good of our youth, the environment, housing, cities, and for the good of the country. These investments make sense, especially when members agreed to support the budget bill, Bill C-43.

If they support Bill C-43, there is no reason why they cannot support Bill C-48, simply because Bill C-48 has what I alluded to a couple of minutes ago. If they come back and say they do not want to support Bill C-48, they are saying they are not supporting our youth, transportation and the environment. That is what they are saying.

Therefore, I move:

That this question be now put.

Business of the House

[The Speaker]

This is clearly debate. I invite hon. members to get on with the debate after private members' hour is over. We will be on Bill C-48, I understand, which is the bill the hon. member wants to divide. I would suggest he get into a lively debate one hour from now.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After consultation with all parties, I believe you would find unanimous consent to adopt the following unanimously without debate or amendment. It is the same motion I was looking to move last week on three different occasions. In the spirit of cooperation and to enhance the civility, certainly in this House, I think all parties now have come to an understanding and agreement. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, the second reading stages of Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, and Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, shall be disposed of as follows:

1. Any division thereon requested before the expiry of the time for consideration of government orders on Thursday, May 19, shall be deferred to that time;

2. At the expiry of the time for consideration of government orders on Thursday, May 19, all questions necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of (1) Bill C-43 and (2) Bill C-48 shall be put and decided forthwith and successively, without further debate, amendment or deferral.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all those colleagues who voted to hear me speak this afternoon. I appreciate that a lot.

The Liberals, at least the few who bothered to show up for work today, denied my motion earlier today to respect the rights of all members of Parliament and their constituents by holding the votes on the budget bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 which we are discussing right now, on Monday so that all members of Parliament could be here to cast their votes and represent their constituents. We on this side believed the motion to be in the spirit of Canadian compromise.

Obviously we believe and have stated unequivocally that we believe this is an illegitimate government as of Tuesday night when in our opinion the Liberals fell to a motion of non-confidence when they were defeated in this chamber.

As we have seen today, repeatedly, the government House leader would like to arrange the votes on Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 when it is convenient for the Prime Minister, when he happens to be in town and when he says he can be here. We say that is wrong on two counts.

Therefore we certainly would like to see, and we have said this repeatedly all day long, that those votes be held on Monday, not on Thursday of next week.

The Liberals also refused the motion to split Bill C-43 that was put forward by the leader of the official opposition, the Conservative Party of Canada, so that we could pass as expeditiously as possible those parts of Bill C-43 that deal with the Atlantic accord to provide needed help for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

For those two reasons and probably, if I were to really give it much thought, many more, I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

Business of the House

[The Speaker]

No, that is not my interpretation. I will read the motion to the House and the hon. member will be able to derive his view of it, too. It was moved by the member for Hamilton East--Stoney Creek, seconded by the member for Ottawa--Vanier, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(1)(a):

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, the second reading stages of Bill C-43, An Act to implement certain provisions of the Budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, and Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments , shall be disposed of as follows:

1. Any division thereon requested before the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005 shall be deferred to that time;

2. At the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, all questions necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of (1) Bill C-43 and (2) Bill C-48 shall be put and decided forthwith and successively, without further debate, amendment or deferral.

Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.

And more than 25 members having risen:

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for your indulgence because we have not received the motion in writing and I have not had the opportunity to review it. However, from what I just heard you say, is it your interpretation of this motion that there would be, if it were to pass, debate on the two bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, every day beginning with the next sitting of the House, on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and thus there would not be in effect time allocation or closure brought?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, under our Constitution, the respective rights, privileges and responsibilities of the judiciary, the executive and the legislative are quite well defined. The legislative has the ability to define its own rules of proceedings. It has done so since the start of Confederation and will continue to do so because ours is a fairly well tested method of government. In that sense, the rules that the House of Commons sets for itself in its proceedings are of its own jurisdiction. Therefore, there is nothing here that is ultra vires.

On the matter of the eligibility as to the purpose of the motion that was put this morning, it is a matter of the setting of government business. This would essentially, when adopted, schedule that the motion to dispose of Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill, and Bill C-48, a bill which gives effect to the agreement that the government has entered into with the New Democratic Party, would be disposed of on Thursday, May 19, which is perfectly admissible. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, one would expect and hope that you will rule that the motion made by the House leader is in order.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, the second reading stages of Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, and Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, shall be disposed of as follows;

1. Any division thereon requested before the expiry of the time for consideration of government orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005 shall be deferred to that time;

2. At the expiry of the time for consideration of government orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, all questions necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of (1) Bill C-43 and (2) Bill C-48 shall be put and decided forthwith and successively, without further debate, amendment or deferral.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, the second reading stages of Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, and Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, shall be disposed of as follows:

1. Any division thereon requested before the expiry of the date for consideration of government orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, shall be deferred to that time;

2. At the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, all questions necessary for the disposal of second reading stages of (1) Bill C-43 and (2) Bill C-48 shall be put and decided forthwith and successively, without further debate, amendment or deferral.

Government of Canada

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we set a reasonable date for a confidence vote. In the meantime, there is an opportunity to debate the budget. Bill C-48 is in the House.

The key point is and the real question is that on the vote on Thursday, which is a confidence vote, the Prime Minister has said that he will respect the results. What I would like to know is whether the leader of the official opposition and his separatist friends will respect the results.

If we fail on Thursday, the Prime Minister will visit the Governor General and there will be an election. If we succeed, will the hon. members across the way allow this Parliament to function and function in the interests of Canadians?

The Budget

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let us point to some of the accomplishments in the House just in recent days. The DNA bill has passed. The veterans bill has passed. The WTO ruling with respect to agriculture has come through. There is the aid to Africa which has also been passed.

What I might want to say to the hon. member is that Bill C-48 is before the House today. It is a budget debate. I would like to know how many members across the way will get up on this debate.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome all of the members across the way here on a Friday. I have never seen so many of them here. It has to be the first time that they have actually shown up on a Friday.

Government of Canada

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, one can never prejudge or predetermine whether members are able to come to the House or not when there is a vote. We have set a reasonable time for a confidence vote. Procedural and constitutional experts have indicated that.

There is an opportunity to continue debate. Bill C-48 is in the House right now. I hope hon. members are not going to attempt to pass some motion to adjourn the House; it would be another afternoon off at taxpayers' expense that the Conservatives and the Bloc want.

The Thursday vote is a confidence vote. It will be on Thursday.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will not get into signatures on paper, by the way, for the purposes of the hon. member.

We have set forward a reasonable date for a confidence vote. There is an opportunity to continue that debate. Bill C-48 is in the House today and it is an important piece of legislation.

Having the vote on Thursday also respects the investments made by both the people and governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan with respect to the Queen's visit. May I also suggest that the hon. member has no concern for the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan, who made that investment.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary says that I have not read the bill. I have read the bill and it took me all of about two minutes because Bill C-48 is two pages. Boy, it was quite a bill. We are talking about $4.6 billion in spending and the bill is a page and a half long. That is pathetic. That is no way to govern this nation in a fiscally responsible way.

The member asked about the commitments in this budget. Why were they not in the first budget? Why were they not discussed at the finance committee in prebudget hearings?

He asked what the Conservative's position is on the environment. Look at the Liberal's position on Kyoto. In the budget introduced on February 23 there was $5 billion for Kyoto. A month later, no, we actually need $10 billion for Kyoto even though emissions have gone up under this government. That is no Kyoto plan.

The member asked what we would do. We would actually take some initiatives, invest in technology and work with industries like the auto industry. Here is a couple of ideas. Why--

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity the hon. member has not actually read Bill C-48. His commentary seems to be on something in Bill C-43. If Bill C-43 does not pass next Thursday, he has only to look in the mirror to see why it did not pass.

I hope the member read Bill C-48 prior to this debate. I want to know from the hon. member which part of Bill C-48 he is against. Is he against the $1.6 billion in additional funding for affordable housing? Is that what he and his party stand for? Are they against that? Is he against the $1.5 billion to enhance post-secondary education? Are he and his separatist buddies against that? How about the $900 million in environmental moneys? Are he and his separatist buddies against that as well? What about the $500 million for additional core needs? Is he against that?

Those are the core elements of Bill C-48. The hon. member appears not to have read the bill. I would like to know what his party actually stands for. I know what it stands against.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a short question in regard to this. Since we just passed last year's bill in the Senate, could he explain to us how long it would take to actually see Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 implemented?

Message from the Senate

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will try for a good old Canadian compromise. I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion.

Given the fact that this government has now lost five consecutive votes that clearly demonstrate the government does not command the confidence of this House, and given that it is now well known that at least one member of Parliament is scheduled for cancer surgery when the Prime Minister intends to allow a confidence vote on his two budget bills next Thursday, May 19, 2005, as we have just heard, I seek leave of the House to move this motion:

That, on Monday, May 16, 2005, at 15 minutes before the expiry of time for government orders, the Speaker shall forthwith put all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stages of Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, and Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After consultations with the House leaders of all parties, I am asking for unanimous consent that the following motion be adopted unanimously, without debate or amendment:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, the second reading stages of Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, and Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, shall be disposed of as follows:

1. Any division thereon requested before the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, shall be deferred to that time;

2. At the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, all questions necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of (1) Bill C-43 and (2) Bill C-48 shall be put and decided forthwith and successively, without further debate, amendment or deferral.

Canada Grain Act

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have had unanimous consent given for a couple of bills and I am hoping for a third.

I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following: I move that the proceedings on the motion for second reading and referral to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-43 conclude at 1:57 p.m. this afternoon, that all questions necessary to dispose of second reading of this bill be deemed put, that a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until 5:30 p.m. today; that the proceedings on the motion for second reading and referral to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-48 conclude at 5:29 p.m. this afternoon, that all questions necessary to dispose of second reading of this bill be deemed put, and that a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until 5:30 p.m. today.

Committees of the House

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, within a dozen years, the governments of Jean Chrétien and his second in command have managed to undo everything that Wilfrid Laurier, Louis Saint-Laurent and Pierre Elliott Trudeau tried to accomplish to serve the cause of federalism in Quebec.

They can blame the big bad separatists or the big bad Conservatives, but the federal Liberals are the ones who tried to buy the conscience of Quebeckers with their own money. They are the ones who lied to the people of Quebec. They are the ones who circumvented the laws of Quebec and Canada. They are the ones who diverted the money of Quebeckers and all Canadians.

Secondly, as a consequence, because the government has been revealed in this way, it has now pursued a wasteful and fiscally irresponsible path by engaging in reckless spending and vote buying in a desperate attempt to keep itself alive.

Finally, and as yet another consequence, this government has been revealed as autocratic and undemocratic by throwing aside some of the most basic democratic principles that are essential to our parliamentary system. Let me give examples.

At this very moment I am debating a concurrence motion moved as a filibuster by the government on its own legislation. This is the same day that the Prime Minister tried to claim he wanted to have a vote on the budget. This is the same day that the House leader of the Bloc Québécois moved a motion to have that debate and that vote and the government turned it down.

We are not fooled. We want to see this motion, but I believe the government has no intention whatsoever of having any kind of vote on anything next week.

Just to give an example, we saw what happened yesterday and today. After a trip to Holland, all the party leaders agreed to pass through the House the veterans charter. We gave four-party consent. It was passed through all stages, but no sooner was it done here than the Liberal controlled and Liberal majority Senate found yet another way to delay it and hide behind veterans.

As the official opposition, we can no longer abide supporting a government and a governing party which have been shown to be corrupt, fiscally irresponsible and blatantly undemocratic. Therefore, I will be moving a motion which is again designed to express our lack of confidence in the government.

Before I come to this, I want to outline this case in some detail as to why the government must be defeated because of its manifest corruption, its fiscal irresponsibility and its undemocratic actions.

First, on the issue of its scandals, this budget debate and the recent dramatic events in the House are not occurring in a vacuum but in the context of a government which has brought upon itself the most serious corruption scandal in modern Canadian history.

We have known for some time that there were serious irregularities in the government's sponsorship program. An internal audit was released in 2000. There is a long story behind the delayed release of that audit for the 2000 election, but that audit release in 2000 did indicate that there were serious administrative problems in the program.

This was followed up on by the Auditor General's report on government advertising, released in February of last year, which confirmed that out of the $250 million sponsorship program, much of which was spent on activities of questionable value in the first place, more than $100 million in commissions went to five Liberal friendly advertising agencies with little or no evidence of work being performed for the contracts.

We all remember the famous case where Groupaction received $550,000 to submit a photocopy of a report identical to a report it had prepared the previous year.

Public anger and outrage over this blatant waste and mismanagement of taxpayers' money was no doubt a factor in last year's election and in part responsible for reducing this government to minority status.

But at the time of that election, while we knew that tens of millions of taxpayers' dollars had been wasted, we did not know where this money had gone. To be sure, there were rumours, but there was no proof. Now, thanks to the work of Judge Gomery, work, I should add, which was not allowed to begin before the previous election was called by the Prime Minister, and work, I submit, which would never have taken place if the Prime Minister had a majority today, thanks to his work, we have proof.

Canadians are coming to know the bitter truth: that millions of their hard earned taxpayers' dollars were spent on illegal donations to the Liberal Party for Liberal Party political purposes and it was done through a sophisticated network and scheme of money laundering.

In recent days, we have been viewing the revolting spectacle of Liberal witnesses before the Gomery commission describing how thick the envelopes of money they received in secret were.

While the rest of Canada is striving to earn an honest living, support their families and meet their obligations, including paying income tax, we can see these Liberal organizers and their friends trying to remember whether they received their dirty money in $20s or $100s.

The Gomery commission has become a bad gangster movie. The money in those envelopes, those $20s and $100s, is in fact our money. That money belongs to Canadian taxpayers, not to the Liberal Party of Canada.

Over the past few weeks we have heard sworn testimony, backed by documentary evidence, that money from the sponsorship program was paid to advertising agencies which in turn used that money to make both legal and illegal donations to the Liberal Party--and no doubt some of it was pocketed--but to also illegally pay for Liberal election organizers and to pay for Liberal campaign expenses ranging from signs to party videos.

Just last week, as one of a series of confessions, not baseless allegations, not baseless accusations, not even mere admissions, but confessions from senior members of the Liberal Party under sworn evidence, the former president of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec admitted that he received $300,000 in cash from Jacques Corriveau, a close personal friend of Jean Chrétien, who benefited from millions of dollars of little or no work contracts from the sponsorship program.

I heard somebody over there calling “order”. We have seen the tactics of some of the members in the last few days, not wanting to have this evidence on the record of the House of Commons, but we will read every bit of it into the record of this House of Commons.

That cash was used to pay for Liberal Party workers in opposition held ridings in direct violation of the Canada Elections Act. We have also heard from many of the recipients of that money, admitting that they received illegal contributions, and we have seen cashed cheques and bank statements confirming that illegal payments were made.

I remind the House that after the release of the Auditor General's report last year, and with an election in the offing, the Prime Minister and his Quebec lieutenant, now the Minister of Transport, promised that the Liberal Party would not campaign with this dirty money. They promised that every penny that had been illegally donated or diverted from the sponsorship program would be paid back in full, but now we are hearing a different story.

When only a few weeks ago an opposition motion was put forth calling on the government to put aside the money that was stolen, to put it into a blind trust, it was voted on in this House and every one of the Liberals stood and voted against that motion.

I remind the House that the motion was nonetheless adopted and that the government is duty bound to respect the decisions made by the House of Commons.

The Liberal Party fought the 1997 and 2000 elections with dirty money. This is a fact. Since the Liberals did not return any of the money in 2004, they fought the last election with dirty money, and now it looks, in violation of an order of this House, as though they are willing to fight a fourth straight election with money that has been stolen from the Canadian taxpayers.

These past few weeks, billions of dollars have been promised throughout Canada without any discussions taking place in Parliament. The Liberal strategy is clear: they tried to buy the last referendum, and now they want to buy the next election.

The government is not listening to Parliament nor to the people of Canada; it only understands the language of money.

This is unacceptable. The government must be held accountable for this behaviour. Most disturbingly, we have heard serious allegations--well, I will correct the wording--confessions from the former executive director of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec, again not a rogue operator as the Prime Minister implied, but the chief staff person for the party in the province of Quebec, that Liberal sleaze and patronage extended even to the selection of judges. He has gone on record saying that a member of the judicial advisory committee responsible for selecting judges for the province of Quebec was in the habit of calling him to find out how much money lawyers who are potential judicial candidates had contributed to the party.

These are among the most serious examples of partisan interference in judicial appointments that have ever been heard in this country.

The Liberals have undermined Canadians' confidence in our political system and even manipulated our judicial system.

The Liberal Party of Canada, like the Government of Canada, is a threat to Canadian democracy.

When this was raised in the House, the Minister of Justice said that he will hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. He is apparently not open to any investigation into this potential corruption of our judicial selection process. In fact the minister keeps claiming, in spite of the claims of his own party officials, that appointments are made strictly on the basis of merit.

I would point out that research by journalists and citizens has revealed that 60% of lawyers appointed to the bench in Quebec since 2000 made donations to the Liberal Party. It is frankly hard to take the Minister of Justice or the Prime Minister at their word when they say that politics has nothing to do with judicial appointments.

The essential facts about Liberal corruption are not in dispute. No one is disputing that money was diverted or stolen from the sponsorship program. No one is disputing that it was done by some Liberals. No one is disputing that at least some of that money ended up in the coffers of the Liberal Party or was used for Liberal partisan purposes.

In fact I would point out that the Prime Minister of Canada went on national television to address these allegations and he never once denied them in his speech to the Canadian people. Their only comeback on this as these facts accumulate is to urge the House not to rush to judgment, but as they say, let Judge Gomery do his work so that, in the Prime Minister's words in the address to the nation on television:

There is conflicting testimony; only the judge is in a position to determine the truth.... Only he can tell us what happened and who was responsible.

The government is saying, “I am currently under investigation, I am suspected of widespread corruption, so I have no time for an election”.

The real judge of the honesty, candour and competence of the government is the public. The people of Canada are ready to judge this government.

What we know when I referred to that remark of the Prime Minister in his televised speech is that in fact it is not true. The government inserted clause k into the terms of reference of the Gomery inquiry that prohibits Justice Gomery from reaching “any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal liability of any person or organization”. The government is telling the public to wait until Judge Gomery determines who is responsible for this theft of taxpayers' money, knowing full well that it has prohibited Judge Gomery from making any such finding.

The Liberal request to let them stay in office until the affair is investigated would be akin to the executives of Enron asking that they be allowed to continue to manage the business while they are under investigation for fraud and embezzlement. It is simply untenable to carry on with business as usual when the police are knocking on the door.

Let me say, so that the Canadian people are reassured, Justice Gomery will complete his work. His work is to hear this testimony. He will complete it and he will complete it before the voters render a judgment on the government.

Even more disturbing than any of this is the government's attempt to portray itself as a victim. These acts were not committed by some shadowy rogue group of Liberals. We have testimony from the former executive director of the Liberal Party of Canada, Quebec, and the president of the Liberal Party of Canada, Quebec, testifying that they were part of a kickback scheme. This is no rogue operation. It is the entire apparatus of the federal Liberal Party in the province of Quebec.

The victim line is when the government hears confessions from its own senior officials that it benefited from stolen money, the first act of the Prime Minister is not to apologize or to take action, but to try and claim that the Liberal Party was somehow a victim.

When these officials come forward, the first act of Liberal counsel at the Gomery inquiry is not to get all of the evidence. It is to attack the people who are coming forward, to attack the whistleblowers, to attack their reputation, to undermine their evidence to discourage them from testifying.

This is proof, and I do not think we need any more proof, that the government will never get, will never hold accountable those among its own who are responsible for this affair. That is why it has no moral authority to govern this country. That is why we need a new government to do what Judge Gomery is not allowed to do by these Liberals, and that is, hold the Liberal Party accountable for its criminal activity.

The culture of corruption within the Liberal Party is evident, but equally disturbing is the fact that the Liberals are now prepared to put the finances of the country into jeopardy for their own short term partisan purposes. In a sense this should not surprise us. The crisis was caused by the Liberal Party spending millions of dollars in an attempt to bribe voters in the province of Quebec. Now that the strategy has backfired, they are attempting to get out of the crisis by spending billions of dollars in the rest of the country to make voters forget about the scandal.

Scandalous waste and reckless spending cannot be allowed to bury scandalous theft and corruption. In February our party in good faith decided not to bring the government down on its budget, not because we thought it was a perfect budget--we were already concerned about rapidly accelerating government spending--but we thought the budget had worthwhile measures we could support.

The original budget repeated a previous agreement that had not been tabled in the House to grant the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia control over their offshore resource revenues under the Atlantic accord. It included a transfer of gas tax revenues to cities and communities to help pay for needed infrastructure. It included modest tax cuts for individuals by raising the basic personal exemptions and tax cuts for businesses that would have helped create jobs and improve competitiveness.

The Liberals say that they are still there. I say they should have been there a long time ago. All these are long-standing policies of this party. We have stuck with these policies long before this Prime Minister flip-flopped on them. We will stick with them now and we will bring them in when we are on that side of the House.

I wonder if the government really ever wanted this budget bill to pass. We now hear its strategy is to be defeated on the budget. What it did right off the bat was it roped the measures that we supported in with other measures including measures such as the CEPA amendments, Canadian Environmental Protection Act amendments, which were not even in the budget and which it knew this party could not support.

A far more serious and reckless blow to fiscal integrity was the new budget cooked up in a hotel room by Buzz Hargrove and the Leader of the NDP. It was then announced that the tax cuts necessary to create jobs and keep our business competitive with the United States would be eliminated. In their place we had $4.6 billion in new program spending on a grab bag of programs to be paid for out of mysterious reserve funds.

We now have before us a second budget bill. This budget bill has the innocuous title, Bill C-48, an act to authorize certain payments. What it in fact conceals is an unprecedented government slush fund that again allows the government to avoid parliamentary accountability for its spending programs.

Let me quote Don Drummond, one of the Prime Minister's former assistant deputy ministers when he was minister of finance, and how he has described Bill C-48. He said:

--for years government has wanted an instrument that would allow it to allocate spending without having to say what it's for. This act will do it.

Ironically, let me point out to my NDP friends that they have less reason to be pleased with this agreement than they thought. Bill C-43 is still on the government's agenda. The government has not removed any of the tax reductions it said it would remove. Bill C-48 does not actually set aside any money to be spent on priorities they had identified, like post-secondary education, housing and foreign aid. Instead it simply authorizes the government at its discretion to set aside reserves for these general priorities, but only after it has the final surplus figures for fiscal 2005-06, which will be in August 2006.

The bottom line is this bill will not even get money into the hands of groups and programs the NDP wants to support for another 18 months. When it does so, it will happen entirely at the discretion of the Liberal cabinet. The reality is it is the worst of both worlds. We have socialist spending delivered through Liberal undemocratic tactics and financial trickery.

Here is another scene from a bad film, which we are going to have to sit through: a secret meeting between the Liberals and the NDP in a Toronto hotel room in order to consummate the marriage of corruption and socialism and divvy up our money.

Perhaps even more concerning than this fiscally reckless plan is the fact that the Liberals continue to go around the country making announcements based on a flim-flam budget, the full details of which they still have not presented to this Parliament and on which they certainly do not have any approval.

In fact, over the past few weeks, since Jean Brault testified, which I am sure is a coincidence, and since the $4.6 billion agreement with the NDP, the government has announced $22 billion in spending initiatives. It is spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars based on an incomplete and unapproved budget. I will list the $22 billion worth of spending announcements.

The Liberals clap. They can explain it to the people who used to vote for them because of fiscal responsibility.

In our British parliamentary system there is perhaps no principle--

Privilege

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a motion. I believe you would find consent for the following order:

That the proceedings on the motion for second reading and referral to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-43 conclude at 4:30 p.m. this afternoon;

That all questions necessary to dispose of second reading of this bill be deemed put;

That a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until 5:30 p.m. today;

That the proceedings on the motion for second reading and referral to the Standing Committee on Finance of Bill C-48 conclude at 5:29 p.m. this afternoon;

That all the questions necessary to dispose of second reading of this bill be deemed put;

That a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred until 5:30 p.m. today.

I therefore seek the consent—

The Budget

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48, giving legislative authority to the government's understanding with the NDP, was made necessary by the 180 degree flip-flop by the official opposition.

It was made possible by four important principles: first, the assurance of no deficit; second, the assurance of continued debt reduction; third, the profiling of two particular tax measures in a separate piece of legislation; and fourth, investment priorities consistent with the government's own spending commitments, those being housing, learning, the environment and foreign aid. They are also Canadian priorities.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-48.

It is important to recognize that we have had a significant change in policy here because of what happened all within a matter of weeks. We were waiting for the Conservatives and the Bloc to bring down the government without a budget or decide whether they may or may not do so but we New Democrats did not wait to see what might happen.

Quite frankly, the Conservatives did not vote in the last budget and we did not want to sit around and wait for them to decide with the Bloc to bring down the government. That could have happened. We could have had a situation where we would be back in a vacuum. That is why we want to see the budget move really quickly through the House of Commons.

We have been very much at the forefront of the housing element and in calling for a program that would bring Canada more in line with other nations. In my area of Windsor, Ontario, there is a great housing need that has been pent up from the lack of action. This is the first time we will see something in modern times.

I would ask the minister to comment in terms of southern Ontario on what type of impact we expect to have on housing and how soon we can actually expect the projects to be unveiled. I know we are looking at a two year window of a commitment to move the projects along. I would ask him to see that the proper policies are in place so that we will not be delayed. People need housing right now, not just the homeless but also working Canadians. Working Canadians cannot find employment with sustainable incomes. I ask the minister how quickly we can expect to see some real results.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Housing]

Mr. Speaker, talking about height, the member is absolutely right. There is a chance for some small guys, maybe not in basketball but hopefully in politics. I have been here 16 years and I have enjoyed the company of some of my best friends, even on the other side of the House.

Before I begin my speech, I want to pick up on something the member for Cumberland--Colchester talked about being the highlight of the Conservative record between 1984 and 1993, that being the GST, which we all know how well that went over, and the free trade agreement. We all know it was the federal Liberal government that fixed those things.

Bill C-48 and the budget gives the government the opportunity to talk a bit about where it wants to spend taxpayer money. A budget is a lot more than just a piece of paper or a balancing act. One needs to put it into context first and foremost.

In 1993, 12 short years ago, this country was on the brink of bankruptcy. Interest rates were 14% and 18% and unemployment was high. Since 1997 the Liberal government has produced surplus budgets each and every year. This is the eighth surplus budget. The facts are on the table.

We have reduced taxes by $100 billion, especially to low and middle income Canadians. We have created more jobs than any country in the G-7, over 2.5 million jobs in the past number of years. Canada is ranked number one in the G-7. We have the lowest interest rates which have allowed people to build or buy homes. That is a fact.

Every single year that this government has put people first the country has done well. This budget does that again. It puts people first, which is what it is all about.

Bill C-48 will deliver another surplus budget but this is after having paid down the debt, after having reduced taxes and after having an economy that is the envy of the world with record growth and a number one quality of life.

Let us talk about where we should be investing people's money because that is what this comes down to. Where does the government want to put its money? Where does that party want to put its money?

I want to talk a bit about something I am very passionate about. I cannot believe that the Bloc critic would object to this budget with respect to housing because he was a cooperative housing president and knows how much housing speaks to his people. He wants to vote against this budget, especially the $1.6 billion for housing. Why? It is because his party wants to destroy this country, nothing more than that. It is the personal ambition of the Bloc leader.

I am really surprised because I know a lot of those members across the way, friends of mine over there, including the housing critic for the Conservative Party who has spoken about the Conservative Party supporting housing. What are those members going to do? They are going to vote against this budget. Why? It is because of personal ambition. It has nothing to do with governing. It has nothing to do with waiting for the commissioner to make a report. Those members think there is an opportunity here but Canadians are much smarter.

Canadians have said that they like the new budget and they like where the government is going to put their money. The Conservative Party is not listening to the people of Canada.

Let me talk a bit about housing because it affects every one of our communities. Eighty per cent of the people who live in this country has the option of buying a home but 16%, or 1.7 million, Canadians are looking for housing opportunities and there are very few.

What has this government done for housing over the past number of years? We have invested $1 billion in the homelessness initiative. We continue to invest $2 billion each and every year on social housing and co-operative housing. We have invested $1 billion since 2001 to build affordable housing across this country. This budget speaks about investing another $1.6 billion in every community. Why? It is because we believe we need to house Canadians.

I believe housing is the foundation of individual dignity. Everyone in this country needs an address. Without an address, without a home, without a place where a person can feel comfortable, secure, where no one can ever take it away, where the kids can go to bed at night not in crowded conditions, not in unsafe homes, not in insecure homes but in homes where they can sleep so they can learn tomorrow morning.

The men and women who are the working poor and who go to work each and every day fear that 30 days from now they may be out of a job or they may lose their house because they are paying 50%, 60%, 70% and 80% of their income toward housing.

Does housing matter to people? It does. Does it matter to the Liberal Party and to this government? Yes, it does. It is the foundation of families and communities. It is the foundation upon which neighbourhoods, cities and towns, rural and urban across this country from coast to coast to coast, are built, which is what the budget speaks to.

This budget speaks to housing, which is good economic policy, good social policy, good health policy, good environmental policy and good people policy. What we are talking about is investing in young people so they can buy their first home.

We want to invest in aboriginal housing because we all know how important it is to invest in our aboriginal Canadians on reserve and off reserve. They not only want to own and operate, they want to be part of the solution. They want aboriginal housing for themselves.

In the next couple of weeks cabinet will be having a retreat with the aboriginal leaders of this country to build an aboriginal housing system that will work for them and with them to ensure we deliver on the housing that they require.

We all know that over the past number of months since I became the minister of housing we have had an opportunity of working with each province. The province of Quebec, which is at the forefront of ensuring social housing, affordable housing and co-ops are there, has taken all the money we put on the table back in 2001 and 2003.

British Columbia has also made housing the number one priority. Larry Campbell, the mayor of Vancouver; Mayor Gérard Tremblay in Montreal; mayors and city councils across the country have made housing their number one issue. Why? It is because it is important for their families and for their communities. They have implored and asked the Conservative Party and the Bloc members to support this budget, to stop playing politics and to invest in people and housing. That is what we were sent here to do seven short months ago.

I know my friends will ask what has changed. Three minutes after we presented the budget the Leader of the Opposition said that it was a great budget and that his party would support it. What has changed since that day? Not very much has changed.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with Bill C-48. It is something that I worked hard on in order to have more funding for post-secondary education and training. It was a commitment I made in my riding where post-secondary education is something of key importance to the people there.

I am glad that the bill we are debating today has an extra $1.5 billion for post-secondary education and training. It is something that was absolutely absent from the first budget proposal from the Liberals. In fact, the only measure for students was if the student happened to die, there might some be some debt relief on a student loan. This is a significant improvement to what was originally introduced.

I have a question for the minister about training programs. She spent a great deal of time this afternoon speaking about that and the importance of having a skilled and trained workforce in Canada. I have heard from representatives in the building trades that now it is often difficult to ensure that highly skilled Canadian workers get the jobs in Canada. We have seen her department approve applications from employers for temporary workers from overseas based solely on the idea that the workers from overseas would be cheaper. In fact, in some of the paperwork it boldly states that the workers would be cheaper.

I wonder what the minister is prepared to do to ensure that skilled Canadian workers get the jobs that are available in Canada and that workers are able to travel to those jobs in other parts of the country.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, I am very happy to be here today to speak about Bill C-48.

This bill enables us to work with Canadians to enhance their quality of life by encouraging the development of a highly skilled workforce and an efficient labour market.

That in essence captures what we are trying to achieve in partnership with the provinces and territories and with key stakeholders across the country. It underscores our commitment to make the government work to build a strong economy so the benefits of citizenship in our great country touch every community, every family and every Canadian.

This new bill completes the budget implementation act and reflects the priorities of Canadians.

The emphasis on post-secondary education is a perfect example. Bill C-48 will enable us not only to maintain our excellent post-secondary education system but also to strengthen it in order to increase the learning opportunities for all Canadians. Learning is and will continue to be a priority for our government.

The importance accorded learning in this bill will help to create the conditions needed to ensure constant economic growth and enhance the prosperity of our country. It also shows our collective determination to ensure that all Canadians can contribute to the prosperity of the Canada of tomorrow.

Before outlining some of the main points in Bill C-48, let me first remind my hon. colleagues that it is another stone laid on the foundation of good governance. While other countries find themselves slipping back into deficits, we have delivered another balanced budget.

This is, in fact, the ninth consecutive balanced budget.

Thanks to consecutive budget surpluses, Canada boasts a solid credit rating and low interest and inflation rates. Among the G-7 countries, Canada has posted the strongest job growth in recent years.

The number of employed Canadians has risen continuously over the last 10 years. At present, the labour force participation rate is reaching unparalleled heights at 67.4%.

We are also very proud to note that, for a second time, the unemployment rate is at its lowest point in Canadian history. Our country's economic success enables us to invest in areas of crucial importance to Canadians, such as education and training.

Since skills and knowledge are the foundation for productivity, innovation and growth, we can be proud of the fact that, of all the countries in the world, Canada has the highest post-secondary education enrolment rate. The international studies that have been done, especially the Program for International Student Assessment, show that the literacy and numeracy skills of young Canadians compare favourably with those of young people in other countries.

Canada's education ministers have every reason to be proud of the quality of the instruction provided in our facilities. The successes that I just mentioned are a testament to the solid foundations that we have already built and are the fruit of all the investments made in learning and innovation over more than a decade.

As impressive as these facts and figures may be, there is no room for complacency. The reality is that not all Canadians share equality in this prosperity, nor are they currently able to fully seize opportunities in the 21st century knowledge economy.

In spite of Canada's high rates of post-secondary education attainment, there is still a significant pool of Canadian workers with low skill levels.

Some eight million working-age Canadians lack the literacy, numeracy and other skills needed to carve out a place in an increasingly demanding labour market. Illiteracy has a direct impact. It is estimated that a 1% increase in the level of literacy and numeracy would result in a 1.5% increase in GDP per inhabitant. Such an increase in productivity would translate into huge social and economic benefits for Canada.

Among Canadians, it is the older workers, aboriginals and new arrivals who face the most obstacles in getting employment. They have a considerably higher than average rate of unemployment even though we increasingly depend on them to fill the gaps left by the retiring baby boomers. When individuals have difficulties, society suffers. A good number of us are already hearing employers in our ridings say that they have difficulty meeting their human resources needs.

There is no general shortage in Canada, but there are difficulties in some regions, in certain trades and in the health and safety sectors. It is not just a question of finding workers. They have to have the necessary skills to meet the criteria of today's jobs, which are based on information and technology.

Given the demographic trends and the pressure from global competitiveness, we must focus on the quality of the labour force and set aside quantitative factors if we are to sustain economic growth. That means updating the skills of our current workforce and increasing learning opportunities for marginalized Canadians. Bill C-48 underscores the commitment of the Government of Canada to do so.

A progressive government works toward the common good. Bill C-48 creates a new avenue to increase access to education and training, which is central to participation in today's workplace and society at large and to the long term success of our country's economy.

Since we recognize that low-income earners and marginalized groups run a greater risk of exclusion, Bill C-48 sets priorities, including improved access to post-secondary education for students from low-income families.

These priorities build on changes to the Canada student loans program. As a government, we have a solid basis on which we can build, including the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation and the Canada education savings grant.

In addition, one of our priorities is to multiply skills development and learning opportunities for aboriginals. I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, for her hard work in this field. To reach our goal, we have implemented the aboriginal human resources development agreements and the aboriginal skills improvement program.

My department's role is to help close the employment gap by ensuring that aboriginals have the skills they need to prepare for, find and keep sustainable employment now and in the future.

At this time, we have two labour market program initiatives that are helping to significantly improve employment outcomes for aboriginal people: the aboriginal human resources development strategy and the aboriginal skills and employment partnerships program.

The aboriginal human resources development strategy shares many of these goals and objectives. It is designed to assist all aboriginals prepare for, find and keep employment.

The signatories to these agreements have created and are administering programs to increase the level of skills and learning, and participation in the labour market and Canadian society overall.

I should mention that my colleague the Minister of State and I have been impressed with the degree of support that the development strategy has received from aboriginal groups.

Aboriginal groups have publicly endorsed and praised the program for its recognition of the diversity of aboriginal Canadians, described by the Métis National Council at the Canada aboriginal round table as the “crown jewel in federal programming”, and by the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations as the federal government's “best kept secret”.

The program has a solid base to build upon. We have a labour market that is different than it was when it was first established in 1999, with new challenges and new opportunities. The new framework that I am proposing will take our aboriginal policies and programming into this labour market.

For its part, the aboriginal skills and employment partnerships program, a very new initiative, is proving to be an important means of contributing to aboriginal employment and supporting economic development projects near or within many aboriginal communities. To date, it is expected to support up to 11 projects, resulting in some 7,000 aboriginal people receiving training and more than an estimated 3,000 people obtaining employment.

I want to point out that investing in these areas is consistent with the advice being offered at the provincial level, where several recent studies have examined the challenges of post-secondary education. I want to further underline that any funds allocated to these areas must support national policy objectives in the area of post-secondary education and training.

I would like to remind hon. members that, in addition to the points I have raised today, our government has also invested $125 million in the Workplace Skills Strategy, in order make a closer connection between learning and work.

To that end, we are going to beef up Canadian training programs, support the implementation of new demand-driven skills development initiatives for people who are already employed, encourage dialogue on workplace skills-related issues through workplace partnerships comprised of business administrators, union leaders and trainer representatives.

Understanding that strong learning, literacy and essential skills are crucial in assisting workers adapt to changes in their workplaces and communities, the Government of Canada is investing $30 million in the national literacy secretariat. We are working cooperatively with provincial and territorial governments, employers, labour groups, communities, aboriginal people and voluntary organizations to improve the literacy and essential skills of Canadians.

We recently also invested $25 million in the Training Centre Infrastructure Fund.

These funds will be allocated to a three-year pilot project which will address the need for training centres to purchase up-to-date equipment and machinery . This will help tradespersons adapt to constantly changing skills requirements.

These major investments will not only help Canadians to achieve their full potential, they will also be beneficial to the economy and to society as a whole. This is one of the most dynamic periods we have ever experienced, a time when human creativity is bringing about major changes in the way our economy and our societies function.

Part of this means working within the global economy to ensure we are competitive with labour markets around the world. I am pleased that we were able to announce the internationally trained workers initiative on April 25. We have delivered on our Speech from the Throne commitment to improve the integration of immigrants and internationally trained Canadians into our workforce.

We have also announced a major investment of $85 million to facilitate foreign credential assessment and recognition.

What lies behind the changes is the need for experienced and qualified workers, in all professions and all sectors.

In order to enhance productivity we need to create more opportunities for people to acquire the knowledge and skills required for success in the economy of the 21st century. We also need to provide workers with the necessary tools to develop their skills or learn new ones in response to the changing economy.

And perhaps above all, we need to preserve our values of shared responsibility and our commitment to equality, which are what set us apart as a society.

I believe the points I have highlighted today reflect the kinds of investments Canadians value and the kind of society they want.

As we roll out our strategy for investing in people, we will be building a Canada in which citizens can acquire the skills they need to build their own futures, a country where corporations set the example by being innovative, a Canada where all members of the communities have an opportunity to reach their potential.

I am convinced that my hon. friends will agree, regardless of the party to which they belong, on the need for and the benefits of the initiatives proposed here and that they will support them.

Just one year ago, Canadians elected a minority government. In so doing, they clearly told us that they wanted the parties to work together for the good of all Canadians. Bill C-48 is a tangible example of this cooperation, a compromise reached in order to do something positive for our fellow Canadians.

I ask my hon. friends in this House to look very closely at Bill C-48, especially clause 2(1) ( b ). In the English version it says: “for supporting training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education, to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.5 billion”. I do not know a single member elected to this House who would not be in favour of this clause.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the hon. minister too. However, having said that, let me note that he said this money is not to buy the NDP's votes. Why was it not in Bill C-43? Why did it only crop up in Bill C-48 when the government needed the 19 votes so it could get its budget passed? Two weeks ago, it was not there. It is there now just because the Liberals need to buy NDP votes.

As for the Conservative record, that is a good point. I wish we had had more success than we did when we were in power, but there is not an expert or an economist in the country who does not give the credit for balancing the budget to the establishment of the GST and free trade. I challenge the minister to stand up and tell us about one innovative or imaginative policy, such as the GST or free trade, that the Liberals came up with and that helped them balance the budget. They balanced the budget on the backs of Brian Mulroney's accomplishments.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to speak to Bill C-48. Since the last speaker quoted from the Globe and Mail , I think it is only fair that I quote from the National Post .

One headline reads “Spending spree continues”, and another reads, “Ottawa doling out $1.24 billion per day”. It states:

The money being doled out works out to $1.24-billion a day, including $5.75-billion the Liberals gave to Ontario.... Other provinces are now salivating over the prospects of inking their own version of the Ontario deal....

It is hard to fathom what is going on and how fast the Liberals are spending money. I love the name of the bill. Bill C-48 is an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments. I do not know how it can be restricted to certain because it is almost any payment. They will do anything right now to buy votes. The National Post has it up to 122 different grants and programs, totalling $22 billion in three weeks to buy votes.

I want to point out to citizens that Bill C-48 is an act to put the deal on paper that the NDP made with the Liberals. The projected cost is $4.6 billion, that is $4.6 thousand million so the Liberals can buy a few months and get through the vote on the budget. The NDP votes are now worth $240 million each to get the Liberals through the budget. If that is good management, common sense and good administration I will eat my shirt.

I can just imagine how the bureaucrats in the Department of Finance must be operating. They must have whiplash. No, we do not have tax cuts. Yes, we have tax cuts. No, we do not have tax cuts. How do they keep up with what is going on? We are spending $1 billion here and $100 million there and $22 billion here. I do not know how the people in the Department of Finance can operate. It must be incredible.

The one thing for sure is that if the Liberals can open a drawer and find $4.6 billion to pay for the 19 votes that the NDP gave them, there is too much money in the drawer. That is simple evidence that we are being overtaxed. If they can, with the snap of a finger, find $4.6 billion, something is wrong with the system. The something wrong is that we are overtaxed.

We as members of Parliament have to fight for infrastructure in our ridings to save our institutions, like the Nappan experimental farm which has been in Nappan, Nova Scotia since before Confederation. At a time when farmers need all the help they can get in research and development, new products, training, all kinds of things, the government announces in the budget that it is going to close the Nappan experimental farm. It has unique soils, terrains and products. Now it is talking about closing the Nappan experimental farm because it does not have the money but then it turns around and pays $4.6 billion to buy the 19 votes of the NDP. It is absolutely incredible and makes our job of convincing people more difficult.

Even a little thing like a light bulb in a lighthouse in Wallace Harbour, a lighthouse that saves lives, we had to fight to get the light bulb changed in the lighthouse of all things. However when the Liberals need the 19 NDP votes they do not seem to have a problem finding $4.6 billion in the drawer. When we needed a few thousand dollars for a light bulb for a lighthouse to save lives, it was not available. We had to fight to get it and we did get it, I am very pleased to say.

The Atlantic accord is another issue that should be dealt with. The Atlantic accord is a very important deal for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. The government will not pull it out of Bill C-43 and make it a separate deal. It will do it for tax cuts but not for Atlantic Canada. It is holding Atlantic Canada hostage because it wants to force all kinds of things down the throats of Atlantic Canadians to force them to agree to these things and only then will it agree to the Atlantic accord.

Last year's budget implementation act is going through the Senate today, a year late. I believe it was tabled on March 23, 2004, and it is only going through the Senate today.

This is the same bill where the Atlantic accord is stuck now. It is on pages 57 and 58 of Bill C-43 instead of being a stand alone bill that we could pass in the House to allow Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to move forward. We cannot do that because the Liberals want to hold us hostage and make sure they ram all these other things through without us even considering them.

We cannot do that. It is our job to hold the government accountable. It is our job to ask questions about all these other things, like the foundations that are funded under this program, student loans, employment insurance, income tax. However the government says that we are not allowed to ask questions on those issues. It says that we should just close our eyes, grit our teeth and say yes to the budget so we can have the Atlantic accord. It is not fair and we cannot do it.

The cost of the election is something that comes up from the Liberal side. The Liberals say that they cannot afford an election. They say that it might cost $230 million to $250 million to run an election. With each NDP vote costing $240 million, I do not see how they can say $230 million is too much to charge for an election. Two hundred and thirty million dollars for an election is a lot of money but every NDP vote that they bought cost $240 million, which is more than a whole federal election.

If we are a little upset about Bill C-48, those are some of the reasons.

I wish that the Liberals would bring in the things that we have asked for, and specifically on the Atlantic accord, to pull it out of the bill. The Minister of Finance says that we cannot cherry-pick Bill C-43, that we cannot pull out what we want. However they can pull it out if they need to. They can pull the tax cuts out to satisfy the NDP and then create a whole independent stand alone bill, which is exactly what we have been asking them to do for the Atlantic accord. They can do it for themselves and the NDP but they will not do it for Atlantic Canada.

I hope they will reconsider that and pull the Atlantic accord out of Bill C-43, make it a stand alone bill and we commit to passing it in one day.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would relish the opportunity to clarify with respect to some of the remarks that he has made.

He made the comment that the leader of the Conservative Party said that he was supportive of the budget. We did not vote for the budget. The NDP voted against it.

I think we should make the point here that if the budget is as good as the member says it is, then why does it now require changing? Why does it require an additional commitment of over $22 billion by the government in addition to the budget commitments made earlier? The government is laying out additional spending every single day. It is not interested in running on the budget.

For the member's edification, I will read from an article. I have many to choose from but I will start with an article in today's Globe and Mail entitled “Liberal Spending Blitz”. Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Don Drummond said:

Because we've had almost as many spending announcements since the budget [as] were...in the budget, it would seem to be almost incumbent on the government to produce an update where we are fiscally.

The government is not interested in running on the budget. It is interested in spending enough money so it can be popular with every basic category of special interest group it can find in the country.

This is a one and a half page bill. The member asked how we can be opposed to spending money in each of these broad categories. We are not. We are opposed to spending money willy-nilly without a plan. A one and a half page document, such as Bill C-48 is, outlines no constructive use for the money. It simply allows for a slush fund for cabinet to dip into. In a variety of scenarios they may or may not spend money under various headings. There is nothing in the bill about a plan to use this money intelligently.

What Canadians want is for the government to operate transparently and with some sense of accountability. That has not been evident with the government for a long time.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the member's philosophical difference as to how Conservatives may differ from the government's position with regard to the budget. However, I think he will want to be factual. This is the eighth consecutive surplus budget that the government and the Prime Minister as finance minister and now Prime Minister have put forward. Three minutes after we presented the budget, the member's leader supported it. He said that it was a good budget, as did his finance critic.

What has changed since then other than the fact that perhaps the Conservative Party caucus sees a political opportunity because of what is going on in another place on TV. Perhaps all of a sudden it thinks and feels that the budget is no longer important to the people of the country, but the commission report is. That is why the conservatives have changed their tune and their support for the budget.

In actual fact, Bill C-48 and the new arrangements that have been put in place with the NDP relate very much to the spending that Canadians support, and they have already spoken on the issue, and that is $1.6 billion in housing. It was in our five year principal framework. We have managed to move it ahead.

There is an additional $1 billion for the environment. Is the Conservative Party now saying that it does not support the housing, or the environment, or post-secondary education or additional aid to foreign governments? What has changed other than within the five year framework there will continue to be a surplus. We are paying down debt. We have reduced taxes. Of the billions that the member is talking about spending, I want to clarify that we cannot spend money that we do not have appropriated through the House. These are existing programs that have been in place since the last budget. Therefore, we are spending money on housing. The money we are spending was in the last budget, which was approved by the House.

I am sure the member would want to clarify the record and not suggest that we are trying to buy votes again. We have a mandate that was given to us by Canadians last June to govern and that is what we are precisely doing: child care, cities and communities, housing, the environment and seniors supplements. Maybe he would want to clarify that for Canadians.

[Brian Pallister, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my comments on this spending blitz bill, I want to make reference to a very important and historic accomplishment this past weekend.

Those members of the House who are familiar with the sport of basketball will have noted a Canadian, Steve Nash, received the award of the most valuable player in the National Basketball Association. It should be acknowledged in this place the tremendous dedication that Mr. Nash has shown, not only to his sport but to his country, his humble and hard-working approach to the game of basketball and his triumph over adversity that typifies the Canadian spirit.

I know every member of the House and every Canadian shares in the accomplishments of Mr. Nash. We look forward to watching his future success, not just of course in the NBA, but on the international stage as he leads Canada on to a medal in the next Olympic Games.

Now back to the debacle, which is Bill C-48. The bill stands in sharp contrast frankly to Mr. Nash, who has never tried to take credit for something he has not done. The bill is indicative of the government's haphazard approach to money management. It is a departure from what could have been a legacy for the Prime Minister.

The Liberal Party keeps promoting the Prime Minister as a man with fiscal prudence in his heart. What the bill indicates is more desperation than fiscal prudence. This unholy alliance between socialism and corruption is a subset of the government's spending spree.

In the last three weeks alone the Liberals have committed to spending over $1.24 billion of new money per day by my calculation. It is not their money to spend. This is Canadian taxpayer money. It shows a complete back to the future approach to money management. It is a complete departure from the spending approach to which the Prime Minister claims he adheres.

Frankly, I think it is eating the Prime Minister's legacy alive. It is showing the desperation the government has in its heart and it is showing to what it will sink. In an effort to buy support to divert attention away from a vote buying scandal, the Liberals are engaging in another vote buying scandal. This disrespects not only the intelligence of the Canadian people, but it disrespects the fiscal responsibilities that the government should be demonstrating.

There is an old adage that says it is better to do what is right, not what is easy. It is very easy for a government to commit to spending more money in the hopes of buying popularity at the polls, but that is not what is right.

What we need here is an approach that demonstrates clear thinking and better planning. The New Democratic Party joined with the Conservative Party in supporting an initiative that our finance critic, the member for Medicine Hat, promoted and we supported. We thought the New Democratic Party supported it as well.

The initiative called upon the government to be more accurate in its fiscal forecasting. It also called upon the government to set up a mechanism whereby each of the other parties could bring in experts to evaluate the government's numbers, and produce what we call Parliament's numbers.

The New Democratic Party supported that initiative, basically on the assumption that it would help to get a better handle on the government's projected surpluses. Before the last election, we know the government projected a $1.9 billion surplus. Ultimately the reality was the surplus was $9.1 billion. Canadians were deprived of a debate about how that money should have been spent, or should have been applied to the debt or should been allocated to lower taxes.

The NDP appeared to be concerned about that accuracy or lack of accuracy in supporting our quest for Parliament to have more accurate numbers.

However, that quickly went by the wayside when the NDP had a chance to encourage the government to continue to spend money. The NDP members sold their souls for a few billion dollars of additional spending commitments by a government that has not kept its commitments. It has not kept its promises. It has a legacy of making promises and breaking promises. They showed how easy they were when they sold out for that.

The bill is one and a half pages of broad general statements about how the government will spend money, but there are no specifics to it.

What has that given us in the past? Commitments to spend more money on aboriginal housing. How did that help the people of Davis Inlet? There are no ideas coming forward about how to spend money more intelligently and how to money to effect better results. Simply put, the government is making the same mistakes that put us into the debt position we are in as a country today. Back to the future.

The Conservative Party offers a striking alternative to what the NDP and the Liberals offer. We want a plan and we developed a plan. The difference that we see between the coalition and the Conservative Party is that we are not interested in throwing money at problems and we are not interested in adhering to the false belief that it will somehow solve those problems. We understand it takes a plan. It takes a commitment. It takes belief that intelligent spending will move toward positive results.

The government on the other hand believes that if it engages in conspicuous spending, somehow that demonstrates that it cares. However, it demonstrates that it cares about itself more than any caring for the Canadian taxpayer and the Canadian people.

Liberals have abandoned their fiscal framework. The bill will not be supported by members of our caucus. It simply allows for a further slush fund to be established and used and abused, with no strings attached, by the cabinet of the Liberal government. That is vote buying of $1 billion a day. The Liberal government says that we should not support an election because it will cost one quarter of a billion dollars. That is one-fifth as much as the government is committing in additional spending every day.

Liberals make the case with their promises that there needs to be an election and that they need to be kicked out of office.

The Budget

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that the Atlantic accord must be part of the total budgetary process and in fact that it must remain in the omnibus bill. Yet today we see Bill C-48 introduced as a separate two page piece of legislation.

If the government can introduce a stand-alone bill to legitimize the NDP buyout, why can he not introduce one for Atlantic Canadians who are losing millions of dollars every week because of government game playing?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation makes very clear that the government is seeing access to funds in fiscal year 2005-06 and fiscal year 2006-07. The terms of that access are very clearly spelled out in Bill C-48, as well as the purposes of the money in terms of the broad categories.

It is now obviously up to the relevant government departments to develop the specific programs that will dedicate those funds to the purposes described in Bill C-48.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Too bad Gomery was not looking at Earnscliffe, Mr. Speaker.

We know the Prime Minister believes that post-secondary education, the environment and low incomes are all his number one priorities. He basically confirmed that earlier in question period. Yet his NDP deal, as reflected in Bill C-48, does not establish programs for any of those number one priorities. Funding if necessary, but not necessarily funding for his number one priorities.

Has the Prime Minister explained to the NDP that the money for all of his number one priorities will not flow until the fall of 2006, if it flows at all?

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Absolutely, that is fantasyland.

The member should talk to the Manitoba Child Care Association, which has been leading this fight for more than 10 years, and probably for 20 years, trying to get a non-profit, publicly administered, quality child care system from one end of this country to the other.

Finally, let me calm down a bit to say that this is an important issue, just as education, housing and support for environmental projects are important to Canadians. All of this will be lost unless members over there can get their heads around supporting Bill C-48, which is the mechanism for accessing some surplus dollars to meet the priority needs of Canadians, and Bill C-43, which provides money for child care on a very sensible, reasonable basis that is clearly in tune with Canadian families.

All of that will be lost if those members decide to keep obstructing the House in the interests of their political ambition and their search for power as they turn their backs on the Canadians they claim to represent.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening since this morning to the comments of my colleagues on both sides of the House, including members of the government, the Conservative Party and the NDP, in their questions and comments. I think that one aspect of Bill C-48 is not clear enough. Over the next few minutes, I want to shed more light on the debate so that people can understand what the current situation is.

This is not about being left-wing or right-wing, or about supporting or opposing a social measure. The Bloc Québécois members are social democrats to the core. Naturally, we support positions that lean more to the left than to the right. Overall, we use common sense and a moderate approach. At present, we are not talking about that at all.

We are talking about the fact that this is a minority government. To start, when it tabled its first budget, it did not receive the support of the House. The opposition had identified priorities that correspond to what the public we represent wants or would have wanted to see in the budget. These priorities, this consensus, were totally ignored in the budget tabled a few months ago.

The Bloc Québécois has been consistent from the start. This budget was unacceptable when it was tabled and it is still unacceptable today, even with these new measures. We cannot support a budget or an amendment to the budget, as presented in Bill C-48, when, fundamentally, we have remained consistent. We have said that this budget did not satisfy the top priorities of Quebeckers. Supporting this budget would mean betraying who we are.

As for Bill C-48 itself, we must consider the current context. We have a minority government that has not met the public's needs or listened to the opposition parties. It has acted like a majority government and has completely ignored the consensus of Quebeckers and even, in several instances, of Canadians.

Suddenly, it feels it is on the ropes. It is mired in corruption up to its neck. Everyday we learn something new from the Gomery commission, and it all adds up to the fact that a parallel group is not responsible for the corruption that occurred in connection with the sponsorship scandal, as the Minister of Transport said, but rather that this goes to the very core of the Liberal Party of Canada and even involves current ministerial aides.

The government is on the ropes. It can see power slipping away. So now it is throwing out commitments everywhere that it will not be able to keep, because it is going to be defeated this evening, with the motion of non-confidence the Conservatives have presented. So it is trying to play all sides at once.

There is one thing we need to keep in mind, however. Every time a government that is suspect, one formed by a party that is even more suspect, distributes such commitments—we are talking $1.2 billion a day for the past 18 days—this just makes it even more suspect. This government should already be in police custody. It has done enough damage to the taxpayers' money and to democracy, by investing billions of dollars uselessly in order to influence the results of the last referendum in 1995, and the 1997, 2000 and 2004 elections. Enough is enough. It should not spend, or commit to spend, one cent more. It has already done enough harm with the taxpayers' money.

Now we see the Prime Minister making commitments just about everywhere. Yet only a few weeks ago he had no leeway. When the budget was presented, let us not forget, we were told that the government would have liked to have looked after more of its priorities, but that its main priority was a balanced budget.

That is our priority too, but we are well aware that, when the first budget was presented in February, there was still considerable leeway available. The government could have looked after more priorities, such as correcting the fiscal imbalance. It could have changed the employment insurance program, as it has been asked to do for years. After two elections and commitments from the Liberal Party to improve EI, the improvements have never happened.

We knew that there was money and that the government was twisted enough to not act on the public's priorities but rather to keep some manoeuvring room secretly for itself, as it has done since 1997-98. We have a minority government continually mired in corruption, according to the ever more astounding revelations at the Gomery commission. You can check in the blues and in our public speeches. We knew there was manoeuvring room and the Prime Minister would use it when the going got tough, as it has in recent days.

There is a reason behind the $1.2 billion in commitments daily. It is not to better serve the public. A few weeks ago, he could have included it in the budget per se. He could have acted on people's priorities, served this country's most disadvantaged. He did not. Why not? Because he thought he could get out of it and because the Conservatives did not reject the budget. A few weeks later, the NDP joined in to ally officially with a government that is suspect, I repeat. When you are suspect, when you are being held for questioning, you have to stop spending. You no longer have the moral authority to make commitments of several billions of dollars, as the government has done for the past 18 days.

“Do not touch taxpayers' money”, is the message heard throughout our ridings. “Stop making commitments. You are being held for questioning, you are under suspicion.” Arguments are added daily to the public's warnings.

They talk of the sponsorships. But there is more than that. Since 1993, since this government has been in office, there have been all sorts of stories, such that we should not let it have another cent, because it is spending all over the map.

On the other side of the House, the Liberals have a tendency to forget certain events. We all remember on this side—although memories on the other side are rather faulty—the scandal over Human Resources Development Canada, for which the minister responsible at the time is now the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the member for Papineau. A billion dollars disappeared under the stewardship of this minister and could never be found. Several years later—this scandal came to light some five years ago—the money still has never been found. Where is that billion dollars?

There is also the firearms scandal. We in the Bloc Québécois are in favour of firearms control, but not at any price. This program to manage and control firearms was supposed to cost $20 million. Now it is more than $1.5 billion. Where has that $1.5 billion gone?

There are also many problems with taxes and tax treaties. Why are these problems not fixed? Once again, the government is suspect. There is a treaty with the Barbados and regulations governing corporate taxes here that, when combined, make it possible for corporations to save money. Thus the Prime Minister's family business, Canada Steamship Lines, was able to save more than $120 million in federal taxes over the last five years.

With the Prime Minister setting this example and being a suspect in the sponsorship scandal—because more and more light is being shed thanks to the revelations of the Gomery Commission—could there be any doubt that the government is not only very lax but that this slackness is also very profitable for the Prime Minister and his cronies, the large corporations involved in international shipping.

I had an opportunity to work with Mr. Jacques Léonard, president of the Conseil du Trésor in Quebec City. Together with my honourable friend from Joliette, we were on a committee to review government management. There, too, not one more cent should be entrusted to this government in view of its poor management of the public purse. When the Prime Minister used to be Minister of Finance, he liked to boast that he was one of the best managers in the world. Well, we have made some fabulous discoveries.

I will name a few. Listen up if you want to know what this government does with taxpayer dollars. While cumulative inflation was set at 9.6% from 1998 to 2003, bureaucratic spending increased by 39% during that same period. In addition, the number of public servants increased by 46,000, and payroll by 41%. In the Department of Justice alone, payroll increased by 141%, while inflation was still 9.6% during that period. The cost of political polls, which really do the public and the poorest families a lot of good, increased by 334%.

This government is quite fond of lavish spending. The cost of office furniture increased by 215%. Also, some $1.5 billion went to the gun registry, which we cannot mention enough. Furthermore, the Governor General enjoyed an 82% increase in her budget, while the average salary increase for low-income and middle-income workers, under collective agreements, was roughly 2% a year, for a modest increase of 8% during that period. Yet, the Governor General gets an 82% increase. A lot of good that does the public, the unemployed, young people who are victims of an underfunded education system.

It is scandalous. Not just the sponsorships, but all the waste, the mismanagement, the hidden funds, like the billion dollars at HRDC, all of it is scandalous. This lavish spending shows that the government has not had the moral authority to govern for a long time now.

We have been all the more convinced of this since hearing all the revelations at the Gomery inquiry targeting the Liberal Party and the staff of certain ministers, and even some ministers themselves who said they never saw nor heard anything about this scandal.

Today, we are being asked to respect the government and its new annual commitments of $1.2 billion. We will never do this. If the new commitments set out in Bill C-48 were significant, perhaps we would. However, such a corrupt government should no longer be managing our money or making commitments, but rather respecting the verdict that will be rendered this evening, when we defeat it. It is time for this government to step aside and stop spending our money.

I want to examine each of these commitments in turn. Some $1.6 billion is being invested over two years in affordable housing. There was no money for social housing a few months ago, no more than has been since 1993. Suddenly, there is $1.6 billion over two years for this sector, which needs two and a half times that amount each year in order to meet the needs of the public, which have increased since 1993. At that time, when the Liberals came to power, 1.3 million households in Canada needed access to social housing. Up to 50% of their income was going toward housing. At 25% of income, people are poor enough to qualify for social housing.

Now, 1.7 million households need access to social housing. At least 1% of the annual federal budget should be allocated to this sector to make up for lost time, following devastating measures, in the fight against poverty, by the former finance minister and current Prime Minister. With regard to housing, poverty is also caused by measures such as the drastic cuts to EI and federal transfers to the provinces for social programs. At one time, federal contributions were at 25% and even 50%, 25 years ago. Currently, it contributes about 11.5%

The Liberals are responsible for poverty. They did not invest in social housing. Suddenly, for fear of being defeated or being shown the door, they have committed $1.2 billion in initiatives in the last 18 days.

They promised $1.5 billion for access to post-secondary education. For years now, since 1995, the Liberals have been pillaging educational systems everywhere in Canada, not just in Quebec.

In Quebec an investment of $1 billion was needed every year for the next ten years in order to remedy the chronic underfunding this government has caused. We have been presented with $1.5 billion for the next two years for post-secondary education. Do you know what that represents for Quebec? Approximately $188 million out of the expenditures of $12.2 billion. The potential is there, but the NDP was too quick to sell its birthrate for a mess of pottage to a corrupt government. We are talking $188 million for post-secondary education out of the $12.2 billion in education spending.

That is just mocking the public. It that is all it took to get the NDP to sell its soul to the corrupt Liberal Party, it is pretty insignificant.

As I have said, it is the same thing with social housing. They say there will be $1.6 billion over two years, but it would take $2 billion a year just to make up for lost time. And even that figure is based on previous needs, but the latest figures indicate that now there are 1.7 million households in need of social housing.

If the government had wanted to govern properly and had not got so mired in all the Gomery revelations—with all the distasteful and undemocratic details we have been treated to in the past few months—it would have had sufficient leeway to meet all the priorities mentioned to us at the time of a meeting between myself, the Minister of Finance and the Conservatives. It could have started to resolve the fiscal imbalance by greatly increasing education transfer payments. Now federal transfers account for 11.5% of education costs, everywhere in Canada.

It could also have corrected the equalization formula, as we asked, instead of signing piecemeal agreements. Moreover, in the budget implementation bill they want us to swallow the agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador, and with Nova Scotia. They want us to swallow an agreement that has just clouded the issue as far as fiscal imbalance is concerned, making it worse than before.

With this agreement, they have put huge pressure on the other provinces. They have created an imbalance, which may be called a horizontal imbalance, that is, they have increased the fiscal capacity of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia so much that it is now higher than that of Ontario. Ontario can well get angry and cry foul, like Quebec. The special agreements confuse matters rather than treat them comprehensively.

If the Prime Minister were really concerned about correcting the fiscal imbalance, he would not operate on a piecemeal basis as he did with Ontario, and as he does with the $1.2 billion commitments he has made a day over the past 18 days. He would not be concerned about sprinkling commitments here and there in order to save his skin. He would have worked responsibly during the past 10 months and presented a budget taking steps to resolve the fiscal imbalance. He would have had the support of the Bloc Québécois and probably all of the parties.

The provinces have to deal with unavoidable expenses in health care, education and support to the most disadvantaged families. They do not have enough resources. These resources are in Ottawa. The possibilities of deficit are very real.

Last year, for example, Ontario had a $10 billion deficit. This year, its deficit is $6 billion, and on it goes. Quebec faces huge pressure over taxation and a balanced budget. This could be remedied, but, for 18 days, the Prime Minister has not been concerned with correcting this fiscal imbalance any more than with remedying the employment insurance plan.

I can hardly wait to see the NDP members in the next election, which will probably be called this evening. They will go to their riding and say that they joined with a government that did not deign to do anything of any significance to resolve the EI problem. They were the defenders and attacked the government in order to have EI reformed and 60% of the population not excluded from it.

Now, they join with the Liberals, who have forced hundreds of families into the street each year since the EI reform. They have kept them on social assistance and in a state of poverty.

In closing, I congratulate the NDP on its social and moral conscience.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

It was a stand-alone deal, but suddenly we find that this deal is included in a very large omnibus bill and we will have to vote for all the other things in order to get this bill through. This is not the budget of February 2005 that the government brought in, so how on earth can we support it?

This government is guilty of nothing less than reckless spending, deceptive practices and misrepresentation of surpluses it projected for the coming years. Worst of all, the government is in violation of the principles of running a good and honest government, because what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-48 is nothing less than making a deal that is costing billions of dollars of unscheduled spending. The government is on the road spending $1.3 billion or so a day in unscheduled spending for no reason other than that of trying to save the Liberals' sorry butts from going down as they become known as the worst and most corrupt government in the history of Canadian politics. That will be their legacy.

Claim what they may about past governments, the Liberals are part of the worst and most corrupt government in the history of Canadian politics. They think nothing of spending billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in order to somehow salvage their fortunes. Canadians will not be blackmailed. Canadians will not be extorted. Canadians will not have any part of the corruption of this government and they will bring it down in the next election when it happens. We will listen to Canadians on this one.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-48.

There is one thing that Canadians need to know, which the Liberals have not answered yet. They put forward their budget in February of this year. It was a budget that we in the Conservative Party could support. We could support it, but what we have now is a budget that is totally different from the one they put forward in February. This is a budget that was created by the NDP. The only reason these items are in this budget is that the Liberal government has chosen to climb into bed with the NDP.

Let me say that I do not fault the NDP members. They have the principles and the things they believe on how money should be spent. Good for them. We do disagree on how we get to certain goals, but that is fine. We have different philosophies.

What is really shameful about the Liberal government is that prior to making the deal with the NDP, it did not think those things were important. Suddenly, now that the Liberal government is falling quickly and the Liberals are drowning in their own cesspool of corruption, they find a lifesaver with the NDP. They say to the NDP, “Bring on those spending proposals and we will support them because we can make people think they are important to us now”.

In fact, if these proposals were as important to the Liberals in February 2005, why on earth were they not in the budget back then instead of us seeing the Liberals wait until they are drowning in their own corruption to climb into bed with the NDP? What we have here is a pirate ship that is sinking fast. The Liberal members, the Prime Minister and the government are spending like drunken sailors to try to keep that pirate ship afloat.

Let us be clear about where this money is coming from. There is only one source of revenue for the government and that is the Canadian taxpayer. This government over the last 12 years has plundered the hard-working Canadian taxpayer through tax increases, through government fee increases and through the pillaging of the $40 billion-plus EI surplus. I do not see anywhere in this budget that the Liberals are going to put any of that money back.

As my colleague from Peace River pointed out earlier, this is the third budget revision since February. We now know that the government is doling out $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion a day in new spending announcements since the budget came out. This is money that was not accounted for in the budget. It was not accounted for in February. It was not accounted for a couple of weeks ago, but suddenly the government has all kinds of money.

What the Liberals are saying is that they found unplanned surpluses, but really what they are not saying is that they are going to use the money that they purposely did not make public, on the surpluses that are coming.

Which word is best to use here, Mr. Speaker, fibbing or fudging? This is like fudging the budget in saying that we are going to get so much money less than what the reality of the income is going to be, and then standing up and spending like drunken sailors because suddenly they found a big bag of extra money.

They ask why we do not support this budget. We cannot because it is not the same budget that the Liberals presented in February. Since then, as my colleague pointed out, they have added Kyoto to the budget in an effort to try to plant the seed so they could have a lever to somehow begin taxing fossil fuels when they decide they want to pull the cash lever a little more. We cannot support that; we all know about the Liberals' national energy program that devastated the west some years ago.

One of the members mentioned the $100 million for pine beetles. On this $100 million that the government promised to B.C. for pine beetles, let us be truthful: this represents only 10% of what the province asked the federal government for. It represents only one year of the commitment that the province asked the government for. The province asked for a commitment of 10 to 15 years. The government would not commit past one year. The government gave the province less than 10% of what was asked for.

While we in B.C. are certainly happy to get the $100 million, the government and this parliamentary secretary know that the provinces cannot operate on short term planning, especially when they have a crisis in their lifeblood industries. The Liberals know that.

We cannot support the budget or this bill. We understood from the government that in 2005 a deal had been made with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador on the offshore oil resources. That was debated in the House. Everyone had the understanding, including the provinces, that this was a stand-alone deal cut with the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the government of Nova Scotia. We were happy with that. Our colleagues who represent ridings in those parts of the country were happy with that.

[Charlie Penson, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George.

This is a very dismal performance by the government. We are debating Bill C-48 but one has to wonder why. This seems to be the third Liberal budget since the February 2005 budget was introduced. Many people call it the NDP budget because, quite frankly, the two parties together do not have a majority in the House. I say that it is an illegitimate budget.

I do not think most Canadians will be amused with what the Liberals have been doing. They have been boycotting and filibustering their own legislation to not allow these bills to be debated and voted on in the House of Commons because they have become so desperate to hang on to power. They are hanging by their fingernails. This is a pathetic performance by a dying regime. We saw it in eastern Europe.

I have been in the House almost 12 years, like some of my colleagues, and this is the worst performance I have ever seen. I see desperate people making illegitimate agreements just to hang on to power. They are not respecting the parliamentary democracy we have in this country that at some time, and the Liberals do not seem to get this, maybe they will not be in power. They cannot conceive of that idea somehow so they will cut any deal and sign anything to hang on to power.

The budget was delivered on February 23 in which the Liberals announced $42 billion in new spending. They went back and brought the numbers up for the 2004-05 fiscal year. They said that the surplus would be $3 billion. Of course we snookered them by hiring our own fiscal forecasters at the finance committee who, just six weeks later, said that the Liberals were off and that the surplus was double that. It was $6 billion. For this fiscal year 2005-06 the Liberals have estimated a $4 billion surplus. The fiscal forecasters say that it will be $8 billion, only six weeks later.

The unplanned surplus that the parliamentary secretary talked about, I do not think so. We have seen this crass practice in the last seven years of lowballing surpluses to build up huge funds that they can use in election campaigns. That is really what this is.

Next came Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill. What did the Liberals do? They snuck in a couple of amendments. One was the Kyoto amendment, which all of a sudden was tagged on to the budget. Just a few weeks earlier it was not there but they snuck it in to put greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide in particular, in the noxious gas category to allow them to tax it heavily. Of course we cannot support that. We want to see it hived off and we will try to do that in committee, if we ever get there.

Then of course today there is the NDP budget, which is Bill C-48. What has happened since budget day itself? There has been an almost $8 billion turnaround. New spending plus the cuts in the taxes that were proposed under personal tax cuts and the corporate tax side has meant that essentially there is an $8 billion difference.

What do we have here? We have a desperate government trying to buy itself another election. It is in a massive spending spree. It is trying to bury Gomery by taking away people's attention from Gomery with this budget.

Let us look at what today's newspapers are saying. The headline in the Globe and Mail on page A4 states, “Liberal spending blitz hits $19.5-billion” . Steven Chase says:

--Ottawa's minority Liberal government has grown so big it now amounts to nearly half the spending unveiled in the February budget.

It goes on to say, “the 2005 budget was only two months old when the government began piling on extra spending”.

A headline in the National Post today reads,“Spending spree continues”.

Another article reads:

Federal government spending announcements have hit $22.3 [billion] since [the Prime Minister] went on television on April 21 to apologize for the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

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

Possibly not matters of fact, rather than matters of legend, but that is another issue.

Canada's fiscal turnaround was nothing short of remarkable and has certainly not gone unnoticed by other countries that are looking to us as an example of what to do. It was thanks to these sacrifices made by Canadians that consumer and business confidence grew. In turn that led to stronger economic growth and job creation.

Once the fiscal situation turned around, the government put more money in the pockets of individuals and families by reducing taxes more than any other federal government in history. It also invested significantly in the priorities of Canadians, such as health care, education, infrastructure, research and innovation, national security and the environment.

The bill before us today brings those investments in a number of key priorities for Canadians, priorities that the government shares. Specifically, Bill C-48 provides the framework for further investments in important areas, such as affordable housing, post-secondary education, the environment and foreign aid.

Let me assure the House that this in no way will put us in danger of going back into the bad old days of deficits. I emphasize that this will not put this government into deficit.

The government is committed to spending $4.6 billion for these investments. These investments will be financed from fiscal resources that are in excess of $2 billion in the fiscal year 2005-06 and $2 billion in the fiscal year 2006-07. Estimates show that we will still have sufficient resources to continue to pay down the debt as well. I want to again emphasize the point that these investments will only be made in the event there are resources available above the $2 billion in each of those fiscal years.

I would like to outline the details of these proposed investments for our future.

First, with respect to affordable housing, the government recognizes that Canada's communities are the social and economic foundation of the country. Whether large metropolitan areas, cities or rural hamlets, the communities Canadians choose to live in have significant bearing on the quality of their life and social and economic opportunities open to them. However, the harsh reality is that in downtown cores and poorer neighbourhoods of many cities urban poverty problems have led to increased demand for affordable housing.

In recent years the government has made a number of investments totalling $2 billion in the area of affordable housing and homelessness. These programs are still being rolled out and in most cases the funding will continue to ramp up over the next year.

We have done the following.

In 1999 the government launched a three year national homelessness initiative. A key element of that was the supporting communities partnership initiative known by most of the people in this area as SCPI, which provided $305 million for local community groups to offer supportive services and facilities for the homeless.

This initiative was of great importance to the community from which I come as we were housing something in the order of 1,400 homeless people in the riding every night. I am pleased to say that over the years, with the assistance of SCPI and other programs, the number has declined precipitously to the point where we are now somewhere in the order of 200 to 300 people per night. I would like to think the Liberal caucus in particular had a lot to do with that initiative.

Budget 2003 provided a further three year extension to the SCPI initiative at $135 million per year. Furthermore, budget 2001 announced $680 million over five years for the affordable housing initiative to help stimulate the creation of more affordable housing. Bilateral cost sharing agreements were subsequently signed with all 13 jurisdictions in Canada. On top of that, $320 million over five years was announced in budget 2003, bringing total investments in affordable housing to $1 billion over six years.

The government continued to do more in budget 2003 when it announced a three year renewal of the government's housing renovation programs at a cost of $128 million per year. These programs support the renovation and the renewal of the existing stock of affordable housing and help low income persons with critical housing repair needs. In addition, the government currently spends $1.9 billion per year in support of existing social housing units.

The legislation builds on those previous initiatives by proposing a further $1.6 billion for further affordable housing construction. It is important to emphasize that the funding is not tied to matching funds from the provinces.

In recognition of the critical shortage of adequate housing for our first nations reserves the new funding will also include aboriginal housing. That is $1.6 billion of the $4.6 billion initiative.

The second part of the initiative is in the area of post-secondary education, which is and continues to be a priority of the Government of Canada. We need to provide students with a solid foundation that will serve them well in Canada in the future.

Since balancing the budget, the government has provided significant new funding in support of post-secondary education through increased transfer and support to provinces and territories and increased direct support to students and universities.

For example, federal transfer support for post-secondary education is provided through the Canada social transfer, a block transfer to provinces and territories which are each responsible for allocating federal support according to their respective priorities regarding post-secondary education and other social programs.

Overall, the Canada social transfer will provide $15.5 billion in the fiscal year 2005-06, including more than $8 billion in legislated cash levels and $7 billion in tax points. This will continue to grow on an annual basis as the economy grows.

In addition to the Canada social transfer, the Government of Canada provides about $5 billion annually in direct support for post-secondary education. That, among other things, helps families save for their children's education.

The bill provides additional funding to complement the initiatives already taken by the government. Specifically, it provides $1.5 billion to increase accessibility to post-secondary education with a substantial portion to support students from low income families as well as training money to support labour market agreements. That is building on the $1.6 billion for affordable housing. We add a further $1.5 billion for initiatives in education and labour market training.

The third initiative is on the environment. As we know, the government is very much aware that a sustainable economy depends on a sound environment and healthy communities. To that end, we have made significant investments in the environment and in sustainable infrastructure in Canadian communities. Bill C-48 builds on those initiatives, proposing $900 million for environmental investment.

The objective of the government's issues is to have the most impact where it matters most, in places where Canadians live, work and play. Canada depends upon the cities and communities to attract the best talent and compete for investment as vibrant centres of commerce, learning and culture.

That is why, building on the current financial support for infrastructure programs and the full rebate of the GST, the government has delivered on its commitment to share a portion of the revenues from the federal gas tax with municipalities to assist with their sustainable infrastructure needs, such as public transit, water, waste water treatment and community energy systems.

I might mention that for my city of Toronto, the GST rebate is in the order of about $50 million annually and that continues year after year. Again, it is a significant sum of money.

This is a perfect example of different levels of government working together to achieve a common goal. Bill C-48 enhances the government's commitment, focusing primarily on public transit.

As members know, individual Canadians produce greenhouse gases through day to day activities, such as driving vehicles and heating or cooling homes, anything that involves energy use. Certainly, there are things that all citizens can do to play a key role in addressing climate change, particularly in their homes. That is why the bill also proposes to provide funding for low income energy refit programs.

Having talked to others in the corridors and around Parliament Hill, I know this is a particular aspect that has gained a lot of attention among certain members of the community.

Even before introducing the bill, the government had promoted actions by Canadians to reduce greenhouse gases through a range of information and incentive programs, such as the EnerGuide for houses retrofit Incentive program. This evaluation service provides homeowners with independent expert advice on the different systems of a home and information on energy efficient improvements that can increase comfort and reduce energy bills.

The government's goal is to quadruple the number of houses retrofitted under the EnerGuide for houses retrofit incentive program over the next five years. Indeed the proposal in the bill complements this plan.

I must say it is more than mildly curious that members opposite at one level oppose these initiatives and then say in the next breath that if they form the government, they will of course adopt these initiatives.

The next initiative is in the area of foreign aid. As a nation composed of people from every part of the globe, Canadians have a keen sense of the world beyond their borders. Indeed Canada as a G-7 member has a responsibility to contribute to making the world safer and protecting the vulnerable in times of strife.

If members want to see the new face of Canada, I would invite them to my riding. I do not think there is a racial, ethnic or religious group that is not represented in the riding. They are Canada's future.

Canada's recently released international policy statement sets out a vision for Canada and its role in the world. The new international policy framework delivers on the government's commitment to invest in our international role. We have made substantial progress in delivering on Canada's 2002 pledge at Monterrey to double international assistance by 2010-11. In addition, Canada will strengthen the partnership with Africa through debt relief and aid to foster private sector development and key investments to address the serious health issues afflicting that continent.

Bill C-48 forms an integral part of the government's foreign policy by proposing an additional $500 million in international assistance. That new funding, combined with our proposed new approach for foreign aid, will better ensure that money goes to where it is most effective and do the most good.

Those who have been following this debate will notice that adds up to $4.5 billion over the next two years. There is a minor discrepancy between the $4.5 billion in the bill and the $4.6 billion that has been committed to this initiative. The final initiative has to do with an agreement to invest a further $100 million from within the fiscal framework to assist in the protection of workers' earnings in the event of employer bankruptcy.

That is in sum the $4.6 billion committed over the next two years. I would like to reiterate that the proposals contained in the bill are merely a natural extension of everything the government stands for. We are proud of the contribution we have made in securing Canada's social foundations. We are proud of the contribution we have made to the securing of our fiscal foundations. We believe that Canadians are proud of what we have worked so hard to accomplish together.

I would urge all members to support the bill.

[John McKay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48 is a bill that proposes further investments from unplanned surplus funds.

Canada's social foundations are a key to our social identity. In past budgets, the Government of Canada has made significant investments in these social priorities and this bill is merely a natural extension of those priorities. It already builds upon government initiatives taken over the past number of years and budgets.

Before outlining the measures contained in this bill, however, I would like to take a moment and talk about how the government is able to make these investments, or how we got from there to here.

As members know, Canada will record its eighth consecutive surplus in the budget year 2004-05, a record unmatched since Confederation. Indeed, Canada will be the only G-7 country to post a total government surplus in that fiscal year. Canada's much improved fiscal situation has allowed the government to make significant investments in the priorities of Canadians.

Our fiscal outlook, however, has not always been so rosy. When we took over the government from the members of the party opposite here, we were faced with a budgetary deficit in excess of $40 billion. On top of that, the unemployment rate was in the order of 11%. There was weak economic growth and weak consumer confidence, all brought on by the management so-called of the previous administration.

We recognized that something had to be done if we were to ensure a future for our generations to come. That is exactly what we did.

Our government undertook a series of measures to reduce spending and put our fiscal house in order. By 1997-98 we were able to eliminate the deficit.

I know, Mr. Speaker, that you are a bit of an athlete in your own right and without any pain there is no gain. Canadians clearly made sacrifices in support of a goal of improving our fiscal situation. However, in this case, and I know your athletic endeavours are matters of legend, the pain has paid off big time.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

The Budget

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman is at a loss to understand what the money is for, let me refer him to Bill C-48.

It is for the environment, including for public transit and an energy efficient retrofit program. It is for training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education, including for aboriginal people. It is for affordable housing across Canada, including for aboriginal people. It is for foreign aid.

Which of those things does the official opposition disagree with?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I should remind the hon. gentleman that the simple repetition of a falsehood does not make it true.

The fact of the matter is that the arrangements that we arrived at in Bill C-48 have ensured that there will be no deficit. They have ensured that the debt repayment plan will continue. They have ensured that any new investments are consistent with previously existing Government of Canada policies. They have ensured indeed that the tax program of the government will continue.

An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Supply

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the opposition motion of the New Democratic Party. I will take the time to read it first so that I can then comment on it more easily.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should recognize the public health impacts of smog and the failure of voluntary emission standards by legislating mandatory improvements to vehicle efficiency in all classes of light duty vehicles sold in Canada

For starters, I should say that my party intends to support the opposition motion put forward today by the NDP. However, I do have some criticism of it. In our view, it must be said that this motion is vague and inadequate. Why is it vague? Because it fails unfortunately to specify the extent to which we expect the automobile industry to improve the efficiency of light duty vehicles. Is the standard 25% or 10%? No one knows.

Of course we must take a regulatory approach. That is what we think on this side of the House. However, we must never forget that our regulations must be consistent, not with the American government standards—as is currently the case in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the regulations under it—but rather with the practices and regulations recently adopted in California. It is important to remember that.

Smog has been a reality in Canada for a number of years now. However, Quebec was alerted to it more than ever recently during several days in early February when Montreal and the Outaouais were hit by a smog alert. This was quite unusual. How could Montrealers and the people of the Outaouais possibly expect a smog alert in February? This points to a major problem which reminds us that we must change our ways of doing things and our consumption patterns.

Before I go on to the automobile industry and its impact, we must remember, first and foremost, that it is not just vehicle exhaust that causes this smog. Wood stoves and wood heating are also responsible for smog. As recently as between 1987 and 2000, there was a 60% increase in wood heating in Canada compared to only a 20% increase in rental housing. This means that the number of people who decided to heat their homes with wood more than doubled in 15 years. Naturally, that has a major impact on air quality, especially in urban areas like Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, which I represent in this House.

There is a mandatory five-year review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. At present, wood stove manufacturing standards have been harmonized with EPA standards. It may be time to consider, during our examination of the relevant sections of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, if stricter standards on wood stove manufacturing could not be implemented.

The crux of the problem is the transportation sector as a whole. We must remember that this sector is responsible for 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

So, this is not an inconsequential sector. Just before I started my intervention, I was looking at the figures, and the oil and gas sectors are responsible for 18% of these emissions. So, the transportation sector is the primary emitter of greenhouse gas in Canada, with 25%. It is even expected that by 2010, there will be a 32% increase in greenhouse emissions in the transportation sector compared to the 1990 levels, if nothing is done, and I want to emphasize that point.

This means that we have to make some choices. If Canada decides to maintain the status quo and not implement any measures, greenhouse emissions will have increased by 32% compared to 1990 levels. So we are forced to take action.

Until now, the government has chosen to take a voluntary approach with the auto industry, among others. Ultimately, this approach means that the auto industry is being trusted to improve vehicle fuel efficiency.

But that begs a fundamental question. Since there are quite a number of sectors in Canada—I am thinking of manufacturing, pulp and paper, steel—how come the federal government has decided to exclude the auto industry from the large industrial emitters?

When 25% of emissions are generated by the transportation sector—and there is a major correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and motor vehicle use—why was it decided to exclude the automotive sector from the large industrial emitters?

If the government, through its Minister of the Environment or Minister of Natural Resources, had announced to us today that the automotive industry was excluded from the large industrial emitters because the technology did not exist, I might almost understand. That is the case in certain industry sectors, such as cement manufacturing, for example. There we have substantial greenhouse gas emissions, and the technology to improve the energy balance of that industrial sector unfortunately does not exist. If that were the case for the automotive sector, I might almost understand.

But no. The technology to improve the energy efficiency of vehicles is available. So why are we not forcing the automobile industry to make better vehicles? When the technology exists, why do we continue to apply a voluntary approach which in recent years has produced no results? Some will say it is for economic reasons. I was listening to the hon. members from the Conservative Party telling us earlier that we had to understand that the vehicles produced in Canada were being exported.

It is as if to say that what has been done in California, which has a population of over 25 million and a market comparable to Canada's—so it has similar economic conditions—is good for California but not for Canada.

The economic argument does not wash, because the Canadian market is comparable to the California market. So what can be done in California can most certainly be done in Canada.

I look, among other things, at the action plan on climate change that was tabled in November 2002. The section on energy efficiency states that the automotive sector would be required to make an effort to reduce greenhouse gases by 5.2 megatonnes and improve automobile efficiency by 25%. The plan is that specific.

Unfortunately, the New Democratic Party motion does not contain this level of effort that we are demanding of the automobile industry. We would have liked to see that 25% threshold in this motion. What the automobile industry has been telling us lately is that it is not interested in any norm for improving vehicle efficiency by 25%.

That industry tells us that it is certainly prepared to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 megatonnes, but it does not want to have a standard comparable to California's. It prefers the status quo. The status quo, what we have at the moment, is a harmonization of the vehicle manufacturing standards with those of the federal government, the EPA.

There is a flagrant injustice being imposed on the various industrial sectors at this time. For example, the manufacturing sector—not the Quebec manufacturing sector, but the sector as a whole—has made a 7% reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions and the reduction imposed on it is 15%. How can anyone claim that what is being negotiated at this time is fair?

An industrial sector that has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 7% gets a 15% reduction imposed upon it, while an industrial sector like the auto industry, which has the technology, would not be included among the major emitters. There is something inequitable here; the government's proposed approach is unfair. A few months ago, the government announced a multi-million aid package for Ford. No problem, if they want to help that sector, and that particular company, that is fine with me. But, how can that company use the taxpayers' money without being prepared to apply more stringent energy efficiency standards? Ought this assistance to Ford not to have been conditional on improved manufacturing so as to produce more energy-efficient vehicles?

When the Commissioner of the Environment speaks of strategic environmental assessments, that is exactly what she is referring to. What does she say about this? That tax measures, financial assistance, is being provided to certain companies without due consideration of sustainable development and environmental protection.

Take Bill C-48. This is a bill that gives some $250 million a year in tax incentives to the hydrocarbon industry. Fine. The industry gets tax incentives and financial assistance and what do we get in return from these sectors that do not even have to sign a voluntary agreement with the federal government to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 15%? What do these sectors have to say about this?

I was reading the steel industry agreement. It is worth a read. Two agreements were signed by the federal government: one with the pulp and paper industry and the other with the steel industry. If you take the time to read the agreement, you will see that it says that the industry will enforce a 15% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions provided the competitiveness of the industry is not affected. This is based on industry studies.

So, the industry is prepared to accept federal assistance—that is the case with Ford—but it is not prepared to enforce stricter standards to improve vehicle efficiency by 25%.

What should be our direction in the coming years? In my opinion there are two approaches. It takes a fiscal and budgetary approach together with a regulatory approach. Let us develop a regulatory approach to make—and this is the case in the automobile industry—existing technologies more energy efficient.

We are not talking about research and development in this economic sector. We are talking about technologies that already exist. The government has a responsibility when faced with an industry that refuses to make the manufacture of vehicles more efficient.

Let us implement regulations that harmonize with California's, a regulatory approach, as the New Democratic Party proposes, so that, at the end of the day, new vehicles that come on the market will be more energy efficient and thus will help reduce smog. That is not enough: this regulatory approach must be accompanied by a tax-based approach to assist the public choosing to use sustainable transportation.

Sustainable transportation is help for public transit. How can the government not have included the very simple measure of making the cost of a public transit pass tax-deductible in its budget?

On February 23, let us hope that the Minister of Finance, who has been described as green by the Minister of the Environment—I have faith in what the Minister of the Environment says about the Minister of Finance—but if he is serious, he will announce on February 23 that the cost of a public transit pass will be deductible. That is the first step.

As a second step, there must be a tax incentive for people who decide to use a hybrid vehicle. A few months ago I bought a hybrid vehicle, which cost me $10,000 more than a conventional vehicle of the same make with the same options.

While the federal government is giving tax incentives to the oil industry, through Bill C-48, a responsible individual must spend an additional $10,000 to buy a more ecological vehicle. That makes no sense.

In this budget there must be a tax incentive for the citizen making a decision. What is $10,000 for a person who decides to live a cleaner life, when $250 million per year is given, with one stroke, to the oil industry? There must at least be some balance in tax policy between the aid given to these polluting industries and the aid given to the environmental industry in Canada. That must be our approach.

Canada could decide to adopt this strategic environmental assessment. As we know, in 1994 there was a directive from Cabinet—not the members of the House of Commons—to the effect that all departments ought to apply strategic environmental assessments to measures they were deciding upon. Plans, policies and programs should all be subjected to that test.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. If the government decided to enact legislation here in this Parliament to force all departments—among them Transport Canada and Finance in particular—and the commissioner was not very kind toward the latter, indicating that it was dragging its feet—to apply strategic environmental assessment to departmental plans, policies and programs, we would likely not be where we are today. It would be very likely that Canada could be presenting the Montreal conference in September with a better record as far as energy and greenhouse gas emissions are concerned than the one we have at present.

I will again point out that my party will be supporting the NDP motion.

Canadian Heritage Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-7, an act to amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act and the Parks Canada Agency Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

I remind the House that this bill was introduced and read the first time on October 8, 2004. The purpose of this admittedly technical bill is to transfer responsibility for the ParksCanada Agency from the Department ofCanadian Heritage to Environment Canada. It is rather technical but we think it is probably time that some changes occur within the federal government in terms of responsibilities.

The people responsible for Canadian parks and their resources must strive to maintain the ecological integrity of those resources and protect our ecosystems. We have our doubts about leaving responsibility for ecosystems, which come under Parks Canada, with Canadian Heritage. Who better than the Department of the Environment to protect the ecological integrity of our resources and our parks, since its mandate is to protect and promote the ecosystems and to make the various ecological aspects of this environmental heritage more accessible to the public?

On December 12, 2003, pursuant to an order, control and supervision of the Parks Canada Agency were transferred from Canadian Heritage to the Department of the Environment. On July 20, 2004, another order concerning the heritage responsibilities had to be made to clarify the previous one. Following those two orders, the legislation had to be amended, which explains the introduction of Bill C-7 to bring about the required amendments.

Of course, the bill is technical in nature. It contains—let us be honest—no substantive provision, even though it will affect several other acts. I emphasize this, because it will be examined in committee. We agree in principle with the introduction of the bill. However, when a bill has the effect of making amendments to the Canada National Parks Act, to the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, and—note this third act—to the Saguenay-St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, to the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, to the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, to the Canada Shipping Act and to the Species at Risk Act, there is good reason to ask ourselves a number of questions. Indeed, this bill changes a number of acts, and this is quite important.

What we were told, and I certainly want to believe the government, is that these changes will have no organizational impact for the Parks Canada Agency, and that the organizational integrity of Parks Canada will be maintained.

Unions seemed totally in favour of these amendments in principle. However, in committee, we will have to question officials to see if, in light of the various disputes that occurred in recent weeks, among others with Parks Canada, the government will actually be able to guarantee this organizational integrity. Even though we agree in principle, it is our intention, on this side of the House, to meet with unions and to ask them if these changes meet their expectations and if they do not have concerns on the organizational level.

The state of parks in Canada is a pretty major concern. There are two visions, which may not necessarily be competing but rather complementary. According to the first one, we should start by consolidating the network of parks across Canada which, in many cases, are in a pitiful state because of severe lack of funding in recent years. Even customer services have been greatly affected and, in some instances, resource preservation may be in danger. So, there is this school of thought which recommends that we start by consolidating the existing network.

There is another one, according to which we should increase the number of parks in Canada. There are not enough parks; there should be more. What does that mean for Quebec? This means creating more Canadian zones, more federal lands. We must never forget that these places managed by Parks Canada inevitably come under federal jurisdiction. That means that federal law, including the Species at Risk Act, automatically applies. We never objected to such legislation applying to federal lands or crown lands.

Increasing the number of lands under the authority of Parks Canada inevitably increases the federal presence in Quebec. But in Quebec, we have a similar structure, called Parcs Québec, which allows us to create our own network of parks and wildlife reserves.

In the coming years, strategic choices will have to made. Should we consolidate, strengthen the existing networks of parks, invest public funds in greater amounts to preserve the ecological integrity of existing parks, or should we develop and increase the number of parks across Canada instead?

I think the ecological integrity of these lands ought to be preserved. I travel across Quebec; I am one of those who, each year, during tourist season, visit many parks that come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I observe how rundown these parks are. Personally, I think we should reinvest in the parks, but in existing ones.

As indicated earlier, we must not forget that Parks Canada comes under the Department of Canadian Heritage. We must remember what the mission of these parks is. The Canada National Parks Act, 1988, states:

The national parks of Canada are hereby dedicated to the people of Canada for their benefit, education and enjoyment, subject to this Act and the regulations, and the parks shall be maintained and made use of so as to leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

We cannot but be pleased with this. In recent years we have seen Canadian Heritage's propaganda strategies at work throughout Canada. This was grounds for concern. So what could be more normal than for the parks, which used to come under Parks Canada, to move to Environment? Perhaps this will enable us to ensure that the primary role that parks in Canada ought to play will be played, namely maintaining ecological integrity.

This is, in fact, precisely what is lacking in Canada at present. This morning Johanne Gélinas, Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, tabled a highly interesting report on the state of our environment. I would invite hon. members to pay particular attention to one chapter of that report, the one on strategic environmental assessment.

The majority of departments refuse to integrate strategic environmental assessment, not just into their policies but into their plans and programs as well. If they did, we would at last be able to apply a directive that has been around for 14 years now, yet is very often not applied by the departments.

The Minister of Natural Resources over there must know what I am referring to. I would invite him to read the commissioner's report, as well as Bill C-48. The commissioner considers this no more or less than an unacceptable legislative initiative that does not promote sustainable development. When major oil companies are given tax incentives through Bill C-48, is this a policy promoting a sustainable development strategy for Canada? The answer to that is no, and that answer comes, not from the opposition, but from the commissioner of the environment, a person whose very mandate is to analyze this government's policies, plans and programs.

We have every right to be concerned about the way federal departments maintain the ecological integrity of the various areas for which they are responsible. To transfer Parks Canada from Canadian Heritage to Environment Canada is quite normal. Why is it normal? Because we now have a direct link to the Department of the Environment, which is responsible for protecting endangered species for instance. What can be more natural than to enforce this legislation in our parks? Maybe we could ensure that the environmental impact assessments in Canada, which come under the Department of the Environment, are applied to our parks as well as to everything Environment Canada does.

We have demonstrated again this morning that the strategic environmental assessment is applied in very few departments. A lot of departments are dragging their feet. Therefore, it is a good thing that our parks come under Environment Canada. The Environmental Assessment Act might finally be applied to crown lands. What could be more basic than to have federal legislation applied to crown land? What could be more normal than to ensure that the species at risk legislation in Canada is enforced on the crown lands that make up our Canadian parks?

It is quite normal. If the government carried out environmental assessments, a process triggered by the Department of Finance in the first place, we might not be in the situation we are right now as far as the state of the environment is concerned. As early as 1993 the Auditor General of Canada pointed out some administrative problems, as well as a lack of reinvestment dating back to 1996. There has been no reinvestment for eight years. The Auditor General said eight years ago that planning did not always provide a clear link between ecological integrity objectives and initiatives.

He is one of her recommendations: “Parks Canada should ensure that park management plans are updated in accordance with the requirements of the National Parks Act and policy, and business plans should be clearly linked to those management plans. Parks Canada should also introduce a formal process for monitoring the implementation of management plans”. The Auditor General also said in 1996: “Parks Canada lacks key information necessary for park management”.

The number of visitors increased by 25% between 1988 and 1989, and also between 1994 and 1995. Canadian parks are getting busier all the time, but investment is down. Moreover, ecological integrity, which should be the main concern of the government, leaves a lot to be desired.

This transfer of responsibility from Canadian Heritage to Environment Canada will not ensure that those goals will be met, which was harshly criticized by the Office of the Auditor General as early as 1996. Why I am saying that? Because since I have been here, I have seen an increase in the number of legislative measures affecting the environment, be it the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act or the Species at Risk Act.

Therefore, it is not because there have been legislative initiatives that the federal government has necessarily enforced the appropriate laws which it enacted itself. It is not because there is an endangered species act in Canada that the federal government has enforced that act on the lands within federal jurisdiction, such as those managed by Parks Canada. It is not because there is an environmental assessment act in Canada that this government has necessarily enforced its own law on its own lands. Of course, this transfer from Canadian Heritage to Environment Canada is, I think, a real test for the federal government.

We shall see whether the intentions and actions behind the introduction of this bill on October 8 translate into tangible activities to preserve ecological integrity on the lands belonging to the federal government. I am skeptical. We are ready, in principle, to give the federal government a chance. We are ready to do whatever we can to help this government enforce its own laws.

I believe that this restructuring, while technical, shows the essence and spirit of this desire. But I shall remain skeptical. We must ensure that in coming years we can put all possible means at the disposal of public servants and all who wish to maintain this ecological integrity and protect and increase accessibility. Naturally, this involves a transfer of responsibilities. It also involves reinvestment in actual, existing parks, and not necessarily scattering zones that would be more protected by Parks Canada.

Let us begin by consolidating our network of parks in Canada which, as I have often said, is in a precarious state. We must put our resources where they are needed. We can begin a process of organizational change, which is desirable, and transfer this responsibility away from a department, namely Canadian Heritage, whose purpose in recent years has been political propaganda to a department that, finally, must shoulder its responsibilities to protect resources, endangered species and ecological integrity on the lands for which the federal government is responsible.