House of Commons Hansard #99 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.

Topics

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Leon Benoit Vegreville—Wainwright, AB

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to present a petition on behalf of fellow Albertans who believe that on important issues of social policy, it should be elected members of Parliament making the law and not the courts.

The petitioners urge Parliament to use every means it has, whether legislative or administrative, including invoking the notwithstanding clause of the charter if necessary, to ensure that marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition on the subject of marriage to present to the House today. The petition has been presented by many members in this place, signed by hundreds of thousands of signatures.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that the majority of Canadians believe fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary and that the majority of Canadians do support the current definition of marriage.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to use all administrative and legislative measures possible, including the invocation of section 33 of the charter commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as being the legal union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present to the House today on the subject of marriage and the traditional definition of marriage. I have presented over 20 of these petitions now.

The petitioners say that whereas the traditional definition of marriage is the best basis for raising families and children and whereas the majority of Canadians are in favour of the traditional definition of marriage, they would like to see the traditional definition of marriage continued. They point out that it ought to be Parliament rather than the courts that rule on this.

These petitions like the others have come from across my riding from Barry's Bay, from Smith's Falls and from beautiful Ardoch.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition to present today, and it is almost a novelty to be presenting one that is not on same sex marriage. This petition is on the subject of the right to save seeds.

The petitioners want Parliament to recognize the inherent right of farmers, developed from thousands of years of custom and tradition, to save, re-use, exchange and select seeds. They point out that newly proposed restrictions on farmers' traditional practices criminalize these ancient practices and could harm farmers, citizens and society in general.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty today to present two petitions on Bill C-38. It is interesting to note that one is pro and one is con. It demonstrates that this is a very divisive issue across the country and, unfortunately, rather than uniting Canadians it is dividing them.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dave MacKenzie Oxford, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding, the constituents of College Avenue United Church.

The petitioners pray that Parliament define marriage in federal law as being a lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Petitions
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn St. John's South, NL

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition containing a number of signatures from the St. John's region, many of them seniors from Saint Luke's Homes and Cottages.

The petition is asking that Parliament pass legislation to recognize the institution of marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Questions on the Order Paper
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Beauséjour
New Brunswick

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 119 will be answered today.

Question No. 119
Routine Proceedings

May 16th, 2005 / 3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Loyola Hearn St. John's South, NL

Does the government intend to hold a ceremony at the National War Memorial on July 1, 2006 to mark the 90th anniversary of the Battle of Beaumont-Hamel?

Question No. 119
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Mississauga East—Cooksville
Ontario

Liberal

Albina Guarnieri Minister of Veterans Affairs

Commemorative ceremonies will be held on July 1, 2006 in St. John’s, Newfoundland at the War Memorial and in France at the Newfoundland Beaumont-Hamel Memorial to mark the 90th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme involving Newfoundlanders in the first world war. These are the two locations that hold official ceremonies to commemorate Beaumont-Hamel each year.

For July 1, 2005, Veterans Affairs Canada Atlantic region is currently working with Department of National Defence Newfoundland region in planning the Beaumont-Hamel commemoration in St. John’s within the context of the Year of the Veteran.

Question No. 119
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Dominic LeBlanc Beauséjour, NB

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Question No. 119
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

The Speaker

Is it agreed?

Question No. 119
Routine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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, and of the motion that this question be now put.

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

3:20 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Oda 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.