Debates of May 5th, 2005

Committees of the House

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The amendment is under advisement. The subamendment can therefore be under advisement.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Prince George--Peace River, for bringing forth this motion.

I have been sitting here in humour listening to the hon. member from across the way, the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell, implying, like a lot that has been coming from the other side of the House, that the only reason a possible election is even being talked about is because of the results of what might come out of the Gomery inquiry. It is almost implying, almost comically, with everything that has been happening in this House in the short months that I have been here, one would think that everyone over there was wearing a halo. I am referring to our opposition days, our respective motions passed by democratic votes in the House and those types of things.

Those halos, if there were any, were certainly knocked off and trampled into the carpet by the former Liberal member from Mississauga--Erindale when she was trampling George Bush's doll into the carpet. I find that kind of humourous. The Gomery inquiry is not the only reason to call an election. There are many other reasons.

I would like the hon. member to speak on behalf of his government and tell us when the government will start respecting things in the House and bring back opposition days and those kinds of things. This House needs to be treated with the respect that it deserves.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government is showing tremendous respect for the House of Commons and for Parliament. The latter can express itself in a number of ways, and a chosen option may have an impact that is not the same as that of another option. When Parliament decides, as the legislator, to exercise its exclusive power to legislate, and when this House and the other place support a bill that then receives royal assent, the government has no choice but to act on the will of the legislator. That is what respect for the exclusive powers of Parliament as legislator is all about.

A government would never question this principle unless, of course, there is a judicial interpretation issue involved, which can happen. There are three branches, namely the judicial, legislative and executive branches. Each one has certain powers and responsibilities. It is in the coordinating of these powers, particularly in the House, where the legislative and the executive are together on a daily basis, that there can be some minor variations. However, the executive branch fully respects the legislative when it fulfills its duties in that capacity, when it acts as an agency monitoring the government, or when it issues notices to the executive branch.

First, there is absolutely no lack of respect toward the legislator, Parliament, on the part of the government. Second, the government, this party, has no fear of letting voters pass judgment. However, we do respect voters, and they have made it clear that if they have to pass judgment on a situation, they want to do it in full knowledge, based on the facts that will be presented to them in the final report of the Gomery commission. In fact, the member opposite is one of those who recognized that.

This is why the Prime Minister made a commitment, on behalf of the government, to call a general election in the 30 days following the release of the final report of the Gomery commission. In so doing, the government showed that it has absolutely no fear of going into an election. The government is respectful of the voters' desire to know the facts before passing judgment.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, during the debate earlier, questions were raised about fiscal responsibility. Canadians well know and the House well knows that when the government took office back in 1993 we had a $42 billion deficit. Since that time there has been an extraordinary change, a recovery, and in fact an enviable record of fiscal management which is the pride of the world.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on the successes of the government.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to. I must point out, however, that recognition of the marked improvement in the fiscal situation of this country comes for the most part from third parties. Since 1997, we have ceased to record annual deficits and accumulate debt. We have turned the situation around by reducing the debt. We are saving $3 billion to $4 billion annually on debt service charges. Now, in fact, for the first time in some years, we have some hitherto unavailable leeway and are therefore able to address some other problems.

For example, last September we concluded an agreement enabling us to increase the health transfers to the provinces by some $41 billion over the next 10 years. Had we not been able to create that financial wiggle room, we would never have been able to have such an agreement with all provinces and all territories, without exception.

The budget we presented follows suit; once again it forecasts a surplus. We have been able to earmark $5 billion for early childhood education and child care. We have even managed to conclude two agreements in principle, one with Manitoba and the other with Saskatchewan. In the near future we hope to be able to conclude agreements with other provinces as well.

Having created this financial leeway, we can now allocate resources to services important to Canadians, such as housing, early childhood education, help for our communities, our towns and cities, and national defence. The budget before the House proposes a major increase—in fact, the biggest in 20 years—in national defence budgets.

The same goes for seniors, particularly those receiving the guaranteed income supplement, who are having trouble making ends meet. We propose to increase the guaranteed income supplement by 7%, on top of indexation.

These are all manifestations of a desire to help Canadians from sea to sea to sea by meeting their needs. To that end, the public finances had to be put in order, and we have done that.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I find it quite interesting listening to the member comment on what is happening at Gomery and the allegations and the charges that have been brought forward and sworn testimony.

Recent events in the world in the business community have seen many charges and allegations against the leadership of Enron. I am wondering if the member would be prepared to comment on whether the people who ran Enron, the presidents and all the managers, should have been allowed to continue to manage the company under all those charges, under all those allegations, under all those suspicions that were created in the public.

Would the member agree that this government is asking to do exactly the same thing?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely not because charges are not laid against the government. Charges are laid by the RCMP against individuals in private companies.

What we have at present is a commission of inquiry that has been charged with the task of shedding light on allegations that are at times contradictory. Our colleague opposite spoke of allegations made yesterday by Mr. Guité, the same person who made statements, also under oath, at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. There are two series of statements made under oath by the same person, one before the Gomery inquiry and the other before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and they contradict each other. Which version are we to believe?

That is where Canadians realize that we absolutely must allow the inquiry the time to complete its work and draw its conclusions. That is why we asked the commissioner to engage in this process and get the facts, so that Canadians can make a judgment in full knowledge of the facts.

I understand that our colleagues opposite are worried about this. They are afraid Justice Gomery's possible findings might foil their attempt to ruin the reputations of everyone on this side of the House.

Canadians have a true thirst for justice. They want the process to be respected. In this country people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Finding people guilty based on unfounded and contradictory allegations—as we saw again today—goes against what Canadians stand for.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the motion introduced today by our friends in the Conservative Party.

First of all, the Bloc Québécois is going to support this very commendable Conservative initiative. As our leader has repeatedly said, I think that our arguments are well-known now, solid and very justifiable in the sense that this government no longer has the moral authority to continue to administer public property, most of all, and the affairs of state. For this reason, my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and I are going to support the motion introduced today by the Conservative Party.

The purpose of this motion is to ask the government to withdraw from these functions, which are supposed to be honourable, and give the people a chance to say now—at a time of year when people are doing their spring cleaning in several ways, including on the political level—that we must be sure that clean people are doing honest work. The money our fellow citizens have provided, especially just recently through their income tax returns, must also be handled a little more honestly. The money provided by these people must flow back to them in the form of quality services. Canadians and Quebeckers have a right to expect quality services.

When I heard the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell shouting himself hoarse a little while ago, I remembered his oratorical flights back in the days when he was in the rat pack along with Sheila Copps, John Nunziata, Brian Tobin and others who have left now. I remember when the member was scathing toward Mr. Mulroney's Conservative government. If the situation were reversed, I wonder what kind of scene they would be making, like the ones we saw back in the days of the Conservative government, when the famous rat pack was in opposition.

I heard the deputy leader of the government, the former chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, tell us that Canadians want to wait for the Gomery commission to finish its work. However, if we were in question period, I would ask him why, on May 3, 2004, on the eve of the calling of the federal election, his current Prime Minister said and I quote, “People know enough about the sponsorship scandal; we need to have an election”.

If the Liberals knew enough on May 3, 2004, why do they know less now after hearing all the witnesses who have appeared before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Gomery commission?

If enough was known on May 3, 2004, it was about how this mess, which we knew about last year, came to be. All we are finding out now really is the who, because we already knew, in large part, about the how. We are hearing about who did what to create this mess.

Some $250 million is involved. Like everyone watching us today, I read the papers. An international firm, Kroll, not to mention any names, is currently following the money, tracking where every dollar went. It wants to find out how the person in charge of signing the cheques at the time, namely the finance minister, could sign $250 million worth of cheques over a few years to make his friends happy. How was this money paid out by the federal government, the Department of Finance, through some large cracks in Treasury Board, thereby flouting the system and government regulations governing advertising contracts and sponsorships? The cracks must have been very large at the time. Perhaps, as the Prime Minister said in his address to the nation, the then President of the Treasury Board will also tell us he was not vigilant enough. No one in that government was vigilant enough, if they let such a mess happen.

The Liberals are saying, “Let us stay in office, we who have grabbed $100 million out of the $250 million. Let us stay in office, and we will be able to fix this”.

They are not wrong there, in part. Let us take the example of a bank manager who steals $10 million from his employer and asks to be allowed to stay on the job because he knows how to prevent someone else from stealing that amount. Of course, he stole the money and knows how he did it. He knows what needs to be corrected so that no one can steal $10 million again from the bank. I wonder whether his employer will say, “You are right. You stole $10 million, and I am so proud you want to fix up the system that I will keep you on. I will even give you a bonus and a raise. Indeed, I will appoint you the ambassador to Denmark”.

There is absolutely no doubt they can rectify the problem, because they created it, they abused the system. However, this is not what Canadians and voters want. They want the people who made the grave mistakes to be punished and more trustworthy individuals to take over from them and clean it all up.

It is not up to the person who starts a fire to put it out. It is not the person who stole who will be asked to rectify the system. There is a bit of a paradox here. It is true, they know the system. They set it up, created it and abused it.

What's more, they tell us a parallel group was involved and they were not part of it. In connection with the parallel group and this government's morality, I am going to mention a few names. If the captain, the coach or the leader of a group of people acting dishonestly is changed, only one person is changed, but the rest of the team remains as corrupt as it was under another leader.

So let us look at the group that is now in power, and see whether they have sufficient moral fibre to continue. The member for Outremont, the Prime Minister's lieutenant, gives us information, does not give it, gives us a little bit, implies or conceals information as to whether he was or was not a lobbyist, did or did not have social meetings, as to whether his meals with Jean Lafleur and some of the people involved in the sponsorship scandal—where they feasted on foie gras and filet mignon washed down with champagne, sauternes and fine wines—were just a quick lunch.

I do not if other members of this House have quick lunches like that, so well organized and with such a high-priced menu and wine list.

When he organized meetings with his friends and with ex-minister Gagliano, these were social get-togethers. When he is asked whether he was paid by contract or on retainer for a set period, he does not dare answer. So here we have players on today's team trying to cast doubt on former team members when they certainly appear not to be as pure as the driven snow, themselves.

We are told that people do not know enough for there to be an election, and that we need to wait until the Gomery inquiry is over. How can it be that the Prime Minister knew enough to recall Alfonso Gagliano from his ambassador's post in Denmark? According to the Liberals, he did not have the right to be presumed innocent. He was recalled before the inquiry was over. If those were nothing but allegations, will there be a public apology? Will Mr. Gagliano get his job in Denmark back? Will they make amends? Can the Liberals stand up and tell us that they will indeed give him back all his lost wages, give him back his position, and make an apology because it looks as if he was recalled based on false allegations?

Allegations serious enough to recall an ambassador are not something one sees every day, you will agree. The allegations are serious enough to get two CEOs of crown agencies dismissed. Now for a flight of political fancy. What if, when the Gomery inquiry was over, the conclusion was that these were nothing but allegations? Would those two get apologies because they were let go in error? Enough was known when they were let go, but today not enough was known to admit to people “this is the mess we have made”.

The current Minister of the Environment and member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville was minister responsible for the Privy Council at the time when money was being hidden in the Canadian Unity Fund. Today, he is still part of the same team. He is now the Minister of the Environment and sponsor of the referendum clarity bill. And on that topic, we learned at the Gomery inquiry that once again taxpayer dollars were freely used to shove an unspeakably anti-democratic bill down the throats of Quebeckers. I think the public should know that.

We could make an analogy between the clarity bill, Bill C-20, and a game of hockey. Bill C-20 has two main components, it strives for a clear result and a clear question. What is a clear result? They say it will be determined after the referendum. That would be like two hockey teams facing off and the game ending with a score of 4 to 1 for the white team only to have the blue team tell them that, unfortunately, they needed 6 goals to win. The 4 to 1 result would not be enough for them to win the game. How many points do you need to win a hockey game? Under Bill C-20 the number of points needed for a win would be confirmed once the game is over.

Insofar as a clear question is concerned, my leader has already joked that, as long we have been talking about it, there could be two boxes: “Are you for yes?” and “Are you for no?” It would be clear for people. They speak about a clear question, but who is supposed to decide whether the question is clear? They say that everyone and no one should. The Senate, for example, could say that it did not find the question clear. Prince Edward Island could do the same. Maybe Bill C-20 could have been amended to say that the opinion of the Pope and the American president should be sought in order to know whether the question is clear. That is roughly what the Liberal Party was proposing in introducing Bill C-20.

In view of the fact that the clear question was not so clear for Quebeckers and the result that was wanted after the game was over was not clear either, they needed some good ways of selling the idea. So the Minister of the Environment dipped into the Canadian Unity Fund and tried to sell the idea to Quebeckers, telling them that this bill made some sense.

One of the former heads of the Canadian Unity Council was named an ambassador as well. I do not know where he is now, but he was appointed Canadian ambassador to China, in Beijing, immediately after these events. His name is Howard Balloch.

I had the privilege of meeting him. Because he was very far away, he was much more loquacious that some ministers are and some witnesses heard by the Gomery Commission. He told me that he had certain disagreements with former minister Tobin, “Captain Canada”, about organizing the famous “love-in” in Montreal to tell us how much we were loved. If he has returned to Canadian shores and is listening to us today, I will gladly recall his words of 1997-98 for him. There are words one never forgets. He told me, rather boastfully, that the separatists would never find the $18 million that had been hidden in the Canadian Unity Fund. He said that the job had been done so well that the money would never be found. Maybe he too could be recalled to Canada, if he is still the Canadian ambassador somewhere. It is a suggestion of mine, unless my allegations are not as serious as in Mr. Gagliano's case.

Unfortunately for him, his confidence is looking rather unfounded. I think that we will find where the $18 million was hidden, just as we are learning where the $100 million from the sponsorship scandal went.

Jean Pelletier was on this team as well. They wanted us to believe that there was a parallel scandal woven by a parallel group. So, when the Prime Minister's chief of staff is involved in a scandal, is it still reasonable to speak of a parallel group, as the Prime Minister's Quebec lieutenant continues to do?

This morning, Serge Gosselin testified before the Gomery commission. He too has been a chief of staff. John Welch will also be called. He is the former chief of staff of a current minister. I learned something very interesting recently: Claire Brouillet, the partner or former partner of Daniel Dezainde, will be testifying before the Gomery commission.

What I find interesting in this is that she was my Liberal opponent in 1993 in my riding. After that, questionable things were happening in the Liberal Party. It took 12 years to finally prove these things and get the people involved to testify before the Gomery commission. I am very curious to hear what she has to say. I am sure she too knows some interesting things.

I introduced a motion in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which was supported by the majority. Oddly, the Liberals, who want to know everything, opposed it. The aim of the motion was to have a better understanding of chapter 5 of the Auditor General's November 2003 report.

According to the motion presented by the Conservatives, once witnesses have been heard in the public accounts committee on chapters 3, 4 and 5, a confidence vote is to be held. It is useful to recall that this committee has in fact studied chapters 3 and 4, but set chapter 5 aside on the assumption that Justice Gomery would study it. To everyone's surprise, we learned that the Gomery commission was looking at chapters 3 and 4 only. So the committee wanted to examine chapter 5, since the aim is to discover the truth. However, the Liberals opposed it.

What is so special about chapter 5? It contains a little paragraph, hardly anything at all, paragraph 5.17, if I recall correctly, which provides that, within the Department of Finance and certain other departments, problems were encountered in the awarding of public opinion and research contracts. There is no mention of advertising or polls. Chapters 3 and 4, however, concern the Department of Public Works and Government Services, the Treasury Board Secretariat and the PMO. Chapter 5 involves the office of the Minister of Finance. Who held that portfolio at the time? The current Prime Minister.

Why did he exclude chapter 5 from the mandate of the Gomery commission? Was it a coincidence? Perhaps the answer is buried in the question itself. Why did the Liberals refuse to let the Standing Committee on Public Accounts review this chapter? Indeed, the answer may be buried in the question itself. What was it in this chapter that had to do with this government's morals?

The Prime Minister, who was then the Minister of Finance, stubbornly refused to get involved in the Prime Minister's game, not because he was so pure, but because he had to please his friends, including Earnscliffe, which is a firm located in Ottawa. Who was working for Earnscliffe? There was David Herle, the spouse of his chief of staff, with whom they bought some land. The chief of staff threatened the Department of Public Works and Government Services into giving contracts to Earnscliffe without complying with Treasury Board rules or government standards.

Why did the Liberals deliberately omit the review of chapter 5 by the Gomery commission, and why did they refuse to do so in committee, even though the majority would have allowed such an exercise?

It is because there was another little scandal. We are not talking about a parallel group involved in the same scandal, we are talking about a parallel scandal involving the current Prime Minister when he was the Minister of Finance.

These are, in essence, the reasons why we support the motion by the Conservative Party.

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

Madam Speaker, the question that must be asked is, does the government have the confidence of the House? It is a question that I would ask my friend who has just spoken.

The purpose of the matter that is before the House is the widespread and systematic corruption at the highest level of the Liberal government spanning many years as revealed in the Gomery commission. I can say categorically from my perspective as a western Canadian that this is a government that does not enjoy the confidence of Canadians. It does not have the moral authority to govern the country and something should be done about it.

We have witnessed in the last several days the perverse spectacle of a government dipping, ducking and dodging, introducing filibusters to filibuster its own legislation. This is unheard of in Canadian parliamentary history. As near as I can tell it is unheard of in parliamentary history anywhere. All of this perverse and disgusting use of the rules is to avoid having a confidence motion in the House. That is what the government is up to.

I ask my friend if the situation is the same in his part of the country. Does the government have the moral authority to govern Canada? I say that it does not. It should face the House of Commons and establish that it has the confidence of the House.

I will quote from Marleau and Montpetit as I finish my comments. It states:

The whole law of finance, and consequently the whole British constitution, is grounded upon one fundamental principle, laid down at the very outset of English parliamentary history and secured by three hundred years of mingled conflict with the Crown and peaceful growth. All taxes and public burdens imposed upon the nation for purposes of state, whatsoever their nature, must be granted by the representatives of the citizens and taxpayers, i.e., by Parliament.

This government does not have the confidence of the House or the moral authority to govern the country. That is the question I would ask of my friend.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I can see the member for Ottawa—Vanier nodding his head. He seems to agree with everything the Conservative member just said. Does he not? He disagrees somewhat.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

That is science fiction.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

My apologies. I had misheard.

I appreciate the question that was put to me by the Conservative member. He is from the west. He asked how this sponsorship scandal was perceived in Quebec. I will be pleased to answer that question.

This is a very damaging scandal. Crime or serious wrongdoing often cause more far reaching collateral damage than one might think. If we could have a dialogue, I would put the question back to the hon. member from the west or suggest to him that, in Ontario, in the prairies, in the west and just about everywhere outside Quebec, the perception is that this is a Quebec scandal, when in fact it is a Liberal one. It is important to point that out.

Unfortunately, the image that the Liberals have projected in Quebec, and the image of Quebec they have projected across Canada, is that Quebeckers are corrupt people, when those responsible for the sponsorship scandal are in fact the Quebec Liberals. It is important to point that out.

We are told that politicians are corrupt. While politicians caused the scandal and politicians used the scandal, it was politicians also who revealed it. This is therefore a most relevant question. It is very important to point out that the sponsorship scandal happened in Quebec because, unfortunately, efforts were made to buy the conscience of Quebeckers. This is, however, a Liberal scandal that happened in Quebec, because of the actions of Liberal politicians who are mostly from Quebec.

So, the perception in Quebec is that this is the group of individuals who are responsible for the sponsorship scandal. That is also the perception that should be shared throughout Canada. This was a game that was played not by the people of Quebec, not by the public relation firms in Quebec but by certain firms. Sadly for those firms which are honest—because there are still many honest ones in Quebec—and did not get involved in this scandal, they will be penalized when contracts are awarded in the rest of Canada, because people will say that, if it comes from Quebec, it must be dirty and dishonest.

It is a Liberal scandal that occurred in Quebec because of Liberal politicians. I will say it again and I want the Canadian public to know that this is how it happened and that the people of Quebec are not dishonest.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, the profound tragedy of this motion is that it is a rabid political exercise designed for nothing more than for the opposition to gain power. We understand that is the rule and the name of the game with respect to being in opposition. We know that.

The bigger tragedy for most Canadians out there watching is the fact that there are people without jobs. There are people without houses. There are people without health care.

The government has implemented solutions to bring health care to Canadians. We want to put people back to work. The government has to keep our fiscal house in order. We want to bring housing to those who do not have houses. We must ensure that those who are least privileged in our society will have the privileges that they require. The government wants to put money in the ground for critical infrastructure for the municipalities. All this and more is what the government is trying to do.

Unfortunately, the opposition is simply trying to engage in this political exercise that is moving this House away from the real job that Canadians have sent us here to do, which is to deal with their problems.

I want to talk to the issue at hand and the motion. The measure of a government is the way in which it deals with the problem it is confronted with. Does the government ignore it? Does it hide it, or does it deal with the problem in a very pragmatic way? Without a shadow of a doubt, the public knows that the government has dealt with the problem it is faced with.

How has the government done that? The government has done it through the Gomery inquiry. It has done it through the comptroller system that has been introduced to ensure that every ministry will have another oversight mechanism. This will ensure that all public moneys are used in a rational, responsible, transparent and effective way.

My question for the member has two parts. Does the member believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty? If he believes that a person is innocent until proven guilty, would he subvert the Gomery inquiry and end it in the middle of its work before Justice Gomery has had a chance to tell Canadians the truth?

If the member believes in innocent until proven guilty and if he is trying to subvert the Gomery inquiry, which is what he is trying to do right now, then he is a hypocrite.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, why was Alfonso Gagliano recalled? In fact, he was recalled before the end of the Gomery inquiry. Was he not entitled to be presumed innocent, under the Liberal theory?

The hon. member is saying that we want to overturn the government in order to come into power. I would say that is absolutely not the intention of the Bloc Québécois. I can give him my word on that.

The hon. member also said that the public is more concerned about housing, health and agriculture. If all that money had not been wasted on Jean Brault, Gilles-André Gosselin, and Chuck Guité, and spent on the public instead, then maybe the public would be happier and we would now be in the process of governing and doing other things.

In closing, the Liberals keep saying, “We set up the Gomery inquiry”. That makes me think of a movie I saw in which the person responsible for the crime was then hired to solve problems later. I think the Liberals saw it too, loved it and are fixated on this movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio called Catch Me If You Can . After the crook robbed all the banks, he was then hired to monitor what was going on in the banks.

Nonetheless, what happens in Hollywood must not happen in Canada.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. However, it is unfortunate though that we are dealing more with the crass partisan politics of this place than with the business that matters to the people of Canada. Right now the business of the people of Canada is to get this improved budget through the House, as a result of the efforts of the NDP. This is an improved and better budget that makes life better for Canadians in areas that matter to them.

The budget we now have and the fact that Jack Layton has intervened gives us a budget that we can support. This budget now takes some serious steps forward in protecting the environment and--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The member is an experienced parliamentarian and knows that the names of members cannot be used in the House. Please use their riding name or their title.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I apologize, Madam Speaker.

The leader of the New Democratic Party made these improvements because it was part of our mandate. Again I am emphasizing that the new improved budget as a result of the intervention by the leader of the New Democratic Party will give us fair environmental protection. It will do something positive about student debt. It will make sure that real money is invested in providing affordable housing for Canadians who desperately need it. It will flow more money now as a result of the new NDP improved budget. It will flow even more money to municipalities like my hometown of Hamilton that desperately need federal assistance.

Part of what I ran on and part of why I came here was to ensure that cities like Hamilton got the federal money they are entitled to and which they desperately need. What are we faced with? We are faced with an attempt by the official opposition, joined by another of the opposition parties, the Bloc, to bring down this Parliament. Nothing else seems to matter. It would take down a budget that helps Canadians, that makes life better for Canadian families. Not just that, crass partisan politics are taking hold right now.

I stand to be corrected, and in the 10 minutes for questions and comments, I invite the official opposition to correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the official opposition was the only party that refused to allow this House to adjourn on Monday so that more members of the House could be in Europe to represent the veterans of Canada who went to war and died. That is wrong. That is not the business of the people. That is the partisan interests of the Conservative Party.

What we ought to be doing right now is putting our veterans first and foremost, ahead of what is important to this place. Eyes around the world are rivetted on what is going on in Europe. Some of us want to be there to represent the citizens in our community who died fighting for this country.

Members of the opposition are saying that we can go. They would like that. They would love all the members to leave so they could sneak through a non-confidence motion. What a shame. I have been in politics long enough to know that if any other party did something that prevented elected members of the House of Commons from attending ceremonies in Europe to pay tribute to and honour those who fought and died for this country, those members would be the first ones hanging from the rooftops saying that what was being done was wrong. Now it is the members of the official opposition who ought to hang their heads in shame. Shame on the official opposition for doing that.

We have made an agreement. The leader of the New Democratic Party and this caucus gave their word that we would do everything possible to give life to this budget for the reasons I have already mentioned. No one should worry. The people will get a chance to pass judgment on the Liberals vis-à-vis the disgusting scandal that is now embracing this place. They will get their chance to do that.

When I talk to my constituents in Hamilton Centre they want this place to do something. We have been here for 10 months. Members of the official opposition are drooling at the prospect of an election. Why? Do they think the government should no longer be in power? No, that is just a fig leaf. The real reason is the Conservatives' poll numbers bounced up and all of a sudden they cannot help themselves. More than anything, the official opposition wants to move from that side of the House to this side of the House. Fair enough, but not at the expense of a budget that is going to make life better for Canadians, because we are here to make this work.

Madam Speaker, I am asking for permission to split my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Agreed.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, members should make no mistake. As I did in committee, I did not support a non-confidence motion for the very reasons I have outlined, because we want this Parliament to work long enough to at least get the better budget through and make life better for Canadians. Is that not why we are here? Here we have an opportunity to do it.

Do not give me any guff about backroom deals. What are minority governments all about? Why do Canadians like minority governments? Because it denies the likes of those two parties from having absolute majorities to do whatever they want. In a minority people have to sit down and negotiate. We did that. The leader of the New Democratic Party met with the Prime Minister. We improved the budget to the point where I am getting calls, and I would bet a lot of other members are too, from constituents saying that whatever kind of fight there may be with the other parties, do not jeopardize the new, improved budget because it is helping communities and families. Canadians want the money to pass and then we can fight like hell all we want, but they want us to get some work done first.

That is why we did not support the non-confidence motion at the public accounts committee and we will not be supporting non-confidence. We will do everything we can to prevent that motion from coming forward until we get the budget through which would make life better for Canadians. That is why I came to this place.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians will know that the speech by the member was the first one to have substance to it. It was about the business of Parliament. It was not about the political interests of a particular party or the separatist interests of another party. The member talked about the business of this place and the reality of a minority Parliament. He talked about cooperation, the needs of Canadians, some of the issues that will translate directly into helping Canadians.

What do the Conservatives and Bloc want? They want to get rid of the government as soon as possible. They have placed a motion before the House that makes it appear there is a problem and that the government should resign. Another member rose and said that is what Canadians want. Canadians saw him on television saying his constituents do not want an election and yet in the House he says precisely the reverse.

Why is it that those members cannot tell the facts the way they are? Certainly there are allegations, but the issue is not whether or not this side is delaying the work of the House. We want to work. We want to pass the budget. We want the committees to deliver bills to the House. We want to work for Canadians. All that the people over there want to do is see if they can get a quick one done.

The official opposition party simply flip-flops on every important issue to Canadians, such as child care, Kyoto and a deal for cities. What about housing? Every time an important issue to Canadians has been addressed in this place, the official opposition has been against it. Now it is changing its view again thinking that maybe Canadians will not worry about what it really is all about and what it really believes. Is that not the truth?

The truth is that the opposition has no position. It is a position of fuzz, one where it hopes Canadians do not understand what it is all about.

I am sure the NDP member has a few more thoughts to share with the House about the important work for this minority government, which in reality has to deal with things in the best interests of all Canadians.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would just put the question to you and anyone watching, does anyone honestly believe that if the Conservatives, the official opposition, were at 21%, they would be fighting tooth and nail the way they are to bring down this Parliament and get us out onto the hustings? No, they would be saying that we have to make this Parliament work. They would have a completely different tune. The fact of the matter is that because they suddenly have had a bit of a bump in the poll numbers, they are all excited and are thinking, “What colour do I want the drapes in my ministerial suite? What kind of automobile am I going to buy?” They have got themselves caught up in the fine taste of victory rather than rolling up their sleeves and doing the work of the Canadian people.

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

Just show us. Just do it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The member thinks I might have something else to say, and I do. I would also like to point out that one of the beauties of this improved budget is that the leader of the New Democratic Party made one of our demands the whole issue of fiscal responsibility.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Broadbent is so upset he is quitting.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We got $4.6 billion more going into social services and going into the issues--