Ed Komarnicki

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 21st, 2005]

Small units--

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister spoke in this House when he was talking about his budget. He said he had consulted many Canadians and had arrived at a balanced budget. In fact, when the Leader of the Opposition spoke to him to see if he would make any changes to the budget, he said only technical changes, not substantial changes.

Yet when the government was faced with a non-confidence vote, it was prepared to spend $4.6 billion to buy the support of the NDP members, simply for the purpose of staying in government. In addition to this, we found that constitutionally when a motion of confidence is raised in this House, directly or indirectly, there is an obligation on the Prime Minister to call a non-confidence vote of his own. For a week, without any constitutional authority to continue to govern in this House, in my mind, he used the levers of power and the levers of government to buy additional votes simply to stay in power.

Furthermore, the member has indicated that he has visited Saskatchewan. He should have visited Saskatchewan more recently, when there were 49 auction sales in my constituency and 179 auction sales in Saskatchewan. Farmers are going through the greatest crisis of their lifetimes. Husbands and wives and sons and daughters are working to try to survive on the farm. It is the greatest crisis they have ever faced.

Meanwhile, this government is throwing around $4.6 billion. It is making a deal with the NDP and spending $4.6 billion but with nothing for the farmers of Saskatchewan in that deal when they are in the greatest crisis of their lives. Why is that?

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is simple math. Any business person who attends at an institution to raise funds to start up a business and to provide meaningful jobs to ordinary people needs a line of credit. Most times, those lines of credit are taken on accounts receivable, on inventory and on cash in the bank.

The first $2,000 of receivables per worker is a hit of a secured creditor, even if one has security on that. What will they do? The institutions will count up the number of employees, multiply that by 2,000 and reduce the amount of money available to operate a business: 50 workers, $100,000. These business people will have to go to their moms or their dads or some place else to find security to proceed, or not proceed at all if they cannot get the security.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am not holding up this bill because of that issue. I am pointing out that the government had years to bring in the wage earner protection act legislation.

The Liberals were pricked in their social conscience by the fact that they needed to buy some votes to stay in power. They were prepared to give the NDP what it wanted. NDP members said that they wanted $100 million for a wage earner protection plan and all of a sudden a separate act was introduced to meet that promise.

The fact is the government has indicated that it will utilize $30 million to $50 million to protect workers and it will receive a half of it on the back of secured creditors. However, what the government is giving is really $1,000 per worker. More important, that amount would be less than a quarter of quarter of 1% of the $46 billions it took from the employment insurance fund to put into general revenues. The government will give the workers a quarter of a quarter of 1% for their use to protect them.

It is appalling. The Liberals should first put the $46 billion back where they got it from so workers can protect themselves without the need of government and without the need of a $30 million Liberal handout. The Liberals have had their own money sitting in general revenues which they have frittered away in one fashion or another while a debt is in place. They are taking $4.6 billion of that money and giving it out to buy votes for themselves for the sole and exclusive purpose of staying in power.

Any fair judgment would have to say that the Liberals did more than buy votes. They played tricks in the House to get people to cross the floor. They defied the House constitutionally when they did not recognize the fact that the House had lost confidence in them. For a week, they used the levers of government, the power to government, to stay in government when they had no right and no legal basis to do so. We might expect that in third world countries, but we would not expect that in Canada. To legitimize government, they did it illegitimately and that is wrong.

[An Act to Authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I too will speak with respect to Bill C-48 and highlight some of the issues of concern.

Initially the NDP leader posed a question in the House to the finance minister as to whether or not there was any chance he might modify the first budget, Bill C-43. The Minister of Finance indicated that he might consider some technical changes, in the sense of being technical.

The leader of the NDP went fishing a little further and asked whether he might consider some substantive changes to the initial budget. The finance minister indicated he would not because, he said, one cannot start changing the budget. He had consulted with many people. He had consulted with all the Canadian interests. He had heard from the various interest groups. He had taken all that into consideration and, outside of technical changes, he could not do anything.

In fact, the Minister of Labour and Housing had proposed in advance of the budget that there would be $1.5 billion allocated over the next five years for housing and he was shut out. It was the minister who had proposed that to the finance minister. The finance minister said it would not be prudent given all the circumstances that he knew of. He said did not want anyone to “cherry-pick” the budget, to take any portions out of the budget. It was what it was, he said, he had come to a balanced approach and there was not any room to move.

Suddenly there was a $4.6 billion movement. That is not something that could be called a technical change to the budget. That, to my mind, is be very substantive.

However, when he was asked by the leader of the NDP whether he would be prepared to make any changes, he said he would not buy a pig in a poke. He said he would need to know exactly what was being talked about. When we look at Bill C-48, I am not so sure that the NDP did not sell itself for a pig in a poke.

When we look at the bill itself, it indicates that the minister “may, in respect to the fiscal year 2005-2006, make payments” with respect to the items indicated, provided there is a surplus of $2 billion, and similarly for the period of 2006-07. However, the budget agreement itself said the investments would be booked in the years 2005-06, again, only if there is a surplus and only if the minister decides that the money will be spent. We do not know exactly what it will be, but we know it will not be in excess of $4.5 billion.

When we read the initial budget agreement, which many have said was prepared hastily in a period of 24 hours, without essential consultation with the finance minister, we find that it actually was meant to be $4.6 billion. It is missing $100 million. Part of that $100 million was with respect to the investment that the NDP required for the protection of workers' earnings in the event of their employers' bankruptcy. That is not in the bill.

The Minister of Labour has been in charge of the area of workers' protection for some time; it has been in the House for a period of nine years. I ask, what has pricked the social conscience of the minister? The minister first of all agreed to the fact that it would be in the budget bill agreement of May 3, 2005, and then not in the act but in a separate piece of legislation.

That separate piece of legislation is a proposed amendment to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Let us see what the minister actually proposes in that bankruptcy act. He is suggesting that workers be given a superpriority, ahead of the banking industry and secured creditors, to the extent of $2,000. He then proposes that there be a wage protection fund totalling $3,000, with the understanding that in the case of the bankruptcy when the worker applies to that fund and gets paid, the worker assigns or subrogates all of the worker's rights to Her Majesty the Queen or the federal government, which then takes the place of the worker and collects back the $2,000 at the expense of the secured party.

If that bill should pass, anyone attempting to start up a business and to provide jobs for workers would find himself or herself being able to obtain a far smaller loan than before the legislation. If he or she had 50 employees at $2,000, the financial institution would deduct about $100,000 from a line of credit. That business may never start. In fact, existing businesses may have a hard time maintaining their lines of credit if the legislation were to pass.

I make that point to make this one. The Minister of Labour has indicated this legislation will cost somewhere between $30 million and $50 million. A good half or more of that would be recoverable by taking the funds from secured creditors by virtue of the preferred position. Therefore, in the net there was not $100 million, as agreed to in the budget bill agreement, but perhaps something like $16 million over the next year and another $16 million over the following year. That is an indication of the Liberals living up to their promises.

At the same time, we find there has been a piling up of dollars in various crown corporations such as CMHC. It is charging first time home buyers an insurance fee that results in profits being made by the organization to the tune of $800 million. In 2005 it is expected to rise again. In 2009 it is expected to rise to $1.175 billion, which should help first time buyers to buy a home. The government has made promises that require the funding of various programs, the use of multi-dollars, but primarily for the purpose of not helping those on the other side of it, but to help the Liberals stay in power, to help them cling to power.

As we heard my learned friend from Edmonton East, we have had a great amount of dollars spent in the housing area, but we have not seen any affordable units built. He indicated 25,000 or less housing were built after many years of Liberal spending. Where has that money gone? The minister has indicated that over $1 billion has been spend on what is called “protective care” or to look after those who are homeless or lack affordable housing. However, he has not provided the amount and type of units that are required.

The minister spoke recently in an interview. He realized that most of the moneys the Liberals had spent so far had been for emergency shelters. He also realized that the area of housing, first and foremost, it was a provincial jurisdiction. Yet when we look at Bill C-48, or the bill that was made on the napkin, it indicates that the money allocated for housing would be utilized without the agreement of the provinces. In other words, the federal government would decide where it will spend it.

In the interview to which I referred, the minister was asked how many permanent housing units the money would buy. The interviewer said, “I still do not have an answer to my question: $1.6 billion, how many units of affordable housing will you be building with that?”

Here is the Minister of Labour's answer, “A lot”. We know a few is seven or eight. What would a lot be? A lot would be more than seven or eight. When $50,000 or $80,000 is spent to subsidize a unit, or as my learned friend from Edmonton East said, to build a few number at great expense, it is not a wise use of money. She asked if he had a number and he never answered.

He said that once the budget passed, and he was in the process of working and meeting with his provincial counterparts, they would not have to put in a dollar. She asked him again if he was not going to delay. He replied that since July $700 million was still in the bank. It had been there for the past three or four years. The provinces had not taken the money already in place. What did he do? He met with them individually and collectively and asked them what it would take to start spending the government's money. He said that the government was starting to spend the money and, in his words, “building units like crazy”.

The point is it is not hard to spend money. Anyone can spend money, but spending it wisely and achieving the maximum return for that dollar is very important.

Behind all of this is the fact that while old money is not used up, new money is put in place to have a corrupt government cling to power and for no other purpose. When we divide the $4.6 billion by the number of members in the NDP, that is a pretty expensive buy.

[Petitions, June 20th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions dealing with the closure of rural post offices. The petitioners are calling upon this Parliament to keep the Halbrite post office open and retain the moratorium on rural post office closures. There are 170 signatures and a similar petition from the constituents of Manor, Saskatchewan, with 190 signatures also from the constituents of the community of Colgate, Saskatchewan, asking that their post office remain open and that the moratorium be retained.

[Workplace Psychological Harassment Prevention Act, June 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I also wish to address Bill C-360. There is no question that prevention of psychological harassment is the best way to combat psychological harassment at work, and employers need to take the leadership role in engaging conflict.

However, conflict is not always easy to manage as it can involve the work environment, the employer, employees between employees, the physical layout of the work environment, loyalties, emotions and the general subtleties of a workplace. This is compounded by the fact that unlike physical injury which can be easily identified and in some ways measured, psychological impact is not as easy to determine or to assess. That by itself is no reason not to deal with the issue of psychological harassment in the workplace.

The definition in the proposed bill is quite wide ranging. It talks about any vexatious behaviour, which essentially means anything causing annoyance or worry, or purely to cause annoyance without sufficient grounds, or inappropriate or unwanted conduct, verbal comments, actions or gestures that affect an employee's dignity or psychological or physical integrity that results in a harmful workplace.

The legislation is very similar or close to the legislation that has been in existence in Quebec for a short period of time, and there has not been an overwhelming response or report yet to gauge the effect of that. Some of the commentary on that legislation reads as follows:

The vexatious nature is generally gauged from the standpoint of the person experiencing the situation and who is reporting it...

The hostile gestures towards the employee are not necessarily flagrant. Indeed, it is not essential that such a gesture be aggressive in nature in order for it to be considered hostile. For example, an employee could be the victim of comments, actions or gestures which, when taken on their own, may seem harmless or insignificant, but the accumulation or combination of them may be considered a harassment situation....

The term “unwanted” refers to all of the objectionable conduct. Indeed, the victim does not have to give verbal expression to his refusal of such behaviour, but the essential element leading to the ascertainment of harassment is that the behaviour itself is unwanted. It must be possible for the facts in question to be objectively perceived as unwanted.

All I am trying to suggest is that it is a subjective-objective kind of a test which makes it awfully difficult when we have all these factors in play in a workplace setting. It involves a certain measure of value judgment and the people who should have the most to say about how this should work or what the legislation should be are employers, employees, union, management and those involved in various kinds of businesses.

Therefore, it is very important that the whole issue be settled in the widest possible range after the widest possible consultation. I do not believe that could happen in the context of a private member's bill.

In addition, psychological harassment relates to the abuse of authority and it defines a number of actions, including interfering in any other way with the career of the employee.

It is wide ranging. It does set a system in place that is very comprehensive. It talks about the reporting process, the complaint process, the review process and it establishes a commissioner who is responsible to oversee this act and the working of it. It talks about a psychological harassment complaints committee composed of up to five people. It encompasses a framework for another bureaucracy to deal with an issue in the workplace when perhaps we already have the mechanisms and the items in place to deal with harassment in the workplace at present.

A review is underway at present under part II of the Canada Labour Code, dealing with occupational health and safety. That review deals with this whole issue of psychological abuse.

This regulatory review committee has a working group to review all the concerns and positions of not only labour and management, but of various employee representatives, such as the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Auto Workers, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, as well as a number of employer representatives.

It is not as though the issue of psychological harassment is unknown or foreign. It is something that has been dealt with through collective bargaining agreements. It has been dealt with through the grievance process and there have been certain rules that have been established. It is has been dealt with in the common law through the court system, through the means of constructive dismissal, et cetera. It is not something that is totally new. This group is already reviewing these very issues under the occupational health safety mechanism which has an organization and the people in place.

Part of their review of the draft regulations is to address workplace violence, which would include direct and indirect actions for employees, in the course of or as a result of employment, who are threatened or harmed or are subjected to any action that could reasonably be expected to cause them harm.

One of the other important issues that they are looking at is preventing violence in the workplace. They are coming up with a number of principles that are important, such as the provision of a safe, healthy and violence free workplace, a principle that provides attention, resources and time to control workplace violence, hazards, including but not limited to conduct such as bullying, teasing, abusive and other aggressive behaviour, and prevention and protection against violence in the workplace.

It is important that this type of abuse be prevented. It is important that we hear all the players. We have a review process in place now under part II, and we have all the stakeholders involved.

We have another review, which was mentioned a while ago, under part III of the Canada Labour Code by Professor Arthurs which is far-ranging. The bill intends to amend part III of the Canada Labour Code by adding psychological harassment to the same section that deals with sexual harassment.

That issue has already been raised before Professor Arthurs who intends to conduct a wide ranging review in various cities and communities throughout the country, in large centres and small centres. He intends to involve various stakeholders and large and small businesses. He allows for input through the Internet and through submissions. He has a panel with him designed to deal with all these kinds of issues.

For that reason it would seem to me that this bill is not timely.

One of the stakeholders said the following:

Violence in Workplace regulations, (developed by a government/employer/union committee), soon to be gazetted will deal [with] the kind of threats associated with bullying

Furthermore, he said:

But perhaps most of all, the issue has been seized by the Part III review being conducted by Harry Arthurs and clearly a private member's bill on this subject is not warranted. Arthurs will be addressing the issue in his report which has already come up in the consultations he has been conducting.

Furthermore, Bill C-360 would create a new bureaucracy that is not justified.

We do not need another bureaucracy. We already have the means and the mechanics in place to deal with this issue sufficiently. There is a balancing of interests. It is not just the employers that are affected, but it is employees between employees.

We want to be careful because the consequences are significant. The unintended consequences will be important. We must ensure that we approach this in a logical fashion, in a proper review and take sufficient time to ensure the end result is something that is acceptable both to unions and management, to employers, to employees and all affected.

[An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

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.

[An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

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.

[An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make Certain Payments, May 19th, 2005]

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.