Bill C-43 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Application Rules to
(a) increase the amount that Canadians can earn tax free;
(b) increase the annual limits on contributions to tax-deferred retirement savings plans;
(c) eliminate the foreign property limitations on tax-deferred retirement savings plans;
(d) increase the Child Disability Benefit supplement to the Canada Child Tax Benefit;
(e) allow for a longer period for the existence of and contributions to a Registered Education Savings Plan in certain circumstances where the plan beneficiary is eligible for the disability tax credit;
(f) increase the maximum refundable medical expense supplement;
(g) exclude emergency medical services vehicles from the standby charge;
(h) extend to January 11, 2005 the date for charitable giving in respect of the 2004 taxation year for the tsunami relief effort;
(i) eliminate the corporate surtax; and
(j) extend the SR&ED tax incentives to SR&ED performed in Canada’s exclusive economic zone.
Part 2 amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act to reduce the air travellers security charge for domestic air travel to $5 for one-way travel and to $10 for round-trip travel, for transborder air travel to $8.50 and for other international air travel to $17, applicable to air travel purchased on or after March 1, 2005.
Part 3 amends Part IX of the Excise Tax Act to extend the application of the 83 per cent rebate of the goods and services tax (GST) and the federal component of the harmonized sales tax (HST) to eligible charities and non-profit organizations in respect of the tax they pay on their purchases to provide exempt health care supplies similar to those traditionally provided in hospitals. It also amends that Act to provide that a director of a corporation may, under certain conditions, be held liable not only for unremitted net GST/HST amounts, but also for GST/HST net tax refund amounts to which the corporation is not entitled. Finally, it amends that Act to allow, under strict conditions, the creation of a Web-based GST/HST registry to facilitate the verification of a supplier’s registration by a registrant for the purposes of claiming input tax credits.
Part 4 amends Schedule I to the Excise Tax Act to phase out the excise tax on jewellery through a series of rate reductions over the next four years.
Part 5 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to pay funds to a trust established to provide the provinces with funding for the purpose of early learning and child care.
Part 6 authorizes the Minister of Finance to pay funds to a trust established to provide the Territories with funding for the purpose of assisting them to achieve the goals of the Northern Strategy.
Part 7 amends the Auditor General Act to permit the Auditor General to conduct inquiries into and report on the affairs of certain corporations that have received at least $100,000,000 in funding from Her Majesty in right of Canada. This Part also amends the Financial Administration Act to extend the application of financial management and control provisions in that Act to wholly-owned subsidiaries of parent Crown corporations and certain parent Crown corporations.
Part 8 authorizes the payment of funds to various foundations, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the purpose of providing funding to the Green Municipal Fund.
Part 9 amends the Asia-Pacific Foundation of Canada Act to focus the mandate of the Foundation, to modify its governance structure, to establish qualifications for the appointment of the directors and the President, to impose a duty of care on the directors and the President and to require that the Foundation offer its services in both official languages. It also amends the Act to specify the type of funds the Foundation may receive and the appropriate use of those funds and to require that those funds be invested in accordance with policies, standards and procedures established by the board. In addition, the provisions of the Act respecting auditing, annual reports and winding-up have been expanded.
Part 10 amends Part 1 of the Budget Implementation Act, 1998 to broaden the category of persons to whom the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation may grant scholarships and bursaries to include not only persons who are Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act but also persons who are protected persons within the meaning of subsection 95(2) of that Act, for example, Convention refugees.
Part 11 authorizes the Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities), pursuant to the initiative commonly known as “A New Deal for Cities and Communities”, to make payments for the purpose of providing funding, in the fiscal year 2005-2006, to cities and communities for environmentally sustainable infrastructure initiatives, in accordance with agreements to be negotiated with provinces, territories and first nations.
Part 12 enacts the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador Additional Fiscal Equalization Offset Payments Act. The legislation will implement the arrangements of February 14, 2005 reached with Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia on offshore revenues. To do this, the legislation will
(a) authorize the payment of equalization offset payments to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia for 2004-05 to 2011-12, set out the conditions under which payments will be extended to any of fiscal years 2012-13 to 2019-20, and authorize payments for that period should those conditions be met;
(b) set out the manner in which the offset payments are to be calculated;
(c) authorize the making of a cash pre-payment in the amount of $2 billion in respect of the agreement with Newfoundland and Labrador and a cash pre-payment in the amount of $830 million in respect of the agreement with Nova Scotia; and
(d) implement all other aspects of the agreements.
Consequential amendments to the Budget Implementation Act, 2004 respecting offset payments to Nova Scotia will also be required to ensure that 100 per cent offset is being provided for in fiscal years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
Part 13 establishes an Agency, to be called the Canada Emission Reduction Incentives Agency, to acquire greenhouse emission reduction and removal credits on behalf of the Government of Canada.
Part 14 enacts the Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund Act. That Act establishes an account in the accounts of Canada called the Greenhouse Gas Technology Investment Fund to which are to be charged amounts paid by the Minister of Natural Resources for the purpose of
(a) research into, or the development or demonstration of, technologies or processes intended to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from industrial sources or to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere in the course of an industrial operation; or
(b) creating elements of the infrastructure that are necessary to support research into, or the development or demonstration of, those technologies or processes.
The Act also provides for the creation of technology investment units in respect of amounts that are contributed to Her Majesty for those purposes.
Part 15 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act to
(a) increase the deposit insurance coverage limit for insurable deposits from $60,000 to $100,000;
(b) repeal the authority of the Corporation to make by-laws respecting standards of sound business and financial practices for member institutions; and
(c) provide that the deposits of a federal institution shall automatically be insured.
Part 16 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to provide for the termination of the obligations of certain borrowers in respect of student loans in the event of their death or if, as a result of their permanent disability, they are unable to repay their loan without exceptional hardship, taking into account their family income.
Part 17 amends the Currency Act with respect to the Exchange Fund Account and the management of Canada’s foreign exchange reserves. These amendments include authorizing the Minister of Finance to establish a policy concerning the investment of assets held in that Account and to advance funds to that Account on terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate.
Part 18 amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to provide the Minister of Public Works and Government Services with responsibility for the procurement of goods and services for the federal government, and to authorize the Minister to negotiate and enter into contracts on behalf of the Government of Canada and to make commitments to a minimum volume of purchases on its behalf.
Part 19 amends the Employment Insurance Act and the Department of Human Resources Development Act to allow the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to set the premium rate under a new rate-setting mechanism. In setting the rate, the Commission will take into account the principle that the premium rate should generate just enough premium revenue to cover payments to be made for that year, as well as the report from the employment insurance chief actuary and any public input. On an as-needed basis, the Commission may also contract for the services of persons with specialized knowledge in rate-setting matters. If it is in the public interest to do so, the Governor in Council may substitute a different premium rate. In any given year, the rate cannot change by more than 0.15% ($0.15 per $100) from the previous year’s rate, and for the years 2006 and 2007 must not exceed 1.95% ($1.95 per $100).
Part 20 amends the Employment Insurance Act, for the purpose of the implementation of a premium reduction agreement between the Government of Canada and a province, to allow for a regulatory scheme to make the necessary adjustments and modifications to that Act as required to harmonize it with a provincial law that has the effect of reducing or eliminating the special benefits payable under that Act. A consequential change is also made to the parental benefits provisions.
Part 21 amends the Financial Administration Act to provide the authority for the President of the Treasury Board to create a shared-governance corporate entity for the purpose of administering group insurance or other benefit programs. In addition, the amendments provide the authority for the Treasury Board to establish or modify those programs not just for employees of the public service but for other persons or classes of persons as well.
Part 22 amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $18 a month for single pensioners and by $14.50 a month for each pensioner in a couple, effective January 2006. Also, the amendments increase the allowance by $14.50 a month and the allowance for the survivor by $18 a month, effective January 2006. In addition, the amendments provide for identical increases to the guaranteed income supplement, the allowance and the allowance for the survivor in January 2007.
Part 23 authorizes the Minister of Finance to pay funds directly to the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia and Saskatchewan and to each of the three Territories.

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

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's North, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have absolutely no problem supporting Bill C-43. As the hon. member mentioned, it contains some very good things. It contains the Atlantic accord legislation. While we were against the way the Liberal Party introduced the Atlantic accord as part of an omnibus bill instead of a stand-alone piece of legislation, we did support the budget Bill C-43 and there is Bill C-48 as well.

As I mentioned a moment ago in my comments, if the NDP were to win power at the ballot box, no one would begrudge the NDP the right to bring in a budget. The NDP would bring in things I am sure we would agree with and others that we would disagree with vehemently. But the NDP is not the party in power at the moment. That is no way to run a country.

That is no way to bring down a budget. The government which happens to be in a minority situation found itself in a difficult position with regard to staying in power and all of a sudden the NDP came along with what I call a blackmail bill and bringing in things that should not be introduced. It has taken the corporate tax cuts away from the budget, things which would give business the opportunity to expand workforces, to employ more people. That party, which claims to be the party of the workers in this country, is actually suppressing jobs. As I said, the NDP will pay a heavy price for that at the ballot box.

[Russ Powers, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his comments in this debate. Perhaps he will be able to explain to the House something which I find difficult to understand. All the dialogue that we have had led to the successful vote that was participated in by all last week on Bill C-43. There clearly was a positive contribution from the Conservative Party, the NDP and the Liberal Party in support of Bill C-43 and all the elements that are associated with it. There is the infusion of money for cities and communities, the movement toward the project green and the Kyoto protocol. There are so many good things, including the Atlantic accord which benefits certainly the hon. member and the area that he represents.

If Bill C-43 was so good for the members of his party just the other week, why are they having a problem with the enhancement to Bill C-43 that is contained in Bill C-48?

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's North, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments on Bill C-48, a bill which the government calls the companion bill but which many of us call the NDP budget bill.

The Conservative Party is not against a better deal for post-secondary education. We are not against giving municipalities across the nation better access to funds for the provision of infrastructure such as water and sewer or urban transit facilities. We are not against the provision of additional social housing for the disadvantaged.

On the contrary, we see a Canada where our young people can receive an affordable education, get a well-paying job, buy a house and raise a family and so on. We believe in the Canadian dream and the right of every citizen to have access to that dream. This bill is less about the Canadian dream than it is about the Liberals' dream of staying in power forever. It is also about the NDP dream of being a bigger player in the parliamentary process.

The bill, as we are all aware, was scratched on the back of an old envelope in a backroom in the middle of the night. It is not about good government at all. It is about political expediency. It was the price of the NDP for propping up a corrupt government which is determined to cling to power at any cost. It is long on promises and short on detail, just the sort of bill that the NDP knew that the Liberals would like. The NDP has sold its soul to the Liberal Party. The NDP members are accomplices now to corruption, scandal and to ever bad spending decision that the government has made over the last year since the election campaign.

If the items in the bill are so important to the Liberals, why did they not include them in the original budget bill, Bill C-43? Given the government's cuts in transfers to the provinces in its effort to balance the national budget, it is no secret that students, health care, services at the municipal level, and the unemployed have been hard hit. Simply put, the Liberals balanced the budget in the nineties by passing the deficit down the line to municipalities and the NDP knew that.

Many times in the past eight year period since I have been here, I have supported NDP motions that called attention to the devastation that had been wreaked by the government over the decades. The NDP knows that the Liberals have been in power too long, long enough for the rot of corruption to set in, yet the NDP made a deal with the Liberals and it is not a deal of which it should be proud.

As part of its deal the NDP insisted that tax cuts for business be dropped from Bill C-43, the main budget bill. The tax cuts were designed to make Canadian business more competitive in the global economy. These tax cuts were aimed at allowing businesses to expand and create more jobs. We supported the tax cuts.

Why has the NDP refused to support tax cuts which create more jobs for the unemployed is beyond me. We in the Conservative Party are not against creating more and better jobs all across the land. Neither would I suspect are the tens of thousands of people from all over Atlantic Canada who have had to leave their homes for jobs in Ontario and Alberta.

The NDP portrays itself as the workers' party, but I ask, what is more important to a worker today than a good job? The business sector is the greatest creator of jobs in this country and why the NDP cannot support that is beyond me.

When the Liberals came to power in the early nineties, they gutted the employment insurance system. They made it more difficult for workers in seasonal industries to qualify for EI benefits and when they did qualify, it was for fewer benefits for a shorter period of time. In other words, the Liberals used the EI system and the moneys that they generated on extra premiums to amass a massive surplus which they used on things like the sponsorship scandal. These are the kinds of policies that the NDP is now supporting.

I asked earlier, what is more important to a worker than a good job? I would further ask, what is more important to an unemployed worker than a good EI system, a system that can carry a seasonal worker over until he or she gets back to his or her place of employment again? This is where the NDP fell down on the job. Not only did its budget deal strike out against job creation, it did not use the leverage with the Liberals to get much needed improvements to the EI system.

How can the NDP call itself as a socialist party and then forget about the workers in its deal with the government? It was in a position to really do something good for the workers of this nation and it failed.

Then there is the Atlantic accord. The first Atlantic accord was signed back in 1985. It gave the province of Newfoundland and Labrador about 70% of its revenues. Then all these revenues were clawed back under equalization. During the election campaign, the Conservative Party committed to the province to give it 100% of its offshore resources.

The Liberals had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into a deal with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We made numerous attempts when that deal was passed to have the accord split from the main budget bill and introduced as a standalone bill for speedy passage.

The Liberals constantly refused. The NDP supported us in that regard but yet, when it was cutting a deal with the Liberals, did it insist on a standalone Atlantic accord bill? No. Did it insist on that being part of the budgetary package? No. The NDP abandoned the Atlantic accord just like it abandoned the workers and the people of Atlantic Canada. It did not use the position it was in to get better benefits on EI for Atlantic Canadians who have a big seasonal workforce. It abandoned the people of Atlantic Canada when it came to the Atlantic accord by not insisting on standalone legislation.

If the NDP were to win power at the ballot box, I would not, and I am sure no one in this nation would not, begrudge it to right the priorities around the budget when it came to introducing a budget. I might disagree and others might disagree with some of the spending priorities, but if the NDP had the people's mandate, it would have every right to bring this kind of budget forward that it is bringing forward now.

However, the NDP did not win power. Indeed I remember in the latter stages of last year's election campaign the Liberals crushed the NDP by telling the people that a vote for the NDP was a vote for the Conservative Party of Canada. They were not too anxious to prop up the NDP at that time, but still, the NDP remained so anxious to prop up a corrupt, scandal-ridden government. I believe that in the long run the NDP will pay big time at the polls in the next election campaign.

We stand here today debating a budget bill that came about as the result of a backroom deal between the NDP and the Liberals. The deal was scratched on the back of an envelope, probably at 2 a.m., and is worth $4.6 billion. Is this any way to run a country, to have the NDP writing the budget bill in a hotel room in the still of the night on the back of an envelope or an old napkin? Is that any way to run a country?

Bill C-48 is not a budget bill in its own right. It is a bunch of loose promises made, as I said, in a backroom in the middle of the night, when the Prime Minister was in his bleakest political moments. It is not about honour. It is about political expediency. It is about a place at the table of power. Canadians deserve much better.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, again it is a pleasure to speak in the House to Bill C-48, the NDP supplementary budget to the government.

I think all Canadians have certain days they want to commemorate, such as birthdays, anniversaries and special occasions. In politics, we remember days of elections and times when budgets or policy documents are brought forward. Those are the days we remember.

This past spring the government brought down a long anticipated budget, Bill C-43. After the budget came down I had the opportunity to host five or six town hall meetings in different areas of my constituency, such as Oyen, Drumheller, Strathmore, Camrose, Stettler and Hanna. I hosted these town hall meetings to explain what the 2005 budget contained. I can say that coming from a rural riding in Alberta, an area that has been devastated by droughts, BSE and other various elements, the budget was a tough sell. Then again I am certainly not much of a salesman when it comes to trying to sell Liberal budgets in Conservative ridings.

However in the town hall meetings I commented on a fairly recent speech that the Alberta minister of health had given. In that speech she noted in the public forum that mental health issues were on the rise as Albertans attempted to balance their work and family commitments and struggle with ensuing financial hardships. In her speech she made reference to the turbulent times, such as drought and BSE, mainly in rural settings. No one knows more about those financial hardships and the stress of dealing with those burdens than our farmers.

At the time I conducted these town hall meetings throughout the constituency, the NDP had not made its deal with the Liberal government, the deal to prop up the corrupt government. That April 26 deal resulted in the legislation that we are discussing today, Bill C-48. Bill C-48 provides the legal framework for the outlandish NDP spending measures that we in this party adamantly oppose, measures that total up to $4.6 billion over two years.

I do not have a copy of Bill C-43 but it was a thick document. Bill C-48, amounting to $4.6 billion, is one double-sided page, half English and half French. Someone has already made reference to the fact that it contains 400 words but just like that spends $4.6 billion. Bill C-43, the first budget, spent $193 billion. Bill C-48 spends an additional $4.6 billion. That is big government. The deal that the NDP made with the Liberals made the spending even bigger.

That goes against what Conservatives believe. Conservatives believe that the people who earn the money, who go out and work for their paycheques, who are putting the crop in and taking the crop out, are the ones who are best able to spend the money. The Liberals say no. They believe they need more money to spend, and the NDP is right there with them. They say they want to build a larger bureaucracy so they can spend the money.

Where does the extra $4.6 billion come from? It comes from all hardworking Canadians who basically trade their time for the paycheque. They go out every week and give up the 40 hours or 50 hours of work and at the end of it they get a paycheque. The government now says that it wants to take that time and the money they received and control how it is spent and where it goes.

We in the Conservative Party believe in smaller government, in lower taxes and we believe the private sector is the main engine of economic productivity, growth and prosperity.

What did we not see in the 2005 budget? What we did not see in that budget and in the companion budget we are discussing today was any type of financial commitment to farmers who are undergoing terrible conditions.

The budget speech delivered on February 23 by the finance minister was very long and detailed but lost in those details was the fact that farm incomes in this country have been in a negative position for a number of years. We all know why. Those living in Crowfoot and throughout Canada, specifically in some parts of rural Canada, understand that there have been successive years of drought and BSE. Now, in much of my constituency and in constituencies in southern Alberta, we see unrelenting rain and flooding.

As I speak here today, in part of my constituency in the area of Drumheller, 2,700 people were told to get out of their houses because the river was swelling and there would be certain flood damage. I could go on and talk about Drumheller because it is a great community. It is a great tourist centre and a great place to visit. I hope everyone here will take the opportunity to go there.

Drumheller, which is a good area for farming and agriculture, if we were to go south of Calgary we would see that many fields are now under water. The member for Macleod told me that 80 acres out of 160 acres, or a quarter section of land, are now under water. A lot of these farmers are looking at flood damage and another year of negative growth.

In 2003, farmers had negative farm incomes for the first time since the great depression. Today grain and oilseeds prices are even worse. They have fallen through the floor. We are still suffering from the mad cow crisis.

To be frank, I was disappointed at the continued lack of respect and attention that agriculture producers and hardworking families received in this 2005 budget. Farmers will get no more cash in their pockets because of this budget. Despite Agriculture Canada's forecast of another year of negative farm income, there was little mention of agriculture. When the NDP decided to prop up this corrupt government and talked about the four areas, there was not one mention of agriculture. It is no wonder that the NDP in Saskatchewan have been basically shut out. It has forgotten about agriculture and about rural Canada.

In a question earlier, the member for Prince George talked about the CAIS program. One day the Liberal government was telling us it could not take away the cash deposit requirement. It said that it was not able to set that aside because farmers could not afford to put it into the CAIS program. A few days later, after it was voted on, it came out in the budget. I will give the government credit because what it said it could not do, it did. We applaud it for that even though it is what the Conservative Party of Canada had stood up for as we were defending farmers. The government accepted that and we applaud it for that.

However, with regard to the total new funding for agriculture, the first budget only had $130 million in it. It is important for Canadians to know that money did not get to the kitchen table of farm producers. It was not for the producers. It was there to build a bigger bureaucracy and to add consultants. It did not put dollars on the kitchen table. It was not designed for producers.

Programs that were brought out by the government in the spring in some cases forgot about a whole sector of agriculture. They forgot about some of the new farmers who have come on, some of the new farmers who have allowed their farms to grow.

Don Drummond, a former deputy minister of finance and now an economist for the TD Bank, said it is time that Canadians have a pay increase. He said Canadians need lower taxes and in effect that will give them a pay increase. We could not agree with him more. Bill C-48 would make people pay more because we are going to spend more, make government bigger, and have larger bureaucracies. Bill C-48 is a bad piece of legislation and we will be voting against it.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary South Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, not at all. It was demonstrated clearly by our side of the House. The Conservative Party acted responsibly and tried to make Parliament work. It agreed to support the budget presented by the Minister of Finance. That was Bill C-43.

I began my remarks by suggesting that members opposite were confused, including the Prime Minister, as to what we were debating today. It is not the budget. The budget that would prevent an election, which we responsibly supported so we would not have an election, was passed last Thursday.

Maybe I could repeat that for the hon. member and others who do not seem to get it, including the Prime Minister. The budget that prevented an election was responsibly supported by Conservative Party members . We did not like it at all but wanted to have Parliament work. Therefore, we supported it, voted on it and it passed last Thursday.

What we are talking about today is an additional budget by the NDP for the Liberals to cling to power. It has bought the votes of the NDP at a cost to the taxpayers of $4.6 billion. That is the point and it is irresponsible.

You brought that bill in. This is not to save us from having an election.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary South Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had been paying attention, he would have realized that I was simply quoting from a newspaper article from this morning.

Many people here know in fact who the Prime Minister is as well as the leader of the opposition. We will not have to repeat that for the hon. member.

In any event, the Prime Minister said that it was time for the Conservative Party to stop playing politics and help pass amendments to the federal budget to ensure municipalities would get millions of badly needed funding. The coverage pointed out, however, that in fact the budget, which includes a phased in 5% share of gasoline tax for municipalities over five years, passed last Thursday.

Without naming the Prime Minister, I would point out that he was a little confused, as well as many people might be with having two budgets, an original budget and a new non-budget. For clarity, I wanted to point that out. I appreciate the hon. member's note that it is not just members such as himself, but even the Prime Minister who is a little confused about the budget to which we now are speaking. It is the amendments negotiated with the NDP for an additional $4.6 billion in spending which have yet to pass.

We are talking today about Bill C-48, the NDP budget, which is the non-budget, or the absence of a budget. It is in addition to the original budget which was passed last Thursday and which our party supported. This addition of $4.6 billion is simply an NDP promissory note to buy votes. It is more socialist spending to prop up a failing Liberal government clinging to power.

The so-called budget, Bill C-48, is heavy on the public purse but light on details. It commits hundreds of millions of dollars under broad areas without any concrete plans of how that money will be spent, as the member for Wild Rose mentioned moments ago. We have seen the damage that can be done by spending without a plan.

Bill C-48 would authorize the cabinet to design and implement programs under the vague policy framework of the bill and to make payments in any manner it would see fit. It is $4.6 billion in less than two pages. It is very vague and general and it has no plan.

The government has reserved the right to use the first $2 billion in the 2005-06 and 2006-07 from the federal surplus presumably for federal debt reduction. Any surplus that exceeds $2 billion could be used to fund programs related to the NDP sponsored bill.

The government would need to post $8.5 billion in surpluses over the next two fiscal years to fully implement the budget. The point is there is no money. It is all talk. The reason it is vague is these promises to the NDP for this additional budget, Bill C-48, to Bill C-43 will never see the light of day. The money simply is not there.

In order to have sufficient funds and the surpluses, the Minister of Finance would have to have another phoney budget, as he has had before, declaring a surplus every year. There is only one reason to declare a surplus and that is because the people have been taxed too much. It is just bad accounting and bad budgeting. It is not budgeting. It is an absence of budgeting. It is bad management. It is a lack of a plan.

The government has a lack of planning in everything it does. We are still waiting for Kyoto. I see the member for Red Deer is here. He is the Conservative environment critic. He has explained to the House time and again that we have been eight years without a plan on Kyoto. We are eight years without a fiscal plan from the government.

The government has a broad plan. It asks people what they want today do buy votes? Today we are spending $4.6 billion buying the votes of the NDP.

I mentioned the news comments this morning and the Prime Minister's confusion over legislation in the House; that is what bills have or have not been passed. I see the Department of Finance has done a poll on behalf of the government to determine what people think of the budget. Is that not a great expenditure of taxpayer money? “Let's go out and poll and see how we're doing so far”.

This is a government that spends tax dollars polling and running ads with taxpayer money. It is a constant election campaign funded by taxpayers, whether it is through ad scam, the sponsorship scandals, or running polls through various government departments, the Privy Council Office or the Prime Minister's Office and now the Department of Finance to find out what the people think. It wants to find out the current consensus of Canadians. The government then runs around to the front of the parade and says to the people to follow it. That is how to govern our country? I do not think so. Again, it is done without a plan, it is expensive and it is taxpayer money.

Canada could have and should have more better paying jobs and a much higher standard of living. However, Ottawa taxes and spends too much. Since 1999-2000, program spending has gone up from $109.6 billion to $158.1 billion, an increase of 44%. In the last five years, spending has gone up 44% in our country, a compound annual growth of 7.6%, when the economy itself managed to grow by only 31%, a compound annual growth of 5.6%.

Once the Liberals had our money, they could not resist spending it even faster than the economy was growing. It is not surprising there is so much waste in this government.

Often the government responds to problems in a knee-jerk way by throwing money at problems. The Liberals confuse spending money with getting results. Let me list some examples. They have thrown money at the firearms registry as way of dealing with the criminal misuse of firearms, with no explanation of how this would prevent criminals from getting and using guns. The registry was to cost $2 million. Media reports say that the actual cost is around $2 billion. How could they possibly spend $2 billion on a simple gun registry?

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the four initiatives identified in the NDP add-on are good initiatives. However when the Liberal government formed its budget, which we now know as Bill C-43, it chose not to include these initiatives. After consulting Canadians, businesses, labour, think tanks, et cetera on what the appropriate balance should be in the budget, the government chose not to put these $4.5 billion of add-ons into its budget.

The member asked me if we appreciate the investments in these areas. My answer is yes we do. However it is like asking me if I love my mother or if I love apple pie. Of course I do. However I also love my father and I love blueberry pie. It is a matter of choice. The government's choices are in Bill C-43. Bill C-48 is merely an add on to maintain power. The government needed to get the 19 votes of the NDP so it could stay in power. It was never the government's intention to spend moneys in those areas.

In addition, the $4.5 billion is essentially a pot of money. There are no programs. The government's record has shown that even when it had programs in place, the money was still wasted. Authorizing the government to spend another $4.5 billion at the whim of the governor in council gives it too much money.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Lanark, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives we believe in a balance among fiscal responsibility, progressive social policy and individual rights and responsibilities. We also believe in the rule of law and the Constitution, especially the division of powers between the federal level of government and the provincial level of government.

In particular, we believe that the federal government should attend to federal responsibilities like trade, defence, immigration, the economic levers of the economy, et cetera. The provincial government should look after the delivery of health care, education, welfare, the issues of cities, et cetera. This conditions our approach to budgeting.

For too long, the Liberals, supported by the NDP, have interfered in the responsibilities of the provinces. They seem more interested in provincial matters than in federal responsibilities. That is why the management of immigration is such a mess, the armed forces have been allowed to decay, trade issues never get resolved, the fish have disappeared, air pollution never gets better, taxes remain high and our place in the world continues to diminish.

If the federal government attended to its own responsibilities rather than those of the provinces, perhaps it would deliver the efficient government the people of Canada need and want. If it continues on the current track of provincial and municipal interference, we will soon see the Liberal government delivering pizza to our doors.

The Liberals want to endlessly interfere in our lives and tell us what to say and what to do. Every problem is solved by a big, central, government-managed program. Their most recent idea is a national day care system that will cost between $10 billion and $13 billion annually.

I do not know how we will be able to pay for this, especially with the massive unsolved challenges of medicare. Why does the government not ensure that medicare is on a stable footing before committing us to another mismanaged government program? Why does the government not strive to improve the standard of living, which has not fundamentally changed for 10 years?

The Conservative Party of Canada believes in focusing on the federal challenges. Our vision of Canada is a country with the highest standard of living in the world, where every Canadian who wants a job should be able to get a job and where every region of the country enjoys economic growth and there are new opportunities for the people of those regions.

Our goal is to make Canada the economic envy of the world. The Conservative Party has consistently opposed the Liberal approach to spending without an adequate plan, which is reflected in Bill C-48. The Liberal approach is cruel not only to taxpayers, but more important, to those who depend upon the promised services. 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.

If we look at Bill C-48, a document of a mere two pages, we will see that it essentially seeks authority for the government to spend $4.5 billion without identifying any particular program that will justify the spending. This is reminiscent of the $9 billion in trust funds set up by the Prime Minister when he was finance minister. Members may recall that these funds are beyond the review of the Auditor General. We have no independent knowledge of how these funds are being spent.

Given the problems that arose because of the sponsorship program, we can only imagine what potential disasters await Canadians when some day in the future we are provided with all the details. That is why we as Conservatives are worried about authorizing the government to spend $4.5 billion without any identified program. Who knows where the money will be actually spent and how much of it will be wasted?

As well as worrying about waste, we also wonder why the government dramatically amended its budget, Bill C-43, which had been developed over many months. In fact, when it was briefed in Parliament we were told that it could not be changed. It was described as something like the rock of Gibraltar. The government considered any suggestion of change unacceptable and a matter of parliamentary confidence. However, when the NDP offered a lifeline to the government, the budget was dramatically changed, without the blink of an eye. It is obvious that for the Liberals power trumps principle any day.

As part of the hotel room deal, the government promised the NDP its $4.5 billion wish list and agreed to remove corporate tax cuts from the previously unchangeable Bill C-43 budget. Both of these actions are unfortunate because it reflects that the government did not have any real commitment to its own budget and, therefore, the credibility of the finance minister has certainly been diminished.

As well, the deletion of corporate tax cuts, while maintaining a pitiful $16 personal tax cut, shows a government that is not interested in improving productivity. It is only interested in maintaining power regardless of the consequences to the economy.

However the government's commitment to the NDP wish list is less than complete. Members will notice that rather than amending Bill C-43 further, the government chose to create a new budget called Bill C-48. I assume this was done because the government did not have complete confidence that the NDP wish list would ever be implemented and that the government did not want to impair its budget, Bill C-43, with these add-ons.

Bill C-48 looks like it was written on the back of a cigarette package. The lack of details regarding specific programs, combined with the Liberals' poor record on delivering value for money, provides little guarantee that the objectives of the bill would be met, that taxpayer money would be spent properly or that Canadians would be better off.

It would be irresponsible and cruel to Canadians in need to throw more money at programs that are not meeting their objectives. The responsible approach would be for the government to first ensure that the money is spent effectively to improve existing programs and services to ensure that nobody is left behind.

The government has reverted to its type, tax and spend. For years it has taken in far more revenue than it needed. Year after year it overtaxed Canadians claiming that having large surpluses was somehow something wonderful. It is not wonderful. It means that every Canadian is paying more in taxes than is required to provide government services.

Since the Prime Minister assumed power he has been looking for ways to spend surpluses rather than transferring tax points to the provinces or reducing corporate and personal taxes. It is as if he and the finance minister believe that overtaxing citizens is one of our national values.

The change in approach of the Prime Minister toward the budget is quite dramatic. He and his government keep touting their efforts during the Chrétien years. Since he has moved from finance minister to Prime Minister, I believe we are seeing his real attitude toward governing. He believes in big government and big bureaucracies. He believes that government should spend the maximum amount of Canadians' hard-earned money. Canadians are overtaxed and that overtaxation is sucking jobs and initiative out of our economy.

The federal government is growing at about 6% to 7% per year while the economy is only growing at about 3%. The five year budget projection of the Liberal government, including the NDP add-on, continues this excessive expansion into the future. Anyone with a basic knowledge of economics knows that it will either drive the federal government into deficit or will require ever increasing income and corporate taxes from Canadians.

While the government is spending at obscene rates, the provinces and the cities are starving for revenues. If the government needs to find additional ways to spend its excessive revenues, like the current NDP $4.5 billion add-on, perhaps it could transfer tax points to the provinces so they can do the job more effectively.

If this country is to have a bright future, the government has to stop wasting money. It has to tighten the tax burden on all Canadians, especially those at the bottom of the economic ladder. It has to let Canadians spend their own money on things they need rather than the government spending it to buy power.

I believe that Bill C-48 is unfocused and potentially wasteful spending. For that reason, I will vote against it when it is presented for approval.

The Budget

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the government is glad to see Bill C-43 complete its passage through the House of Commons. It is now of course in the other place and we too hope that the Senate will be able to deal with this matter on a very expeditious basis so that the cash can begin to flow.

I only regret that the opposition delayed it so long. This could have been done in March.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-43, including the Atlantic accord provisions, has now gone through all stages in the House and on to the Senate, where we are guaranteed, at least by Conservative senators, that it will receive speedy passage.

Let me ask the minister this. When can the province of Newfoundland and Labrador expect to get its cheque and will we be paid the $40 million in interest we have lost since the signing of the agreement in February?

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

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my Bloc colleague has asked a very insightful question.

One thing I want to say about the Bloc members is that they are very consistent in representing the needs of their province. I wish they had a little wider view of the country as a whole, but at least they are true to the mandate which they have defined for themselves.

The question of whether the Liberal Party would have been as amenable to the proposals from the NDP if the Liberals had a majority is a hypothetical one, but I think the answer is self-evident. We have some 11 years of evidence of a majority Liberal government walking roughshod over every one of the rest of us. With very rare exception did the Liberals ever accept even the smallest amendments from the opposition parties. There is no doubt about it that it was electoral fear that caused them to cut this deal. I do not think that there is any problem believing that.

The member also raised the question about having voted for Bill C-43. We recall that when that first came up it was the first time that the minority Liberal government had presented a budget. At second reading of Bill C-43 we did not support it. That fact has escaped a lot of people. We did not support it, but neither did we vote against it because although the Speaker said that the question was on the budget, we supported the government having a chance to prove itself.

This Parliament was very young and Canadians were not ready for an election six months after the last one. Although the Speaker said that the vote was on the budget, every one of us knew the real vote was on whether we should have an election. With one vote both questions had to be answered and they are diametrically opposed. We came up with what we thought was a workable solution. We would not support this budget because of those serious flaws, but at the same time, we knew that the real vote was on whether there should be an election. We decided at that time not to put Canadians through the necessity of having an election. That was the dilemma we faced.

With respect to the EI fund which the member also asked about, I would simply say that the government continues to take huge amounts of money in excess of the actual actuarial needs of that fund. I think that is a crime.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, we must speak the truth. Bill C-48 is before us today because the NDP introduced an amendment to the budget, Bill C-43. The Bloc Québécois voted against Bill C-43 and will be voting against Bill C-48, too, because the Liberal Party and the NDP failed, during their negotiations, to address the fiscal imbalance or make improvements to the EI fund.

The fiscal imbalance is affecting all the other provinces in Canada, and not just Quebec. In order to achieve zero deficit, the former finance minister—the current Prime Minister—slashed federal transfers to the provinces. This led to problems in health care, education and municipal infrastructure programs. These are areas under provincial jurisdiction.

At no time did the NDP consider in Bill C-48 the demands of Quebec. Yet their candidates in every riding in Quebec, even Pierre Ducasse in the riding of Manicouagan, are wondering why the Bloc Québécois voted against it.

I agree with the member when he says that the Liberal Party and the NDP were complicit. First, we have to face facts; the Liberals agreed to the NDP's amendment for fear of having to face an election. But we have to remember that the vote on the budget is also a confidence vote. We were unable to have confidence in this government after the whole sponsorship scandal and the revelations at the Gomery commission. Furthermore, in my opinion, EI should have been a priority in the budget. The unions have condemned this failure.

I want to ask my Conservative colleague the following question. If the Liberals had had a majority, does he believe they would have considered the NDP's amendment and injected an additional $4.5 billion into the budget, that they would have suddenly taken an interest in social housing and allocated additional funds for the environment? If this had been a majority government, does he think that they would have listened to the NDP and allocated additional funds in the budget?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak right after the prayer for our country. I regularly get phone calls, letters and cards saying that Canadians are praying for this Parliament to have the wisdom to do the right thing.

I am one of the members of the rookie class, elected almost a year ago, but I came here not being a rookie to serving our community. I served as a city councillor for 14 years, almost 15 years now. Over those 14 years in municipal government, we would wring our hands and work hard on the budget, and I will speak on the plans in Bill C-48.

Months were spent in deliberations, trying to be accountable for every dollar in local government but it became increasingly difficult. Over the last 12 years, the dollars became more and more scarce. The finance minister of those days, our now Prime Minister, squeezed and pulled more and more money out of provincial and local governments with the plan to save more money for the federal government.

At the time I was first elected, 50% of the money to fund health care came from the federal government. Now it is only 20%. That is just one small example. It continues to be difficult.

Now that finance minister is the Prime Minister, the difficulties in local government for our citizens, our taxpayers, continues. I supported Bill C-43. That was our budget and consultation had gone into it. It was not a budget with which everybody was particularly happy but we could live with it. We did not want to call an election over it so we supported the bill.

However, along came Bill C-48. Why are we having the debate on Bill C-48? We had a crisis in Parliament because of the corruption and sponsorship scandals. A cloud was hanging over the government. A flurry of offers and deals were being made in an effort to bolster the government. Without the help of the NDP, the government would have fallen. Over the weekend, on a napkin deal, we had Bill C-48.

Bill C-48 does not involve planning. It does not involve consultation. It involves a backroom deal, a napkin deal, that does not represent the wishes of Canadians. Our responsibility is to serve Canadians and to be extremely accountable for every Canadian tax dollar that is sent to Ottawa. Bill C-48 does not represent that. It is a plan that was concocted with no thought or consultation. It is a plan where $4.5 billion will be given to the finance minister to spend at his discretion. How can anybody support that? Canadians do not support that. They want accountability and we do not see that in the government. We do not see that in Bill C-48. When I say government, it is basically a coalition government of the Liberals and NDP.

When I thought about the two parties, I wondered what we would call the Liberal and NDP if we were to mix the two. We would probably end up with the nibble party, a party that nibbles away at Canadians. It is not a party that we and Canadians would be proud of.

Without accountability, Canadians do not know what is going to be done with that money. Do Canadians trust the track record of the last 12 years of the government? They do not.

Part of the $4.5 billion funding in the bill is to go toward the environment. Are we supposed to trust the government to spend it on the environment? Again, it is a promise that over the next many years there will be funding for the environment. For 12 years the government was supposed to do the right thing for the environment but over the last 12 years pollution levels have continued to increase, not decrease.

What about the Kyoto plan? This party said that Kyoto had some merits but that it was not good enough. Canadians are demanding better. Yes, we need to deal with carbon dioxide and the effect on global warming. We acknowledge that but we need better. Kyoto only deals with the carbon dioxide effects. We need to deal with the particulates, the pollution. Every year, hundreds of Canadians are dying prematurely because of the high pollution levels.

Over 12 years, has anything happened there? No. Just a few months ago, even after the 12th hour and pressure from this party to come up with a plan, we finally received a plan. However the plan shows that it will be very difficult to achieve the targets and it is Canadians who will have to help solve that problem. A plan that says the targets will be very difficult to achieve is not a plan. The plan will involve going back to Canadians for more money. With Bill C-48, $4.5 billion of overtaxation will be taken from the Canadian taxpayers.

How do we meet those Kyoto targets dealing with the pollution? We will have to increase energy costs. Canadians are furious over having to pay approximately $1 a litre for gasoline and gas prices that fluctuate daily. However as the government starts implementing the Kyoto plan, the money to buy those carbon credits, the billions of dollars, will be coming from the Canadian taxpayer for energy costs. We are looking at $2 to $3 for a litre of gas with this no-plan.

We still are not dealing with the pollution. Even after 12 years, the government is still allowing raw sewage to be dumped into our oceans. It is unacceptable and Canadians want that stopped. The Liberals have had chances to stop it and they have not. The fact is that the NDP had a chance to clean up the raw sewage being dumped into Victoria Harbour but it did absolutely nothing. Maybe this unholy alliance really is not that uncommon because their values are very similar. They both accept dumping raw sewage into our oceans as an acceptable environmental standard. Canadians demand better.

Canadians demand better for health care. A number of seniors in my riding of Langley have come up to me demanding respect and demanding health care. A number of these people have been waiting for a hip replacement for over four years. That is not acceptable.

What this party is demanding is accountability and Bill C-48 does not provide accountability. Canadians do not support this plan and they do not support the rush to have Bill C-48 go through.

We need to have more consultation. At the committee stage of the bill the Conservative Party offered a number of amendments that would have improved the bill but they were not accepted? Why were they not accepted? Because the Liberals wanted to rush Bill C-48 through with no accountability, just trust. They are asking Canadians to trust them. Canadians do not trust the Liberals and they are telling us not to support Bill C-48.

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

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Edmonton—Spruce Grove, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are here tonight on this beautiful evening to debate a bill that is empty. It is empty on prudent fiscal guidelines, empty on good public policies, and most importantly, it is empty on much needed tax relief for Canadian families.

The Liberal-NDP budget contains no hope for Canadians and it contains no vision for our nation. Every day I receive calls from my constituents who are struggling to pay their bills, who are struggling to put aside money for their children's education, and who are struggling to save for their retirement.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes in policies that will enhance productivity, encourage economic growth, and build up our fiscal capacity for the next generation. We believe that every citizen in our great country should have the opportunity to live the Canadian dream. They should be able to attend a high quality post-secondary education institution. They should be able to find a good paying job and they should be able to start a family, buy a house and save for retirement.

However, they can only do that if the government does not tax too much or spend too much. Bill C-48 is a $4.6 billion deal using taxpayers' money to keep a corrupt party afloat in government. All those left out of the original budget, fishermen and farmers, seniors and softwood lumber producers, remain left out of this new deal. They have been left out in favour of spending on idealistic priorities.

The nation's largest employers who create jobs and the hardworking Canadians who drive our economy have had the door slammed in their faces by the leader of the NDP and the Prime Minister. This budget pretends to address the child care needs in this country but falls short. Rather than seizing this opportunity to address the fiscal imbalance, the NDP-Liberal alliance has felt content to leave it be.

The finance minister warned that the opposition could spark a financial crisis by tampering further with the government's main money bill, Bill C-43. He said:

You can' t go on stripping away piece by piece by piece of the budget. You can't, after the fact, begin to cherry pick: “We'll throw that out and we'll put that in, we'll stir this around and mix it all up again”. 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.

And yet, it was his own government that decided to go on cherry-picking. Here we are debating whether or not, as our finance minister has told us, to head down the road toward a sure formula for the creation of a deficit.

The Conservative Party of Canada will do everything in its power to prevent us from going down that long dark road. The Conservative Party of Canada, although we found flaws with it, did not oppose the original budget. In fact, we passed a number of amendments that made it stronger. Our party was determined to act responsibly in this situation and make Parliament work for the benefit of Canadians.

For some reason the Prime Minister decided to exchange the support of 98 Conservative MPs on his budget for the lesser support of 19 NDP MPs on his new budget. That was his choice and his choice alone. The Conservative Party of Canada cannot accept this budget, this last ditch effort to save the Liberal government when it does so little to help Canadians.

Bill C-48 is a deal that was conceived behind closed doors with the federal finance minister nowhere to be seen. It is a bill that is heavy on the public purse but extremely light on transparency, details and fiscal prudence. This bill authorizes cabinet to design and implement programs under a vague policy framework and then allows cabinet to unilaterally disburse them as it sees fit. It has already been said that this plan places the cart before the horse and I could not agree more.

Canadians expect a higher standard than vague commitments and untold plans for their hard earned tax dollars. The Auditor General has raised some serious concerns about the ability of certain departments to deliver programs effectively, departments to which the Liberals want to give more money in this bill including Indian and Northern Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency. In addition, the Auditor General's office is currently conducting an audit of the Government of Canada's climate change expenditures which will be released in 2006.

The Conservative Party of Canada recognizes that numerous Canadians are not receiving the level of assistance from the federal government that they should receive and deserve. This is a direct result of the Liberal approach to problem solving, throwing in money without an adequate plan. Throwing more money at the programs included in Bill C-48 would be unfair to our nation's hardworking families. This bill should have included safeguards that would ensure that existing money is spent effectively and that new money is not wasted.

The notion of a Liberal-NDP slush fund of $4.5 billion simply does not sit well with my constituents of Edmonton—Spruce Grove and I am certain that it does not sit well with Canadians from coast to coast.

The Conservative Party of Canada has long supported an independent budget office to ensure sound fiscal forecasting. With Bill C-48, the need for a sound fiscal forecast is more acute now than ever.

An immense $4.5 billion spending spree now rests solely on a surplus that may or may not even exist. Everyone in the House knows that the government has an abysmal record when it comes to projecting the final results of our national balance sheet, and this type of fiscal arrangement is indeed dangerous to the nation's finances.

It is somewhat ironic that the bill violates the principle held by the NDP, as presented in its prebudget report, that Parliament should have an opportunity to decide on the allocation of any public surplus. Under Bill C-48, the allocation of any surplus in fiscal years 2005-06 and 2006-07 is partly defined.

Of additional concern is the fact that the bill does nothing to help out those in desperate need of tax relief. Canadians' real take-home pay has remained stagnant for 15 years and it must be spurred on. A Canadian who earns $35,000 a year has seen his or her real take-home pay rise by only $84 over the last 15 years. That is unacceptable. This new budget should have done something to address that.

A Conservative government would implement a program of smarter spending, responsible tax levels and productivity enhancing measures that create opportunity, prosperity and compassion.

Many of the areas addressed in the bill fall under provincial jurisdiction. Issues such as post-secondary tuition and low income housing fall almost completely under provincial jurisdiction.

In previous debates in the House, I have argued that the government has used the fiscal imbalance as a means to spend money in areas of provincial jurisdiction and set provincial priorities. Bill C-48, which addresses areas that fall largely under the jurisdiction of other orders of government, for instance, tuition, public transit and affordable housing to name a few, as well as the recent deals on child care, only serve to prove my point.

I would have hoped that a party such as the NDP, which recognizes the fiscal imbalance, would have spoken up for this in the bill.

Both the Liberal and the New Democratic Parties have claimed child care as one of their top priorities, yet the deals reached between the federal government and the provinces will not begin to scratch the surface of the child care needs in this country.

The Conservative Party of Canada has already promised to put money directly into the hands of parents so they can make their own child care choices. It is particularly disheartening to see that this Liberal-NDP budget does not go further to address the concerns of parents with regard to child care.

In the words of the member for Toronto—Danforth, the NDP leader, this new budget “substantially alters the 2005 budget to reflect the priorities of Canadians”. It is difficult to believe that the hon. member knows what the priorities of Canadians are, given that in the last federal election over 84% of Canadians did not support him, his party or his agenda.

What is not difficult to believe is that the bill substantially alters the budget originally tabled in this place. The alteration of the budget is an attempt by the NDP to extort an inordinate influence on the government's budget. Canadians are not impressed.

There is nothing in the new budget about tax relief for hard-working Canadian families. There is nothing in the new budget about support for farmers or those affected by the softwood lumber dispute. There is nothing in the new budget about child care or the fiscal imbalance. There is nothing in the new budget that will fuel our economic engine for future generations.

At committee, the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition rejected Conservative efforts to restore prudent fiscal management. This would have included real solutions for Canadians, such as matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women, and ensuring accountability and transparency.

At report stage, the Conservative Party has tried once again to move amendments to make the spending in Bill C-48 more accountable to Canadians and to reflect a more prudent fiscal approach.

The Conservative amendment to clause one would raise the amount of surplus that would be set aside for debt paydown. The interest saved as a result of additional federal debt paydown is needed to prevent cuts to social programs as a result of the impending demographic crunch.

The Conservative amendment to clause number two would force the government to table a plan by the end of each year outlining how it intends to spend the money in the bill. Spending without a plan is a recipe for waste and mismanagement.

With the stroke of a pen in a downtown hotel room, both the Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP have managed to set Canada on the wrong path. This path will lead us back to the dark days of economic turmoil. Even the once powerful Liberal finance minister has admitted this much to us.

This is a budget that no longer reflects the priorities and needs of Canadians. We cannot support it. Given the circumstances, that is the only responsible thing to do.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, I sometimes have to be amazed at what I hear in the House. The previous Conservative spokesperson talked about the NDP in Ontario. Yet she failed to mention the Conservative Government of Saskatchewan under Grant Divine who bankrupted the province and 17 of them went to jail. The member forgot to mention John Buchanan of Nova Scotia, another Conservative, who literally bankrupted the province of Nova Scotia.

She also forgot to mention that it was the Conservatives in the sixties who fought against public health care. It was Tommy Douglas, Stanley Knowles and the NDP who pushed the Liberals to bring us medicare that we are honoured to have in this country today. Now the Conservatives stand up and say they defend health care.

Then the member from New Brunswick said that we wanted to be fiscally responsible. However, I am rather confused because the Conservatives said they would honour every commitment the Liberal government has made and they would spend more. They said they would have money to give back to families for their day care plan.

The Conservatives say they are going to honour every commitment that these hated Liberals have made. I remind the member that half way through the budget speech of the finance minister their leader ran out to the cameras and said that this was a great budget and that he could support it. The Conservatives stood up today and voted for it. The member stood here and complained about everything in Bill C-43 and then stood up and voted for it, so he will have to live with that.

What is the Conservative Party's plan for day care? That party talks about a plan for day care, what is it? How many of the Liberal government commitments are the Conservatives going to honour and how much are they going to allocate per family for day care?