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

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather important to note that it seems that the questions coming from the other side have a familiar ring. It seems that the Liberals are putting recycled questions to us.

The member needs to clearly understand, and I think if I know a little bit of his background he should have an appreciation for this, that the biggest objection we have as a party to this particular budget is the fact that it is unplanned spending. It is somewhat ad hoc.

We would have been interested to know why there was not any of that kind of response in the initial bill, Bill C-43, of the Liberal government. It has been added on at the very end. Was it not a priority early on? Did the Prime Minister and the NDP leader get together and all of a sudden decide there was a need for these things?

Certainly there is a need for some of the things that the member mentioned. However, if the Liberals give out money to some of these particular approaches or programs that he is talking about, who is to say that it would actually get through? Our biggest concern in any of these program areas is, will the dollars actually get through to be spent in the best way for the Canadian public, in respect to housing, in respect to transit? We have pretty good reason to believe there would be some reason to doubt that. We believe there is some question about that. I think the hon. member would want to provide us more detail if he is really sincere about getting some help for these different areas.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my name to the list of those who are fiscally responsible members in Canada, those who oppose the New Democratic budget, Bill C-48.

I joined my party to vote in favour of Bill C-43, the original bill. It was hard enough in some ways to vote for that bill. Yet there were some measures in it that were some lukewarm attempts to imitate Conservative Party policy. For that reason it seemed to be the expedient and proper thing to vote for that bill. It seems these days the only time the Liberal government is not involved in corruption is when it is imitating our party, when it is trying to mirror something that the Conservative Party would do. We wanted to affirm those halting attempts to be fiscally responsible, hoping that the government would speedily implement those measures that are really to the full advantage of Canadians across the country.

When we get to the other bill, Bill C-48, on the other hand, it is really irredeemable. Many members in my party, and I assume in the other parties, have made comment, and especially the Bloc has objections and problems with the bill as well.

Bill C-48 even makes the finance minister gag. He has to hold his nose I would imagine each time that he dutifully expresses his support for the bill, for that irresponsible piece of legislation which was thoughtlessly thrown together at the last minute by the NDP leader and also by his right-hand man, the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister tried to get this coalition together to keep his corrupt government in power. He is clinging to power with the help of a political party that is prepared to look the other way.That is what the NDP-Liberal government is prepared to do. It is prepared to look the other way when we see some of the things from this worst corruption scandal in the recent memory of this country.

The Liberals are willing to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars to fund this addiction for power and that they should be in power at all times in the history of our country. This is a direct result of the loss of their moral authority to govern. Not only should this bill not be passed, but the finance minister should resign for tabling it. We have called on him to do that. The NDP leader has more influence it would seem on the budgetary framework than the Prime Minister's own Minister of Finance.

Bill C-48 is heavy on the public purse but it is quite light on details. It is quite scant and sketchy. It commits hundreds of millions of dollars in broad areas without any concrete plans as to how that money would be spent. Bill C-48 authorizes cabinet to design and implement programs under the vague policy framework of the bill to make payments in any manner it sees fit.

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

The government would actually need to post $8.5 billion in surpluses over the next two fiscal years to fully implement the NDP's Bill C-48.

The areas addressed in the bill largely fall under provincial jurisdiction. It is more intrusion, more of the camel sticking its nose into the tent, more of moving into the provincial realm of authority.

Bill C-48 also violates a principle held by the NDP as was presented in its own prebudget report, that Parliament should have an opportunity to decide on the allocation of any budget surplus.

The Conservative Party has consistently opposed the Liberal approach of spending without an adequate plan. This is probably the biggest fault with Bill C-48. The Liberal approach is cruel not only to taxpayers, but more importantly to those who depend on those promised services.

The Auditor General has raised some very serious concerns about the ability of certain departments to actually deliver the programs effectively. Even if the dollars were shovelled off to a particular department, there is a pretty serious question whether in certain areas it would actually be able to make the best value of that, including Indian and northern affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency.

In addition the Office of the Auditor General has stated that it currently is auditing the Government of Canada's climate change expenditures which will be finally released in 2006.

The Conservative Party wants to ensure that the social needs of Canadians are met. Our party recognizes that many Canadians are not receiving the level of federal assistance that they deserve. That is a direct result of the Liberal government's approach to problem solving, which is basically to spend money without an adequate plan.

In most Canadian families both parents need to work, one just to pay the taxes. These Canadian families are receiving less and less each year for the taxes they are forced to hand over to the government. They are receiving less and less in the way of social programming and social services. The Conservative Party has long held that a dollar left in the hands of a homemaker or an entrepreneur is more beneficial than a dollar left in the hands of a bureaucrat or a politician.

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

Let us look at the Liberal record in respect to spending without a plan. Canada could have more better paying jobs and a much higher standard of living, but Ottawa taxes too much and spends too much.

Since the 1999-2000 program year, spending has gone from $109.6 billion to $158.1 billion, an increase of some 44.3%, a compound annual growth rate of 7.6%. The economy itself managed to grow by only 31.6%, a compound annual growth rate of about 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 that there is so much waste with the government.

Often the government responds to problems in a knee-jerk way by throwing more money at those problems. The Liberals too often unfortunately confuse spending money with getting results. The Liberal government seems to have no true interest in getting results for low and middle income Canadians. As the Gomery inquiry has demonstrated, the Liberal Party is only interested, it seems, in getting results for the rich and the powerful, and for those who can return the favour.

A recent poll shows far more support for the Liberal Party among wealthy Canadians than among low and middle income Canadians. The Liberal Party has declared war on low and middle income Canadians, exploiting them to the advantage of its special friends and for any scheme that guarantees Liberal control over the reins of power in the Dominion of Canada.

Here are three examples of the Liberal government's wasteful and knee-jerk spending on programs that do not work.

We have heard for years now that the wasteful gun registry is the way to deal with the criminal use of firearms, but 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 at present and it is adding on as well.

The public saw television reports showing children high on gasoline. The Liberals threw money at Davis Inlet without a plan. The community was moved into new housing a few miles away at a cost of $400,000 per person, but the problems simply moved along with them as they relocated to that new location.

The Quebec referendum is another example which shocked the nation. The Liberals responded by throwing money at it, but without a real plan. The result was the sponsorship scandal, a $250 million waste of money, $100 million illegally funnelled off to Liberal friends and the Liberal Party. Even worse, it has reinvigorated Quebec separatism and hurt the face of federalism in the province of Quebec.

In 1966-67 real federal program spending per capita was $3,466. It will have risen to $4,255 in 2005-06, an increase of $800 per capita in volume terms, or $3,200 for a family of four. Current Liberal-NDP spending plans will take it to $4,644 by 2009-10, an increase of almost $1,200 per person.

Increases in real government spending do not necessarily equate to solving problems or even getting better results. That is the major concern we have with Bill C-48. It was written up quickly and is very scant on detail. There is not much there. As a result, the Liberals want to put it through quickly because they say it is very short. Because it is so very short is the reason it needs rigorous evaluation, assessment and scrutiny. It is also why it deserves our full condemnation and rejection at this point.

Much more could be said, but suffice to say that the Conservative approach would be rather different. It would be a responsible and detailed plan that would reflect rather different priorities and rather different results for the Canadian tax paying public.

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

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.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the $4.6 billion that was promised in the original budget and taken out of Bill C-43 was going to be targeted toward corporate tax relief to make our industry more competitive, to create more opportunity for reinvestment and job creation. We like to throw out rhetoric as to what is meaningful, but any dollar that we can put back in the pocket of Canadians is meaningful. I will trust Canadians any day of being able to spend their money more wisely than the government. We need to give them that opportunity and put those dollars back in their hands.

We have been debating the bill for some time now along with Bill C-43 and I have not heard anything from the other side that would convince me that if Bill C-48 were so important, that the Liberals would have put it in the original budget. They have never come out and said that it is a good idea. Bill C-48 represents only one thing and that is to buy NDP votes to ensure that the Liberals stay in power. That is what it is all about.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak at report stage of Bill C-48 to address a lot of the concerns that the constituents of Selkirk--Interlake and I have with this bill. The big thing is we are talking about $4.6 billion that is contained in a document that is only six pages long. The last three pages make really good reading as they are all blank. Essentially this bill gives a blank cheque to the Liberal government to do with as it pleases.

We do not want to see any more boondoggles or scandals take place in the government. One of the reasons I entered politics was to make sure that we could put an end to wasteful spending, get the biggest bang for our buck as taxpayers and defend the interests of taxpayers here in the House.

The big concern is there are a lot of great ideas laid out in two pages of spending proposals, but there is no plan to support them. We voted on Bill C-43 just last week. When that bill was tabled, it was tabled with volumes of books as a backstop, as a plan, as a way to have the checks and balances in place for the spending that the government was promising. During the spring the committees sat down and went through the budgets for the respective departments and voted on the budgetary estimates line by line. Those are the types of checks and balances that are needed to ensure that government spending is kept in place so that the taxpayers are getting the benefits and the services they have requested.

I fear that the programs and policies that are being supported in this very thin bill will open the door for more mismanagement and more boondoggles. We only need to look at things like the gun registry, the HRDC boondoggle and many other programs that have been overrun because there has not been adequate planning put in place for the spending. We have to make sure that the plans are there and that the dollars are spent wisely.

I am the associate agriculture critic for our party. One thing that concerns me is that the NDP members often come in here and say that agriculture is very important to them, but unfortunately there is not a single line in the bill that even addresses any agricultural concerns. I have to wonder what the NDP priorities are if that party is not addressing agriculture. It makes up such a crucial part of our economy here in Canada, not just rurally but the entire GDP is largely based upon our agriculture and resource sectors.

All the spending that is planned in the bill is not really very beneficial to rural Canada. I represent a very rural riding. I do not see anything in the bill that is going to help with doctor shortages in our area. I do not see anything in it that is going to help with access to federal services in rural Canada. I do not see anything in it that is going to help our farmers improve their marketplace. For those reasons, I cannot support Bill C-48.

There is a paragraph in the bill that addresses foreign aid. I think it is admirable that we would increase our foreign aid to at least 0.7% of GDP, which is a number that has been bandied about since the 1960s as the ideal mark in funding foreign aid. However, we know that currently, as was already talked about with respect to CIDA, there is a shotgun approach to foreign aid. Money is thrown all over the place, sprinkling a little here and a little there. It is not really getting to the crucial parts, the areas of importance to help those in need.

Whether we are looking at poverty or children's issues around the world, essentially we should target a few countries. We should focus our resources on a few countries to get the biggest bang for our buck to help those people who need it the most with their education and their farming activities and help them provide for themselves. Those are things that we want to address.

We are talking about throwing more money at foreign aid, but we have a real crisis here in Canada right now and that is why we need more farm aid. We have a BSE crisis that needs to be addressed more adequately. Farmers are still not getting the dollars into their pockets and we need to ensure those things are taken care of first before we start throwing more dollars into foreign field.

We have to realize what this bill is all about and what brought it about. If this bill were so important to the Liberal government, it would have been in the original budget back in February. We know that it was all about getting 19 more votes to support the government. The NDP negotiated this deal in a backroom on a napkin and this is what it came up with.

This has been traded off with some really major tax cuts that we need to see take place to create more jobs and more opportunity in this country. The $4.6 billion could have been better used to ensure we create more opportunities and a better and more competitive environment for business. We would see more jobs and, by and large, a better economy because of these tax cuts. Unfortunately, we have traded that off for votes and that is shameful.

There are a lot of things in the original budget that we could support but there is nothing in Bill C-48 that we can really dream of being brought forward and put into play. There is no accountability, no checks and balances, and nothing for agriculture. We are always quite concerned in ensuring that we address the needs of taxpayers as much as possible, so that we can go forward and put in place the services they desire. I do not see that happening here in a legitimate way.

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to go back a bit. In terms of Bill C-43, we can live with that because the measures in that bill were actually driven by the Conservative Party of Canada.

The NDP, on the other hand, were against the budget to begin with. It was only when all of us realized the depth of the corruption of the Liberals, that the member for Toronto--Danforth and the NDP decided to prop them up and keep them in power. It is inexplicable.

The member spoke about affordable housing. I have spoken in the House about reducing the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation premiums so that young families could afford to purchase their homes. Some members of the Bloc Québécois have also driven this issue. As a result, we have seen a 15% reduction in CMHC premiums. That is important.

Let us talk about what is missing from Bill C-48. The member for Toronto-Danforth, the leader of the NDP, had the opportunity to name his price that evening because, God knows, the member for LaSalle—Émard would have done anything to stay in power.

An equalization deal for the province of Saskatchewan would have been nice. It was completely forgotten by the member for Toronto--Danforth and the NDP. They completely forgot about a fair equalization deal for the province of Saskatchewan, as did the Minister of Finance from my home town of Regina. When we brought that motion forward he voted with the separatists to vote down a fair equalization deal for Saskatchewan. It is shameful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what happened to the Conservative Party because when the Minister of Finance was reading his budget in the House of Commons the Leader of the Conservative Party ran out before the minister was finished and said that he supported the budget because it was a good budget.

What happened between then and now? I think he looked at the polls and when he saw that his party was up by 34% he decided that the budget was no longer any good and that he would bring the government down.

Right after that, the Conservatives voted for Bill C-43. What part of Bill C-48 are they against? Are they telling us that they are against bringing down student debt and helping our children? Are they saying that they are against affordable housing when we see many people in our towns and cities living on the streets and in cardboard boxes, as we saw in Toronto in front of city hall? Are they saying that they are against the 1¢ extra on the gas tax that could go to the city of Regina in the riding of Regina--Qu'Appelle?

Is that what they want to vote against, to give money to the city for infrastructure? Is that what the Conservatives are telling us?

[Dave Batters, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we did support Bill C-43 because it contained modest tax cuts. However it did not even come close to what is needed in the country. I believe Canadians will be saving $16 a year. Canadians think that is a medium pizza and they are not impressed with the government.

We talk about being fiscally prudent. We are talking about C-48 tonight. Young Canadians who may be watching tonight are looking toward their future and to what we in the House are doing for their future.

This budget is very irresponsible. We are mortgaging their future. We are putting an anchor around the neck of young Canadians. This is $4.6 billion. That is two-plus gun registries, four HRDC boondoggles and this is budgeted for in a page and a half. That is why we simply cannot support the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, in listening to my colleague, it is just like hearing that the Conservatives are pure and white. I am wondering what happened in Saskatchewan when the Conservatives were in power for almost eight years. I do not know what happened to 14 of those Conservatives, but I think many of them were pretty close to jail. I do not know how those members can just get up and say how pure they were.

Let us look at the position of the Conservative Party. Where was the Conservative Party when it came to the employment insurance motion that we brought in last week? Conservative members voted against it because it was for working people. They could have helped men and women doing seasonal work. Only seven members of the Conservative Party voted for it.

Conservatives are saying that the NDP is voting with a corrupt government. How did they vote last week on Bill C-43, which was the government budget? They voted for the government budget. How can they get up today and say that the NDP has voted for a corrupt government on a bill and on a budget when they did what they did? The Minister of Finance had not even finished presenting the budget to the House when the leader of the Conservative Party left the House of Commons and told the press he could not vote against the government's budget because it was a good budget, because Bay Street liked it, because there were cuts for the big corporations.

Are the Conservatives questioning what the big corporations do with their money when they get it? I can tell them: they run to the bank. They do not create even one job over the year because it depends on the market, on if they have sales. That is how they create jobs.

Then, when it came time to help the students, the Conservative Party got up in the House and said it was against Bill C-48, not Bill C-43, where we give money to the big corporations, but against the one that would help students who are in debt. They are against that one, said the Conservatives. They are against affordable housing when we could help people who are on the street and we could give them a home. They are against that. That is what the Conservative Party is all about.

I am sure that Canadians are listening to what is happening tonight. One member is saying that the NDP has voted with the corrupt Liberal government. Where were the Conservatives for Bill C-43? Where were they for the Liberal budget, the real budget, where the Liberals and the Conservatives look the same, which was Bill C-43?

How about when it comes to the ordinary people? What about when it came to voting last week on the motion for the best 12 weeks? Who got up in the House of Commons and voted against it? The Liberals and the Conservatives, which to me look the same when we look at Bill C-43.

I would like to hear what the hon. member thought about it. He talks about Conservative members voting and tries to tell Canadians they did not vote for a budget of the government. They have voted on Bill C-43. They did not even wait for the minister to finish telling Canadians about the budget. The leader of their party said he could not vote against the budget because it was a good budget. It was a budget that was more for the big corporations than the little people.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a bit of a news flash that the Conservative Party has nothing against homeless people. I am pleased to hear that. I assume that party will therefore support Bill C-48, but I am somewhat skeptical about that.

There has been a lot of misinformation put on the floor of House by the hon. member and others. I want to bring to his attention that in the course of this government, program spending as a percentage of GDP has actually declined from something in the order of 17% to 12%. We in fact are holding the line at around 12% of GDP. Bill C-48 actually represents less than 1% of government spending and it is entirely contingent spending; in other words, if there is not a surplus, it will not be spent.

I want to make the point to the hon. member that this is a fiscally responsible approach to unplanned surpluses. In fact Bay Street has already looked at this and the dollar has gone up, surprise, surprise. Interest rates remain steady, surprise, surprise. Inflation has not jumped, surprise, surprise.

The people who actually look at these things and make decisions on what they are going to do financially with respect to Bill C-48, or Bill C-43 for that matter, have decided that this is appropriate spending.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate tonight. I have heard over the past couple of days different issues talked about in reference to Bill C-48. I have heard some of my colleagues and others talk about the fact that this no-tell hotel deal was signed on the back of a napkin. It is similar to former Prime Minister Chrétien and his deal with the Grand-Mère Inn and the golf course, where he brought forth a deal which had been signed on a napkin. That is not the way one would expect business to be done in this place. It is not acceptable. To spend $4.5 billion with just a few words that mean very little, such general statements as to how that money should be spent, is unacceptable.

I do not want to talk about any one particular issue but rather talk about the impact on real people across the country and what this extra spending above Bill C-43 budget will do. When we look at this issue and talk about budgets, taxes and government spending and so on, we should remember that Canada should be the country with the highest standard of living in the world.

There is no reason why that should not be the case. We have the resources. We have well educated and trained people. We have everything that should be required to make Canada truly the number one country in the world when it comes to our standard of living.

Sadly, that is not the way things are. The reason for that can be attributed to the government and how it has handled taxpayers' money and the business of this nation over the last 12 years. As a result, and it has been exposed over the past year by studies that have been done, with the economy going so well and the government taxing at an ever increasing rate and spending at a wildly increasing rate, our standard of living has not improved one bit.

For some groups, I would argue that things have become worse. Canada should be the envy of the whole world. In fact, it is no longer the envy of the whole world. I went to a meeting of the NATO parliamentarians in February in Brussels where we dealt with security, trade, and of course defence and security issues. After those meetings I attended a meeting of the OECD in Paris which is the body that provides the best unbiased information for many things, but in particular, economic forecasts.

I attended a meeting of the OECD with members of the economic committee from NATO countries and from observer countries with experts giving economic forecasts. I was shocked that the OECD no longer talked about the G-7 but the G-6. All of the charts that talked about economic forecasts did not even include Canada any more. Canada was left off the list. That is a sad commentary on what has happened to our country under the guidance of the government over the past 12 years.

Canada should be truly, unarguably the envy of the world. Unfortunately, when it comes to international bodies, we are anything but. We have lost that status and we must get it back. There is no reason why we cannot. However, to do that, the government must show some leadership and there are some things that must be done which are not being done.

As a result there are two groups in particular that are being hurt and whose standard of living has dropped. Things have become a lot more difficult for them over the past 12 years rather than just holding their own. I am speaking of young families where in most cases now both parents have to work away from home. That makes it very difficult to raise a family.

Then there are the retired people, the elderly who are on fixed incomes. The government brags again and again about how wonderfully it is doing with the finances of the country because it runs surpluses. The surpluses are increased spending. It is taking more money from the taxpayers who simply cannot afford to be taxed at the level they are and especially young families.

I have had many people in my constituency, as have many members of Parliament in the House, come to me to tell me how difficult it is to make ends meet, how both spouses are working. I guess I know best about my own family.

My wife Linda and I have five children. Four have just recently completed their post-secondary education. My youngest daughter is still in university taking engineering. She is in a co-op program, which is a wonderful program, but she has a couple of years to go yet. The other four are all in the process of starting families. Two are married. The other two are single. All four of them are either building a house or buying a house right now because they are working and they have to have a place to live, and they prefer to buy rather than rent.

In the case of my two children who are married, both the husbands and wives work away from home because they have to, not because they want to. In both cases they desperately want to start a family but because of the high taxation levels, they cannot at this time. I only talk about my family because it represents exactly what is going on with so many other families across the country.

The government talks so lightly about everybody expecting to and having to pay taxes and so there is a level of taxation it forces people to pay. People are told to just pay it and not complain about it. What the government does not say is that it has the perfect situation right now to lower the tax rate. The economy in the country is going quite well. It is a golden opportunity to lower the tax rate and yet the government has done so little in the budget to do that.

What that has done is force our young families to have both parents working, even in cases where they want to start a family. They do not want to both be working away from home and yet they must.

The other group that I mentioned was the elderly, many of whom are on very low fixed incomes. In spite of the fact that an elderly person makes even $15,000 in retirement pension, they still have to pay taxes. It makes it very difficult, quite frankly, for them, especially those who want to remain in their own homes, or those who have to pay high rental costs. Everyone knows about the increase in power and gas bills.

Many of the elderly I am talking about still are driving a vehicle and want to remain active and mobile. We know the price of gasoline. All these costs have gone up and yet they still have to pay taxes. The government does not seem to see a problem with that. It is a golden opportunity to give substantial tax breaks to Canadians across the country. That is what the Conservative Party put forth in the last election. It was a plan to lower taxes in a substantial way and that is something that the Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party before that focused on.

We would focus on lowering taxes so that our children, people who have a very difficult time making ends meet would not have to pay taxes or pay much less tax than they do now. I hope that Bill C-48 will be thrown aside. Instead, we should have a tax reduction that would lead to making things easier for young couples who simply want to start a family and cannot at this time because taxes are too high.

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

Madam Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the hon. member opposite, particularly given the Conservative track record on management of financial affairs.

Let us look at the Mulroney Conservative government of the 1980s and 1990s. We had record deficits, as we know. We also know that in the last federal election campaign the Conservative Party presented the most expensive platform in Canadian political history. It just wanted to shovel that money out the door.

We also know that with Bill C-43 the Conservatives did not even show up to work on that particular day and were fully supportive of $4.6 billion being shoveled off the back of a truck to the corporate sector.

What we have is a pretty deplorable track record from the Conservatives in financial management when it has been in government. Two-thirds of the time across the country, provincially or federally, they have been in deficit. They had the worst deficits in Canadian history when they were in government, and they had the largest bill to the taxpayers for their bloated promises in the last federal election campaign. Happily, most Canadians rejected that.

I was interested in the member's comments about supporting farmers, because there was nothing in Bill C-43 that dealt with the agricultural crisis. Our agricultural critic for the NDP, the member for Timmins--James Bay, has been fighting in this House to make sure that farmers are fully aware of what needs to be done, but the Conservatives have basically sold out farmers right across the country by refusing to support supply management institutions.

The hon. member made reference to that in her speech, saying that she was not going to support the supply management institutions, that she favoured the type of sellout we could possibly be seeing through the WTO.

I am concerned because the Conservatives have a very poor financial track record, particularly when we talk about fiscal period returns, and we have from the Conservatives as well a very poor track record on standing up for farmers across this country, on supporting the corporate tax cuts and not pushing the agenda. In this corner of the House, the NDP has been fighting very hard to make sure that the government addresses those issues.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-48, the back of the napkin, Buzz Hargrove and leader of the NDP budget bill.

With the NDP ready to make more demands on the Prime Minister and the Liberals in exchange for their continued propping up of the Liberal government, I believe it is important that Canadians be made aware of the record of the last federal Liberal minority that was propped up by the NDP.

Here are just a few points to consider regarding the last Liberal-NDP coalition government. Between 1972-73 and 1974-75 fiscal years, spending on federal government programs jumped by 50%, from $18.8 billion to $28.2 billion. The taxes and other revenues taken from Canadians climbed by 52%, from $19.2 billion to $29.3 billion.

From October 1972 to July 1974, the inflation rate more than doubled from 5.2% to 11.1%. Chartered bank prime almost doubled, climbing from 6% to 11%. Five year mortgage rates jumped two full percentage points to reach 11.4%.

It is no wonder that groups like the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have expressed grave concerns about Bill C-48 and the reckless spending that it proposes.

This out of control spending is made worse by the complete lack of a plan as to how this money will be spent. Spending without a plan is a recipe for waste and mismanagement. It is cruel not only to taxpayers but more important to those who depend on promised services.

As the official opposition critic for agriculture and agrifood, I find it incredible that despite criticisms of both the NDP leader and the NDP agriculture critic, Bill C-43 had nothing in it for farmers in rural Canada. The NDP did absolutely nothing to address these blatant omissions in Bill C-48.

Let us remember that it was the NDP leader who in the House said the following in regard to Bill C-43, “How can the member stand and support a budget that gives nothing for farmers when they are living on the edge?”

Furthermore, the NDP agriculture critic had several things to say regarding Bill C-43. He said, “The Liberals presented the budget in the House just a few days before the R-CALF decision came down and we got to see what their five year plan for agriculture was. It was a big zero”. He also said that it is “a budget that has made no attempt to address the long term issue of agriculture in Canada” and “to the rural farm families of Canada the budget has offered them nothing”. He added, “There was nothing in the budget to encourage young families to take up farming. Unfortunately we have seen the plan for rural Canada. It is laid out in the budget, and there is nothing there”.

Despite the NDP's claims that farm families were shut out of the government's budget Bill C-43, the Leader of the NDP ensured that farm families received nothing in Bill C-48 either.

The Leader of the NDP's actions make it obvious that the NDP does not care about farm families and will not support them in their times of need. In spite of the NDP's lip service toward the needs of the agriculture community, it did nothing to help our agricultural producers with Bill C-48. I guess this shows where the NDP's priorities truly lie.

The government talks about declining farm income. In spite of this, most of our export oriented agricultural producers continue to receive the blunt end of a stick from the Liberal government's intransigence which dictates to western Canadian farmers that they can have no choice but to market their wheat and barley through the so-called Canadian Wheat Board.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes the Wheat Board's monopoly on grain marketing should be abolished. Farmers should have options. They should be able to market their own grain if they so choose and take advantage of market conditions to maximize their profits.

Furthermore, the current unfair market situation facing our grain and oilseed producers is simply not sustainable or acceptable. Our grain and oilseed producers continue to face crippling foreign subsidies and unfair tariffs imposed upon them by foreign bodies at the WTO. Canadian grain farmers are losing $1.3 billion annually to the hands of European and American subsidies.

The Alberta Grain Commission estimates that if tariffs were reduced, farmers would get $16 a tonne more for wheat, $19 more for barley and $71 more for canola.

In this context, the Conservative Party of Canada supports the goals of the Doha round, those being substantial improvements in market access, the phasing out of export subsidies and substantial reductions in trade distorting domestic support.

This position is affirmed in the Conservative Party's international trade policy, which reads:

In future rounds of trade negotiations, a Conservative Government will vigorously pursue reduction of international trade barriers and tariffs. A Conservative Government will pursue the elimination of trade-distorting government export subsidies within clearly established time limits. A Conservative Government will seek a clear definition of what constitutes an export subsidy.

We are pleased that a NAFTA panel has ruled that U.S. duties on Canadian hard red spring wheat are unjust. However, this government's handling of the grain hopper cars runs the risk of more U.S. duties in the near future.

Speaking of the grain hopper cars and budgets, the Liberal government announced nine budgets ago its intention to dispose of 12,000 government-owned grain hopper cars. Nine years later, the cars are still in the hands of the government.

This process should not be complicated. The government and grain industry conducted an extensive review known as the “Grain Handling and Transportation Review”, led by Justice Willard Estey and evaluated and supported by Arthur Kroeger. Estey's recommendation was to dispose of the cars for fair market value.

The government can dispose of these cars on a commercial basis; a process that would be fair to all Canadian taxpayers. Instead, the backroom deal being made by the Minister of Transport, at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, will see the cars given away for next to nothing.

The United States views the government-owned hopper cars to be an indirect subsidy to Canadian grain farmers. Even worse, a non-commercial transfer of the grain cars will run the risk of further U.S. duties on Canadian wheat.

This government continues to fail farmers by providing inadequate income support programs for producers struggling with circumstances and conditions outside their control.

It is unspeakable that both Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 have nothing whatsoever to help our Canadian farm families. Canadian producers are fighting for survival. They should not have to fight their own government.

The Conservative Party has consistently opposed the Liberal approach of spending without an adequate plan, which is reflected in Bill C-48. This bill is a reflection of the new federal budget, an NDP budget, one that the Liberals have put forward after they said it could not be done.

The lack of detail regarding programs that would be developed as a result of this bill, combined with the Liberals' poor track record on delivering value for money, provides little guarantee that the objectives of this bill would be met, that taxpayer money would be spent properly or that Canadians would be better off.

The Conservative Party wants to ensure that the social needs of Canadians are met and recognizes that many Canadians are not receiving the level of assistance they deserve from the federal government.

It is unfortunate that the NDP-Liberal coalition blocked at report stage the Conservative Party's efforts to move amendments to make the spending in Bill C-48 more accountable to Canadians and to reflect a prudent fiscal approach.

Our amendments aimed to do several things: raise the amount of surplus that would be set aside for debt payment; force the government to table a plan by the end of each year outlining how it intends to spend the money in this bill; and ensure that important accountability and transparency mechanisms are in place for corporations wholly owned by the federal government.

Unfortunately, both parties to the NDP-Liberal coalition prefer to remain unaccountable for their spending of Canadian taxpayer dollars. For this, I will be voting against Bill C-48.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to reassure the member that there were a lot of good things in Bill C-43 and we did not oppose it. We voted for it last week because there were some excellent things in it. However, we do not feel confident about a bill written on a napkin. I do not know what time of the day it was written. Some of my colleagues said that it was late at night in a dimly lit room.

I just do not believe that is the way for a finance minister or a government of a country to write or add to a budget. If these things were so good, why were they not put in the original budget? Why did the finance minister not include them in the budget? Why did the Liberals bring forward a one page bill and submit it to the House of Commons. Why was it not in the original budget?

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the hon. member's comments, she talked about prudent fiscal management. I would like to take the member down memory lane.

Everybody has been talking about a $42 billion deficit, but I want to correct those numbers. Under the Conservative government, the deficit went from under $200 billion to over $600 billion and the projection in the next year has been $53 billion. Canadians and Canada could not afford it for even a minute longer. That is why the Conservatives were reduced to two seats in the country. They should not forget that.

They are trying to teach us prudence and fiscal management, but we have had continuous surpluses and the highest employment record budget after budget. If this government is fraught with corruption, why did the member and her party support Bill C-43?