Bill C-48 (Historical)

An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments

This enactment authorizes the Minister of Finance to make certain payments out of the annual surplus in excess of $2 billion in respect of the fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 for the purposes and in the aggregate amount specified. This enactment also provides that, for its purposes, the Governor in Council may authorize a minister to undertake a specified measure.

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

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we get through all of this, I think there will be some reflection on how this happened. I am not sure that everybody is going to be totally happy.

Bill C-48 is an interesting proxy for a number of things that have occurred here. First of all, let me remind members about the content of Bill C-48 with regard to $4.5 billion of commitment only, and it is contingent, as the members will all know, that there will be a $2 billion surplus.

This is not in any way going to jeopardize the country by putting the country back into deficit. I should remind all hon. members that this is going to be the eighth consecutive surplus budget in Canada, getting us on a sound footing. That is why today's Edmonton Journal is saying that we are the top of the G-8 in terms of our performance.

The amount is $4.5 billion. First of all, it is very important to recognize that the government is in a minority scenario. We all remember what happened with Joe Clark in 1979. He simply said to the public, “I'm going to govern as if I had a majority”. We know exactly what happened. The government fell and he lost the government.

That is not the way to operate. That was 25 years ago. We have to learn from the lessons of the past. What a minority government does mean, and I think there is probably only one person here who has some experience from back then, is that any day a government could fall. In a minority scenario, a government could fall any day if it does not have a plan which is responsible and has the support of the majority of the House. When it loses that majority of the House, the government falls.

However, no party is going to be responsible by sending Parliament back to the electorate in the short term without having shown some good faith to try to make the minority government work. It means that parties have to talk to each other. It means that there is going to have to be some give and take. It means that sometimes we have to take a little bit less of what we want and understand that others would like to see certain other things.

When it was all said and done, what happened? In order to get support for the budget, to make minority government work, there was a deal made. Is that a shame? A deal was actually made between parties to say, “This would be acceptable if we could get some other items in there”. What were the other items?

It seems to me that the first item is $900 million “for the environment, including for public transit and for an energy-efficient retrofit program for low-income housing”.

So far I have not heard one person in the debate we have had on Bill C-48 say that he or she is opposed to these kinds of things such as the improvement of public transit and energy efficient retrofits for low income housing. Not one person has said that.

What was the second item? The second item is in support of “training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education, to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians”, in an amount of $1.5 billion.

That is a lot of money, there is no question about it, but this certainly has been on the agenda and in past budgets of this government and of this Parliament. Have we done everything that we possibly can for post-secondary education? Certainly not. We can do more. That is acceptable. It is acceptable to do a little bit more.

The third item is “for affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.6 billion”. I have spent some time on the health committee, where we looked at aboriginal health issues. I have visited at least four reserves to look at the conditions to try to educate myself about the realities in the aboriginal communities.

There is no question about this. I do not think I have heard anybody in this place say that further investment to improve the quality of life and the health and well-being of aboriginals in Canada was not a good thing. There was no one.

Finally, with respect to foreign aid and the amount not exceeding $500 million, foreign aid may be a little more problematic for some, yet when we talk about situations such as Darfur, or Africa with the AIDS epidemic, or poverty in Ethiopia, or some of the other areas in the world, let me say that we are a generous and prosperous country. We want to make sure that we do our share in conjunction with our international partners to make sure that people have the dignity of food, clothing and shelter.

This is $500 million we are talking about. It may not do a lot, but again, I did not hear one speech in this place indicating that an investment of $500 million in foreign aid in the year 2006-07 was a bad thing. I did not hear members saying they had a problem with it.

If we were to check the record we would see that nobody has talked against these items. What they have talked about is the fact that Bill C-48 exists. In fact, the basic objection of the Conservative Party is to the fact that a minority government is working. It objects to the government working collaboratively with another party which has decided that Canadians do not want an election, that Canadians want us to show them we can make this work. If it does not work, then we can go back to them and they will judge who is responsible. There will be a judgment. That is what Canadians are saying. There will indeed be a judgment.

What did those members do? They said fine, if that was the way we wanted to do it, they would have an alliance too. They do not like two parties over here having an understanding so they will have an understanding as well. What is their understanding? All the Conservatives wanted to do was to throw the government out. The leader of the Conservative Party said he wanted to put us out of our misery as soon as possible.

What kind of attitude is that in terms of the question that Canadians ask, which is whether we have made a legitimate effort to make this minority government work? It was political opportunism at the time. The Conservatives were looking at polls and everything else except governing Canada.

Now we have the unholy alliance over there. We have the right and we have the wrong. The Bloc Québécois members are here to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada and the Conservatives have no problem aligning themselves with that party. Who knows what secret arrangement or kickback is going to happen if they should happen to defeat the government. How could we ever imagine that?

Some of the dialogue that has gone on has not been with regard to the substance of Bill C-48. Indeed, since the amount of dollars involved in Bill C-48 is 1% of the total budget, it is not the magnitude of the dollars but the principle. The issue really is the fact that there was an opportunity to make government work and those members resent that. That is the bottom line. They do not want minority government to work.

I listened to the speech made by the last member. At least half the speech was filled with things that I would not repeat. It was almost based on the philosophy that the best way to make oneself look good is to tear somebody else down. I would rather speak in favour of something rather than against something. Where is the substance?

Let me turn to some of those specific items with regard to the economics, the finances. It is described here as “do anything to keep control of government”, but on this side of the House we would say it is anything to make sure that we demonstrate to Canadians that we are doing the best we can to make this minority government work. Canadians do not want an election. They want us to make it work. If we do not do our best to make it work, Canadians will judge.

One of the issues that has been discussed often by members is the existence of a surplus. The Conservatives have argued that if there is a surplus, then Canadians must be overtaxed. That is a valid point to make, except for one aspect. A surplus is a matter that exists in one year. If we have a $2 billion surplus, that is a $2 billion surplus in that year. In the subsequent year, who knows what it will be?

However, if we say we have a $2 billion surplus so let us give a tax break for $2 billion, we might be able to do that and have a balanced budget instead of a $2 billion surplus in year one. However, what happens in year two if everything else remains constant? All of a sudden there is another $2 billion tax cut but no surplus to apply it against. That tax cut is each and every year. A surplus is not guaranteed each and every year.

Fiscal responsibility says we just cannot take an annuity and compare it to a lump sum payment. That is not the way finance works.

On top of that the member for Yellowhead has mentioned the government has a $500 billion national debt. However, when the Liberals took over in 1993, the deficit for the year ended March 31, 1994 was $43 billion, which came from the Brian Mulroney government. We could not eliminate a $43 billion in one year. It took until 1997 to finally get the fiscal house in order. It meant some pain. Canadians had to endure some pain. There were cuts in important programs.

I remember the finance minister saying to us that we had to make these cuts to save 80% of what we had. If we had not made them, we would have lost it all. It really took some guts to say that we had to get our fiscal house in order.

What has happened by making the tough decisions when the government took over? In 1997 we had a balanced budget and a small surplus. We were talking about things like what is the fiscal dividend. A fiscal dividend is not the surplus. The fiscal dividend is how much interest we will save by paying down debt. That is the permanent savings. Since we have balanced the budget, now eight consecutive budgets, about $65 billion of national debt has been paid down at a savings to Canadians of $3 billion plus each and every year, which is available to invest in health care and in the other priorities of Canadians. A $100 billion tax cut plan was fully implemented about two years ago.

It raises a question. I hear members ask about defence and tax cuts. Those are all important priorities. However, I am pretty sure that if we tried to address all the important elements of Canadian society in one budget, whether they be social or otherwise, we would do nothing well. We would never reach a credible threshold where we would actually have a meaningful impact. It means that we have to make some choices.

I always look not at a budget, but at the series of budgets. I look at where we are and if we have responded. If we were to make decisions that we would just do this one thing, we would never be able to catch up. It is about making choices. It is about government. If we make the wrong choices, or imprudent choices or irresponsible choices, there will be an election and the government will be judged. However, the government was re-elected four times because of the fiscal management of the country's finances. That is the issue.

The issue is that Canada is in reasonable shape. We can do better, but we are on the right track. We did not go into a recession when the U.S. went into one. We have not had a recession here since back in the eighties. The economic forecasters would never have thought or bet that Canada would not be in a recession for a dozen years.

People look objectively at the performance of Canada and it is not simply because government is making good choices. It is also because, through the prudence and contingency factors, we have put into place underpinnings so Canada can be resilient to the ebbs and flows of economic realities. It means that when things are bad we can do some things.

That was one of the problems with Brian Mulroney. There were growing deficits in each and every one of the eight years of the Mulroney government. During that period, if I recall correctly, there were some pretty good years.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate what the previous questioner asked. I want to point out the origins of Bill C-48. We had Bill C-43 before this and the Conservative leader agreed to support it, but he changed his mind. We wonder why he changed his mind.

I will get right to the question. The question is whether or not the member's leader has any credibility. I went to my friends in the Conservative Party and I asked them why he changed his mind and they basically said that they are going to have a big makeover.

My question is, who is going to pay for this makeover? Who is going to do it? Are other members? When I look across the foyer, I note that other members would benefit from a makeover. Are other members going to be eligible to benefit from this makeover? There would be chaos--

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of dialogue over there. I can understand that it is a little defensive, because we are hearing from an individual who is prepared to sell his vote and cheapen himself to the point where he would actually sacrifice the democracy of the country in order to put forward a budget in the way Bill C-48 came forward. Actually, I have a difficult time seeing it as a budget. It is illegitimate. I find it absolutely inappropriate.

We see that kind of desperation from the individuals in the NDP when they ask questions like that. What happened with the vote on Bill C-43, if my hon. colleague is serious about understanding what actually happened there, was that Bill C-43 was not a bill we thought we could accept. We sat down and said we would get it into committee and that when we got it into committee we would ask for amendments. We were able to get the amendments. We were not like the NDP who said they would take all the money and illegitimately spend it.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

He loved the budget. Then, later on, as things changed, the Conservatives decided to work with the Bloc to try to bring down the government and we as New Democrats were supposed to sit here and do nothing.

Instead, we sought to find out if we could improve Bill C-43 into something that we could support. Instead of waiting for the members of the opposition to decide whether or not to bring the government down, we at least worked to try to find out if we were going to have an improved budget.

It is important to note that the Conservatives started waffling then. Once again they decided that they would support Bill C-43. They did not vote the first time, but they did vote for it just last week, and today we have them voting against Bill C-48.

What they are against is a modest improvement to the budget that at least gives some type of improvement to students. It gives some improvement to our environment, to issues on housing, which we have long sought, and to pension protection for workers, which has been sought by many Canadians.

It is interesting as well to note that when the Conservatives voted for Bill C-43, they voted for the corporate tax cuts. That is the situation they are in. At the end of the day, let us note that the member criticized the farm and health care aspects, but they are left supporting a budget that did nothing for those aspects.

We finally have an improvement to the budget. I would like to ask the hon. member about his reference to the party platform and the election. Should Canada still buy an aircraft carrier or should it invest in health care? What is his position on that?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to answer that question because I thought I had laid it out fairly clearly that I thought Bill C-48 was an illegitimate cooked up budget that was not about the money but was about trying to support an illegitimate government.

The hon. member wants to know why we supported Bill C-43. We supported it because we were able to make some needed amendments to it in committee. Although Bill C-43 was the biggest spending budget we have seen in a decade, we were not overly concerned with it. With the amendments we said that it was not everything but in a minority we try to move the debate along and try to do what is in the best interests of Canadians and we decided to support it so we could move on.

However Bill C-48 was an illegitimately cooked up, 400 full words, made in a room in Toronto, and the hon. member thinks that is okay and that is the way we should run this country. I find that absolutely amazing. He has been here for a considerable amount of time and he understands how the process works. What would that say if we said that was okay to all those people we consulted on Bill C-43 and who had an opportunity for input, including the NDP, by the way, who said that if it was a priority we should get on with it?

What should we say to those individuals who had input on Bill C-43 when the government completely reverses it and comes up with Bill C-48? Worse than that, it does one offs and adds another $20-some billion of spending on top of that to try to prepare for an election for the Canadian public. That is what is absolutely pathetic and unbelievable when we look at what has happened here.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that to build oneself up by dragging someone else down is not parliamentary. It is not parliamentary language that the member used and I will not comment further.

He referred several times to propping up a government. We have made it very clear that we are in a minority situation. It is the first time since Joe Clark in 1979. We cannot govern a minority government as if we had a majority. It means collaboration and cooperation among all parties. At least the NDP had the good sense to sit down and talk about responsible changes.

The member talked about how important it was to pay down the debt and yet I cannot think of one member over there who has not spoken at the prior stage, at report stage, and at his stage who has not said that the existence of a surplus means that we are overtaxing and that we have to lower taxes. They cannot have it both ways and be fiscally responsible.

If he feels this strongly, why is it that the Conservative Party voted in favour of the budget implementation bill, Bill C-43, but is now turning around and going to vote against Bill C-48 which represents a 1% increase in annual spending? Why does he want to topple the government and send Parliament into an election. Why is there so much outrage at 1%? It makes no sense. The Conservatives want it both ways but they cannot have it both ways.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Yes, a very desperate party doing desperate things.

I just want to pick up on the comments made by my colleagues who suggested that the Liberal Party always does what is in the best interests of Canadians, particularly when it comes to health care. It is something I just cannot leave alone because I am very passionate about protecting our health care system. I understand that Canadians are very concerned about it. Many people are dying while they are on wait lists for health services that they cannot get.

A year ago during the election campaign, we laid out our platform before the Canadian people. It is not about the opposition trying to take down a government that is in power. It is about laying an alternative before the people of Canada so they have the opportunity to discern what is in their best interests. We laid out our health care platform during the election campaign. We indicated the number of dollars that would be needed for health care in the next number of years to sustain it in the short term. Our plan was to make sure that would take place.

The Liberal government did exactly the same thing. The Liberals accused us of having too rich a budget, that we could not afford it, that it was going to break the bank and there was no way in the world that Canada could afford the number of dollars the Conservative Party had suggested. It is interesting. Just think about this. The election was in June and by September we had the 2004 accord. The first ministers sat down with the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister said, “We are going to fix health care for a generation”.

There was no possible way that was going to happen, and it certainly did not. Nonetheless the numbers, the dollar figures that came out of that, which we hear the Liberal government bragging about intently, were not the numbers on which the Liberals went to Canadians last June to ask for a mandate to support health care. The dollar numbers that were actually agreed on were in fact almost identical to the numbers in our budget, which were double the amount of dollars for health care.

We understand that health care is a priority. We understand that people are dying on wait lists. What we cannot understand is a government that over the last decade has pulled $25 billion out of health care.

When the Liberals cooked up a deal with the NDP in order to stay in power, it is interesting that the NDP did not recognize the importance of health care and tried to come up with a way of fixing it, not just for the next decade but for the generation beyond the next 10 years.

The real challenge in health care is not whether it should be a more private or a more public health care. The real challenge is how to sustain it over the next 30 to 40 years as the baby boomer bubble hits our system and, at the same time, understand that when the demand on health care and the amount of money that will have to be put into it will be coming at a time when we will have a diminishing number of taxpayers paying for the service. Therefore we have a significant problem.

We do not have time to play politics with health care any more, as has been happening over the last decade under the Liberal government. It is unbelievable that we see that kind of dishonesty in health care and that kind of dishonesty in budgeting. It is an abomination and it is something that Canadians really have to discern.

I do not think Canadians will be fooled by the government. I do not think they will be fooled by the display of what went on to get Bill C-48 here this evening. They understand that this is a desperate government propped up by a party that has never had an opportunity to do anything and probably never will. The NDP members had an opportunity to stay true to their conscience. They say they are the great defenders of democracy and yet we see what they did. They threw democracy in the air for $4.6 billion. It is an unbelievable situation.

Why I have spent most of my time so far talking about Bill C-48 is because Bill C-48 is not the real issue. The real issue is how we could treat democracy in such a pathetic way and cook up a deal in a hotel room by desperate people trying to stay in power. It is not about Canadians and it is not about the $4.6 billion because after the $4.6 billion what did we see? We saw $26 billion being applied to try to buy off the Canadian public prior to what the Liberals thought was going to be an election.

The Liberals tried to buy off Quebec. They bought off the NDP. They tried to buy off the Canadian electorate. If that was not bad enough, they had to try to buy opposition votes because they needed a few more and they were able to do that by offering and giving power. They not only offer dollars but they offer power.

We ask ourselves why Canadians are so cynical about this place and how politics have deteriorated in this country. I say to everyone in the House that we had better soberly understand and think about what we are trying to do here and who we are trying to support. It is not each other nor is it our parties. It is the people of Canada. Too many times the members of the House forget that. We do it in a matter of days around here. It seems to be a very easy thing to fall into that trap. I think we need to understand that.

Let us look at Bill C-48 and discern what Bill C-48 is actually saying. It talks about $4.6 billion but the dollars are not well planned out and there are no accountability measures. What happens to that money?

The ad scam, one of the reasons that we are here, is a perfect example of what happens. Money was misappropriated and it went to places that it should not have gone to, propping up the Liberal government. We have seen other examples of it with the gun registry. The Liberal government made a promise that Canadians would only pay $2 million for that registry and it is now closer to $2 billion. Submarines are another example of the inappropriate use of money. We have seen HRDC and Shawinigan. We could just go on and on.

We could go into each one of those in detail and perhaps we should just to remind the Canadian public how badly the Liberal government treats the Canadian purse when it starts doing these one-offs without any accountability measures. If we want to add some confidence of the Canadian public in this House that has to stop.

This House has a long history of serving the country, which is one of the greatest countries in the world, but it should not be one of the greatest, it should be the greatest. No country in the world has the amount of resources and wealth that Canada has with a population of 32 million. We should be leading the nation in every sector and in every way. We should be an example of how a country should be run. In some ways we do it in spite of the government because we have lots to be proud of, but we could be so much more and so much better. It is a shame that we have to run a government the way we have and the way we are doing it under this piece of legislation.

What we are talking about here is money. Let us look at some of the priorities of the NDP when it was prepared to sell its soul. The number one issue in my riding and from coast to coast is agriculture. I do not know where the NDP votes are really coming from or why it is not thinking of the Canadian people, but the number one issue in my riding is agriculture. The BSE issue has hit them in a way that has never hit the agriculture industry before.

In my riding it is doubly bad because there were two years of drought and grasshopper problems and on top of that they have now had two years of the BSE crisis. Farmers are in suicidal situations. Many of them are visiting my office and many of them are calling. It is an unbelievable situation in agriculture and the NDP cooks up what it says is a deal of a lifetime and forgets to even think about what is actually happening with the number one issue in the country with regard to a serious crisis situation.

The Liberal government has also failed the agricultural community. In budget after budget we have seen its priorities and the message it is sending to the farmers and producers is that they should get out of agriculture. That has to stop. We do not understand just how serious a situation it is and how important it is to be able to support it.

We all realized that this was a cooked up budget for all the wrong reasons but it was there. What were we going to do about it? When it got into committee we tried to address some of the concerns. We wanted to put some sanity around it. We tried to put a plan in place so that the government would at least be responsible enough, even though it was going to spend the money, to ensure the money would be applied in an appropriate way. That sounded reasonable to me and it makes no sense whatsoever why the Liberals failed to do that.

When it comes to accountability for that money, there needs to be a plan and some accountability measures around it or we will see the same kind of misuse of funds that we have seen in many of these other programs.

The first change we requested was to clause 2 and accountability was in clause 3. In clause 1 we wanted to make sure the government did not forget that it had a $500 billion debt load. We wanted the government to understand that the debt had to be dealt with or we would be dealing with some serious problems down the road because the economy does not usually go straight up. It usually has some bumps along the way. A good, prudent manager would understand that something like that would happen.

Not only that, a good, prudent manager would have a slush fund, which we have. It is a $4 billion slush fund. However the NDP deal took half of that away and now the slush fund is only $2 billion. We are sitting on dangerous ground and we are being asked to come into this House and support it. We are asked to come in here and debate it in the wee hours of the evening and try to come up with a reason why we should support a budget that would do this to the tax purse of the Canadian public. There is no reason that I can think of and it is an absolutely unbelievable thing.

Not only did this cooked up deal take the $4.6 billion out of it but it also tried to eliminate the tax reductions. We know that if the government can apply $26 billion to it, it also has extra money.

In closing, I would like to move:

That the motion be amended by adding:

And the committee report back no later than December 16, 2005.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the constituents of Yellowhead with regard to this piece of legislation, if we can call it that. Before we can get into a serious dialogue with regard to this two page $4.6 billion disaster, we have to understand exactly how we got to the point where late on a June evening we are speaking to a piece of legislation that was brought forward in such an unorthodox way.

I listened intently to my colleagues from the other parties speak to this legislation. I do not for one minute believe the reason we are talking about it today is the $4.6 billion or all of the noble things the bill is supposed to provide to the Canadian people. This 400 word document was cooked up in a backroom of some hotel in Toronto by a labour party organization, a desperate Prime Minister and the leader of the NDP. We have to examine what really went on and why it came forward in the first place.

It certainly was not a noble plan that was decided upon because of astute people thinking this was the appropriate thing to do. It was actually a sellout by a desperate Prime Minister who would do almost anything to stay in power because of the scandal his government was caught in. Not only is it the scandal of the decade, but I believe it will go down as the worst thing in Canadian history that we have seen in the House.

It has created a considerable amount of cynicism among the people in my riding and across the country. They see what is going on in this place and ask if that is what federal politics and the federal government have really boiled down to. Has it gotten to the point where it is all about cooking up a backroom deal to try to save one's political hide and stay in power illegitimately?

That is really what this $4.6 billion is all about. That is what the deal was all about. It was the price the NDP charged the Liberal Party for garnering the NDP's 19 votes to support a corrupt government and allow it to stay in power.

If that were not bad enough, the government over the last decade did the same sort of thing for the province of Quebec. It tried to prop up the Liberal Party of Canada illegitimately through the abomination of the ad scam. The Gomery inquiry has allowed Canadians to examine very clearly and understand in a more fulsome way than ever before just how terrible it was, what went on behind the scenes and the amount of corruption involved. Millions of dollars were being passed around in brown envelopes to try to prop up the Liberal Party. That scandal makes the Watergate scandal in the United States a few decades ago look like child's play. Canadians look at this and become very cynical.

It is amazing when one sees what is actually happening in Quebec. No wonder the Liberal Party has absolutely tanked in the province of Quebec. The writers of soap operas would have to work overtime to keep up with the drama that this place has provided for the people of Quebec as they watch the amount of corruption. Sex, war and violence make for a good soap opera and it seems we have had that here in the last few months. That absolutely has to stop. It is almost at the point where members of Parliament on this side when they go home on weekends have to take multiple showers just to clean the sleaze off from what we see in the House.

I put my name on a ballot to try to garner the support and trust of the people in my constituency of Yellowhead. I took that on as a very important and honoured position. I have come to the House to represent them in way which allows them to hold their heads high.

I think each member needs to understand that we are here not because of our self-interest but because of the interests of the people we represent. Too many members forget that too quickly after an election. We had an election a year ago. We have seen what it will take for a party to try to stay in power. I find it absolutely amazing when I see that happen.

Let us get on to the actual piece of legislation. Before we get to Bill C-48, we have to talk about its precursor, which is Bill C-43, and understand how it came about.

Bill C-43 is the biggest spending budget we have seen in a decade. An amazing amount of dollars is in Bill C-43. When the budget was first handed down, it went through a process as normal budgets do. There was a lot of consultation, a lot of input. In a minority government it is very important that the government sit down and talk to all parties intently to have their input into the budget. Bill C-43 had a fair amount of that, more than we have seen in other budgets. The House can understand that because it is a minority government and we need to respect that.

When Bill C-43 came forward, although not everything was in the best interests of Canadians, we thought there was certainly enough there that was better than we had seen before. There were some things that needed to be changed in committee. We sat on our hands for the first vote to get the bill into committee so we could address some of the serious problems.

We certainly needed to deal with the CEPA amendments. We certainly needed to deal with making sure that the budget represented the population and that it was in the best interests of all Canadians.

We have to understand what the finance minister said about the budget . He said that we could not run this country by one-offs, that we could not just cherry-pick and apply money illegitimately, without a plan or a purpose and without full consultation. What we saw coming out of this budget was exactly that because the government not only tried to stay in power illegitimately after the NDP budget, which is Bill C-48, but it tried to stay in power through Bill C-43.

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am trying hard to understand. I have done a number of analyses and I do not understand their reluctance to approve this budget. It is beyond the scope of my imagination. As we say in English, it flies in the face of logic.

This NDP budget, Bill C-48, I would say to my eminent NDP colleague is still quite Liberal. All of these priorities had been identified in the throne speech. Canadians had asked us—asked all the parties—to make this government work.

There is no doubt that we listened to what the NDP told us, but we had no objection to investing in the four areas Bill C-48 identified as additional investments. Of these four categories, I give Canadians' priorities special attention.

However, what surprises me—as I told you as well—is that their own premier, Mr. Charest, is asking them to pass the budget. Now I do not understand. I am wracking my brain trying to figure out why they are not celebrating all over Quebec. Well, they are pessimists. Their role is to separate Quebec from Canada. It is not to see the good things Canada does, such as support Quebeckers.

I cannot therefore tell my colleague exactly what is going on in the heads of my Bloc colleagues. First, I am not a Quebecker, then I am certainly not a representative of that political party. They will have to be asked themselves. From what they say, no doubt, they are having a hard time admitting that this Liberal government is addressing the needs of Canadians and Quebeckers.

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I agree 100% with the response by my NDP colleague. The Bloc Québécois should be applauding Bill C-48. It should be rejoicing. Their own premier is asking them to support the budget. The Bloc says it represents Quebec but perhaps it should listen to its constituents.

The fiscal imbalance is being discussed to death. A transfer of $1.3 billion from federal gas taxes was just announced. The Bloc should be applauding this. I do not understand why it is not happy. Does it simply prefer to hear bad news?

We are talking about the fiscal imbalance, but they voted against the Canada Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec. I have trouble understanding their pessimism and negativity. At some point, the Bloc members should start representing the interests of Quebeckers as they say they do. Quebec needs to be un-Blocked and, to some extent, given the representation it deserves.

Based on their comments, it is my opinion that they do not knowingly represent the interests of Quebeckers and certainly not the interests of Canadians.

[Marc Godbout, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the member and representative for the riding of Ottawa—Orléans, it is a privilege and an honour for me to address Bill C-48 this evening, on behalf of my fellow citizens.

This bill will allow us to make new investments that will add even more to a budget which, in everyone's opinion, is a strong, balanced and responsible budget. It has been called visionary. Indeed, this is a budget that provides a direction to Canadians for the next 10 years.

A large number of us, and a majority of Canadians, firmly believe in this budget. Given the initiatives included in the original budget to promote, among other things, more affordable child care services, a stronger economy, the protection of our environment, thriving cities and communities, there is no doubt in my mind that this is definitely a budget prepared with the priorities of Canadians in mind.

We are in the process of accomplishing great things which, in turn, will make Canada a stronger nation.

However, no one ever said that this was a perfect budget. Of course, we in this House are always striving for perfection. There is an old saying in French which says that what is good always strives for the better. So, there was room for improvement. I myself was the first one to deplore, here in this House, that the original budget did not give the pressing needs of official language communities and post-secondary education, for example, the attention that these issues deserve.

I was more than pleased when we recently announced a further investment which included $1.6 billion for affordable housing and $1.5 billion to enhance access to post-secondary education and support training. As a former assistant deputy minister of education in Ontario, I applaud that investment in knowledge economy.

There is an extra $900 million for the environment, including assisting public transit and a low income housing energy retrofit program, and $500 million in foreign aid.

These new measures flow from our throne speech and budget 2005, and as the Minister of Finance previously said, they build on our government's effort to increase federal financial support for the priorities of Canadians in key areas but in a fiscally responsible manner.

The opposition members have been critical of these spending announcements, and especially of our deal with the NDP saying that it is fiscally irresponsible. I do not understand that because the funding for those initiatives stems directly from the budget which the opposition indicated it supported the day it was introduced. These initiatives have been announced because of sound fiscal management of the Liberal government. This is why we are able to invest further dollars in the priorities of Canadians without going into deficit.

The government has never strayed from its stance of fiscal prudence. In fact, new spending in recent announcements totals $9 billion spread over five years. The fact is that most of the past week's announcements have already been announced or accounted for in budget 2005 and are obviously not new spending. They are also contingent upon maintaining budgetary surpluses over that period.

The Prime Minister has been clear on this. The budget deal with the NDP represents an overall increase in spending of about 1% and it has been explicitly declared that we will not return to a deficit.

I want, instead, to come back to the investments set out in Bill C-48: $1.6 billion for affordable housing. More specifically, this agreement provides $602 million over the next four years to increase affordable housing units in Ontario alone.

This is clearly a giant step, because it will enable us to provide more affordable housing in communities throughout Ontario. Thousands of people, particularly those with mental health problems, victims of domestic violence and low-income families, will have a real place to call home as a result. It is very hard for me to understand why the opposition would oppose investments for such vulnerable individuals.

In more concrete terms, some 20,000 Ontario households will benefit from this agreement, including 5,000 low-income households that will benefit from subsidized housing.

The Liberal government currently spends approximately $2 billion per year, through CMHC, to fund 636,000 affordable housing units. By 2006-07, we will have invested an additional $2 billion to fight homelessness and increase the number of affordable housing units.

And what about the $1.5 billion to improve access to post-secondary education and training? As I mentioned, as a former educator, I was admittedly delighted to hear this news. As I said earlier, I have been fighting for a long time for this level of government to play a greater role. I have always believed that success starts with learning and innovation. Access to quality education is therefore vital to Canada's future, prosperity, competitiveness and productivity.

Furthermore, I applaud the fact that Bill C-48 will allocate another $900 million for the environment, including assistance for public transit and a low income housing energy retrofit program, making this budget an even greener budget.

The preservation of our environment is an important issue for all of us. I can say without a doubt that public transportation is an issue that especially concerns the people of Ottawa--Orléans and the National Capital Region. Indeed, we are avidly awaiting the completion of the north-south O-Train transit system corridor, and finally, we hope, the beginning of the next phase that would interest me as the representative for Ottawa--Orléans, the east-west corridor, hopefully in a few years from now, stemming from these investments.

The Government of Canada will provide public transit investment of up to $800 million over the next two years. These funds are in addition to the $5 billion over five years in gas tax money announced last February.

As we know, the Liberal government is strongly committed to supporting public transit infrastructure. This investment will thus further help cities and communities to meet the growing demand for better public transit while also enhancing the new deals for the ability of cities and communities to address national environmental objectives.

Indeed, these funds will enable cities and communities to immediately increase their infrastructure and public transit capacities, reduce congestion and limit air pollution and greenhouse gases.

In closing, I also want to mention that our government is committed, with Bill C-48, to injecting $500 million into foreign aid. Of that amount, several million dollars, roughly $198 million, will be used to fund peace initiatives and international humanitarian relief efforts in the Sudan.

Last week, I had the opportunity to welcome Senator Roméo Dallaire to my riding. He was supporting an initiative by the Jeanne Sauvé school to sponsor a school in the Sudan in order to support that community during this difficult time.

For the people of Ottawa—Orléans, this additional aid to developing countries is certainly a positive measure.

To conclude, I want to reiterate that we have here a very important bill that, in my opinion, has to be passed in its entirety. It would be too bad, if not shameful, to obstruct measures for further completing and improving a budget whose importance and fiscal discipline was something all Canadians could agree on.

The behaviour of the official opposition and, in some ways, of the Bloc, especially in committee, is deplorable. Their tactics and hard line attitude have done nothing to improve the lot of Canadians. It is clear that in their quest for power they are prepared to go as far as putting their own interests before the interests of the people they claim to represent.

Bill C-48 reflects not only the Liberal government's determination to keep its promises and maintain a balanced budget, but also its openness and willingness to adopt new measures that will contribute to the well-being of Canadian and international communities.

As the member of Parliament for Ottawa—Orléans, I can never say enough about how proud I am and how privileged I feel to represent and serve my constituents. Under the leadership of our Prime Minister, we are more dedicated than ever to the improvement of the well-being of all Canadians. I strongly believe that this bill represents a further step in the right direction. Therefore, it has my full support. I sincerely hope that reason will prevail and that this budget will be unanimously approved by all parties.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Is that not interesting? The member from Churchill is suggesting that it is not our money. He is right. It is not our money. We are looking at the fact that this is the money of Canadians. This is money that ought to be invested in projects and programs that help Canadians. It is neither our money nor is it the money of corporations. An expenditure on a tax cut is revenue lost.

Let us understand one thing. This is about choices. Now the Conservatives choose always to give corporate tax cuts, no matter how much corporations today are floating in profits. It is an obsession with them.

We, on this side of the House, believe that this is the time to give Canadians a break. Who has borne the burden of the kind of agenda we have had from the Liberals over the last 10 to 12 years? It has been the average Canadian. It is Canadians who had to bear the brunt of the cutbacks of the Liberals, starting in 1993, when the Liberal government, following on the heels and the patterns of the Mulroney Conservatives, decided to rip the heck out of our social programs. It took $6.8 billion out of our social programs, out of health and education. It took the biggest cut out of our social programs in the history of our country. Canadians had to tighten their belts. They were told that when good time came they would get their share.

What happened in 1997 when we were out of the darkness, as the Liberals would like to suggest, when we had a balanced budget and we started to see surpluses? Who got the money then? It was corporations. There was $100 billion in tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy and nothing for ordinary Canadians.

There was no big restoration of programs that were so desperately needed. There was no big break for workers across the country and their families. It was the corporations that reaped the benefits of that kind of growth in our economy. Therefore, Canadians were told again to wait, that they would get their turn once the government got through this and the corporations got their tax cut. Once there was more surplus, they will get their share.

What happened then? We have $80 billion in surplus dollars over five budgets. Where did it go? It went to the new target of the Liberals, supported by the Conservatives, and that was to ensure that the debt to GDP ratio was down past 25%. Never mind if Canadians have a leaky roof, never mind if their kids are sick and cannot get the help they need, never mind if there is not enough food to go around, never mind if their sons and daughters cannot go to university as long as those corporations get their way yet again.

We have heard nothing but innuendo, false statements and irresponsible actions on the part of the Conservatives day in and day out in this debate. They have not presented Canadians with the facts. They have not emphasized the issues in terms of tax breaks for corporations going up, profits going up and investment going down. They have not said anything about the possibility of creating jobs by investing in areas that both help Canadians, create jobs and grow the economy.

Let us remember that business claims, just like the Conservative claims throughout this whole budget debate, about how this NDP deal will damage business investment and destroy jobs are so overblown that they stretch the limits of credulity.

We have heard from the Conservative friends, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, that says, “My goodness, the sky is falling”. We have heard from the C.D. Howe Institute, “My goodness, how irresponsible can they get”. We have heard from some of the big banks, “This is terrible”. However, they do not want to mention those corporations and businesses that are responsible citizens in our country and that believe very strongly in the need to invest in the economy.

I want to mention a couple of them. I want to mention the statement we received from Husky Injection Molding Systems. The CEO said:

I commend the Prime Minister for continuing to demonstrate fiscal prudence while at the same time embracing sound social policy. The social policy acceleration announced by the Prime Minister and Mr. Layton yesterday should be viewed as an investment in our future, our children's future and the future of our country.

That is just one example. Let me mention another one from the former chief economist of the RBC Dominion Securities and Richardson Greenshields who said:

The Conservatives are in need of an issue. To pull out of the nose dive caused by the [taping] fiasco and the questions around [their leader's] judgment, the Conservatives have decided to set their sights on Bill C-48, the budget deal the NDP leader, [the member for Toronto--Danforth] struck with the Liberal government in April.

He goes on to say:

Competitiveness is driven by many other factors. Better transit leading to fewer smog days; affordable housing for better, safer neighbourhoods; quality, accessible post-secondary education to create a world class workforce; publicly delivered health care which gives Canadian businesses an edge over regional competitors like the United States. These are the key elements of a progressive, 21st century economy.

That is what we aim to do with Bill C-48. We aim to create an economy that includes everyone. We aim to create an economy that is based on the values of human decency and compassion. We aim to strive for the highest ideals which say that there should be no difference between the son of a banker having a better chance going to university than the daughter of a plumber.

We say that every life has value and without those values and going the way that the Conservatives suggest, we end up in nothing more than a ruthless jungle. We are talking about the Conservatives' politics of the jungle. There is no sensitivity to the needs of individuals or recognition of the struggles that families face.

Therefore, we have suggested that there ought to be an investment in education so everyone has a chance to benefit from higher education and training to get those good jobs. We say there should be money in housing so people do not have to worry about whether they have a roof over their head, whether their basement is filled with water or whether there are leaks happening.

People should be able to breath the air without needing a puffer because of the smog in our cities. There should be some decent public transit in this day and age to help deal with our commitment to Kyoto. Canada, the wealthy nation that it is, has an obligation to the world as well by sharing some of our wealth with those people who earn $1 or $2 a year in other parts of the world.

I urge members to stop the games, get on with making Parliament work, and bring home this budget for Canadians.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a great pleasure to speak tonight on third reading of Bill C-48, the better balanced budget sponsored by the NDP. I cannot begin to say how much joy we at this end of the House feel for the contribution we have made to this country. I cannot begin to say how fulfilling it is to know that we have been able to play a small part in making this Parliament work.

Before I go any further in expressing my jubilation and excitement about this moment in our history, let me express a frustration that I think all Canadians must be feeling tonight, that is, just when Canadians thought we were this close to accomplishing something great, to finally getting the budget through, to seeing some investments made in critical areas, the Conservatives come along with yet another obstructive tactic. It is not just the occasional obstruction we are seeing from the Conservatives, but aggressive, perpetual, impolite and almost disgusting obstructionist tactics.

Here we are, having gone through all kinds of antics and tactics, patiently waiting while the Conservatives played their games, and tonight at third reading, the final stage of the bill, the Conservatives come along with another delaying tactic, with another motion to send the budget back to committee. That is an absolutely irresponsible action on the part of the Conservative Party.

Let me say, though, that in case those members think those kinds of tactics will get them anywhere, we are determined to stay here as long as it takes. Perhaps the members across the way would like to listen to this, because it is important. We are telling those members that we are prepared to stay for as long as it takes to accomplish something for Canadians, to deliver the budget bill for Canadians.

We know we are going to go through a lot of hardships and heartache by being here. I see that the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam is getting a little agitated already by my comments. I hope he settles down and listens for a few minutes.

Let me say for all of us that staying here longer than normal and staying here for an unspecified amount of time is obviously going to mean some hardship and heartache for people in the House, for members of Parliament, and for those who serve us and their families. Many of us have graduations to attend that are important for our constituents. Some of us have graduations for our children. Some of us will have to forgo a very important opportunity in the interest of putting the public good ahead of our own personal interests.

On that score, I want to pay a special tribute to my son Nick, my special son Nick, who is no doubt watching tonight and who is going to graduate in a couple of days. I want to say that I hope he appreciates what his mom is doing and that he understands the kind of work we are doing in this place.

I want to take a moment to pay tribute to all of those people who have made it possible for us to be here. We so seldom express our thanks to the table officers, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the pages, the security folks, the translators, the interpreters, the Hansard staff, and the food services, everyone who makes it possible for us to be here well into the wee hours of the morning each and every night. I think it is important that we acknowledge the hard work and the contribution made by so many who help us here in this place.

I also want to convey my special thanks to those who serve the finance committee. We went through a very difficult process because of the Conservatives' tactics and the games they were playing. I want to pay tribute to the parliamentary staff and the clerk of that committee, Mr. Richard Dupuis, who in fact, as members will know, suffered a great injustice from the Conservatives, who decided a couple of weeks ago to publicly disparage the work of the clerk of this committee.

The member for Medicine Hat was quoted in the Ottawa Citizen for suggesting that the clerk was not doing his job and was doing jiggery-pokery. Despite the fact that the committee went over in great detail how exemplary that person did his job and how meticulous he was in ensuring that witnesses were called, the Conservatives, and particularly the member for Medicine Hat, did not have the decency to publicly apologize and that is a shame.

Now I want to talk about this historic moment. This is truly a moment of which we are very proud. It is a time when we have achieved something by co-operating, by making a minority Parliament work. It is something that seems to be anathema to the Conservatives who do not seem to get what it means to work out something when there is the possibility of cooperation. It seems to me they do not have any semblance of an idea of two parties sitting down, finding something in common and working out an arrangement. They seem to think this is nothing but a secret deal that is bad for everybody.

They cannot understand that Canadians want us to co-operate. They want us to work together, they want to make Parliament work and they appreciate what we have been able to do in this Parliament.

This is the first time in the history of the CCF-NDP that we have been able to bring in an NDP budget. It took a great deal of commitment and hard work on the part of the party's leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth. It took a great deal on the part of our House leader, the member for Vancouver East. It took a great deal of commitment and teamwork on the part of everyone in the NDP caucus.

I again hear the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam suggesting that it is not really such a big deal, it only accounts for 2% of the GDP. Is that not interesting? The Conservatives want it both ways. One minute they say that we have engaged in a wasteful expenditure and that we are bringing this planet to its end and this country to its knees because of this huge budget bill. Now the member is saying that it is only 2%.

In fact, it is 1.15% of GDP. The member makes our case. We have been responsible in this process. We have brought forward a balanced budget. We have ensured that it will not at any time lead to a deficit. We have ensured that there is a surplus. We have ensured there is $2 billion for the debt. That is responsible fiscal planning. That is a responsible parliamentary exercise.

We have not heard anything positive from those folks, not a word about what they would have done. They are crying crocodile tears because they did nothing. This budget bill may not be perfect, we may not have covered every area that was in need and we may not have been able to respond to every Canadian's demand, but we did something. That something is better than the nothing the Conservatives brought to the table.

One of the great sins in our society today is the sin of omission. The Conservatives have committed the sin of omission by not acting, by sitting back and acting like back-seat drivers. That is what they are, noisy, back-seat drivers. They are not in the driving seat. They are sitting there yapping because they could not do anything. They would not do anything and did not do anything for Canadians.

Let us not forget what this is all about and what it means. Let us deal with some of the nonsense, myths and silly ideas that the folks over there have been suggesting day in and day out in these debates.

Let us keep in mind, while we are talking about the games that were played, that members of the finance committee heard nothing but obstruction and filibustering by the Conservatives, the same as they are doing in the House. We saw nothing but an attempt by the Conservatives to block genuine witnesses from making their views known to the committee. We sat through hours of embarrassing interventions by the Conservatives who chose to interrupt every witness on a point of order because they did not have the decency or the courtesy to let those witnesses speak

It is about time that those games ended. It is about time that the Conservatives realize they ought to get back to work and start working on behalf of Canadians.

Let us go back to February 23 for a little history on the budget. Let us go back to that moment when the Minister of Finance tabled his budget.

Members will recall that some of us in the House were shocked at some of the additions and omissions in that budget. We were as shocked in the New Democratic Party as the business community was to see that there was another corporate tax reduction. They did not expect it. We certainly did not expect it. We believed the Prime Minister when he said in the election that there would be no new tax cuts until the Liberals had done their responsible restoration of funds for programs that had been cut.

We took a close look at the budget and realized not only was there another $4.6 billion for corporate tax cuts, but there was nothing in the budget for education, nothing for housing, very little for the environment and public transit and insufficient amounts for international aid.

There were other areas of gaps and needs that we were not able to negotiate. However, we managed to address four important areas for Canadians.

What has been so ironic in this debate or so hard to understand is that the Conservatives will stand in the House and criticize us for doing this. Yet they also stand and say that we did not include agriculture, or we did not include potholes, or we did not include highways or we did not include the military, a whole list of things. They did not have the nerve to suggest one thing themselves. They did not put one idea on the table. They did not try to negotiate anything with the government. Yet they have the nerve and the audacity to criticize us for trying something that is making a difference for Canadians and is appreciated and welcomed by them.

The Conservatives would like us to believe that there is something horrible about taking another corporate tax cut, scrapping it and investing that money in areas that mean a lot to Canadians.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we did not join with the Conservatives. We do not in fact support Bill C-48, but that is, in the main, for our own reasons. Presenting things this way is just a rhetorical device. It is as if I said the Liberals and the NDP were identical. Mind you, Trudeau always said that the New Democrats were Liberals in a hurry. I am beginning to believe it now.

That is not the issue. Behind this operation, the NDP, unfortunately, has supported a corrupt party and government. I will say that I am feeling rather uncomfortable for the NDP, which was party to an operation that prevented the people of Canada and Quebec from punishing this government. There is no alliance with the Conservatives. It is nothing like that.

I think the NDP made a grave mistake by enabling this government to survive for a few months, because it will be just for a few months. They should have gone to the public following the revelations of the Gomery commission. Moreover, no thought was given to the unemployed. There is nothing on employment insurance and nothing on the fiscal imbalance.

As I mentioned at the outset, they traded substance for shadows—certainty for uncertainty. We will have no part of that.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. When we read the bill we see that there are a great many “ifs” and “maybes”. First, there needs to be a $2 billion surplus every year. We know there will be one since the Minister of Finance has constantly underestimated the surpluses.

Nonetheless, if the Liberals did not want to give the money because it did not suit them to do so for one reason or another, they could change their mind—we know what they are like. That said, if they just spent money on other programs they could end up with a $2 billion surplus without having to say a word about keeping their promises.

The Comptroller General was asked whether this bill was binding. The answer was no. It is a line of credit the federal government has opened to spend the maximum in every sector. Take international aid for example. The maximum is $500 million. There is no guarantee this money will be spent.

I think we should have had—in fact this was suggested in the Standing Committee on Finance—a much more cohesive bill. The haste of drafting Bill C-48 just to form a political alliance is probably what made it so vague. It leaves the Liberal Party of Canada and current government with a lot of elbow room.