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

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the member well knows, and certainly the people on this side of the House well know, we cannot do any kind of social investing unless we have our fiscal fundamentals right.

We are in a very advantageous position in this country. Our fiscal fundamentals are right. Bill C-43 represents the eighth balanced budget in a row. It also anticipates that going forward we will have a further five balanced budgets in a row. That, in turn, leads to some very happy results. It leads to some pretty low interest rates and some good inflation bands. We are within a band of one to three and that is acceptable to the minister and to the government.

With low interest, low inflation, balanced budgets and paying down debt, we then can dream a few dreams. Bill C-48 allows us to think in terms of what we would do in the event that we continue to have these surpluses. In the event that we do have these unplanned surpluses, we will invest in these areas.

Bill C-48 is rather interesting legislation in that I do not ever recollect this government, let alone any other government, actually tabling on the floor of a legislature what is called unplanned surplus legislation. This is an interesting way in which to indicate to the people of Canada and to the markets generally this is what we would do with any surplus beyond what we see coming forward.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a great deal that is a mystery to the hon. member opposite. I hope in answering the question that in some manner or another I might help him with his limitations.

The initiatives that Bill C-48 represents build upon previous initiatives of the Government of Canada.

As I said during the course of my speech, there are things that we can do in a budget and Bill C-43 represents those things that can be done in a budget. It represents a fiscally sound plan, and I note members opposite initially sat on the first vote. Then on the second vote, after their polls changed, they voted against the budget. After things changed again, they supported the budget, Bill C-43.

It seems somewhat disingenuous on the part of the hon. member opposite who has caused the reconfiguration and created this difficulty for us all.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe that half way through my speech I could lose quorum. That is terrible. It may be that my arguments are so persuasive that members are leaving the chamber and are already prepared to vote in favour of Bill C-48. We seem to have a certain enthusiasm on this side of the House for early passage of Bill C-48.

The $680 million for increased supply of affordable housing over five years was started in the budget 2001. In the budget 2003 we added a further sum of $320 million over five years. This is probably the first time in my lifetime where people have been able to anticipate moving out of rental housing and purchasing their own home. That is due to the fact that interest rates are at an historic low. When we have historic low interest rates, we can afford mortgage payments.

A perfectly rational person would say “Do I want to pay x number of dollars toward rent or do I want to pay x number of dollars toward mortgage payments?” They therefore will make the decision to purchase an affordable home and move out. I know in my own riding there is a vacancy rate somewhere in the order of 6% or 7% among low income apartments. That is very unusual. It is more often than not that people, in my riding at least, seek to have housing and the vacancy rates are in the order of 1% or 2%.

Initiatives by the government are twofold. Not only is it to put direct money into affordable housing, but because we are in a situation where interest rates are low and we are paying down debt, the happy consequence for Canadians is they can now afford housing that they previously could not.

As well, in budget 2003, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation housing renovation program had an additional three year, $128 million program. Again, this is an attempt on the part of the Government of Canada to increase and renovate the supply of housing stock to help low income persons who have serious needs to repair their homes.

The Government of Canada has been quite active in easing the affordability challenges of low income Canadians. We are never going to be there 100%, but we are moving in the right direction. Since we have gone back into this field, since the year 2000, we have put something in the order of $3 billion into this program. In the anticipation that Bill C-48 passes, we will have a further $1.6 billion that would be available for this area.

Another area that was mentioned to the committee, and has been mentioned by many Canadians to the government, had to do with post-secondary education. Again, this is a clear priority. Canadians see education as very important for themselves and their children. In that regard, we continue to invest heavily in post-secondary education and training programs.

Bill C-48, proposes initial funding of $1.5 million in new moneys for post-secondary education. This is an integral part of the initiatives the government has already started. I point out that on the social side of the formerly CHST, the Government of Canada puts in about $15.5 billion, some of which goes to education.

As members know, the government supports post-secondary education through transfers to the provinces. It also spends $4.7 billion annually in direct support, in a variety of ways, which include direct financial assistance to students, measures to encourage families to save for post-secondary education and tax breaks that help offset the cost of college and university education.

Budget 2005 committed additional funds to help workers enhance their skills, including $125 million for workplace skills strategy to help employees keep pace with changing job requirements.

As we all know, at one point we would have a job for life. It is very unusual for people to have a job for life any longer. It is more of a series of jobs and for each one we need training. Bill C-48 promotes that concept and builds on previous initiatives of the government.

The final amount was $500 million for foreign aid. I know this is near and dear to your own heart, Madam Speaker, having been a minister in that area. We are very much aware of our G-7 responsibilities and Canada is trying to increase its presence globally. This builds on previous increases in foreign aid by providing an additional $3.4 billion in international assistance over the next five years.

I commend to the members opposite, even those in the Conservative Party, that they support, and I hope they do, affordable housing, post-secondary education, the environment and foreign aid. How they can speak against any of those initiatives remains a mystery to me. I am sure over the course of the evening, we will have this mystery elucidated. I encourage all members to support the bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I suppose that at some point we should ask whether we could get this through immediately.

I do not know whether this is the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning. We have been at this bill for quite a while, quite number of months. We have been debating the bill for hours and hours in the chamber. We have been at the bill for hours and hours at committee. The vote the other night was a close vote, but nevertheless I think Parliament spoke. After that vote there appears to be a sense that the bill in fact should pass. I hope hon. members will see it that way at the end of my speech.

The bill proposes a number of social priorities, which I would submit are consistent with the wishes of Canadians. Canada's social foundations are fundamental to who we are as Canadians. We are recognized internationally as a country that gives everyone an opportunity to participate in our society and to succeed in our economy. We pride ourselves on being a country where everyone has an opportunity to succeed.

Indeed, Canada is a prosperous country. Members will know the statistics well because they have heard them repeated many times in the chamber. They have heard about our current fiscal situation, which is possibly the most advantageous of any country in the G-7 and possibly in the OECD as well.

We certainly are in a situation where Canadians can begin to dream their dreams again. The dark nights of deficits, high interest rates and spiralling unemployment were to some measure diminishing the dreams of Canadians. We are now back to a situation where we are in fact the envy of the world.

Bill C-48 proposes to share somewhat more in that prosperity as reflected by this government's support of Canada's social foundations. I am sure that notwithstanding a lot of the rhetoric from the other side of the House there are very few members who actually oppose the four initiatives proposed in the bill itself.

I would like to remind hon. members of just how this government's investments in social programs have contributed to the improved quality of life for all Canadians. Past budgets have in fact established a solid base on which the government continues to move forward with its commitments.

We made major investments where they are needed, health care being number one on the list. Again, I need not remind the House of the historic meeting between the Prime Minister and the premiers in the fall of last year where an additional $41 billion over the next 10 years was committed to the provinces in order to assist with their health care needs.

Budget 2005 in fact added to that $41 billion commitment in the amount of $805 million over five years in direct federal health investments. As we know, not all Canadians are covered by provincial plans. For instance, people in the military and aboriginal people are covered by the federal government in the delivery of health care. This is money that parallels the investments that were committed to by the Prime Minister to the premiers last fall.

The government recognizes that health care is a major priority for Canadians, but there are also other issues that Canadians wish to address and to which they attach utmost importance. May I suggest that at least four of those are in Bill C-48? I would say that this is not an exhaustive list, but this is the list in Bill C-48, which includes the environment, social housing, foreign aid and post-secondary education.

Indeed, as the finance committee travelled, although this year it did not travel as much as it normally does, certainly representations were made from all over the country to the finance committee with respect to a whole variety of initiatives that the government was asked to undertake on behalf of Canadians.

In fact, quite a number of them found their way into budget 2005 in the form of Bill C-43. That in and of itself was not an exhaustive list of initiatives. Certainly representations were made on a whole variety of other initiatives that Canadians wished us to take, but a budget is, by definition, trying to balance the fiscal capacity of the government with the priorities as identified by Canadians.

Bill C-48 extends those priorities. In these four priorities that I have identified, we have in fact tried to reflect some other initiatives that Canadians wish the government to invest in. The bill will commit, in the event of certain contingencies being made, an additional sum of $4.5 billion, plus another $100 million for another initiative, for a total of $4.6 billion in these important priorities that Canadians have identified to us.

Let me speak briefly about these four initiatives. As the House knows, possibly the biggest concern after health care that was identified to us at the committee, and is identified to us by constituents, is the concern about the environment. It is not merely Kyoto related, where we are talking about C0

2

emissions, but it is also about smog, particulates in the air. We have had some days even in this part of the year with situations where people are finding it difficult to breathe.

However, it is not only about air; it is also about the quality of our water and the quality of our environment generally. Bill C-48 goes somewhat toward addressing that issue. Canadians do want to ensure that future Canadians not only have the health care they want but also have a safe and healthy environment.

We have before us today $900 million for environmental initiatives, the bulk of which will be aimed at public transit in our cities and communities.

I know, Madam Speaker, that both you and I share a constituency in Toronto. It is a great honour to represent people in Toronto and I know that the mayor and the council are extremely interested in seeing the passage of Bill C-48 so that this particular initiative will find its way into the budget of the city of Toronto. You know the subway system and the transit system as well as I do, Madam Speaker, and you know that it is in serious need of additional funds.

This is in fact the government stepping up to the plate and contributing a significant sum of money, not only to the city of Toronto but also to the city of Montreal, the city of Vancouver and a whole variety of large and small communities in between those major cities. This money can be used to encourage public transit systems and therefore reduce traffic congestion.

Madam Speaker, you and I also know about the 401 highway across Toronto, which has become at times nothing more than a glorified parking lot. It seems that rush hour starts at 4:30 in the morning and ends some time around 12:30 at night. Presumably, if these moneys are deployed in a correct fashion, the difficulties with the 401 and other major arteries will in fact be alleviated by virtue of the creation of public transit systems and the increased desirability on the part of Torontonians and others of using the public transit system. I am sure there are other members in the House who could speak to their own congestion problems that occur in their cities.

Part of the funding for the environment is contained also in supporting new low income housing retrofit programs. Hopefully that will benefit low income families. As members have probably observed in their own heating bills, the costs are going through the ceiling, literally and figuratively. I think that this in and of itself may well be a significant saving for low income Canadians.

Speaking of housing, Madam Speaker, you and I share a keen interest in affordable housing. Currently the government spends something in the order of $1.9 billion on an annual basis toward homelessness and affordable housing. That addresses about 640,000 families who live in existing social family housing units. The bill proposes a further investment of $1.6 billion in affordable housing construction. That will be a welcome initiative not only our my communities but right across the nation.

It is important to emphasize that this new money is unlike other moneys which have required matching initiatives from either provincial or municipal or private sector partners. In this case there will not be a tie to matching funding from provinces. Some of the money will be redirected to first nation reserves where there is a shortage of social housing. That shortage on some reserves is at a critical stage. We are anticipating some of that money will be redirected to aboriginal housing.

These initiatives reflect well upon the government's $1.9 billion commitment that already exists. We predict that as this initiative spreads out over the number of years anticipated, it will have a direct impact on quite a number of families.

As we well know, Bill C-48 is not the only thing that the Government of Canada has been doing. In budget 2001 it started the affordable housing initiative with the funding of $680 million over five years to help increase the supply of affordable rental housing.

People have heard me comment on other occasions that this money plus the fiscal management of the government's finances has contributed directly to an increase in supply of not only rentals but affordable housing that is available for purchase. The interest rates are at virtually an all time low. A lot of people who live in apartments have been renting for years. From time to time they wish to move out--

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-48, An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, be read the third time and passed.

Extended Sitting Period

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I hope so too. I hope that Canadians are watching.

The third reason that attracted me to politics is one that is very near and dear to the hearts of many Canadians. It is the whole issue of justice. It is the issue of the need for reform of the criminal system. I am much more inclined, and I have not changed on this since I got into politics back in the 1980s, to call it a legal system and not a justice system that we have in this country.

I hear this all the time from people in Prince George—Peace River. I know my colleagues hear it from their constituents all the time, that in the eyes of many Canadians there is scarcely little justice left in this system. The reality is that criminals all too often get away with their crimes in this country. They are not punished. That is the reality out there.

I talked about a philosophical fundamental difference between how Conservatives and Liberals view a so-called surplus. What is a surplus to a Liberal is overtaxation to a Conservative. I pointed out some of the fundamental differences of how we look at the need for democratic reform. We believe in an elected Senate and the Liberals clearly do not. I would point to the need for the reform of our justice system and say the fundamental difference is that Conservatives believe that people should be held accountable for their actions. Conservatives believe that people who break the law should be held responsible. That is the reality. That is the difference.

I could go on at great length on the misplaced priorities of the government. It decided to spend upwards of $2 billion on the failed long gun registry to go after the registration of hunters, target shooters and duck hunters rather than coming down hard on the criminal misuse and abuse of firearms. That is just one example of misplaced priorities.

I could sum up my political career as fighting and struggling against misplaced priorities. That is what fundamentally separates Conservatives from Liberals. These arguments need to take place in the House of Commons where we fundamentally disagree with what the government is doing. Whether it is Bill C-48, the budgetary process, the justice field, or not appointing elected senators, there are fundamental flaws with the priorities of the government. There always have been and there always will be until the Liberal government is replaced with a new Conservative government.

I used the example of the long gun registry. Another example that is of great concern to me personally is the use of conditional sentencing. I was here in 1996, which I do not take any pride in, when the Liberal government brought in conditional sentencing. I was part of a party then that raised some very deep reservations about how that would be used in the courts across this land.

We were told at the time, by the justice minister of the day and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, not to worry, that it would not be abused. We were told that it was only there to prevent some youngster who might go astray and put a little graffiti on a wall or be caught shoplifting or something stupid that kids do. All of us recognize that and certainly people who are parents recognize that kids do crazy things sometimes. However, we were told not to worry because that was what conditional sentencing was all about.

We asked, “Why don't you say that in the bill? Why don't you say that crimes of violence will be excluded from having a judge award conditional sentencing?”

What is conditional sentencing? Conditional sentencing is when someone is found guilty. We are not talking about persons who are just presumed guilty or we think they are guilty. These are people who have had their day in court and are found guilty of a crime. Conditional sentencing is when a judge poses certain conditions on individuals instead of sending them to jail or to prison in some cases.

We said that we were very concerned about that legislation because it could be open to abuse where people who are eventually convicted of sexual assault, common assault and even manslaughter would not do time in jail. The government said we were fearmongering and it would never happen. We were told not to worry about it. In the last 12 years in this place, if I had a dollar every time Liberals told me not to worry, I might be a shipping magnate. But we should have worried and we did worry about it, and it all came to pass.

I talked earlier about the need for true democratic reform rather than fueling voter cynicism because voters do not see democracy. We do not want to fuel the cynicism that Canadians have about our justice system either. When they see people not being held accountable for their crimes, when they see people going home with an ankle bracelet or something rather than going to jail, it fuels their cynicism that people can get away with this in Canada. It is not right.

What is another fundamental difference? Another fundamental difference is that we believe in the concept of punishment. People who commit wrong need to be punished to deter them from doing it again. The government does not believe in punishment anymore. The Liberals seem to believe that there are no evil people in the world. There is always an excuse for why people do something. There is always a reason. Maybe they were spanked when they were a child. Maybe they did not get everything they should have had as a child. There is always an excuse. There is always a reason why people do what they do. Yes there is, but they should be held accountable.

We have far too many cases in Canada of recidivism. People who are convicted of criminal acts, sometimes horrendous acts, are confined to prison, get paroled, and sometimes even when they are on day parole, they commit more horrendous acts of violence against innocent Canadians. There are fundamental differences in our approach to the need for criminal justice reform.

Let me speak about relevance. Let us talk for a minute about why we would consider extending this sitting. Why would we as a Parliament consider taking the extraordinary step to extend this sitting of Parliament for another few days, few weeks, whatever?

Mr. Speaker, if I only have one minute, I move:

That Government Motion No. 17 be amended, by replacing all the words after the words “June 23, 2005” with the words “, it shall stand adjourned until September 12, 2005”.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

My hon. colleague from Peace River says “And in conclusion”.

Members of Parliament from all parties just wait with great anticipation to be given the leader's position on legislation where one can speak for unlimited time. I hate to disappoint my colleague who I respect and a great friend of mine from Peace River, but it is not in conclusion, at least not yet.

In anticipation of this debate today, I did come up with a list of a few reasons. I think the list could be much more extensive and perhaps we can expand upon it as we go along. There are at least a few reasons why the House of Commons should not sit beyond the scheduled adjournment date of tomorrow midnight.

The first reason would be that if it were to sit longer, it would provide more opportunities for the Liberals to cook up more corrupt deals.

Second, we could have more NDP-Liberal coalition out of control spending budget bills. If they came up with one in one night in a Toronto hotel room, imagine if we expand and extend this sitting of the House of Commons for a week or two what they could do. If they had a weekend together, it is completely unimaginable what might happen.

Third, the House might pass the current NDP-Liberal coalition bill, Bill C-48, a bill which represents a ridiculous approach to budget policy, a plan cooked up, as I have said, in a hotel room among Buzz Hargrove, the Leader of the NDP and the Prime Minister and which proposes to spend some $4.6 billion of taxpayer money in the course of just two pages of legislation.

I will not hold the bill up again. I would not want the government whip to break a leg rushing back into the House to condemn me for using a prop.

Fourth, the House might pass Bill C-38 without properly ensuring that religious freedom is protected. I spoke at some length about that a moment ago.

Fifth, we might have to put up with the Prime Minister being mad as hell about the latest reasons the public should be mad as hell about him.

Sixth, we will have to pay to fly the Prime Minister and his cabinet back and forth in Challenger jets just to vote. Imagine that. If there is ever a reason not to extend the House any longer, that would have to be one, that they will use any excuse to jump in their Challenger jets and fly across the country.

Seventh, every time we vote, there is a potential that the government will try to buy votes, costing us even more money. Do I dare start to expand upon that one point? It was about a quarter of a billion dollars that it cost to secure each of the 19 NDP votes in the House of Commons; $4.6 billion divided by 19. That is unbelievable.

I always like to stop and ensure that Canadians clearly understand when we talk about billions of dollars. It is so easy as politicians to talk about a billion here, a billion there, $4.6 billion. A billion dollars is a thousand million dollars. I would dare say that there is a very small percentage of Canadians who would ever even have the net worth of a million dollars, although there are a few.

In any event, I digress once more. I will get back to the subject of buying votes.

When the Liberals were successful in attracting one of my Conservative Party of Canada colleagues to cross the floor to instantly take a cabinet position, I was asked how I would describe that. I said this. We had known for quite some time that the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister in particular, was reaching out to opposition members in anticipation of a confidence vote that his government might lose. He was trying to attract one or more members to cross the floor. I do not think he really cared which one it was. Obviously he was successful in finding the weakest link.

That is what it is with a political party. A political party is bound by a chain of principles, ideas, trust, but it is only as strong, just as a family is, as its weakest link. That is why a lot of my colleagues took that very personally. It is a personal thing when one feels betrayed by a colleague.

At some point we have to address that situation. I have never been able to understand how someone can go to bed as a Conservative and wake up as a Liberal, or any other party affiliation for that matter. It amazes me how that can happen. The reality is it was done strictly to ensure the survival of the government, and it worked.

We will always remember the May 19 vote. A budget vote was held which resulted in a virtual tie in the chamber which was broken by the Speaker. This allowed the government to survive for another day. This happened only because of a deal concocted in a hotel room in the dead of night between the NDP and the Liberals to get 19 votes and a deal offered to a Conservative member to cross the floor to become a cabinet minister. That is the only reason the government survived, and those members know that.

That was not bad enough. To add insult to injury I was asked by the media what I thought of the new cabinet minister being given not only the responsibility for human resources development, but also being given responsibility for democratic renewal. It was so difficult for me to even be civil. It was unbelievable.

That type of action reinforces the cynicism that all of us experience not just as members of Parliament but any politician at any level who is involved in party politics. In most cases municipal politicians could be taken out of that because they run as individuals. Whether it is at the provincial level or the federal level, that type of action reinforces the cynicism which affects all politicians of all political stripes.

Voters do not understand then what they are voting for. There are a few people, and they are precious few, who actually run as independents either at the provincial or federal level of governments in our country and win as independents. We get elected to represent our people in this place for three reasons. One is because of our party affiliation. The second is because of the leader. The third is because of who we are.

Again, those members, regardless of political stripe or what party they run for, become so puffed up with their own sense of self-importance that they start to believe they are elected just because of who they are. I have always challenged those people to run as independents. Then they will know why they got elected.

For the vast majority of us in our system of government, we are elected because we belong to a political party. Our political party has a certain platform on which we run in an election campaign. We have principles, some parties arguably more than others, and we have policies on which we run and people elect us on them.

Why is it that we can think for a moment that if suddenly we become a member of a different political party, that is acceptable to our constituents? I have a great problem with that.

How could the Prime Minister of the country, who has said repeatedly that he wants to address what he has referred to as a democratic deficit, take an individual like that over all his colleagues, his caucus, his members of Parliament, and elevate that person as the Minister responsible for Democratic Renewal when, by her very actions, she has just reinforced the cynicism, the distrust with which all Canadians struggle when asked about politics and politicians? I would argue it hurts the Liberals, the New Democrats and the Bloc. It hurts all of us when that cynicism, that distrust is reinforced.

All of us have spoken many times in this place and elsewhere about the need to address that distrust and to try to restore the link that must exist between members of Parliament and constituents, Canadians out in the real world. One of the reasons I left the farm to get involved in politics was my fundamental belief that taxpayer money should be treated like a sacred trust. That is why I am so vehemently opposed to not only Bill C-48, but the process that was used to bring it about and how it was a slap in the face to everybody, every organization, every corporation and every Canadian who participated in the prebudget consultations.

As many of my colleagues have said much more eloquently than I, if this were so urgent, if this were such a good idea, if all of these things that Bill C-48 is supposedly to address were so urgent, why was it not in the original budget? However, it was not. No one is fooled by the fact that it was not in the original budget because it was not time then to buy votes. It is about power for the sake of power. It is about staying in power when that trust is not deserved.

That is why I believe the New Democratic party and its members made a very bad choice to prop up a corrupt government. In the end, it will come back to haunt them. It is not about taking a principled stand on one piece of legislation, which is how the NDP members are trying to paint this. They say that Bill C-48 is their deal, their budget. They applaud every time we call it the NDP budget. It is not about securing the passage of one piece of legislation, it is about making a commitment to a corrupt government to ensure it stays in power. That is the reality of it.

There were three reasons why I became involved in politics. I have spoken about the first one at some length. It was the financial situation, the fiscal importance of our country. At the time I first became involved in politics I had three young children. My children are now aged 22, 24 and 26. They are young adults who are struggling to pay their bills and make their way in the world. Two of them are trying to pay off student loans while struggling under a horrendous tax burden and soon the third will be. That is what my children are facing and that is what many families are facing.

I got involved because I believed we could do better. I believed that our country could do better. I still believe that. I still believe that Canada can be restored to its rightful place as the best country in the world. That is why I continue to struggle every day in this place and in my riding.

I said there were three reasons that primarily motivated me to get into politics. The second was the need for democratic reform. That is why I took it extremely personally, as did many of my colleagues, when we saw the government succeed in luring one of ours away in order to stay in power, just for the sake of staying in power for another day, a week, a year or however long it is.

I honestly do not know how some of the Liberal members of the caucus could witness that and remain in their caucus. I do not understand that. In the 12 years I have been here I have been fortunate enough to get to know many of them. Although we disagree vehemently and strongly on issues of policy and the positions we take on different issues that come before this place, I have a lot of respect for members from all parties.

I believe very strongly that for the vast majority of members of Parliament, regardless of party affiliation, regardless of whether they believe in separation or that government knows best, regardless of what they believe, the vast majority of Canadians who seek public office do it for the right reasons.

That is why I have a real problem trying to understand those Liberal backbenchers who have struggled and toiled for so many years and who have done a reasonably good job--and I will say reasonably because it depends on the individual--of representing their constituents. I would say that by and large their constituents must think so because many of them have been re-elected, just as I have. I have a real problem understanding how they could sit there and watch as the Prime Minister, like the prime minister before him, gets members of Parliament from another party to join the Liberal Party and elevates them to the cabinet. The public works minister is a good example.

They sit there and they applaud that effort. How can they not ask themselves why they put in all the years of public service to be overlooked just like that because the Prime Minister suddenly decided he needed one more member in order to survive?

That brings me to the third reason, but before I finish with democratic reform I want to say a couple of things. One point is on the whole issue of free votes. As I said, one of the reasons I was attracted to politics was that I believed members of Parliament all too often did not represent their constituents on important fundamental issues.

We have one of those issues before Parliament now. In fact, it is one of the two bills that the government says it wants to extend the sitting in order to get passed, Bill C-38. It is a fundamental issue that many Canadians feel very strongly about, on both sides, and we recognize that.

I do not understand how a Prime Minister who says he want to address the democratic deficit will not allow his cabinet members the freedom to represent their constituents on this issue. How can the government say it is going to have a free vote on something like this when it is free only for the backbenchers, not for the cabinet?

We are not talking here about a piece of government legislation such as Bill C-48. Everyone can understand a budget vote, even on such a pathetic budget that is two pages long and spends almost $5 billion of taxpayers' money. But we can understand why, if a government says it believes in this, it has to have its cabinet support it. We may not agree with that, but at least we can understand it. I think all cabinet ministers would understand that if they want to remain in cabinet they are required to vote for those types of things.

Bill C-38 is a different issue. It is an issue of moral conscience. It is an issue that many of us struggle with. It is an issue on which our party has said we will have a complete free vote for all our members. I am not even concerned about this in that sense, because fundamentally I am a democrat. I believe in democracy. It is why I became involved in politics.

I think there are three in our caucus who are going to vote for Bill C-38, but how my colleagues vote is not even an issue for me. How I vote on something like that is an issue for me. Even as my leader's House leader, I want to have him give me the freedom to represent my constituents or my own moral compass on a bill like that. I do not understand how it can be that the government will not give its cabinet that freedom--

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I do like it. I just do not see the urgency for any of it.

My hon. colleague from the NDP said that he thought I would like that. Of course I like it. Anything that would bring any degree of financial credibility to the government and to its spending habits would be a good thing. I think it is great that the Liberals cannot spend themselves into deficit, although I wonder whether that is exactly the route we are headed for now, despite their pleas to the contrary.

Here we sit today and Bill C-43 sits in the Senate while the government holds us to ransom and tries to blame it on the Conservatives. Conservative senators are ready to expeditiously pass the bill so the money can start flowing to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador for the Atlantic accord and to municipalities all across the country for badly needed improvements to infrastructure, but it just sits there because the government wants to, as I have said, hold us to ransom until it gets this piece of legislation through.

Why it wants to is completely beyond me, when the bill will not come into effect until we know what the financial situation of the country is almost a year from now. The fiscal or financial year end for our country is March 31. Until we get to next April fool's day, we will not know whether there is enough money to spend on these so-called priorities, so what is the urgency?

Why would Bill C-48 be the urgent legislation that the government House leader states it is? Here is what he has said about Motion No. 17. If it fails, if we vote it down, if there are sufficient members of Parliament in the chamber who say it is not urgent enough to extend the sitting into July, with the accompanying costs--and why would it be?--he has actually said that he will go to the Speaker and request that Parliament reconvene after its adjournment. Let us just think about that.

There is a mechanism in our democracy whereby, if it is necessary, a government can recall Parliament in times of great peril when the House is in a recess period. Every Canadian would support this, because we do not have a crystal ball with which to look into the future.

We do not know what would happen if suddenly we were in a situation where some country declared war on us or if there were some horrendous natural disaster, like an earthquake or something, that required the urgent and timely intervention of Parliament. All sorts of crises might occur and they might not be so accommodating as to occur when the House is in session, so, of course, we need to have that mechanism in place. No one disputes that.

However to have a government demonstrate the arrogance that this legislation, along with Bill C-38, the same sex marriage legislation, are of such urgency that it would go to the Speaker and request that he recall Parliament to deal with it, is nothing short of unbelievable. I have never heard of such a thing.

If this unfolds, think about the precedent this sets. I would suggest that there is then no need to even worry about having a calendar whereby members of Parliament of all four parties can try to plan their lives, their commitments to their constituents and the events in their ridings.

As I said at the outset of my remarks, I know there are many members in all four parties who have important events planned in their ridings that allow their constituents personal access to their member of Parliament.

All too often we become so taken up with events in this place that it is all too easy to forget about how important that personal interaction with our constituents is. There are a few people who forget that at their peril and they will be reminded at the time of the next election. All of us have seen that happen.

I cannot and would not want to downplay how important this upcoming recess is for members of Parliament to be able to interact with their constituents.

While I am on the subject of this urgent nature, I just want to briefly refer to Bill C-38, the other piece of legislation that the government says is of such urgency that it has to get it through before we recess for the summer.

One of my colleagues makes a good point. Why did the Liberals not bring it through earlier if they wanted it? Why was it that in the entire month of May, the only day that we had for an opposition supply day was the last day of May. However in order to fulfill the requirement for the supply period, the government was forced to do exactly what I said it would be forced to do when it started down that road in late April, which was have all of the remaining six opposition supply days in early June. It took up a lot of time in the chamber but the government had to give those days to us finally, otherwise it could not have gotten its supply, which is its funding for the upcoming year. It had to complete that.

Now we are in a situation where the Liberals have determined that these two pieces of legislation are urgent: Bill C-48 and Bill C-38. I have already addressed the so-called budget companion bill, Bill C-48, so I will now turn to Bill C-38.

The reality is that we on this side believe that Canadians have some very deep reservations about enacting into law for the entire country same sex marriage. We believe the majority of Canadians have some very serious reservations about a government that is proceeding down that road. Many of these reservations came out in the debate that took place in the special legislative committee that was struck to deal with the legislation following second reading in the House.

The committee, however, certainly did not do the job that my colleagues, led by the member for Provencher who I know tried to ensure that the committee would travel to give Canadians better access. I spoke earlier about access to members of Parliament. He wanted to ensure that Canadians had access to discuss that face to face with the committee.

The Prime Minister promised at one point that the committee would ensure that Canadians did have that access and yet they did not. For my colleagues, the four Conservative members of Parliament who sat on that special legislative committee, it was a huge fight for them to even get the reduced list of witnesses who would appear. The government just wanted to fast-track Bill C-38 through that process. I say shame because there are some reservations.

However, even in that short period of time, it belatedly became obvious to the government, at the 11th hour, that there were some real legitimate concerns about the protection of religious freedom in this country. Even then, the government missed the deadline for putting forward its amendments at committee. This is how inept the government is; it missed the deadline for putting forward its amendments.

It had to be through negotiations with the Conservative members on that committee that concessions were made. However we have very serious reservations about the strength of those amendments and whether they will really do the job of protecting religious freedom and freedom of religious expression in this country.

We heard again today, in his brief remarks to Motion No. 17, the government House leader reading an editorial from the Globe and Mail that said that there had been enough talk about this, that it should just go to a vote and get it over with. In other words, we should just rush it through and never mind that there may be people hauled before courts or tribunals and punished if they question homosexuality. We constantly hear that there is enough protection. We have heard those words before, as have Canadian.

Why is there this urgency? Gays and lesbians are getting married in Canada. What is going to change if Bill C-38 passes through the House? I would seriously doubt it will pass through the Senate before the Senate rises for the summer. What difference does it make to the government whether Bill C-38 sits in this place for the summer or sits in the other place for the summer?

Only one thing comes to mind and it is that Liberal members of Parliament, when they know that the majority of their constituents are opposed to same sex marriage, do not want to hear about it all summer as they are out in their ridings interacting with their constituents. They are hoping that if we can deal with it, pass it and get it shuffled over to the Senate, that somehow that will take it off Canadians' agenda.

It might come off the agenda of the House of Commons but I can say that there is no hope in hell that it will come off the agenda for real Canadians in the real world. However supposedly this is of great urgency.

What is our position? We are not opposed to hearing an hour or two of report stage of Bill C-38. I conveyed that on behalf of my Conservative colleagues over a week ago to the House leader but the government wants the bill completed.

My position and the position of the Conservative Party of Canada was that given the very serious reservations that Canadians have about the protection of religious freedom of expression surrounding the bill, why would we not want to take those amendments, the ones which we and many others believe are too weak, out into the real world and ask Canadians what they think? What would be wrong in doing that for the summer if the bill is still here at report stage?

For those Canadians watching today, report stage is that stage of the legislative process where a bill can be amended. It can be improved and fixed. That was our position and it remains our position.

The majority of us do not believe that the bill is fixable but we do believe that at a minimum it could be improved before we send it on to the other place. We would like to get the opinion of Canadians over the summer as to whether they feel any cold comfort whatsoever with the amendments that have been put forward, both at committee and now put forward for report stage, if indeed those are not ruled out of order the way the vast majority were when it was at the special legislative committee.

The two pieces of legislation that the government says are so urgent that they require either the passage of Motion No. 17 or the extraordinary step that has only ever been taken in times of national emergency of going to the Speaker this weekend and telling him that we must reconvene Parliament next Monday, I would argue that I have just successfully disputed whether there is any urgency whatsoever.

In the lives of real Canadians outside of this place, nothing is going to change whether we pass Bill C-48 or Bill C-38.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

That is what it is about.

The Liberals will hold it up until they pass this bill, which is two pages long and in which they are spending $4.6 billion. As has been said by my colleagues, let us not make any mistake about it, whether Bill C-48 passes today, tomorrow, next week or next month, it makes no difference.

Let us read from it. We do not have to read much more than the beginning of clause 1, which states, “Subject to subsection (3), the Minister of Finance may...”. We can just stop right there. It is “may”, not “will”. The finance minister “may, in respect of the fiscal year 2005-06, make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund...”.

The bill is contingent upon there being what Liberals commonly refer to as a surplus. Even the New Democratic Party members have figured that out. They admit that. It is contingent upon there being a so-called surplus in order to pay for these things.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

As did the other two opposition parties. I should not say that. What I should say is that the one other opposition party and the coalition partner also supported the initiative to try to get that done, but the government refused. It said no, that it was all part of the package.

Time after time we heard in this place that we should pass Bill C-43 and get the budget through, that if we wanted the Atlantic accord we should get the budget through. How many times did we hear that? Now it is sitting in the Senate. It is going to be held for ransom until the government gets Bill C-48 through.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Money was blown on Shawinigate. I thank my colleague for the reminder. The past prime minister, Jean Chrétien, interceded to secure a loan for a golf course and a hotel that he had an interest in.

There was also the spending on Challenger jets. My colleagues are feeding me information here to make sure that I do not forget, because so many scandals have rocked this government over the last 12 years that it is just unbelievable.

And this is the government that has the audacity to come to this place with a bill like this and expect all members of Parliament from all parties to approve it. Bill C-48 was illegitimately conceived. I would suggest that it is the illegitimate child of that union in the Toronto hotel room. The government has brought this bill before the House and expects all parties to fall all over themselves because of all the great and wonderful things it is going to address.

We are not saying that the issue of foreign aid does not need to be addressed. We are not saying that the issue of homelessness does not need to be addressed. We are not saying that there does not need to be greater emphasis on public transit. We have never said those things. Those things have always been part of our agenda, but they should not be dealt with like this.

Canadians understand that. My constituents understand that. This is no way to draft a budget. Canadians put more effort into drafting their household budget on a weekly basis than the government put into drafting this bill.

No one in Canada is fooled when told that this is somehow urgent business, that it needs to be addressed immediately and needs to be passed to the extent that we extend a sitting of Parliament to accomplish it. No one is fooled by that.

People know what Bill C-48 is: desperation in the extreme. This was conceived at a time when the Prime Minister knew that his minority government was in desperate shape and was about to fall if he did not do something. The only thing that kept his government alive in February and March was our party, because, as I said earlier, we assess each piece of government legislation and weigh it on its own merits.

We assessed Bill C-43, the original budget implementation act. We felt that there was enough good in it to support it. We took the unprecedented step, never before done in the 138 year history of Canada, of abstaining on the original budget vote. If we had voted as most opposition parties normally would have, the government would have fallen then. The NDP voted against it. The Bloc Québécois voted against it; to the Bloc's credit, at least it is consistent. The government would have fallen. We would have been in an election in March. We did not do it because we weigh legislation based on its merits and on whether we believe we can improve it.

We believed that the flaws in Bill C-43, such as the CEPA amendments to implement parts of the Kyoto accord, could be taken out. We believed that the bill could be improved and amended, so we waited, on balance, and decided to take an unprecedented step.

At that time, the NDP criticized the Conservatives for this. The leader of the NDP went to the television cameras and dumped all over us and all over the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. He said it was unbelievable that the Conservative Party and its leader would abstain and allow the survival of Parliament.

Let us be clear on that point as well. The Conservatives did not support the budget that night. We did not support a corrupt government that night. We allowed Parliament to survive. We were very clear on that. We allowed to Parliament to survive because we believed that this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-43, could be amended and on balance could ultimately be supported. And we ultimately did. We supported it on May 19 and again on June 15.

It strikes me as more than a little odd that the government House leader moments ago said that this legislation, Bill C-48, the NDP budget, is of an urgent nature. Yet Bill C-43 has been passed to the other place. That is the budget, not this. Bill C-43, the original budget implementation act, was supported by the official opposition and the New Democratic Party and went to the other place on June 15. I have been informed that there it sits.

Conservative senators are ready to pass it because it contains things that all of us are under pressure to implement. It does not matter whether we are Conservative members of Parliament or Liberal, NDP or Bloc. We have all heard from our municipalities in our ridings, from our mayors, city councillors, regional district directors, reeves, et cetera. They are all of the opinion that they want Bill C-43, which contains the gas tax transfer of money to the municipalities, passed as quickly as possible into law so that money can start flowing.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I am disappointed to see the hon. government whip rush into the Chamber and then exit again after she raised this issue.

As some of my colleagues who have been quick to point out, during her bogus point of order, this is indeed a prop in the sense that the government designed this, built it, and wrote it to prop up its government. In that sense, it is a prop. It is an NDP prop. It props up the corrupt government, as thin as it is.

In any event, before I was interrupted, I was about to explain to Canadians, who are watching these debates at home, one of the reasons why we have been so outspoken against Bill C-48. During the debate the Conservative Party of Canada and its members of Parliament carried on for a couple of days until the wee hours, up until midnight in a period of extended hours. If this motion were to pass, the debate would be extended hours again next week until midnight, which is part of the motion.

Unfortunately, and it might surprise you, Mr. Speaker, given the amount of hours that we have debated Bill C-48 at report stage, not all of my colleagues have had an opportunity to speak to the bill yet. I think there are still a few who did not get the opportunity because an interesting development took place last night.

When there was a decision by yourself, Mr. Speaker, to have the emergency debate on the Devils Lake diversion, which will dramatically affect the people of Manitoba, negotiations and discussions took place among the parties and we agreed to have the debate on report stage of Bill C-48 end at a certain time. Once that time was agreed to and was laid before the House in the form of a motion, instantly something happened.

All of a sudden we had Liberal and New Democrat members participating in the debate. Up to that time they had not been, other than the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I seem to recall, to his credit, that he stayed here most evenings and participated in questions and comments. However, time after time we expected that members of the coalition of the two governing parties would stand up and participate in the debate, but they did not because they did not want to prolong the debate. However, as soon as there was an agreement to have an end time last night, what happened? All of a sudden they started to participate.

But I digress. The point that I am making is that the reason why Conservative members of Parliament felt so strongly and spoke so passionately about Bill C-48 and will continue to when they get the opportunity at third reading is because of that philosophical difference between Liberals and Conservatives. It is right at the very heart of why many of us, and I would suggest almost all of us here, left occupations that we loved, in which we had for all intents and purposes bright future careers.

We left those occupations and came to this place to represent our constituents. We did so because we believe in the trust between Canadian taxpayers and their government. We believe in that. We believe in a government that takes that trust seriously, not once in a while, but all the time.

That is why we get so upset when we see something like this. I am trying to treat this with great respect, but it is extremely difficult. We get so upset with something like this because of the process by which it came into existence and because of the fact that the government takes for granted that it can spend taxpayers' money any way it wants.

This is a government that is already mired in scandal. This is a government that has been mired in scandal after scandal over the 12 years I have been here. I can give the House examples of those scandals, on which the government has blown billions of dollars.

There is the failed long gun registration scheme it came up with. There was the HRDC scandal, which occurred before probably half of my caucus colleagues even came here, but we remember it.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Exactly. My colleague from Edmonton says it is overtaxation and she is exactly right.

A fundamental philosophical difference between a Liberal or a New Democratic member and a Conservative is on this very issue because what is a surplus to a Liberal is overtaxation to a Conservative.

Let us look at the very premise of Bill C-48. It is a piece of legislation conceived in the dark of night in a hotel room in Toronto by a unionist, Buzz Hargrove, the leader of the New Democratic Party and the Prime Minister of the country to spend $4.6 billion.

I happen to have a copy of this piece of legislation that I would like to show Canadians. If they ever wanted to see what $4.6 billion looks like, there it is. It is two pages. It was conceived in a hurry.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Exactly. One of my colleagues is prompting me a bit here about functions which they have committed to in their ridings. Many of those will be for next week.

Again I think I am not just speaking for the Conservative Party of Canada and our 98 members of Parliament. I think I could speak for all 308 members. I am sure they have events planned to which they have committed. Some might have been committed to some months ahead of time expecting, before this extremely abnormal request on the part of the government, that the House would rise on schedule tomorrow night at midnight. That is not going to happen.

I wanted to put that on the record just to clear any misconception there might be that we are talking about going on holiday on Friday. That is not the case. We are speaking to Motion No. 17 put forward by the hon. government House Leader, which states:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice,--

And I just talked about the usual practice.

--when the House adjourns on June 23, 2005, it shall stand adjourned until June 27, 2005; at any time on or after June 27, 2005, a Minister of the Crown may propose, without notice, a motion that, upon adjournment on the day on which the said motion is proposed, the House shall stand adjourned to a specified date not more than 95 days later; the said motion immediately shall be deemed to have been adopted, provided that, during the adjournment, for the purposes of any Standing Order, the House shall be deemed to stand adjourned pursuant to Standing Order 28; commencing June 27, 2005 and concluding on the day on which a motion that the House stand adjourned pursuant to this Order is adopted, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays shall be 12:00 midnight.

That sounds extremely convoluted to anybody that is trying to follow it. I could not even follow it and I was the one reading it.

What does it basically say? This motion allows the House to begin sitting again next week. Then, once the government is satisfied that it got everything it wanted, a minister can deem the House adjourned to a date 95 days into the future.

We have a situation where a minister can wave his magic wand and deem that the House is adjourned. Why would we support that?

Obviously, depending on when the government gets what it wants, the House could be conceivably out until November or December or whenever. Once the government gets the bills that it wants, and we have seen this happen and certainly I have seen it happen in the almost 12 years that I have been here, the government could use prorogation. The government would prorogue the House until it deemed it most advantageous for it to have the House sit again.

I do not think it is a huge secret, that I am about to reveal, that this particular government is the most scandal plagued government in the history of our Parliament. Obviously, the Liberals would just love to have some method whereby they would not have to face the opposition daily for question period and have to answer questions in this place.

I do not think it is beyond a reasonable assessment that if the government were to be granted this and were it to pass all the legislation that the government House leader said was “urgent legislation”, there would be at least in theory no reason for the House to sit much longer.

In fact, one of the things our party has been saying, with the exception of the same sex marriage legislation, is that there has not been a heck of a lot on the government's agenda for a year now.

Something else I always want to point out to people is that the Conservative Party of Canada is not in the business of opposing just for the sake of opposition. We are called the official opposition.

We assess each and every piece of legislation that comes before this place. We weigh it on its own merits. We determine whether or not it is in the best interests of the majority of Canadians. Then we determine whether we are going to support it or oppose it, whether we can support it if it is amended or oppose it unless amended. We take these positions.

We believe that is a responsible way that a political party in this place should operate. It is not a position that just because we are opposition we oppose for the sake of opposing.

It might come as a bit of a surprise not only to yourself, Mr. Speaker, but to the viewing public, that in the almost 12 years I have been here the parties that I have represented have supported more government legislation than they have opposed, even though they have been opposition parties and that continues today.

Of the current bills that are before this place, leading up to the dying days of this session, there are about 15 that are not tied up in committee or have not gone on to the other place. We support two-thirds of them, 10 out of the 15. As far as I am concerned, that would certainly indicate that, unlike what the government House leader just said, we are neither obstructionist nor are we constantly opposing the government's initiatives. We believe in weighing the pros and cons of each piece of legislation, weighing its merits and then determining our position.

The government gave its verbal commitment to the Bloc Québécois that it would only consider Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 if it got the extension into the summer. It said that if there were other issues, and I was there when we were discussing this, it would consider them on an ad hoc basis, only with agreement.

The government members failed to explain that when the House begins to vote on deferred divisions, for example, subamendments at third reading of Bill C-48 or Bill C-38, there will be times when the House will have nothing to do while it waits for the deferred division to come to a vote. It just cannot sit here idling in neutral. It is not like a government minister's limousine. The House will have to do something during that period of time. If the vote is deferred until the next day, we cannot just recess the House while we are waiting to have the vote.

The government promise to the Bloc Québécois members, to ensure they supported the extension so there could be more debate into July and the government assurance that only Bill C-38 would be discussed, is not entirely accurate.

I would also like to discuss why the government believes that it is so urgent that we get these two bills passed. A number of colleagues rose during questions and comments and asked the hon. government House leader exactly that question. They pointed out that, in the case of Bill C-48, the NDP budget companion bill, it will not come into effect until we know if there is a surplus.

I need to stop right here because one of the things that has frustrated me during my years as a member of Parliament is when governments start to talk about a surplus. Even the use of the word surplus is a misnomer in my books.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond directly to the hon. member's question. When he makes reference to a budget implementation bill that just passed the Senate, what he is referring to is a budget finance bill which contained housekeeping tax measures. The budget implementation bill from budget 2004 passed within months, not a year. In fact, it was presented in March and passed before the House recessed in June of last year.

I must correct the member. While he makes his argument, the argument is incorrect. I would also encourage him to look at the facts to see that the budget implementation bill itself was passed quite expeditiously, much along the same lines that Bill C-43 was passed. We hope to have Bill C-48 passed expeditiously.

With respect to disagreeing with Bill C-48, I accept the member's ability and right to disagree on legislation. I have no qualms with that at all. That is what this House is about. I think that debate is about changing minds. I do not think the debate should be about stalling the question so Parliament can decide, and the opposition members have done a very good job of trying to do exactly that.

Editorials across the country are asking why members continue to stall, why they do not allow the question and why they do not allow Parliament to decide. That is democracy in action. Members should be able to oppose, but I do not think they should be able to use debate just to delay.