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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-48 on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

My constituents have consistently opposed the Liberal approach of spending without an adequate plan which is evident in Bill C-48.

It is surprising that the Prime Minister was willing to put his fiscal reputation into jeopardy with this budgetary process. Obviously his desire to hold on to his fragile grip to power has driven him to pursue paths undreamed of 18 months ago when he could do no wrong. It is because of this obsession to hold on to power at all costs that I feel this budget does not have the proper priorities at hand. It is more of a feel good budget than a do good budget. It looks fairly good today, but watch out for the consequences tomorrow.

The Liberal approach is cruel not only to taxpayers, but more important, to those who depend on the promised services. I must draw to the attention of my colleagues what I believe is the biggest deficiency of this budget document.

Over the last few years there have been thousands of stories in the media and hundreds of speeches and questions in the House of Commons on agricultural prices in Canada. Imagine the shock and disappointment my constituents and I felt when the bill did not even mention their dilemma. There was not a word. Just when they felt that perhaps their call for help had been heard in Ottawa, they discovered they were being officially ignored by the Liberal government. This only became worse when the NDP got involved and did not secure an ounce of help for them either. Only the Conservative Party is advocating for our farm families and rural communities.

Farmers have been promised programs in the past, but the government has not delivered. The programs are ineffective, burdened by paperwork and delays. They have failed those who need the help so badly.

The Auditor General has raised serious concerns about the ability of other departments to deliver programs effectively. These are departments to which the Liberals want to give more money in Bill C-48, including Indian and northern affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency.

In addition, the Auditor General's office is currently conducting an audit of the Government of Canada's climate change expenditures, which will be released next year. One can only imagine what negative effects that could have on all our citizens.

The Conservative Party wants to ensure that the social needs of Canadians are met. We recognize that many Canadians are not receiving the level of assistance that they deserve from the Liberal government. This is a direct result of the Liberal government's approach to all problems, throwing money without an adequate plan. The Liberals just throw money at the problem until it goes away, or at least their critics do.

This philosophy has cost Canada in the past and it will cost us even more down the road. Reckless spending has never led to long term stability and national prosperity. It is irresponsible and cruel to needy Canadians to throw money at government programs that are not meeting their objectives. Besides being a disservice and raising false hope, it is a waste.

The responsible approach would be for the government to first ensure that existing money is spent effectively, to improve programs and services to ensure that no one is left behind.

Committee stage is an important part of the legislative process. It is supposed to be an opportunity to improve the quality of legislation with expert testimony and the experience of all members. At committee stage the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition rejected Conservative efforts to restore prudent fiscal management.

The Conservative Party attempted to include real solutions for Canadians, such as matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women and to ensure accountability and transparency.

I was involved in the process through the aboriginal committee. The committee spent months in efforts to isolate the problems, identify the solutions and to put forward the recommendations. As with too much committee work, we feel our efforts have fallen on deaf ears.

As MPs we will not suffer. It will be our constituents, our fellow Canadians that will pay the price with a wasted opportunity.

Also, at report stage the Conservative Party tried to move amendments to make the spending in Bill C-48 more accountable to Canadians and to reflect a more prudent fiscal approach. There was a genuine effort to avoid a repeat of the waste, the mismanagement and the boondoggles that have dogged the Liberal government for years. Taxpayers have demanded better accountability and we have tried to deliver it, but the Liberals and NDP have restricted us at every step.

One amendment proposed was to raise the amount of surplus that would be set aside for debt repayment. The interest saved could prevent future cuts to social programs as a result of the upcoming demographic changes. Another amendment would force the government to table a plan by the end of each year, outlining how it would intend to spend money in this bill.

The Conservative amendment to clause 3 would ensure that important accountability and transparency mechanisms would be in place for corporations wholly owned by the federal government. These include crown corporations like the Mint, Canada Post and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Accountability and transparency should be paramount to any government, especially in this case, considering Bill C-48 advocates spending an additional $4.5 billion of taxpayer money.

The Conservative Party will continue to hold the Liberals and the NDP to account where spending is unfocused and wasteful. As the social development critic, I was deeply concerned by the format the government chose to use for child care funding.

The $700 million allocated for spending this year was put into a trust account. These trust accounts have been criticized by the Auditor General as their activities fall outside of the purview of Parliament and the Access to Information Act. This is no way to introduce accountability to a program that we know will cost billions of dollars. It is quite likely that we are witnessing the beginnings of the next billion dollar boondoggle. If the minister is so proud of his work, why is he not willing to be transparent with us? Why is he opening himself up to the scandal and mismanagement?

It is also worth pointing out that those trust accounts are a convenient way to say it has spent the money without actually spending it. In fact, only $351 million of the $700 million has been allocated to the provinces so far for child care. That means basically half remains unallocated and unspent. Unfortunately, if this trust account is like the others, such as the millennium fund, this money is lost unless spent. It cannot be returned to general revenues.

I sincerely wish the Liberal and NDP governments would have accepted the genuine efforts of the Conservative Party to improve the bill. Even more so, I wish our farm families, rural communities and seniors had not been forgotten. There have been lots of lost opportunities in this budget but the real damage will not be evident until long after it is passed.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to question my colleague from St. John's East on some of the misinformation that he has been spreading today. I know that my colleague is a former ironworker as I am a former carpenter, both former representatives of the building trades. I am wondering how he is going to explain to the working people in his riding that his party is opposed to just two examples of our better balanced budget, Bill C-48.

One example is the energy retrofit fund. Homeowners in St. John's will be able to retrofit their homes, creating jobs for building trades workers, reducing their operating costs, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They will get a grant to do that. I wonder if he has canvassed the working people in St. John's East to see if they would be critical of that.

The second thing that he would have a hard time explaining voting against would be the wage protection fund that the NDP managed to negotiate on behalf of working people in Canada. In the event of bankruptcy there would be a fund whereby people could draw the back wages owing to them instead of having to wait for years for the trustees in bankruptcy to discharge the assets of the bankrupt company.

How does he explain to the good people of St. John's that he is going to vote against those two very good ideas?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

International Aid

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we have obviously indicated that we wish to reach the objective and we are prepared to make a timeline commitment when we are confident that Canada can in fact keep that promise.

I would note that we have in the meantime invested $3.4 billion in new foreign aid. We have invested $342 million in the fight against deadly diseases in Africa. We have been leading the world in debt relief, and in Bill C-48 there is an incremental $500 million which that party is proposing to vote against.

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

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking on behalf of my constituents today on Bill C-48, an agreement to increase spending in a way that I think is unhealthy. This agreement is bad for Canada's economy, for my constituents, and represents a missed opportunity for the House and the government to improve the lives of Canadians.

Bill C-48 enacts $4.5 billion of the $4.6 billion deal struck by the Liberals with the NDP to make payments in fiscal years 2005-06 and 2006-07, and takes away the tax relief that was promised by the Prime Minister in the original budget that was presented to Canadians in the House on February 23. The bill is heavy on the public purse but light on details. It commits hundreds of millions of dollars under broad areas without any concrete plans as to how that money would be spent.

The bill authorizes cabinet to design and implement programs under the vague policy framework of the bill and to make payments in any manner. The bill contains an open-ended statement:

The Governor in Council may specify the particular purposes for which payments referred to in subsection (1) may be made and the amounts of those payments for the relevant fiscal year.

Put another way, the legislation creates an undefined multibillion dollar slush fund for the Liberal cabinet members to spend in the way that they see fit as we head into an election campaign. This is economically and democratically unacceptable.

Condemnation of the NDP-Liberal budget is not just mine. In a letter to the finance minister and the Prime Minister, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce wrote:

Bill C-48, the budget amendment that fulfills the terms of the Liberal-NDP agreement at the expense of corporate tax rate cuts, was concluded quickly and with little effort to determine whether the new spending initiatives are effective in boosting productivity and fostering long-term economic growth. This politically motivated action showed a clear lack of planning and long-term strategic thinking on the part of the federal government.

Nancy Hughes Anthony, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, added:

The government has shown a total lack of respect for the budget process by reneging on its commitment to provide future tax reductions for all businesses.

Garth Whyte of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has also slammed the legislation and the way the Liberals are managing our finances. In his open letter to the Prime Minister, Mr. Whyte wrote:

Elimination of the corporate tax cuts would be a slap in the face to all small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME) owners who create most of the new jobs in every community across Canada. Prior to last year’s federal election, both the Liberal and NDP parties expressed support for creating a fair taxation system for small businesses in recognition of the important role it plays in economic growth and job creation.

We believe that these tax measures are far too important to be used as political bargaining chips for political purposes. That is precisely what the Liberal-NDP bill does.

As a young Canadian representing one of the youngest ridings in the country, and one of the fastest growing areas of Canada, the budget is of great concern to me, in particular the growth of program spending over the past few years. Federal program spending is estimated to reach $163.7 billion this year. Just two years ago program spending was $141 billion. That is an increase of 15.8% in just two years, which far outpaces the growth of our economy and our population, according to economists.

What makes the growth in spending really problematic for me as a British Columbian is that it is being steered by the NDP. As a British Columbian, I have seen and experienced first hand the realities of NDP fiscal and economic policies and I can report to the House, and to all Canadians, that NDP economic policies are something we should always shy away from. Actually, we should run away from.

In British Columbia on the NDP watch, the uncontrolled tax and spend approach was disastrous for my province. In the decade from 1991 to its defeat in 2001, the NDP imposed $2 billion worth of new taxes on everything from personal to corporate income. Fees and taxes grew 50% faster than the pre-tax incomes of British Columbians. If we think that a $2 billion tax increase is hefty, it was eclipsed by a $5 billion spending increase in just five years between 1992 and 1997 and as a consequence the B.C. NDP ran eight consecutive budget deficits and in the process doubled B.C.'s debt.

As a result of that uncontrolled tax and spend philosophy, taxes were raised, spending was dramatically increased, deficits were run, and new debt was incurred. Worse, the bonding rating agencies that rate the credit of companies and governments were shocked by the reckless management style and reacted by downgrading B.C.'s credit rating which in turn raised the amount of interest B.C. had to pay on its rapidly growing debt.

The ongoing result of a disastrous NDP decade is that B.C. today has to spend roughly $2.6 billion a year on interest on the provincial debt. This is a problem because if we have to spend $2.6 billion a year on interest, it is $2.6 billion that can not go toward other priorities and programs for Canadians and for British Columbians.

In the case of B.C., that $2.6 billion a year works out to $672 for every man, woman and child in my province or nearly $1,700 a year for every B.C. family. In other words, the ongoing cost of just 10 years of NDP economics is a $1,700 annual tax for every B.C. family. I am raising this provincial example of the impact of NDP economics in British Columbia to this federal House because I am hoping that there are some Liberal members who do care about fiscal responsibility, as they bragged about in the last election campaign. Consider the facts of the NDP economics and consider the facts of the NDP partnership with which they are getting in bed.

In British Columbia the NDP introduced five separate fiscal management plans. Not one targeted outline was ever met. In nearly every category, deficits, debt management and spending, the NDP missed its promises every year in terms of targets. It introduced eight consecutive budget deficits, including two fudge-it budgets where it misled the public. The NDP took British Columbia from a have to a have not province during the nineties, a decade of robust economic growth across North America. The NDP doubled taxpayer supported debt in less than a decade. B.C.'s debt to GDP ratio increased dramatically by 20% in less than a decade. The NDP left B.C. with the highest personal income taxes in Canada. Fees, royalties and taxes had increased one and a half times faster than British Columbia's pre-tax incomes.

In the 1992 to 1999 period, the government increased spending from $17 billion to $22.2 billion, over a 30% increase. Spending increased faster than the ability to pay for programs. Under the NDP, B.C. had two credit rating downgrades, the worst fiscal record in Canada during the 1990s.

My constituents do not want to face the same disastrous NDP economics here in Ottawa. The budget is a missed opportunity and at every step of the way, the Conservative Party, the official opposition, has stood up and said “no” to the tax and spending priorities of the Liberals, “no” to the tax and spend priorities of the NDP. We will continue to fight this fight in the House, at committee and through the coming election campaign in the spring, which the Prime Minister has called.

We believe in lower taxes, less government and more freedom. We believe in personal responsibility and democratic reform. We believe in ensuring that Canadians have more money in their pockets so they can choose how they want to live their lives rather than having more money in the hands of Liberals and a $4.6 billion slush fund that it can throw money around, prior to an election campaign being started, for their own political purposes.

We believe in empowering families and putting money back into the hands of individuals so people have choice in how they live their lives and taking away the power of cabinet to politically manipulate a budget so it can buy votes in the House and then buy votes in the next election campaign, having no regard for the future economic health of our country.

We will be voting against this budget proudly. When the new Conservative government is formed, we will bring this country back to some sane fiscal management.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to address the last comment that the member made. I believe he may have misled the House and Canadians by suggesting that the passage of Bill C-48 would mean that Canadians would have to pay more.

I would be happy to show him in the bill where any amounts payable under Bill C-48 are only payable to the extent that there would be a surplus in excess of $2 billion. Indeed his own member has put forward an amendment to make it $3.5 billion.

I wonder if the member would answer just a short question about the existence of surpluses. Many of his colleagues have said that the existence of a surplus means that there is overtaxing. Does that mean that the member and his party are opposed to any surpluses and are therefore opposed to any repayment of the national debt?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to enter this rather interesting debate in the House today on the subject of Bill C-48.

It surprises me that the member for Winnipeg Centre, who was speaking a moment ago, was again attacking the Conservative Party and trying to defend the NDP record on the bill. A few moments ago in his intervention, he seemed to equate business tax cuts with spending, suggesting that somehow the NDP took money that was going to be spent anyway on business tax cuts and instead spent it on social programs, as if it is the same money.

I do not know what it is about that party that does not understand a very basic principle: tax cuts stimulate the economy. That is well understood all over the world. Let us look at a country like Ireland, which took some decisive work in that direction and made the country very competitive. Unemployment is down, the Irish economy is up and Ireland is booming worldwide.

What is it that the NDP does not understand about this? When we spend, spend, spend, and especially when we tax, tax, tax, it affects our productivity. “Productivity” is a simple word. We are in a very competitive world and Canada is falling behind.

Then we heard the Liberal member from Yukon say a moment ago that we are not debating the substance of the bill, but the whole point is that there is no substance in the bill except a very big price tag attached to something that is basically an empty promise. It is a two page bill, and with the cover pages we could add a little more to that, but there is no substance here. The substance of the bill is only two pages and there are approximately 400 words to describe spending that would amount to $4.6 billion.

Others have said before me that the procedure done with the bill is unprecedented. It is basically a blank cheque for cabinet to decide how, if and when the money will be spent. Of course in order to come across as being fiscally responsible somehow, it is labelled as contingency spending. I wonder if Canadians expect that as soon as this bill passes, if it should pass the vote that will be coming up shortly, the money is going to flow immediately.

However, of course, this is contingent upon maintaining a budget surplus of about $2 billion. That is before any of the money will be spent. I wonder if the NDP has not bought a bill of goods and is trying, along with the Liberals, to sell it to Canadians in a desperate move to prop up the government and keep it afloat. It is not likely that even a penny of that money will be spent before an ensuing election, when Canadians will be offered the same promise again, the recycled promise that if Canadians vote for the Liberals then they will get the money.

Spending without a plan is a formula for waste and mismanagement. We have seen a bit of that around here lately. In fact, that is very much an understatement. We have seen a lot of problems due to spending without a plan. For the record, since 1999 program spending has gone from $109.6 billion to $158.1 billion, for an increase of 44.3%. That is annual growth of 7.6% while the economy managed to grow in the same period by 31.6% or a compounded annual growth rate of 5.6%. Spending has been exceeding our economic growth.

What happens when we spend without a plan? The government seems to think the answer to every problem is spending. A few years ago, for example, we saw a very tragic event happen involving guns in Montreal in the massacre that took place at the university there. It was a tragedy, but suddenly the government responded by saying it would fix that by spending a pile of money, taxing the duck hunters and the farmers in the country, to somehow deal with a problem created either by criminals with illegal firearms or a man who was clearly mentally unstable.

How can we have a program budgeted to cost $2 million that ends up costing us $2 billion, with the price tag still increasing? We probably need another inquiry to try to figure out where that $2 billion went. I know that many people are concerned about how all that money can be spent on a rather useless firearms registry.

It has cost $2 billion and it is estimated that 80% of the registrations have errors, which in itself probably needs an inquiry. How could there be so many errors? For example, people in my own riding were told to send in their registrations for four firearms and they got back five licences. That is interesting: they got an extra registration. When they called the firearms centre to say that there had been a mistake, that they had an extra licence and did not own a fifth firearm, they were told to just tear it up.

My constituent said he could not do that. Let us just imagine that. We tear it up, the registry says it has an extra firearm and someday a police office will be at the door looking for that firearm; if we cannot produce it, we are in big trouble.

I cannot tell members how many people have come to me about the errors in this program. That itself probably could be the subject of an inquiry.

As intelligent people we should be able to come up with programs that actually address what they are purporting to accomplish. On this side of the House we are concerned about spending without a plan or spending that creates an illusion of action when it is actually misdirected.

We saw another example of this prior to the election in 2000 with the HRDC boondoggle. Money was spent without any accountability mechanisms being put in place. It was very wasteful spending that went into programs in the hands of government friends, Liberal friends or patronage friends. They got money for programs to produce something, programs that in essence did not accomplish what they purported to. Those people declared bankruptcy a few years later and came back to the purse with another proposed idea to get more money. There was no accountability and there were no objectives and no measurements of whether they were actually accomplishing what they headed out to do.

A short time ago we had a very big concern about a problem in Davis Inlet with the Inuit situation there. It was a tragic situation for many young people because they had very little vision for life and were involved in substance abuse. It was a tragedy. The government had the bright idea to move the settlement a few miles away at a cost of some $400,000 a person. We might wonder how it could possibly cost that much. We know that housing costs are high in remote areas and building and construction costs are high, but how could it possibly cost $400,000 per person to relocate this small number of people in a program that has apparently not solved the problem?

Then, of course, just a short time ago we saw the government's approach to the threat to federalism and the very close vote we had on the Quebec sovereignty issue. The government decided to solve that with money. The government decided to spend $250 million to solve the problem. We all know through the Gomery inquiry what a tragedy that turned out to be, with nearly $100 million misdirected and a lot of the money going back not only into the hands of Liberal friendly firms but into the hands of big donors to the party, with money itself going back into the Liberal Party coffers to run an election. Thus, spending without a plan creates problems.

We have had record surpluses and that is a very good thing in the country. It is a good thing when a government runs a surplus, but we also have a very large debt. We are still carrying about $510 billion of accumulated debt. It costs the country about $29 billion a year to service that debt.

At a time when the government has surpluses, that is a time when prudent financial management would say we have to pay down the debt so that we are not continuing to pay those very high costs into the future. Those costs are a mortgage on our own future and on our children's future.

We do not know if our economic prosperity is going to continue at the same unprecedented levels that we have had in these last few years. In fact, the evidence is that we are falling behind. If we do not increase our productivity, our economic future is going to be threatened. That is clear.

I have with me a recent article from the June 13 edition of The Economist , a very prestigious magazine. The economic elite likes to read The Economist . Some members of Parliament might occasionally read it. Perhaps there are some regular readers in the House, particularly those who are economists, such as the Leader of the Opposition. This magazine has a global readership. The article is about the indecisiveness of Mr. Dithers last winter. As well, in last week's edition, our Prime Minister was derided as Canada's drunken sailor thanks to his recent spending spree.

I am concerned for Canada's international reputation. This is a magazine that only 18 months ago in a cover story called Canada “cool” for the way we were managing our economy. On the edge of an election, suddenly things have become uncool. This magazine, read by leaders and politicians around the world, takes a jaundiced look at the Prime Minister's administration, which has devoted billions of unbudgeted dollars to staying alive as a besieged minority Liberal government.

We also have the Canadian chambers of commerce talking about this deal, saying that:

--the Liberal government's spending promises made in anticipation of a spring election, coupled with a $4.6 billion NDP budget deal, leave it with little or no financial room to focus on productivity enhancing initiatives.

Canada is now 18th out of 24 industrialized countries in terms of average productivity and growth.

There are many priorities that need to be addressed in the budget, but creating an illusion by offering to spend money that likely will not be spent before an election is not sound fiscal management.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-48, the Liberal-NDP budget bill.

I want to make it clear at the outset to all Canadians that we are debating a bill that is two pages long and contains 400 words, yet the spending proposed as a result of this legislation is $4.5 billion. The bill was brought here at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer in order for the Liberal government to buy the 19 NDP votes. This has been the pattern of desperation as the Prime Minister has begged, pleaded, cajoled, bought votes, and sold positions, while hanging on with his fingertips, doing anything he needs to do to cling to power.

Canadians need to ask themselves how the Liberals and NDP could support a bill which would spend $4.5 billion of their money while nobody seems to know where or when it would be spent.

The Conservative Party has fought to bring attention to this fiscally reckless piece of legislation. The Conservative Party will continue with its principled, fiscally responsible position on the reckless economic policy of the Liberal-NDP government. The Liberal-NDP coalition wants the House to hand it a blank cheque. These are the finances of the nation we are dealing with, and the government is treating them as though they were its own personal bank account.

This legislation represents the kind of free for all spending which led to previous and ongoing Liberal spending fiascos, such as the gun registry and the sponsorship scandal.

In response to other amendments the Conservatives put forward at committee, how the NDP voted clearly showed that the Liberals are not the only party compromising its core values to keep this unholy socialist alliance alive.

At report stage we have tried once again to move amendments to make the spending in Bill C-48 more accountable to Canadians. We want a prudent fiscal approach to managing Canadian taxpayers' money.

For example, our amendment to Motion No. 1 would raise the amount of surplus set aside to pay down the debt. The unholy Liberal-NDP alliance refuse to open its eyes and see the impending demographic crunch. There is a giant train entering the station at full speed. The locomotive is 40, 50 and 60 year old Canadians who will require medical and social services, and pension assistance over the next 20 to 30 years. Where will the money come from if we continue to be saddled with a national debt? We cannot pay interest without cutting into the future dollars required to fund social programs for an aging population. Canada's NDP finance minister refuses to consider the concept of prudent forecasting.

The Conservative amendment to Motion No. 2 would force the government to table a plan by the end of each year outlining how it intends to spend the money in the bill. Spending it without a plan is a recipe for waste and mismanagement. We need to ensure there are accountability and transparency mechanisms in place.

More telling than anything is the Liberal-NDP refusal to protect matrimonial property rights of aboriginal women. I know that is hard to believe, especially of the NDP when it professes to be the party of conscience in the House. So I ask, how far will the NDP go to prop up this corrupt establishment? As the Leader of the Opposition has said, leaving the Liberals in charge is like keeping the executives of Enron in charge while their court case proceeds.

The Conservative Party is not alone in our damning criticism of this unholy NDP-Liberal union and the creation of this budget bill. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, representing 170,000 members including local chambers of commerce, boards of trade, business associations and businesses of all sizes and from all sectors and all regions of Canada, in a letter to the finance minister said, “To say that program spending is out of control would be an understatement. It is time for the government to take the steps necessary to put Canada's fiscal reputation back on track”.

In the latest issue of The Economist is this headline regarding the Prime Minister's fiscal recklessness, “From deficit slayer...to drunken spender?” The article goes on to say, “He ended a quarter-century of federal overspending, turning the public finances from red to black. But as the Prime Minister of a tottering Liberal minority government since last year, he appears to have thrown fiscal restraint to the wind”.

As noted, the NDP members themselves have a strange rationale for their support of this legislation. On May 19, 2005 in the House of Commons, I challenged the member for Winnipeg Centre by stating:

It is an absolutely amazing, outstanding event that the NDP would actually come to the House and exert its influence to prop up the establishment.

The MP for Winnipeg Centre said:

It is my personal belief that the Liberal Party of Canada is institutionally psychopathic. Its members do not know the difference between right and wrong and I condemn them from the highest rooftops.

But before the last Liberal is led away in handcuffs, we want to extract some benefit from this Parliament and that means getting some of the money delivered to our ridings before this government collapses.

Does this make any sense? By their own admission the NDP members are prepared to prop up a tired old discredited establishment for a crack at some dollars that may or may not flow at some time in the future. The Liberal MP for Victoria questioned the Prime Minister's judgment for agreeing to $4.5 billion in new social spending concessions to ink a deal with the NDP. He said, “The agreement between the Prime Minister and the NDP leader concerns me as it appears we have taken...away money for debt reduction. It is debt our children will have to deal with”.

A Toronto Liberal MP, the former finance committee chair, had some words of caution for his boss. He said that the Liberals should not be taking advice from the NDP and cautioned against agreeing to the NDP's demands. He said: “I would be very careful to take advice from the NDP when it comes to growing the Canadian economy”.

The Conservative Party and some Liberal MPs are not alone in their criticism of this flawed legislation.

Jayson Myers, chief economist with Manufacturers and Exporters Canada added, “It is a little difficult to boost productivity with one arm tied behind your back with some of the highest tax rates on investment in new equipment and technology”.

Nancy Hughes Anthony, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said, “Without a fiscal update, we are flying blind when it comes to Canada's finances with only vague assurances from the government that it will be able to balance budgets in the future. Until Canadians are given all the facts and figures, we have every right to fear we are flirting with future budget deficits given the government's excessive spending”.

On June 16 the Bank of Nova Scotia said in a report, “The $4.5 billion New Democrat budget deal, new provincial health care and side deals, changes to equalization payments and a surge in program spending under the Liberals have led to a crazy-quilt of programs and blurred the lines between federal and provincial responsibilities”.

“The billions in extra spending on top of the finance minister's budget will so stimulate the economy that it will push the central bank to raise its interest rates more quickly”, said Marc Levesque, the chief fixed income strategist at Toronto Dominion Securities.

“Inflation is up and major investment firm Nesbitt Burns is warning that interest rates could follow as a result of the passage of the free-spending Liberal-NDP budget. The combination of rising prices and an inflation rate that is above the Bank of Canada's two per cent target, plus a hefty dose of additional federal spending, will prompt the Bank of Canada to resume raising interest rates by July”, Nesbitt Burns predicted in an analysis of the impact of the budget spending increases and an inflation report by Statistics Canada.

The OECD took note of the Prime Minister's spending spree in its latest forecast and concluded that the Bank of Canada would have to hike interest rates by 1.5% before the end of 2006 to forestall any inflationary build up.

What does that mean for the average Canadian? If mortgage rates were to rise 1.5%, Canadians taking out or renewing a $100,000 mortgage with a 20 year amortization would pay an extra $85 per month. Over the course of a five year term they would pay an extra $6,929 in interest. If the increase was permanent, then over the course of the 20 year loan, they would pay an extra $20,525 which is enough for a brand new car in their driveway. A Canadian taking out a $20,000 five year car loan, by the way, with the same increase in rates, would pay an extra $859 in interest over five years on that new car.

According to the government's rule of thumb for its own borrowing costs, 1% translates into $1 billion in added debt service costs after one year. That adds up to $84 per man, woman and child, or $336 a year for a family of four with this grossly irresponsible budget.

Already on the hook for the $4.5 billion in taxpayers' money that the Prime Minister has used to secure the support of the NDP, Canadians now have to worry about the fallout from this deal and the extra costs it will mean for them in their daily lives.

This budget is a disaster.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, this theme has come out a few times and I would like to hear the member's answer to it. It has to do with the issue about bringing in Bill C-48 simply as a matter for keeping. power. That is what the Conservatives have said. However, Canadians also said that they did not want an election.

We have not had a minority situation since the Joe Clark government of 1979. It is going to take collaboration and cooperation among all parties in the House to show that Parliament can work.

The member is speaking against Bill C-48. Would he say he speaking against Parliament working and that he really wants to go to an election right now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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