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

[Bev Oda, Conservative, Clarington—Scugog—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have all been working very long and late hours and very hard on behalf of all Canadians. It is my privilege tonight to speak to Bill C-48, not only on behalf of all Canadians but particularly on behalf of those in my riding, the residents of Clarington, Uxbridge and Scugog.

It is important that the work of this House not only make promises to benefit Canadians but deliver on those promises. Tonight we are debating Bill C-48, a deal made to buy votes, a bill for up to $4.6 billion of taxpayers' dollars.

The issues covered in Bill C-48 are important to Canadians: the environment, public transit, low cost housing and post-secondary school education. All of these issues are important to Canadians and they are also important to the Conservative Party of Canada, but decades of neglect in these areas have created a resource challenge.

Since 1997 the government has repeatedly underestimated surpluses and accumulated $63 billion of surplus. Meanwhile, provinces and municipalities were struggling.

I ran in the last election to join many others at every level of government; provincial, municipal and federal, to work for the people in their ridings. I came to this House wanting to work in partnership with every level of government and with every person in this House.

However, as a consequence of over a decade of starving the provinces and, consequently, the municipalities, currently we have situations where there is a fiscal imbalance between levels of government. There is a mismatch between revenue raising capabilities and the responsibilities posed to the provinces and the municipalities.

The municipal level is responsible for basic services that the people want and need, such as housing, transit and social services. Yet this federal government continues to be rich, rich in surpluses, while our cities and municipalities continue to be poor.

When I spoke to the budget in April, I said, “It is imperative that all Canadians have a clear picture of the budget and how the government plans to implement the budget and its promises”. But Bill C-48 gives us no details, no plans, no programs and no accountability as to how $4.5 billion will be spent, $4.5 billion not of the Liberals' money, not of the Conservatives' money, not of any party's money, but the money of the people who pay their taxes.

In committee, the Conservatives tried to put forward amendments that would ask the government to table a plan at the end of every year to report on how that money would be spent. The Conservatives also posed an amendment to ask for accountability and transparency mechanisms. The government would not support these two simple amendments.

These people, my riding, my voters, want to ask this government, what is wrong with filing a plan? What is wrong with accountability and transparency mechanisms? Why could the government not support these amendments? Why will the government not ensure that it will indicate with clear commitments that it will deliver on the promises inherent in Bill C-48?

Why not? Because this budget, this bill, is only an enabling legislation. It is a contingent budget. As the parliamentary secretary to the minister said only a matter of mere hours ago, this is an “enabling” budget, an enabling piece of legislation. It is not “mandatory” spending.

I want to point out to everyone in Canada that the minister and the government have clearly articulated that this is not mandatory. How do we know this money is going to come forward to address these important issues for all Canadians?

This budget is a contingent budget. It is contingent on surpluses. It is contingent on ensuring that there will be programs developed, that there will be a plan put in place and merely enabling what? It enables one minister to spend $4.6 billion with no accountability, no timetable, no priorities to be established.

This is only a bill which was part of a deal to buy votes, and this is not good enough for the people in the riding of Durham.

In the riding of Durham, we enjoy a quality of life. We have mixed urban and rural communities. We have some of the best agricultural land in Ontario. It is made up of small towns, villages and hamlets. They want to ensure that this quality of life will not only be maintained and returned to what they enjoyed a decade ago, but they want security in jobs. They want security in their livelihoods. They also want the government to represent them with the values and the integrity that they live by in their daily lives. They want health, safety, education and security not only for the young children, the youth and the adults, but also for those in retirement.

The people in my riding, the families and the citizens of Durham are a community of values and principles. They insist on integrity within their own families, within their community and from their community leaders and from their governments. If we do not maintain a level of integrity in government, what are we leaving for the next generation?

These issues are important. It is not good enough to deceive. It is not good enough to just promise. We must deliver on whatever promises we make.

We want to make sure that we can continue to live in Durham and enjoy the environment, enjoy good quality housing, transit and education, not in the short term but over the long term.

On education for the long term, we have a commitment here for education for two years. What about those who will graduate from high school three years from now, four years from now, five years from now, and six years from now? Why do they not deserve some consideration in lower tuition? Why will the government not make an ongoing commitment to support those youth who will be graduating and possibly going to the newest university in the province of Ontario that is in the region of Durham, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology?

The people in my riding also want to ensure that we take care of the environment. Part of that is ensuring that we try to encourage as much use of public transit as possible, but not only for two years. An ongoing commitment must be made for transit. A two year commitment is not good enough. Where are the dollars for after two years?

If the region in my riding which is now considering regional transportation undertakes to buy those efficient buses, et cetera, hire the drivers, increase the public transit service in my riding, what happens after two years? Where are the dollars to keep those buses and those drivers operating? How are we going to keep paying those drivers? A two year public transit program is not good enough.

On infrastructure, I have watched it and I have seen it over the last decade. Infrastructure deteriorates. What happens after two years? Where are the dollars to maintain those roads? We see right now the state of our infrastructure because of a decade of neglect.

We have to make sure that low income housing is there, not just a program to energy retrofit low income housing. What is energy retrofitting? How many new houses and rental units will that provide?

This bill lacks so much in detail. Where will the dollars go? How will they be delivered? How much will come to my municipality, to every citizen, to every bus rider, to the people who have to now depend on a family member to drive the elderly and the disabled to the hospital, which is 60 kilometres away?

We want real service provision. We want dollars, a commitment to real infrastructure improvements. We want to make sure that the municipalities all share equally in the $4.6 billion that is in Bill C-48. We do not want a short term deal. We want a long term commitment.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure if I can explain to the member what he is thinking or trying to express, but I would like to say to the hon. member that it would be nice if there were more common sense, particularly in this House in reference to fiscal prudence and fiscal management.

Sitting on the finance committee for the last number of months, I must say that one of the things that I enjoyed very much was going through the prebudget consultations and hearing the common sense approach presented by so many groups and organizations and individual Canadians who came before us.

One of the things I respect about Parliament is process and protocol and one of the things that bothers me most about Bill C-48 is that none of this was followed. It was a very undemocratic approach to doing any sort of fiscal management or planning. Canadians were not consulted. No organizations were consulted. None of the people who matter in this country, who pay for these programs, were consulted. That would have been a common sense place to start with this budget.

I do not think anyone on this side of the House would ever say that any of those programs are not important and should perhaps not receive more funding, but to do away with tax cuts and have no balance in this budget, and not to hear the priorities of Canadians in the way that we have set up prebudget consultations, unfortunately that is where there is no common sense.

[Andy Savoy, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I should note first that the hon. member talks about partnerships and the partnerships her party has. I would much rather our partnership with the party to my right, to build Canada, than a partnership with the party to her party's left, which will tear Canada apart.

In terms of Bill C-48, we must look at partnerships and the partnership that party has formed versus our partnership. I will take our partnership any day of the year.

I find it quite ironic. Let us talk about the common sense in that famous common sense revolution, I believe it was called. My colleague did not mention the common sense revolution, which left us with a $5.6 billion deficit in Ontario. That is a lot of common sense, is it not? It was passed on to the Liberal government of Ontario. Let us talk about 1996--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can' t go on stripping away piece by piece by piece of the budget. You can't, after the fact, begin to cherry pick: “We'll throw that out and we'll put that in, we'll stir this around and mix it all up again”. That's not the way you maintain a coherent fiscal framework. If you engage in that exercise, it is an absolute, sure formula for the creation of a deficit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke about the need for helping students which is part of our program in Bill C-48. I also know that the member and his family are great supporters of foreign aid. Perhaps he could comment on that.

Back in April and early May we saw the party opposite, the Conservative Party of Canada, align with the Bloc trying to defeat our government. We had to look for friends. Perhaps he can tell the people of Canada and tell us in the House tonight why his party joined with the separatists of Quebec to try and force an election in the early spring? Why did his party do that?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here tonight with my colleagues to debate this important measure that we have seen.

I think this goes to the root of what separates the Liberals and the Liberals' way of thinking from the Conservatives. What we have seen over the last several months is nothing short, in my opinion, of disgusting. We have seen a Prime Minister who is willing to sink to any depth to hold on to power, and this bill, I guess, is the most expensive example of what he is willing to do.

We all know that the Prime Minister has been referred to as Mr. Dithers. We all know that a Liberal promise made as of late has been a Liberal promise broken. We see a Prime Minister who, for one vote, is willing to send our troops into danger. We see a Prime Minister who is willing to go to any depth to bribe members to become a part of his caucus to sustain his party.

Having been here for a year now and having worked with my colleagues on this side of the House, my colleagues and I are here to make Canada a better place. We are here to represent our constituents. I believe there are probably some members on the other side who feel the same way. However what we have seen is that the Prime Minister is willing to do anything he can to hold on to power.

The one thing the Liberals have been unable to do over their entire term is to manage Canadians' money and to give an accurate accounting of taxpayer dollars. As I was saying, that goes to the root.

Conservatives believe that taxpayer money should be treated with respect. Liberals treat taxpayer money as if it were their own to do with as they like, such as spend it on their friends or further their own personal gains. However we believe, to the contrary, that taxpayer money should be treated with respect.

I want to speak a bit about the taxpayers in my riding of Fundy Royal. In my riding of Fundy Royal, individuals and families work very hard for their money. I mentioned the difference in philosophy between Liberals and Conservatives. We believe that Canadians know best how to spend their money.

I deal with people every day in my constituency who are struggling with student loans, who are struggling with health concerns and people who are perhaps working two jobs and struggling to make ends meet. We have farming families and families where maybe both parents are working or one parent is working two jobs or working night shifts to provide for their families. What did the Liberal budget offer them?

I want to remind members here of a couple of facts. First, when the Liberal budget, Bill C-43, was first proposed, the finance minister suggested that it was a tight budget, that there was no wiggle room, that it could not be amended and that to do so would be endangering the country's finances.

What did the Liberals offer in that budget? What did they offer by way of relief to some of the individuals I am talking about? I remind members that I believe and members on this side of the House believe that Canadians know better how to spend their own money than the Liberal government does. It has been proven time and time again.

We have heard references today to the millions of dollars worth of waste. We voted the other night on the gun registry. It is typical Liberal accounting and forecasting when Liberals try to sell a program to Canadians and declare it will cost $2 million. We find out a few years later that it is only 1,000 times over budget.

The budget talked about the proposal from that side for institutionalized day care where all of our children would be raised by the minister and in his image, so that we have little cookie cutter kids with Liberal philosophies rather than parents being able to raise their children the way they see fit. The Liberals have a one size fits all, Big Brother knows best mentality, and the idea that Canadians can be bribed with some grand scheme. An illustration of a grand scheme is the $5 billion which all the forecasters and experts in the field will tell us is a drop in the bucket and will not accomplish what the Liberals say it will. Nonetheless, that is what has been offered.

We were told there was no room for error in the budget, no room to amend. What did we offer hardworking Canadian families and individuals? We offered them a tax cut of $16 a year. What type of impact is that going to have on the average Canadian's life? How is that going to benefit an individual Canadian?

It may perhaps pay for one cup of medium double-double coffee a month. That would be the only benefit to be gained by the Liberal tax cut. The government's method of helping Canadians is to, on one hand, start this grand program and, on the other, offer nothing by way of real relief to Canadian families.

What did the Liberals offer Canadian seniors? After five years those on old age security, individuals on a modest, fixed income were offered $32 a month. A senior has to live another five years to get the full benefit of that. Of course, that was also indexed. Basically, Canadians, seniors, young people, students and farmers were offered nothing in the Liberal budget.

Then, as we know, the Liberals fell on hard times and they had to get into bed, so to speak, with their NDP counterparts. On one piece of paper they concocted this agreement, whereby we would spend an extra $4.6 billion of Canadians' money.

We have to put that into perspective because that side loves to throw out these billion dollar figures as if they are nothing. They talk about $1 billion the way some Canadians might talk about buying a package of gum. The amount of $4.6 billion is approximately the entire annual budget of the province where I am from, the province of New Brunswick. That is what New Brunswick pays for all of its roads, health care, and everything that the provincial government provides. My provincial government and provincial governments across the country are strapped for cash. We know there is a fiscal imbalance. We know that municipalities are struggling to make ends meet.

We must remember the history of the finance minister. On one hand, he says there is no room to move and on the other hand, unbeknownst to him, this deal is signed for $4.6 billion.

We must also remember that in the last election my party had an accurate fiscal forecast and told Canadians what we felt the surplus would be. The government, on the other hand, has had a record of always underestimating, deliberately I suggest, telling Canadians that there would be no surplus, so that there is a little money left at the end of the year to spread around to their friends and to buy their votes. Bill C-48 is doing exactly that. It is targeting the disadvantaged and Canadians coast to coast who are in need. They are waving this in front of them when they know there is a great possibility those people will see none of this money. The finance minister said $1.9 billion would be the surplus. The actual surplus turned out to be $9.1 billion.

Therefore, I think it is certainly time that we restore fiscal accountability. I will not be supporting this budget and I cannot see why anyone else would. It is irresponsible and misleading. The ones who have been misled the most are those who sit in that corner of the House. They are not going to see this money.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a very short question. I want the Liberals to be able to ask more questions because the member knows how to handle those people.

In regard to the agreement on Bill C-48, when the finance minister, Buzz Hargrove of the NDP, under the guidance of the higher finance minister, the leader of the NDP, this agreement was reached on the save our bacon napkin and I wonder if the member would agree with me.

I believe with all my heart that it is a good thing for the NDP that it has a big guy from Winnipeg who is in their caucus because it is going to take a big guy to pull the knife out when those guys double cross them. Does she believe that the NDP believe that this corrupt, dishonest bunch of bandits will really back up what they say?

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak tonight and address the House on Bill C-48, the NDP budget. Certainly, that is exactly what it is.

Canadian people have never elected an NDP government and maybe there is a reason for that. In Ontario they did it once and people across the entire province of Ontario say they will never do it again. Why? Uncontrolled spending is a recipe for disaster. In fact, it brought Ontario to its knees. The Bob Rae government proved to Ontarians that the NDP way of taxing and spending was not the way to go. People are worried at this point that the same thing is happening at the federal level now.

Every weekend that I go back to my riding of Simcoe--Grey I hear this from someone. Last year during the federal election the Canadian people did not vote for an NDP government. There was no mandate given for dramatic spending increases. In fact, the irony today is the Liberals said that our spending commitments were not doable. Now they blew our spending projections out of the water. I am not surprised. Liberals have never seen a problem of which they did not think they could not spend their way out.

Who does not want more money for health care, education and the environment? In fact, these are Conservative priorities. Who does not want a better car, nicer clothes or a bigger house? It is fine to want those things, but who will pay for them? If one is from the left side of the spectrum, they will probably say “the government”, as if the government were some lifeless entity, a big public piggy bank that could be dipped into at will.

The government is not supposed to be like this. At least politicians are supposed to act with integrity and should try to govern with integrity. A government should represent its people and not the friends of the Liberal Party. A government has no money of its own, only the people do. All that it has to spend is our money.

Conservatives believe that if we want a higher standard of living, where there is better health care, a better house, whether we want our children to go to a better school or buy them better clothes, we should be trying to create more wealth, a more prosperous society, so we can afford the things we want in life. History shows us that every time the NDP props up a Liberal government, spending goes through the roof. The long term effects are eventually the economy will slow down and the interest rates will start to rise. It happened 20-plus years ago and now we see history repeating itself.

Here is a bit of background. The facts are absolutely astounding. Did the members know that Canadians have seen their real take home pay only increase by 3.6% over the past 15 years? For the average guy on the street who is earning $35,000 a year, that works out to be $1.60 a week. I do not know what I would do with all that cash.

However, it is important to point out that since 1996 and 1997, government revenues have soared by 40%. Therefore, we wonder why Canadians have been falling behind over the past 12 years. We wonder why take home pay does not seem to go as far as it used to. That is because higher spending is always followed by higher taxes. Why? Because spending without a plan is a recipe for disaster and that is what this budget proposes. There are a whole bunch of promises of new spending but it is awfully short on specifics.

Maybe I was a little unfair to the NDP a few moments ago. There are quite a few examples where the Liberals have cooked up a new spending program without a proper plan. How about the gun registry? They promised it would cost a few million and now it is close to $2 billion. How about the HRDC boondoggle? There is another billion and still counting. The bureaucracy has no idea where that money has gone. Of course, there is the sponsorship scandal. Who knows how many millions that will be in the big black hole. Although again, maybe I have been a little unfair. As the testimony at the Gomery inquiry has clearly shown, the Liberals certainly had a plan for the sponsorship cash, and it was not Canadian priorities.

Who would have thought the former finance minister's own staff members would be on the receiving end of a cash under the table economy? However, as the whole world knows now, that is how the Liberals do business. They have been in power for so long that they have grown accustomed to spending taxpayer money without a second thought. It is like they have this sense of entitlement to the pocketbooks of ordinary Canadians.

How else can they explain the $4.6 billion difference between Bill C-43 and Bill C-48?

After the finance minister introduced his budget and the NDP started making demands for more money, what did he say? He said:

You can’t go on stripping away piece by piece by piece of the budget…. You can’t, after the fact, begin to cherry pick: ‘We’ll throw that out and we’ll put that in, we’ll stir this around and mix it all up again.’ That’s not the way you maintain a coherent fiscal framework. If you engage in that exercise, it is an absolute, sure formula for the creation of a deficit.

Do the members across the way remember all this?

What did the Prime Minister do a few weeks later when it looked like his government was going to fall? He started to cherry-pick and he picked pounds of cherries. He was willing to do anything to cling to power: toss out some corporate tax cuts, jack up spending by about $5 billion, and voila, they had a new budget.

What does it say for the democratic process of our country when a finance minister goes through months of budget consultations with various stakeholders, speaking with experts, speaking to those who defend our social programs, deciding on what is best for the country, all of the stakeholders, and then his boss gets together with the leader of the NDP and after an hour in a hotel room somewhere in Toronto, he has a completely different budget and he expects us to support it?

All anyone needs to write a budget in Canada is a hotel room, a couple of napkins and a calculator. If that is all it takes, I think just about anybody can do a budget. In fact I know I would like a new pair of shoes, anybody else? What does that say about our country and about the state of affairs here in Canada?

The truth is that most Canadians do have to write a budget and, most important , they have to stick to it because if they do not they are on their own. They cannot raise taxes or increase their income by snapping their fingers, and they cannot borrow unlimited sums of money. However governments can and that is what the government will be doing shortly if it follows through on Bill C-48.

Let us remember what the finance minister said last April:

If you engage in that exercise, it is an absolute, sure formula for the creation of a deficit.

What makes this budget even worse is that there is no plan for spending all these billions. The Auditor General has raised some serious concerns about the ability of certain departments to deliver programs effectively, and it just so happens that the departments with which the Auditor General is concerned are the same departments the Liberals and the NDP want to give more money to in this bill. I have been raising this issue where the Department of International Cooperation is concerned.

The leader of the NDP stands and says that he has delivered more money for, fill in the blank, the environment, education, health care, which again, I remind members, are all Conservative priorities. However the leader of the NDP seems to be making promises with this money and is providing details but I am not exactly sure where he is getting these details from because they are nowhere to be found in the budget bill.

He says all of this, though, all the while knowing that none of it is true. He knows that there is not a specific plan for spending any of this money and he knows that the fine print says that the Liberals will only do it if there is a big enough surplus, and, goodness knows, we have no idea what the finances actually look like in this country.

He also knows that the Liberals play the shell game when it comes to projecting our surpluses. They could stash more billions in those foundations they set up, the same foundations that are not accountable to Parliament or the Auditor General ,and we might never know anything about. I think there is $9 billion in these foundations so far. That is no way to run a country.

People live happier and more productive lives if they are able to fulfill their own destinies and their own targets. One of the biggest problems with Liberals is that they think they know how to spend my money and our money better than we do. The Liberals keep telling Canadians what their priorities are. They keep telling Canadians what they want instead of actually listening to what Canadian are telling them that they need.

We should allow Canadians to keep more of their hard-earned money. The goal of our party is that Canadians have the highest standard of living in the world.

If you want to find a job there should be lots of them and good paying ones. Our goal is that every region of Canada will be prosperous and self-sufficient. Conservatives want Canada to be the economic envy of the world. Every parent--

[Charlie Penson, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry to disappoint the members on the other side. They are not going to hear a speech that they have heard before, but it is going to be one that reminds them that there have been some strange twists and turns from the Prime Minister who has completed the cycle with Bill C-48. He has absolutely completed the cycle. His reputation is now in tatters.

He is the man who was the white knight as the finance minister who had this big reputation for balancing the books, although when we look at it closely we know what it was. It was balancing the books on the backs of the provinces and the municipalities, cutbacks in health care funding, cutbacks to the municipalities. That is how he balanced the books. Nonetheless he had this reputation as the big white knight. Where is his reputation these days? It is in tatters. In fact his reputation and his character are being called into question.

I brought over some reading material for this evening and I happened to look at Paul Wells' page.

I want to note, Madam Speaker, that we are hearing a lot of heckling from the other side but those members do not have the courage to get up. They are to embarrassed to get up and debate the bill. They can only resort to is heckling. I do not blame them for being embarrassed about this bill.

This shady deal with the NDP was done in a no-tell motel, and I am not sure who actually rented the room. Did Paul stay in the car and Jack rent the room, or was it the other way around? Basil Hargrove was in an adjoining room hollering through the door once in a while, giving advice, and Ralph was on a 1-900 tie-in from Regina. If I were the finance minister I would resign. I would be too embarrassed to continue on after that.

What did Paul Wells have to say about the Prime Minister? In Macleans the headline reads, “Behold the irrelevant Prime Minister”. He stated:

And while the Prime Minister's expressive eyes sometimes betray exasperation at the failure of the world to see things the way he sees them, they show no hint of self-doubt as he strolls into each new minefield armed with the tool kit of a demagogue.

That is what it is. We saw it in the election campaign, demonizing, misrepresenting, and now the Prime Minister's reputation is completely in tatters.

Canadians are disappointed. I remind the House that only 18 months ago he was the finance minister, the man who had completed a successful campaign to push out a sitting prime minister. After 12 years he pushed out Mr. Chrétien and the big story was he was going to sweep the country with 250 seats. He was going to take seats in Alberta, including my riding, and seats all over the country. Fast forward to the election on June 28, and it was a minority government. He blew it. In his efforts to unseat Mr. Chrétien and in the election campaign, he exposed himself as a weak Prime Minister, a man who will do any deal to survive. That is not what Canadians expect. They want leadership.

With a minority government after a nasty campaign, what did he do? The first deal he did was in the throne speech. He had to do a deal with the opposition parties to have lower taxes for Canadians. It did not take long to get rid of that promise however, once he got through that crisis.

Then the budget was delivered on February 23. The finance minister stood in the House and said that it could not be tinkered with and could not be cherry-picked. All of a sudden, a month and a half later, look what happened. The finance minister really should resign because he has been put out to pasture. The Prime Minister has undermined his own finance minister. He basically did not even include him in the discussions that were going on, except for that 1-900 tie-in. The Prime Minister has undercut his own finance minister. When things really got tough, he did the deal with the NDP.

It is absolutely shameful. It is the kind of deal we saw in the sixties and it is even worse. The deal in the 1960s put us in massive debt. We are still paying $35 billion a year interest charges as a result of that.

The deal with the NDP was not the end of it. Then the Prime Minister had to do the Kyoto amendment. Therefore, the budget implementation bill was a different bill than the budget itself. Then all of a sudden there was the NDP deal, where he had to line up 19 members at $240 million a member. That was the cost of that deal.

That was not enough. Then the Prime Minister had to do a deal with the member for Newmarket—Aurora, who was fast-tracked to the front of the line. I wonder about the backbenchers over there. Some people have waited a lot of years to be in cabinet. He has shown he will do any deal.

Contact was made with the member for Newton—North Delta. We have the tapes. We know exactly what was going on there. He was trying to purchase another member.

Fiscal responsibility? I do not think so. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Association of Chief Executives, Don Drummond, the CFIB, the IMF and the OECD have all condemned the way the Prime Minister has operated. What did the Economist call him? It is disgraceful. Our international reputation is being besmirched because the Prime Minister will do anything to hang on to power.

This has shown me that we have a Prime Minister who is weak. He will do any deal to stay in power. He is desperate. He is clinging to power by his fingernails.

We have a $4.6 billion deal with the NDP and what is next when the budget is over, when the Liberals finally get this passed? Will the NDP raise the price again? Another $6 billion for the NDP? He is a weak Prime Minister. His character is being greatly destroyed in this whole process.

History will not judge the Prime Minister well. He has ruined his reputation in his desperation to hang on to power. It is shameful. Canadians are disappointed.

I was on the prebudget consultations across the country. My colleague from Portage was on that committee as well. We heard from hundreds of Canadians and organizations about what they wanted. Then we had the budget. The finance minister said nothing could be changed. Some of those priorities were in there. What happened? The Liberals did the deal with the NDP. What does that say to the people in those prebudget hearings? Should we even have them next year if this government is in power? It was a slap in the face to all those people who came to make representations in prebudget consultations. The Liberals are willing to do a deal with the NDP in a back room in a cheap motel. It is shameful.

I wonder how many people will come to the prebudget hearings next year when they know the government, because of its desperate needs, will do anything to hang on to power? What use is it to make a representation to the finance committee when the Liberals undercut it, the way they did with the NDP?

I do not think the NDP members deserve much better than what I am saying about the Prime Minister. This is shameful. That is not what Canadians elected them to do, to use blackmail, do this deal and keep the government in power. It cost $240 million per NDP vote. That is what the cost has been.

I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance say earlier that Liberals members did not like what happened, but this was the cost of staying in power. If that is the cost of staying in power, surely they should have a bit of pride and say they are not willing to do any deal to hang on to power.

I would like the finance minister to explain why he is still finance minister, quite frankly. He should resign because he has been embarrassed by his own Prime Minister.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Madam Speaker, I hope that the hon. member fully recognizes that the additional spending under Bill C-48 deals with surplus money that will be above $2 billion. He spoke of who might be against this bill.

Over a million families are involved in post-secondary education. There are 600 or more native communities across the country. Nearly 60% of Canadians live in the large cities that need public transit. What constituency does he speak for when he talks about people being opposed to Bill C-48? What do his constituents think?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Yes, my kids matter a lot. Every kid matters in this country. It all matters. Unless we have the ability and the dedication, and the commitment to bring forth a better future for our children, we are just absolving ourselves of our responsibilities.

In order to do that, that takes taxation and that takes dollars. However, we cannot overtax our citizens. We cannot kill the goose that lays the golden egg and then spend that money in a haphazard manner. That money is just too hard to come by. I cannot imagine what $1,000 or $2,000 per individual for a family would mean in a tax cut. I know it would mean a lot to people in my riding.

Maybe there are some ridings here that are extremely wealthy, but I have a lot of people who work very hard for a living and $1,000 or $2,000 means a lot to them. Instead, that kind of money is being taken away from them and is being spent on this NDP initiative, simply so the government can retain power.

To further illustrate my point I must compare the first budget, Bill C-43, with the NDP budget, Bill C-48. On February 23 I sent out a press release stating that the original budget had certain measures which I could support. There were many opposition concerns such as health care, defence, tax cuts and seniors. Though I did not agree with them all, I took them under consideration. They certainly did not please me totally, but I could live with some of them. I could find a reasonable compromise that made sense to some people. To me it was not worthy of an election, but was worthy of trying to find a way to make this minority Parliament work.

I was disappointed, of course, in the lack of funding for agriculture. In my riding and in many others across this country, rural communities felt as though they were simply left out. I noted that most of the money, the $10 billion or $12 billion, that should have been allocated or promised to some extent for child care, the gas tax transfer or climate change was delayed in the original budget until the end of the decade. The promises made, in other words, before the actual life of the government were back loaded. Of course, this was without any feasible plan for when the implementation date would be.

Nonetheless, I have never spoken on the record against the first budget and I continue to support it today. I did this in part because there was a semblance of a plan. I certainly did not approve of it totally, but there was a semblance of plan, at least a minor direction, perhaps a 10% indication of where this country should go. Now what do we have? We have a second budget of $4.6 billion that the government has tabled with increased spending and literally no consideration.

A lot of people ask about the amount of money? We talk about thousands, millions, hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. The government said $4.6 billion is not much money. Let me tell everyone what it is. Let us put it in the context of even 25% or less of that, $1 billion. What is $1 billion to the people in my riding? That is $1,000 million. Whether it is Foxboro, Bloomfield, Marmora or Wellington, I could give every family in those ridings $1 million and still have $100 million left over. That is the kind of money we are talking about. That is unbelievable.

We lose the total concept of how much money this is and what it means to the everyday citizen when we throw billions around here. We are talking $2.3 billion per year and $4.6 billion over a couple of years or three or four or five. Who knows? What is the plan? Buzz Hargrove and the member for Toronto—Danforth writing a deal on the back of a napkin in a motel room is how we come up with $4.6 billion. I cannot believe that.

The sad thing for my NDP colleagues sitting at the other end is that they have taken this and said, “Look at what we have here. We have negotiated $4.6 billion for our constituents”. I say to myself that they have been had. I say to my NDP members that I hope they have the courage to go to their constituents and tell them that they are not going to see any of that money or will have the opportunity of seeing any of that money.

They have made a false promise to their ridings because they know that money is not going to go there. It is another promise that will be broken, just as we have seen promise after promise. The government on the other side of the House lives on promises and does not deliver.

I was sitting in the House when the finance minister said that we had reached our limit. He said the cupboard was bare, in essence. He indicated that we had a budget projected at $1.9 billion but that there was no money left for any other programs. He said that we had reached our limit and that we should not even talk about other considerations that might be of interest in the rest of the House.

Of course with the possibility of an election, the government felt threatened so it wrote down another $4.6 billion on the back of a napkin in a motel room. And whoops, all of a sudden there is a $9.1 billion surplus. Where did that mysteriously come from? How can Canadians have any respect for this institution when the government cannot count? It is either that, or it deliberately misleads the House and all of Canada.

The spending the government has taken on in the last number of years is criminal. In a time of fiscal restraint in order to balance the books, supposedly, how do the Liberals spend 44.3% of an increase in six years? What document did they present to the House that suggested we would do that?

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to my colleague who very efficiently, eloquently and in a matter of fact drove home just how important it is to have a sincere and honest budget. If I might just throw another word out to build upon that statement of clarity, I would refer to a budget as a plan.

A wise man once told me many years ago, when I was just in my infancy starting out in the business world, “Young man, in order to be successful in life, whether it is personal life, political life, business life, you have to plan your work and then work your plan”.

Simply, and sadly, Bill C-48 is proof that the government does not have a plan. That is just a tragedy. How can it bring forward $4.6 billion in spending, put it on a pair of pages, and suggest to the Canadian public that it is something that can not only be digested but utilized to the benefit of all Canadians? Honestly, it is an insult to Canadians.

My children and I can go out and pick up a mortgage on a home and we can sign a few documents; it might be four, five, six, seven or eight pages. We can go out and buy a car or a piece of furniture and sign a document that is one or two pages. Heavens, we can even go and rent a video and maybe fill out a one page document. Yet we are asked to accept $4.6 billion worth of absolute spending and we have a two page document. That is $2.3 billion per page.

It almost defies belief. I find it incredible that anybody in this country could say a government is bearing responsibility for $2.3 billion worth of spending and that it can just take one page like this and say that this is what it is all about. We are doing this for Canadians. All the benefits are one page and they are worth $2.3 billion.

That is a sad example of leadership. It is a sad example of a government that, honestly, is simply rudderless. It is obviously an example of a government that is so desperate to cling to power that it will sell its soul for simply the price of a piece of paper and the price of promises that everybody knows will not be met.

I do not think there is a person in this world who does not want Canada to achieve its rightful place in this world. With the resources we have, the manpower, the people and the talent, the geography, the nature, and the history of this country, there is no reason this country should not be number one, literally, in every dramatic portion of this world. Every member and, I would certainly hope, all my colleagues in this House would share that.

The sad reality is that we are not going in the right direction. Our health care system, which used to be number two or number three, is now sitting around 12th, 13th or whatever. Our economic prosperity, relative to G-8 countries, is advancing in the negative capacity. This is not the direction this country needs to go. That is not the direction that I want to--

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the previous speaker if he understands that while there is not much detail in Bill C-48, it is merely an extension of the original bill which laid out the government's priorities in sufficient detail. The spending priorities in Bill C-48 are simply an extension of those priorities which were outlined in great detail in Bill C-43. It seems to me that it is not necessary to repeat where the money is going to go when we are adding to a list of priorities outlined in the original budget bill.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier the member said that he serves on the finance committee. If he does, he probably has heard about a number of competing issues in the prebudget hearings. I imagine that he heard about all kinds of competing visions and competing priorities for how this money was going to be spent.

I would bet there were some there who made a strong case for lower taxes. I would bet some came before the committee and made a strong case for reducing the debt, for having an actual intentional plan to pay down the debt instead of an accidental contingency plan. I would bet there were a lot of other priorities.

In fact, the government chose some of them. The Liberals presented that budget to us and they left out what is now in Bill C-48. I assume they did it for a very good reason.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

That might be a good one for some of us to consider. It states that a budget helps us sleep better at night because we do not lie awake worrying about how we are going to make ends meet.

Frankly, I do not know how the Liberals can sleep, and I really do not know how the NDP can sleep, having participated in something like this.

A budget is about two things. A budget is about vision. It is about knowing where we want to go and how we will get there. The Conservative Party, for example, believes that we should be aiming for something.

We should be aiming for a high standard of living, maybe the highest in the world. We should be aiming for every Canadian being able to have a job or for economic growth for every region in Canada. Our children should be able to go to post-secondary education, live the Canadian dream and be well prepared for life. Maybe it is part of the Canadian dream that we should have the freedom to start a business.

If Bill C-48 is the Liberal vision, what is behind it is simply survival. It is a vision for survival. It did not appear until very late in the process to save the Liberals' political skin. It was developed in one day. It was done only to win the support of the NDP. The NDP members are perhaps even a little more honest. They say that they got some of their priorities, which they negotiated. It was not about any Liberal priorities as far as I can tell, except the priority that is uppermost in Liberal minds, and that is to survive, to hang on to power.

Some Liberals and certainly the NDP will ask what we do not like in the bill. We have heard this refrain; it is their mantra. They ask us if we do not like the environment. They ask us if we do not like education. They ask us what is the matter with affordable housing and they ask us if we do not like foreign aid. But this is not the vision.

Those things are the not the vision in this document. If they were, why were they not in that first document, the shiny little book that had the glossy cover, the nice pages and good printing? It had the maple leaf on the front. That is what the Liberals called the budget document. It had many pages. It gave some detail and showed some idea of how the money was going to be spent.

If these things were the vision, why not put them in that document? No, they came out late in the game, when the government's survival was in jeopardy.

When they came out with the shiny book, the Liberals said at the time that it could not be cherry-picked. I remember hearing the finance minister say that. I am sure the members across the way will remember that. That budget was thought through. Did the Liberals not have meeting after meeting of the finance committee and hear witness after witness in trying to balance the priorities of Canadians?

They came up with the plan. There were even some good things in it, things that even the Conservative Party can support, and yet at the drop of a hat one day in a hotel room they decided that they could spend $4.5 billion that was not in any way planned and was without accountability mechanisms. That is shameful, in my opinion.

A budget is about management, setting up a spending plan and having measurable outcomes. It is about knowing what the means of accountability are. The Liberals will say we can trust them because they are responsible, as if they are somehow the guardians of Canadian values and fiscal responsibility.

Let us look at their record. The Liberals say they inherited a difficult situation and they had to cut back. In fact, they did cut back on program spending, but in the last five years there has been a 44% increase in program spending. That is not taking into account the additional spending in this bill.

I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is making this play as to whether it is “may” or “might”. He is right: this is about enabling legislation. The word is “may”. It is not “might”. Those are different words in English grammar. This means that the minister or somebody, the governor in council, frankly, has the power. It is about authorization. It is the cabinet. It is the cabinet, if we read the final clauses of the document, that can develop and implement programs and projects. It can enter into agreements with a province, a municipality or any other organization or any person. It can make a grant or contribution or any other payment.

This is sounding vaguely familiar to me, as if this might be leading us somewhere we do not want to go. We are putting this kind of power in the hands of the governor in council, in the hands of the cabinet, with no plan, with no idea of how this might be spent or even whether it will be spent, and with no way of measuring the outcomes. Cabinet is allowed to give funds to any province, organization or any person and can buy shares in any corporation or acquire membership in a corporation. This is a recipe for disaster.

It does not require the government to make the payments. It does not even require that the spending be incremental. It does not say that the government could not take it from spending it had already planned and say it has met its obligations by spending this money in its place.

I have not been in this place long, but I cannot believe that we are actually having to deal with this. I cannot believe it. It is so obvious to me what this is. It is an attempt at vote buying.

Canadians should say that it is unacceptable for Liberals to buy the votes of the NDP for about $240 million a vote. Canadians should say to the NDP members that it is shameful for them to sell their votes to the Liberals for $240 million a vote. It is shameful. I hope Canadians pronounce judgment on this.

All we have is vague promises and no details. As has been said, this is a blank cheque. Don Drummond, the chief economist with TD Financial, said in the National Post on May 7:

For years government has wanted an instrument that would allow it to allocate spending without having to say what it's for. This act will do it.

It almost makes me wonder if this was the Liberals' plan: make it look like they are in jeopardy, go to the NDP and come across with this bill. Now they have this slush fund. Now they can do this vague spending. Who knows where it will go, when it will go and how we will figure it out and measure it? This is what we have in Bill C-48. This needs to be defeated.