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

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. minister is not interested in what I have to say he has an option available to him. He can go up the aisle and out the door. I do not mean to be difficult, but I was trying to explain something. I was going back to my being in business and having to have a business plan. I was mentioning the fact that a government that is going to make Canada thrive also has to have a business plan. We need to know what we are going to do with the money we take in from taxpayers. We need to know their priorities and their needs and those are the things that must be addressed in the budget.

When Bill C-43 was presented, there were options available to the Conservative Party. We could have followed suit with the NDP and the Bloc and at the first opportunity voted to bring this government down. That would have been easy and, in some ways, it might have been very satisfying, but it would not have been responsible. If there is nothing else that we are, we are responsible. We are responsible to taxpayers, to the next generation and we are responsible for what goes on in the House.

We have an obligation as members of Parliament to try to make things work. We have to make them work for Canadians. When we lose sight of what it is we are here for, Canadians, then we have a serious problem.

We were willing and attempted to make amendments, amendments that met the needs of our constituents, the needs of all Canadians, things that were missing from the budget, things that were not there that needed to be there, the priorities of Canadians that were not reflected. We were told, point blank from the Liberal government, that there would be no amendments and that was the end of it.

However we are patient in the Conservative Party and we decided to wait until it went to committee where we could actually have the opportunity to voice a large opinion on what needs to happen in the hope that common sense would prevail and that there would be acceptance of provisions that would make things better for Canadians.

In the interim, before that stage happened, there was a deal made between the Liberal government and the NDP. Some of the things that the NDP has put forward are things that are very important to Conservatives as well. We care about the environment, about the next generation and about affordable housing, but we are a Conservative Party that is fiscally responsible. We will not give anyone a blank cheque. It takes some trust for us to accept that when we agree to a budget the government will do what it says it will do.

I have only been here five years but I have watched more supplementary budgets go through and I have watched taxes increase and increase and I have not seen a big difference happening for Canadian people. In my own riding I still have residents who are reeling from the impact of the softwood lumber debacle. They have not been supported or helped, and there is no money in this budget for those people. We wanted to make that happen. We wanted to change that in the Conservative Party.

I also have a huge contingent of ranchers in my riding. These are people who have been around for over a hundred years producing food. These are good, stable, honest people whose livelihoods have been ripped out from underneath them because of a government that did not act appropriately or quickly enough. We have gone two years now with that debacle and nothing has happened.

The Conservative Party wanted to see those things addressed but the Liberal government said no amendments. However that story changed rather quickly when it made a deal with the NDP to stay in power. Let us be honest here, that is what that deal was about, nothing more, nothing less. It was about staying in power. Now it is saying, as a government, that it expects us to just agree with this. We should just say yes because, by golly, that is what it has decided to do and if we want to argue about it, it will make us look as bad as possible.

Well the government can go ahead and make me look as bad as it wants because the day I sign a blank cheque that I do not have to cover and taxpayers in Canada have to cover is the day I should head out that door and go home. I would be of no use to Canadians and to my constituents if I were to accept that kind of a deal. I will not accept that kind of a deal.

If we take a look at the budget that has been presented as Bill C-48, it is two pages with a little tiny paragraph at the top. If we take a look at that and we say $4.5 billion, 400 words, which is approximately what is in there, that is $11,500 a word. I cannot agree with a bill that does not show me where the money will be spent and does not reflect the needs of Canadians. It is a bill that allows the government to do whatever it wants. I cannot do agree to that and neither can this party.

Can I endorse some of the things that the NDP party wants to do? Yes, I can. If those could be done in a reasonable fashion or if the Liberal government wants to present me with a business plan showing me how it is going to implement it and tells me what it is going to do, then perhaps they would get my agreement.

In my life I have been a negotiator for contracts. I recognize the difference between the words “will” and “may”. The words in this legislation say “may”. I hate to disappoint the NDP, and maybe none of them have negotiated contracts, but if does not say “will” it is not going to happen.

The NDP has been taken for a ride in exchange for their votes. This is all a big farce as far as I am concerned. It is not going to happen. The government knows it is not going to happen and I know it is not going to happen, but the NDP does not seem to know that it is not going to happen.

The NDP members would be better off if they were to join forces with the Conservative Party. We could put our heads together to convince the government do what needs to be done . However they have chosen not to do that and there is not much I can do about that.

The one thing I really do resent is that we have a government that has gone to the FCM, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and has spun the FCM a tale that says that if this budget does not pass it will get no money. That is simply not true. It will get the money.

What the government has not told the FCM government is that it is the government's choice to tie Bill C-43, which we supported, and Bill C-48, which we cannot support, together. If thee money for municipalities is lost, it will lie in the laps of the Liberal government. It will not be the Conservatives that made this happen. It will be the government itself.

I would like to believe that everyone in this House has the best interests of Canadians at heart. If in fact that is true, no one can sign off on a blank cheque budget that does nothing to help Canadians and adds to what we already have, which is a half a trillion dollar debt.

The people in my riding are looking for help. They are looking for work and they are looking for some kind of optimistic future, something that they can look forward to. This does not offer it to them. Those cuts that are coming to corporations may very well cost 2,700 jobs in my riding.

I cannot and I will not support this and I urge the government to rethink this silly piece of legislation.

[Charlie Penson, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, you will notice that the government members have not participated in the debate. The President of the Treasury Board has come in now and is heckling instead of participating in this very important debate on Bill C-48. If he wants to be involved, I suggest that he get involved in the debate rather than heckle the member--

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-48, which has been described as a New Democratic-Liberal budget bill, notwithstanding it is described as an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments.

It is a very strange bill. Normally when the finance minister prepares a budget, the finance minister holds hearings. The finance minister could have his people go all over the country and listen to Canadians as to what should be in the budget. The finance minister receives correspondence and briefs from different groups around the country. The finance minister listens to committees. Then the finance minister finally prepares a budget, which could be quite thick, and makes a presentation giving in very specific detail what is in the budget.

This document, which I say is not a budget, is the most vague piece of legislation that we have seen in this place for a long time. I am repeating some of the things that have been said but I hope the Liberals will finally get it. The word “may” is used throughout the bill.

The bill says that for the fiscal year 2005-06, payments may be made. There is no guarantee that those payments are going to be made. It is the same for 2006-07, that payments may be made. We do not know whether they are going to be made. They may be made; they may not be made.

Then the bill gets into what the allocations are going to be. It says that payments shall be allocated for the environment. What in the world does that mean? It does not say how much. It does not say what they are going to do specifically. It just says “for the environment”.

Then it says “including for public transit”. That is the same thing. What does that mean? The question of public transit has been talked about. Most of the gas money for public transit that has already been given, which is outside this amount, has been given, at least in the province of Ontario, to the city of Toronto. What about the rest of the province? Why can the rest of the province not receive moneys for transit? Why is it all being allocated to the city of Toronto? I live in an area where there is minimal transit, albeit, but the fact is I do not think we are going to see one dime for transit in my riding of Dufferin--Caledon. I do not think we are going to see it under Bill C-48.

The bill states, “For an energy-efficient retrofit program for low-income housing, an amount not exceeding $900 million”. Again, we have no idea what that means. We know it is going to be up to $900 million, but we are not sure.

The bill goes on and on. It talks about training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education.

Of course those are wonderful things. Why can those people not tell us what they are going to do with the money? Why can they not be specific and outline the programs that they are going to spend on? Why be vague? Why be cute about it?

The bill talks about foreign aid. There is a blanket statement, “for foreign aid, an amount not exceeding $500 million”. What does that mean?

All these statements are vague and really, I think, designed to dupe us. The NDP members of course have been duped. They think they got something. They do not have anything. They have no idea what this bill means. They really do not know. Furthermore, they say, “If you pass this budget, if you pass C-48, the cheque will be in the mail tomorrow”.

Do members remember when the 2004 budget was approved in this House? It was approved after the introduction of the 2005 budget.

Maybe they are going to get the money, maybe they are not. Whatever it is going to be, if it is anything, it is going to be a year from now.

It is a very deceptive bill. As I said, the word “may” is used, “The Governor in Council may specify the particular purposes”. Then it talks about all these other programs that the government may get into. It is may, may, may.

Why do they not use the word “shall”? Why do they not outline the programs? Why are they being so deceptive?

The other issue I would like to talk about is that it appears the moneys will be paid out of surplus. The bill says it will make certain payments out of the annual surplus in excess of $2 billion. I must confess that I find this whole process of making payments out of surpluses very strange.

There was a surplus set aside for 2004 and a huge surplus set aside for 2005. Then the government almost failed a few weeks ago. Does everyone remember when the government made all the commitments of payments? It was an enormous amount of money, something like $1 billion in a very short period of time. That is strange. I thought this place decided the specifics of how we would vote on certain programs, but the finance minister and the Prime Minister decided how this would happen.

The leader of the New Democratic Party thinks he has decided. He met with the Prime Minister in a hotel room in Toronto, wrote the budget out on the back of a napkin and that was okay, but that is not the way it is done. That is not the way it is supposed to be done in our country. That is one of the many reasons why I am voting against Bill C-48. It is the most inappropriate way to deal with the finances of our country, on the back of a napkin. What a strange process.

There is no plan whatsoever in this budget. It was done on a wing and a prayer. We expect better from the government and we are not getting it.

I would like to look for a moment at a trend set by the government when it comes to spending Canada's tax dollars without a plan.

Since the 1999-2000 program, spending has gone from $109.6 billion to $158.1 billion, an increase of 44.3%, a compound annual growth of 7.6% when the economy itself managed to grow by only 31.6%, a compound annual growth rate 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 that there is so much waste by the government with little planning. Bill C-48 is a prime example. I groan at the waste that will come out of this bill.

Often the government responds in a knee-jerk way by throwing money at programs and it confuses spending money with getting results. This is one of them. Bill C-48 is a prime example. The example has been given over and over about the firearms registry. There is absolutely no plan to deal with that. Originally it was estimated that it would cost $2 million. Now it is around $2 billion. It has crept up to that.

The government does not like us to talk about that because it has been a complete failure. Bill C-48 will be a complete failure.

The public saw children high on gasoline on television reports and the Liberals threw money at David Inlet without a plan. The community was moved into new housing a few miles away at a cost of $400,000 per person but the problems went with them.

The Quebec referendum has been referred to by many people on this side of the House. The Liberals responded by throwing money at it but did not have a plan. The result was the sponsorship scandal, this thing that has consumed the government and this place the entire session. There were $250 million of wasted money and $100 million illegally funnelled to Liberal friends and the Liberal Party. Even worse, it reinvigorated Quebec separatism. The Liberals claim they are trying to solve the problem, but they have created the worst problem the country has ever seen.

I could go on and on talking about matters that have been brought up here tonight. The fact is this not the way we should be spending the public's money, simply on the back of a napkin. I hope that there is opposition in the House to defeat this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, certainly no one would accuse the member that that speech had been made before.

I am confused in that the member talked about when he came to the House in 1993 and how bad things were. I want to remind the member that his party was in power in 1993. I want to remind him that the annual deficit at that time was $43 billion. I want to remind the member that in Bill C-48 there is a clause that the government will not go into a deficit. It is so unfortunate that when his party was in power someone had not thought of putting in a clause when the deficit was going to $43 billion.

When the Conservative Party was in power and it accumulated a debt of $43 billion, why did someone not think to put in a clause and show some fiscal responsibility? What happened to the Reform Party? Is there any chance of bringing the Reform Party back to the House?

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate Bill C-48. It is interesting to hear the rhetoric from the other side of the House, on the Liberal side. The Liberals have accused some of our members of repeating ourselves on the issue of fiscal responsibility, accountability, excesses and scandal. I think those are the terms that have been used on our side and certainly does bear repeating.

However, if we all think back to 1993, when the Reform Party came into this House, the issues at that time were just as paramount on issues of accountability and fiscal responsibility as they are today. In fact, they are worse today, and there is only one government that has been in power and that is the Liberal Party. It has been in power since 1993.

At that time, the debt was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $525 billion. The servicing of that debt was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40 billion to $45 billion every year. That was a huge amount of debt and debt servicing. In 1995 this country almost hit the wall fiscally and economically. It was so close.

In the first two years that the Liberal government was in power, how much did it add to that debt? It was $525 billion or $520 billion. It bounced up to near $550 billion. In fact, if it were not for the Reform Party back in those days, there would have been no control exhibited on the other side of this House on expenditures. That is how serious the matter was back in those days.

If it were not for the efforts of the members on this side of the House, the issue of smaller government would not have even entered the mind of the Liberal Party. In fact, it was pretty much embarrassed but had to cut back on the size of the bureaucracy for a while. The Liberal Party was embarrassed because it had to deal with the deficit spending that it was so engaged in and could not control. It was only because of members on this side of the House which brought that about. We had a message to deliver from the ridings to the government. It was not the other way around.

Up until that particular time, the government of the day was the messenger to the outlying areas. The representatives went back there to tell the constituents what was good for them. We are fast approaching that kind of scenario again. In fact, it never really changed. However, we did manage to dampen that ridiculous spirit that the Liberal Party had in trying to turn things around and tell people in this country what was good for them.

Since that time, in the last two, maybe two and a half years, the bureaucracy is again on the rise. It has increased somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25%. That side of the House does not understand what it means to prepare for those days when things may not be as lucrative as they are now. We will come upon those days. It is a matter of course.

No doubt the majority of us came to the House to make things better in this country. At least that was my intention and I know that was the intention of many of my colleagues on this side of the House. We wanted to make things better for the whole country, not just for part of it and it was certainly not to line our own pockets or that of our friends. We did not have those intentions.

It is an embarrassment to say that has happened in this nation. We have had one scandal after another and they never stop or slow down. They are always there just below the surface and every so often they bubble out and we get a scandal involving an abuse of taxpayers' money.

What has changed? To be honest, I have not seen the rate of decay as significant as it has been over the last few months. There is the deal with the NDP to prop up the government. That is the only reason why it took place. It was not to make things better because this so-called deal has a thousand holes in it. It was just to prop up the government when it deserved to fall.

We are dealing with an eleventh hour deal to keep this corrupt government alive. Liberals included this strange little package in the budget to do it. Really, it is very deceptive to say the least. There is an old saying “desperate times call for desperate measures” and that is exactly what has happened with this arrangement between the NDP and the Liberals.

Bill C-48 commits $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money to NDP spending initiatives. No one really knows what they are. There is no plan and no accountability. When I think back to 1993, I came here for fairly significant reasons. There was no accountability with government. All we heard were messages out of Ottawa telling us this is what is good for us. There were no significant plans and proposals that would make a person in the outer reaches of the country very comfortable. The other issue was the massive debt that had accumulated over time which started under the Liberals and just went sweeping on through and the Liberals expanded on that debt.

The other issue that brought many of us into the House in 1993 was the fact that we were looking into the future of what our kids and grandkids were going to have. It was very bleak. We had a debt with massive debt servicing. We had a government that was not accountable to the people and it continued. It listened in no way, shape or form to anyone out there apart from those who were touting the Liberal message. The Liberals were spending then like drunken sailors and they are still spending like drunken sailors.

Looking at Bill C-48, how far does $4.5 billion go? Can the average taxpayer really understand that? If we were to look at it from the point of view of every man, woman and child, they would each have to fork over $140 to pay off this NDP arrangement. That is significant. Looking at it from the point of view of a family, it would be somewhere between $550 and $600. Maybe that does not sound like a lot to Liberal members, but $550 to $600 will do a lot of good in the hands of the average taxpayer in this country.

The other thing we recognize clearly is that if one puts a dollar into the hands of the average taxpayer in the country, he will make better use of it than any politician or bureaucrat. It is well known. That typifies everything that has gone on in here because the money that has been squandered over all these years is inexcusable.

I could go on and on about how we could address these issues when it comes to expenditures where they would be better placed and the like, but I have to say that Bill C-48 is a bad piece of legislation, to say the least. What makes it even worse is that it was a cooked up deal between two parties, and in fact the finance minister was not even part of it, and it has been sold in a very false way to the people of this country.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to tell the Liberals over and over before it finally sinks in that they are wasting Canadian taxpayers' money. We are tired of hearing their questions about what part we do not like. What we do not like is the lack of detail. Money cannot be thrown out there and expect it to stick to the problem. That is all this bill does.

We would ask where the government went from Bill C-43 to get to Bill C-48 and some of the commitments that the government made in its throne speech. They are now non-existent. With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, there is lots we do not like and the government will hear a lot more of the same thing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member's speech and I rather liked his speech. I was wondering why I liked the speech and then realized that I had heard it before. I suppose a repetition of nonsense kind of wears on a person after a while. Maybe it has a certain amusement factor.

I want to ask the hon. member, what part of Bill C-48 does he not like? Does he not like the notion of putting money into affordable housing that is a priority of Canadians? Does he think that throwing money at the environment is not something that Canadians appreciate? Does he think that throwing money at foreign aid is not something that Canadians want done? Does he think that throwing money at students is not something that Canadians want done?

We could go through the list of the four items which we have identified as spending priorities in this bill. We have to wonder why the hon. member characterizes this as throwing money at those items. Why does the member think that it is fiscally irresponsible to throw money at something less than 1% of the budget of the Government of Canada?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise in the House tonight to talk about Bill C-48. I think that Canadians should know how much information there is in the bill about the $4.5 billion that it covers. I will read it out so that Canadians understand the lack of detail. It states:

(a) for the environment, including for public transit and for an energy-efficient retrofit program for low-income housing, an amount not exceeding $900 million;

(b) for supporting training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education, to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.5 billion;

(c) for affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.6 billion; and

d) for foreign aid, an amount not exceeding $500 million.

There is no detail. It is a blank cheque. Canadians should understand that there is no detail. Why would we support something of that nature?

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that every Canadian can live in a country with the highest standard of living in the world. Our goal is that every Canadian who wants a job should be able to get a job. Our goal is that every region of the country will enjoy economic growth and new opportunities for the people of those regions. Our goal is to make Canada the economic envy of the world. We want every mother and father in Canada to be able to go to bed at night knowing that their children will have the chance to live the Canadian dream. They will be able to get post-secondary education, find a good, well paying job, afford to start a family, buy a house, save for their retirement, and ensure that they can have a bit left over for summer camps and vacations. One can only do that if the government does not overtax Canadians and then recklessly spend their tax dollars.

Instead, in most Canadian families, both parents need to work, one just to pay the taxes. In my opinion, a dollar left in the hands of the family household or entrepreneur is more beneficial than a dollar left in the hands of a bureaucrat or a politician.

As the Conservative member of Parliament for Oxford, I am offended by these gross budget surpluses. They are nothing more than poor forecasting and overtaxing. If the finance minister had $4.5 billion left over after he created the original budget in Bill C-43, why did he not apply it to the national debt? Why did he not use it as a tax break for middle income families?

Bill C-48, which we have come to know as the $4.5 billion NDP budget, is a prime example of how not to govern a country. We have before us a budget bill that in effect promises money to be directed to social programs, contingent on the fact that there is a budget surplus in 2006.

This fairytale deal was born in a hotel room by a Prime Minister desperate to survive the Gomery inquiry testimony of Liberal Party scandal and corruption. His partner, the leader of the NDP, chose to ignore the stench coming from the Gomery inquiry and instead chose to improve his own public profile by making a deal that nobody, including the Minister of Finance, wanted. Today we find ourselves debating a bill that has no specific plan. I just read it out loud. It has no details, just pie in the sky promises on how to spend $4.5 billion.

Let us take a moment and think what $4.5 billion would have done for farmers in this country. In the main budget we have to use a microscope to find a mere mention of Canada's agricultural sector. In this add-on budget it aims to take away experimental farms that are vital to serving the different regions of the country. That is the Liberal way, cut here and spend it there.

What would $4.5 billion have done for the development of more doctors in this country? The Conservative Party has consistently opposed the Liberal approach to spending without an adequate plan, which is reflected in Bill C-48. The Liberal approach is cruel not only to taxpayers, but more importantly to those who depend on promised services.

Think of what we could have done with that money to address Canadians' concerns with waiting lists. How many more MRI machines could have been purchased to alleviate the wait for those who are suffering? No, instead we needed to earmark $4.5 billion to the ideals of the NDP. In turn, what Canada received was another 10 months of governing by a party that lacks vision, leadership and integrity.

Just because we are opposed to this budget of convenience does not mean my party lacks a social conscience. The Conservative Party wants to ensure the social needs of Canadians are met. We recognize that many Canadians are not receiving the level of assistance from the federal government that they deserve. This is a direct result of the Liberal government's approach to problem solving: throw money at problems without an adequate plan to ensure the level of service actually gets delivered and meets the targeted results it was created for in the first place.

It would be irresponsible and cruel to Canadians in need to know that more money is being thrown at programs that are not meeting their objectives. The responsible Conservative Party approach would be for the government to first ensure that existing money is spent effectively to improve programs and services to ensure that nobody is left behind.

At the finance committee the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition rejected Conservative Party efforts to restore prudent fiscal management, to include real solutions for Canadians, such as matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women and to ensure 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 1 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 2 would force the government to table a plan by the end of each year outlining how it intended to spend the money in the bill. Spending without a plan is a recipe for waste and mismanagement. It is cruel not only to taxpayers but more important, as I said, it is cruel to those who depend on promised services.

The Conservative amendment to clause 3 would ensure that important accountability and transparency mechanisms were in place for corporations wholly owned by the federal government. Accountability and transparency should be paramount to any government, especially in this case, considering Bill C-43 advocates spending an additional $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money. Accountability and transparency, as I said, are important. We have lost that in the government and what we end up with is wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.

There has been a lot of discussion in the House today from the NDP and the Liberals questioning what it is that we do not like about Bill C-48. I would like to make it clear that it is not so much what is in Bill C-48 that we do not like, but has more to do with what it lacks. There is no concrete plan on how that money will actually bring reality to the promises made.

I would like to give some examples of why my party has no faith in the promises made by the Liberal Party. The Liberal record on spending without a plan should strike fear into any taxpayer in this country. Since 1999-2000, program spending has gone from $109.6 billion to $158.1 billion, an increase of 44.3%, a compound annual growth rate of 7.6%, when the economy itself managed to grow by only 31.6%, a compound annual growth rate of 5.6%. Once the Liberals had our tax dollars, they could not resist spending them even faster than the economy was growing.

It is not surprising there is so much waste with the government. Often the Liberal government responds in a knee-jerk way by throwing money at problems. The Liberals confuse spending money with getting results, such as throwing money at a firearms registry as a way to deal with the criminal misuse of firearms but with no explanation of how this would prevent criminals from getting and using guns. The registry was to cost $2 million. Reports now indicate that the actual cost is close to $2 billion.

Not long ago the Canadian public saw television reports of children high on gasoline and the Liberals simply threw money at Davis Inlet without a plan. The community was moved to new housing a few miles away at a cost of $400,000 per person but the problems went with them.

The Quebec referendum shocked the nation. The Liberals responded by throwing money at it but without a real plan. The result was the sponsorship scandal, a $350 million waste of money with $100 million illegally funnelled to Liberal friends and the Liberal Party. Even worse, it has reinvigorated Quebec separatism.

This bill will do nothing for Canadians. It has no information in it and no plans for spending.

On behalf of my constituents in Oxford, I believe that if there is a budget surplus in this country, Parliament should have a say on how it will be spent, not two leaders looking to advance their own political agendas. We need to keep in mind that this is actually Canadian taxpayers' hard earned dollars, not Liberal dollars, not NDP dollars, but Canadians' dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to question the member across the way about one of the specific provisions that is set out in Bill C-48.

As the member knows, Bill C-48, assuming that the surplus funds are available, deals with specific funds for affordable housing, public transit, access to public education and foreign aid. The specific issue on which I want to question the member is public transit. As the member knows, there were certain amounts of funds allocated to increase and enhance the public transit systems in all provinces across Canada.

In the province that I come from the amount announced was on a per capita basis. It was very favourably received by all people in the province, it seems. That seems to be the case in other provinces. The first part of my question is whether the people in his province have that broad level of support and acceptance which I certainly found in my province.

However, right now the people who support this increased funding for public transportation are met with the spectacle of the Conservatives here in the House arguing against it and attempting to defeat that provision.

My question is twofold. Is there any support at all in his province for this increased funding for public support? Second, why is his party so opposed to the Government of Canada funding increased support for public transit?

[Jim Gouk, Conservative, Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start this evening with a quote from Scott Reid, the Prime Minister's communications director: “But we can guarantee that we will play no part in compromising one bill for another”.

Further to that, the government House leader is reported to have pounded his fist on the table at the caucus meeting yesterday and stated that he had made no deals with anyone over any legislation.

Maybe he has not, but his party certainly has. In fact, that is the very reason we are here tonight debating Bill C-48, which is nothing more than a deal made by the Liberals on legislation. That deal includes the creation of this bill and the modifying of Bill C-43 to remove some of the previously promised tax relief measures. Once again the Liberal Party has been caught red-handed in stretching the truth to the breaking point.

We have a lot of serious things being said tonight, but I want to talk about the tax side because we have many members who are going to speak on many issues of this bill. Removal of tax relief was one of the things the Liberals did in order to create a window of money to buy the NDP to support them. In fact, the leader of the NDP was not actually bought, as I heard someone suggest one time; he was just rented for a short period of time.

Some time ago an article appeared in the Salmon Arm Lakeshore News . It was an article written by a local financial adviser, who is a regular contributor, to try to put taxes and tax relief in perspective in terms of how they work in Canada. This is something that the NDP in particular might want to listen to. The article as written by this individual states:

I was having lunch at PJ's with one of my favourite clients last week and the conversation turned to the [provincial] government's recent round of tax cuts.

“I'm opposed to those tax cuts,” the retired college instructor declared, “because they benefit the rich. The rich get much more money back than ordinary taxpayers like you and I and that's not fair.”

“But the rich pay more in the first place”, I argued, “so it stands to reason they'd get more money back.”

I could tell that my friend was unimpressed by this meagre argument. Even college instructors are a prisoner of the myth that the “rich” somehow get a free ride in Canada.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everybody can understand. Suppose that every day, 10 men go to PJ's for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If it was paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four men would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59. The 10 men ate dinner at the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement until the owner through them a curve.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.”

Now dinner for the 10 only costs $80. The first four are unaffected. They still eat for free. Can you figure out how to divvy up the $20 savings among the remaining six so that everyone gets his fair share?

The men realize that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33, but if they subtract that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being paid to eat their meal.

The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20”, declared the sixth man, pointing to the tenth, “and he got $7!”

“Yeah, that's right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!”

“That's true,” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks.”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor.”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They were $52 short!

And that, boys and girls and college instructors, is how Canada's tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Switzerland and the Caribbean.

And we know where a certain Prime Minister has all his cruise ships, do we not?

Let us talk about this legislation. Tax cuts were proposed and then yanked out in order to pay the NDP to rent its leader for a few weeks so he would support the Liberals.

First, that affects job creation. When the Liberals loads taxes on businesses, that is one of the expenses businesses have to meet in order to do business. Businesses will operate only when they can make a profit. If they cannot make a profit, they have to do one of two things.

They have to add that cost on so the consumers pay more. In turn, they also fund the government in yet another way by the consumer prices they pay, never mind paying their taxes, and then the businesses from which they buy their goods can pay the taxes this government extracts from them.

Then there is the alternative. If their competitors can do better, particularly with foreign trade, then our companies start closing down. We cannot compete with the United States, let us say, which has much lower taxes than we do, both at the corporate and the individual level. Our companies start closing down. They start cutting jobs. Canadians end up out of work. This is just like what is happening in the car industry right now.

The government has sold out Canadians. It could have taken the tax cut, which could have helped job creation. It could have reduced costs for consumers on necessary goods. Instead, it used that on a wish list for the NDP. What is really a crime is that, having cut out the tax reductions from the government's bill, the parliamentary secretary himself just a few short minutes ago admitted that this is money that may never get spent, which the NDP should be taking note of.

Let us talk about the NDP members and their priorities, because they were the ones who laid out the priorities on this particular bill. I had a group of NDP MPs, including one sitting in the House right now, come to my riding.

I could be mistaken, but I believe that all the elected NDP members of Parliament from British Columbia came to my riding. They said they were there because they wanted to find out what the people of my riding wanted, and they wanted to know the priorities of people in every area. I was at the meeting they held, an open house with wine and cheese. I said I was very happy to see them because I work very hard to get the things that are necessary for the people of my riding. I said that in a minority government in particular we would be looking for help and we would certainly welcome their help. I said we were glad they were there to find out the priorities of the people of my riding.

The NDP members negotiated $4.6 billion worth of changes to the budget with the Liberal government. How did those changes affect my riding?

One of the really big things that has hit my riding is the softwood lumber dispute. It is devastating. We are a very forest dependent riding. When they had a gun to the heads of the Liberals, did the NDP members put anything in their budget to provide compensation for individuals, companies and communities affected by the softwood lumber dispute throughout British Columbia, where a large majority of NDP members come from? Not one dime. It was not a priority for them. Foreign aid was a priority, but not B.C. aid, not aid for B.C. communities and aid for forestry workers. It was not on their agenda. It was not their priority.

They also found out in my riding that it was very important for people to get some help with the BSE problem with cattle. We have a lot of ranchers in areas of my riding. What did the NDP ask the Liberals for on that? Not one dollar. The NDP asked for money for housing, which the parliamentary secretary to the minister said may never get spent, but not for one dollar to help the cattle industry in my riding and throughout British Columbia, particularly through the rural area where they claim they have strong support. There was not one dollar asked for there.

We have a bogus budget that the parliamentary secretary to the minister says may never get spent. We have the priorities of the NDP that do not meet the priorities of the area they claim they most represent.

This whole thing is a sham. It should be shut down. It should be stopped. That would be the best thing we could do for the taxpayers of this country.

[Werner Schmidt, Conservative, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I love that question. That is absolutely fantastic. This word “may” is great. Coming from the hon. parliamentary secretary that is doubly great.

I thank the hon. member very much for his very kind and complimentary remarks. However, I really cannot help but build on the word “may”.

The finance minister may spend money either under Bill C-43 or Bill C-48 or both. Does this then mean that this budget may happen or it may not? Is this another one of those promises that will never be realized? Is that really what this is all about. We have a Liberal government that may do what it says it will do? That is an insult of extreme proportions. Talk about a vacuous statement, “May do something, but we probably won't”.

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

Mr. Speaker, I quite appreciate the hon. member and his contribution to this chamber. I know when this Parliament ends sometime in the far distant future, this will be his last session in the chamber. He has contributed mightily to the workings of this chamber. That is the last nice thing I am going to say about him.

I want to direct the hon. member's attention to the phrase “enabling legislation”. The hon. member misses the fundamental point that this is enabling legislation. He made a big point of saying that the minister may spend in these particular areas. However, if he goes back to Bill C-43 or to the 2004 budget, Bill C-33, he will see exactly parallel language. The minister may spend in these particular areas. It does not mean that the minister shall spend. It does not mean that the minister must spend. The minister may spend because it is enabling legislation.

I put it to the hon. member that in language Bill C-43 is identical to Bill C-48.

[Werner Schmidt, Conservative, Kelowna, BC]

We have a $4 billion budget on one page. Let us compare that with Bill C-43, which is 110 pages. There obviously has to be some major difference between the legislations.

I agree that Bill C-43 probably represents something just under $200 billion. Bill C-48 represents $4.5 billion. Bill C-43 goes into all kinds of details, saying what will happen, where it will happen, how it will happen, who will be responsible for the spending, what the objectives are and how it will be accounted for. We can measure the purposes that have been set, how that money will be spent and then determine whether the results have been achieved. If we compare that with Bill C-48, there is absolutely nothing even close to that in the bill.

Let me read a couple of the sections. It is amazing. The Minister of Finance has the authority, according to Bill C-48, in conjunction with the governor in council, to “develop and implement programs and projects”. It does not say what programs, it does not say what plans and it does not say anything about the projects.

Second, he can “enter into an agreement with the government of a province, a municipality or any other organization or any person”. He does not have to; he may.

Third, he may “make a grant or contribution or any other payment”. Subsection (e) says he can “incorporate a corporation any shares or memberships of which, on incorporation, would be held by, on behalf of or in trust for the Crown”. That means that the Minister of Finance can set up corporations, the Government of Canada will own them and there is absolutely no recourse. He just buys a company.

However, it goes beyond that. The Minister of Finance can “acquire shares or memberships of a corporation that, on acquisition, would be held by, on behalf of or in trust for the Crown”. That means under this bill the minister can now buy a corporation which at the moment is privately owned or owned by an organization and transfer that ownership from an individual to the Government of Canada. He is authorized to do that. He is also authorized to make expenditures for affordable housing, foreign aid and training programs.

I do not think there is anyone in the House who is not aware that education and training programs, education in particular, is the jurisdiction of the provinces. Yet we have the Minister of Finance authorized to get into what is a jurisdiction of the provinces. He may make arrangements with the provinces covered under another section, but he is not obligated to do so. He can unilaterally move into the situation.

My colleagues have indicated so clearly where this agreement took place and how it was actually formulated. I do not know. I was not there. However, I will say one thing for sure, I do not know how they can make Canadians think they are being responsible by writing on a single piece of paper the expenditure of $4.6 billion of our hard earned money without any particular plan or direction and with only vague generalities, except let us spend the money here and there.

Let us go into some of these areas.

The Liberals will do training programs. What kind of training programs? Will they be university training programs? Will they be training programs of a technical nature in a technical institute? Will they be partnership type programs where industry is part of it, or where a university may be a part of it or a technical institute may be a part of it? Will they be apprenticeship programs? Will they be new kinds of programs where innovations, technology and new development take place? None of that is described in any way, shape or form.

Let us go into the housing area. What kind of housing will the government be building? It does not give us any indication. Will it be aboriginal housing? It is supposed to be affordable housing. Will it be affordable housing in Swift Current? What is the criteria of affordable housing? There is no indication as to who will do it, whether it will be done through one of the agencies that exist in Canada now or whether it will be done through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or any other organization. There is no indication as to how this will be done.

Therefore, how could we hold the government to account? There is no way. It cannot be done, not according to this bill. It is simply a blank cheque deferred into the future some time and it can spend the money.

Guess what. This money is supposed to come out of the surplus. First, we take $2 billion off the top and devote that to debt repayment. Then if there is anything left, we can spend another $4.5 billion. We know the budget that currently exists will have at least that kind of money, so I think the money will be there to do that. However, if it is not there, then the minister is unable to spend this money.

Therefore, it creates a real problem. It creates a problem for us as taxpayers. We are being asked to fork over $4.6 billion and we have no assurances as to how this money will be spent. It hurts us because we are being asked to put that money forward. Then we have a group of people who are expecting something for this money. People who do not have affordable housing now think that it will be provided. People who do not have adequate training now think that will be provided but it may not happen. There are no assurances.

I want to compare this with what happened under Bill C-43. I am only going to deal with two parts and how different Bill C-43 is from Bill C-48.

I will read only one part of it. It has to do with the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. This is one particular provision. It is only one part of 24.

For Canadians who are listening, there are 10 pages essentially of detailed information as to how the Asia Pacific Foundation will help the development of economic development through our relationships with Asia-Pacific countries. That is one area which really becomes very specific.

Then we can go on to another section, which is every bit as significant to us. That is the section that deals with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador additional fiscal equalization offset payments. We also have 10 pages of detail as to how the money will be spent, what it will be spent on, how the organization will be set up and its responsibilities and how it can be held to account if it does not spend the money it was asked to spend.

Those are only two sections of the 24 in Bill C-43 that are specific. There are some things in it that obviously we would have some questions about, but at least we have a direction and at least we have a clear indication of what is going to happen. That is not the case with Bill C-48.

In Bill C-48 there is no accountability. There is no responsibility. It is simply a blank cheque deferred into the future. The Liberals are going to spend $4.5 billion of Canadian money and they are going to spend it the way they want to on any particular day.

That is not the way to run the country. That is not the way to spend $4.5 billion. Canadians should feel insulted by this kind of behaviour.

[Werner Schmidt, Conservative, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize that this debate has been labelled a budget debate, but I do not think that is what have. We have a debate on legislation but not budget legislation. The title of the bill is “An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to Make Certain Payments”. It is not a budget bill at all. It is simply an authorization for the Minister of Finance to spend some money.

Let us compare that to the title of Bill C-43. I notice the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has already recognized the significance of this difference. He recognizes that this is merely a bill to give him carte blanche to spend some money. If the hon. parliamentary secretary would listen, he would understand. Bill C-43 says, “An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005”. Notice that in the titles we have a complete differentiation between the legislations.

I would like to make a further comparison. This is a complete copy of Bill C-48. There is one good thing about this. At least it conserved paper. It has exactly one page printed on both sides, but four pages are blank.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, if we were to take Bill C-48 to a bank, the only thing we would hear is the door slamming as the banker asks us to leave because he would not lend us a penny. The government is asking taxpayers to foot a bill with no plan and no organization. It is not a business plan. It is two pieces of paper with a little bit of scribbling on it that adds up to $4.6 billion of taxpayers' hard earned money being spent recklessly by the government.