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

[Dale Johnston, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-48 and I would like to remind members that the title of the bill is “An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments”.

It is a pretty short title and it does not tell us a whole lot. It does not tell people across Canada whether this means that we are going to pay the power bill or that it includes $4.6 billion. It is a deal that was written up on the back of a napkin between the government and the NDP.

The member who just spoke prior to me talked about the unholy alliance between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois. Let me point out to him and to Canadians watching that there is no such alliance on this side of the House. There is, however, one on the other side of the House and it is the NDP propping up a corrupt government that does not deserve to be propped up.

The goal of a Conservative government would be to provide Canadians with the highest standard of living of anyone in the world. We would do that by reducing taxation. Taxation has brought us to the place where we are today.

The last surplus forecast was $1.9 billion. It turned out that whoever was looking after the books was dyslexic because it happened to be $9.1 billion and what did the government do with that surplus? In the face of an impending election it ran around the country and tried to run the cupboard completely bare. That is the whole idea behind running these large surpluses.

I will get back to the unholy alliance, or the shotgun wedding perhaps, between the two parties over there. I do not know which one of them is the bride and which is the groom. I would suggest that the smaller party be very wary of doing business with the Liberals because they have a practice of not following through with their promises.

I would refer that party to the long gun registry where the Liberals said to trust them because this was a bill that was going to reduce crime. It was going to take the guns out of the hands of the people in Canada who should not have guns and it was going to make us all a lot safer in our homes. It was going to reduce gang violence, it was going to do all these wonderful things, and it was only going to cost Canadians $2 million. Guess what? We are at $2 billion and counting and today we heard the Deputy Prime Minister vow, and brag actually, that the annual payments into the long gun registry are going to be capped at a mere $68 million a year. What wonderful news. I am sure that all Canadians are going to be thankful that they will be safer now because of the $68 million.

A Conservative government would put more decisions into the hands of the people who actually pay taxes. How would we do that? For one thing we would tax fewer dollars away from them. I have a daughter who is teaching school in Edmonton. I have another daughter who is married and has two young children, and they are scraping to get by in order to put a few dollars away for the education of their children. The children are two years and six months of age, but the parents are doing their best to put some money away to ensure that those kids get a college education if that is what they want.

How are they trying to do that? They are both working, so that one of them can pay the bills, the mortgage and put groceries on the table, and the other one works to pay their taxes. While we are talking about taxes, why is it that there was no tax relief in the budget? Why is it that there was no debt reduction in the budget? Why indeed was the budget ever written up?

It is pretty obvious that the reason it was written up was to save the political skin of the Prime Minister and his corrupt party. It was pretty obvious also that if all of these things were such wonderful Liberal ideas, they would have been included in the original budget. They were not.

I again warn my colleagues in the NDP to be very cautious of who they are dealing with here. If people want to do business with someone or invest in a company, they should have a look at the prospectus and the track record. I think the NDP members have been here long enough that they should know the track record of the outfit they are dealing with. I just say to them caveat emptor , let the buyer beware.

We talked about the huge reserves that have been built up over the years. I find it passing strange and difficult to comprehend how this thinking goes. Here is a government that has in the neighbourhood a $10 billion surplus in its last budget. There was no mention of help to agriculture in Bill C-48 at all.

At one time I believe I do remember people such as Stanley Knowles and Tommy Douglas saying that they were the friends of the farmer. As a matter of fact, the birthplace of the CCF, the forerunner of the NDP, was Saskatchewan, a province famous for its agriculture. There is no mention whatsoever of agriculture in this napkin budget.

I want to remind people that in 1994 the previous government made a commitment to upgrade the military helicopters. The Conservative government had made a deal to buy some EH 101 helicopters, so that the military would have machines that would fly when required, and the military would not have to go to the archives to obtain parts for these machines.

The helicopter deal was scrubbed, as everyone knows, at a cost of $600 million. Thanks to the Liberal government the taxpayers of Canada were on the hook for $600 million just to get out of the deal. We still do not have those helicopters.

That was a big commitment. Former Prime Minister Chrétien said that the government was working on that. I believe the terms he used were ones that the Deputy Prime Minister likes to use, “without further delay” or “in due course of time” or whatever. It did not happen. We still do not have the helicopters.

It is now 12 years after the promise was made to upgrade the helicopters for our Canadian military. We still do not have those helicopters. Today we have helicopters that require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. That is the kind of deal that the NDP has entered into. This is the type of party that it has entered into with this deal. It is a party that is notorious for not keeping its word. I do not know if it is parliamentary for me to say so, but I think that the Liberal Party is being duplicitous about this.

I have been here since 1993 and the government has continually racked up surpluses. The government has done very little, although it has made token payments on the debt, about $3 billion a year. In this budget and actually in Bill C-43, I did not see any payment on the debt.

I know that if the government were paying down the debt, it would reduce the $40 billion a year that we pay out in interest. That money, that we pay out for the party that we have had, is money that could be returned to the taxpayer in the form of just leaving more money in their pockets. I am a great believer that a dollar left in the hands of the taxpayer is far better used than a dollar that is sent here for the government to squander.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member is refusing to answer this question about infrastructure money flowing from the gas tax because that was one of my questions as well.

I live in an area southwest of Toronto. It is a beautiful area. It has been dependent upon farming and agriculture for years. However, because of these Liberal policies, many of our farmers are losing their farms. Unfortunately, we do not have the infrastructure that would attract alternate jobs.

While the minister was gloating across the aisle a moment ago about all of the rural and economic development money that the government claims to have put into its budget, absolutely not one penny of it has been allocated to southern Ontario where it is also needed.

I am wondering why the minister is so proud of this budget, in terms of Bill C-48, because the government did not even bother to overcome that shortage. How can he be so proud of it and so proud of the infrastructure efforts if no money that was promised is actually getting delivered and no money is going to help revitalize areas that really need it because of that party's failed economic and agricultural policies?

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the first item I want to address is this allegation of two parties blended. I have seen no more disturbing development in this House since coming here four and a half years ago than the alliance that has occurred between the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois. We can see it in the House of Commons, in committee and in the corridors.

To give an example, we are talking about Bill C-48, which is about six paragraphs long and which is good legislation that talks about affordable housing, public transit and access to post-secondary education, but when it went to committee, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois got together as an alliance, a very unholy alliance I should add, and they voted out every article in that act and returned the document with nothing in it.

I say shame on them and shame on the agreement. What part of this do they not agree with? Do they not agree with affordable housing? Do they not agree with public transit.

We also hear them talk about fiscal irresponsibility. Well I say to them that in 1993, when Brian Mulroney was incurring an annual deficit of $43 million, were they arguing fiscal irresponsibility? No, they were not. We are still paying that money back and that has put this country in a mess. We are finally getting out of it. We are starting to be able to spend money on programs and priorities that Canadians want, and that is why I urge everyone in this House to pass Bill C-48.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join the debate on Bill C-48 which would authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments.

However I believe in this debate we cannot just look at this bill by itself standing alone. It must be seen in the larger context of the entire budget, Bill C-43, the budget presented by the Minister of Finance. From everything I have seen, read and heard, it is a budget that meets with almost the unanimous approval of Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Budget 2005 is this country's eighth consecutive surplus budget. It is a good budget, a solid budget and a budget that Canadians want this House to pass.

For almost four months now, Canadians have been telling us three things. First, they have been saying to pass this budget. Second, they have been saying that they do not want an election. Third, they have been saying that they do not want a Conservative government. Those are the three things that Canadians have been telling me and other members of this House.

Canadians have been saying that this budget addresses not all aspects, that it is not perfect, that it is not 100%, but, by and large, it addresses their values, their concerns and their priorities. Canadians have also been saying that they want their elected officials, each and every one of them, to work together in committee, in this House and in the Senate to get together to get the budget through.

I cannot stress how important these two budgets, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, are to Canadians. They contain major initiatives that people all across the country have applauded. Canadians expect and have ever reason to expect these initiatives to be put into place, such as a national system of high quality, universally inclusive, accessible and developmental early learning and child care. This government has committed $5 billion toward this initiative which aims to give all Canadian children the best possible start on their future.

There is the gas tax revenue sharing initiative which will be worth $5 billion over five years, with $6 million of that due for this year alone. This is a much needed investment that will help Canada's cities, towns and communities to meet their needs with long term, reliable sources of funding.

Much has been said in the House about the so-called notion of a fiscal imbalance. I personally do not agree with it. We have two levels of government. We have the federal level and the provincial level. The provincial level of government has more taxing powers than the federal level. If the provincial level needs additional sources of revenue, it is very easy for them to raise taxes, if that is their desire or their wish.

When I analyze the situation I see a fiscal imbalance that is here and is growing between the federal and the provincial government on the one hand and the municipalities on the other hand. By the municipalities I mean the cities and towns. These incorporated communities do not have the capacity to raise taxes. I see that as a true imbalance. This provision would go a little way, although I will not say all the way, but it takes one step to help correct that imbalance.

I would also like to highlight this government's commitment to regional economic development. In 2003, I chaired the Atlantic caucus subcommittee on regional economic development which produced the Rising Tide report. This report, among other things, emphasized the need for the creation and growth of a knowledge economy in Atlantic Canada. I was very pleased that this government responded with a $708 million investment to the Atlantic Canada region.

The Atlantic initiative will include a renewed $300 million Atlantic innovation fund that will support university research, commercialization and innovative companies. The Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency will be making a further announcement on this initiative a week from Friday. It will also be supported by a $41 million permanent increase in ACOA's annual budget, totalling $205 million over five years.

Atlantic Canadians have even more to look forward to in this budget. For example, there is the new funding of $110 million over a period of five years to the National Research Council of Canada. In my home province of Prince Edward Island, construction is underway on the National Research Council Institute for Nutriscience and Health, which will anchor a worldclass research cluster. This is an investment not only in the region but in Canada.

Prince Edward Island is also recognized as a leader in alternate energy sources, most notably wind power. There is an existing facility in North Cape, Prince Edward Island and there is a second facility being planned for construction in the eastern part of the province. That is why I am especially pleased to hear of a $200 million investment in wind power, which includes the government's promise to quadruple the wind power production initiative.

The government has also been responsive to the needs of seasonal workers with significant and meaningful changes to the employment insurance program being tested by pilot projects. These include taking the 14 best weeks of work or since the start of the last claim, whichever is shorter. This will mean that for individuals with sporadic work patterns EI benefit levels will be more reflective of their full time work patterns. It removes a certain disincentive in the system and will not only help seasonal workers but also some of the seasonal companies.

Pilot projects are also testing an increase in the working while on claim threshold that will allow individuals to earn the greater of $75 or 40% of weekly benefits in an effort to work without reducing benefits. These changes were called for and needed. As long as we have seasons in this country we will have seasonal workers and these changes were fair, equitable and, in my view, took out of the system a certain disincentive that existed.

When we look at the entire budget package, Bill C-43, Bill C-48 and some of the announcements that precluded the last budget which took place last fall, there are issues I want to speak briefly to because they are all part of a continuum and are vital to Canadians living in every region of this country. The two I want to speak to are the accords on health care and equalization, which of course, as everyone in the House knows, continue to be priorities for all Canadians.

Canadians stand to benefit tremendously from the new deal on health reached between the federal government and the provincial first ministers. This historic agreement was reached last fall just a few months into this government's mandate.

Over 10 years more than $41 billion of new funding for health care will go to the provinces and territories, which in turn have committed to produce information on outcomes so that Canadians can be assured their money is being spent where it should be. The new deal recognizes the need for flexibility by allowing provinces and territories to target specific provincial health care needs.

Provincial and territorial needs are also being met through a new framework for equalization that will see an increase in payment by over $27 billion over the next 10 years. This represents the most significant improvements in this program in the history of it. It introduces and provides stability, predictability and increased funding which will assist the provinces and territories in meeting their social and economic development needs.

Last June, Canadians chose a minority government and they expected that government to work, and rightly so. This government, I submit, has worked. I have said before, when the budget came out in February, that the handprints of all parties were on it. It contained elements from every party.

The leader of the official opposition supported the budget. However, for some reason, whether it was a poll or some other development external to this House, he and his party changed their mind and they indicated that they would defeat the government on the budget.

However the government continued to work. It continued to work with everyone and with the NDP to bring about improvements, which is what Bill C-48 before the House is. It is an example of the type of cooperation that Canadians expect from their government here in the House of Commons.

However, when the Liberals and the NDP started working together for Canadians, suddenly the other parties did not like that.

It is unfortunate that I do not have more time because I could go on about the whole issue of the allegations from the other side about fiscal irresponsibility, but Bill C-48 is a good bill. It is very much part of the budget package, part of the continuum, and I urge every member of the House to support it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-48, which the NDP, in this corner of the House, gave rise to. It is important. Indeed, after two years of Liberal inaction and budgets causing despair among Canadians, it is thanks to the NDP that we have a better, balanced budget.

I would like to begin by talking for a few minutes about some of the important aspects for Quebec. It is quite clear, in our opinion, that neither the Liberal Party of Canada nor the Bloc Québécois has defended the interests of Quebeckers. For many years, in this House, we have been aware of the pressing needs of Canadians. However, neither the Liberal Party nor the Bloc Québécois has proposed anything in response.

I would first like to read remarks by a few Quebeckers who think what the NDP did is important. They come from all parts of Quebec. It is very important that Quebeckers be heard. Through the changes the NDP has made to the budget, we have touched on a few aspects that, we hope, will improve the situation in Quebec.

That said, I would like to read from a letter from the Centre d'alphabétisation de Villeray in Montreal. This is only one of the many comments we have received from people in Quebec. The centre's representative wrote:

After some people have waited more than 10 years for decent housing at a price they can afford, we feel it is essential to tell you it is high time for you to show some common sense and help one part of the population recover some of its dignity.

That is only one of the many comments we have received showing the importance of this budget for Quebeckers.

Here is another from the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain or FRAPRU. It is a well known organization in Quebec, as you know. François Giguère, FRAPRU's president, appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. He said that Quebec had exhausted its funding under the current initiative—he was speaking about housing, of course—and really needed the additional funds promised in Bill C-48.

It is obvious, as FRAPRU indicated, that when the Bloc Québécois opposes this bill, it is opposing something that the most experienced people in the area of housing in Quebec are promoting as a solution to the current situation in the province.

The Liberal Party of Canada has done nothing to solve the housing problem there. The Bloc Québécois is trying to block a bill that will make a difference. FRAPRU clearly stated that the interests of Quebeckers are well served by Bill C-48, for which the NDP is responsible.

I will read a third letter. I could read them for half an hour or even two hours, but I do not think that I would be allowed to continue like that. This letter is from Gabrielle Vena, president of L'Ombre-Elle, which is a home to assist and shelter women who are victims of spousal violence. She wrote:

We are writing this letter to ask you to rapidly adopt the NDP's amendment to provide $1.6 billion over two years for new social housing and $0.5 billion to make affordable housing more energy efficient.

As you know, in recent years, there has been a rental housing crisis in Quebec, and low-rent housing is even harder to find than before.

This is particularly evident in shelters for victims of domestic violence and their children. These women stay longer because they cannot find affordable housing, which in turn means that there are fewer beds for new admissions. Women and children are at risk, while others just need housing in order to leave. This situation is intolerable.

There is another indication. By opposing this bill, the Bloc Québécois is not working in the interest of Quebeckers. And the Liberal Party of Canada, by ignoring the needs of Quebec, is doing exactly the same thing.

I have one last letter. It is from the Association des personnes handicapées Clair-Soleil in the Laurentians, in north- central Quebec. Danielle Harbour-D'Anjou, who is the director of this association for the disabled, wrote the following:

We are writing this letter to ask you to rapidly adopt the NDP's amendment to provide $1.6 billion over two years for new social housing and $0.5 billion to make affordable housing more energy efficient.

Based on all these examples, Quebeckers are sending the House a very clear message. Furthermore, by writing to all the members of this House, they are telling the Liberal Party of Canada that, finally, thanks to the NDP, here is something that has some effect on the lives of Quebeckers and that the Bloc Québécois should not try to oppose this bill.

I would also like to speak for a few minutes about the whole issue of effective management of our resources.

I spoke yesterday in the House about the deplorable record of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party of sound fiscal management of the collective resources of Canadians. The fact is 85% of Liberal government budgets between 1981 and 2001, if we take both provincial and federal governments, were in deficit, the worst record of any Canadian political party. Two-thirds of the Conservative budgets at the provincial and federal levels were in deficit as well.

I mentioned as well the appalling record of the Conservative governments in the 1980s, the record deficits that have never been matched. I should mention as well that n the last federal election campaign, we saw the Conservatives come forward with a platform that was the most expensive in Canadian political history, even before we throw in the aircraft carrier which the leader of the Conservatives threw in at the last moment.

We have seen both Liberal and Conservative mismanagement of finances. A member of the Conservative Party talked about the level of corruption in the Liberal Party before I rose to speak. In this corner of the House, we are waiting, with great interest, for Justice Gomery's report so we can move to take action. Meanwhile, we will continue our work in this corner of the House.

It is important to contrast the corruption of the Liberals with the corruption of the Conservative Party. As we know from Stevie Cameron's book, On the Take: Crime, Corruption and Greed in the Mulroney Years , the Mulroney Conservative years were just as bad as the years that we are seeing now.

In both cases what we see is corruption at regular levels and bad fiscal management. Over the past 12 to 15 years, we have seen is a decline in the quality of life for most Canadians because of program cutbacks. We have a lack of health care and longer wait lists. We have a crisis in post-secondary and housing. We have longer and longer food bank lineups and more and more child poverty. We also know the average Canadian worker earns 60¢ an hour less and that there are fewer and fewer full time jobs available, less than half of what is created. Most jobs are temporary or part time in nature.

We have seen this steady decline in the quality of life. The NDP budget amendments are designed to stop that decline and to start the country moving forward. We will continue to work, in this corner of the House, for a better balanced budget. We have been pushing this forward. We will continue to work to get a health care policy that stops privatization, which is rampant in this country, and brings a decline in our waiting lists.

Rather than spending money on pharmaceutical products through the evergreening provisions, which means Canadian taxpayer dollars for health care are instead spent to profit the most profitable industry in North America, we will be pushing for home care. We can reduce health care costs that way and channel more money effectively into patient care and reduce waiting lists. We will continue to work for all of these things.

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member may know, I was Speaker of the Ontario legislature. I definitely know the rules and I was going through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member. I will always say “through Mr. Speaker”.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I ask the member, and I want to be very clear, Mr. Speaker, through you, what part does the member not agree with in Bill C-48?

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that people believe we will do it because of the things that we said in the last election, thinks like health care, with $41 billion, and the child care program with $5 billion, which we said in the election campaign we would do and we have. Tomorrow there will be an announcement in Richmond Hill, close to my area of the country. The Prime Minister will announce the money for the gas tax. That is what we said we would do in the election. Those are three of many things.

What part of Bill C-48 does the member not agree with? Is it the $1.6 billion for affordable housing? Are you against affordable housing? Is it the $1.5 billion going to post-secondary education? Can you tell me how you can go against giving $1.5 billion more to post-secondary education? There is $1 billion for the environment. Is the member opposed to helping the environment? Finally, there is the $500 million for foreign aid. I say very clearly to the member and all members, what part of that do you not agree with?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to continue with my speech on Bill C-48.

The Liberal government has had 12 years to implement a lot of the wish list that the NDP put forward in Bill C-48. I am wondering how the NDP feels assured that any of this is going to happen. The timeframe speaks to the fact that there will be an election before any of this actually comes to pass, so how does that party feel that this is going to carry over?

Daily we see the leader and other members of the party rising and questioning the Prime Minister and ministers on the front bench as to the very issues that the NDP are asking for in Bill C-48. I do not think the New Democrats feel reassured that they ever will come to pass. There was a kind of deathbed conversion by the Prime Minister to stay alive, at least until the summer recess and into the fall by buying the NDP favour over there.

Those members make a big thing that we sat on our hands at second reading of Bill C-43. I feel a lot more content sitting on my hands than using my hands like the NDP members used theirs to prop up the most corrupt government in Canadian history.

The papers are now saying that $5.4 million ended up in the Liberal Party coffers and the Liberals have set up a $750,000 trust fund to pay that back. That has not happened since the loaves and fishes. They are going to have to pony up a lot more money than $750,000, if it ever did show up.

I guess there is going to be a fairytale ending to this. Canadian taxpayers will be relieved to see that none of this is going to come to pass. An election will put an end to all of this and we will get on with a government that will use taxpayers' money in a proper way, that will rise to the challenges that face governments in this country.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our principal legislative objectives continue to be Bill C-43, the third reading vote of which will take place after question period, and Bill C-48. The government believes these bills reflect public interest and the enactment of both of these bills is required before the House adjourns for the summer. As the hon. member mentioned, if the House does not pass Bill C-48, we will be here in July and August. Consequently, we will continue to give these bills priority until they are disposed of.

We will then consider report stage of Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill; Bill C-25; Bill C-28; Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act; Bill C-47; Bill C-53; Bill C-55, the bankruptcy bill; and Bill C-37, the do not call legislation.

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

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the second half of the Liberal budget bill, Bill C-48, that the NDP and the Liberals put together in the dark of night in a hotel room to save the government basically. It is not outside the realm that this is basically an IOU. There are only 19 people in the country who believe that IOU will ever be fulfilled and they sit at that end of the chamber. For $260 million a vote, the government bought a little more time. That is really what Bill C-48 does.

The finance minister of the day had made statements in the media. When we questioned the original budget and said we would support it but wanted to see some amendments done in committee, and we talked about some of those amendment, the finance minister went on record at that time with a bit of a rant saying that there was no room for any amendments. This was the most complete budget. He was not going to change a thing. Nothing was going to persuade him to change or tweak anything in the budget. He is on record saying that a number of times.

Not long after that we suddenly get an edict from the Prime Minister, without consultations with his finance minister, saying that the Liberals were going to add another $4.5 million worth of spending in programs that they already agreed with. They did not put them in the original budget but they certainly agreed with them.

There is a problem with that. If that type of thing had happened to the now Prime Minister when he was Chrétien's finance minister, he would have gone berserk. He cut the legs out from underneath his finance minister. The finance minister of the day will tell us straight to our faces that he has not got legs to spare. He is already height impaired. To cut the legs out from underneath him like the Prime Minister did to buy votes is just unconscionable in this country. That is $260 million a vote.

Canadians will assess before the next election and during the next election as to whether that was a good use of taxpayers' money. I would argue that it was not and not anywhere close.

This is a modern day fairytale. I do not know how many years ago the old fairytale of Jack and the Beanstalk came out. The bumbling guy, Jack, on his way to town traded off the family cow, the cash cow, for a few magic beans. We have the same situation here. We have Jack bumbling on his way to Ottawa, trading off the cash cow, taxation, on a few magic beans, some promises that will never ever be fulfilled. It is an IOU, as I said.

If we want to talk about the Prime Minister standing behind his IOUs, then we want to talk to Premier Danny Williams. We want to talk to Premier Hamm of Nova Scotia and find out how that Prime Minister lived up to his IOUs. We can also talk to Premier McGuinty in Ontario as to how the Prime Minister and his finance minister are standing up to their IOUs. We can talk to any province across the country that had their health and social transfers cut by $25 billion. We can ask them how the Prime Minister then finance minister stood up to their IOUs. They will all tell us that their track record stinks.

Now we have more IOUs piled up. We have 19 people here who believe this. They swallowed it hook, line and sinker and it does smell fishy. When we look at all of the things that are outlined in the bill, they are holding the so-called corporate tax cuts for big business in abeyance. They did not kick in for four to five years to begin with. We needed the cash flow from that in order to pay this type of wishful thinking, this budget that is never going to happen.

The NDP members love to rant and rave about how they stopped the tax cuts for big business. Yet we had the leader of the NDP stand in the House last week decrying the fact that General Motors, one of these big businesses, is going to pull out of Canada because of productivity. It cannot make a go of it here because the regulations and taxation are too high. Yet his own budget is the thin edge of the wedge that is pushing big companies like that out of the country.

We cannot have it both ways. When we flip a coin there are two sides. The NDP members say it is going to land on its edge and they can have the best of both. It is never going to happen.

The NDP members say that these promises that are in the bill cover everything on the NDP wish list. They completely missed agriculture. They talk about being there for the little guy. There is absolutely nothing in the Liberal-NDP budget to address agriculture.

We talked about putting amendments through on Bill C-43 to address the shortfall in agriculture. The government programs do not hit the mark and do not get out to the mailboxes on the farm. Therefore the NDP missed on that one.

There is nothing for shipbuilding. Members of the NDP stand here day after day decrying shipbuilding in this country while the Prime Minister gets his done in China at discount rates, yet there is nothing in here about shipbuilding. There is nothing for seniors. There is nothing in here addressing the problems we have with the equalization formula.

It is fine that the NDP made this backdoor deal in the dark of night with Buzz Hargrove and the Prime Minister, but it missed the mark. The NDP could have built on Bill C-43 and instead it is going to tear it down. The good news is that we put through an amendment that $2 billion of the debt has to be addressed in the next two fiscal years before any of this takes place. That is the poison pill, and by putting through our amendment to make it $3.5 billion, this will thankfully never happen.

We need to see some common sense applied in this place and it is not in this particular budget. We sat fast and allowed Bill C-43 to go to committee. That is the right thing to do. Canadians had to see what was in there. We talked about amendments. We brought it back to the House. It is better than it was. It is still not good enough for Canadians because we also see the finance minister agreeing with us that Canadian productivity is lagging.

How do we address that? We do that by taking the boot off the necks of taxpayers, letting them do what they do best, and produce things in this country that we can export. We are an exporting nation. This bill will be regressive. I could never sit on my hands or not vote against this type of a bill.

There is good money going after bad. The government talks about money for housing. Everybody agrees with that, but we spent $2.2 billion in the last little while with no benchmarks that there has ever been any positive effect. We are going to add another $1.6 billion. I can hear the toilet flush now. There has to be a plan.

The finance committee brought four of the ministers who will be involved in this before the committee. None of them could say how this money will be spent. Where is the plan? There is nothing in the original budget other than a big bill for the environment, but no solid plan other than the Kyoto accord which everybody knows is a flawed document.

We are seeing good money flushed after bad in this one. Jack got the magic beans, but they are not going to grow. As I said, it is just a major IOU. We have economist after economist and all the major banks decrying this. We have the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, that represents big, medium and small sized businesses, saying this is ridiculous.

We have become a laughing stock to the rest of the world because of this type of economic action. If any of this was reasonably good to begin with, why was it not in the original budget? Greg Weston in the Ottawa Citizen says:

In practice, here is how the money will flow -- or more likely, won't flow: First, nothing can flow anywhere until the government determines if it has a surplus--

The government is great at spending that surplus, so there is no surplus. There never will be any money to address this and these guys fell for it. They sucked it all up and said, “Look what we did”. They sold themselves out for an ideal that the government will never ever respond to.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has said that it supports a national system of child care and early learning. I think it is interesting that Buzz Hargrove of the CAW, a major proponent of this, authored Bill C-48, along with the leader of the NDP and that group over here. They left child care out of the agreement.

The CAW's estimate for a national system of child care is $10 billion to $12 billion a year. This is important, because the members were talking about fiscal forecasts, how many surpluses are still ahead of us and how big these surpluses will be. This national system of child care would produce a $10 billion a year funding black hole.

Bill C-48 is going to eat some of these surpluses beyond $2 billion or, if our amendment is successful, $3.5 billion. That means less money available for national child care and early learning.

I have a question for the NDP and my colleague opposite. Are they giving up on national child care to get Bill C-48? Or do they want the high taxes, program cuts or deficit spending that will be necessary to pay for child care? Which principle are they giving up, fiscal prudence or child care?

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Speaker, there are lots of good things in Bill C-48, provided the government can afford it. One thing one has to remember in this place is that people very seldom argue with spending money on particular programs. There are always a lot of self-interest groups. I guess we are part of them because a lot of that money will be spent in areas we like.

It comes down to corrupting the process of budget making in the House. Remember, we supported the original budget, Bill C-43, brought in by the finance minister. We believe in a minority government we have to do the best we can, put a little water in our wine and hope we can allow the government, which is about a year old, to proceed and not defeat it.

That goodwill was thrown out the window when the whole process was corrupted. After the finance minister delivered his budget, the Prime Minister flew to Toronto three or four weeks later. He made a side deal with the NDP to the tune of $4.5 billion and the finance minister was left completely out of the loop. In most cases like this a finance minister, with any backbone or integrity, would have simply resigned because the entire process was corrupted. That is the point I am attempting to make.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been hearing speeches about Bill C-48 ever since this morning. Not long ago, we were debating Bill C-43. Even before Bill C-43 was introduced, numerous meetings were held among the various party leaders and the various finance critics.

I understand very well, although the ordinary taxpayer does not, why this government felt obliged, after all the time it had before tabling its budget, to hold these panicked negotiations with another party when it did bring in the budget and began to feel the impending threat of defeat. The NDP negotiated this agreement, partly because it too needed to avoid an election, not being able to afford another campaign, but also to build up its credibility. The bulk of its financial backing comes from the labour movement, and the workers have been totally neglected. There is not one red cent in it for the unemployed.

I have a question for the hon. member from New Brunswick whose riding is close to the Quebec border. He might in fact find it advantageous to look toward Quebec. My question: apart from the measures in favour of the oil and gas industry and the automotive industry, what else is there in Bill C-48 that is worthwhile?

[Greg Thompson, Conservative, St. Croix—Belleisle, NB]

Mr. Speaker, where do I begin on Bill C-48? Perhaps I should just pick up where the member from Nova Scotia left off.

I was jotting down some notes in thinking of how to start off this debate. Government should be about addressing the real needs of Canadians as opposed to the political needs of the party it represents; in this case the Liberal Party of Canada.

The parliamentary secretary is yakking away on his side of the House. I would expect him to at least listen. When it is his opportunity to speak, I will listen and we can debate it back and forth. However, his yakking over there does not really add much to this place.

I would question whether the real needs of Canadians are being met in Bill C-48. The member from Nova Scotia set out some of the areas in Nova Scotia where a little of money could make a big difference in terms of jobs and stability in our agricultural sector, research and so on.

I want to point out some of the same issues in the province of New Brunswick where a little money could make a lot of difference.

Some of these we could argue are not a little money but a lot of money. For example, there is the refurbishment of Pointe Lapreau. The Government of Canada has said that it would assist the refurbishment of Pointe Lapreau. It is a $1.5 billion expenditure. Most of it will be borne by the Province of New Brunswick and the utility, the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission. They are asking the Government of Canada to come in with some assistance. The number that is being thrown about is somewhere between $200 million and $400 million. We are not sure what it is going to be, but we are hoping the Government of Canada will be there.

It could have been there, but when one goes on a wild spending spree with no plan for the future, as Liberals have done, the question becomes, how much money is going be left over for those programs and spending priorities that should have been there in the first place?

In addition to that, we have an aquaculture industry in New Brunswick. I know, Mr. Speaker, you are familiar with that, coming from the west coast which has a significant aquaculture industry as well. To restructure and get through some difficulties the industry has experienced through new fault of its own in the last number of years, it needs somewhere in the order of $60 million is required. That is way short of a billion dollars. Just to remind the House and Canadians a billion is a thousand million.

I was making some notes before I came to the chamber because it is kind of interesting when we actually measure. How much is a billion dollars? A thousand million. How much is a thousand million? It is normally not the kind of change we are familiar with. It is a lot of cash.

I invite members to carry out this research, but they will have to believe me on this one. A million dollars is two metres high if it is being counted in $100 bills. If we had $100 bills stacked on top of each other, it would be just about my height. Therefore, think of this as a billion is a thousand million. Therefore, a billion dollars would be 2,000 metres high, about a mile and a half high in the sky. Talk about pie in the sky.

Therefore, when we are talking about almost $5 billion, we are talking about a 9,000 metre high pile of $100 bills stacked on top of each other. I believe Mount Logan is the highest mountain in Canada. It would dwarf Mount Logan. I am sure it would dwarf the tallest building in your riding, Mr. Speaker, with a lot left over to spend.

That is the point that I am making. It is a lot of money that has been just thrown out there for nothing more than political support. It is a life jacket for the Liberal Party of Canada. Basically, it bought off the NDP with a lot of money, $4.5 billion. On top of that, it could be argued that the member for New Brunswick Southwest is on a political mission. We probably all are on a political mission.

I want to go back to what has been reported in the national press in terms of this $4.5 billion spending spree. I quoted from an article written by Jacqueline Thorpe, in which she quotes what some of Canada's chief economists have said about this. She has saying that this is a deal makes no sense. I will quote an another article that appeared today. She says:

The NDP deal, for example, funnels federal spending specifically to post-secondary education and training, affordable housing and energy conservation, areas that provinces would have funded through federal social transfers--if they so wanted.

The government is out on a patchwork, hodgepodge spending spree simply to get the support of a political party in order to survive a vote on the floor of the House of Commons. It boils down to the fact that the Liberals simply do not want an election. However, it is costing every Canadian and it is costing the credibility of the Government of Canada.

When this same government lost power in 1984 to the Conservatives, it bragged. I believe it was Jean Chrétien who authored these words when the Liberals left office in 1984. He said, “There's nothing to worry about, because we left the cupboard bare”. The Liberals bankrupted the country when they left office, knowing it would be very difficult for the next government to get its financial house in order, given the level of bankruptcy in which they left the Government of Canada.

The Liberals brag about what they have done in terms of managing the economy. However, most Canadians know that the deficit has been eliminated. That is fine. We know how that was done and we will not argue the point today. We will give them credit for that. Obviously they did it because of the growth in the economy, because of free trade and because of the revenues flowing in from the GST.

What the Liberals do not talk about is the accumulated debt in the country, which is still approaching about $500 billion. In terms of interest charges, that is costing Canada today, as we speak. Every time we pay interest on that $500 billion accumulated debt, which we still are, it costs every Canadian.

This is one of the lines that our finance critic came up with and it is quite clever. I know the Liberals hate to hear this, because he is much more clever than they are. He says, “The Conservative Party will clean up government, but the Liberals want to clean out government”.

That goes right back to the same old philosophy of the 1980s: “Spend it because we're in power. Forget about the future of Canada, forget about what we could be doing with that money”. This is absolutely irresponsible spending at the hands of the Liberals. They simply do not deserve to be re-elected when an election takes place. This is simply a lifeline that they are throwing out in order to survive votes in the House of Commons. They basically bought the NDP. They bought 19 members of Parliament to the tune of $4.5 billion on a plan that was written on the back of a napkin, courtesy of Buzz Hargrove, in a hotel room in downtown Toronto. That is just about as sad as it could possibly get.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that this does not refer to Bill C-48, but as a matter of fact in every way it does. There is no community in our country now that needs more help than the agricultural community. What is in Bill C-48 about agriculture? Nothing. It is absolutely incredible that there is nothing in Bill C-48 and the only thing in Bill C-43 is that the government is going to cut back on research. It is going to cut back on its help to the agricultural community. It is not going to help the farming community. This has everything to do with it.

As far as the Comptroller General is concerned, I do not even have to go there because the Liberals' own cabinet expenditure review committee questions the decision to close the Nappan farm. It said, “we don't even think it will achieve the savings”. Their own internal documents say, “we question the savings that are presented by the officials”.

I come back to the memo to the deputy minister which says, “This could demonstrate exemplary behaviour”. Is the member proud that this is exemplary behaviour. Is firing 14 hardworking people and closing the Nappan Experimental Farm when it is most needed what he calls exemplary behaviour?