Bill C-48 (Historical)

An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments

This enactment authorizes the Minister of Finance to make certain payments out of the annual surplus in excess of $2 billion in respect of the fiscal years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 for the purposes and in the aggregate amount specified. This enactment also provides that, for its purposes, the Governor in Council may authorize a minister to undertake a specified measure.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's speech and actually found it quite interesting. Unfortunately, it had nothing to do with what we were talking about today which is Bill C-48. I am rather hoping that the hon. member has read Bill C-48. His colleagues apparently have pointed out that it is a rather short bill. I am hoping that some time prior to the delivery of his speech he read Bill C-48.

I want him to comment on the remarks of Charles-Antoine St-Jean, Comptroller General of Canada, who in his notes to his remarks says that Bill C-48 would provide enabling legislative authority to ministers; that Bill C-48 is unique in that this is the first time that spending authority would be provided that is subject to there being a minimum fiscal surplus; that this represents a prudent approach to fiscal management; that in addition, it provides a $4.5 billion cap on spending; that in advance of year end, it also provides more lead time to determine the specific management framework; and that everything is subject to Treasury Board approval prior to March 31.

Having heard those comments, and I hope having read Bill C-48, I wonder if the member would think the Comptroller General of Canada is giving substantial approval to the frame of this bill.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, North Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-48, perhaps not for what is in it, but for what is not in it. I also want to mention Bill C-43 because of what is in it and what is not in it.

Bill C-43 was delivered as a good news budget and everything was great, but a line item in Bill C-43 indicates that the government is going to close the agricultural experimental farms in Canada. Four experimental farms are going to be closed at a time when farmers need more help than they have ever needed before. They need more research, more help and the government is quietly going to close the farms. I was hoping that those farms would come back in Bill C-48 but they did not.

I want to talk about the farm in my riding as it applies to Bill C-48. Nappan Experimental Farm has been in my riding since 1880. It has been a cornerstone of the agricultural community. It has been part of our lifestyle in the maritime provinces. It is located in the exact geographic centre of the Maritimes. The Liberals have announced they are going to close it. What is their reason? They gave us the reason of cost saving.

Before I get into that, I want to acknowledge that the Cumberland County Federation of Agriculture has made an incredible effort to try to stop the decision to close the Nappan Experimental Farm. Those people have put the rest of us to shame. They have dropped their farming needs and all the work they have to do and have gone at this with a vengeance. They have circulated a petition on which they have obtained 2,667 signatures. I will be tabling that petition eventually.

I want to congratulate the president of the Cumberland County Federation of Agriculture, Frank Foster, the secretary, Marilyn Clark, who did a lot of the work, and board members Carl Woodworth, Leon Smith, my friend Kurt Sherman and all the other members. They have done an exemplary job. It is extraordinary what they have done in spearheading this and I take my hat off to them.

I also want to thank my local newspaper which has done a great job in raising this issue. All the media in the area have been very supportive in every way. They have helped us a lot. I also want to thank our agriculture critic, the member for Haldimand--Norfolk, for her tremendous support, and our leader for the efforts to stop the closure of Nappan Experimental Farm.

We were blindsided. We were told at one point that the farm was not going to close. It was not that long ago the government said that there were no plans to close the farm and that everybody could rest easy. Two months later in the budget, the government announced that it was closing the farm. The Liberals did not tell anybody. They did not have a press conference.

I want to compliment the Amherst Daily News on an article it published yesterday. In her article “Whatever happened to Ottawa's commitment to farm?” Sandra Bales describes how just a few years ago a Liberal senator came to the farm and announced that the government was spending $500,000 and made a total commitment to the farm. She describes it as a hot day in the summer. The senator was holding a press conference at Nappan to hand out $500,000 for the Nappan federal beef research station. She describes how communications officers were handing out press releases, and how the personal assistants to the politicians were handing out business cards.

There was a big flurry when this was announced, but in February, after the Liberals had said a couple of weeks earlier that there were no plans to close the farm, they did not come to the riding. They did not come to the farm. They did not tell anybody. They called in the staff at the Nappan Experimental Farm and gave them their walking papers while the minister was reading the budget speech. I think that was so offensive.

Sandra Bales of the Amherst Daily News points out how, the Liberals will come to the region in a big flurry with their assistants, business cards and press releases when they have good news, but when they are firing people, they hide in their ivory towers of Ottawa. That was the way she said it. I thought it was an excellent article and I compliment her. I could not have said it anywhere near as well.

First I want to talk about the decision to close the farms. Our critics and our members of the agriculture committee recently were questioning the minister who acknowledged, and it is written up in the The Western Producer , that the effort to centralize decision making on budget and research for agriculture is wrong and he has agreed to review it. He said, “I have asked for, and it is being done, a review of how we approach science in the department”. He is already acknowledging that the system that makes decisions is flawed. Overall the whole system that makes the decisions is flawed.

Now I will talk about the decision regarding Nappan. I was told that they had to cut it because they needed to cut costs to maintain research. I believe them for what they say, but I made an access to information request and did I ever get a surprise when I got the information. Not only am I surprised, I am angry. The decision was made for wrong reasons. Obviously the department is in disarray, in chaos. The reasons are inconsistent. I want to read a few things from this access to information.

In an internal memo, 11 Department of Agriculture officials go through all the reasons they are going to save money and the justifications and then it says that all of this casts some doubt on the savings but scientists are saying that this will be guaranteed.

They are saying it is going to save $250,000. It is $250,000 and they will not do it. I noticed in the paper the other day the Liberals are spending over $402,000 on the legal fees for Alfonso Gagliano, but they will not spend $250,000 on research for the agricultural community in Atlantic Canada. Even internally they question the numbers and the savings. It goes on and then on another page of this document from two years ago exactly, they announced:

[The Department of Agriculture] has made a long-term commitment to the future of the experimental farm and has no intention of closing it. Last year, we invested $800,000 to enhance [the facility].

Last year the government spent $800,000 and now the government says it is going to save some money, but even the department doubts that.

The most offensive thing in the access to information is a memo to the deputy minister. It says:

Purpose. To inform you of an opportunity for [the Department of Agriculture] to demonstrate leadership on Expenditure Review. The department wants to discontinue the research at its experimental farm in Nappan.

And get this:

This exercise could demonstrate exemplary behaviour with respect to Expenditure Management Review (EMR) and position [the department] as a leader.

The government is closing the Nappan Experimental Farm to make the department and the officials look good. I cannot believe it. Exemplary behaviour in the Liberals' point of view is firing 14 people and closing down a farm that has been serving the agricultural community for over 100 years. To position the department as a leader is not what this is about. This is about agriculture. It is about research. It is about science and it is about the future. They are trying to impress the expenditure review committee, but on another page the expenditure review committee is reluctant to accept that position.

Some of them say they are going to save money. The department says they question that. The expenditure review says that they do not believe it, that they do not accept it, but the department wants to do it so the department looks good. That argument about saving money does not hold water.

There are other things that are totally inconsistent in this document which really make me angry. I was told that research was going to go from one place in Nova Scotia, Nappan, to Kentville in Nova Scotia. Throughout this document it says that research on forage and diets and meat quality currently at Nappan could move to Lacombe, Alberta. In another place it says:

Nappan is one of the four original experimental farms created by legislation in the 1880s. Research here could be shifted to Lacombe, Alberta.

Then in another part it says:

The beef research from Nappan would move to the University of Guelph at New Liskeard.

My point is that the department does not know what it is doing. It does not know whether it is saving money. It does not know if it is not saving money. It does not know if it is going to move the research to somewhere else in Nova Scotia, or to Ontario, or to Alberta.

The minister has already agreed that the process is flawed. I contend that the decision on Nappan farm is flawed as well.

I met with the minister today. I asked him to stop this decision, to put a moratorium on the decision. I asked him to allow the people to have input, which they were denied totally. We were told on December 8 that the farm was not going to close. There was a great big headline in the newspaper, “Nappan station to stay open”. Then two months later in the budget the Nappan research station is to close.

We should have an opportunity to present a case for the Nappan Experimental Farm. It has been a key component of the agricultural community in all the maritime provinces. It is absolutely necessary more now than ever, as is the beef research more necessary now than ever. I am asking the minister to put a moratorium on this closure until he knows what is going on. I do not think he knows.

The information that I gave him this morning was the first time he had seen it. I take total, absolute exception to the department saying that this is exemplary behaviour and if it closes Nappan it will show the department as a leader.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remind the member that selective media commentary does not tell the whole story in most cases.

If the $2 billion surplus can still be provided, and the $4.5 billion in the areas outlined in Bill C-48 can be delivered upon, the spending of the Government of Canada would still remain in the range of about 12% of GDP, which is the same level. We would remain at the same level of spending compared to what the last Conservative government was spending, which was 17% of GDP. It is clear that fiscal prudence and proper fiscal management are in place with this government.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what my Liberal colleague had to say, and he completely forgot a few details. When he said that what the Liberal Party wanted with Bill C-48 was to govern in cooperation with the NDP, it is simply not true.

The Liberals have formed an alliance with the NDP in order to stay in power. They are not interested in governing, they are only interested in staying in power. We have seen all kinds of legislative sleight of hand in the House to put off legislation, to disregard certain situations such as unemployment and the fiscal imbalance. Votes have been bought. That is the Liberals' trademark. They do not want to manage and administer ideas that are not even their own—these are NDP ideas. They have engaged in flagrant opportunism in order to cling to power.

I would not be afraid to go to my riding or Quebec and say how this government is much more attached to being in power than to really governing.

I therefore ask the member, if there was so much openness, why did the government forget the unemployed and ignore the fiscal imbalance, which is the cause of all the socio-economic problems in Quebec? Why did his government not take advantage of Bill C-48 to include these things, which are essential to the Quebec economy? Why?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate briefly in the report stage debate on Bill C-48. I wish to remind members of the issues.

The member who previously asked a question said there are no plans on how to spend the $4.5 billion. It would be somewhat inappropriate to come up with micro plans on every dollar and penny when in fact the spending of the $4.5 billion is contingent upon making sure that the provisions for fiscal responsibility are respected. That means we are not going back into deficit and, indeed, keeping the $2 billion contingency.

Having said that, the bill specifically identifies the plans. The first is in clause 2 for the environment, which the member opposite said there was nothing stipulated for, including public transit, the energy efficient retrofit program and low income housing in an amount not to exceed $900 million. The second would support training programs and enhance access to post-secondary education and benefit aboriginal Canadians in an amount not exceeding $1.5 billion.

The third addresses affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians, in an amount not exceeding $1.6 billion and the fourth provides foreign aid in an amount not exceeding $500 million. All of this, as the Bloc member tried to be critical of, is subject to the dollars being available in excess of the $2 billion surplus.

Having said that, in terms of considering their position on Bill C-48, members have to ask themselves whether or not the priority areas for Canadians regarding the environment, affordable housing, post-secondary education and foreign aid are important to Canada in terms of additional initiatives in those areas. There is no one issue I can think of where one could do everything one would ever want in one budget. These are all incremental. They are steps and they are important.

It is going to be extremely important for those who do not support Bill C-48 to identify with which portions they disagree. Would they go out in an election campaign, for instance, saying they are not going to support the environment, affordable housing, foreign aid and post-secondary education? I do not think anybody in this place is going to tell the people of Canada that these are things they do not support, to what extent and are they fiscally prudent.

I want to address the point the member just mentioned about it not being in the budget. The member is absolutely right. Bill C-48 is an expansion of the budgetary initiative that we are prepared to support. They would have been done eventually by us, although maybe not in this budget. One has to look at a series of budgets to see the priorities.

Bill C-48 exists because we have a minority government. I would suggest to the member opposite that if we did not have Bill C-48, June 26 would have been election day and he probably would have lost his seat.

The reality is that in a minority government, which there has not been since 1979, there is a responsibility to collaborate, cooperate and negotiate as necessary to ensure that Parliament works. Bill C-48 is the linchpin to ensuring this Parliament works. We in the Liberal Party want government to work. The NDP wants the government to work, but it is the unholy alliance of the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois that do not want Parliament to work.

It was through the collaborative efforts of those who want this minority Parliament to work on behalf of Canadians not to spend or misspend $250 million to $280 million on an unnecessary and unwanted election.

It is the responsible thing to do to show Canadians that a minority Parliament works. I am proud of the decisions that were taken by our party and I very much support Bill C-48.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member was here earlier when I specifically read from the Comptroller General of Canada, who was at the finance committee and spoke about the fact that similar to other appropriation bills, Bill C-48 would provide enabling legislation. This is a fact; it cannot be disputed. The basis on which the bill is designed and brought forward is on the same basis as any other appropriation bill. It is no different.

If the hon. member has a criticism with that, why is it being brought up here and now today on this bill and not on all the other bills that the Bloc and other members have dealt with?

The money in this bill is as real as anything else that we deal with in the House. If the member is questioning everything we do, that is fine, but we would rather be here and get something accomplished in a concrete way than sit in our seats and do nothing.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Yes, as my colleague said, they are holding up the people's bill, a bill that would put the money where it is needed, where it will be delivered to build housing units, to get public transit, to meet our commitments in the global community and to ensure that students get relief from the incredible tuition fees they have to pay.

We are happy to be here today to speak to the bill and to ensure it goes through. As the housing critic for the NDP, I am particularly happy to see the $1.6 billion in the bill that is earmarked for affordable housing. Bill C-43 contained no new money for housing other than a small amount for on reserve aboriginal housing which is very important but which was very inadequate. The minister responsible for housing himself has pointed out that 1.7 million households in Canada, households not people, are in need of affordable housing.

We know that people in local communities across the country do not know if they will be able to pay their rent every month. They do not know if they are going to be evicted. The streets will become their home. It is appalling to see people living on the streets, particularly in the winter months when they can freeze to death, and especially in a country as wealthy as Canada.

The bill is not perfect. It does not do everything we want it to do, believe me, but it takes real concrete steps, particularly on the housing question to ensure those units will be developed.

In terms of aboriginal housing, I think it is an absolute shame that we still have aboriginal people living in housing on reserve that would not meet any minimum standard anywhere. We are talking about third world housing conditions right here in Canada.

In the urban environment, aboriginal housing is a very important question. I recently met with a delegation of Inuit people who were pressing to ensure that the Nunavut Housing Corporation's 10 year plan for 3,300 units in the north would be met. Nothing has happened on that plan because of government inaction.

As a result of this bill, the funds are now available and the authority is there for the Minister of Labour and Housing to make those housing commitments. For example, with regard to housing in the north where we see the worst overcrowding conditions in Canada and high housing costs, we want to ensure that the materials to build at least 100 new units by April 2006 are delivered to the north by ship. That is a logistical issue that has to be dealt with. Literally the boat was missed this year, so no housing will be built because the time has now come and gone for the materials to be delivered.

Bill C-48 gives us the opportunity to meet those very real and pressing needs in the north. I wanted to make a special point of mentioning that because it is something that is often ignored. I want to say to the Minister of Labour and Housing that this is a commitment that absolutely has to be met and I will be pressing him at every opportunity to ensure that the materials are delivered and the houses are built.

Another critical point in the bill has to do with post-secondary education. The bill sets a very good precedent in that it would provide federal funds specifically for post-secondary education. I also hope that fund will be increased in future budgets.

We in the NDP and organizations, such as the Canadian Federation of Students, the Canadian Association of University Teachers and many other organizations, have called on the federal government to provide funding for post-secondary education. This is the first time this has happened, so it is very significant.

What is more important is that the money in Bill C-48 is directed toward tuition reduction and help for students. If members want to know the incredible debt students have been bearing, they need only talk to the families that are trying to put their son or daughter through college or university, they need only talk to the students who, on average, have debts of $25,000, or they can talk to graduate students who might have debts and loans of $50,000 or even $60,000. Many students are graduating into debt as a result of years and years of inaction by the federal Liberal government of not providing assistance to students.

Finally we have some direct measures that are directed toward students.This is a very important measure and we would like it to be used as a model of what can be done in future budgets to say that there must be an infusion of federal funds into post-secondary education to ensure accessibility for all students across the country.

We do not want to read any more reports from Statistics Canada saying that the accessibility to post-secondary education for low income people will plummet to the bottom because of their socio-economic status. That is not good enough in this country. We want accessibility across the board and that has to be done by the federal government coming to the table and making it clear that post-secondary education is accessible.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the House today to the report stage of Bill C-48.

I want to congratulate the finance critic for the NDP who did a remarkable job in the finance committee of shepherding through the bill and sitting through hour after hour as the Conservative and some Liberal members tried to frustrate the bill, which they were unsuccessful in doing. The bill is now back in the House and we fully expect it will be approved.

After listening to the finance critic from the Bloc and after hearing the Conservative finance critic suggest that somehow the bill was not real, I just want to make a couple of general comments.

I think a double standard is being applied here. The bill is being put forward and is characterized on exactly the same basis as other appropriation bills. I would like to read some of the comments of the Comptroller General of Canada when he came to the finance committee on June 13. He said:

Similar to other appropriation bills, Bill C-48 would provide enabling legislative authority to ministers to make payments for the specific purposes approved by parliament.

Let us be very clear. What is contained in the bill and the manner in which these payments are authorized is no different than any other appropriation bill.

The Comptroller General of Canada also said:

This represents a prudent approach to fiscal management in that such fiscal dividends would only be authorized to the extent that there is a $2 billion surplus in those two years.

I read this into the record because it clearly contradicts what the Conservatives are trying to put forward, which is that this particular budget bill is financially irresponsible, that it is not based on a balanced budget and that it is not based on ensuring that there is no deficit. This is a financially prudent bill.

We in the NDP are very proud of the bill and what it represents. It represents real work that was done in this Parliament by this party working with the government to ensure that concrete measures will be taken to address the fundamental needs of Canadians in very core areas, like housing, post-secondary education, help for municipalities in terms of an increase in the gas tax moneys that will go to public transit, help for smaller communities and foreign aid that would address our commitments in the international global community.

Those are real things that were achieved. I have to say that we thought that Bill C-43 was inadequate in that regard and we made it our business to go out, to work and to get a better deal, and that is exactly what we did.

I am very proud to stand here knowing people in local communities right across the country like this bill because they know it is real. They compare that on the one hand and look at something that is substantive against all of the other stuff that is going on in this place, all of the procedural war games, all of the wrangling that we saw the Conservative Party trying again today. It will do anything because it just wants to hold up this bill.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois had hoped for an opportunity to introduce some subamendments to the bill before the House. Unfortunately, parliamentary procedure prevents us from doing so. Once the official opposition puts forward any subamendments, we are prevented from doing likewise on the same clauses. This is unfortunate.

I understand the Conservative Party for having taken this opportunity to put forward amendments to Bill C-48 that are consistent with its convictions. However, we wanted to introduce a subamendment to the bill, on respect for the areas of provincial—and Quebec—jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, everything in Bill C-48 falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. Unfortunately, we were unable to put forward this subamendment.

We would also have liked to continue the battle that we, as a political party, have waged in the Standing Committee on Finance. In other words, we wanted to include the main priorities of Quebeckers in the bill. Unfortunately, we could not do that, either.

We take issue with the following aspect of this bill. The NDP is patting itself on the back, saying it concluded the agreement of the century with the Liberal government. I do not understand the NDP. If it says it has this power, I do not understand why it has abandoned the unemployed. EI is not one of the concerns the NDP presented and expressed in Bill C-48.

The NDP has boasted for years about fighting to improve EI, which excludes 60% of the unemployed who would normally be entitled to it, were it not for such inhumane criteria.

From the start, the government considers the unemployed as potential con artists. Benefits have been slashed for people hit by unemployment, a problem for thousands of families in Quebec and Canada. The NDP has abandoned the unemployed. We have not abandoned them. During each stage of Bill C-48, we have done everything possible to reintroduce such consideration for the unemployed into the bill. Not so the NDP.

As far as the fiscal imbalance is concerned, all parties in opposition believe it exists. The sub-committee I have the honour of chairing has just tabled a report. That sub-committee travelled the length and breadth of Canada to hear people's testimony. They all expressed their concerns about the fiscal relationship between the federal and provincial governments and the inability of the governments of Quebec and the provinces to provide basic services like health to their populations. Regardless of last September's agreement, they still lack the funds to be able to provide health systems that operate to their full potential.

As for post-secondary education, the provinces are faced with under-funding, since they simply cannot afford to invest in post-secondary education, although in a way investing in our youth means investing in our future.

Then there is the problem of disadvantaged families. In the provinces—and in Quebec—the funds are not there for lifting entire families out of poverty. None of these considerations exists in the bill, nothing to correct the fiscal imbalance, nothing to improve employment insurance either. Even if those lefties keep saying something needs to be done about EI, the unemployed have been abandoned.

We in the Bloc Québécois have not abandoned them. Nor have we abandoned the key priorities of Quebeckers and Canadians. In fact, in the rest of Canada we heard considerable concerns expressed about the fiscal imbalance and the under-funding of essential public services. We have not given up on this, If the NDP has, so be it. History will judge them, and they will get their come-uppance in the next election.

As for the rest of us, we will continue to fight and to push for reforms. Our basic premise is consistency. The first budget was bad, and the second is a fool's bargain. The NDP is boasting of its great gains. I will read an excerpt from the bill.

This analysis was confirmed last Monday evening when we studied Bill C-48. A senior Treasury Board official was there. He told us flat out that this bill did not commit the federal government at all and the NDP had signed a fool's bargain. The government has not made any commitments to any of the areas in which it promised to invest. It has not really made any commitments to social housing, or education, or foreign aid, or environmental programs.

I will read some excerpts which the senior Treasury Board official emphasized: The government has not made any commitments. The government “may” invest in it. So the government has not made any firm commitments. I will read some excerpts from subclause 1(1) of Bill C-48. It says: “Subject to subsection (3), the Minister of Finance may, in respect of the fiscal year 2005-2006, make payments —”

That does not mean he is going to make them. It does not say that he must make them or that he will make them. It says that he may make these payments.

It is the same thing in subclause 1(2): “Subject to subsection (3), the Minister of Finance may, in respect of the fiscal year 2006-2007, make payments—”

We know that “may make” does not necessarily mean that he will make. There are also a lot of conditions surrounding the end of year surpluses. The government can decide to do anything else that it likes during the financial year knowing that it will have surpluses at the end of the year. It can take any initiatives at all other than those in Bill C-48. This is a real fool's bargain. Nothing is gained here. There is no commitment on the part of the government to any of these things.

In English and French, the bill says the same thing. It is “may” not “must” and there is no commitment. A real fool's bargain.

The NDP has stood the world on its head, saying that it was good, it had negotiated some things and we had not done our work very well. To that I say it has not done anything if one looks at this agreement. When there is an agreement and a bill says “may make payments”, that means the government can do anything it wants.

For all these reasons, in committee, we worked hard—which cannot be said for the other political parties—to amend the bill, to consider everyone who was forgotten in this budget bill, and by that we mean the unemployed and the sick, among others. Given the rate at which spending in health care is increasing—at the rate of approximately 7%—they will not recover the time or the resources lost in order to get the system to operate as it should. In fact, the current Prime Minister made savage cuts in this area when he was finance minister.

They have also forgotten students, who are dealing with an education system that has been underfunded for years. In Quebec alone, it would take an investment of $1 billion a year for the next five years to catch up.

We in the Bloc have tried to get these amounts and move things along. However, the government and the other opposition parties are not interested in supporting amendments to improve EI, to help the unemployed—about 60% are excluded at the moment—and to help people who are sick and to help the students.

We also tried to get international aid increased to 0.7% of the GDP. With the amounts involved at the moment, we will need 25 years to reach this objective. We tried to help farmers in Quebec and Canada, who are facing a very serious crisis. However, the government was not interested in supporting our amendments and suggestions to improve this bill and make a firmer commitment than the one providing that the government “may”.

In conclusion, it is a fool's bargain. The amendments we had proposed were rejected. The bill is still totally unacceptable. The NDP has no reason to boast about this agreement. There is no commitment on the government side. The people understand.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the constituents of the member for Medicine Hat are going to hang on every word and understand every nuance of what the Conservative finance critic just put forward in his rationalization about where they are at now. Nobody can understand it. It is a lot of bafflegab.

I have to chuckle at the line that the finance critic from the Conservatives is peddling here, because I do not think people are really buying it. The suggestion is that Bill C-48 is hollow, that the money is not really there, that it is financially irresponsible and there is no detail.

Come on, I say, this bill is on the same basis as Bill C-43, which the member and his party voted for. It is based on a fiscally responsible budget. It is based on no deficit. It is based on paying down the debt. It is based on expenditures that people want.

What the member cannot stomach, and maybe he could comment on this, is the fact that people out there like this bill. They want to see housing. They want to see education help for students. They want to see public transit. That is what he cannot stomach.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and address Bill C-48.

I want to say at the outset that the Conservative Party of Canada believes very strongly that Canada has an obligation to provide its citizens with a much higher standard of living than we have today. We think that, ultimately, Canada can become the most prosperous nation in the world. We think Canada can ultimately offer its citizens, no matter where they live in this country, an opportunity to find a job, or ensure that when parents go to bed at night, they can go to bed knowing that when their children go into the workforce, they will have the chance to live the Canadian dream of finding good, well-paying jobs. We think Canada can offer them the a higher standard of living and ultimately a comfortable retirement and strong social programs to support them if they need them. The Conservative Party of Canada believes in that.

It troubles me when the government brings forward legislation like this. I believe firmly that this takes us further away from that vision.

In fact I want to answer the parliamentary. He asked why are we opposed to some of the things in Bill C-48, like money for post-secondary education, housing and other things. We are opposed to it for the same reasons his own government was opposed to it back in February. If it is such a good idea, why did the government not include it in its budget in February? Because it is imprudent to keep recklessly spending year after year when we carry a half a trillion dollar debt, when interest rates are rising, when spending was raised the previous year by 12% in a single year and when spending has gone up 44% since 1999. The reason we oppose it is the same reason the government opposed it in February.

However, it goes beyond that. We oppose it because, as my friend just pointed out a minute ago, the bill is only 400 words long and it proposes to spend $4.6 billion. Yet there is not one detail on how that money should be spent. Furthermore, we are having this debate in the context of the worst corruption scandal to ever grip the country, a corruption scandal brought on by the Liberal government. How could we, as parliamentarians, look at ourselves in the mirror if we allow this to go through unchallenged, in that context? That would define what it means to be irresponsible. We cannot do that.

When the parliamentary secretary in his sarcastic, nasty tone accuses us of wanting to block this vital spending, spending that the Liberals themselves did not support a few months ago, it really causes me to wonder about this place. It causes tremendous cynicism amongst the public today, and I cannot help but admit that it makes me pretty cynical as well.

We have a job to do and we intend to do it. We will hold the government to account on legislation that has been roundly criticized by groups, ranging from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the voice of small business in Canada, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the voice of business in Canada, the Canadian Council of Chief Executive Officers, another voice for large employers in the country, and by virtually every economist in the country. Almost nobody believes this is good legislation. They believe it is poorly crafted and they have tremendous problems with it.

There is a better way to do this. The answer is to have a budget process like the budget process we have always had in the past, where we hear from witnesses and then we make some judgments. The finance committee hears from witnesses and makes some judgments upon their testimony. We offer a report to the finance minister.

The minister considers this. He considers all the input he has received from people elsewhere. It is mulled over and put it into a budget document. It is brought before the House. There is debate. There are witnesses. There is testimony. Ultimately there is a budget and legislation flows from it. That is how it usually happens in Canada.

This time, halfway through the process, the government cut a backroom deal in a Toronto hotel room with the leader of the NDP and Buzz Hargrove of the Canadian Auto Workers. Guess what: we now have $4.6 billion in spending that the government itself did not agree with even days before. When the finance minister was being quizzed about that spending by the NDP, he said that “we can't allow the budget to be stripped away piece by piece”. He said that people could not “cherry-pick the budget”.

He opposed it all. He opposed everything the NDP was proposing. Then his own Prime Minister undercut him and turned around and said they would cut that deal so they could get 19 votes. It was more vote buying by the government and we ended up with this deal cut in a back room in Toronto somewhere.

I think it is reprehensible. I think Canadians deserve better. Although it will be difficult to defeat the government on this, I think there are some things we can do to try to amend this legislation so that hopefully we can limit the damage of this irresponsible approach the government and its NDP colleagues have taken. I will move those amendments now.

I move:

That Motion No. 1 for Bill C-48 be amended by replacing “$2 billion” with “$3.5 billion” in subclauses 1(1) and (2).

That Motion No. 2 for Bill C-48 be amended by adding after subclause 2(2) the following:

“(3) The Governor in Council shall table in Parliament, before December 31 of every year, a report describing the payments referred to in subsection (1) that are to be made, and the report shall include, with respect to each payment,

(a) the amount:

(b) the expected results; and

(c) the details of the delivery mechanism.

(4) The report referred to in subsection (3) stands permanently referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance.”

That Motion No. 3 for Bill C-48 be amended by adding after clause 3 the following:

“(2) A corporation wholly owned by the Government of Canada that has been incorporated by a minister in accordance with an authorization referred to in paragraph (1)(e) or shares or memberships of which have been acquired by a minister in accordance with an authorization referred to in paragraph (1)(f)

(a) is deemed to be a government institution for the purposes of the Access to Information Act;

(b) is deemed to have accounts that are accounts of Canada for the purposes of section 5 of the Auditor General Act;

(c) is subject to the Official Languages Act;

(d) is subject to the Privacy Act;

(e) shall annually submit a corporate plan to the Minister of Finance for the approval of the Governor in Council; and

(f) shall, within three months after the end of each fiscal year, submit an annual report to Parliament on the corporation's activities during that fiscal year.

I look forward to questions from members.

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

Madam Speaker, the original budget, Bill C-43, did contemplate corporate tax reductions in roughly that amount. My recollection of the number is $4.7 billion. As part of the arrangement with the implementation of Bill C-48, that legislation will come in on a separate track and restore those tax measures.

The hon. member needs to bear in mind that Bill C-48 and the restoration of tax relief and tax competitiveness are delinked. The bill proposes that in the event there are moneys in surplus in excess of $2 billion, then this will be the direction in which the government spends money: affordable housing, foreign affairs, environment and post-secondary education. All those items are perfectly consistent with previous spending initiatives that the government initiated in previous budgets and indeed, in budget 2005.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, for the Minister of Finance]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-48, in Clause 1, be amended by restoring Clause 1 thereof as follows:

“1. (1) Subject to subsection (3), the Minister of Finance may, in respect of the fiscal year 2005-2006, make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund up to the amount that is the difference between the amount that would, but for those payments, be the annual surplus as provided in the Public Accounts for that year prepared in accordance with sections 63 and 64 of the Financial Administration Act and $2 billion.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), the Minister of Finance may, in respect of the fiscal year 2006-2007, make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund up to the amount that is the difference between the amount that would, but for those payments, be the annual surplus as provided in the Public Accounts for that year prepared in accordance with sections 63 and 64 of the Financial Administration Act and $2 billion.

(3) The payments made under subsections (1) and (2) shall not exceed in the aggregate $4.5 billion.”

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-48, in Clause 2, be amended by restoring Clause 2 thereof as follows:

“2. (1) The payments made under subsections 1(1) and (2) shall be allocated as follows:

(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

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

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-48, in Clause 3, be amended by restoring Clause 3 thereof as follows:

“3. For the purposes of this Act, the Governor in Council may, on any terms and conditions that the Governor in Council considers appropriate, authorize a minister to

(a) develop and implement programs and projects;

(b) enter into an agreement with the government of a province, a municipality or any other organization or any person;

(c) make a grant or contribution or any other payment;

(d) subject to the approval of Treasury Board, supplement any appropriation by Parliament;

(e) incorporate a corporation any shares or memberships of which, on incorporation, would be held by, on behalf of or in trust for the Crown; or

(f) acquire shares or memberships of a corporation that, on acquisition, would be held by, on behalf of or in trust for the Crown.”

[The Speaker]

There are three motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-48. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I find it very interesting that that particular member would pose the questions and make the comments that he did, but I will say this. The first part of my career may be in opposition but the second part of my career will be in government, unlike that member.

He asked for specifics and I will give him one specific as an example in the Bill C-48 budget agreement signed between the Liberals and the NDP. The government has been promising low income housing. Low income housing means there should be the potential for people with lower incomes to move into a home, but this agreement talks about the “energy efficiency retrofit program for low income housing”. The existing low income housing is going to be retrofitted to be more efficient. Consequently, how many new rental units will there be? This is typical of the deception and misleading that the government does time and time again. That is a specific example. I challenge any Canadian to get a copy of the actual deal that was signed and read the details.

The member asked a question and knows that when one is in power one does not change parties in order to stay in power.