This bill was last introduced in the 38th Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in November 2005.
Ralph Goodale Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Lucienne Robillard LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc's position on Bill C-48 is not only incomprehensible but indefensible, because it will deprive individuals and institutions in Quebec of the support they need.
How will students be told there will be no extra help for them with post-secondary education? How will FRAPRU be told that it will no longer get additional support for affordable housing? How will Transport 2000 be told that it will get no extra help?
The Liberal Government of Canada will help—
Françoise Boivin Liberal Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Bloc Québécois joined with the Conservatives to delete all the clauses of Bill C-48. In voting with the Conservatives against C-48, the Bloc voted against additional funding for Quebec in areas that are very important to many Quebeckers.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs clarify for the House how Quebec stands to benefit from Bill C-48?
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I guess the first response to my hon. colleague would be where were the Conservatives when the federal government brought down the budget? Did we hear any amendments from the Conservatives? Did we hear any suggestions? Did they have any kind of an agreement reached with the Liberals?
We heard the Minister of Finance at committee yesterday say that the Liberals had to turn to the NDP because they could not get anything from the Conservatives. They would not deal. They would not talk, or plan or propose. They are stuck in their rut and focused on one issue of having an election without any platform.
I would suggest that the hon. member read the subcommittee on finance which was initiated by the Bloc member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. It was done explicitly to deal with the issue of fiscal imbalance and we attempted to deal with the matter of equalization.
We are not talking necessarily first and foremost about a budgetary provision. We are talking about trying to convince the federal government to start to negotiate seriously with provinces for a new equalization agreement that is based on a 10 province formula that includes natural resource revenue and that is true to the wishes of the premiers as expressed two years ago and ignored by the federal government.
The question again arises, where were the Conservatives throughout this debate? Did members hear the Conservatives suggesting we needed a new commitment to equalization? No. What the Conservatives suggest is that we need to move more in the direction of a patchwork approach to this federation. We need more one-off deals. We need more band-aid approaches. That is the Conservative approach.
At least the Bloc, although we may not always agree on everything, was able to recognize that there was a problem that had to be addressed and we worked together to try to find solutions. That is the issue before us today.
I know the Conservatives are envious. I know they are suffering from sour grapes and NDP envy. However, but I wish they would get on with the fact of recognizing they missed the boat and pass Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 so Canadians can access the money they want and we can get on with building a great country.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
It is a one budget stand, as my hon. colleague has just said.
In the full light of day we set out to accomplish something that was good for Canada, and we did it.
We arrived at a fiscally responsible plan that ensured there would be no attempt to have this government go into any debt or deficit. There was no thought of giving up on some contingency emergency fund to be set aside for sudden situations if they were to occur, and not to go into debt. No, we said that our plan was to use the money that had been set aside for another corporate tax cut for large corporations, because those tax breaks are not producing huge benefits for Canadians in terms of new jobs, new companies and new opportunities in this country. In fact, the government has been giving tax breaks to large corporations and all the while profits have been going up and up for those corporations and investment has been going down and down. The key to our future prosperity is not about giving more tax breaks to those corporations. The key is to invest in areas that will create jobs, meet social objectives and enhance the quality of life in this country.
How can the Conservatives oppose something that positive? It is a proposal that is fiscally responsible. It does not create any kind of deficit for the government. It does not take away the contingency fund. It is a transparent use of surplus dollars. It shifts money from tax cuts for large corporations and puts it into housing for Canadians, lower tuition for students, cleaner air for people who cannot handle the smog warnings day in and day out, and gives some assistance for those suffering from tremendous economic and social structural barriers overseas. It is a very reasonable plan that makes a big difference in the lives of Canadians.
We are here tonight celebrating the fact that with the help of Canadians we have been able to make a difference. The better balanced budget is not perfect. It does not have everything in it. We were not able to accomplish all we would have liked to. We did not get a big concession in terms of employment insurance. We would have liked that. We did not get some new commitments on pay equity. We would have liked that.
We managed some constructive steps forward and we did it within a fiscally responsible framework. That is something to be proud of. I know that Canadians are proud of it and want the budget bills passed.
I am sure that Canadians were appalled when they opened a newspaper and read about the Conservatives first playing games through the course of an entire sitting of witnesses at our committee and then gutting the bill and sending a blank page back to this House. The Conservatives took away the $1.6 billion for housing. They took away the $1.5 billion for education. They took away the $900 million for environmental projects and public transit and for retrofitted housing. They took away the $500 million for assistance overseas.
That is what the Conservatives did. They took away that which Canadians wanted. They are now being held responsible for that kind of irresponsible action. One only has to look at the polls. They dropped by 10 points overnight. They dropped like a stone in the polls, and rightfully so, as my colleague from Windsor has just said, because Canadians have sent us here to act responsibly. Canadians have told us to do a good job, to do something, to make Parliament work. Canadians do not want their members of Parliament to sit here and play games constantly and give them nothing but talk and no action. As one of my other colleagues said, all this talk and no action from the Conservatives is like a bad date.
Let us get back to the issues at hand. We have before us tonight the estimates for this budget year. We have before us two budget bills that are important for Canadians. We have before us a responsibility and a mandate to continue to make inroads, to make this country better than what it is, to ensure that we deal with some fundamental critical issues in our society today.
In the few minutes I have remaining, I want to outline a few of those points of where we have to go in the future.
We see Bill C-48, the better balanced budget bill as just a beginning. We do not see short term investments as the solution in the long run. We recognize there must be a responsibility on the part of the federal government to invest in lifelong learning. That means starting from early childhood and child care supports and going right through elementary and secondary and post-secondary education. It is not something that happens by neglecting an area like education and reducing the federal share of cash to provinces for education down to 11%. Whatever happened to this goal of shared responsibility between the federal and provincial governments?
We must build on what we have been able to accomplish through Bill C-48, in terms of the $1.5 billion for education and improving access for students.
We must build on the beginnings of a national child care program that we see in Bill C-43, something that has been accomplished after many years of broken promises. In fact, members well know that the commitment for a national child care program is the longest running broken political promise in the history of this country. We are finally at the stage where we have the beginnings of a national child care program. We are pleased with that development. It is a beginning step. It is the initial step in a long journey to ensure that this country has affordable, non-profit, quality child care spaces.
Contrary to the Conservatives who like to suggest that our society will come to rack and ruin if we proceed down this path, we say that we have a responsibility to families who choose to work, or who must work, to ensure that their children are in safe, secure, quality child care arrangements.
We have heard so much from the Conservatives over these last two days about choice in child care. For once, let us get this debate straight. We are talking about a policy to deal with working parents. We are trying to respond to the fact that there are thousands of children in unlicensed day care spaces. We are trying to deal with the fact that there are families, too many to count, who cannot afford or cannot find quality child care to ensure their children are in safe, secure, quality settings.
I hear the Conservatives yelling in the background as usual because they cannot grasp the notion that it is possible to combine work and family. It is possible to be a good mother and still hold down a job, like being a member of Parliament. It is possible to provide the nurture, love and caring that is required of mothers and fathers by their children and still hold jobs, provide for families and make a living, but it takes some help from government. It takes government working with communities to make it possible. It means helping families and communities from the ground up to ensure they can help themselves. We are talking about that.
This policy is not about trying to meet all the needs of every individual in our society. If parents choose to stay at home to care for their children, we have an obligation to ensure that policies and tax provisions address those circumstances. That is exactly what must happen, but let us not mix apples and oranges. A child care program to respond to the needs of working families is one thing that has been neglected for too many decades. It must not be allowed to languish for one week more.
Then the issue of dealing with whether our tax system is responsive to all family situations, especially in the cases where one parent chooses to stay home to care for the children full time, must be addressed. No one has said it should not.
It is absolutely irresponsible on the part of the Conservatives to suggest that by addressing one end of this public policy debate, we are taking away from another. We are not taking away choice. We are not denying the needs of all our citizens. We are recognizing the millions of children who now have a right to safe, secure, quality child care and early childhood development. It is as simple as that.
By investing in child care now, we grow the economy. We plan for the future. We ensure that there is a bright future for all in our society. That is but one example of where we must go in the future.
In the two minutes I have remaining let me also say this. In conjunction with lifelong learning, post-secondary and university education and child care, we must also look at achieving policies that ensure the appropriate balance between work and family. The work life balance issue must be addressed by this Parliament in the near future.
Too many families are struggling with the stress of trying to be excellent parents, good providers and contributing members of our workforce without supports that take into account the stress of juggling so much, ensuring there is food on the table and the needs of the family are taken care of with some time left over for themselves to have leisure activities and to enjoy the society to which they are contributing. That is another area for future work.
In the context of budgets, let us look at the issues of equality between the sexes and recognize that nowhere has the government yet achieved a simple objective to ensure gender sensitive, budget making processes and to look at the impact of our policies and decisions on women in the workforce. Nowhere is that more important than in the area of employment insurance.
We still have in practice employment insurance policies that discriminate against women because they want to work part time and care for their children the rest of the time. That is a perfect example for the Conservatives who say that they want to provide choice. If they want to provide choice, where are they when it comes to seeking something as simple as a change in the employment insurance rules so a part time worker is recognized as a permanent member of the workforce and is able to access employment insurance?
John Godfrey LiberalMinister of State (Infrastructure and Communities)
Mr. Speaker, sadly, last night, the Conservatives and Bloc combined forces to remove all the relevant clauses from budget Bill C-48 at committee.
The Leader of the Opposition claims that his party is just as committed to the new deal as we are. How can he say that, and then turn around and instruct his party, as the Bloc has also done, to take the $800 million earmarked for public transit out of the budget bill? This is funding that cities need now.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, despite Conservative obstruction, Bill C-48, the NDP's better balanced budget bill, is back in the House for third and final reading. What is the Conservative contribution to delivering much needed investments in every region of our country so far? To delete all the clauses of the bill.
Conservative MPs, including from Nova Scotia, are asking the House not to invest in lower tuition fees in post-secondary education, not to invest in affordable housing, not to invest in public transit or cleaner air, not to invest half a billion dollars more in international aid, despite their own members' voting at the foreign affairs committee to support an NDP motion to increase Canada's ODA to 0.7% of our GDP. What hypocrisy.
Canadians deserve better. Canadians elected a minority Parliament. I am proud to be part of a caucus that has worked relentlessly to make this Parliament work and to deliver the investments Canadians need. It is past time for the official opposition in the same spirit to stop the huffing and puffing, get to work and deliver Bill C-48 to Canadians.
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 14th report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments. The committee agreed on Monday, June 13, 2005 to report it with amendments.
I want to thank all the members who worked diligently and expeditiously on the clause by clause last night so the House could get the bill passed and we can get out of here for the summer.
Guy Côté Bloc Portneuf, QC
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to discuss this motion with my Conservative colleague. The Bloc Québécois was under the impression that she needed unanimous consent in order to move the motion, and we were not prepared to give it at this time. The problem, in part, is that this amendment is far too open-ended. It gives the minister far too many opportunities to abuse this provision.
In light of our discussions, I understand the desire to give the government more flexibility in enforcing this legislation. At the same time, however, we have a number of concerns about the kinds of funds that would be created in order to allocate monies to the greenhouse gas technology investment fund.
Our question remains. Could a new foundation be created? We saw what happened with the foundations, where funds are invested but not used in the same way. The motion just moved by the member in no way prevents private funds from being used. For example, nothing would prevent an oil consortium from creating a fund.
So we are not entirely convinced that this is an acceptable motion. It gives the government a blank cheque. In our opinion, Bill C-48 is already much too open-ended and not specific enough about how the money will be spent. The member's motion would make things worse. Perhaps she can explain a bit better the spirit in which this motion was moved? However, at this time, I can say that we will not support this motion.
Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK
Mr. Speaker, I thought I might help the hon. member out and remind her that it was not only the Conservative Party that warned about deficit spending, something that we are very concerned about with this new deal. The Minister of Finance warned the House that deficit spending was a very real possibility when we got into, as he described it, cherry-picking or taking things away from one part or adding new spending to another part. There have been irresponsible spending announcements with no real plan to announce a budget bill. Bill C-48, with just two or three lines in it, has unleashed an unprecedented amount of unplanned and uncontrolled spending.
Why is the member so afraid of job saving tax relief? We have industries in Canada that are operating under an excessive burden. Does she not realize that the vast majority of Canadians work for a company or a corporation such as General Motors, Ford, Telus or any number of companies that have to compete in a global environment with other nations and companies. We have to give them that competitive edge. It does not matter how much they invest in other areas. If Canadians do not have jobs, if they do not have employment in secure and stable industries, it will not matter. No one will be working to pay taxes for the programs about which the member herself is concerned.
Those are a couple of things she should consider. She should always remember that the finance minister, who cut this deal with Buzz Hargrove and the leader of the NDP in a hotel room somewhere, warned about deficit spending.
Tony Valeri LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition motion. I wish to designate Tuesday, June 14 as an allotted day, which means that the main estimates shall be dealt with that day.
Tomorrow we will begin report stage of Bill C-43, which is the first budget bill. This bill will be our priority until it is disposed of. When Bill C-48, the second budget bill, is reported from committee, it, too, shall be given our top priority.
There are discussions among the parties concerning the early disposal of Bill C-2, the child protection legislation; Bill C-53, the bill respecting proceeds of crime; and possibly Bill C-56, the Labrador-Inuit legislation.
The other pieces of legislation that we can anticipate debating in the next week are: Bill C-26, the border services bill; Bill S-18, the census legislation; Bill C-25, RADARSAT; Bill C-52, the Fisheries Act amendment; Bill C-28, the Food and Drugs Act amendments; Bill C-37, the do not call legislation; Bill C-44, the transport legislation; and Bill C-47, the Air Canada bill.
Aileen Carroll LiberalMinister of International Cooperation
Mr. Speaker, the government has committed to an annual 8% increase that will set us on a path that triples the volume of our aid from the year 2001 to 2015. To put this in perspective, I think we need to understand that 8% is roughly twice the rate of growth of government revenue and virtually no other part of government is growing this quickly.
Our commitment is very clear. We understand exactly what we are doing and where we are going. What I am confused about is that the hon. member is a member of a party that will not even support Bill C-48 with half a billion dollars coming to my aid projects.
Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is great that the leader of the NDP has allowed the minister to come before the committee.
We want to point to the Auditor General's report when it talked about the sponsorship program. She said, “We would have expected the government to provide Parliament with at least a description of the program and its objectives”.
None of that is in Bill C-48. This is an expenditure of $4.6 billion and yet the government refuses to bring forward the minister who would actually have to implement the bill.
Is this not just an admission that the government cannot stand scrutiny on Bill C-48?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for other ministers but I know I am scheduled to appear before the committee. I think it is on Monday or Tuesday. I will be happy to be there and go through all the details of Bill C-48 with any of my cabinet colleagues who would care to attend with me.
The fact is that this is good legislation. It is delivering on important commitments. I hope the opposition party will ultimately support it.
Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB
Mr. Speaker, the NDP are outraged with the Liberals on the one hand and prop them up on the other.
Bill C-48 is now before the finance committee. The Conservative Party has asked that the ministers responsible for foreign aid, housing, infrastructure, post-secondary education and the environment appear before the committee to explain how the money would be spent. Seven ministers in all and they all refused to come. We asked for officials to come and they also all refused.
Is this not just an admission that Bill C-48, the NDP budget deal, is so poorly designed that the government cannot even defend it?
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, transfers are increasing already.
The inconsistency in the hon. gentleman's question is just breathtaking. He asks for a larger transfer for post-secondary education. That is in fact included through assistance to students in Bill C-48 which he opposes.