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.

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

What were they supporting? They were supporting the Bloc Québécois to defeat Bill C-48 which would have defeated the government and put us into an election.

Why would they support the budget and then turn around and dissolve Parliament? This motion is precisely the same thing. When was it tabled in the House? It was tabled on May 26, last week when we were off. It takes 48 hours notice. This is yet another point of evidence about the bad faith that the Conservatives have shown with regard to making a minority Parliament work. That is the issue.

Let us consider what happened with the 2004 budget. It was introduced in mid-March and it received royal assent on May 14 of the same year. When Parliament works, the budget implementation bill gets passed.

This year's budget was introduced a week later in the calendar cycle, on March 25. It is already May 30. This budget could have passed already.

If it had not been for the bad faith of the Conservative Party and the unholy alliance between the right and the wrong, then this budget would have been addressed. It would have been referred to the finance committee. We would have had the budget dealt with at the finance committee, back in the House and given royal assent.

Now we have this motion. I note that throughout this day, other than the mover of the motion, members from the Conservatives and the Bloc have not been participating in the debate. They do not care about the motion. This is yet another example of failure to cooperate in a minority environment.

The Conservatives know quite well that the finance committee starts its hearings on Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 tomorrow at 11 a.m. The opposition has the majority of the members on that committee. I urge Canadians to watch what will happen at that committee to see how true they are to their word that they want the Atlantic accord to pass.

If the Conservatives believe that the Atlantic accord should move forward swiftly, then they have to pass out of committee both Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 without amendment. I do not think that will happen. I think we will see some games start tomorrow. I think we will see a lot of obstructionism. I think we will see that those bill will take a long time. I do not think they will give the budget a chance to come back to this place before we rise for the summer break.

I think the whole issue here is whether there ever will be a good faith gesture on behalf of all parties, which are at least in favour of a united Canada, to work together to ensure that the important issues of the day, which affect Canadians from region to region to region, are dealt with by this place.

We must understand fully that we will never get everything that we want. However, if there is a good faith gesture to be given, now is the time to give it. Now is the time for the parties to work together, to work with the priorities to ensure that they are properly represented.

If it had not been for the Prime Minister to sit down with Premier Williams, the Atlantic accord would not have existed. There was a serious problem there. I do not believe there is a member in the Conservatives, Liberals or NDP who has a problem at all with the Atlantic accord. We want to see it implemented.

For the Atlantic accord to be implemented, we have to get the bill out of committee unamended. We have to get it back into the House without report stage motions and with restricted debate at third reading so we can get to the vote at third reading. Then we can show our collective will to support the budget implementation bill in all its elements to which I have related.

When I came to this place in 1993, I wanted to work as a member of Parliament, to be a part of the House and maybe leave a fingerprint somewhere. I wanted to have some influence and to work hard for my constituents. It did not matter whether I was an important person in cabinet or something like that. That was never an issue. I think if most people in this place were asked, they did not even know how much a member of Parliament made when they ran for public office. It was not a consideration. They wanted to come here.

This last session has probably been one of the least comfortable sessions we have had. I understand we are in a minority situation. However, I have never seen such a deterioration of the collaboration and the communications between members. I have seen friendships broken. I have seen people start to become meanspirited.

Parliament and committees cannot work when that is going on. As far as I am concerned, we must begin on a member by member basis to renew our trust in each other and to do the right thing on behalf of Canadians. We must do our job at committee and we must come here to participate in debate, not lay out ideas on how to trip up the government in order to cause an election. If that is the idea, why all the games? Why not just keep putting forward confidence motions?

All I know right now is that as a member of Parliament I am prepared to work within a minority situation to try to do the best that we can.

I talked earlier about Joe Clark's government and the fact that it was a matter of numbers. I do not think members want to have to go through that again.

When I ran in the February 1980 election as a Liberal candidate for the first time, I was proud to represent a political party and its views. I suspect every member in this place were dedicated to their party and to its platform. We all wanted to come here to make those things work, to make a difference, to fight on behalf of the interests of our regions, to work hard to resolve the issues our constituents had relating to federal jurisdiction and to represent the interests to other jurisdictions.

As we can see in this budget, it touches upon many areas that are principally provincial jurisdiction: post-secondary education, day care, infrastructure, a deal for cities and the health care system. Delivery of health care is at the provincial level but it is done through collaboration and cooperation. The Canada Health Act provides the framework under which it operates but each of the provincial governments has those responsibilities.

We are collaborating with our provincial counterparts to make sure that policy, even at the provincial, regional and municipal levels, is acting on behalf of the best interest of all Canadians.

We should take the lead role in terms of providing the example to all elected officials at all levels of government that we have to work together.

I think the motion comes from the heart of the member. I have talked to him many times about this and I know he honestly believes this. However he also knows that if Bill C-43 passes through committee tomorrow, and it could if there is a will, the Atlantic accord, along with that, would come back to this place and we could deal with it. It would be faster than even this motion.

Why the motion? The motion basically makes me wonder whether there is this element of goodwill that still exists. It is a very important for Parliament to demonstrate that goodwill.

We heard the members from Cape Breton, Charlottetown, Yukon, Toronto and Scarborough, the parliamentary secretary, talk about the importance of this budget to their regions, but we also heard them clearly say that they understood the importance of the Atlantic accord. It is just as important as any other aspect of the budget because together it forms a framework where Canada becomes a better place in which to live and work.

We are here to do the best we can to ensure Canada is a better place in which to live and work.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 51 which is on the notice paper and is in the name of the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. In the motion at the beginning and at the end it states:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that it divide Bill C-43...be reported back to the House no later than two sitting days after the adoption of this motion.

Bill C-43 is the budget bill. Tomorrow at 11 a.m. the finance committee will be meeting. If the Conservative Party wants to have the Atlantic accord passed, tomorrow at finance committee members should appear, pass Bill C-43 and get it back to the House tomorrow, two days early.

This is not a simple matter. What has been asked is that an element in the budget, a budget which has 24 different segments in it, be carved out and be dealt with separately. It is certainly not a matter of parliamentary tradition. More important, we are talking about a budget in a minority scenario. It was 25 years ago that Joe Clark was prime minister of Canada. He told the country he would govern as if he had a majority. We know exactly what happens when a party governs as the majority when there is only a minority. A minority government is an important concept in democracy. Minority governments can work. Minority governments have worked and it takes cooperation among the parties.

However, what we have here is an example of duplicity in terms of what the official opposition would care to do. First, if the Atlantic accord is so important, then why did the Conservatives support the budget, Bill C-43, on May 29, which includes the Atlantic accord, and then on the immediate subsequent vote, vote against Bill C-48 which would have dissolved Parliament and sent us to an election, thereby killing the Atlantic accord?

If they were really honestly and truly behind the Atlantic accord, which I know our party is because it is an important part, how could they somehow vote for part of the budget implementation bill and then turn around and vote to dissolve Parliament? That is not the way this place works. It is certainly not the way a minority government works.

Why would the official opposition decide to have an unholy alliance with the Bloc Québécois, which sole purpose to be here is to promote the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada? The Bloc leader said just yesterday on a news program that his members were going to vote against the budget. They are against the Atlantic accord and yet the Conservative Party has an alliance with them to defeat the government. The leader said, “let's defeat this government at the earliest opportunity”.

How many different alliances do they have to have? If it were really important, they would have come together with the rest of the House, ignoring the Bloc's narrow view of Canada, and worked with the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party to find a way to work toward a solution. What happened? There was no goodwill, no good faith shown by members of the Conservative Party to make minority government work. All they wanted to do was defeat the government and send us into an expensive election that was not necessary. They know very well that it would have resulted in another minority government after spending another $250 million.

I understand the thrust of the motion. I support the Atlantic accord. I support it as part of the budget. It is part of this government's budget. It is part of the budget bills combined, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, which are reflective of the collaboration and the cooperation that is necessary for a minority government to work. Official opposition members are opposed to Bill C-48. They want to defeat it. They want the government to fall and they will continue to play games. How can we understand the sincerity of their support for the Atlantic accord?

The Atlantic accord will die if Bill C-48 dies. The best way to get the Atlantic accord in force is to get the budget passed. Get both bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, to committee. Get them back to the House quickly without amendments at report stage, have a quick debate at third reading and get it to the Senate. Let us get royal assent and let us get things moving.

The way a minority government has to operate is in collaboration. I wish everybody could have everything that they want for their constituents and for their parties, but we are a Parliament of Canadians. We are here on behalf of all Canadians. We have to balance those interests. We have to ensure that the interests of all Canadians are considered, not just one segment of a budget.

That budget went through an exhaustive process of consultation with all Canadians across the country. The finance committee visited every region of the country to ask Canadians what was important to them. They came before the finance committee here. All the economists and financial experts came before committee. The committee had representations of every region of the country, all the major groups and organizations, came and advised the government on their priorities.

What were they? I have a list here. I do not think I have to go through and read them. The priorities included such things as lowering taxes for Canadians, increasing the limits that could be contributed to RRSPs, eliminating foreign property limitations, increasing disability benefits for children, increasing the period for registered education savings plans, increasing the maximum medical expense supplement and extending the date for charitable giving with regard to the tsunami relief effort. Do members remember that? Also included were an increase in the GIS for our seniors, the changes to the air travellers security charge and the excise tax cut. If the members would like to look at the summary of the bill, part 12 enacts the Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador additional fiscal equalization offset payments act.

I could go through each of the elements of the budget and I could tie it in to the advice that Canadians gave to parliamentarians, to the finance committee and to their members of Parliament with regard to important elements. Some of those elements are directly related to certain regions of the country, but on balance it is a budget for all Canadians and that is how it has been presented to Canadians.

When I looked at this motion, I asked myself very honestly whether I felt it was coming in good faith and good will. We had a vote on May 19 on Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. I remember what happened. I think Canadians remember what happened. The Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP supported the budget. The Bloc Québécois members, those who want to separate from Canada, voted against the budget. Unless it has something to benefit Quebec, they do not care about the rest of the country. That is who they are representing. Then on Bill C-43 the Conservatives no longer supported the budget, including the Atlantic accord.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not been a student of biology and I could not say if those particular breeds are indigenous to certain parts of Canada. I am sure they are not actually based on my own sense of things.

My colleague from Charlottetown hits on a very important point. We should try to represent all Canadians in this House. We should stop thinking only about narrow political and parochial views. We were elected to represent the people of Canada.

The Atlantic accord is very important because of the levels of income and unemployment in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia, but we can deal with that now if we pass the whole bill, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. Let us not be so parochial. Let us get on with the job of representing Canadians.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last point, we will miss that kind of lucid understanding of the budgetary cycle and how the House of Commons works. Maybe we should try to encourage the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell to go for another term.

He is absolutely right in what he says. With respect to the first point, it highlights the hypocrisy or the inconsistency of the party opposite. When our finance minister tabled the budget, I sat here and was moved because it was such an excellent budget. Therefore, when I heard in the scrums that the leader of the Conservative Party actually said that there was nothing much his party could argue with in the budget, I was pleased but not surprised because it was and is an excellent budget, which is why it is so important to deal with the budget as a whole.

There is no need to hive off a portion. We know what the politics are. To please some of the Atlantic Canadian members of the Conservative caucus they want to hive it off and fast track it. However the problem is that we have an excellent budget, not just with the Atlantic accord but we have so many measures in the main part of Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 that are absolutely stupendous and which Canadians want.

I actually engaged and listened to what people were saying over the last week, and not just Liberal supporters, and they unanimously said that they wanted the budget passed but not in little bits here and there. Canadians want the budget passed but the members opposite are not listening or they are listening but are not acting upon that information.

I absolutely agree with my colleague. It has to be seen as one whole piece and we need to deal with Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 expeditiously so Canadians can get the benefits of those measures.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on severing the Atlantic accords from Bill C-43, which would not be very wise thing to do. That is why I am happy to contribute to the discussion today.

Members of the Conservative Party, who used to be members of the Alliance Party or the Reform Party before the merger, often stood up in this place when it came to votes and their whip would say that members would be voting this way or that way unless otherwise advised by their constituents.

The Conservative Party, or its predecessors the Alliance and the Reform, prides itself on being close to the people. Last week we were told that those members were going to listen to what their constituents had to say. I have to conclude that they are not very good listeners.

I have talked to many Canadians in eastern Canada, western Canada, Atlantic Canada, northern Canada and elsewhere. With the exception of a few, they all agreed that the vote last week was a momentous vote. A lot of people watched it. Hundreds of people were waiting for us to exit the chamber. They were interested in the results of that historic vote in which the Speaker broke the tie.

What I heard from my constituents and from people across Canada was that a lot of time was taken away from the business of the House to focus on that confidence vote. We have had the vote and most Canadians now want us to get down to the business of governing and to make this Parliament work.

Conservative members pride themselves on being close to the ground. That may be true in some parts of Alberta and some parts of western Canada. However, with all due respect, when the election happens, it will be decided essentially in Ontario and Quebec, and that will not go down very well with members on the other side of the House. Those members should call up their friends in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada to find out what they think. I think they would find that Canadians do not want an election right now. Those members are not listening. They do not have their ears to the ground. Some friends of mine who are more conservative in their way of thinking do not want an election now.

We are prepared to have an election. My colleagues and I are ready. We can go any time. I do not get obsessed with polling results and I am sure my colleagues on this side of the House do not get obsessed with polling results either, but if we look at the results we would find our party is doing quite well in the polls, especially in Ontario. The reason for that is obvious. People in Ontario are not attracted to the policies of the Conservative Party and they are not engaged with the leader of that party.

These are truisms. I am not saying something to incite people. Anyone who does not know that Canadians do not want an election, that they are not attracted to the policies of the Conservative Party and that they are not getting a lot of resonance from the leader of the Conservative Party must have their head buried in the ground.

Canadians know we had a confidence vote last week and what a shambles it was. They turned on their televisions and saw members running back and forth, not getting down to the business they were elected to do, to serve in the Parliament of Canada, to make Parliament work. Canadians want us to get down to work.

I naively thought that when I came back to Ottawa after the week break, we would actually deal with the budget. The budget has some amazing elements to it, and it is supported by Canadians. In fact, it was supported by the Conservative Party until those members started to read every morning in the National Post about the day to day testimony at the Gomery inquiry and then they would bring it to the floor of the House.

People watched that on television and said it was not very nice. Of course it was not nice and that is why the Prime Minister called for the Gomery inquiry, so that he could get to the bottom of it, hold people accountable, and make the policy changes required.

Suddenly, the Conservatives found that when all these issues were on the floor of the House of Commons and people were watching them on television, they were going up in the polls somewhat. Is that not interesting? They said, “Let's have an election now because we might be able to win”, forgetting the fact that Canadians said that they wanted to make this minority Parliament work. It is tougher to get things done in minority parliaments, but they can work. In fact, I and many members have seen it happen.

The justice committee dealt with a bill that focused on DNA. That is why this bill should not be split because the committee system is working very well. We passed a bill dealing with DNA. We all put a little water in our wine and got unanimous consent in the House to speed it through the Senate. This Parliament can work if we put our minds to it, but it is not working because of these reckless motions that focus on partisan interests in Atlantic Canada.

The Conservative Party is very nervous about losing the support of its Atlantic caucus members. Conservatives say it will be a great idea to split the bill because then they could fast track the Atlantic accord through the House of Commons and the Senate. I ask everyone, what would that accomplish? We would end up with part of a budget bill and the key elements of Bill C-43, of which the Atlantic accord is a very important part of course, but there are other very important parts to Bill C-43.

My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, highlighted some of them, but I would like to come back to them because they are very important. There is one part of Bill C-43 that I would like to see fast tracked. Maybe we could bring a motion to fast track the excise tax moving to cities and communities.

I live in the city of Toronto. My colleague, the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities, has basically put this together. We can move what I believe to be $200 million per year, once fully implemented, to the city of Toronto. It could use that money to fight crime, to build infrastructure and public transit, and to have cleaner water and air. We could use that money. In fact, that is step two of what has already been done. The government wisely eliminated the GST for municipalities. For the city of Toronto, that meant another $55 million a year it could use to deal with the issues facing large cities.

I would like to hive off that part of the budget. I am sure members would like to carve out other parts of the budget and fast track them too. Pretty soon 90% of the bill would be fast tracked. Then it would not be fast tracked anymore, it would be slow tracked because there are too many parts of the bill being fast tracked. This is a slippery slope.

Any member of the House who has been here long enough knows that one does not start splitting bills for the convenience of some members of the Atlantic caucus of the Conservative Party. The Conservatives want to split it so they can speak to their constituents in Atlantic Canada. It has nothing to do with what is good for Canada. It has nothing to do with the benefits of the budget bill, which are so important for Canadians.

I would also like to see the budget pass because there is a large investment in national defence. As part of this budget, there is $1 billion that will go into our national security agenda. We often hear members opposite talk about our borders, security and terrorists. Now is the time to put their money where they mouths are and pass this bill. Let us pass this bill today, never mind fast tracking.

In fact, by arguing that we should split this bill we have wasted maybe a week or two. We could have had this bill sent to the other place in a heartbeat if members opposite would support it. They know that. All we are doing is delaying and delaying when in fact we could meet the agenda of establishing the Atlantic accord by including it in Bill C-43 and passing it, and passing Bill C-48 expeditiously.

Let me tell members something else that I like about Bill C-43. Bill C-43 implements the Kyoto accord. It builds in a lot of market measures and incentives, so that we can actually meet these very ambitious goals that we have set. There would be a $1 billion fund, for example, for competing ideas on how to eliminate and reduce greenhouse gases. That is another part of this budget. Maybe there are some other colleagues who would like to take that part of Bill C-43 and separate it out, sever it and fast track it.

This is not the way business is done in the House of Commons. Instead of sitting here and debating severing the Atlantic accord from Bill C-43, we could actually be passing Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 and delivering all those measures.

Another issue that is very important in my riding is child care. I have a lot of, not to be sexist, female members in my riding who come to my office and say that they have a two-income family, but cannot get out and work properly because they do not have proper day care in Ontario.

We now have an agreement with Ontario which we could pass today if the members opposite had the political will, instead of trying to finesse little points here there and sever this and that. Just pass the bill. We could get on with it. We could deliver child care. We could deliver all the benefits that are embedded in this budget.

I think there is another point that is often forgotten in this House when we have these debates and that is, the underpinnings behind budget 2005. Allow me to take members through some of the context of this budget.

The first item that immediately pops out is that this is the eighth consecutive surplus that this government is delivering. Against all the industrialized economies in the world, we are considered an economic darling. The markets think we are an economic darling because of what we have done, what our finance minister did, and what this government continues to do. We have had consistent growth and we continue to have consistent growth of 3% per year, which is unsurpassed in the industrialized world.

We have unemployment down to levels of 6.8%, which is a five-year low. Could we do better? Of course we could. We could do better if we could pass this budget because there are measures in here to help Canadians get into the labour market. There are measures in this budget that would help us bring down the unemployment rate from the low level of 6.8% to even lower if these people on the other side would stop debating about severing this and that and just pass the budget.

There are a few other contextual elements that I need to speak about in terms of our fiscal progress. We have low interest rates. We have low inflation. What does that mean? That means that there are many Canadians who otherwise would not be able to purchase a home who are able to purchase a home. We see people getting out of their rental accommodation and buying homes. The construction sector is booming. That is contributing to our economic growth.

We are paying down the debt. Members opposite talk about the surpluses, how the surpluses are a bad thing, and how we have not estimated within a few hundred dollars here and there. The reality is, and we know that in this House, if the revenues are understated by, let us say, 1% a year and the expenditures are understated by 1% per year, that would create a flux of about $3 billion to $4 billion in the annual surplus. So this is not an exact science.

However, I would rather have, and I am sure that all of us would rather have, a surplus than a deficit. Is that not so? I think so. We want to have a surplus. We are consistently having surpluses. We are paying down the debt with those surpluses. The surpluses are not an end in themselves.

We are below less than 40% debt to GDP ratio which is well within the range of what is considered acceptable. In fact, we are going to go further. We are going to go to 25% debt to GDP. What does that mean? That means, for example, that today as we speak, as we take up time talking about splitting budget bills, and if members opposite are going to waste the time of the House, I am going to have my say as well, there is in excess of $3 billion a year that taxpayers in Canada are saving each and every year because of the $56 billion that we have paid down against the debt. It is in excess of $3 billion annually.

By the way, that is a permanent annuity. That is $3 billion each and every year into the future. As we pay down more debt that $3 billion will grow. What can we do with that $3 billion? We can invest in the environment, national defence, national security, health care, post-secondary education and seniors. These are the kinds of investments we are making. That is the kind of flexibility that we have when we have budgetary surpluses.

The mantra of the Conservative Party is to cut taxes. It is like a broken record. We went through this in the province of Ontario. We had Mike Harris and Ernie Eves. What did they do? They cut taxes to a point where they could not sustain the social and economic programs of the province of Ontario. Guess what. We then had a new premier and a new finance minister who came in and tried to say it was a fiscal imbalance. I think they have been listening to the Bloc Québécois on this fiscal imbalance terminology.

The current party at Queen's Park has inherited a structural deficit caused by excessive tax cuts that went beyond the fiscal capacity of the province of Ontario. What does it do? It says that it will lay that problem at the feet of the federal government.

When our government came into power in 1993, we faced a $42 billion deficit. Did we stand around and blame everyone, point fingers and say that we cannot do this, we cannot do that, it is not our fault,. and it was their fault? We did not do that, although we could have laid it at the feet of Brian Mulroney. That is what we should have done. I am sure it has come up in debate from time to time.

The point is we got on with the business of eliminating our deficit, of cutting expenditures, of dealing with the fiscal challenges that we had to face. There were no excuses and no scapegoats. We got on with the business of dealing with it head on like mature adults. That is what we are going to continue to do.

That is why when I stand up in this place to talk about severing the Atlantic accord I find myself in a childish discourse because we should be passing Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 so that Canadians can reap the benefits of the budget package which has so many benefits, some of which I have described.

I could go on and on, but I only have one minute. Therefore, I will wrap up. I would like to suggest to the House that instead of us debating these moot points, why do we not get on with the business of government, with the business of Parliament, and pass these budget bills which Canadians want.

If members opposite want an election, the Prime Minister has said they will have an election. They will have an election this year, 30 days after the Gomery inquiry reports. We will have an election.

Canadians do not want an election now. They want us to get down to the business of government and manage the affairs of the nation. For that reason and for many others I will not be supporting the motion.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his balanced approach to the motion before us. The motion is to split an item out of the budget, which is very important to the member's region since it is the Atlantic accord.

The motion is rather fascinating in terms of strategic. I want to remind the House that there was a vote on Bill C-43 and all but the Bloc supported it. Now it is before committee.

I suspect that at committee it should receive full support of at least all the parties, except the Bloc, which will get it back to the House. Effectively the intent of the motion before us today is to split it out and get the Atlantic accord part in the House. We can get the entire budget bill back to the House just as quickly with the cooperation of the members. I am sure the member understands this.

The other part of this which is of great concern to me, and I am not sure if it is of concern to the member, is that the official opposition also voted against Bill C-48 which was a confidence motion which would have brought the House down and sent us to an election. To have this motion today to split out the Atlantic accord seems to be contradictory to their intent to defeat the government and to bring us back into an election. Could the member comment on that?

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso for his illuminating remarks about the budget, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, and why the Atlantic accord should remain part of Bill C-43.

I notice the member talked about the very significant benefits that are built into the budget for seniors. I could not agree with him more. That is why I would like to get on with passing it for a whole host of reasons. However, what it does for seniors is very important.

Our government is doubling the funding for a program called new horizons for seniors. I know it has been very well received in my riding. Seniors groups can do projects to help them feel more connected with the community. They can help to improve their health and general well-being and make them feel more a part of our culture in Canada. That is one aspect.

I know the budget also has an increase for the guaranteed income supplement. That is a important measure for seniors with fixed incomes and those who have low incomes. I would like to see these measures passed.

Would the member comment further on what benefits he sees with these programs and why we should get on with passing the budget bill?

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have already said I acknowledge that this is a bit of a risk. I acknowledge that this is a fair question to raise, but I also think that in the interests of making progress we have to find some ways to get beyond some of these games, roadblocks and stonewalling.

I think that in this instance a case could be made. It is not the most critical thing one could come up with, but it seems at the moment to be the only thing we can come up with, and that is to say, “Look, let us at least get this dealt with and move on in good faith to dealing with Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 in their entirety”. In other words, let us move on to the other 28 measures that we are dealing with. Let us get on with it. Let us take away the very club, the very basis on which the official opposition is stonewalling and saying that this is just not going to go anywhere until we deal with this.

I agree with the hon. member that the opposition could turn around and try to say “now let us split off something else and something else and something else”. We do not have to agree to that kind of nonsense. We can say that there can be a reasonable case made with respect to the Atlantic accord because it is a fairly specific bill that deals with something quite different and quite unusual, pertaining only to the treasuries of two provinces, really, although the Atlantic economy in general will benefit, there is no question. My plea is to say that if someone has a better idea of how we can finally get on with doing what we are here to do, then let us hear that too. I think that--

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to concur with the observations made by my colleague, the Minister of State for Infrastructure and Communities. I do sense a certain inconsistency in the point of view of the member for Halifax, because if we look at Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 we see that they are essentially a stand-alone package.

I do have concerns. For example, what if the Conservative Party could uncouple the Atlantic accord? Let us say that it is fast tracked. We would still be left with the main or certainly an important part of Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. What would happen if the Conservative Party and the Bloc then said that on Bill C-48 they would like to fast track the part on overseas development assistance, for example? I cannot imagine the Conservatives supporting that, but one never knows. They could say they want to uncouple parts of Bill C-48 and fast track them.

I think my colleague is absolutely right. We have a package of two budget bills that are basically one, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. Is the hon. member speaking on behalf of her Nova Scotian constituents or on behalf of the party? I share the minister's concern.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, let me say first that the member is just dead wrong if he thinks we cannot address in considerable detail where the budget measures in Bill C-48 are needed and can and must be spent. All we have to know is that we have had a virtual gutting of post-secondary education funding as it relates both to both core funding and to student aid measures.

Second, he says that we just do not have a clue as to how it would be spent if we did make the money available. He was not listening earlier. That is fair enough; he may not have been. I reported to the House that in Nova Scotia, for example, there has already been a bill passed in the Nova Scotia legislature, and by all political parties, by the way. The Conservatives, the New Democratic Party official opposition and the third party, the Liberals, unanimously voted and fast tracked legislation to say that the post-secondary education funding flowing from Bill C-48 would be dedicated to post-secondary education tuition reduction and improved training.

I do not know what Newfoundland and Labrador has done. I do not know what any of the other governments have done. Maybe all of us in this House could take a page out of Nova Scotia's book and actually engage in the kind of cooperation and collaboration that went on in the Nova Scotia legislature to pass that bill. The bill was introduced by the official opposition, so the government was not precious about saying, “Gee, we are not going to support something that has come from the official opposition”. It said, “Let us get the job done. Let us collaborate an all party agreement to fast track this and designate exactly where the money is going”. Maybe we could all learn a lesson from that experience.

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

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused by what the hon. member for Halifax was saying. It sounded like she was critical of the official opposition for doing due diligence and looking at a bill in the way that it is supposed to be looked at. I find that astounding.

In light of the fact that this other half of the budget, Bill C-48, had no planning and has no accountability measures, we have no idea how that money is going to be spent. If I were to ask the hon. member if the average student, for example, is going to get any part of that money and what mechanism would be there for getting it, it is not in the bill so she would just be making it up.

This motion is about the Atlantic accord, so my question is about why she and her party voted against the Atlantic accord on March 9.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities)]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Halifax, which arises from the arrangement which we have made with the New Democratic Party to bring together a package of Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. All of us on this side of the House think that is pretty good business given some of the measures that are in there, including the $800 million for public transit.

My concern is with the position of the member for Halifax on the pulling out of the Atlantic accord from Bill C-43. It seems to me that if on the one hand she and her party would argue, as I would, that we ought to see Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 as one but on the other hand we start pulling out different elements to vote on from Bill C-43, indirectly and I am sure without intention she will weaken the case for our presenting of Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 as a unified package. Perhaps she might want to comment on what seems to be a contradiction.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak further to the motion before us.

I am grateful for members like the member for Timmins--James Bay who spoke in a very direct way about when he returned to his riding last week and how clear it was to him that his constituents want us to get on with dealing with the business that we were sent here to do. I know of no member who works harder and who more passionately represents his constituents than the member for Timmins--James Bay. I suspect that if every member of the House were asked under oath to tell the truth we would all have to say that we heard the same urgings and pleas from our constituents over the last 10 days.

I want to take issue with what the parliamentary secretary said. He talked about how the motion before us to deal with the Atlantic accord in a expeditious way is somehow about preferencing or cherry-picking. I do not think that is the case. It is about trying to make some progress. It is about trying to take one important step forward and having the business of the Atlantic accord done. All members of the House presumably agree with that. I have not yet heard a rationale as to why somebody would not agree with the Atlantic accord. We could then get on and deal with the next item of business. This is not about preferencing. It is about recognizing that we have to make some progress.

The parliamentary secretary offered the argument that the reason it was easy to come to an agreement about fast tracking the veterans bill was because it was about a single issue. The reality is that the Atlantic accord in a sense is about a specific single issue. It is about moneys owing to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland because of historic measures that were put in place that actually prevented us from benefiting from those resources. The very same argument could be applied to the Atlantic accord.

We have to take seriously the sense of dismay, cynicism and skepticism that Canadians have that we have deteriorated into such a self-serving, self-interested partisan bunch that we cannot get any of the business of the House accomplished. That is a tragedy. It is a tragedy as it relates to the business before us at this particular time, but it is even more serious than that. If Canadians have reached that level of cynicism because of the paralysis, the stonewalling and the games that have been played, it is serious for the future health of our democratic process.

I hope the government will reconsider its position on this and recognize that in the interest of making some progress we should deal with the Atlantic accord and then go on to the next step.

I listened to the passionate pitches put forward by the member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl and the member for Okanagan--Coquihalla. They talked about how badly needed these resources were for Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Even though these provinces are the specific beneficiaries, there is no question that these resources will be beneficial to all Atlantic Canadians.

However I heard nothing in the comments of the Conservative members, not in their speeches nor in their responses to the numerous questions put to them, about how on the one hand they can make such a strong plea for the money to flow through the Atlantic accord to where it is so desperately needed, in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, but on the other hand make it clear that they intend to vote against other resources that are desperately needed by Atlantic Canadians.

Maybe one of the Conservative members will address my lack of knowledge on what decisions the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has made and what announcement the premier of Newfoundland may have made about where the resources from the Atlantic accord will be directed and actually allocated in the Newfoundland economy. I am sure other members would also be interested in knowing this.

The premier of Nova Scotia has said that most of the money from the Atlantic accord, if not the total $830 million, will go to paying down the debt, and I think there is quite a broad consensus of support for this decision. That of course is in the interest of freeing up moneys in the future so the money is not being used up in interest payments.

However we should make no mistake about it, at least in the case of Nova Scotia, that if that is how the money is spent, it is all the more imperative that the proportional share of Nova Scotia's fair share from the $1.6 million put in the better balanced NDP supplementary budget measures, flow through to be used for desperately needed affordable housing. It is not going to come from the Atlantic accord. Maybe it is in Newfoundland but it is not in Nova Scotia.

Similarly, there is a desperate need for those moneys in Nova Scotia, the money for post-secondary education, which the Conservatives voted against the second last day before we broke for a week, and money that is desperately in Newfoundland. We are talking about unprecedented levels of high tuition, crippling student debt and a serious erosion of quality post-secondary education that students are receiving today and will go on receiving if the re-commitment of dollars is not made to post-secondary education, to access, affordability and the quality of the educational experience.

I do not understand it. I do not get how the Conservative caucus, the official opposition, can take the position that the Atlantic accord is critically important but then vote to defeat the government so it could not go through. Let us say that the Conservatives have seen the light of day. They have had a week to reflect, realize the insanity of that position and they have come back saying that we should get the Atlantic accord through.

Surely to heaven they also recognize how critically important it is to ensure the money starts to flow for affordable housing, affordable education, improving the quality of education and certainly for the public transit measures and the energy retrofitting that is so desperately needed, particularly for low income housing.

Let us be clear. In job starved parts of this country, and heaven knows that includes Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, as well as New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, the energy retrofitting program, the affordable housing program and, for that matter, the post-secondary education program all have to do with the creation of quality jobs and the investment in our human resources so that people can fill and carry out those very important jobs.

It seems to me there is a fundamental contradiction that just is not explained at all by the members in the Conservative caucus from Nova Scotia or Newfoundland.

However let me go beyond the interests of just Atlantic Canada.The parliamentary secretary was not wrong when he asked whether people would think that if we were to fast track the Atlantic accord that only Atlantic Canadians would be given fair consideration and that the only people really pushing for this were Atlantic Canadian members of Parliament. Let the record show that is not the case. My colleague from Timmins—James Bay made an eloquent plea that we get on with this because we need to get the other budgetary measures through.

He and my colleagues have stood together and have agreed that we need to make some progress here. We need to deal with the Atlantic accord but let us do it because it is fair and because it will be some solid progress that Canadians can look to and we can take some satisfaction in.

I think we should do it. I think all members of the House should cooperate so we can put an end to the games playing, the stalling, the stonewalling, the strategizing and the tactics being used by the Conservative members. At least we will take away one of the obstructionistic actions that they have in mind and then we will try to deal with the next one.

Maybe the Conservative caucus, which pretends to be the party, aspires to be the party and brags about being the party that reflects the true feelings of grassroots Canadians, will actually be forced to start listening to their own constituents who are saying, “For the love of God let us get on with dealing with these budgetary measures that are needed”.

I want to say something about the continual attacks by the Conservative members on the notion that somehow there is a grotesquely irresponsible $4.6 billion that have been committed in the NDP additional budgetary measures that are contained in Bill C-48.

Unless the Conservative members have not done their homework, and it will be pretty funny if they actually plead ignorance on this point, every member of that official opposition caucus know the finance committee had four independent forecasters do work on the government's state of finances and bring in reports to indicate clearly that the $4.6 billion could be afforded. We are talking about $2.3 billion in each of two years.

The Conservatives are either pretending they do not know, in which case that is less than honest, or they actually do not know, in which case the very party that wraps itself up in all this talk about fiscal responsibility has not paid enough attention to the work of the finance committee to recognize that the four different independent forecasts done for the finance committee made it absolutely clear that the size of the government's surpluses that were solidly predictable will more than allow, not just the expenditure of $2.3 billion in each of 2004, 2005-06, 2006-07, but actually made it clear that the surplus of $8 billion, which is projected for each of those two years, would be sufficient to absorb the additional $2.3 billion in spending contained in the NDP budget measures without incurring a deficit. In fact, having absorbed those additional expenditures, the budget would still permit that without affecting the reserves that the government typically sets aside for contingency and economic prudence. There would still be funds left over to increase spending even further.

Let us not start talking about new ideas and spending new money. Surely the Conservative caucus will not refuse to acknowledge that the Liberals in 1995 brought in a budget that eliminated the best affordable housing program in the world. This infusion of $1.6 billion is just the beginning of rebuilding that affordable housing program. It is criminal when we look at how little has been done to create new affordable housing stocks in this country.

The Conservative caucus members also know that in the middle of the last election campaign the Prime Minister went to Newfoundland and participated in a debate with my leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, where the Prime Minister pledged that $8 billion would be recommitted to post-secondary education. It would not be fully accomplished in the budget but it would start in the budget.

When the Conservative caucus members took about two minutes to look at the Liberal budget, they did not even object to the fact that there was no new infusion of funds to restore core funding for post-secondary education. They could not wait to get out fast enough to those microphones and the scrum to say, “We like this budget and they can count on our support”.

Now the Conservative caucus is talking about needing to drag out the process so that people will still be left waiting and wondering if we are going to have that budget approved by the end of this session in late June. They know these extra moneys can be afforded. They know they are desperately needed.

They know that part of what is plaguing the lives of ordinary working people in this country is the fact that the Liberals have gutted the commitment to affordable housing and the commitment to core funding, including student aid programs and tuition reduction, yet they are talking about not being able to afford these investments. These are critically important investments. We cannot afford not to get on with those investments.

Finally, I want to again plead with all members to recognize that we have the opportunity here to pull together around what I think it is increasingly clear Canadians want us to do. They want us to deal with these budget measures. They do not want us to drag it out.

I do not have the figures right at my fingertips, but unless I am mistaken, this kind of dragged out, protracted and detailed analysis, which the official opposition is now saying is absolutely necessary, of every line by line in the budget that goes to the finance committee, has never ever been pursued by the official opposition. Maybe if it had been pursued more vigorously over the years, we would not have some of the problems of government misspending, of the lack of accountability, which we know about.

I have not been on the finance committee as an ongoing member, but I think I am accurate in saying this. My recollection is that most often the detailed questioning and the heavy lifting that has been done in terms of demanding accountability before the budget implementation bill in front of the finance committee has been done by New Democrat members, so it is a little sickening and a little disingenuous, to say the least, to hear these members going on and on about some kind of reckless, wasteful, spendthrift measures that the NDP has put before the House and which will be put before the finance committee.

Let us stop playing the games. Let us stop the partisanship. Let us get on with listening to what Canadians want. Let us actually be able to leave this session with a sense of satisfaction that we pulled together, that we came together and did what we were sent here to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are 24 sections in this bill, all of which in my view are quite important sections, not equally important but quite important. Some of which would arguably be as important to other members of the House as is the Atlantic accord to certain members of the House. I do not quite understand the basis for her question.

The hon. member needs to be careful about cherry-picking particular sections of either Bill C-43 or Bill C-48, both of which I know she considers to be important bills. When we cherry-pick on budget bills, other difficulties are created.

She used as an example the veteran's bill. The veteran's bill was a single issue bill that created a bill of rights for veterans. It was an important thing but simply a single issue bill. This is a bill which covers a great number of items and proposes spending in the order of $200 billion.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that it divide Bill C-43, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, into two bills: Bill C-43A, An Act to implement the Canada — Newfoundland and Labrador Arrangement and the Canada — Nova Scotia Arrangement and Bill C-43B, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005; that Bill C-43A be composed of Part 12 (the Canada — Newfoundland and Labrador Arrangement and the Canada — Nova Scotia Arrangement); that Bill C-43B be composed of all remaining Parts of Bill C-43; that the House order the printing of Bills C-43A and C-43B; that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make such technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion; and that Bill C-43A be reported back to the House no later than two sitting days after the adoption of this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.

This is an issue that has been before the House on several occasions recently. I will give members just a short bit of history. Three or four years ago, I, along with others, kept pushing government to offer the provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia a better deal in relation to the revenues they get from offshore development. It culminated during the last election campaign, when our party made a solid commitment in writing to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and to the province of Nova Scotia that should we form the government we would make sure that they would get 100% of their share of revenues from the offshore development.

The government opposite matched that commitment, won the election and now is in the process of delivering. However, in the interim, it was like pulling teeth to get even to where we are today, and we still have a way to go. Once the election was won, the government backed off on its commitment to the people of the Atlantic provinces. Day after day in this honourable place, members of this side of the House constantly questioned and pushed the government to deliver on its promise.

Finally, after being embarrassed by the opposition and by the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, the government signed an agreement. For instance, the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador had to walk out of meetings and had to order flags be taken down from provincial buildings. It was not easy to do, but it had to be shown to the country how important this issue was and how little regard was being paid not only to the needs of the provinces but to promises actually made by the government opposite.

Finally, on Valentine's Day, and I am not sure if there is a significance to that, everyone sort of kissed and made up and signed an agreement. That was over three months ago and the government was still hedging on bringing forth legislation. The bill is contained in a two page document, so it is not anything substantive. This went on and on. Finally, when the bill was presented it was part of an omnibus bill and was included with 23 other pieces of legislation.

Any bill of that complexity, especially if some of these pieces of legislation are ones which will cause concern to members of the opposition or members generally in the House if they are concerned about how we spend our money in this country, which we know members opposite do not worry too much about, is a very lengthy process.

We immediately asked for single stand-alone legislation. The province of Newfoundland and Labrador asked for stand-alone legislation. The province of Nova Scotia asked for stand-alone legislation. The government said, “No, the bill is in Bill C-43 and we will deal with it in totality”. Then we asked if the Liberals would split the bill; if they would take out the section pertaining to the Atlantic accord provisions and the funding arrangements for both provinces and deal with that separately so the money could flow.

The province of Newfoundland and Labrador is losing $3 million for every week this drags on. We asked that the accord be taken out. We asked that the bill be split. The Prime Minister, in responding to one of my questions, said that he could only do it with unanimous consent from the House. We asked for unanimous consent, we being the leader of the Conservative Party, seconded by the leader of the NDP, actually, whose members have supported this solidly throughout.

The government refused, but instead of taking the blame, it blamed the Bloc for objecting. After a few days we asked again that the government split the bill, this time with unanimous consent from every opposition member in the House. The government refused again.

Finally the budget came and the budget was passed, again with a huge majority thanks to the members of this party. That was because of how important one issue in particular is; it is not that we were in love with all 24 clauses in the budget, but certainly because that one issue is so important to the Atlantic provinces. Around this commitment hinges the future of Newfoundland and Labrador and, to some extent at least, that of the province of Nova Scotia.

The budget passed and now the bill has been referred to committee. The committee now has to deal with 24 clauses, along with a second piece of associated legislation, Bill C-48, the bill brought in to legitimize the buyout of the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, you and I have been around long enough to know that 25 pieces of legislation take time to go through any process, especially if the legislation is complex. We are within days of closing for the summer. If this bill is not passed through this facility, then it drags on into the fall. With other issues coming up heaven knows how long it would take and at $3 million a week we just cannot afford it.

Now that the budget has passed and now that the bill is in committee there is no reason at all why the government cannot ask committee, which is why we presented the motion, to have part 12 sent back here to be dealt with as a stand-alone bill so that the provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia can have their money flowing before any other complexities set in that would further drag out the approval of this legislation.