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

[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.

Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec Act

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate on third reading of Bill C-9, an act to establish the economic development agency of Canada for the regions of Quebec.

This is a public policy matter of profound significance for communities everywhere. Although the bill deals specifically with community economic development in various regions of the province of Quebec, the concept we are discussing is critically important for the future of many communities across the country.

I would like to take a moment to address the essence of this proposal and the whole meaning of social, economic development or political involvement at the grassroots level because that is what we are talking about.

This is about communities having the means to ensure that community development occurs in ways that are relevant to that community. It is about turning around our priorities as politicians and as members of Parliament. We ought to stop saying how communities must perform. We ought to stop making decisions from on high about what communities need and what is best for people at the local level. We ought to begin by saying that no one knows better about what is in the best interests of a community than the people who work day in and day out building communities and creating cooperative arrangements for improving life in that particular neighbourhood.

I have a very relevant example in terms of my own constituency of Winnipeg North, a community that is a typical, inner city, north end neighbourhood. It is an older neighbourhood with old stock housing and many very significant problems in terms of economic and social development.

We are talking about communities where many people live on a day to day basis trying to make ends meet for their families, communities that are struggling in terms of some external factors that are hard to address. It may be an influx of people from other communities without proper housing and other services available to those individuals. We are talking about all the social determinants that come from economic indicators that are indicative of many social ills and problems that we all have to deal with on a day to day basis.

Economic development is central for every region and every community in every one of our provinces to overcoming great difficulties and ensuring we have a long term strategy for overcoming economic and social inequalities.

There is an old expression we have all heard that if we give a person a fish, they will eat for a day, but if we teach that person to fish, they will be able to provide for themselves and their families forever. One could even take that a little further and say that if one gave those families access to the pond, to the lake or the river where the fish are plentiful, then the future of that community is guaranteed forever. It is about giving communities the resources they need to develop, to grow and to provide for all of the people in that community.

We cannot do that in isolation. We cannot do that from government speaking on high and we cannot do it in terms of dealing with things on a piecemeal, ad hoc, band-aid, pilot project basis, which has been the tendency of the government.

It has not tended to look at communities in terms of holistic needs and in terms of working to find solutions with a community, not for that community, not telling that community how the job must get done.

My experience also comes from a community where in fact there is a very high aboriginal population. These are people who want to gain control over their own lives. They are people who know that they will continue to suffer social injustice and economic inequality until we as politicians are prepared to share power and are prepared to empower people to look after themselves, to care for themselves and to make communities work for one another. That is the essence of this concept and why this bill is so important.

Let me now focus specifically on Bill C-9. It is a bill that has gone through all the stages and has had serious study by the committee.

In that regard I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, who is a member of the Standing Committee on Industry, Natural Resources, Science and Technology. She has been very much involved in the work of that committee in developing recommendations and amendments to this legislation to make it better, to make it more effective in terms of dealing with the very objectives at stake here, that is, how to give communities the means by which they can shape their own future.

At the committee stage of the bill, many amendments were proposed and many were passed. I want to indicate for all in this House that the New Democratic Party certainly supports the amendments, recognizes the hard work of the committee and wants to support the bill as amended.

Specifically, the amendments state very clearly that social economy enterprises will be included as eligible organizations. That will help community economic development opportunities in the province of Quebec.

As well, the amendments focus on how this money will be used to promote the Quebec economy. I want to look specifically at those amendments that do just that and speak about why we are so supportive of the amendments and the bill including these amendments. The first of these amendments states that there shall be means to:

(a) promote economic development in the regions of Quebec where low incomes and/or slow economic growth are prevalent, or where opportunities for productive employment are inadequate.

That is fundamental to the task at hand and to the very essence of Canadian economic development.

The second part of the amendment states that through this bill it will be emphasized that “long-term economic development and sustainable employment and income creation” are explicitly stated as fundamental goals. The amendments also include reference to a focus on small and medium sized enterprises and the development of entrepreneurial talent.

All these amendments are important, all establishing very clear boundaries that will help direct how the funding that is available will be used and to whose benefit. Very clearly, these are critical steps in terms of this whole process, integral to the whole legislation we are dealing with.

As recent events in Montreal have shown, it is very important that bureaucrats understand the limits of how funds should be used.

I again want to spend just a moment on the importance of literacy in any social economy program. I am sure that members of the Bloc will agree when I say that Quebec, like Atlantic Canada, has more adults with low literacy skills than the rest of Canada. As we agree to the new status for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, it is very important for us to emphasize that literacy skills are the most important for people who are in transitional and emerging economies.

I want to point out that ABC CANADA is a great organization working to improve adult literacy skills. The following is stated on its website:

Statistics Canada released a report called Literacy Skills for the Knowledge Society in 1997. This report confirms that we have a serious literacy problem in Canada. Here are some of the facts:

Literacy skills are like muscles--they are maintained and strengthened through regular use.

The higher an individual's literacy level, the more likely he/she will be employed and have a higher income.

Canadians use their literacy skills more in the workplace than at home.

--'good' jobs are those that provide opportunities to maintain and enhance literacy skills.

Let us stop for a moment and take a look at the third point I mentioned: that Canadians use their literacy skills more in the workplace than at home. It makes sense in that context, then, that any economic program, any community development initiative, needs to consider absolutely the need for lifelong learning, especially when it comes to adult literacy and numeracy training programs.

There is so much one could talk about in the context of the bill. I simply want to indicate our support for the bill as amended and to urge its final passage by the House of Commons.

I want to end by referring to some work prepared by the Canadian CED Network social economy round table consultation. I will refer specifically to the briefing notes the group produced. The document outlining the discussions at the round table consultation lists the main points that CCED Net believes should be common concerns during all consultations regarding the federal social economy initiative.

Emphasizing those three points really says it all in terms of what we are trying to achieve and what can be accomplished by providing the funds that are referenced in the bill and providing the framework for its implementation.

The three points made by CCED Net include, first, “strengthening social capital at the local level”. That means “building the local capacity of communities to systematically address the problems of their economies”. That is a very important point, because without acknowledging the need to increase local capacity so that the community itself can overcome the problems it is facing, we are only putting a band-aid on a problem. We are only allowing social injustices and economic inequalities to continue.

The second point about this approach involves “strengthening human capital at the local level”. This means “increasing the competence of local citizens to get and hold good jobs or build their own businesses, as well as to provide essential local leadership for the development process”.

This kind of investment in human capital cannot be done in isolation of all the parts of that individual. If we do not look at this on a holistic basis, it becomes almost impossible to see results by investing money strictly on the basis of a particular economic project. That means looking at the whole identity of an individual and of a community. That means considering the heritage, the culture, the skills, the particular expertise, and the practices of collaboration and working together: networking; the involvement of unions and businesses; the involvement of synagogues, churches and temples; the involvement of schools and universities; and the involvement of family associations and teacher-parent groups.

All of these various aspects of an individual's life, all integral to the health and well-being of a community, must be included in this concept of strengthening human capital at the local level.

Finally, let us get to the nub of the matter in terms of the wherewithal to do all of this. We have the people who want to do it. We have organizations at the local level with people who want to give their lives to making a difference at the community level, who are prepared to work on a volunteer basis and to work tirelessly doing community work, but they need the financial support of government to make that happen.

The third important point made by CCED Net about a community development or economic development initiative is “strengthening financial capital at the local level”. This means improving “investment resources available for local businesses, for affordable housing, and for alternative financial institutions”.

In this context, it is very important to reference the two budget bills passed by this House of Commons just last night, and in particular to reference the better balanced budget proposed by the NDP in Bill C-48, which in fact flows from this imperative and came from the need to address community needs and to support communities to help themselves. The money we have fought for and worked through with the Liberal government is critical for community economic development, the money for housing, education, retrofitting of homes, public transit and other environmental initiatives. All of these initiatives are critically important for feeding into the notion that the best communities are those that are able to help themselves.

By providing the resources to work with community groups like those I have in Winnipeg, the North End Community Renewal Corporation, Just Housing, Habitat for Humanity, North End Housing and other residents associations like the Point Douglas and William Whyte residents advisory groups, by providing assistance to those organizations and groups that are prepared to take on the challenges of a community that needs to be renewed and strengthened, we surely see the light at the end of the tunnel and know that the goals we all share can be accomplished.

This last point also references the need for every community to have access to financial institutions, and if those financial institutions are not there, to provide the resources to develop alternatives. When a community loses all of its bank branches and has no immediate direct access to financial institutions, then it is through community development and economic development proposals, like those we have been talking about under the auspices of this bill, that we can actually provide and ensure that a community has such access.

It is not easily done and it takes a lot of work, but I can tell members from firsthand experience how possible it actually is.

In the case of Winnipeg North, we have lost all of our bank branches in the last 10 years. In a very large and strategically significant area in Winnipeg, that being the north end, stretching many miles on all sides, there is no bank branch. The community realized that without access to financial services there would be no way to keep attracting new businesses. There would be no way to deal with the vacancies along main street and to get local initiatives housed and thriving in those vacant buildings without access to financial services.

That community, my community, decided to first take on the banks and it said to those banks that they had no right to desert a community that had been loyal to them for years and years, for decades and decades, and in some cases for more than 100 years. Those banks grew and became profitable because of that loyalty, only to desert that community when it was convenient for the banks because they wanted to make more profit in other areas. That community, my community, decided to take things into its own hands and to say to those banks, “If the banks will not stay and be loyal to us, then we will switch our allegiance and we will find our own way to deal with the situation”.

The community, through the North End Community Renewal Corporation, has developed an alternative financial institutions plan, has tested it and is now in the final stages of putting it into effect, but it needs money and it needs support from all levels of government. I have actually pursued this matter with the Minister of Finance and said to him that he had an obligation to support such community initiatives and to ensure that if the banks desert communities and we cannot legislate them to stay, then surely we, as representatives of this place and as members of a government, have an obligation to help communities help themselves and provide the necessary economic development and financial institutional resources that they need. The essence of this project is helping communities to help themselves.

I urge members of the House to support Bill C-9.

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

[The Speaker]

I don't know why hon. members keep doing this to me. The Clerk has announced that there is an equality of votes for and against the motion. In these circumstances, it is the duty of the Speaker to break the tie.

The Speaker's vote is not based on his or her political affiliation, but rather on parliamentary traditions, customs and usages. I will therefore vote in accordance with parliamentary procedure, as I have done in the past.

The House tonight has been unable to reach a decision by majority vote. Parliamentary precedents are clear: the Speaker should vote, whenever possible, for continuation of debate on a question that cannot be decided by the House.

On May 4, 2005 I voted in favour of second reading and reference to committee of a private member's bill sponsored by an opposition member. At that time, I was guided by precisely the same procedural principles as I am following tonight, though my decision has arguably more momentous consequences.

Therefore, at this stage in the debate on this bill, since the House cannot make a decision, I cast my vote for second reading of Bill C-48 and its reference to the finance committee to allow the House time for further debate so that it can make its own decision at some future time.

I declare the motion carried. Consequently, this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Speaker]

Pursuant to order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-48.

(The House divided on the motion:)

An Act To Authorize The Minister Of Finance To Make Certain Payments

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to think the hon. member was in that sweaty hotel room when the NDP cut Bill C-48. We are on debate on Bill C-48. I am not sure where the hon. member has been all this time.

Let me just say something very quickly. On Bill C-48, the leader of the Conservative Party was very clear. In fact he was standing in my riding when he made an announcement that because of the deal with the devil--and we all know who that is, the leader of the fourth party in the House--he said he would come back to caucus and recommend we put the government out of its misery. That was because of Bill C-48. I do not see any inconsistency in that. Quite frankly, it would be really nice if we did put the Liberals out of their misery tonight.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple. When we defeat Bill C-48 tonight and bring down the government, I will be happy to match our platform against anybody's on behalf of auto workers, on behalf of the environment and on behalf of farmers.

I have been fighting for farmers in the House. I have not heard the hon. member over there fighting for farmers, but I have certainly been doing it. We will be glad to go to bat for our farmers.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to debate Bill C-48. I believe that a member on the other side of the House once called it the people's budget. I am going to talk about the budget that hurts people. That is why Conservatives, including myself, will actually be opposing Bill C-48. It hurts seniors. It hurts farmers. It hurts auto workers. It hurts our children, because ruining our nation's finances will be stuck with our children. Runaway spending is not what this country needs.

Since betrayal is the story of the week on the Hill, I want to talk about some very important people, the people of Essex, people who were left out of the budget both by the Liberals and the NDP. One would think if the Prime Minister was desperate to maintain his slipping grip on power, a better deal might have been struck. He was ripe for the picking. Perhaps the deal was made in a sweaty back room in a hotel somewhere and the air was thick, I am not sure, but there are a lot of things missing from the budget, things that harm communities.

For example, there is no new border infrastructure money for the Windsor-Detroit corridor. After allocating maybe $150 million some two and a half years ago, there is about $50 million left in the fund.The very first project allocated under that spending was a very simple pedestrian overpass: ramp up, ramp up, go over the street, ramp down, ramp down. That was agreed to two and a half years ago. It has been a year and a half in design and redesign. Now it comes out with wind turbines and a little swamp bog on the front lawn of a high school that is off the side of that street. The saddest thing is that the simple project has not been built.

The thing that is important is putting pavement between Windsor and Detroit. That is going to cost some money. There is no money in the budget for that. There is no money in Bill C-48 for that. There are trucking companies and owner-operators in our communities whose livelihoods depend on getting this solved. It is clearly not a priority for the government. It is going to take more than $50 million to solve it.

In fact, a third crossing may cost some $300 million to $400 million. Hundreds of millions of dollars more will be required for roads that will connect to a third crossing from Highway 401. The Liberal solution is $50 million. That is shameful. It says that the Liberals did not make a very strong commitment to the region of Essex and Windsor. The NDP had the opportunity to get that with a Prime Minister eager to consolidate his slipping grip on power. There are two NDP members of Parliament in Windsor and they received nothing for the community. It is clear that both the NDP and the Liberals care nothing about Essex and Windsor.

Maybe judgment gets clouded when people cut back room deals, I do not know, but there is no help for farmers in Essex County in this budget.

I rose in the House in February and called on the government for assistance for grain and oilseed producers who are facing foreclosure on their farms. There are 1,200 grain and oilseed producers in Essex County alone. Many of them are facing foreclosure this spring. The CFIP cheques according to the government are rolling in, but for those who actually got some cheques, they were for $100 or $200. That is not enough to cover the cost of fuel to run the combine across the field let alone pay down a short term operating loan that the bank is calling in on them.

As a result, farmers are trading in their equity. One producer told me he has cashed in his RRSPs to hold off the bank, desperately hoping that he is going to make it through the spring. He is not going to make it through the spring. He will not make it through the summer. His farm is done. There is no help for farmers.

When the NDP members had the Prime Minister on the ropes and were going to cut a deal in the back room, they should have thought about Tommy Douglas and the CCF out on the Prairies who said they loved the farmers, but the NDP did nothing for our farmers. Bill C-43 fails our farmers. Bill C-48 fails our farmers as well. The New Democratic Party budget has left farmers to fend for themselves. How apropos for a week of betrayal on the Hill.

I do not know about the stale air in the back room where the leader was cutting a deal with the Prime Minister, but the NDP also forgot to help those Canadian seniors who collect U.S. social security. The New Democrat member for Windsor—Tecumseh and I petitioned the Liberal finance minister to include a rollback of an onerous 70% tax hike that was foisted on Canadian seniors collecting U.S. social security as the basis of their retirement income. We lobbied that this would be a line item in the Liberal budget.

As was expected, the Liberal government refused. It has been fighting against these Canadian seniors for eight long years. Many of the seniors have been dying off. The government has taken the wait and die attitude. That is how the government treats Canadian seniors.

Many of these seniors were forced from their homes. Do we want to talk about housing? They were forced from their homes. They were living in homes and now they cannot afford homes. All the affordable housing in the world will not compensate dead Canadians. These seniors were forced from their homes precisely at a time when the Prime Minister as Liberal finance minister was registering ships in Barbados in order to only pay 2% tax in Canada.

These seniors have been waiting eight years for justice. The New Democrat members from Windsor--Tecumseh and Windsor West have talked about this issue in the House, but when it came time to prop up the government with an NDP budget, they did nothing for these seniors. Let the record show that the New Democratic Party sold out Canadian seniors who collect U.S. social security.

I know that Buzz Hargrove was in the negotiations behind closed doors. Here is the real kicker on Bill C-48. I have heard a lot of talk here about auto policy and helping auto workers. Interestingly enough there is no help for auto workers and their families in this NDP budget.

I am Parliament's first auto worker ever elected and not from the New Democrats or the CCF. I spent three and a half years at the Pillette Road truck assembly plant before it closed and two and a half years at Windsor assembly living in constant anxiety about job security. The global market is even more fiercely competitive.

The Liberal government says that it does not care how many jobs go overseas, but we in the Conservative party actually do care. International competition from cheaper foreign labour markets and a higher Canadian dollar have put the squeeze on our automakers here in Canada.

The New Democratic Party has deep-sixed tax relief for large corporations like automakers. It would have increased their productivity and their competitiveness. It would have allowed automakers to not only fulfill their collective bargaining agreements but still turn a profit and do it here in Canada, preserving Canadian jobs and Canadian families and allowing them to survive. That would have been a win-win situation.

Coupled with its last supply day motion on an outrageous job killing mandatory fuel efficiency regulation, it is clear that the New Democratic Party wants to drive auto jobs out of Ontario and over to China. The 9% unemployment rate in the Essex-Windsor region is not good enough. The New Democrats want it to be 12% or 13% the way they are forcing auto jobs out of here.

The New Democratic Party did not get an auto policy. It left crushing high corporate taxes to kill auto jobs. The New Democratic budget did not fight for tax relief for hardworking Canadian auto families.

I recall for years the New Democrats bemoaning the Liberal government for doing nothing about reinvesting the $45 billion EI surplus in workers. When I look at Bill C-48, where is the $45 billion EI surplus reinvestment that the New Democrats thought was so important? Nowhere.

The 5,500 people I worked with on the line at DaimlerChrysler and their families deserve a better budget than this New Democratic budget. It is an NDP budget that hurts workers.

Finally, this NDP budget hurts families. Governments should be designing budgets to encourage strong families. On the child care initiative, $1 billion a year is what the government says and $10 billion a year is what the CAW says. Where is that going to come from? It is a hidden agenda of $9 billion per year when the government is promising $25 billion. That is going to mean program cutbacks or it is going to mean deficits and debt, a return to red ink. That hurts Canadian families.

This NDP budget is financially ruinous. It hurts communities in Windsor-Essex. It hurts farmers in Essex County. It hurts seniors, auto workers and families. As a result I cannot in good conscience support Bill C-48. I will oppose it tonight, proudly on behalf of those people in Essex who deserve a fair shake.

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

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Newton--North Delta to participate in the debate on Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments.

The proposed legislation would enact the $4.6 billion deal struck by the Liberal government with the NDP to make payments in 2005-06 and 2006-07 from surplus moneys exceeding $2 billion to fund environmental initiatives, including public transit and an energy efficient retrofit program for low income housing; training programs and enhanced access to post-secondary education to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians; affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians; and foreign aid.

I am opposed to Bill C-48 for a couple of reasons. First, I oppose the bill for the politics behind it. This is a $4.6 billion deal using taxpayers money to keep a corrupt party afloat in government.

The Liberals and the NDP have joined together and written a fiscal plan on the back of an envelope. The only motivation behind the deal is an attempt for political survival by the desperate and corrupt Liberal government. This is a recipe for economic disaster.

Second, it takes government spending to a new dangerous level. There are any number of worthy ways in which to spend taxpayers' hard-earned money, some under federal jurisdiction, some under provincial jurisdiction and some under municipal jurisdiction.

The government cannot seem to decide what its priorities should be and as a result is throwing money around regardless of jurisdiction. This is not in the best interest of Canadians and must be strongly opposed by all those who wish to preserve the fiscal integrity of the federal government.

Even before this budget side deal, the government was ramping up spending. I have said it before and I will say it again. This year's budget demonstrates that tax and spend Liberals are back with a vengeance. If there was any doubt about the truth of this statement, it has been washed away by the Liberal-NDP budget and the tidal wave of new spending announcements that cabinet ministers have been making on a daily basis for the last month.

A Prime Minister who made his reputation by taking tough fiscal decisions, whether by choice or, more likely, as a result of pressure from the reform party and later the Canadian Alliance, has now revealed his true colours.

He is a tax and spend Liberal, the likes of whom this country has not seen since the darkest days of Liberal excesses in the 1970s and early 1980s. It was runaway spending under Prime Minister Trudeau that took this country to the brink of bankruptcy. At the rate the government is spending taxpayer money, Canadians will again find themselves in the poor house.

Last year the finance minister promised to demonstrate unequivocally the principles of financial responsibility and integrity. He promised Canadians to better control spending, which is another broken promise by the government, another promise made but again not kept, even before the budget side deal and the billions in additional spending promises of the last month the government was proposing.

Last year the finance minister projected program spending at $148 billion for 2004-05 but he ended up going $10 billion over the budget. As a result, in the last fiscal year we witnessed a spending increase of $17 billion over the previous year. So much for controlling spending. At 12%, this is the largest single spending increase in over 20 years and the fourth largest in the last four decades.

Since 2000, program spending soared by 44% and judging from what we have witnessed in recent weeks, Canadians should hang onto their seats because they have not seen anything yet. I could almost forgive this runaway spending if there was some demonstrable evidence that Canadians' lives were improving as a result, but that is not the case.

My constituents in Newton--North Delta are at pains to see how all this spending has made any difference. Despite billions of dollars being spent, child poverty continues to grow, health care further deteriorates, roads and bridges remain congested, public transit cries for funding, and there continues to be a strong demand for good, well paying jobs. After all of the government's spending, hospital waiting lines will continue to get worse, students will continue to plunge deeper into debt, and our soldiers will be stretched as thinly as ever.

People in my riding depend upon Surrey Memorial Hospital for their health care. Our community is fast outgrowing its hospital in the community. The hospital, built in the 1970s to accommodate 50,000 patients a year, now handles between 70,000 and 72,000 patients annually and has the busiest emergency ward in western Canada. Surrey Memorial Hospital's facilities now cope with the demands placed upon it by our community's soaring population. There have been recurring complaints about waiting times, a lack of beds, insufficient staff, sanitary conditions, and questionable procedures at the hospital's crowded emergency room.

The root cause of the problems we now face goes back to the Prime Minister and the cuts he made to the CHST in the mid-1990s when he was finance minister. These cuts left successive B.C. governments to find extra billions of dollars for health care. The new money for health care in this year's budget will not provide Surrey Memorial Hospital with the money it needs and of course there is nothing in Bill C-48 to help that.

The health care agreement, which the Prime Minister hyped as a fix for a generation, will only allow B.C. to increase health expenditures by 3% annually over the next six years. Not only will this amount not fix health care, it will not even cover the rising costs resulting from inflation and population growth, while the dollar figure spread out over such an extended period amounts to little more than a band-aid solution to our critically ill health care system.

Bill C-48 is heavy on the public purse but light on details. It commits to hundreds of millions of dollars under broad areas without any concrete plans as to how that money would be spent. The Liberal-NDP deal, which is reflected in this bill, has been denounced by business groups, particularly the small businesses that favour allocating this federal surplus to debt reduction and tax relief over additional spending.

This bill is a reflection of the new federal budget, an NDP budget, one that the Liberals had amended after they said it could not be done. The Liberals are willing to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars to fund their addiction to power. This is a direct result of the loss of their moral authority to govern. Not only should this bill not be passed, but the finance minister should resign for tabling it. Clearly, the NDP leader has more influence on the budgetary framework than the Prime Minister's own finance minister.

A Conservative government believes that responsible exploration, development, conservation and renewal of our environment is vital to our continued growth. The Conservative Party also believes that all Canadians should have a reasonable opportunity to own their own homes and have access to safe and affordable housing. The Conservative Party believes in greater accessibility to education by eliminating as many barriers to post-secondary education as possible.

The Conservative Party is committed to strengthening Canada's record in foreign aid. A Conservative government would reduce business taxes. Reducing taxes would encourage foreign and domestic businesses to invest in Canada. I believe that a Conservative government could manage the finances better than this budget. Therefore, I will oppose it because I cannot support it.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it would be better deployed if it did not go through a program started by the government where 50% or better is lost in administration. Farmers in Saskatchewan have waited over a year for a response. When they do get a response the government is asking for more information that is already there. That is the kind of program we have.

If we go back to the previous bill, Bill C-43, the finance minister himself said that the government could not take away the corporate tax cuts. He stated, “If the gentleman has a serious proposition, please bring it forward and I will give it the consideration it deserves”.

I point out, however, that changes in the corporate taxation are intended to assure jobs, jobs, jobs, and that they stay in Canada. The agreement that was made in the dead of night talks about both parties agreeing to take steps to eliminate those cuts but they are not in Bill C-48. That, plus the workers' protection fund of $100 million, is missing. What happened to it?

It is born in confusion, it is born in duplicity and it will die when the election takes place.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity that my friend Bernie Collins will not be running because I am sure he would do very well against the member.

Knowing what is in budget and what went on with respect to Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, it is obvious that he has not studied the matter very carefully.

He raised a very serious issue having to do with farmers in Canada. I represent an urban riding but it is very important that we have a very strong agricultural sector in Canada. The one thing I find quite interesting is that the government has actually supported farmers in Canada with billions and billions of dollars. I am troubled by the fact that this does not seem to be having any impact.

I wonder if the member could comment on how that money could be better deployed.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member I will be back. Bernie Collins will not be back and neither will that member. What is more, I would ask the member to find out which particular bill we are speaking to. It is Bill C-48 which is the cooked up deal that was done in a hotel room and not the previous bill. The member is confused, but if he wants to debate the previous bill, that was an hour ago.

The bill before us now does not even set out what the objectives are for the $4.5 billion. It simply says:

The Governor in Council may specify the particular purposes for which payments referred to in subsection (1) may be made....

We had something like that in the gun registry. It was supposed to be $2 million and it ended up, according to accounts we have, being almost $2 billion. It is not a question that we want to throw money around.

The government wanted to fixed the problem in Davis Inlet so it moved a whole community at a cost of $400,000 per person. What happened? The problem followed the people. We need to have a plan. We cannot just throw money and buy votes. At least the Liberals did this much, they did not promise a lot. They said if, maybe and whatever.

What does concern me is what is in Bill C-48. It states:

For the purposes of this Act, the Governor in Council may... authorize a minister to

(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.

That is like setting up the sponsorship scandal all over again.

The Auditor General said that only the tip of the iceberg has been talked about. She said that another $850 million has not been investigated. Set up a corporation for this government and do it arm's length from the Auditor General and let us see what happens. This bill is half-baked. It was cooked up in the middle of the night to buy votes and stay in power at all costs, and that is wrong.