Bill C-48 (Historical)

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

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

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

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

My friend across the way is sounding a little bitter and angry. However, I want members to know that RDI, which is a media outlet, an arm of the CBC, reported it would cost around $2 billion. If my friend takes issue with those figures, he should take that up with RDI.

I will also point to another situation where the government saw a problem and just threw money at it. I remember very well those shocking images on TV of young children who were stoned on gasoline at Davis Inlet. It was an awful thing. Prime Minister Chrétien, at the time, was shocked by it. We were all shocked. However, the government did not have a plan. It just took a lot of money and threw money at it. It said, “That is terrible. We have to deal with it”, and just threw money at it.

What happened? The government moved some 900 people from the community of Davis Inlet to another community a few miles away and gave them new housing. It cost $400,000 a person. Guess what? All of the problems went with them, not surprisingly. Again, that is what happens when we react without a plan and just throw money at things. All we do is create more problems. We do not get results.

What we have now is the government trying to hide from one vote-buying scandal in Quebec, the sponsorship scandal, and spending $4.6 billion to acquire the votes of NDP members in this place in the hope that it could hang on in a confidence motion.

I am worried that this same problem is being replicated all over again. There is real evidence for that. When we look at the bill itself, Bill C-48, what does it say? It does not say that money would go into specific programs, programs that are established today that we can scrutinize. It says that money shall be spent via order in council. It would be up to the cabinet to decide how to spend it. I worry about that. I guess as the opposition finance critic I should worry about it. It is my job.

However, Canadians should worry about that because this looks like another blatant attempt, initially, to get over a vote-buying scandal in Quebec and, second, to buy votes from the NDP. Now it looks like the government is going to use this to buy the votes of Canadians in order to support it in possibly an upcoming election.

I would urge Canadians to say no. This is our money. We know that there are other ways to spend this money. If we do not have good plans in place to spend it, then we should not spend it at all. Leave it in the pockets of homemakers, farmers, fishermen and the business people who create jobs in this country. They could use that money, very often, far more effectively than a bureaucrat or a politician. That is certainly my experience.

When I think about what we could do if we left some of this money in the pockets of taxpayers, I think of a family I know, who are goods friends of my wife and I, who have four kids and a modest income. Of course they want their children to go to university. Would it not be a great thing if they were allowed to keep, say, $1,000 extra every year because their taxes were a little bit lower and they were able to save that money to put into a fund for higher education for their children?

Maybe they have other priorities. Maybe they have children who have to go to the dentist. Maybe they have children who have extra needs medically. They could use the money for those things. My point is that parents know better than anybody else what is important to them and how to use that money. Believe it or not, they know more than bureaucrats and politicians about what is good for their family.

Simple decency requires that if the Liberals have no plan and if they are swimming in cash, then this money should be allowed to stay in the pockets of the people who earned it in the first place. That is just being decent.

The government has not skimped on spending. Spending has gone through the roof in the last number of years. Since 1997 and 1998 spending has gone up 50%, not including the February budget, and not including the $4.6 billion that is in Bill C-48.

I would argue that the government has spent more than enough money in the last number of years and now it is time for a substantial break for Canadians. Many friends across the way may say they are going to lower taxes in the budget for everyday Canadians. The tax break in the next tax year for Canadians amounts to $16. That is unbelievable.

There was no shortage of money for Liberal friends when it came to the sponsorship scandal. There were envelopes and suitcases of money for Liberal friends, for Liberal ad executives, and ultimately for the Liberal Party. What do the regular working people get? They get a $16 tax cut. That is shameful. That is ridiculous. That speaks volumes about the government's real priorities.

I want to speak about some of the myths that the government across the way has been perpetuating. I have heard members in this place say that if the budget does not pass then the offshore accord will not go through. Atlantic Canada in particular, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, will not get the money due to them as a result of the signing of the offshore accord. I want the House to know that a Conservative government would deliver that money as soon as humanly possible.

The member for St. John's East and the member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl have worked relentlessly to push the government to allow that piece of the budget, the offshore accord, to be split off, so it could pass through the House quickly and be delivered to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador right now. The government opposes it every time. Does the government really care about Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador? If it did, it would split that part of the bill off right now and get that money delivered to those people.

It bothers me as someone from Alberta, someone who comes from a province where at one point we received equalization at the same time as we were getting revenues from oil and gas. We on this side of the House had to fight hard to get the government to accept that point of view, and now it is playing politics with it. The government is now holding Newfoundland members of Parliament hostage on this issue, knowing that it could push this through right now if it wanted and get the money to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, but it will not.

On the issue of the gas tax, some of my Liberal colleagues across the way, and frankly some of the big city mayors who basically may as well be a part of that caucus over there, are playing the same kinds of games. We have made it very clear many times that we would deliver gas tax revenues to the municipalities via the provinces to ensure that they could look after their infrastructure.

We made that case way before the government ever conceived of the idea. In fact, we moved a motion in this place some time ago calling for the government to do that. The government voted against the idea. Government members thought it was a crazy idea. Imagine taking the excise tax on fuel and giving it back to municipalities. That is basically what the government argued.

A few months later the then finance minister, now the Prime Minister, went to the FCM in British Columbia and argued that should be done. It is going ahead and doing it. Now Liberals are telling Canadians falsely that we would not deliver that. We would move heaven and earth to get that money to municipalities so they can look after their infrastructure. We know how important that is. It is very unfortunate that the government is telling people things that are not true about what our plan is. We absolutely would deliver that money.

I want to say a couple of words about some of the games the government is playing today with the fiscal framework. It was not very long ago that the finance minister argued how important it was to maintain a contingency reserve and prudence factor of $4 billion a year. He wanted to increase it by $1 billion a year going out over the next number of years because he was worried about uncertainty in the world. He was worried about the impact of things like terrorist attacks and what it would mean to our economy if those kinds of things occurred. We could go into a tailspin and it could mean that we could end up in a deficit again.

He was worried about the high cost of oil and what it would do to the world economy or the U.S. housing bubble. There were all kinds of uncertainties that the finance minister pointed to and said that it was essential the government have a big contingency and prudence factor. No sooner had those words quit echoing in this place, the Prime Minister was undermining his own finance minister saying that it really did not need $4 billion. It only really need $2 billion. He wanted so badly to strike the deal with the NDP that he was prepared to possibly sacrifice the financial well-being of 31 million Canadians. That is unforgivable and it is simply wrong.

It comes on top of sacrificing the well-being of all the people who would have had jobs if the government were serious about following through on its commitment to lower taxes for the large employers. However, it cast that out as well.

I am arguing that it is very cynical for the government to do this in the face of the sponsorship scandal. It was so desperate to hold on to a few more votes from the NDP that it completely caved in and threw all its principles out the window simply to cling to power. That is not acceptable.

I argue that if there is a party in Canada today that is standing up for families, seniors, small business people and people in businesses of all sizes who create jobs, it is the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatives are opposing Bill C-48 because we think it imperils the ability of Canadians to have a bright future.

I will conclude with this. The most dangerous thing of all about Bill C-48 is how the government is trying to cover its tracks on sponsorship by buying votes in a way that I am afraid will drive federalists in Quebec into the arms of the separatists. Instead of dealing with the corruption problem head on, what the Liberals are continuing to do is allow federalism in Quebec to be tainted. By refusing to deal with this issue head on, they are breathing new life into the separatist movement in Quebec.

If this is allowed to go forward without dealing with the separatism issue and the corruption, it will be on the heads of the members of the Liberal Party of Canada if this causes the breakup of our country.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address Bill C-48. I want to start by underlining that the Conservative Party believes strongly that Bill C-48 will hurt Canadian farmers, seniors, people who are trying to create jobs in this country and families with children.

We believe strongly that Bill C-48 is taking Canada off track financially. We also believe that it is a pretty obvious attempt to cover up the allegations of corruption being levelled at the Liberal Party and the government. We believe that is a pretty important reason to oppose Bill C-48. I will expand on some of those things in just a moment.

I want to go back to a point I was making earlier about how fundamentally Bill C-48 completely contradicts the government's own finance minister. Going back to last February, I was in this place when the finance minister spoke about how important it was to follow the principles laid out in Bill C-43. One of those principles was that there had to be tax relief for large employers in Canada.

If we go to the budget documents, we can still find the page where it talks about how important that is for attracting investment to this country and accumulating capital, so that businesses can take that and invest it in training for their employees, buy new equipment and expand their operations. These are things that would put people to work.

Since that time a study came out from the C.D. Howe Institute saying that if the government followed through on those tax breaks for large employers, it would generate 340,000 jobs. I believe that. I believe what the finance minister was saying about that. I think those things are so important.

Canada is in competition with other countries around the world. When we do things that create jobs, do hon. members know what that does? It is not just creating 340,000 jobs. Those are jobs for real people, people who live in my community and the communities of all the members in this place, people who, today, do not have jobs and want nothing more in the world than to have some meaningful employment and the ability to earn a decent wage, so they can look after their families. That is a pretty reasonable thing.

That is what the finance minister argued very persuasively, persuasively enough that, although we did not support the budget, we did not bring down the government on the budget. We basically abstained from voting on that.

Later on we found out that the government added some things into the budget, like some of the Kyoto provisions that we did not agree with, but after that point, I heard the finance minister on many occasions defend his budget against the NDP. He said that we cannot cherry-pick the budget. We cannot just pick and choose what we want in the budget. He said it when he was standing right there. He said, “You can’t go on stripping away piece by piece by piece of the budget”. That is what he said. It is in Hansard. If we check the record, we will find it right there, and he defended that.

When it became apparent that the government could lose a vote on the issue of the budget on a confidence motion, the Prime Minister struck a backroom deal with the NDP while the finance minister was back in Regina. The finance minister obviously knew nothing about it. All of a sudden a deal was struck where the tax relief for large employers was cut out of the budget, so that the government could increase spending dramatically on other programs.

We should remember that we have already had the largest increase in spending back in the February budget that we have seen in 30 years. We have seen spending go up by about 50% since 1997-98 in this country. That is 50%.

We have seen the cost of bureaucracy go up by 77%. However, that was not enough. The government added more in the February budget. Now it has added even more spending again in Bill C-48. That troubles me because the reason we are doing all this spending is to allow the government to cover its tracks on this corruption scandal. It knows it is up to its ears in trouble because of that scandal, so it is trying very hard to get people's attention away from that.

However, what worries me is that by rushing to do this and by just throwing money at things, we are going to replicate exactly the same situation that led to the firearms registry. Where the government was faced with the problem of gun violence, it threw a bunch of money at it, hoped that would fix it, and created a firearms registry. It said it would cost $2 million, as my friend from Edmonton pointed out a while ago. It ended up costing $2 billion. We saw the same thing--

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member across the way for some clarification.

We are discussing Bill C-48 today which is not the Liberal budget. The Liberal budget is Bill C-43, the budget I thought the government believed in and which contained its plan for the country for the next year.

The Liberals, essentially, have gone to the NDP in a move to hang on to power. Although they think that Bill C-48 is the life preserver they have been looking for, I actually think it is a noose.

Some of the things in this budget were definitely not included in the finance minister's initial budget because they were not deemed important enough back in February when he tabled the budget. What they are doing here is bringing forth a very hastily put together bill that, in their own opinion, would not accomplish the things that the NDP hopes they will.

Does the member honestly believe that the policy announcements being made in Bill C-48 will ever come to fruition? I also want to know if they will accomplish anything. I really think that what is laid out in Bill C-48 is something that will cost our children and grandchildren a pile of money without any real plan. It opens up the possibility of hastily put together programs that will not be administered properly and could lead us to more government mismanagement and corruption.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's comments but I have to challenge him on something he just said. He said that he could not imagine anyone opposing some of the things in this budget.

It was his own finance minister who opposed many of the things in Bill C-48. If the member will think back he will remember the finance minister responding to NDP questions a little over a month ago asking for some of the things that are in Bill C-48. The finance minister said that the budget could not be “cherry-picked”. He said, “it cannot be stripped away, piece by piece by piece”. He said that we could not do the things that are in Bill C-48. He said that we could not take out the corporate tax relief because corporate tax relief would create thousands and thousands of jobs. One study says that it would create 340,000 jobs.

Does my friend across the way understand that by accepting the NDP demands, not only is he being irresponsible with the fiscal framework of the government, but he is also undermining his own finance minister?

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, as the Conservative colleague made quite clear, the bill before us was thrown together at the last minute.

In fact, this bill lists a series of figures that mean absolutely nothing. No formal commitments, specific programs or minimums set out in any area of this bill are associated with any of these figures. I fail to comprehend or imagine how the NDP could have been naive enough to form an alliance with such a corrupt government.

My question to the member is as follows. Is my assessment right or wrong? Ultimately, all this government needs to do next year is to prepare a budget with a substantial increase in the number of expenditures. This will allow it to say that it did not achieve the expected $2 billion surplus. As a result, Bill C-48 will go nowhere.

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

Mr. Speaker, just as a point of clarification, I want to point out to the hon. member that every budget initiative always starts with the word “may”. It is discretionary spending on the part of the finance minister and the Government of Canada.

If the member reviews Bill C-43, he will find that “may” is in the legislation. That is true of pretty well any budgetary bill that appears before the House; it is not “an obligation on the part of”. I want to assure my friends in the NDP that there is no differentiation between the phrasing in Bill C-43 and the phrasing in Bill C-48.

I want to address the hon. member's issue. Bill C-48 has a number of initiatives, all of which are coincidental to the initiatives of the Government of Canada. I know the hon. member is concerned about fiscal propriety; I want him to understand and realize that the moneys to fund these initiatives are only to come out of unplanned surplus moneys.

Does the hon. member realize that the only commitment in terms of the financial impact is that the contingency money is taken down from $3 billion in 2005-06 and $3 billion in 2006-07? That is a commitment to reduce the contingency money from $3 billion to $2 billion, but beyond that, any other moneys to fund these initiatives are to come out of unplanned surpluses. Did the hon. member realize that when he was making his speech?

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

He was double-crossed. He was betrayed. I could use all sorts of words, but I do not want to get into that area, Mr. Speaker, where you are going to have to stand instead of me.

The member was really upset. Why would the government, having made the commitment to bring in a bill, then renege on it after getting the NDP to do its part?

Right now we have this deal where the NDP has said, “We will vote and support this corrupt Liberal government in return for some promises in the budget”. But it is common knowledge that we cannot trust these guys. This Liberal government will never deliver to the NDP even if this budget passes. These are all just empty promises.

In fact, Bill C-48 starts with these words: “An Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments”. That is the heading of the bill. It just “authorizes” him, which is a whole other topic that I could talk about in terms of the wide open spending that this bill permits.

It is really a very short bill, but basically what it says is that the Minister of Finance “may”--it does not say that he “shall”--in respect of this year “make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund”. It is basically everything over $2 billion in excess of government spending. If the government had a $2 billion surplus only, then there would be zero there. Also, even if there were a $4 billion surplus and it looked as if that would commit $2 billion in the next two years each for this particular budget program, it still says the minister “may”. It does not say he “shall” and these NDP members have fallen for it. I should not laugh. I should not do that--

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting just before question period to hear the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell give an impassioned speech about his years in the House. I have not been here as long as he has, and unfortunately I was not recognized by the Chair in order to also give a short intervention during that time when really we did not talk about the bill before us at all. We talked about the member's service.

When he was talking it reminded me of my own parliamentary career, which I am happy to announce will not be ending at this election as opposed to that of the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. I remember that when I was first elected we had a government at the time which, still fending off the Liberal debt it inherited in 1984, was still engaging in debt and borrowing. In the 1993 election campaign, when computers were just barely invented, I had a little computer running that showed the rate at which the debt was increasing. It was increasing at around a thousand and some dollars per second, which made for an interesting display on the screen.

Of course I pointed out to the people who I thought would vote for me that we were not doing our duty in terms of preserving the well-being, financial and otherwise, of our children and grandchildren in allowing that kind of debt to grow. It is very interesting that at that time our youngest son was younger than these young people here who serve as our pages. Now he is almost a old man. He is not really, he is a only little over 30, but that is certainly old compared to the young people we have serving us here as pages, about 50% older.

My wife and I had only one grandson at that time. Now we have five grandchildren. I think that this particular bill we are talking about today, Bill C-48, is a colossal failure and takes us right back to the passion that I felt in 1993 to manage properly the finances of our country on behalf of our children, grandchildren and all subsequent generations.

It occurs to me that the reason for this budget bill, Bill C-48, is totally ill informed. I would like to use a few minutes of my time to give some free advice to the NDP members. I would bet I will not get an ounce of protest from them today when I say anything here. I am going to give them some advice and just inform them how ill advised they are to make a deal with the Prime Minister.

They are hoping that they are going to get all this expenditure and here we have Bill C-48, which basically is the NDP side of this budget. They have cut a deal with the Prime Minister in order to try to get this deal. I am amazed that they would do that.

Now I have a little sidebar, as have nowadays in our lexicon. There was a private member's bill before the House under the auspices of John Bryden, who was a previous Liberal member, on access to information and the revision of that law. It was a good bill and we would have supported it, but unfortunately it died on the order paper.

It was then brought in by an NDP member from Winnipeg in pretty well identical form to what the previous Parliament saw. The member from Winnipeg made a deal with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said to him that the government was going to bring in legislation that would pretty well reflect the member's bill and asked that the member withdraw his bill, saying that the government would go ahead with its own.

In good faith, that NDP member said okay, He withdrew his private member's bill on access to information. What happened? About six months or eight months later, the Minister of Justice showed up at our committee. We were all anticipating that he was going to show us at least some draft legislation on what the bill would look like.

Instead, what we got was a great big long report on a new discussion paper, which means that we are going to start talking about it again. Needless to say, the member from Winnipeg was somewhat miffed.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-48 today.

When I spoke to Bill C-43 in this House, I pointed out how the budget presented in February by the government would only see 3% of the announcements flow in this budget year.

Bill C-48, which is being debated today, is weaker than that. This bill has its origin in a deal made in a hotel room in Toronto. This is not how government legislation should be undertaken. This is not how budgets should be developed. This is not how Canada's economy should be planned. This is not responsible nor accountable governing.

This is deal making; a desperate deal to maintain power. It is a deal to spend $4.6 billion, maybe, of taxpayer dollars. Will these dollars flow to deliver what the NDP has been promised? There should be substantial real doubt.

Bill C-48 stipulates that payments may only be made in either 2005-06 and 2006-07 if there is a $2 billion surplus and, in fact, in this budget year there is no requirement to spend $1.00.

Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park.

The only stipulation in this budget is that no more than $4.6 million be spent over two years or before the end of the 2007 fiscal year. In other words, Bill C-48 gives the government the power to spend billions but does not actually require it to spend the money.

My experience in business is that surpluses are not determined until the end of any fiscal year. This means that none of the moneys in Bill C-48 would even have a chance of flowing until the 2006-07 budget begins. Is there a real deal here or not? More important, will the deal deliver and improve the lives of Canadians?

Canadians want more than words, whether just spoken or written on paper.

The citizens of my riding and all Canadians are hard-working and they are now questioning the intent of the government. If people in my riding ask what is in the NDP-Liberal deal I cannot answer that in all honesty. I have to say that this bill, a one and a half page document, has no plans and no specifics on how $4.6 billion would be spent.

My constituents are telling me that they are fed up with waste and mismanagement. They want their representatives to ensure that their tax dollars will work for Canadians, not for advertising firms and party followers.

Yes, I, along with my constituents, care about the environment. We care about infrastructure. We care about post-secondary education. We care about housing. They care about, as all Canadians, the same things as every other Canadian. They are also willing to pay their taxes so needed services can be delivered by every level of government to meet their legitimate responsibilities.

The citizens in my riding have watched the environment, our roads and infrastructure deteriorate. They have seen how our youth are struggling to find a future in Canadian society. However for the past 12 years they have seen only higher taxes and little improvement in the delivery of government services. The level of frustration is peaking. What has peaked now is the lack of trust, faith and respect for the government.

Therefore, can I say with any level of certainty that any of the matters in Bill C-48 will be delivered? The answer is no.

I believe Canadians deserve greater certainty. They should have a level of confidence that the budget presented in February which was the best budget the government could responsibly deliver. How solid was that budget when only weeks later another $4.6 billion was tacked on?

Why were the matters in Bill C-48 for housing, tuition and the environment not in the February budget? The budget making in Bill C-48 is compounded by the flurry of announcements made by the government more recently. Why were these announcements not in the February budget?

There is no plan. The only plan behind these announcements is to continue in power. Canadians want sound fiscal management. They want real programs, not just speeches and announcements. They want accountability and responsible program spending. They also want a fair deal and a balanced fiscal policy to meet the needs of both urban and rural communities.

The February budget and Bill C-48 do nothing for the farmers in my riding. Bill C-48 is spending without a plan. I cannot support the bill. It would be irresponsible to support a bill that takes $4.6 billion of taxpayer dollars without any accountability, particularly from a government and a party whose track record has created a sentiment in Canadians of mistrust and cynicism.

Canadians need to have faith that Canada will flourish and that they will have their needs met, first by themselves with the resources they have worked hard to earn and keep, then by the community as friends, families and neighbours because we are a caring people, and by a government, every level of government, which will fulfill the responsibilities given in a responsible, accountable way with full disclosure of not only how much is going to be spent but how and in what programs.

The Budget

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since the introduction of Bill C-48 the House has heard repeated concerns challenging the fiscal sustainability of the bill, particularly in what is claimed to be new spending for post-secondary education, additional support for cities, affordable housing and immigrant settlement services.

Would the Minister of Finance please clarify for the House whether the majority of this money was contained in the budget and whether this, together with the recent agreement with the province of Ontario, was fiscally prudent and economically consistent with the last seven consecutively balanced budgets?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious what that member's party is against. Members opposite appear to be against additional moneys for foreign aid and the cities initiative. They appear to be against further moneys for child care initiatives and affordable housing. All of those initiatives are contained in budget Bill C-48. They are natural extensions of the government's priorities within our fiscal framework.

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

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak today to indicate my support for Bills C-48 and C-43. Before I go on, I want to talk a bit about what was just said. In other words, just like at the beginning of this Parliament, the political parties passed a motion to amend the motion to adopt the throne speech. Why? Because it was the best way for all parties to reach a consensus to ensure the smooth operation of this Parliament. We are currently debating Bill C-48, improving support for the House of Commons, but which makes this Parliament operate in accordance with the demands of Canadians.

I want to talk about the months ahead. Nearly 39 years ago, on October 25, 1966, I came to Parliament Hill. My arrival was far from glorious. I was not a minister's chief of staff or an officer of the table here. I was assigned to a table, but it was as a busboy in the parliamentary restaurant. After many promotions, I learned what parliamentarians did, work I continue to respect. I admired the dedication of those who sat in this House back then and represented their constituents. I told both my amused co-workers—I was laughed at on occasion—and myself that, one day, I too would be a member of this House.

Thanks to the people of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, my political career began in 1976, when I was elected to the municipal council. I had run but been defeated in 1974. Thanks to them again, I was re-elected in 1978 and 1980. Again, thanks to my constituents, I was elected as an Ontario MPP and served at Queen's Park in Toronto, starting in 1981. Finally, I was elected to the House of Commons in 1984 and re-elected in 1988, 1993, 1997, 2000 and 2004, thanks yet again to my constituents.

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien appointed me to his cabinet in 1996. Thanks to him I remained in cabinet until 2003. For this I thank him from the bottom of my heart, but it is thanks to the voters of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell that I am an MP and therefore eligible to be a minister because, of course, defeated candidates are seldom appointed to cabinet or to anything else.

The good book Ecclesiastes tells us:

To every thing there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant and a time to pluck up that which is planted.

Today I announce to this House, as I did to my constituents, that I will not be a candidate in the next general election, whenever it is called. I hope that the present Parliament lasts for a long time yet because I am convinced that the people of Canada, to whom we are accountable, do not want an election at this time. They want us to work together in this Parliament, as the hon. member who spoke immediately before me said, to defend their interests and to make Canada an even better place in which to live.

Whenever the election is held, it is important for me as a partisan parliamentarian and as a representative of my people to ensure that we choose the best Liberal candidate worthy of the support of the electors of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

I thought I would announce that ahead of any possible election call in order to ensure that we could have a good nomination convention to choose the right person who eventually, although I hope it is not immediately, will be called upon to go to the people and hopefully to be elected.

Last week, my wife Mary Ann was here and came on two occasions in hopes of hearing this speech. I thank her for all she has done, and I also thank my two children, Daniel and Julie, both public servants now and previously ministerial staff. I greet their respective partners, Paule and Richard, and express my gratitude for all their help and support throughout this long career in politics. I thank them for supporting my decision, although I am sure it will take a while to really sink in for them, and even for me. Although they are not yet aware of their contribution, I thank all four of my grandchildren whose presence in my life has helped me remember what is really important.

Democracy exists because of the contribution in time, energy and personal funds by the volunteers who help people get elected to various democratic institutions, this House of Commons in particular. They must be encouraged, celebrated and recognized by all political parties, particularly in these turbulent times, when some of the volunteers who have supported us— and I do not mean this as a partisan remark—are sometimes faulted for having given of their time and energy to causes in which they believe strongly.

We must encourage our young people in particular to get involved, to volunteer for a political party, to study the history of this wonderful and vast country, to do their civic duty, and to run as candidates. By definition, our young people will be around a lot longer than you and I will. I have had an extraordinary opportunity and recommend it highly to others. I know there are those who leave this institution with some bitterness, but not I. This is as great a day for me as my first day in this place. Like Edith Piaf, I must say, “Non, je ne regrette rien”, I have no regrets.

To the executive of the Glengarry—Prescott—Russell federal Liberal Association, under the able direction of René Berthiaume and Arlette Castonguay, I owe a debt of gratitude and I would ask them to continue to serve the process of democracy through a smooth transition. I would encourage them to make a careful choice of a good Liberal candidate who will represent us ably and, I hope, win the election.

I wish to express my loyalty to the Prime Minister of Canada and solicit his support in helping us chose the best candidate for our region.

I have a few words now for my successor, whoever he or she may be. I ask them to continue to support agriculture, specifically supply management, to continue to work to improve our recreational trails for the pleasure of the people of my riding, to continue working on the eastern Ontario economic renewal program to keep our region prosperous, to protect the Alfred bog, a heritage site of ecological significance worldwide. In addition, I would ask my successor to celebrate the linguistic duality and the plurality that make us strong. Our region is what Canada should be: strong, united, diversified, bilingual, tolerant. We must be proud of this heritage and optimistic about the future.

To my campaign directors over the years, Roy Murray, André Tessier, Sergine-Rachel Bouchard and Bill Woods and their team, I offer my thanks for these successes. An election campaign is not an end in itself. It is the start of the job of representing the public, at the risk of saying what former MP Alexandre Cyr once told me: you always have to ask yourself what will happen if you win, because being elected means getting a job done and carrying out responsibilities.

I want to thank everyone who has worked for me over the past three decades and who has enabled me to help my electors and the people of Canada in general.

I want to thank the people working for me now, including Louise Guertin, the dean of my employees for 24 years, Helen Horvath, Luce Payer, Julie Chartrand, Mathieu Dupont, JoAnn Blondeau and Dobrija Milicevic.

Countless interns and volunteers have worked in my office over the years, including Jonathan Manes and Greg Lancop who assist me now. Without them I would not have served my electors nor my country nearly as well.

It has been a long and sometimes winding road altogether but overall a wonderful experience. My constituents and I cried at the closure of the CIP mill in my riding. We laughed and rejoiced at the openings of the Highland Games. We smiled at the opening of new bridges. We mourned in the aftermath of the fire in which we lost the Angus Grey Hall in Maxville. We travelled on buses to Montreal to keep Canada together in 1995. We shivered through the ice storm in 1998. We applauded the visits of prime ministers and led efforts of generosity such as Hay West to help our fellow citizens in western Canada.

I have had five party leaders in my long career: Stuart Smith and David Peterson in Ontario and the Right Hon. John Turner, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien and the current Prime Minister. I thank all of them.

I want to tell my colleagues in both houses of Parliament what a privilege it has been to know them all. I ask them to be very tough in holding governments accountable while respecting each other in this great institution. Love this great institution as I have loved it and always will.

Parliament here, and in the United Kingdom where it is 900 years old, is greater than any one of us. I only hope that I can work in the House and its committees and particularly its parliamentary associations for a while yet.

To the members of the media, with whom elected officials have a stormy relationship, I say thank you for putting up with me, especially when I lost patience with them and when parliamentary procedure was involved. I would ask them respectfully to learn the rules of Parliament, so vital in a democracy. They will find it is not a bad thing to learn procedure.

On November 9, 1984 I gave my first speech in the House, in which I said:

I have the utmost respect for this institution, Sir, and as I said, I worked here previously [as an employee]. I was a member of the Legislative Assembly of our great Province of Ontario, and I was a member on three different occasions of a municipal council. I believe, as my Leader very correctly said only a few days ago, that no greater honour can be paid to a Canadian than to be elected to the forum of this nation. I believe it was our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who said it is a great country when a truck driver can aspire to be Prime Minister. I would like to think that this is not a bad place where a busboy in the Parliamentary Restaurant can some day return [to this place] as a Member of Parliament.

I hope to say something more about this in the future in my book, which maybe to no one's surprise, will be entitled Busboy: From Kitchen to Cabinet .

Former prime minister John Diefenbaker once said that there was no greater honour and no greater privilege for a Canadian than to serve in the highest court in the land, the Parliament of Canada. I have been lucky enough to serve in this high court for 21 years, making me now the dean of Liberal MPs in the House of Commons. I am proud for the honour given to me by the voters of Glengarry—Prescott—Russell to whom I will be grateful forever.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my NDP colleague from Acadie—Bathurst. I am disgusted and outraged by his remarks. First, where in Bill C-48 or anywhere else did he get a guarantee from the government that there would really be tax reductions for the major corporations? The Liberal government has made no commitment in this regard.

The Kyoto plan is a bad one. It makes taxpayers pay, while it increases the stock values of Canada's major polluters. A bad plan remains a bad plan even with government support.

Third, how could my colleague join with a government that has put families in the street? In 1993, 1.3 million families required social housing following the savage cuts made by the current Prime Minister, who was Minister of Finance and who signed an agreement. The NDP has in fact signed a pact with the devil. Now, 1.7 million families need social housing. Many are currently spending over half their income on housing. A family spending a quarter of household income on housing is close to the poverty line.

How did the hon. member become involved with a party responsible for a widespread increase in student debt? Since 1995, at least $35 billion has been cut from the transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education, health and social assistance. Now the government is giving back a few hundred million dollars, and he is prepared to shout himself hoarse, work himself into a state and accuse one and all of bad faith because we did not make the same deal with the devil.

I would like to ask him a question. He has fought for employment insurance. At the moment, 60% of people who are unemployed, who should receive benefits, are excluded from getting them, and $45 billion was stolen from the fund surplus. How is the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who is lashing out at everyone this morning, going to return home and tell the folks there that he signed a pact with the devil on something he has fought for admirably for years? That is selling his soul. We are not having any part of that.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-48, an act to amend Bill C-43, the Budget Implementation Act, 2005.

After two days of negotiation, the leader of the NDP managed to convince this minority government to allocate $4.6 billion to ordinary citizens. The Conservative Party across the way says this agreement should not have been made. I hope Canadians, social housing organizations and students in Canada will remember that the Conservatives said there should be no changes made to the budget, or Bill C-43.

Do not forget that before the end of the reading of the budget in the House of Commons, the leader of the Conservatives left the House and announced that his party could never vote against this budget because it was good. However, he was singing a different tune when it came time for the leader of the NDP to negotiate with the minority Liberal government to make changes to the budget that would help ordinary citizens.

Since 1992, and even before then, since the days of Brian Mulroney, Parliament has introduced cuts in budgets, which have left Canada in a human deficit. The leader of the Conservatives said he could vote in favour of the Liberal budget, Bill C-43, but he describes Bill C-48 as abysmal. He even said the Prime Minister had made a deal with the devil and that we needed another election to put him out of his misery.

That was in the middle of a week when he was supposed to be finding out whether Canadians wanted an election. He is ignoring what Canadians want since 61% of Canadians have said no to holding a general election at this time.

They want the budget to pass. Most of them want the proposed changes to be made to the budget, especially changes that impact affordable housing. How can anyone say no to affordable housing? This issue involves people in the street who need housing here, in Canada, one of the most beautiful countries in the world. We have reached a point where we have a human deficit.

In the past, when I used to go to Toronto, I never saw anyone sleeping in front of city hall on cardboard boxes or on hotel heating vents in the middle of the street or on the sidewalk. No one ever saw that. Now, this is happening in Montreal, where we see people on the street. We have to provide them with homeless shelters, in the absence of real homes.

How can there be opposition to Bill C-48? It might give people the chance to have a home. Some $1.6 billion would be invested in affordable housing. How can the Conservatives oppose such changes, today? It is disgraceful. They should be ashamed of opposing a $1.6 billion investment in the construction of affordable housing. They should be ashamed of saying no to $1.5 billion to reduce the cost of post-secondary education of our dear students, who are our children. They should be ashamed to say that they are unable to support such a budget.

I hope that, today, Canadians understand this and know who the Conservatives will be representing. They will be representing the major corporations. They were angry when they realized that the income tax reduction from 21% to 19% would apply not to major corporations, but solely to ordinary Canadians. I hope that ordinary Canadians will remember this when it comes time to vote. Company presidents are not the only ones voting, individuals are too. I hope that the latter will consider what the Conservative Party has in mind and what the NDP is proposing.

In terms of labour force training, we must remember that, although people may have worked for many years, as a result of new technologies, they will need to take training so as not to lose their jobs.

The NDP leader negotiated amendments to this budget with the minority government. Our desire is not just to complain and have an election. We were after something for ordinary people, money for training in order to remain employable. Our youth also need training, as do others needing jobs the most.

People find it hard to get another job if they are 48 or 50 years old and need to change industries, unless they can get training.

As for the environment, $900 million is being injected into the program in order to improve energy efficiency. I get a number of calls to my riding office in Acadie—Bathurst about the high cost of electricity. People need to insulate their houses better and replace windows to keep the cold out.

I am certain that this problem is not restricted to Acadie—Bathurst. It is the same all over Canada. Canadians need help on this.

How can the member for Medicine Hat do an about-face and say that the government cannot do this? SInce 1986, governments have been making cuts that affect ordinary Canadians. People have ended up in the street. Workers have been affected by the cuts in EI, despite the $46 billion surplus in the fund. People lose jobs and are not eligible for employment insurance. The Conservatives have always been opposed to any changes to EI.

It is regrettable that the Liberals have laid hands on that money. It is to be hoped that, between now and Thursday evening, the minister will announce the change to best twelve weeks for workers and do away with this dividing factor. It is to be hoped that they will go still further as far as Bill C-48 is concerned, because it would be regrettable if they did nothing for the workers whose contributions have created our employment insurance fund.

As for infrastructure, five cents a litre needs to be transferred to the cities, towns and municipalities. The NDP has negotiated one additional cent to help the municipalities within the next two days.

The City of Toronto is asking that we support the budget because it needs it. As for the mayor of Shippagan, he stated over the weekend that he wanted the budget to be voted on because the cities need money for their streets. The streets are in such bad shape that they have to be repaired. Be it in Bathurst, New Brunswick, or anywhere in the Gaspé I am sure, there are municipalities that need money. The City of Montreal needs money.

This is a budget that was improved in the context of a minority government. It would be interesting to see Parliament vote on this budget. Finally, we have a budget not only for major employers and large corporations, whose CEOs are pulling salaries of $6 million or $10 million, but one that also provides for individuals who are really in need: ordinary people, students with debts, young people, our children who are studying and getting out of school $40,000 in debt.

It is shameful what the Conservative Party did after supporting the Liberals' budget. Before the budget speech was even over, the Conservative leader stepped out of the House of Commons. He announced that he had no choice but to vote in favour of the budget, and that it had to be supported, because it was a good budget. We managed to get $4.6 billion for students and ordinary people, for the environment and continuous learning, all this to help ordinary people. But when the time comes to vote, the Conservatives will figure they cannot do that and they will not vote in favour of the budget.

Let us hope that the people of Canada are following the proceedings of the House of Commons and hearing the kind of speeches the Conservatives make when there are changes. Their leader declared that the Liberal leader had made a deal with the devil. But he would have liked to have the devil on his side to make the government fall. That is the problem for the Conservative leader.

I support Bill C-48. We need it for ordinary people, for the people of Canada. I would also like the people of Quebec to ask their representatives to support this bill, so that, like us in Acadia, cities like Montreal, Quebec City or municipalities in the Gaspé and across Quebec can finally benefit from the change made to the budget.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to ask a question of the member across. I believe that the budget bill, Bill C-48, does not deal with the concerns of Canadians. I think it misses opportunities. It is a lot of misdirected talk but no action.

For example, we have heard about the Liberals' desire to focus on clean air and clean water, but it is only the Conservatives who, in action, have been fighting for clean air, clean water and a clean environment. Let me give an example. In the Fraser Valley we have an issue of air pollution. Just 500 metres from our border is the Sumas Energy 2 project, which wants to pump tonnes of pollutants into the air. It was the Conservatives, and not the NDP or the Liberals, who fought against it.

As well, the Liberals and the NDP have had years to stop the dumping of raw sewage into our oceans. Have they done anything? They had the opportunity. They were in government, they have done nothing and now we are talking about them dumping in more money and making more empty promises to Canadians.

I will give another example. I would like to have the hon. member across the way tell me about the compassionate care program to keep loved ones together in the last days of their lives. This is something that we have been fighting for; I have a resident in my riding of Langley that I am fighting for. It is the Conservatives who have been putting pressure on this government to come up with a solution to this problem. Unfortunately, the NDP has been doing nothing and what the government has proposed is to reduce the funding from $191 million to $11 million. People are dying. They need loved ones to take care of them. Why are we not seeing that in Bill C-48?