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.

Extension of Sitting Period

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

The opposition thought that it could just delay and there would be no consequences. It does not work that way. I would ask the hon. member who is heckling across the way to listen to this. He might learn something, but then again maybe not.

Let us listen to what the opposition House leader said yesterday afternoon at roughly 15:45. He said:

--I think that I am not just speaking for the Conservative Party of Canada and our 98 members of Parliament. I think I could speak for all 308 members. I am sure they have events planned to which they have committed. Some might have been committed to some months ahead of time, expecting, before this extremely abnormal request on the part of the government, that the House would rise on schedule tomorrow night at midnight. That is not going to happen.

There are a whole bunch of things wrong with that, of course. First of all, if the opposition House leader knew for months, as he said, that there were a number of things for him to do after June 23, then why did he delay the legislation which would cause a delay in the adjournment of the House? Obviously he did not think those things through. He got to thinking about them seriously only when he figured out that he would not be going home on the day that he originally thought he would.

Here, we can see, there is a bit of mea culpa necessary on the part of the Conservatives for not having acted properly, for having misbehaved. That is what the Conservatives did. They misbehaved and now they do not want to pay the price. When you and I were children, Madam Speaker, and I know that in your case that was not long ago because you are so young, but when we were children and we misbehaved, we had to pay the price for it.

Members across the way have behaved for the last number of weeks in a totally irresponsible and childish manner and now they have to pay the price. They cannot go outside and play at recess. They cannot go home and play with their marbles. They will have to continue to work until the work is done, until the homework is complete, because those are the rules. The Conservatives have refused to play by the rules.

Let me continue. I am quoting the speech of the hon. opposition House leader. He said:

It might come as a bit of a surprise not only to yourself, Mr. Speaker, but to the viewing public, that in the almost 12 years I have been here the parties that I have represented have supported more government legislation than they have opposed, even though they have been opposition parties and that continues today.

If the hon. member is telling us that he used to be cooperative and he has ceased to be, that is not a redeeming value. That is a further admission of the guilt on the part of the official opposition. That is all it is. The Conservatives do not want us to pass Bill C-48. I just heard an hon. member--

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course the Liberals and the NDP will soak anybody for a tax dollar if they get the chance, including the auto workers who support the NDP.

It is interesting that our finance critic has been challenging the Minister of Finance these last few days about the tax on the tax on the gasoline that is now costing 90¢ a litre and our auto industry is in deep trouble because although people like to drive SUVs they cannot afford to keep them on the road anymore because of the tax on the GST, and the excise tax and the provincial Liberal taxes on the price of gasoline. Had these taxes not been there, gas would be affordable for Canadians and they could drive the car that they wanted. However this tax, tax, tax until people squeak is the way the government has survived so far.

It is interesting in Bill C-48 that any money the government has over and above a $2 billion surplus is to be spent. Let us just blow the wad. There is no concept that this is taxpayers' money in trust and if it is not needed it should be given back. No, no. Just blow the wad. The Liberals and the NDP are now cozying up to support each other at the expense of Canadians, not for Canadians.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Hidden agenda? There are hidden agendas here and there. The Liberals are going to keep us here to get Bill C-48 through, which is the NDP budget, the tail wagging the dog.

I see nothing about Bill C-48 in budget plan 2005. I can go through all the documents. I can go through the budget speech by the Minister of Finance. I can do a full review of the budget and move toward a green economy in the budget. I can move on to securing our social foundations in the budget. I can see achieving a productive and sustainable economy in the budget. I see a new deal for Canadian communities in the budget. I can see meeting our global responsibilities, the budget in brief, in the budget. However I do not see a word about Bill C-48.

How did this conversion on the road to socialism become all of a sudden such a big deal, this two page budget spending $4.5 billion with no programming whatsoever? The Liberals are just saying that we should spend the cash, blow it out the door without having a program by which to deliver it.

They talk about more money for housing. We do not disagree with more money for housing but all it says is:

for affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.6 billion;

In the province of Alberta and right across this country we are going to build more than 200,000 housing units this year. For the fourth year in a row we are now going to exceed 200,000. The building industry is going flat out. Construction workers are working at the maximum. I am thinking about putting an addition on my house and I cannot even get people to do it because they are all working so hard. How are we going to be able to put another $1.6 billion into housing, apart from just creating an inflationary environment in the housing market? The Liberals do not think about that. They just say that if this is what it takes to get the NDP, that is what it takes.

It also talks about the energy efficient retrofit program for low income housing. We have a program for retrofit of energy inefficient houses. We are building the industry. We cannot just expand it in an explosive way overnight because that does not work. I am surprised the members of the NDP agreed to this but I am not surprise that the Liberals promised them anything.

However this budget will not work. A year from now the Auditor General will be saying that things are falling off the rails.

I am opposed to Motion No. 17 that would allow us to continue to debate Bill C-48 and Bill C-38 because both of those bills should have been in the trash can. If that were to happen then we could get on with doing the real business of Canada.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, in any event, budget plan 2005 does not even mention anything that is in Bill C-48. This just appeared magically, all of a sudden.

Bill C-48 does talk about putting $900 million into the environment. The government says this is important, but let us take a look back to the springtime when the government tabled the budget. It was going to put $5 billion into the environment over the next five years, $1 billion for the innovative clean air fund, $225 million to expand the successful EnerGuide for houses retrofit incentive program, $200 million for this and $200 million for that. That was a budget that the Conservative Party supported.

All of a sudden the government said, “We want to bring in the NDP as our friends and we are going to spend another $900 million on the environment just to buy their love”. Bill C-48 is not urgent. it is not dollars that are needed. Bill C-48 is for the Liberal Party. This is not for the people of Canada.

Then we go on to things like education and support for training. What does the big document say? Education, investment in Canadian capabilities, investing in people, $5 billion over five years to start building a framework for learning, and $120 million over five years for first nations children, $398 million for integration, supported by the Conservative Party no less. That is not enough for the NDP members. They need more.

What about housing? The Minister of Finance is going to deal with first nations housing. He is going to deal with development assistance abroad. On page 206 there is an increase of $3.4 billion over the next five years so we can meet our international obligations for the poor in Africa and the poor elsewhere around the world. That is important. The NDP wants to squeeze another $500 million out of the Canadian taxpayer, even though we as the Conservative Party supported this budget of $3.4 billion in extra foreign aid. This is generous. Now there is another $500 million to buy the support of the NDP. This is not about public policy. This is not about helping Canadians. This is about helping the Liberals stay in power with the support of the NDP.

There are only 308 members in the House, half on that side and half on this side. The House is evenly divided as everyone knows. We have had too many tied votes around here recently.

That is the price of buying the NDP, $4.5 billion, out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. It is rather unfortunate.

Then we have Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill. The Supreme Court brought down its reference response last December, as I recall. That is more than six months ago. All of a sudden there is a great urgency to get this bill out of the way. Two weeks ago the Prime Minister gave the indication that we could deal with this in the fall, but he has had a change of heart. He wants it done now. We wonder why he wants it done now and he wants to keep us around here to get it done, even though many Canadians, perhaps even a majority of Canadians have said, “We don't want this legislation”.

Everyone acknowledges and has agreed and given to same sex couples the same benefits that any other couple enjoys. But the word “marriage” is a hallowed name, a word that has come to us down through the centuries. The government is going to change the definition of every dictionary in the land and even around the world because it wants to capitulate and give the definition of marriage to same sex couples.

We disagree with that and half of people in the country, or more, disagree with that.

I think the Liberals have found out that the polls are moving against them on this issue. On that basis, they wanted to get this issue out of the way so that in the summertime it would not fester. They wanted to have smooth sailing, hopefully, into the next election. Well, it will not be smooth sailing into the next election because we will ensure that the people who are opposed to this will show up at on polling day and register their concern and their absolute disgust at what the government has done.

I was talking to a friend of mine who is in the polling business and he told me that this was intergenerational, that the younger people tend to support same sex marriage and the older generation say “no way”. It is interesting that the people who say “yes, there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage” when they are young, tend to change their mind when their children arrive. Their children, of course, come from a heterosexual relationship and no other kind of relationship that I am aware of. When their children arrive they are the ones changing diapers, raising them and doing everything that parents do. I know this as I am also a proud parent. However we realize that perhaps the heterosexual relationship is not only the normal way but the right way and the way that has to be endorsed by society and that is what marriage is all about.

The question we have to ask is why the big rush.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the member from the Bloc, let me point out that it was not the Conservative Party that proposed this motion. Motion No. 17 came from the government side. The government is asking that we sit until midnight every night, including tonight. I agree with the member that the celebrations of St. Jean Baptiste should have a lot more importance than sitting here talking about a motion to sit until midnight every night next week.

One of the things in Motion No. 17 being proposed by the government side, which makes one wonder exactly where the Liberals are coming from, is that Parliament would not come back potentially for 95 days after we recessed. If we are here all next week until June 30, July has 31 days, August has 31 days and September has 30 days. That would still leave another three days in October. The Standing Orders say we are supposed to be back here on September 19.

Does the government have something up its sleeve for not wanting us back here until October? If we sit another couple of weeks, it means we will not be back until after Thanksgiving. I think the government owes us an explanation about the 95 days. It is amazing how the Liberals have put these little quirks in the motion and we do not know what they mean.

The motion is also an amendment to the Standing Orders. I would have thought that when the Standing Orders are amended, we would have a right to send them to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for debate so it could be examined from every aspect. Every party could put their points forward. The committee could then bring a report to the House saying whether it agrees or does not agree. But no, the government just rides roughshod over Parliament and democracy. It brings in a motion with its new-found friends in the NDP and thinks it is going to ram it through. That is not democracy.

It is interesting that today we received the first annual report on democratic reform. The very day the government is running roughshod over democracy is the day that it brought out the very first report. The report does not say very much. It is only 16 pages long, including a foreword and a few blank pages. The first paragraph of the introduction states:

When the government was sworn into office on December 12, 2003, the Prime Minister made democratic reform a priority, saying, “We are going to change the way things work in Ottawa in order to re-engage Canadians in the political process and achieve demonstrable progress in our priorities”.

The report closes by stating:

Finally, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons will continue to oversee the parliamentary component of the Action Plan for Democratic Reform and work with all parliamentarians to ensure that Members of the House of Commons can effectively represent their constituents and continue to play their role in holding the Government accountable.

That report came out the very day that closure was introduced in the House of Commons. Can anyone square that circle? I cannot. The very day that this report has come out, we have had closure foisted upon us, and the report says, “to ensure that members of the House of Commons can effectively represent their constituents”. I am sorry but I find it rather disappointing that the government would present this report and closure on the same day.

We have talked about the introduction in the report. One of the headings is “Ethics and Integrity”. There is one page on ethics and integrity. Of course, this is on the day after the Ethics Commissioner released a damning report on the former minister of immigration. The Ethics Commissioner refused to look into the Prime Minister and his chief of staff and so on, but we have a page here on ethics and integrity saying that the government is going to do a great job on ethics and integrity. Well, I do not believe that.

There is another page or two on the restoration of the representative and deliberative roles of MPs. Now there is a big handle, but it means nothing on the day the government introduced closure. It is the hypocrisy that gets to us when we read these things. There is one on the expanded role of committees to shape and influence legislation, and here we have the procedure and House affairs committee being bypassed, ignored by the fact that this motion should have gone there and it has not. I could go on, but is there really any point?

Another one concerns the role of ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Last year, it was rather an unusual situation. As members know, I chair the public accounts committee and a year ago the public accounts committee was investigating the sponsorship scandal. It was rather interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works during question period stand on that side of the House answering questions and defending the government. After that, we went down the hall, the committee resumed after question period and he was supposed to be investigating on behalf of Parliament. Within the space of a few minutes he would be there defending the government, answering questions from the opposition and then he would go to the committee to do the “investigation”. That is the role of parliamentary secretaries.

Anyway, I think we will just leave that report alone. It really does not say an awful lot because the democratic deficit, I think, is getting bigger and bigger. It is getting a lot bigger, not smaller. Therein is the problem. I would hope that we can deal with that soon so that we can have an election and move those guys from over there to over here, and we can really get some democratic reform in the House.

The reason we are having all of this foisted upon us is of course Bill C-48, all two pages of it. It is going to spend up to $4.5 billion with no plan. Not only is it going to spend $4.5 billion but it is going to be spent fast. It is going to be spent this year and next year. We have 18 months because we are well through the first part of fiscal year 2005-06. From April 1, 2005, we are already three months into the quarter. By the time the bill passes, gets through the Senate, we bring the Governor General back--I am sure she is going somewhere--and get her to sign this into legislation, then we start spending this $4.5 billion. We only have 18 months to do it. That is a pile of cash going out the door, but where is the money going to go?

Earlier today there was a member from Assiniboine who was talking about how Bill C-48 was essential, how it was urgent and how the dollars were required. I took a look at this document which is called “Budget Plan 2005”. It has several hundred pages, 420 pages. It is the budget plan presented in the House by the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Liberal Party.

How long did you say I had to speak, Madam Speaker, only one minute? There must be more than one minute. It was a 20 minute speech. I am just getting warmed up. I thought it was 20 minutes, Madam Speaker.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is a very important contribution. He is correct in that I do not remember anyone from any party mentioning that aspect of it in the lengthy debate we have had on Bill C-48.

I am particularly moved about pensions in particular. When I was on the transport committee we had the situation of airlines in trouble. There was a big problem with pensions and the fact that the workers might lose their pensions. It was inconceivable to me that people have worked their entire life but somehow in Canada we have set up a system where pensions are not protected. To me it was like pensions were cast in stone; they would just be there. I think this aspect of protecting workers is very important. It is very humanitarian and I am sure that all parties that support workers would be in support of this.

I do want to also comment on the remark about what was once a grassroots party. I have been particularly amazed at the transformation of the opposition over the last couple of years.

In particular, it came about in relation to entering the war with Iraq. Canadians were massively against that. Members might remember that I asked the Leader of the Opposition, in the House, why those members would continue to stand for it when they knew their constituents were against it. They had taken on a whole new philosophy. They said it took leadership, that it did not matter what the constituents said, that it required leadership. It would not surprise me coming from another party, but that party is the one that always says it is at the grassroots where the decisions should be made.

The second example is in missile defence, where Canadians were massively against it and the once grassroots party started speaking in favour of it.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Yukon for his enlightening words. I must say that it is always a pleasure to listen to such a cultivated individual as my colleague from the Yukon as he shares his views in such an eloquent fashion.

I would like his views on one aspect of what is known as the NDP's better balanced budget deal, an aspect that is not raised as frequently as it should be. It is the element that I am perhaps most proud of and is something that is not found so much in Bill C-48 as it is in Bill C-55: the wage protection fund.

The workers' wage protection fund was part of the negotiations between the NDP and the Liberals. It is a special fund whereby in the event of bankruptcy workers would not have to wait their turn with the other unsecured creditors when the trustee is discharging the proceeds from the assets of the bankrupt company.

This is important because there are many commercial bankruptcies in Canada in which the employees are owed back wages, holiday pay or pension contributions. I think it was an incredibly compassionate move on the part of the two principal parties who negotiated this deal to include these unemployed workers who may be owed back wages, et cetera. This will find itself in Bill C-55.

I would ask my colleague from Yukon if he could enlighten me as to how a party that used to call itself the grassroots party could turn its back on unemployed, grassroots, individual workers who were victims of a bankruptcy and who would not get their back wages. Now they will. I wonder if he could enlighten me on how any party that professes to stand up for working people could vote against a wage protection fund on behalf of working people.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

A call to [the leader's] office for enlightenment produced none.

Just so the Conservatives do not feel left out, this author also briefly mentioned them:

The Conservatives' logic is also noteworthy. There is nothing in C-48 that would help Montreal or any other city in Canada. The claim is preposterous.

I want to talk about Bill C-48 in general. The member for Calgary Centre suggested earlier it was an expenditure without representation. We are having a vote tonight in the House about whether or not we go on and debate it further. I do not understand how members can suggest there is any lack of representation because these are votes in Parliament.

I want to talk about how Bill C-48 came about. As everyone knows, we are in a minority Parliament. The people of Canada told the Liberals that we could govern in partnership with any other party for everything we wanted to do. They did not give us the right to do things on our own; we had to convince another party. That is how we are operating.

Originally, the Conservatives voted for Bill C-43. There are a lot of things in it. With their 99 members, they had great influence and their party chose to use that great influence. Then for some reason they abandoned their support, so we had to find another party that would agree. I can understand how they are a little bit upset that with their 99 votes they lost to a party with only 19 members. We had to find some way to pass the bill because the people of Canada said we needed the agreement of two parties.

The original Liberal budget had flowed from a plan and we extended expenditures in some areas of priority. This was not an overnight plan. It started when the present Prime Minister first became leader of the party. He outlined his priorities in social foundations, lifelong learning, Canada's place in the world and in the cities agenda. He carried that through to the throne speech with great integrity.

The member for Calgary Centre-North asked earlier today how this compared with the throne speech. These items were all in the throne speech. It is all part of our philosophy. With great integrity, the Prime Minister carried those promises into the budget.

To the great credit of the NDP, we were encouraged to accelerate the spending in those areas in that particular plan. Once again, those items total only 1% of the budget. They are priorities and we are happy that we have the fiscal ability to support them more than we had originally planned and still have a surplus, and still pay down the debt.

It is a two page budget, as members opposite mentioned. The opposition members suggest fiscal irresponsibility, but they can hardly do that, considering the fiscal record of the government. We inherited a huge debt and reversed the debt. We have the best standing in the G-7.

I do not have to go through the fact that we lead the world in fiscal responsibility, but I will speak to one item which has not been mentioned before. Certain Conservatives suggested that program spending was out of control. Program spending now and in our projected budgets is very close to 12% of the GDP. In the years of Conservative governance it was 15% at the lowest and 18% at the highest. Our spending is lower and far more in control than any Conservative budget in history.

One of the comments we hear a lot is that the budget is only two pages long. I would like to make two points about that. First, as I said, for this particular small amount, 1% of a budget, our previous budget, which the Conservatives voted for, or any Conservative budget and that amount of the budget, perhaps two pages is enough for the opposition to read.

The member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands was up a few minutes ago waving Bill C-48 around, suggesting that there was nothing in it about transit and saying that there were only two pages. He asked me and he asked another Liberal member who had been speaking to apologize for bringing up transit. Let me just quote from Bill C-48 and paragraph 2(1)(a): “including for public transit”.

In the minute or so I have left I would like to talk about the other reasons the Conservatives feel we should not vote for Bill C-48 right now. It was suggested that the world would collapse because there were so many expenditures in the bill. Some members said it would be fiscally irresponsible.

Then the member for Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam, as well as the member for Winnipeg North, confirmed that it was only 1% of the budget. After saying that all the expenditures in Bill C-48 would cause a fiscal collapse, the Conservatives turned around and said on the other hand that the money would not flow to any of the items.

To their credit, virtually none of the Conservatives have spoken against the items in the bill: public transit, foreign aid, housing and post-secondary education. Perhaps the best thing for the nation and for the Conservative Party, but the worst thing for the Liberals, would be for them to actually vote for Bill C-48. It would show that the opposition believes in the general things that Canadians do: clean air, foreign aid, housing and post-secondary education. That would then leave the Bloc isolated in voting against these items.

It would give new life to the Conservatives, which would be bad for us, but it would give new life to Canadians and it would also take the Conservatives out of their alliance with the separatists, which I think a vast majority of people in the House would agree with.

For all these reasons, I implore members opposite to search their souls, consider their principles and consider voting for the important elements in this budget.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Yes, especially me. However, we have important things to do here. I will be speaking in favour of this, in spite of the fact I would like to be at home with my fiancée.

It was suggested by the opposition that there is no public interest, that it is not urgent that we stay here. It depends on how one sees Bill C-38. I do not think there is anyone in the House who would deny that same sex marriage is a passionately debated issue in the country. There are very strong feelings on both sides of this issue. I do not think there are any members of Parliament who would suggest that they do not have constituents on both sides of this issue and constituents who feel very passionately about this.

We have had a lengthy debate in the House. We have all received a great deal of correspondence and discussion over the last year from our constituents. In fact, the Conservatives and the independent member on the other side explained this afternoon the huge number of witnesses we have had and the lengthy debate in committee.

Now that we have had all this, I do not think there is any member of Parliament who would really want to maintain the nation in this state of divisiveness. Everyone has had input. Members have talked to the people they want to and they can now make a decision. We should set the country at rest and allow everyone to vote with their conscience on what they have gleaned from the debate.

The second reason why I do not think we should wait is that court decisions have led to a situation where there are certain people in the nation who are not treated equally. We have a situation that this bill would remedy, where all the people in Canada would be treated the same.

It may not be important to persons that it does not apply to, but it is to persons who have been caught up by the court decisions and feel that they are not equal. I think it is a very important principle in this country. I cannot believe that the opposition would not agree with me that all Canadians should be treated equally and to be in that position as quickly as possible. We have had an exhaustive debate, we are ready to vote, and we should go ahead with it.

I suggest that I am not the only person saying this. In today's Ottawa Citizen it states:

Tories are only hurting themselves. Are they nuts? The Conservatives should be clamouring to dispense with same-sex marriage legislation quickly, the better to hit the barbecues pronto and put this albatross issue at the greatest possible distance from an election call. They should shut up and state their political opposition in classic democratic form--by defiantly voting against the bill at the earliest opportunity,

I would like to turn now to Bill C-48. This is probably the first bill that Motion No. 17 would lead us to in the House. In fact, when we finish this debate, we will be going back to Bill C-48.

I want to ensure that the public has no illusion that we have not had exhaustive discussion about this particular bill. There are four items in the bill including extra money for urban transit. The Liberals, as the House knows, have always contributed toward urban transit, foreign aid, housing and post-secondary education. More money will be added which is only 1% of the budget. It is a small percentage of the budget.

We have had an exhaustive debate on this. We should not let the public think that we have not and that we should bring this to a conclusion. We have had a lot of debate. I would suggest that any similar four lines in any of our budgets, and the budget that the Conservatives voted on already, Bill C-43, would not exceed 1%. I think the hours of debate we have had are as much as there has ever been over 1% of a budget.

The biggest loser in this, and I think this is a bit sad, and I am not sure of the reason for it, is the Bloc Québécois. How can the Bloc members vote against things that they used to be in favour of? How can they join the Conservatives and say they cannot spend on things that they used to spend on?

How can they campaign in the next election and go from house to house saying that there is going to be more smog? How can they say to people that they have to take an old bus and pay higher rates because Ottawa had some money for transit in Quebec but they wanted Ottawa to keep it? How can they not vote for it? How can they say to people that they were very generous during the Tsunami, but now the Bloc does not want to give foreign aid from the Canadian government? How can they join with the Conservatives and not spend this kind of money on foreign aid?

What about when Bloc members are in a shelter or a rental apartment and a family wants to get a home of their own? How can they tell that family that Ottawa wanted to give more money to affordable housing, but, sorry, they had to vote with the Conservatives, and they cannot have that money in Quebec.

When they go to another house and there are a couple of teenagers there who want to go to college, the Bloc members will say that the fees could have been lower. They will say that the government offered to provide more money for that in Bill C-48 and lower tuition fees, but they could not support that. They had to vote with the Conservatives not to spend money on post-secondary education.

Wisely, during the debate on Bill C-48 so far, the Bloc members have not tried to defend why they are voting against those items. They have left the Conservatives at the shooting gallery, but today its House leader, for whom I have great respect and who is a great orator, one of the best if not the best speaker in the House, was squirming. He was trying to come up with johnny-come-lately reasons as to why the Bloc was voting against these measures.

The Conservatives and the NDP had at least tried to make agreements or vote with our party to get a budget through, but the Bloc johnny-come-latelies had no influence on it and they tried to make up reasons at the eleventh hour as to why they might vote against these measures.

I encourage the Bloc to go back to the principles for which many Quebeckers voted for them and were at one time proud of them. I say again, it is not just me saying this. The premier of Quebec and many mayors in Quebec have asked the Bloc Québécois to vote for Bill C-48 for what it would do for Quebec.

I would like to read from a Quebec newspaper. Montreal's The Gazette stated:

Bloc opposes bill giving money to Quebec - why? The problem is that the Bloc Québécois has joined with the Conservative Party to oppose part of this funding. It's bizarre: Cash-strapped Quebec desperately needs this money, and yet a party whose exclusive reason for being is to serve Quebecers' interests is resisting the funding tooth and nail. Yet, if the Bloc's Gilles Duceppe has his way, this extra funding would not materialize. The Bloc's logic escapes me. If passed, C-48 would give money to many causes that the Bloc supports besides public transit - among them affordable housing and foreign aid. Yet the Bloc opposes the bill. A call to Duceppe's office--

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank members for their congratulations on my engagement to Melissa Craig of Yukon. Unfortunately, that is probably the last time members will clap for me tonight.

First, I want to answer a couple of questions the last member raised. One of the question was on affordable housing. He suggested we were do nothing on that file. However, we have invested $1.9 billion a year to support 640,000 families in existing social housing units.

In 2001 we added $680 million over five years to help increase the supply of affordable rental housing. I would not say that is nothing. It was so successful that in 2003 that we added another $320 million. We also put $128 million into renovations programs, which I know are very popular in my riding. We have been active since 2000, with almost $3 billion, in affordable housing.

The other point he made was related to farming. I am glad he raised that. Opposition members a number of times have gone off topic when we have talked about farming. I am sure a number of them come from farming territory. They should understand the programs that the Government of Canada has available for farmers.

However, some of those members have suggested that there are absolutely no programs. The member of Ontario suggested that. I do not know if they were not here the day that we announced $1 billion, shortly after the budget, for the farm community in the member's riding of Ontario.

In 2005 we made a farm income payment of $144 million. In 2004 we had the transitional industry support of $137 million. In 2003-04 we had the agricultural application program of $192 million in production insurance. In 2004 we expected $45 million to go to producers. In 2004 we had the spring credit advance payments of $236 million in interest free advances. March 2 and 3 this year producers had funds in CAIS above the third deposit and were able to withdraw money. We assume that is another $160 million for farmers. We put $53.6 million in the tobacco assistance program.

On April 1, the environmental stewardship activities was announced in the amount of $57 million. The annual research in agriculture was $70 million. We just announced another $9.4 million in sciences innovation in five years over the APF program. That is just for one province. They also have access nationally to Canada's $488 million repositioning strategy and also $50 million to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association.

If they want to be viewed as credible, they should at least acknowledge what is there for their constituents and ensure they can access them. Then they can start on that base to criticize and suggest improvements.

We are here to debate Motion No. 17 which extends the sitting of the House so we can carry on its business. It does not specify which motions, but it means we will be back next week, if it passes, sitting until midnight every night, as we have been this week, to get important work done.

The House leader and our whip have made it quite clear that two of our priorities are Bill C-38 and Bill C-48. We have had much discussion about that this afternoon and before.

I just want to make a brief comment on the results of passing the motion tonight. As opposed to going home, and I know all of us would like to be in our constituency where we have important things to do--

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite spent $250 million per vote to stay in power, to cling to power. It is nothing more or less than that.

As far as the corporate portion of it, I will refer to his own finance minister when Bill C-43 was before the House. This is not what we are debating today. We are debating a motion that is closing debate upon whether we should extend this House or not, which is a slap in the face for democracy. There is nothing that urgent or is of the public interest to the degree where we should try to ram through the two bills, Bill C-48 and Bill C-38, when there is absolutely no reason for it.

Bill C-48 will not be implemented until August 2006. Where is the urgency in that? The only urgency is that the Liberals are trying to tie that bill into somehow justifying a public interest, when they really want to ram through Bill C-38, the same sex marriage bill, which nobody in Canada wants in particular. They simply want to live up to their deal with the NDP, a deal cooked up in the middle of the night to stay in power.

Let me read the response that was made by the finance minister. He said, “You can't do anything to this budget”, when the NDP leader went fishing. The NDP leader then asked if he would change his mind. The finance minister replied that he would make technical changes but nothing substantive.

The NDP went fishing a little further and asked the finance minister if he would consider doing something further. They talked about the corporate tax break that would create jobs and allow for investment.

Here is what the finance minister said:

Mr. Speaker, that is really like asking whether I would be prepared to buy a pig in a poke. Quite frankly, no minister of finance, acting responsibly, would answer that type of question.

If the hon. gentleman has a serious proposition, please bring it forward and I will give it the consideration it deserves. I would point out to him, however, that the changes in corporate taxation are intended to ensure that jobs, jobs, jobs stay in Canada.

What do they have against jobs? No one has anything against jobs, jobs, jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where that member has been. If he had been listening, a number of suggestions have come from this party that make good sense.

First, a good fiscal and prudent government has a plan, knows where it is going and is not throwing money around recklessly. An hon. member from this party suggested yesterday that if they throw more money at it, they have a bigger heart than somebody else but they do not care where it goes.

Let me ask one question. The farmers in Saskatchewan are going through one of the greatest crises. Despite what the government has failed to do, they have done reasonably well. They are staying alive by working two jobs. The wife works, the husband works and the children work. That is the only way they can survive because the government has neglected them.

Our party has said we would put together a program that would look after our farmers. Where were farmers in Bill C-43? There was hardly a passing mention. When they were in a crisis with the BSE and the border was closed, they were looking for some direction from the government. What did the government do? It hoped against hope that the border would open, somehow magically on its own, without any steps on its part.

The government cooked up this deal with the NDP, for one purpose and one purpose only, and that was to stay in power. There is no foresight or vision in Bill C-48. The Liberals asked the NDP members what it would take to buy their votes. The cost per vote was $250 million. Is that called vision? Is that called policy? No. Where was the agricultural crisis when that deal was being made? Where does the NDP stand with respect to the farmers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba? Are their concerns not important?

The government is not governed by philosophy or principle. It is governed by what it takes to stay in power, to cling to power, and that is the end. Whatever the means might be, whatever the money may be, it will use it. Those who do it in the cover of darkness will be charged criminally. Here, what the government is doing is in the openness of day, in the presence of the House, using great sums of money to stay in power.

The farmers of Saskatchewan could have done better. There were 46 auction sales in March of this year in my constituency. Farmers are going out of business. A fifth generation farmer who has five daughters has sold his farm. He has not passed it on to his children because of the losses he suffered in his cattle business over the last two years, $100,000 a year.

The government does not have the fortitude to stand up for them, to say that it will be with the farmers because this crisis is not of their own doing. This crisis is of a doing that is bigger than Saskatchewan and bigger than Manitoba. Where was the government? It was cooking up a deal with the NDP to preserve its own hide while the farmers of Saskatchewan were working 12 hours a day. Everyone in the family had to work in order to survive.

We would do things differently. We would ensure they were protected. They would be backstopped. In fact, when the BSE crisis was going on, where was the government? It should have been making some motions before the United States department of agriculture, saying scientifically that there was no reason for the border to be closed. Why was the government not presenting that evidence to the USDA? Why did the minister not insist that the USDA put those reasons in its decision? Because of the lack of those reasons and due diligence of the government, the judge in Montana was able to make the decision he did. There was nothing to prevent an injunction from being granted.

That group was playing politics when it should have been doing due diligence and doing its homework to ensure the border was open. If it failed to do that, it should have put some money into the secondary industry, in slaughterhouses and in marketing and processing. We would do that and we would see that it was done. Two years have passed. I would ask the member to come to my constituency to see whether anything is going forward, whether any money has been placed in it. There is nothing. That would change under our party.

We talk about housing and homelessness. A report states that there are more homeless today on the streets than there were when that government took office. It spent $1 billion and it did not build one affordable housing unit with that $1 billion. According to the minister, it went to protective care, nothing on which one could put their finger. How many more houses are there since it started?

We would take some dollars and put them into something we could see, something that is not wasteful. What money it has put in is $60,000 to $80,000 a unit, when it should be far less.

When the minister was asked for instance about the housing budget, he was prepared to spend the $2.6 billion without regard to the fact that this was a provincial responsibility. Whether the provinces went ahead or not, he was going to do it anyway. He had not spent yet the $700 million that was in the coffers from previous budgets. We think at least he would have that money properly spent before he would be ready to spend this. Anybody can spend money.

If we give someone $2.5 billion and tell them to spend it, they will. Will they achieve a proper balance? Will they achieve what is necessary with those funds? That is another question.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we look at the Standing Orders presently, there is no question that the calendar of this House is a fairly significant event that is agreed to, according to the Standing Orders, by the House leaders.

According to the Standing Orders, during the adjourned period when members of Parliament are in their constituencies, the House does not get called back unless there is need for royal assent on something that is of some urgency. If that is the case, the House can be called back for a short period.

The Standing Order 28(4) reads:

The House shall meet at the specified time for those purposes only; and immediately thereafter the Speaker shall adjourn the House to the time to which it had formerly been adjourned.

When we have a calendar it ought to be respected and, if it needs to be interrupted, then after the particular business is done the House needs to go back into adjournment. There needs to be a reason for the House to reconvene that is of substance.

This House could probably be guided by Standing Order 28(3) which talks about the Speaker utilizing his or her discretion to recall the House. It states:

Whenever the House stands adjourned, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time, the Speaker may give notice that being so satisfied the House shall meet....

Therefore there needs to be some evidence that would satisfy the Speaker. There has to be some public interest that requires an interruption of the House calendar.

I would think this House would at least have to satisfy those same principles before this House could put forward a motion that would require this House to extend itself for a further period. What is the public interest?

We have heard discussion about Bill C-48. It does not get implemented until next year. In fact, when we look at the budget implementation portion of it, it talks about the moneys actually being requisitioned or looked at in the next year. What is the urgency? This is not in the public interest. This could be debated in the fall sitting. In fact one could argue that perhaps there is something to Bill C-43 passing.

Bill C-43 has cleared this particular House and is now in the Senate chamber for approval. We have a senator saying that the Conservative senators were prepared to expedite the passage of Bill C-43, the budget legislation bill, which includes the Atlantic accord, but that the Liberal senators were refusing to pass it. He also said that they agreed to waive certain procedural steps in order to speed the passage of Bill C-43.

He goes on to say:

Two other government bills are receiving clause-by-clause consideration immediately following testimony by witnesses in Senate Committees today. The Liberal government will not permit the same procedure to be followed for Bill C-43, thus putting the bill at risk should Bill C-48, the NDP budget bill, be defeated in the House of Commons in the next few days.

We just received notice that those two bills are here for royal assent.

How is it that the Liberal government, on one hand, says that it wants the bill to go forward so the funds can start rolling on that particular bill, but on the other hand, refuses to have it passed expeditiously, as it could have? I think it is playing games with this House.

Let us look at the marriage bill, Bill C-38. Is there a public interest to have it passed or at least a public interest sufficient to call the House back to order when it ought to be adjourned? What is the public interest in that bill? In fact, a large percentage of the Canadian public do not want that bill to pass. Therefore it is definitely not in the public interest to call Parliament back for that purpose and that purpose alone.

What has the government done? It has attempted to lump and link Bill C-48 with Bill C-38, the marriage bill, in an attempt to justify, on some kind of national basis, that it is in the public interest to reconvene the House. However this is not in the public interest. It is all subterfuge. It is all playing with the rules to get their ends.

The House leader stated earlier in the press that he was prepared to not have Bill C-38 pass if Bill C-48 passed, but then he changed his mind, dug in his heels and decided to connect the two and call Parliament back for that purpose.

What is the rush? Bill C-38 is fundamentally changing the definition of marriage. It is fundamentally changing society as we know it. It deserves the time that is needed to discuss it and the public need an opportunity to participate. What we had at report stage was a sham.

During question period today the member for London—Fanshawe asked whether limiting the witnesses at the committee was really doing the job it ought to be doing. Is it appropriate to give witnesses 24 hours or 48 hours notice to appear? Is changing members of the committee appropriate? Is setting up a separate committee to ram through the committee hearings appropriate? Those hearings should have been the widest possible hearings across the country in every city with every member of the public having an opportunity to address the government before that bill completed report stage.

However the Liberals are ramming it through, despite the concerns of Canadians, despite public interest and despite our nation's interest, because they want to. They have confused national agenda and public interest with their own interest. They have confused the House of Commons calendar, which should not be interfered with easily, with their own ends and their own desires.

I think it is appalling. It is appalling to democracy and it is appalling to this institution for the government to go further and put a motion in the House that would limit debate on whether the hours and sittings of this House should be extended. How can it be in this free and democratic country that we cannot have every member in the House speak to whether the preconditions exist for the House to be extended?

We have to justify the pre-conditions of the House. That is why the Standing Order is there. That is why there are safeguards. We cannot, just on a notion, say that we will pass a motion that will change the Standing Orders and call the House back because we want to. There must be some basis for that and that basis is the public interest, because that is the basis, Mr. Speaker, that you might have to contend with.

The Liberals chose not to allow every member in the House to speak. Since when does a government decide that closure is the way to go on an issue so important as whether or not this House should sit in the summer to deal with the marriage bill, Bill C-38.

This is not a national crisis. This is not a national public interest that requires us to do it. The Prime Minister and the government confuse their own interests with the interests of the nation.

When the Prime Minister appeared on television I thought he was going to speak to something that was of national interest or of some national crisis, or even perhaps proroguing Parliament or calling an election.

What was the purpose of that particular television address? At great expense to this nation and every taxpayer of Canada, the purpose of that television appearance was to protect the hide of the Prime Minister and his government because they were on the ropes of losing in a possible election. He used the media and the resources of government to bolster public opinion and that is shameful.

Even the NDP leader acknowledged that. In question period he said, “First, let me add my voice to those who are concerned about the televised address this evening. This is a Liberal crisis; it is definitely not a national crisis.” The government is confusing its own interests with those of the nation.

In the next question, the hon. leader went fishing to see if he could change the government's budget. He said, “Putting aside the issue of corruption, let me see if I can be bought”. How could he do that? He was speaking about the sponsorship scandal and the things that have happened. People were paid for doing little or nothing with Canadian taxpayer dollars for which many people worked very hard to put in the coffers of the government. Some people work 12 hours a day, six days a week, only to lose half of their money to the government to spend on projects and programs.

However we find the government using and abusing those funds to pay ad agencies for little or no work and then having some of that money filter back to the party to fund an election. It was buying votes at $250 million per member to get another party's support to cling to power and giving people positions to cross the floor. Those are the kinds of things that should not happen in the House but it gets worse than that.

The House raised a motion of confidence, if not directly, certainly indirectly. At that point, constitutionally, the Prime Minister and his government had an obligation to Canadians and to the House to raise the issue of confidence themselves and they did not have confidence. They did not have confidence for a week.

The House should have been closed shut. There should not have been one order of business happening until that issue of confidence was settled. For that week we were without a government because it should not have been exercising the powers of government, the levers of government, the position of government to advance its own interests.

However all the while we had ministers and the Prime Minister travelling across Canada signing deals, committing money, spending money, campaigning at public expense and doing the kinds of things that would be shameful in a third world country that is run by a dictatorship.

We should have closed the House down and went to the wall to prevent that from happening because it was an injustice. It was illegitimately trying to legitimize government. It waited until it had the numbers and then it put forward an issue of confidence, and that is wrong.

What is wrong with the government is that it confuses its own interests with the interests of Canada.

We expect far better. We expect to have a government with vision. We expect to have a government that is prepared to take a loss, prepared to sacrifice on behalf of the country and one that puts the country's interest above its own, above its own greed and its own temptations, not a government that tries to shove a bill through the House when the public of Canada does not want it.

We need a government with backbone and a government with the courage to lose if it has to. An election should have been called and that confidence vote should have been respected. The public would have made a decision on Bill C-38.

Now the Liberals are trying to ram it through. It would not surprise me if they would put closure on Bill C-38 and Bill C-48 to get their will, despite the will of the people of Canada. That is wrong and the people of Canada will pass judgment. Believe me, it will not end in this session and it will not end in the summer.

I am prepared to stay here in July, all of August and into September to preserve the democratic right of the people of the country to express their views through members of Parliament on Bill C-38 because what is happening here is wrong.

One could ask whether I was looking at this objectively. I would like to make reference to an article in the Toronto Sun . Chantal Hébert said, “One thing we have learned from the tape affair is that precious little stands between the Prime Minister and a repeat of the sponsorship scandal. It is a culture that's wrong. It is what permeates government that's wrong. It is the thing that says the end justifies the means. It doesn't matter how we get there, it just matters that we get there. Our objective is to stay in power and we'll do whatever we have to, twist and bend every rule we have to stay in power”.

Supply day motions happen once a week every week and it was during that time that a confidence motion could have been put by any one of the parties, including our party. The Liberals took those supply days away and the ability to make a confidence motion until the end of May.

Why was that? To me, that was something I expected to happen every week. It was tradition. It was something the House had as a constitutional kind of arrangement that happened week after week. The Liberals took it away for the sole purpose of preventing confidence because they knew they would lose. They then put them at the end of May. Why? So any election would take place in the middle of summer.

They wanted to have the opportunity to continue to buy, pay, promise, and get to the position where they could win and then call it. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. There is something very wrong with that. That is why the country is going astray. It needs some direction. It needs some commitment. It needs someone with some backbone who says there is a right, there is a wrong, that this is right and we will do it, regardless of whether it costs us or not, and not what we see here.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear any members of the official opposition say that they were opposed to affordable housing, or public transit, or to money going into infrastructure for cities. I did not hear members of the official opposition say that they were opposed to cleaning up the environment or ensuring that our students have access to post-secondary education.

They did not talk about the content of the bill being problematic. They talked about everything around it. That is usually a good clue that they are nervous about their position vis-à-vis the content of the bill and the substantive matters before the House. One of the parliamentary tricks one uses in that circumstance is to start talking about procedure.

The hon. member asked me if I thought the official opposition needed more time. I think Canadians know that the official opposition is in a bind. The popularity of that party's leader is going through the basement. A few months ago it looked like the Conservatives were about to roll into power. Now they are on the way to rolling out maybe into oblivion, but I doubt that is going to happen.

That is a glum group over there compared to what they were a few short weeks ago. The Conservatives are desperate to find something so they want to take a stand and fight Bill C-48 because it is an NDP thing and that cannot be good. Therefore, they talk about procedures.

The reality is I have not heard members of the official opposition say that they do not think these are good investments or that they are investments that they do not want. I have not heard them say that this is not something that should be a priority for the country as a nation, in terms of taking care of our people and putting us on a strong footing for the future.

The fact that they are talking about procedure, I take it to mean they are desperately floundering around trying to show they stand for something when in reality all they are doing is standing in the way.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask a very short question, I want to ensure that everyone who is watching and members of Parliament and their staff know a very important event has just started in the Senate lobby. It is a celebration of which every member of the House is proud, and that is the Labrador Inuit land claim. Anyone who can get there should, and of course I have an Inukshuk on my tie to celebrate that.

I have a hard time understanding the reasons that the other two parties are against this motion. The Conservatives in particular are asking for more time. Could the member outline the rational, reasonable and logical arguments the Conservatives have, given in the excessive time they have had so far to debate Bill C-48? If the member thinks they need more time, what more logical, rational, objective arguments might they come up with?