Bill C-52 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2007

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007

Part 1 implements income tax measures proposed or referenced in Budget 2007 to
(a) introduce a tax on distributions from certain publicly traded income trusts and limited partnerships, effective beginning with the 2007 taxation year;
(b) reduce the general corporate income tax rate by one half of a percentage point, effective January 1, 2011;
(c) increase the age credit amount by $1,000 from $4,066 to $5,066, effective January 1, 2006;
(d) permit income splitting for pensioners, effective beginning in 2007;
(e) introduce a new child tax credit of $2,000 multiplied by the appropriate percentage for a taxation year, effective beginning in 2007;
(f) increase the spousal and other amounts to equal the basic personal amount, effective beginning in 2007;
(g) increase the age limit for maturing registered retirement savings plans, registered pension plans and deferred profit sharing plans to 71 years of age, effective beginning in 2007;
(h) expand the types of investments eligible for registered retirement savings plans and other deferred income plans, effective March 19, 2007; and
(i) increase the contribution limits for registered education savings plans and expand eligible payments for part-time studies, effective beginning in 2007.
Part 1 also amends the Canada Education Savings Act to increase the maximum annual grant payable on contributions made to a registered education savings plan after 2006.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act to clarify the legislative authority that allows the Canada Revenue Agency to pay refunds of excise tax directly to end-users, where fuel subject to excise has been used in tax-exempt circumstances. It also amends that Act to repeal the excise tax on heavy vehicles and to implement the Green Levy on vehicles with fuel consumption of 13 litres or more per 100 kilometres. It also provides an authority for the Canada Revenue Agency to pay a refund of the Green Levy for vans equipped for wheelchair access.
Part 3 implements goods and services tax/harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed or referenced in Budget 2007. It amends the Excise Tax Act to exempt midwifery services from the GST/HST and to zero-rate certain supplies of intangible personal property made to non-GST/HST registered non-residents. It also amends that Act to repeal the GST/HST Visitor Rebate Program and to implement a new Foreign Convention and Tour Incentive Program, which provides rebates of tax in respect of certain property and services used in the course of conventions held in Canada and the accommodation portion of tour packages for non-residents, and establishes new information requirements in the case where rebates are credited by the vendor.
Part 4 implements other measures relating to taxation. It amends the Customs Tariff to increase the duty-free exemption for returning Canadian residents, from $200 to $400, for absences from Canada of not less than 48 hours. It amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to clarify that when a federal corporation listed in Schedule I to that Act pays provincial taxes or fees, wholly-owned subsidiaries of that corporation also pay provincial taxes or fees. It also authorizes the Minister of Finance to make payments totaling $400 million out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Province of Ontario to assist the province in the transition to a single corporate tax administration. This last measure is consequential to the October 6, 2006 Canada-Ontario Memorandum of Agreement Concerning a Single Administration of Ontario Corporate Tax.
Part 5 enacts the Tax-back Guarantee Act, which legislates the Government’s commitment to dedicate all effective interest savings from federal debt reduction each year to ongoing personal income tax reductions. That Part also commits the Minister of Finance to report publicly at least once a year on personal income tax relief provided under the Guarantee to Canadians.
Part 6 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to set out the amounts of the fiscal equalization payments to the provinces and the territorial formula financing payments to the territories for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 2007 and to provide for the method by which those amounts will be calculated for subsequent fiscal years. It also authorizes certain deductions from those amounts that would otherwise be payable under that Act. In addition, it makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Part 6 also amends that Act to provide increased funding for the Canada Social Transfer beginning on April 1, 2007, and to provide for the method by which the Canada Social Transfer and the Canada Health Transfer amounts will be calculated for subsequent fiscal years, including per capita cash allocations. It also provides for transition protection.
Part 7 amends the Financial Administration Act to modernize Crown borrowing authorities.
Part 8 amends the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to permit the Minister of Finance to lend money to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Part 9 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act, the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act, the Payment Clearing and Settlement Act and the Winding-up and Restructuring Act to allow the Governor in Council to prescribe the meaning of “eligible financial contract”. Those Acts are also amended to provide that, after an insolvency event occurs, a party to an eligible financial contract can deal with supporting collateral in accordance with the terms of the contract despite any stay of proceedings or court order to the contrary. This Part also includes amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Winding-up and Restructuring Act to provide that collateral transactions executed in accordance with the terms of an eligible financial contract are not void only because they occurred in the prescribed pre-insolvency or winding-up period.
Part 10 authorizes payments to provinces and territories.
Part 11 authorizes payments to certain entities.
Part 12 extends the sunset provisions of financial institutions statutes by six months from April 24, 2007 to October 24, 2007.
Part 13 amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to provide the Minister of Public Works and Government Services with the power to authorize another minister, to whom he or she has delegated powers under that Act, to subdelegate those powers to the chief executive of the relevant department. That Act is also amended with respect to the application of section 9 to certain departments.
Part 14 amends the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to allow the Minister of Finance to provide funding to the Agency for activities related to financial education.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-52, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2007, be read the third time and passed, and of the motion that this question be now put.

Third Reading

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the people of my riding of Davenport with respect to the government's 2007 budget. My comments today reflect not only my personal views but the comments that I have heard repeatedly from residents of my community and indeed people across the country.

People have written to me, met with me or called me to discuss their deep concern that the Conservative government is taking us down an uncharted road, a road that leaves most vulnerable Canadians far behind.

Canadians have come to expect both leadership and inclusiveness from their governments. They know that in many respects Canada was built based on the solid leadership of great prime ministers and forward looking governments. These leaders looked beyond the horizon of the day and led our nation to become a country recognized internationally as a model of inclusiveness, innovation, tolerance and opportunity. Canadians also know that while words have power, they must also be supported with action.

It is not enough to speak of the importance of the arts. We must also make sure that the arts have the financial support they need to grow.

It is not enough to deplore the conditions of Canada's aboriginal people. We must also be willing to invest the funds necessary to create justice and fairness.

The true language of leadership is not what one says but what one does. Canadians have heard the Prime Minister's claim of moderation but they have seen the true colours of the government reflected in the budget. It is anything but progressive or moderate.

It is difficult to know which part of the flawed budget to address first because so many groups and priorities have been neglected by the government. I think it is only fitting to begin with those who first called this continent their home, the aboriginal people of Canada.

In 2005 the federal government brokered a historic agreement with aboriginal people and the provinces. Finally we had a federal government that was prepared to take a historic and long overdue step in acknowledging the low standard of living of many first nations people. In Kelowna, British Columbia the former prime minister, the member for LaSalle—Émard, brought everyone to the table and brokered a real solution to the issues facing aboriginal people in this country. The agreement was not about headlines, it was about doing the right thing.

When the current Prime Minister took over the government of this country, he broke the federal government's commitment to aboriginal people and he continues to do that today. The government's budget does not do anything to address the real inequalities and historic injustices faced by Canada's aboriginal people.

Is it any wonder that more and more we are seeing frustrated first nations people resort to desperate measures to express themselves. These are the actions of Canadians who have no other recourse to highlight the deplorable living conditions that face them each day. International humanitarian groups have said that they are looking at setting up aid delivery in our country.

In this nation of plenty where the economy is thriving, why is it that the government insists on leaving aboriginal people behind? Where is the real measurable help for first nations people in the budget?

While speaking of broken agreements with the provinces, let us look at the government's proposed child care plan. Despite what Conservatives like to tell Canadians, the Government of Canada clearly entered into legally binding agreements with the provinces to fund child care spaces across the nation. Many provinces were counting on the money. Canadian families were looking forward to real and affordable child care. Instead, the government abandoned its commitment. Countless studies have shown that not one child care space was created by the Conservative plan, leaving thousands of children without child care.

I want to make it clear that I have heard from people who say that they do not need child care as they have decided and can afford to stay at home. Those fortunate few in our society who would not need a federal child care system are exactly that, the fortunate few. On the other hand, there are countless families that are desperately crying out for child care. The reality is that $100 a month simply will not cover child care for a poor single mother who has the unconscionable choice between not working, which means no income, and leaving her children alone at home.

Canada can do better and we must do better. Sadly, this budget does nothing to effectively deal with this issue. The former Liberal government had a plan. This plan would have worked. Where in this budget do we see any kind of real help for those who need child care in this country? The short answer is that this kind of help is nowhere to be found in this budget.

Young Canadians also needed support as they strive to gain career skills that will propel them successfully into the future. The Government of Canada has historically played a vital role in helping young people get jobs through the summer career placement program pairing them up with community organizations and companies. This was a win-win program for Canada. Students got jobs and skills. Non-profit organizations received enthusiastic, talented workers and Canada invested in its economic future. In the wake of this budget, the Conservative Party has so grossly mismanaged this program that no one can even tell Canadians how much is being spent, how jobs are being awarded and why the government initially denied funding to vulnerable organizations in communities across the country.

Let us hope that these future business leaders of Canada do not take the definition of transparency and accountability from the government's shameful example.

The budget is also sadly lacking in respect to education needs of Canadians. For our nation to remain prosperous, for Canada to remain a leader in the world, we must be on the leading edge of the knowledge economy. Our universities must be training grounds for a generation of leaders. Instead, this budget fails Canada's undergraduate students.

The budget does not put a penny in the pockets of those who need it most. Instead of removing barriers to higher education, the government is content to rest on its laurels, whatever they may be, and wait for Canada to be overtaken by other countries that h have the foresight to invest in their post-secondary students and institutions.

That is not the only place where the Conservatives are abandoning Canada's place on the world stage. The repeated failure of the Conservative government on the environment has been nothing short of unforgiveable. We have now seen not one but two failed environmental plans. We have a Prime Minister who spends his time at the G-8 bragging about his climate change denial, a minister who called climate change a socialist scheme and a climate change policy more comfortable with George Bush's Oval Office than in nations across the world.

There is a gaping hole in the budget when comes to innovative environmental programs. It is nice that the Conservatives are reintroducing the successful Liberal programs it cut but that is not leadership, that is backpedalling.

Our cities are being neglected more and more by the government. It was the previous Liberal government that committed gas tax moneys to Canada's cities. It was a huge step forward. For the first time the federal government was taking a leadership role and recognizing that municipalities are an important level of government badly in need of help.

Our cities are in desperate need of reliable, substantial and consistent federal funding. The Liberals' new deal for cities was a great first step but much more needs to be done. As a former city councillor in Toronto, I know that our municipalities are the front lines in terms of need and services.

A city like Toronto is charged with fighting homelessness, hunger, poverty, infrastructure, public health, public transit, culture and much more. It must have the economic tools to fulfill its obligations to Canadians who live there.

When I asked the government about this last week, all I was heard was rhetoric about maintaining prior commitments. Everyone in Toronto and indeed all major cities in this country know that there is much more to be done. It is time for leadership and no more rhetoric. This budget simply fails Canada's cities.

Among the hardest hit of all by the government's neglect are Canada's poorest citizens. At this time Canada has no minister of housing and no affordable housing plan. Constituents in my riding of Davenport do not need an explanation of why a housing strategy is such a necessary element of a national safety net. They see the need every time they walk down a main street. They see it in their elderly neighbours whose pensions and meagre savings are not sufficient to keep a roof over their heads.

The government has no strategy to help thousands of homeless Canadians. There is no program to help ensure that every man, woman, and child in Canada has a place to call home. This is simply not acceptable.

If the Conservative cabinet ministers cannot see this then I invite them to walk down the streets not five minutes from this Parliament. They will have the opportunity to talk with some people living on the streets. They are Canadians too and they need help. Sadly, this budget ignores--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is always unfortunate that when people are trying to make a valid argument about a point that is important to them in this House of Commons they need to rely on using what I call emotional blackmail.

A number of comments made by the member were completely unfounded. Did none of those problems that the member expounded on today, the homelessness issue and the other issues that he has brought forward, exist under the previous government? I certainly hope that is not what he is trying to make Canadians believe because that would be an absolute falsehood.

This particular government has put a great deal of money and effort into trying to resolve those issues for Canadians. We realize it is a serious issue and it is across this entire nation.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what the member was trying to allude to.

In terms of emotional blackmail, does the member actually think that when a member of this House speaks about the homeless situations in our cities, the problems that are faced by poor people who cannot find child care, who cannot find decent housing, that that somehow is emotional blackmail? I would think not. These are important issues that we as parliamentarians have a right to speak to because these are important issues facing our country and our cities.

What I was trying to get at concerns the budget. We have a major surplus, due in large part to the good fiscal management of the Liberal government. The member may not want to believe it but most Canadians do believe that. Because the Liberal Party had good fiscal management for many years, we now need to ensure the investments are appropriate to the right places. I must say that child care is a very important piece of that socio-economic brick that could assist people out of the poverty lines. That is the point I was trying to make.

The government has taken away child care. It does not have a minister of housing. I have not heard one minister yet in this House speak about the importance of housing and homelessness in our cities. Those are the priorities I am talking about but the government has other priorities and they are not the same priorities that I have.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was speaking about child care. My wife and I were eligible for the $100 credit as well. I have not had the opportunity to apply for it because it is so complicated, but it is not about that $100. My parents are living with me in my home, so it is not the child care, it is the early learning that we get. I am spending about $1,000 for early learning for my three year old.

The parliamentary secretary was talking about emotional blackmail, but an association like the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada gives a failing grade to the government on child care. I am sure this association is a very non-partisan group and I would like to ask if the hon. member would like to comment on this association giving a failing grade to the government on child care.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. colleague for the excellent work he has been doing. I agree with him 100%. It is about the importance of early learning and the child care spaces that we need to have in our cities and our communities across the country.

It is one thing to hand out a cheque for $100. Every person would love to have $100. If the government were throwing $100 to every family, that would be fantastic, but it is a question of priorities. How do we set priorities in this country? We do not have an infinite amount of money. We need to ensure that money is properly allocated to programs that alleviate poverty, homelessness and where we can get children into early childhood learning programs.

The only way we can do that, with the amount of money and the budgets that we have, is by making strong investments in child care programs, which is what we were doing. We were doing that in partnership with our cities and in partnership with provincial premiers across this country. That is a very important piece of the pie that the government, unfortunately, has missed out on when it talked about early childhood education.

It is not about just handing $100 to everybody. Some people may even call that buying votes. This is about making investments, an investment in our children, an investment in our communities, and an investment in early learning, which is exactly what our plan had but the government killed it.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague from Newton—North Delta talk about the Child Care Advocacy Association so I thought it would be appropriate to ask him a question.

At last count, we had noticed that the Child Care Advocacy Association had received, I believe, $6 million in funding from the previous Liberal government and yet created zero child care spaces by its own admission. I am curious. When the member refers to the association's strong record on child care, is he is talking about the spending of $6 million on a lobby group?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would not characterize it as a lobby group. The reality is that it is doing incredibly important work.

Child care is an extremely important issue. When Mr. Chrétien was the prime minister and the member for LaSalle—Émard was the minister of finance, we invested incredible amounts of money into the provinces for child care spaces. The provincial government at that time, Mike Harris' Progressive Conservative government, tried to block that money from flowing to the cities. Therefore, we could not create those child spaces in cities like Toronto. About $180 million were given directly to the City of Toronto through the transfers from the federal coffers to the provinces. We could not access that money when I was in city council because the government at that time, the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris, refused to transfer that money.

Maybe that is the Conservatives' hidden agenda. If they do not believe in the child care program they should be honest and say that they do not believe in child care spaces, that they do not believe in investing in early learning and child care spaces, that they do not believe in investing in our cities and that they do not believe in investing in housing, in communities and in helping the homeless and the poor in our country. What they are not able to say directly, their programs and their actions clearly indicate exactly where they stand on these issues. They should be honest with their constituents and our people and say quite clearly that they do believe in these programs.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has a great deal of interest in the issue of undocumented workers. I note that the money for the removal of undocumented workers has been increased to $420 million. I wonder what my colleague would have to say about that because undocumented workers are actually assisting in growing the Canadian economy and without them we could be in a great deal of trouble.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief because I know my hon. colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, wants to get to the second part of the debate.

I would say that the issue of undocumented workers is a big one because it affects thousands of people in communities all across Canada. A motion was passed in the House with unanimous consent that there would be a moratorium. I would hope that the government respects the will of Parliament and has a moratorium on the deportation of undocumented workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we are, just one week short of three months since this bill was introduced and we are still debating it, notwithstanding the efforts to pull a sneaky motion on Friday and then the government House leader introducing closure earlier today.

I am wondering why it took the government so long. It possibly has something to do with the lack of popularity of this budget.

It used to be the rule of thumb that if people were still talking about the budget 48 hours after its delivery, then the budget was a failure. By that standard, this budget is a colossal failure.

I only have to point everyone to today's headlines. One states that the Prime Minister “faces growing Atlantic Tory backlash”. It says, “Nova Scotia premier leads charge against federal budget and 'our quiet talks are about to get a whole lot louder'”. The article states: “It is clear the Finance Minister is 'determined to undermine these efforts and undermine our good faith discussions', the Premier said in a telephone interview”.

The next headline states that “Mulroney phoned” the member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley “in bid for Tory unity”. That article states that the “Nova Scotia MP [for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley] said Mr. Mulroney called him twice in the days before a second-reading budget vote to see if any accommodation could be reached between the veteran MP and [the] Prime Minister”.

I can pretty well understand why the government does not want this debate to go on for too long. When we have headlines like that, it is not a good day for government, and certainly this is well past the 48 hour cut-off period to determine whether in fact this is or is not a good budget.

What must be very disappointing for the Prime Minister is that this was to be the central piece of his one step-two step lead-up to the election. His first step was to get the premier of Quebec elected and the second step was to have what we could call a goodies budget.

The first step was a bit of a disaster. The premier of Quebec almost lost his seat. The net result was Quebec's first minority government certainly in decades and possibly into the previous century. We have now cumulatively the majority of members who are either full-out separatists or quasi-separatists who are called autonomous, whatever autonomous means. That step one did not exactly come off the way the Prime Minister planned it.

Step two was a goodies budget, so to speak. Instead of being a goodies budget, it has turned out to be a victims budget. The budget has many victims. In fact, I recommend that in the event the government ever gets to deliver another budget it should precede the budget with a victims bill of rights, because when we start counting up the victims this budget has incurred, it gets to be quite extraordinary.

The fundamental rule of budget making is to not make the lives of Canadians worse by delivering a budget. The idea is to actually make their lives better. It is not as if the finance minister did not start out with hordes of cash. He has just declared a $13 billion surplus. He is somewhat reluctant to give credit where credit is due. He appears to prefer to blame the previous 13 years of government mismanagement, but when there is $13 billion in the kitty that is of course all his doing.

Then the finance minister proceeded to victimize literally millions of Canadians and all kinds of people and groups. He started with the premiers. The premier of Newfoundland and Labrador was first out of the box. He was quite eloquent in his declaration that this budget in fact was a fraud on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Next up was the premier of Saskatchewan, who said the promise that was made during the election was that non-renewable resources would not be touched. Now we have the premier of Nova Scotia saying that the quiet discussions “are about to get a whole lot louder”. This is not exactly the way to create a peace in our times budget.

All three premiers have in common a simple understanding that a deal is a deal is a deal. When the Atlantic accords, as they have come to be known, were entered into, that was a deal. It was not a deal that could be changed unilaterally by one side of the partnership. It was simply a deal.

It reminds me of a real estate agent who sells someone a house and two years later says he really did not intend to sell that house but he has a better one to sell. Maybe, just maybe, the premiers and the people of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Saskatchewan think the house they have is perfectly fine, thanks very much, and they do not want the alleged benefit the finance minister is holding out to them.

Indeed, there was an extraordinary event when the premier of Saskatchewan accepted the invitation of the finance committee to appear before it and talk about the budget. It was not a particularly good day for Conservative MPs at the finance committee, particularly those from Saskatchewan, who were in the uncomfortable position of having the premier of their province deconstruct the budget in a fairly precise way. They were left in an unenviable position. In fact, he quoted chapter and verse from the Conservative platform and how the government of Saskatchewan would be affected.

The three premiers plus all of the people of the provinces they represent is one rather large group of victims.

There is another group of victims and those are the income trust folks. Some have said that up to two million people were victimized by the decision of the finance minister and the Prime Minister to reverse their election promise. Not only did they reverse their election promise, but they executed it in such an incompetent fashion that they literally wiped out multiple billions of dollars of hard-earned savings.

I have an email from one of those victims. I do not know this man, but he sends it to me from Ladysmith, B.C. I will withhold his name because it is a bit of an embarrassment to him. He wrote: “Dear John: Thank you for so succinctly stating my situation around the income trust fiasco yesterday in the House of Commons. I personally lost in excess of $100,000 in investments of close to $400,000. More importantly, I have lost it. I can't recoup it now even if the Minister of Finance backed off completely”.

He continues: “I deregistered what was left of my self-directed RRSP and incurred a whopping $36,000 in income tax”.

It gets worse. He goes on: “Part of my investments had been leveraged with a mortgage on my principal residence. In order to service that debt we need to sell our home and relocate in a much more modest home”.

So much for their retirement. I am sure they will be terribly interested in income splitting.

His final paragraph states, “It isn't worth much, I know, to hear a thank you from me, but it's all I can offer you at this time, that and the promise that I and my family will be voting Liberal in the next election”.

That is not exactly the way to win friends and influence people, but it is just so typical of the literally thousands if not millions of people who have been victimized by the decision of the finance minister.

Students have also been loaded on. In my riding last year we received something in the order of $340,000. That $340,000 was spread over 121 students. They were at the West Hill Community Services centre. They were at the University of Toronto, the Scarborough College branch. They were at the East Scarborough Boys & Girls Club. It was not a huge amount of money in the case of each and every one of those people, but it is a terrific resumé builder and a terrific experience for these guys.

We tried to find out what was happening. I sent an email to my staff. I received an email saying that the short answer is that “we'll never know”, that they called so-and-so, who was not answering his phone, and they wanted someone named Vince to explain it to me. The government cannot and will not give us a list. I guess it is easier to shift money around if it is kept a secret. The open and transparent new government sure works in mysterious ways.

Then, of course, we have the interest deductibility decision, with a whole collection of victims.

Mr. Speaker, I see you indicating to me that my time is up, which is really quite a shame because there is such an endless list of victims from one end of the country to another. It really is an unfortunate occurrence that I cannot tell the House about all of these victims.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's story. I did take from his comments one of the interesting points about how a deal is a deal is a deal.

Both he and I worked extremely hard as members of the finance committee in trying to make sure that time was allocated to the opportunity for witnesses to come forward, as the member explained, one of which was the premier of Saskatchewan, and to make sure that ample opportunity was provided for us to listen to what they had to say.

Also, the fact is that from his discussions and mine during the morning, at the end of the day we came to an agreement that the budget in fact would move forward based on what he wanted to make sure was going to happen. He then met with the member for Wascana to make sure that was okay. I did the same.

At the end of the day, I have a question for the member. I certainly am not going to hold the member personally responsible because it was not his decision as to why we are here now, but in fact we did keep our side of the bargain. We made sure they had ample opportunity to get this out. I would like to know from the member why the Liberal Party did not keep to its side of the arrangement.

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

Mr. Speaker, what actually precipitated this deal—and I agree with him that he and I had an understanding which I thought we had worked out in the presence of the House of Commons chair of the finance committee—was frankly the desire on the part of the government to immediately go to clause by clause without the calling of any witnesses whatsoever, which was completely unacceptable to the members of the opposition on the finance committee. That was what precipitated the deal.

Then we actually did work out an arrangement, which as I say was in the presence of the chair of the finance committee, who apparently had taken a leaf out of the secret manual of committee chairs, because when we came back after the break, suddenly the deal that we thought we had worked out, which the hon. member, to his great honour, has acknowledged, was broken there in the presence of the committee. The deal ceased to be a deal and that was really—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

On that note, we will move on to the adjournment debate.