Debates of May 10th, 2005

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

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

Possibly not matters of fact, rather than matters of legend, but that is another issue.

Canada's fiscal turnaround was nothing short of remarkable and has certainly not gone unnoticed by other countries that are looking to us as an example of what to do. It was thanks to these sacrifices made by Canadians that consumer and business confidence grew. In turn that led to stronger economic growth and job creation.

Once the fiscal situation turned around, the government put more money in the pockets of individuals and families by reducing taxes more than any other federal government in history. It also invested significantly in the priorities of Canadians, such as health care, education, infrastructure, research and innovation, national security and the environment.

The bill before us today brings those investments in a number of key priorities for Canadians, priorities that the government shares. Specifically, Bill C-48 provides the framework for further investments in important areas, such as affordable housing, post-secondary education, the environment and foreign aid.

Let me assure the House that this in no way will put us in danger of going back into the bad old days of deficits. I emphasize that this will not put this government into deficit.

The government is committed to spending $4.6 billion for these investments. These investments will be financed from fiscal resources that are in excess of $2 billion in the fiscal year 2005-06 and $2 billion in the fiscal year 2006-07. Estimates show that we will still have sufficient resources to continue to pay down the debt as well. I want to again emphasize the point that these investments will only be made in the event there are resources available above the $2 billion in each of those fiscal years.

I would like to outline the details of these proposed investments for our future.

First, with respect to affordable housing, the government recognizes that Canada's communities are the social and economic foundation of the country. Whether large metropolitan areas, cities or rural hamlets, the communities Canadians choose to live in have significant bearing on the quality of their life and social and economic opportunities open to them. However, the harsh reality is that in downtown cores and poorer neighbourhoods of many cities urban poverty problems have led to increased demand for affordable housing.

In recent years the government has made a number of investments totalling $2 billion in the area of affordable housing and homelessness. These programs are still being rolled out and in most cases the funding will continue to ramp up over the next year.

We have done the following.

In 1999 the government launched a three year national homelessness initiative. A key element of that was the supporting communities partnership initiative known by most of the people in this area as SCPI, which provided $305 million for local community groups to offer supportive services and facilities for the homeless.

This initiative was of great importance to the community from which I come as we were housing something in the order of 1,400 homeless people in the riding every night. I am pleased to say that over the years, with the assistance of SCPI and other programs, the number has declined precipitously to the point where we are now somewhere in the order of 200 to 300 people per night. I would like to think the Liberal caucus in particular had a lot to do with that initiative.

Budget 2003 provided a further three year extension to the SCPI initiative at $135 million per year. Furthermore, budget 2001 announced $680 million over five years for the affordable housing initiative to help stimulate the creation of more affordable housing. Bilateral cost sharing agreements were subsequently signed with all 13 jurisdictions in Canada. On top of that, $320 million over five years was announced in budget 2003, bringing total investments in affordable housing to $1 billion over six years.

The government continued to do more in budget 2003 when it announced a three year renewal of the government's housing renovation programs at a cost of $128 million per year. These programs support the renovation and the renewal of the existing stock of affordable housing and help low income persons with critical housing repair needs. In addition, the government currently spends $1.9 billion per year in support of existing social housing units.

The legislation builds on those previous initiatives by proposing a further $1.6 billion for further affordable housing construction. It is important to emphasize that the funding is not tied to matching funds from the provinces.

In recognition of the critical shortage of adequate housing for our first nations reserves the new funding will also include aboriginal housing. That is $1.6 billion of the $4.6 billion initiative.

The second part of the initiative is in the area of post-secondary education, which is and continues to be a priority of the Government of Canada. We need to provide students with a solid foundation that will serve them well in Canada in the future.

Since balancing the budget, the government has provided significant new funding in support of post-secondary education through increased transfer and support to provinces and territories and increased direct support to students and universities.

For example, federal transfer support for post-secondary education is provided through the Canada social transfer, a block transfer to provinces and territories which are each responsible for allocating federal support according to their respective priorities regarding post-secondary education and other social programs.

Overall, the Canada social transfer will provide $15.5 billion in the fiscal year 2005-06, including more than $8 billion in legislated cash levels and $7 billion in tax points. This will continue to grow on an annual basis as the economy grows.

In addition to the Canada social transfer, the Government of Canada provides about $5 billion annually in direct support for post-secondary education. That, among other things, helps families save for their children's education.

The bill provides additional funding to complement the initiatives already taken by the government. Specifically, it provides $1.5 billion to increase accessibility to post-secondary education with a substantial portion to support students from low income families as well as training money to support labour market agreements. That is building on the $1.6 billion for affordable housing. We add a further $1.5 billion for initiatives in education and labour market training.

The third initiative is on the environment. As we know, the government is very much aware that a sustainable economy depends on a sound environment and healthy communities. To that end, we have made significant investments in the environment and in sustainable infrastructure in Canadian communities. Bill C-48 builds on those initiatives, proposing $900 million for environmental investment.

The objective of the government's issues is to have the most impact where it matters most, in places where Canadians live, work and play. Canada depends upon the cities and communities to attract the best talent and compete for investment as vibrant centres of commerce, learning and culture.

That is why, building on the current financial support for infrastructure programs and the full rebate of the GST, the government has delivered on its commitment to share a portion of the revenues from the federal gas tax with municipalities to assist with their sustainable infrastructure needs, such as public transit, water, waste water treatment and community energy systems.

I might mention that for my city of Toronto, the GST rebate is in the order of about $50 million annually and that continues year after year. Again, it is a significant sum of money.

This is a perfect example of different levels of government working together to achieve a common goal. Bill C-48 enhances the government's commitment, focusing primarily on public transit.

As members know, individual Canadians produce greenhouse gases through day to day activities, such as driving vehicles and heating or cooling homes, anything that involves energy use. Certainly, there are things that all citizens can do to play a key role in addressing climate change, particularly in their homes. That is why the bill also proposes to provide funding for low income energy refit programs.

Having talked to others in the corridors and around Parliament Hill, I know this is a particular aspect that has gained a lot of attention among certain members of the community.

Even before introducing the bill, the government had promoted actions by Canadians to reduce greenhouse gases through a range of information and incentive programs, such as the EnerGuide for houses retrofit Incentive program. This evaluation service provides homeowners with independent expert advice on the different systems of a home and information on energy efficient improvements that can increase comfort and reduce energy bills.

The government's goal is to quadruple the number of houses retrofitted under the EnerGuide for houses retrofit incentive program over the next five years. Indeed the proposal in the bill complements this plan.

I must say it is more than mildly curious that members opposite at one level oppose these initiatives and then say in the next breath that if they form the government, they will of course adopt these initiatives.

The next initiative is in the area of foreign aid. As a nation composed of people from every part of the globe, Canadians have a keen sense of the world beyond their borders. Indeed Canada as a G-7 member has a responsibility to contribute to making the world safer and protecting the vulnerable in times of strife.

If members want to see the new face of Canada, I would invite them to my riding. I do not think there is a racial, ethnic or religious group that is not represented in the riding. They are Canada's future.

Canada's recently released international policy statement sets out a vision for Canada and its role in the world. The new international policy framework delivers on the government's commitment to invest in our international role. We have made substantial progress in delivering on Canada's 2002 pledge at Monterrey to double international assistance by 2010-11. In addition, Canada will strengthen the partnership with Africa through debt relief and aid to foster private sector development and key investments to address the serious health issues afflicting that continent.

Bill C-48 forms an integral part of the government's foreign policy by proposing an additional $500 million in international assistance. That new funding, combined with our proposed new approach for foreign aid, will better ensure that money goes to where it is most effective and do the most good.

Those who have been following this debate will notice that adds up to $4.5 billion over the next two years. There is a minor discrepancy between the $4.5 billion in the bill and the $4.6 billion that has been committed to this initiative. The final initiative has to do with an agreement to invest a further $100 million from within the fiscal framework to assist in the protection of workers' earnings in the event of employer bankruptcy.

That is in sum the $4.6 billion committed over the next two years. I would like to reiterate that the proposals contained in the bill are merely a natural extension of everything the government stands for. We are proud of the contribution we have made in securing Canada's social foundations. We are proud of the contribution we have made to the securing of our fiscal foundations. We believe that Canadians are proud of what we have worked so hard to accomplish together.

I would urge all members to support the bill.

[Randy White, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I think I have heard it all here today, Mr. Speaker. In the opening remarks of the Liberal member, I believe he said it was an unplanned social trust. I have been around this place for 13 years and this is a new one. This is an unplanned social trust. All of a sudden these things he just talked about become important because the Liberals made a deal with the NDP. That is what the unplanned social trust is. It is a $4.5 billion deal.

If it was important before today, why was it not planned in the budget in the first place? Why is it that we have to suffer in the House of Commons the stupidity of a government that says it just made a $4.5 billion deal and boy has it now got a planned social trust? What kind of stupidity is that anyway?

I spend a lot of time going across the country on issues such as drugs. The number of addicted young people is growing every single day. The issue has been in the House of Commons for three years. The Liberals have an unplanned social trust, but there is not one red cent in the budget or the social trust budget to try to get people off drugs.

He talked about education. Has anyone ever seen an ad on television or in the newspapers, or heard one on radio from the federal government trying to show young people that drugs are not good? But the Liberals have some unplanned issue about education.

By the way, there was an announcement yesterday about a whole bunch of money for airports across Canada. I asked the transport minister yesterday how much was in it for the Abbotsford airport. Not one red cent. It must be because it is one of the strongest held Conservative ridings in the country. That is sick.

Why is it that if these issues are so darned important to Canadians that they were not in the budget in the first place? The government has the unmitigated gall to stand in the House of Commons and say that all of a sudden these issues are really important because it made a deal with the NDP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that the hon. member was listening carefully to my speech but he has just given a demonstration that he did not listen at all.

I did not talk about any unplanned social anything. I talked about unplanned surplus funds. There is a big difference. It is a pathetic example of the members opposite. I want to refresh the hon. member's memory as to how we got here.

As the hon. member will recollect, we were supported in this budget originally by his party. Gee, how about that? We were supported. When the budget implementation bill came in, then the Conservatives decided that the polls were going their way so they had better not support the budget any more. Then we had a food fight over the word toxic. As the polls continued to move in favour of the party of the members opposite, they thought they would not support the budget at all. Now it is a case of bringing down the government under any pretext and it does not really matter what the pretext might be.

It is a bit of a nonsense question on the part of the hon. member. If he had actually thought about his question and had he noted that it was the unplanned surplus, and if he had read the bill which I am quite sure he has not, he would know that anything above $2 billion in the event that it is there, will be applied to these initiatives.

There is no difference between what the budget that was presented here and this particular initiative is, in the event that there is no surplus.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke very much of his Liberal priorities. One such priority is the establishment of a government day care bureaucracy which the Liberals have been pushing relentlessly.

While we in this party will keep existing agreements that have been signed with the provinces, I want him to know that he will find no support on this side of the House for a government day care bureaucracy. We will take child care dollars and give them directly to parents, allowing them to make their own child care decisions.

The government day care bureaucracy is going to cost, according to its own supporters, $6 billion a year. It will bankrupt taxpayers. It is not affordable. It takes choices away from women and families.

We will oppose it. In fact if there is an election, the Prime Minister has called this the free trade issue of this election. We will oppose a government day care bureaucracy and replace it with a direct tax credit for parents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you are having as much difficulty following the bouncing ball of the members opposite. Initially they opposed this; we know that. When it turned out to be a measure that was well received by numerous Canadians, and various governments such as Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan have actually entered into agreements with the government, those members started to change their tune. The Conservatives trotted out one of their members from Edmonton who said that if they formed the government they would introduce this measure.

I think the hon. member should go back to his leader and find out exactly what the policy of the Conservative Party might be on this issue. I understand that initially the Conservatives were opposed to the policy; now I am not quite sure. I suspect that the hon. member may not have his marching orders quite right from his leader.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the Conservative members, they have wound themselves up so tightly in procedural red tape it is hard to figure out any more what it is exactly they are in favour of. We hear they are not in favour of child care. They are not in favour of money for housing. They are not in favour of money for education. Exactly what do they stand for?

For us in the NDP we are very happy that the bill is being debated because it is based on what Canadians want. People see the procedural wrangling that is taking place and the dysfunction that has been created in this place by the Conservatives as opposed to getting down to business and delivering on basic issues that people want, on housing, education, the environment, child care, safety and protection of our children. These are things that people want to see delivered. I am very proud to say that as a result of the agreement in this bill we have additional investments of $4.6 billion that will go to those key items.

The parliamentary secretary is indicating that all these things were already there, but the fact is there was no relief for students. There was nothing in the original budget bill that was directed to students. There was nothing in the bill that was directed to housing as a new investment.

Is the parliamentary secretary committed to ensuring that this money is delivered to help students with their tuition? They are facing very real debt loads. This bill is about getting help to people, whether it is for housing or tuition, or through the gas tax for public transit. These are things that--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member's initial comments that the party opposite seems to be not the official opposition party but the party of against. The opposition members are against all of the initiatives that the hon. member listed among a whole variety of other things. I am not quite sure where the official opposition stands, other than they may be in bed with the separatists.

To directly respond to the hon. member's question, she will take note of budget 2004 which implemented quite a number of initiatives with respect to post-secondary education. She will recollect that in the course of my speech I indicated quite a number of initiatives that we had taken in previous budgets with respect to that issue.

It is the same with housing. A lot of the housing programs have been rolling out over the past number of years starting as I said with the SCPI initiative in 1999, budget 2001, budget 2003. As I said earlier, the current support is something in the order of $1.9 billion. All of these initiatives build on those issues.

[Charlie Penson, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George.

This is a very dismal performance by the government. We are debating Bill C-48 but one has to wonder why. This seems to be the third Liberal budget since the February 2005 budget was introduced. Many people call it the NDP budget because, quite frankly, the two parties together do not have a majority in the House. I say that it is an illegitimate budget.

I do not think most Canadians will be amused with what the Liberals have been doing. They have been boycotting and filibustering their own legislation to not allow these bills to be debated and voted on in the House of Commons because they have become so desperate to hang on to power. They are hanging by their fingernails. This is a pathetic performance by a dying regime. We saw it in eastern Europe.

I have been in the House almost 12 years, like some of my colleagues, and this is the worst performance I have ever seen. I see desperate people making illegitimate agreements just to hang on to power. They are not respecting the parliamentary democracy we have in this country that at some time, and the Liberals do not seem to get this, maybe they will not be in power. They cannot conceive of that idea somehow so they will cut any deal and sign anything to hang on to power.

The budget was delivered on February 23 in which the Liberals announced $42 billion in new spending. They went back and brought the numbers up for the 2004-05 fiscal year. They said that the surplus would be $3 billion. Of course we snookered them by hiring our own fiscal forecasters at the finance committee who, just six weeks later, said that the Liberals were off and that the surplus was double that. It was $6 billion. For this fiscal year 2005-06 the Liberals have estimated a $4 billion surplus. The fiscal forecasters say that it will be $8 billion, only six weeks later.

The unplanned surplus that the parliamentary secretary talked about, I do not think so. We have seen this crass practice in the last seven years of lowballing surpluses to build up huge funds that they can use in election campaigns. That is really what this is.

Next came Bill C-43, the budget implementation bill. What did the Liberals do? They snuck in a couple of amendments. One was the Kyoto amendment, which all of a sudden was tagged on to the budget. Just a few weeks earlier it was not there but they snuck it in to put greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide in particular, in the noxious gas category to allow them to tax it heavily. Of course we cannot support that. We want to see it hived off and we will try to do that in committee, if we ever get there.

Then of course today there is the NDP budget, which is Bill C-48. What has happened since budget day itself? There has been an almost $8 billion turnaround. New spending plus the cuts in the taxes that were proposed under personal tax cuts and the corporate tax side has meant that essentially there is an $8 billion difference.

What do we have here? We have a desperate government trying to buy itself another election. It is in a massive spending spree. It is trying to bury Gomery by taking away people's attention from Gomery with this budget.

Let us look at what today's newspapers are saying. The headline in the Globe and Mail on page A4 states, “Liberal spending blitz hits $19.5-billion” . Steven Chase says:

--Ottawa's minority Liberal government has grown so big it now amounts to nearly half the spending unveiled in the February budget.

It goes on to say, “the 2005 budget was only two months old when the government began piling on extra spending”.

A headline in the National Post today reads,“Spending spree continues”.

Another article reads:

Federal government spending announcements have hit $22.3 [billion] since [the Prime Minister] went on television on April 21 to apologize for the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

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

You don't like $1 billion for farmers? You don't like $1 billion off airport rent? Break it out, Charlie.

[Charlie Penson, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I know the parliamentary secretary does not like this because it is hitting a nerve and he is heckling but his time would be better spent, it seems to me, trying to prepare the pathetic campaign that he is going to have to run in the next few weeks.

I do not know how the Liberals will defend this. The government is so desperate that it has been announcing all over the country that it has spent $1.24 billion, and that is new spending. It gets worse.

The National Post has decided to monitor this spending. In the last month and a half, since the government has taken this new tactic, it is up to spending announcement number 122. The last announcement was in St. John's, Newfoundland, quite a few were in Regina and several were in Toronto and Montreal. It seems like the spending is concentrated in areas where the Liberals will need support in the next election.

What bothers me is that Canadians have said things quite differently. Their priorities are quite different than these. I know the Liberals are trying to buy themselves an election but that is not what Canadians want.

I have been a member of the finance committee at different times over the years. During the prebudget consultations, Canadians told us that they wanted the government to cut its spending in areas to allow them some tax cuts so they could make decisions themselves. We heard from a number of organizations that talked about Canada's falling standard of living. In fact, it has been static for the last 15 years, which essentially means that we have gone backwards. Canada's productivity is only about 75% of that of the United States. The government does not seem to care.

Some corporate tax cuts were announced in the budget. They were going to be well back in the budget but now they are gone. It seems that the government has given in. It seems to be scared. It seems to be desperate and pathetic and its leadership is lacking. It is allowing any agenda it possibly had on February 23 to be hijacked in a desperate attempt to get votes.

I do not think that will work. People see through this. Canadians are not amused with what is happening. The Liberals are up every day in the House moving concurrence motions to delay their inevitable defeat in the House of Commons. We saw it again this morning. I came over to debate in the House this morning and the Liberals were at it again. They were discussing the Inuit sled dogs that were killed in 1955. The issue was so important they wanted to raise it in the House and yet two minutes later they adjourned the debate. These are the type of tactics they are using.

Let me talk about the Prime Minister for a moment. He had a big myth that he was the deficit slayer. He did a lot of that on the backs of the provinces by passing his problem on to the provinces. What we have seen is a guy so desperate to be in power that he unseated a sitting prime minister. He had a 15 year campaign to do that but now that he is in power he does not seem to know what to do with it.

About a year and a half ago a group of people in my riding said that they wanted me to switch over and sit with the Liberals so they could get cheques in the riding. They said that the member for LaSalle--Émard would sweep the country and win 250 seats. What happened to that?

The Prime Minister, who was finance minister at the time, had a myth going that he had done a great job of cleaning up the finances of the country. We now know that the provinces had to absorb a lot of that cost. We know that the current Prime Minister, who was going to campaign and win 250 seats, barely squeaked through with a thin minority.

What do we see now? We see the pathetic sight of a Prime Minister who cannot accept the will of Canadians, who cannot accept the fact that he does not have a majority in the House, making deals with everybody and his dog. He is spending money to try to buy the election, seat after seat. It is pathetic. It is illegitimate.

The government does not deserve to be in power any longer. The sooner it can be put out of its misery the better off we will all be.

The Liberals have this great thing going that if we do not pass the budget, everybody who has been promised money will not get it. What kind of blackmail--

[An. hon. member]

Extortion.

[Charlie Penson, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

What kind of extortion is the government attempting? That is the worst example of governance that I have ever seen.

All this says to me is that we have a Liberal government and a Prime Minister, in particular, who are so desperate to hang on to power they will do anything. I think Canadians will see through this and they will throw those guys out at the earliest opportunity.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that there would be a little bit more discussion about the bill because I very much support it.

The bill deals with environmental issues for retrofits and low income housing, access to post-secondary education and foreign aid to Darfur and the Sudan, which I know all hon. members would like to see happen. It also deals with the protection of workers' earnings.

The member reverted to the budget implementation bill and said that his party was opposed to Kyoto and everything in it even though his leader ran out of the House before the budget speech was over to say that it was a great budget. Now those members turn around and play games.

The member said that the Prime Minister cannot accept that he is not in a majority. The fact is that the Prime Minister accepts the reality that it is not a majority. It is a minority government and minority governments have to work in a different way. It has to work collaboratively, which is exactly what has happened.

Since the member wants to play with the Globe and Mail , I think he had better come clean with Canadians. Which one of these spending items does he not agree with: the $1 billion for farmers, the majority of which is for western Canada and for Ontario; the $100 million for the pine beetle infestation in B.C.; the $4.6 billion for the items included in this bill, being foreign aid, tuition for post-secondary education, housing and the environment? How about the $5.75 billion for immigration services, tuition, training, administrative assistance and environment? How about the $8 billion to reduce the rent for airports?

If the Conservative Party wants to be critical of the government for spending and say that it is buying votes, would the member please tell the House and Canadians, if he can, which of these items he disagree with?

[Charlie Penson, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting philosophy, particularly coming from a government that had the opportunity to introduce all these measures, to which he has spoken, on February 23 in the finance minister's budget. Just the fact that there is basically nothing left of the finance minister's budget, I cannot see how the finance minister can continue on. It seems to me that he has to resign.

If all these measures were so important, retrofits and the environment and Sudan, why were they not in the budget introduced just two and a half months ago?

I have already told the member but I will remind him again. Even though the Liberals thought they would not have that much money in a surplus, they were suggesting $4 billion, the fiscal forecasters, Global Insight and so on that we hired, six weeks later already put the lie to that. They said that the government would have at least $8 billion in a surplus for this year.

The Liberals have been running this scam. It is a game where they are lowballing the surpluses. They have become the laughing stock of the world. Even the IMF identified it. The Liberals are chastising the corporate sector for corporate malfeasance and telling the corporate sector to clean up its act and what are we getting out of this government, including the Prime Minister when he was finance minister? They are lowballing surpluses year after year to the point where it is a national embarrassment. They even had to hire Mr. Tim O'Neill to bring in a report on how that might be changed. Where is Mr. O'Neill's report? It is being buried until after the next election even though they promised it would be out before the budget.

The member asked questions about Kyoto. Kyoto was not included in the February 23 budget.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Kyoto's not an issue in the throne speech.

[Charlie Penson, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

That was an amendment that was brought in about a month later in a crass move to try to hide it in the budget. If we want to debate whether CO

2

should be classified as a noxious gas, the varying CO

2

that we give off as we breathe and plants use, why do we not debate that in the environment committee in the proper forum? No. The Liberals tried to sneak it through in the budget. Naturally we do not agree with that. Quite frankly, the member is way off base. He is simply clinging to power.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-48.

There is one thing that Canadians need to know, which the Liberals have not answered yet. They put forward their budget in February of this year. It was a budget that we in the Conservative Party could support. We could support it, but what we have now is a budget that is totally different from the one they put forward in February. This is a budget that was created by the NDP. The only reason these items are in this budget is that the Liberal government has chosen to climb into bed with the NDP.

Let me say that I do not fault the NDP members. They have the principles and the things they believe on how money should be spent. Good for them. We do disagree on how we get to certain goals, but that is fine. We have different philosophies.

What is really shameful about the Liberal government is that prior to making the deal with the NDP, it did not think those things were important. Suddenly, now that the Liberal government is falling quickly and the Liberals are drowning in their own cesspool of corruption, they find a lifesaver with the NDP. They say to the NDP, “Bring on those spending proposals and we will support them because we can make people think they are important to us now”.

In fact, if these proposals were as important to the Liberals in February 2005, why on earth were they not in the budget back then instead of us seeing the Liberals wait until they are drowning in their own corruption to climb into bed with the NDP? What we have here is a pirate ship that is sinking fast. The Liberal members, the Prime Minister and the government are spending like drunken sailors to try to keep that pirate ship afloat.

Let us be clear about where this money is coming from. There is only one source of revenue for the government and that is the Canadian taxpayer. This government over the last 12 years has plundered the hard-working Canadian taxpayer through tax increases, through government fee increases and through the pillaging of the $40 billion-plus EI surplus. I do not see anywhere in this budget that the Liberals are going to put any of that money back.

As my colleague from Peace River pointed out earlier, this is the third budget revision since February. We now know that the government is doling out $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion a day in new spending announcements since the budget came out. This is money that was not accounted for in the budget. It was not accounted for in February. It was not accounted for a couple of weeks ago, but suddenly the government has all kinds of money.

What the Liberals are saying is that they found unplanned surpluses, but really what they are not saying is that they are going to use the money that they purposely did not make public, on the surpluses that are coming.

Which word is best to use here, Mr. Speaker, fibbing or fudging? This is like fudging the budget in saying that we are going to get so much money less than what the reality of the income is going to be, and then standing up and spending like drunken sailors because suddenly they found a big bag of extra money.

They ask why we do not support this budget. We cannot because it is not the same budget that the Liberals presented in February. Since then, as my colleague pointed out, they have added Kyoto to the budget in an effort to try to plant the seed so they could have a lever to somehow begin taxing fossil fuels when they decide they want to pull the cash lever a little more. We cannot support that; we all know about the Liberals' national energy program that devastated the west some years ago.

One of the members mentioned the $100 million for pine beetles. On this $100 million that the government promised to B.C. for pine beetles, let us be truthful: this represents only 10% of what the province asked the federal government for. It represents only one year of the commitment that the province asked the government for. The province asked for a commitment of 10 to 15 years. The government would not commit past one year. The government gave the province less than 10% of what was asked for.

While we in B.C. are certainly happy to get the $100 million, the government and this parliamentary secretary know that the provinces cannot operate on short term planning, especially when they have a crisis in their lifeblood industries. The Liberals know that.

We cannot support the budget or this bill. We understood from the government that in 2005 a deal had been made with the provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador on the offshore oil resources. That was debated in the House. Everyone had the understanding, including the provinces, that this was a stand-alone deal cut with the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and the government of Nova Scotia. We were happy with that. Our colleagues who represent ridings in those parts of the country were happy with that.

[An hon. member]

Nothing has changed for that--

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

It was a stand-alone deal, but suddenly we find that this deal is included in a very large omnibus bill and we will have to vote for all the other things in order to get this bill through. This is not the budget of February 2005 that the government brought in, so how on earth can we support it?

This government is guilty of nothing less than reckless spending, deceptive practices and misrepresentation of surpluses it projected for the coming years. Worst of all, the government is in violation of the principles of running a good and honest government, because what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-48 is nothing less than making a deal that is costing billions of dollars of unscheduled spending. The government is on the road spending $1.3 billion or so a day in unscheduled spending for no reason other than that of trying to save the Liberals' sorry butts from going down as they become known as the worst and most corrupt government in the history of Canadian politics. That will be their legacy.

Claim what they may about past governments, the Liberals are part of the worst and most corrupt government in the history of Canadian politics. They think nothing of spending billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in order to somehow salvage their fortunes. Canadians will not be blackmailed. Canadians will not be extorted. Canadians will not have any part of the corruption of this government and they will bring it down in the next election when it happens. We will listen to Canadians on this one.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George is serious about listening to Canadians, he should be accepting the changes that the NDP saw fit to have the government make within that budget so that we could support it.

These are changes that Canadians wanted. There are dollars for child care, affordable housing and foreign aid, which his own party supported but now is not going to. There are additional dollars for tuition and education for Canadians throughout the country. Canadians are going to benefit from that.

I am at a loss as to why the Conservatives would not now be supporting this budget with those changes. However, I do recognize that it definitely wiped the smile off their leader's face, that smile he had after the first budget. The moment that budget came down there was the Cheshire cat with the biggest smile in the world. He was so happy about the budget that he could not even get out of this House without that smile. It was a budget that did nothing for ordinary Canadians but did everything for corporate tax cuts.

Now the smile is wiped off your face and you have to do something for Canadians, not just for your leader.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member talking directly to me, because now I can respond to that.

When the budget came down in February we suggested that we would be willing to support it. As a matter of fact, we saved the government's butt on two occasions when the NDP and the Bloc voted against it. They did vote against it. We actually saved the government, because we wanted to make the government work. We were going to allow the budget to pass and we were going to try to carry on, watching the government very closely, believe me. We were prepared to carry on. The NDP and the Bloc voted against the provisions of the budget, so I do not know where the member is coming from.

Certainly on the items she just mentioned we do disagree on some. Child care is one example. We do not support state run child care. We support the government returning money to the parents of children and letting them decide which child care spaces they want to send their kids to. After all, it is the parents' money in the first place. Why should they give money to the government when the government will then tell them how to raise their kids? That simply does not make sense in this country.

While the NDP, and the Liberals as well, would love to have a state run, government child care system so they could build up a huge bureaucracy of people working in the industry, which would just fit fine with their philosophy, we on this side of the House in the Conservative Party believe that no one can raise kids better than the parents themselves. That is where the child care money should go.

We should give the parents of Canadian children the option of where they want to send their kids for child care, and not into some state run and state regulated child care service that is more like an institution than a loving home.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the point my hon. colleague talked about, caring for children and youth.

First, we now know that the Conservatives supported the first budget as it was. What has happened with the additional moneys that went into it? They are supporting our future, meaning our youth. It is for post-secondary education. It is providing money to support youth in terms of child care. More important, it is also supporting small and medium sized enterprises.

The question I really have for the member and his party is this one. Do they not support students? Do they not support making their lives easier? Do they not support post-secondary education?

I know why. Let me close with this. In the Conservatives' convention, those members voted down having a youth wing. That was publicly televised. Youth in my riding came to me and said, “My God, the traditional Progressive Conservative Party had a youth wing. The Liberals have a youth wing and so do the NDP, the PQ and everybody”. Those members opposite, the Reformers, known afterwards as the Alliance, took over and kicked out the Progressive Conservatives and kicked out the youth of Canada.

Does he not support post-secondary education? That is what it is all about.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course we support post-secondary education. Of course we support child care. We have a version that is a little different from what the Liberals and the NDP support in child care. We still believe that parents in this country have the first right of choice as to where their children go for day care while the government and the NDP believe that the government should somehow build and pay for institutions all over the country and we should send our kids to be looked after by some huge government bureaucracy.

As far as the youth wing in our party is concerned, I am proud that we consider our party a fully inclusive party, open to having all Canadians of all age groups in the mainstream of the party. We do not want to segregate youth simply because they are young. In our party, we treat them as adults and we ask them to be fully inclusive in the decision making. Why would we want to segregate them into a youth wing when we value their input in the mainstream body of our party?

[An hon. member]

As adults.