Debates of May 13th, 2005

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Government House

Ottawa

May 12, 2005

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the schedule to this letter on the 12th day of May, 2005, at 4:10 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Barbara Uteck

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates that royal assent was given to Bill C-33, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004--Chapter No. 19; Bill C-12, an act to prevent the introduction and spread of communicable diseases--Chapter No. 20; and Bill C-45, an act to provide services, assistance and compensation to or in respect of Canadian Forces members and veterans and to make amendments to certain acts--Chapter No. 21.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After consultations with the House leaders of all parties, I am asking for unanimous consent that the following motion be adopted unanimously, without debate or amendment:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice, the second reading stages of Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, and Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, shall be disposed of as follows:

1. Any division thereon requested before the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, shall be deferred to that time;

2. At the expiry of the time for consideration of Government Orders on Thursday, May 19, 2005, all questions necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of (1) Bill C-43 and (2) Bill C-48 shall be put and decided forthwith and successively, without further debate, amendment or deferral.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House for this motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will try for a good old Canadian compromise. I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion.

Given the fact that this government has now lost five consecutive votes that clearly demonstrate the government does not command the confidence of this House, and given that it is now well known that at least one member of Parliament is scheduled for cancer surgery when the Prime Minister intends to allow a confidence vote on his two budget bills next Thursday, May 19, 2005, as we have just heard, I seek leave of the House to move this motion:

That, on Monday, May 16, 2005, at 15 minutes before the expiry of time for government orders, the Speaker shall forthwith put all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stages of Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, and Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments.

[The Speaker]

Does the hon. opposition House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House for something that has been requested by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and by the Government of Nova Scotia, and I know previously agreed to by the NDP, and that is the following motion:

That Bill C-43, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23 be divided into two bills: Bill C-43A, an act to provide payments to provinces and territories and implement the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador arrangement and Canada-Nova Scotia arrangement; and Bill C-43B, an act implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23.

That Bill C-43A be composed of parts 12, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador arrangement and the Canada-Nova Scotia arrangement, and 24, payments to certain provinces and territories; and

That Bill C-43B be composed of all the remaining parts of Bill C-43. That the House order the printing of Bill C-43A and 43B and that Bill C-43A and that Bill C-43B be placed on the Order Paper for consideration of the House at second reading and referral to the Standing Committee on Finance.

I believe that at least three of the parties in this House would agree to that. I would ask for unanimous consent.

[The Speaker]

Does the House give unanimous consent to the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have attempted to demonstrate that the hon. member and his colleagues can vote for the budget on Thursday, May 19 and give Atlantic Canadians the accord they deserve. That motion could take place on May 19.

[The Speaker]

Perhaps hon. members could continue these discussions outside the chamber. It appears we are getting into a debate on points of order which are not really points of order. It is an attempt to get consent.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I only want to be helpful to the Chair. The government House leader and the Chair will of course know that by what he has done he has ensured no vote on the Atlantic accord for at least a year.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to convey to the Chair that once again the Leader of the Opposition has shown his complete misunderstanding for the procedure in this place.

The House resumed from May 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

[The Speaker]

When the bill before us was last debated, the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc had the floor for questions and comments. There remains six minutes in the time allotted for questions and comments to the hon. member for Edmonton--Leduc and his remarks.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a short question in regard to this. Since we just passed last year's bill in the Senate, could he explain to us how long it would take to actually see Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 implemented?

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been going across the country saying that if these two budget bills are not passed right away the Atlantic accord will not be fulfilled. Those members know the Senate just passed the last budget bill. That kind of nonsense is not helpful to political debate.

Our leader just stood up and asked for the Atlantic accord to be passed. This is something our leader promised those people in the last election. The Prime Minister was made to feel guilty and was forced, kicking and screaming, to actually fulfill the promise.

The reality is that they want to put this in a budget where different parties cannot accept different things. They do not want to fulfill their promise to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. If they were serious about implementing parts of this budget, they would do the smart thing and do what would work with all parties. They would do as we suggested in the first place and break the budget bill into parts which different parties could actually support.

The Atlantic Accord could be put in a different bill where we and, I think, the NDP would support it. We have called for funding for cities. The member for Port Moody has called for this for years and has introduced motions in the House with respect to this. If the Liberals had reintroduced that right after the last election our party, the Bloc and, I am pretty sure, the NDP would have supported it. The government knows this full well and it is playing politics with the budget to an unseen extent, which is unfortunate.

I want to set the record straight. Some people have said that the Conservatives changed their position on the budget so the Liberals had to make a deal with the NDP. The truth is that we had agreed. We even abstained on the main motion on the budget to allow the budget to go forward. We agreed on the original budget implementation bill to allow it to go to committee as long the CIPA amendments were withdrawn. We were going to act responsibly and vote for the things that we supported and oppose the things that we felt were wrong. Suddenly the government flip-flopped and did something unprecedented in Canadian history. The finance minister was completely submerged by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister ripped up his own budget.

If the Prime Minister were finance minister, what would he have done if Jean Chrétien had done the same thing to him? This Prime Minister was going to resign because advertising contracts were not going to Earnscliffe. Imagine if Jean Chrétien had actually ripped up his budget and signed on the back of a napkin with the leader of the NDP.

In my view, the government has no intention of fulfilling its promises to the NDP. I encourage members of the NDP to actually look at the budget implementation bills. The corporate tax cuts have not been removed and will not be removed. There are so many hedges in the bill that the spending promises that are supposedly in it will not in fact be implemented.

I will get back to the member's original question regarding the spending announcements in the bill. The budget will be passed possibly a year from now in the Senate depending on how fast it goes through the bill. The government should be honest with Canadians and tell them that it has no intention of fulfilling any of the commitments it is making across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pity the hon. member has not actually read Bill C-48. His commentary seems to be on something in Bill C-43. If Bill C-43 does not pass next Thursday, he has only to look in the mirror to see why it did not pass.

I hope the member read Bill C-48 prior to this debate. I want to know from the hon. member which part of Bill C-48 he is against. Is he against the $1.6 billion in additional funding for affordable housing? Is that what he and his party stand for? Are they against that? Is he against the $1.5 billion to enhance post-secondary education? Are he and his separatist buddies against that? How about the $900 million in environmental moneys? Are he and his separatist buddies against that as well? What about the $500 million for additional core needs? Is he against that?

Those are the core elements of Bill C-48. The hon. member appears not to have read the bill. I would like to know what his party actually stands for. I know what it stands against.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary says that I have not read the bill. I have read the bill and it took me all of about two minutes because Bill C-48 is two pages. Boy, it was quite a bill. We are talking about $4.6 billion in spending and the bill is a page and a half long. That is pathetic. That is no way to govern this nation in a fiscally responsible way.

The member asked about the commitments in this budget. Why were they not in the first budget? Why were they not discussed at the finance committee in prebudget hearings?

He asked what the Conservative's position is on the environment. Look at the Liberal's position on Kyoto. In the budget introduced on February 23 there was $5 billion for Kyoto. A month later, no, we actually need $10 billion for Kyoto even though emissions have gone up under this government. That is no Kyoto plan.

The member asked what we would do. We would actually take some initiatives, invest in technology and work with industries like the auto industry. Here is a couple of ideas. Why--

[The Speaker]

The hon. member's time has expired.