Debates of May 16th, 2005

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

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is well informed about these things and I know he will have followed the 18th century and 19th century debates in legislatures across the country about public schools and universal education, and how important it was in those days, as the industrial revolution was moving along, to have an educated population that at least attended elementary school.

I am sure he is also familiar with the debates later on about whether high school should be universal. Now he is talking about early childhood development. In more than two out of three families in this country both parents work. Not just the care but the education which families in the past did is now a matter of public debate. Before elementary school existed it was assumed that families did this for their own children.

I hear him saying there should be choices for parents. I am not exactly sure what he means by that. In the elementary schools there are private options. In high schools there are private options. However we first put in place the public systems and we gave the parents choice through those public systems, through school boards and involvement in school boards, in the process of raising the taxes and actually spending the taxes.

Now he is talking about these children being denied full public early childhood education. It is not a matter of something in the future. It is already late that we as a society are doing this. I would like his comments on that. Would he in the 18th and 19th centuries have been arguing against public education, high school and elementary school, the way he is arguing now?

He talked about the gun registry and gun control. The total cost, as he knows, of all gun control, gun control at the borders and gun control on our streets over 10 years, is at $1 billion. The gun registry is one-twentieth of that. Does he think that that one-two thousandth of the federal budget was too much to give us the control over guns that we have at the present time?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member would prefer I will answer the second part of his question first so I do not forget.

The fact is we do not have control over our guns in this country. The fact is that we have had a handgun registry since 1995 and it has not stopped the handgun shootings in Toronto or around the country. It is a failed program and I would challenge the members opposite to prove that it is doing anything. Clearly, if it saves one life it would be worth it, but it is not doing that. It is really making criminals out of duck hunters and farmers.

As to the early childhood education, I will not go into the scientific evidence that in some cases there is a debate as to how young children should enter the educational program. In the 1890s the hon. member should know that as much information was given to someone in one year that we are now presented in one day. Clearly, the times have changed.

What the Conservative Party is talking about is giving choice to parents. If parents want to send their children to childhood education, if parents want to send their children into a child care arena, they would be quite capable of doing that under the Conservative Party plan. However what about those parents who choose to take on a part time job so they can stay home with their children or parents who choose to hire a neighbour or their mother to look after the children?

More important than all of that in some cases are the ethnic traditions that are not being respected and are being discriminated against by a public program that all taxpayers will have to pay but only very few will be able to use.

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to speak to an important document, Bill C-48.

It is becoming increasingly clear from what we have heard today that Bill C-48 is not as disgraceful as the leader of the official opposition has said. In fact, I would like to take a moment to congratulate my colleagues on this side of the floor for highlighting just how important the measures contained in Bill C-48 are to Canadians and how out of step the official opposition is with the Canadian public in terms of it priorities. After all, we are talking about a bill that strengthens the social foundation of a budget that the official opposition once endorsed.

When people talk about a hidden agenda, I cannot blame them. From what we have seen in recent weeks, it has become evident that the official opposition will say just about anything to score political points. Take for example the case my colleague made earlier about federal gas tax sharing with cities and communities. The official opposition voted against this at its policy convention.

Then, after realizing how popular this budget initiative was with Canadians, it reversed its course and said it supported it. It sometimes seems like it wants to adopt the entire budget as its next election policy platform even though those members say that they will be voting against it. I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but this is getting ridiculous. It clearly illustrates where the official opposition is looking for leadership. It is rather sad and somewhat telling that it is not within its own ranks.

Why is the official opposition dithering? In short, because the official opposition knows full well that both the budget and today's bill reflect the highest priorities of Canadians and it is beginning to appreciate the consequences of delaying and compromising Canadians' aspirations for a wealthier and more secure society.

Today marks a defining moment. Canadians will remember how each and every one of us vote because it is their future at stake. Bill C-48 and the budget that it complements are the litmus test for where we all stand on these matters. It will separate those who care about Canada from those who care about scoring political points.

What is in Bill C-48 that the official opposition finds so disgraceful? Is it the $900 million more in federal transfers for municipalities so they can make crucial investments in public transit, cut pollution and reduce gridlocks?

For the riding of Mississauga--Streetsville, which is located in Mississauga, the sixth largest city in Canada, to connect Mississauga to Toronto is a great priority. It would be environmentally friendly. It would help families spend more time in their homes and with their children. It would improve the quality of life for Canadians who live in our communities and cities.

Perhaps the official opposition does not like the $1.5 billion more to make post-secondary education more accessible or the $500 million more in foreign aid. Maybe it is the low income housing energy retrofit program that the official opposition finds so distasteful.

For Canadians, the merits of these initiatives speak for themselves. Given that some hon. members are so out of line with the priorities of Canadians it may be appropriate to explain in greater detail why these programs are so important to Canadians.

Support for affordable housing for low income Canadians is money that will reinforce the Government of Canada's commitment to help alleviate problems associated with the affordability and stock of adequate low income housing.

As some hon. members are no doubt aware, the Government of Canada invests $1.9 billion each and every year in order to support 640,000 families living in existing social housing units across the country. Funding for these social housing units has been in place for many years and represents the cornerstone of federal support in this area.

That is not all the government has done. Let us look at the 2001 budget's affordable housing initiative. This program invested $680 million over five years to help increase the supply of affordable rental housing. It did so by providing capital grants to builders to encourage the construction of new affordable rental housing. The success of this program led to an additional investment of $320 million over five years in the 2003 budget.

Again, that is not all the government has done. Budget 2003 extended the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's housing renovation programs for an additional three years at an annual cost of $128 million. This will preserve the existing stock of affordable housing through renovation and renewal and help low income persons with critical housing repair needs.

In short, the Government of Canada has made new funding commitments for almost $3 billion since 2000 to help ease the housing affordability challenges faced by low income Canadians. Bill C-48 strengthens these efforts because that is what Canadians want.

I think it is very telling indeed that the official opposition considers these types of measures disgraceful. It points to its overall disdain for investment to help those who are least able to help themselves. Fortunately, most Canadians would disagree very strongly with the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Most Canadians understand that Bill C-48 reflects the principles of social justice that inspire this government and defines us as a nation.

Canadians understand that it will create cleaner, safer and more productive communities. It will help ensure that more of us are able to share in the promise of our society. It will lower heating costs for those who need them lowered the most. It will help thousands of low income Canadians put a roof over their heads. It will not compromise the gains that Canadians have realized from the elimination of the deficit and the ongoing reduction of the debt.

I myself just do not understand what is so disgraceful about this but I am not the one who ultimately will be judging. Canadians will be the ultimate judge of that. It is simply my hope that hon. members will bear this in mind when they vote on this bill.

This bill affects the very lives of people. Canadians expect us to do what is good by them. Canadians expect their government to invest in the programs that are the envy of the world and affect their very lives.

I urge my colleagues in the House and members of the Conservative Party to please support this bill and the budget, and do not let the Bloc divide us. Let us make Canada strong and let us look after Canadians as they expect us to do.

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

Madam Speaker, I am curious about one thing. The member is urging us to support this budget but this stuff was not in the budget. If we look at the original budget that the Minister of Finance read to the House, these things were not there. I wonder whether he has any concern at all about the fact that the protocol on the budget and budget speeches is being destroyed by the Liberal government.

It used to be that if there was a leak from a budget, the Minister of Finance resigned because it was considered so sacrosanct. Under the Liberals, leaks have become sort of the play of the day. It also used to be that once the finance minister delivered the budget in the House the things that he announced were pretty well written in stone so that businesses and individuals could plan because they knew the new rules.

We now have things in Bill C-48, which were not in the budget, that are massive changes in the spending patterns and the reduction of the amount that is attributed to the reduction of our debt and he is saying that we ought to support the bill. In a sense, he is supporting a totally ad hoc procedure in terms of government budgeting, which I do not think is worthy in our country.

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that when this budget was brought out, that party sat out. When this budget was brought out it was the Leader of the Opposition who said that he did not find anything in the budget which he could not support. Of course, they changed their mind.

The hon. member who spoke before said that the lack of tax cuts cost Canadians 340,000 jobs. We did not lose those jobs. It was that party which did not support the budget and that cost Canadians jobs. Minority parliaments are about negotiation. They did not, we had to and we did.

These add on funds have some conditions. First, we must not go into a deficit. Second, we must reduce the debt. Third, they must be spent in the priorities which are basically Liberal priorities.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, today a lot was said about the budget speech. We hear a lot about the big bad separatists from Quebec and the big bad Bloc members in Ottawa, as though we alone are carrying the weight of the country on our shoulders.

I will remind our colleagues opposite that since 1982, when the Constitution was patriated, unilaterally—I can say for sure—this government did everything it could to force Quebec to leave the federation. The Conservatives do not have to make much of an effort right now. When they vote the same way we do, we manage to defeat this government on bills that make no sense, and the budget is no different. It offers nothing to Quebec.

It is too bad the Conservatives did not vote against the budget at first reading. The Bloc Québécois would have because there was nothing in it for Quebec—not one cent. Today, to please the NDP and buy its vote, the government is granting minimal amounts, but we do not know any of the terms such as the period of time or the exact amount. It is all very uncertain.

I was listening to our NDP colleague from Halifax talking about the Bloc Québécois-Conservative Party alliance. At least we did not form an alliance with a party as the NDP did.

In that vein, this is my question: what does this party truly have to offer to Quebec, in terms of its jurisdictions?

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can assure members that after the next election, I will still be here and they will be very familiar with my riding.

However, what is unacceptable by any standards, regardless of the consequences, is the idea of breaking up a country, which has taken over 100 years to build, and destroying a nation and the basic fabric of it. There is no reason and no justification for anyone to do that. Therefore, I would suggest to my hon. colleague that Canada is a country which was built together. It is a country which should be kept together, and they should appreciate the value of that. There is no reason why we cannot work things out within this Parliament and within the country.

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to quote the start of the budget speech by the Minister of Finance:

Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to all those who have helped in the preparation of this 2005 federal budget—from the many organizations and professional groups that presented expert briefs, to Canadians from every corner of the country who submitted individual letters and ideas.

Their contributions, their counsel and their concerns have helped shape the budget I am tabling today.

The minister was telling tales. Bill C-48 makes this clear. At the first sign of significant pressure, he introduced a bill devoid of logic that negates all the consultations that occurred in the months preceding the tabling of the budget, including those held by the Standing Committee on Finance.

The Bloc Québécois voted against this budget when it was tabled. I simply want to briefly remind the House why. First, this budget did not propose any solution to the fiscal imbalance. Also, it made no attempt to respond to the needs of Quebeckers, with regard to EI, for example. There was no specific plan to implement the Kyoto protocol. Things have even gotten worse, since a bad plan for implementing the protocol was tabled. Today, farmers protested in front of the House of Commons. This budget did not meet their needs whatsoever. The same is true of international aid. This budget, like Bill C-43, has no respect whatsoever for Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

We voted against the budget and we will vote against the budget implementation bills, meaning Bills C-48 and C-43.

What is even more disturbing about Bill C-48 is that it is nothing but an empty shell. I may not have as many years in this House as some, but I do not believe I have ever seen such a senseless bill. It contains no minimums, only maximums, and no specific time lines. The amounts are contingent on whatever surplus there will be at the end of a fiscal year.

Mind you, I am not worried about the existence of a surplus. I am, in fact, sure that the actual surplus at the end of the fiscal year will be far more than set out in the budget. This is an old trick, one used by the previous government, and still being used by this one.

This bill does not reflect a number of realities, including the realities of Quebec. Once again, it encroaches on Quebec's jurisdiction, over education in particular.

This is, without a doubt, a hollow bill, and I find it hard to understand why the NDP got involved in this with no guarantee that its requirements would be respected. That was made clear when the NDP leader had to remind the Prime Minister that the corporate income tax reductions, which he required in exchange, were not in the bill. The Prime Minister then had to suddenly pull a rabbit out of a hat and say that this bill was going to apply only to fiscal years 2006-07 and 2007-08, and that the reductions would come the year after, anyway, so he did not need to cancel them.

This is a fine example of a fool's deal. I am sure they meant well. I have to say, however, in this House, that the NDP has been had. These are last minute add ons, the desperate efforts of a Prime Minister to try to buy another election. This time, perhaps, with dirty money—we will see—but certainly with taxpayers' money.

If Bill C-48 at least resolved the problems in the budget or in Bill C-43. But no, not even. To some extent, it is worsening things.

Once again, Bill C-48 ignores the fiscal imbalance completely. They will invest money in Kyoto, but the plan remains a bad one. I note that there is neither a minimum nor a timetable. They continue to invest in areas of jurisdiction, without a specific plan. They talk a lot about lowered tuition fees. In Quebec, we were not consulted a whole lot. Had we been, they would know that tuition fees are already very low, the lowest in Canada.

In terms of social housing, we immediately supported the requests of various groups in this regard. The latest budget made no provision at all. At the last minute, they aligned figures, but no string is attached. Nothing in this bill will require the government to spend these amounts.

After years of draconian cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, they claim to be reinvesting in postsecondary education. That represents only 11.5% of the money the federal government is investing. Is there a little money in this bill? Perhaps. Once again, no minimum amount, no timetable for the conditions attached to the payment of these amounts and no guarantee it will be done.

It is a last minute announcement. The worst of it is that this government has no qualms telling people, voters, that, if it is not re-elected, the money will never be invested. It is trying once again to frighten voters by saying the money will disappear if the government is defeated. This is the government that ignored education when it presented its 2005 budget.

In the case of the environment, as I mentioned earlier, the Kyoto plan is a bad one. I am far from convinced that an injection of money will improve the situation. In fact, it could even worsen it. The Kyoto protocol is badly suited to the situation in Quebec, specifically.

In terms of international aid, the February 23, 2005, federal budget does not provide any new money, as you will recall. The Bloc Québécois demands that the government draft a serious, long-term plan to achieve the UN target of 0.7% of GDP by 2015.

Bill C-48 authorizes the government to reach agreements with municipalities, agencies and individuals. In the case of municipalities, again, it is a clear encroachment on the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

Worse yet are the foundations. This has come up quite often in this House. The government, with no real plan and not knowing what to do with its surplus, gives money to the foundations. For the most part, this money has not yet been used. I have even raised certain cases of foundations that have more money in the bank now than when they received the payments. It is important to say that Bill C-48 seems to authorize payments to foundations.

In closing, we will vote against the budget because it is bad for Quebec. Implementation bills, including Bill C-43, just keep repeating the same mistakes. Bill C-48 is an empty shell designed to buy votes with taxpayer dollars.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a few questions of the Bloc Québécois member who has just spoken.

I listened very carefully to the member's speech. I was with him when he condemned the government for the introduction of a budget that failed to deliver what was needed for affordable housing and energy retrofitting. I was with him absolutely all the way when he condemned the budget because it did not put money, as promised, into post-secondary education and training. I was with him all the way when he talked about how disgraceful it was that the original Liberal budget introduced in the House did not commit in any meaningful way to overseas development assistance. It did not even come close to putting in place timetables and targets to deliver on our longstanding commitment, actually a standard set by Canada in the first instance, of moving to commit 0.7% of our GDP to overseas development assistance.

Then he lost me, because he then said that his party could not support Bill C-48, which actually brings in concrete remedies for every one of those things that the Bloc members say was wrong with the original budget.

Let me make it absolutely clear that the budget does not deal with all of the shortcomings. It does not deal with everything we would like to see remedied. However, it is absolutely not accurate to characterize the budget as failing to address any of these things which the member himself outlined as priorities, because it precisely commits to deliver $4.5 billion. I get excited at the thought of that money being directed to the very priorities the member talked about.

I wonder if he could explain how it is that the very priorities he mentioned now are addressed in Bill C-48, yet he is rationalizing his way to a partnership with a party that he absolutely knows would not stand behind any of those priorities. It never has and never will. The damage and destruction caused by that party, by the ultra cons, the no longer progressive Conservatives, is exactly why we are in desperate shape trying to rebuild commitments to affordable housing, post-secondary education, energy retrofitting, public transit, all of the things that have been torn down because of the responsiveness of the Liberal government to those pressures not to do those things. Now the member wants to enter into an alliance with that party and call it progress. How does he explain that?

[Guy Côté, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague has her heart in the right place, and wants to do the right thing, but the problem is that she has been taken in by a fool's bargain. She has agreed to trust this government. The past is an indicator of the future, we must admit.

A year ago, this same government was telling us that people knew enough about the sponsorship scandal, and that the election did not need to be put off until the end of the Gomery inquiry. This year it is telling us the opposite.

Since 1998, this government has been telling us that it was not very certain that there would be a surplus, that caution was needed, that we needed to take care. Year after year, huge surpluses have been kept outside the public debate. When this bill is passed, there will be nothing to force the government to spend that money. It is a simple as that.

I know the hon. member has her heart in the right place but, I regret to say, she has been taken in.

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are five areas in the budget which I would like to talk about.

There are five commitments that I made in the last election. Members will remember during that period, which was not that long ago, the number one issue facing Canadians. Right across the country, in Atlantic Canada, including the riding of my hon. friend from the Edmundston area, Quebec and every other province, health care was the single most important issue in the last election.

The Prime Minister made a commitment in that election campaign to deal with the health care issue. I was very proud to stand with him in Oakville at a meeting with people from Cancer Care Ontario when he said he was going to tackle the issue. It was a very moving dialogue. We talked about the problems with cancer. The Prime Minister gave them a commitment that he was going to put money into health care.

There is a lot of cynicism about the political process and politicians keeping their promises. The Prime Minister when he was the finance minister cleaned up the finances left by the previous Conservative government. He brought us back to being able to invest in the social programs. He made a commitment to people that he was going to put money into health care, some $41.3 billion. He had an agreement with all political parties. All provincial leaders representing every political party signed it, as did the territorial leaders.There were premiers from NDP governments, Liberal governments, Conservative governments.

The Prime Minister got the deal in the single most important issue facing Canadians. He did it not two years down the road, not three years down the road, not four years down the road. He did it after the election, which was on June 28, 2004, and by September he had a deal signed by every premier and every territorial leader of every political stripe.

That was the single largest reinvestment in health care since the introduction of medicare. On that particular issue the Prime Minister came through and did what he said he was going to do.

There are four other areas I want to talk about and explain how they relate to building on the priorities in Bill C-48.

On cities and communities, in the last budget we had already put in $7 billion in the GST rebate. We then promised we were going to increase it by $5 billion more and we came up with that commitment. Agreements were signed with Alberta and B.C. recently.

Child care is a very important issue as well. We have put $5 billion over five years into child care. We are very proud to have an agreement with the Ontario government to virtually double the number of child care spaces in the province of Ontario. That is a phenomenal record for a government that has been in less than a year, in making a commitment to the people on the child care issue and doubling it in the province of Ontario to $5 billion.

On health care we met our commitment. On cities and communities we met our commitment. I have met with mayors and the regional chair in my riding. They all want us to pass the budget, along with Bill C-48. On child care we have met our commitment as well.

I want to talk about the balanced budget provision. There was a lot of talk on the other side that we have to be fiscally responsible. It is a little rich coming from the Conservatives. At the end of their mandate when they left government after eight years there was a deficit of $40 billion. In the year that they were booted out and left with only two seats in the House, the deficit was actually heading toward $50 billion. A deficit of close to $50 billion was left for the Prime Minister when he was minister of finance to clean up. He had to clean up the mess left by Brian Mulroney. The Conservative government destroyed this country economically, politically and socially for many years to come.

When I look across I see some of the members who were part of that Brian Mulroney government. They are now back again. I say to them that the people of this country are never going to let them ever have control of the finances after what they did to this country and bankrupted us to the tune of $40 billion.

This Prime Minister when he was the minister of finance made a commitment to the people of this country to balance the budget. My hon. friend the parliamentary secretary will know that we have had eight straight balanced budgets. That is the first time since Confederation that we have had balanced budgets.

The people on the other side whose party gave us the largest deficit in the history of the country are trying to say that we do not know how to run the finances of the country. I look across the way and obviously there are some very young members who may not have been around in 1990 in terms of political careers, but there are some members over there who actually sat in the cabinet of the government that created a $40 billion deficit after eight years in government. And they are trying to tell us that we do not know how to have fiscally responsible budgets, when for eight straight balanced budgets we have done it.

It is not only a commentary to the current Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary, for whom I have a deep respect, but also to the Prime Minister who as the former minister of finance set that in place and cleaned up the mess. He did what he said he was going to do and balanced the budgets. Every other major country in the G-7, Japan, Italy, Germany, France, Britain and the United States, are all running deficits.

All the members opposite, the right wing group that came out of that reform ideology, who like George W. Bush and the tax cuts in the U.S., I will remind them that President George W. Bush is running a $1.4 trillion deficit over the next five years. I did not say billion; I said trillion. The U.S. cut taxes too much and ended up with huge deficits, to the point where in U.S. magazines some people are saying that is a bigger impediment to the security of the United States than some of the security measures in the rest of the world dealing with terrorism. That is how fundamentally difficult it is for Americans.

Members opposite have come out of that right wing reform ideology, including their leader who came through all that process. Those members have changed their party's name so many times it is as though they are in the witness protection program. They do not want anyone to know who they are. We all remember they were the reform party. Then they were the conservative-reform-alliance party, and I do not mean to be impolite, but it was known as CRAP in those days. Then they changed the name to the alliance party. Those members have changed their party's name so many times it is as though they are in the witness protection program. They want to hide their past.

The Conservatives look to George W. Bush and the Americans as the be-all and end-all. I say to those on the other side, look at the deficit he is running. It is an absolute disgrace with a trillion dollar deficit which will affect us. It is affecting the dollar and interest rates. The men and women on the other side who worship George W. Bush and his fiscal policies should be embarrassed for advocating the same thing that is literally bankrupting the U.S.

I will not even get into social security. We have a pension system that is well funded and will be there when I retire. When Emily, my hon. friend's baby daughter retires, the money will be there. In the U.S. the social security is not even secure. People say there will not be money there.

When I hear members on the other side say that Bill C-48 is not fiscally responsible, I say to them that they have absolutely no credibility whatsoever.

[An hon. member]

The member does not know what he is talking about.

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

No credibility whatsoever.

I saw what the member did, but I will ignore it. The hon. member should not be doing things like that with his fingers to other members in the House. The member knows he did it. I will ignore it, but members should not be doing that. We need to have a level debate. I will fight honourably. I will say that we should not be giving fingers to members on the other side of the House.

My final topic is the Ford Motor Company. On the local level, I made a commitment to invest in the Ford Motor Company. I was proud to stand with the minister who was involved at the time and who is now the minister of immigration, to commit that money to the Ford Motor Company. We stood out there that day along with all the Ford workers and the Ford management. The premier of Ontario and our colleagues, including my colleague from Oakville, were there as well.

That day Buzz Hargrove said he was glad we did not have a Conservative government because if that happened these jobs would have been lost, 5,000 jobs and 25,000 spin-off jobs as a direct result. He was very clear in saying that if the Conservative government was in, we would have lost them.

We made commitments and we followed through on those commitments. We are balancing the budget. We are putting money back into social programs. I am proud to stand with the Prime Minister because he is the best leader in the country today. We are going to continue to make this country prosperous based on the policies of this--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to inform my colleague that in the last election the Conservative Party was on record, and he can check with the Ford Motor Company, as supporting that. I think he knows that and he should be clear about that.

In relation to the auto sector, through its excellent CAPC report, it has put forward many suggestions of what the government could do from a public policy point of view to improve and enhance the auto sector in Canada. It has talked about eliminating the capital tax which has been delayed because of this deal with the NDP. It has talked about changing the depreciation rates, something that the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters has talked about and is sorely disappointed that they are not in the budget. It has talked about action on the border, something that the government has talked about since 1993, but has not yet delivered on.

Probably the number one impediment to locating new auto assembly plants in Canada is action on the border, so we have security of trade between Canada and the United States. I would like the member to address that.

Why has the government failed to act on these major public policy initiatives that have been called for not only by the Conservative Party but by the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters and in the CAPC report, agreed to by all those who work in the auto sector, whether it is auto companies like Ford, GM or DaimlerChrysler, or the Japanese or people such as Buzz Hargrove and the CAW. They all agreed with this report. Why has the government not acted upon it?

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to clarify what happened with the Ford Motor Company announcement. The government announced it was going to put in money. I immediately said that I was going to support it. Both of the Conservative candidates in Oakville and in Halton said they were opposed to it at the time, as did the NDP.

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

That's not what you said.

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

No, I am going to follow this up and say what they did.

They were opposed to it in the beginning and when the Conservatives found out we were investing $100 million, they changed their opinion and said that now they were in favour of it.

I said to my Conservative candidate that I supported it. I did not say what the Prime Minister was going to do. I immediately said it was good because it would create 5,000 jobs and 25,000 spin-off jobs. I did not need to check with anyone. I said I would support it.

I know what happened with the two Conservative governments because I was there. My candidate in Halton said he was opposed to it as did the NDP candidate. At the next all candidates meeting he said, “Oh no, my leader is now in favour of it because the money has been given and you signed it”. I asked him why we needed him if he has to run back to his leader to see what he is saying. Let us just cut out the middle man. We do not even need MPs. Let us just go to the leaders of the parties and say, “You're in charge, what do you say?” There are going to be occasions when I am going to agree with the leader of the party and some days when I disagree, but I am going to make that decision.

The hon. member seems to be confused that there is an Oakville member and a Halton member. My Halton member did not support it and then reversed himself and said he did. That is not acceptable to the people of this province. We cannot flip-flop on these issues like the Conservative Party is doing and expect to have any credibility. There must be consistency. That party must be consistent. That is why we are going to be rewarded with another mandate.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to examine the position adopted by the Conservative opposition, not only in the past few days but the past few weeks as well. The Conservatives are saying that the budget does nothing, absolutely nothing for Canadians. At the same time, however, they are saying that they will respect the good initiatives implemented by the Liberals, if there is an election.

This leads me to say that, in fact, our initiatives have been excellent. I want to ask my colleague the following question. I was a municipal councillor for the city of Edmundston for six years. So I know that refunding the gas tax is a top priority for communities—cities, towns and local service districts—throughout Canada. This remains extremely important.

I want my hon. colleague to tell me if he has ever heard negative comments about this extremely important initiative for our communities?

[Gary Carr, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is right. I have heard nothing but good things from all of the municipal leaders right across this country. In my area, the municipal leaders have supported it with letters. The hon. member will know too that right across this country municipal leaders, including the mayors of the big cities of Toronto and Vancouver, have said we have to continue with this. The Liberals said in the last election that they would do it. Now we have the opposition parties giving the “me too” politics. They know how popular it is and are now saying they will do it, “Me too, me too”.

The people who can be trusted are the people who put this in place and negotiated the agreements. People who change their position halfway through the game cannot be trusted because they have absolutely no credibility.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the citizens of Calgary Centre-North to address Bill C-48, legislation which carries a rather euphemistic title “An act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments”.

The “certain payments” which the legislation refers to total $4.6 billion and the net effect of this legislation is to create a fund of surplus taxes from which the Liberals can purchase 19 NDP votes in the House of Commons. Never before has a government spent so much to acquire so little. In fairness, the NDP has not been purchased, it has just been rented.

This is surely no way for the Government of Canada to go about its business. My objection to this legislation starts from the fact that the Liberal government has become completely confused about the difference between taxpayer money and its own.

Let me cut to the chase. This bill purports to create a $4.6 billion political slush fund which would be financed from surpluses that the government expects to record in the 2005-06 and the 2006-07 years. The Liberals have promised the NDP, with all the sincerity of a daylight burglar, to spend that money on NDP priorities.

This is one of a number of very curious things which the Liberals are attempting to do in their efforts to cling to power at all costs. However, nothing which they have proposed is more curious than this. They are proposing to tax everyday Canadians at tax levels which would generate surpluses of $4.6 billion, so that they can have a blank cheque to spend those surpluses on purposes which suit their narrow political agenda. Only a government which has completely lost its fiscal and moral compass would propose such a thing.

As nearly as I can tell, the taxpayers of Canada have never consented to be governed in this way. Certainly the taxpayers in Calgary Centre-North have never agreed to that.

Where I come from, the taxpayers play by the rules. We pay our taxes and we expect that we are being taxed to pay our fair share of the cost of running this country. No one in my riding has ever consented to pay taxes at artificially high levels which would cover the cost of administering the Government of Canada plus the cost of accumulating a $4.6 billion slush fund to allow the Liberals to engage in partisan vote buying to mask their own corruption.

This is a vision of fiscal responsibility stood on its head. It is a legislative commitment to $4.6 billion in overtaxation coupled with a written commitment to squander it.

I object to this proposal on many grounds but also on constitutional grounds. This approach to taxation is unprecedented. In my view, it is entirely inconsistent with 817 years of parliamentary history, since something called the Saladin Tithe of 1188, in the reign of Henry II, in a far off place quite distant from here.

I would not want to lose my Liberal friends on a journey through parliamentary history, but it is noteworthy that since that time governments, parliaments and taxpayers have had a fairly uneasy but successful truce according to which Parliament approves the government's spending plans and Parliament consents to taxation to support those expenditures. No more, no less.

This approach has actually worked reasonably well throughout parliamentary history. In fact, the Saladin Tithe of 1188, which I spoke of, financed the third crusade which was, like the Liberal government, pretty much a complete disaster. On the third crusade, Frederick I of Germany drowned before he reached the Holy Land and Philip II of France retired, returning home, shortly after leaving. It all has a ring of familiarity to it.

However, after 817 years, the Liberals have a better crusade, that of overtaxation without representation. They will now ask Parliament for a blank cheque.

The government proposes to overtax all Canadians to the tune of $4.5 billion, and in return it offers to spend those surplus moneys on an assortment of promises which one would generously call ideas. Clause 3(c) of the statute would allow the government to make payments to anybody. Clause 3(b) would allow it to enter into an agreement with anyone.

It is all very perverse and it is all very irresponsible. Frankly, if there is no precedent to call it unconstitutional, it is only because it is so perverse that no one else has tried to do it in modern parliamentary history.

The chief economist of the TD Bank, who understands what is happening here, noted in a May 7 National Post editorial as follows:

--for years government has wanted an instrument that would allow it to allocate spending without having to say what it's for. This act will do it.

The residents of Calgary Centre-North want no part of this. The constituents of my riding will never submit to overtaxation, especially institutionalized overtaxation administered by a corrupt Liberal government.

The legislation undermines our nation's finances. What we need in the country is less government, not more, more efficiency in government expenditures, not less and more responsible and accountable taxation, not less. What we really need in the country is a responsible government with a strong new prime minister, aided by a group of decent men and women who would provide some stability and restore some common sense to our fiscal path. The hon. Leader of the Opposition will bring all of that to Canadians in the days ahead.

We need smart fiscal policies, not I would submit, Liberal fiscal policies. We need to reduce marginal tax rates. We need to reduce average tax rates. We need to constrain government spending and ensure that the men and women, for example, in my riding of Calgary Centre-North are able to keep more of their own money so they can make their own child care choices, their own choices for taking care of senior citizens and their own spending choices.

We need to eliminate taxes that penalize investment, that penalize savings and are punitive toward job generation. We need to free up the genius and the financial flexibility of the private sector, especially the small business sector which creates many of our jobs.

We need less regulation, less red tape and less punitive and confusing tax legislation. Instead the government brings forward a bizarre proposal of institutionalized overtaxation.

Who supports the government? It is not the people in my riding. The people of Calgary Centre-North pay their taxes and they do not support an artificially inflated tax regime that accumulates $4.5 billion of vote-buying money. Where are these citizens who want to be overtaxed so the Liberals can accumulate a $4.5 billion budgetary surplus, which I describe as a slush fund? They do not live in my riding.

I hear from parents who are struggling to raise their children. They do not want to be overtaxed. I hear from elderly Canadians, senior citizens in my riding. They do not want to be overtaxed. I hear from new Canadians, especially Asian Canadians in my riding struggling to make their way in this new country that they have chosen as their home. They do not want to be overtaxed either. I hear from single parents, students, white collar workers, blue collar workers, working mothers and stay at home moms. None of them have told me they want to pay taxes at a level that leads to surplus overtaxation.

Perhaps I am wrong in understanding my constituents. I can make a mistake just like anyone else I suppose. My staff and I checked through all the emails, letters, notes, cards and petitions that we have received. It turns out there is not a single person in my riding who has ever contacted me and asked that they submit to overtaxation.

I do not support the bill, which I regard as a perverse use of Parliament. It is overreaching and overtaxing. It undermines our nation's finances. It purports to be a finance measure when in truth it is nothing more than a naked attempt to impose surplus taxation, to write a corrupt government a blank $4.5 billion cheque so it can criss-cross the nation buying votes, attempting to distract itself and voters from its own corruption, scandal and criminality. I want no part of it and neither do the good citizens of Calgary Centre-North.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing with us his perspective on Bill C-48. He brought up very good points. Canadians are overtaxed, they want to have some relief and the Conservative Party will offer that.

Bill C-48 is not what was originally presented to the House. It has been modified. We have $4.5 billion that was used by the government to crack a deal with the NDP. I would like to ask the member this. Why has the government has done that. Why would it take $4.5 billion of taxpayer dollars, not government dollars, to crack a deal with the NDP?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, clearly this is a scheme by which the Liberals and the NDP are working together to overtax Canadians, to engage in vote buying on a massive scale, $4.5 billion, in a way that is not in keeping with parliamentary history and our constitutional traditions.

What about everyone else who has been left out of the budget in the first place? What about the municipalities, fishermen, farmers, seniors and aboriginal Canadians? Why are we not pursuing at this time cuts in taxes?

My friend from Langley has raised that question. If we were to give everyday Canadians a tax cut of $1,000 per year, they could invest that in a RRSP instead of having that money gobbled up by increased government expenditures, which is what we have seen over the last five years to six years in the country. If we gave Canadians an extra $1,000 to keep in their pockets, they could spend it on their child care choices, or on senior citizens or on helping their parents. They could spend it on a wide variety of things.

If we as Canadians received that kind of a tax cut, $1,000 per year invested at 5% over 20 years would amount to $35,000 that Canadians could save. It would be $70,000 if we looked at it over 30 years. Those are the priorities of Canadians, saving money, being conscious of the needs of one's children, choice in parental care, choice in day care, choice in taking care of one's parents and working with them through their retirement. Those are the choices that Canadians would make. Many people would save that money and create jobs. Those should be the priorities of Canadians today.

Those are the priorities of the Conservative Party and that is how we would administer the finances of the Government of Canada, not in a way that we see in Bill C-48, which is such a flagrant abuse of the nation's finances.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I know we have heard again and again, it is like a right wing mantra from the no longer progressive Conservatives, that the priority should have been to pass on more tax cuts to big corporations because that is what strengthens the economy and generates the jobs. However, I cannot believe for a moment that the hon. member and his colleagues are not aware of the considerable research on the most cost effective forms of job generation and the most effective ways to strengthen the economy.

It is literally true that detailed economic analysis would show that tax cuts are not the most cost effective way to generate jobs. It is direct public investment in things that not only have the job generation pay off but also the benefits of direct delivery, predictable, targeted, intended delivery, for high priority things that Canadians want.

On that alone, Bill C-48 should be supportable by anybody who makes the pretense that jobs need to be a more important part of this budget. It is absolutely well established and well documented that affordable housing, that housing construction and energy retrofitting are some the most job-intensive forms of investment that can be made.

Regarding post-secondary education, not only is there considerable job generation in post-secondary education funding investment, but in the other parts of that agreement for better training. What better way to strengthen our economy than to make that kind of investment? Let us not pretend there are not a lot of jobs directly in post-secondary education.

I could go on with more examples. If we take the four priorities contained within Bill C-48, the evidence is overwhelming that if we are only concerned about jobs, it is still clear that a more cost effective investment with lasting benefits to Canadians is to invest not in tax cuts for big corporations but direct services.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary North Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not have time to have a full debate on Keynesian economics or Reagan economics, but I would ask the hon. member this. The member is an experienced member. I have referred in my comments to the NDP-Liberal deal and the possibility of a purchase of the NDP votes or perhaps just a renting of them for a period of time.

If one examines Bill C-48, there is no obligation on the part of the government whatsoever to honour any of the expenditure commitments which the NDP has agreed to with the government. Is the NDP not concerned that it has been had? There is absolutely no obligation on the part of the government to spend any money in pursuit of the NDP priorities. This is a rental agreement that is unlike any I have ever seen. I caution my friends to be careful.