Mr. Speaker, I fully believe the gaze of history is upon us. Our country is undergoing the stress of change. Bill C-48 is a symptom of what has gone wrong in politics and with this government.
Bill C-48 was born out of a sheer desire to hang on and cling to power, that pure desire for the sake of power alone. It is about being prepared to do what one has to do to cling to power. It is pathetic, really. It is not so much what is in the bill and it is not exactly what the NDP thinks is in the bill: NDP members have been duped.
What is more important is that whatever the negotiators would have required would be in that bill because they are prepared to sell principle to simply stay in power. The principle and what is in it are not so important to them.
The time has come for this government to be defeated. It shall fall and it must fall today or in the next short while. It has used every rule in the book to stay in power.
Let us look at the first budget bill, the precursor of Bill C-48. The finance minister said:
--this budget was not designed for election purposes. I am sure that it will stand the test of an election if that comes about, but what I was doing was listening to the clear voices of Canadians....
He put together a budget that he said encompassed comprehensively everything that he felt should be there and nothing more. He said:
When we vote on the budget we cannot cherry-pick one thing we like and one thing we do not like. We have to take the package together.
Just a few short weeks ago the finance minister warned that opposition to the budget could spark a financial crisis if one tried to play politics with a money bill. He said:
You can't go on stripping away the budget, piece by piece...If you engage in that exercise, it is an absolute, sure formula for the creation of a deficit.
He stood up in the House and he spoke on the throne speech and said “sound financial management” is very important. He said:
This is not just good economic management. It is good common sense. It creates the discipline of pay as you go, not spend as you like.
That is what he said and that is what the government's principle was, but what have the Liberals done? Since that time we have seen $40 billion and $30 billion, $70 billion for health--good--and also for the equalization payments, the Atlantic Accord, $2 billion, $830 million only after they were forced to do that by the opposition. Then they tried to make political hay out of that. For Ontario we saw $5.75 billion and then rent breaks for airports at $8 billion.
We have a finance minister who said that it is not really new money, that it is just new announcements. If we add them up since February 23, we are at $23 billion. What has happened to being fiscally responsible? What has happened to the statement that we do not touch the budget? It has gone down the tubes.
Then the finance minister said, “But really, when we look at what was announced in the budget, the $4.6 billion, plus the new announcements, that is $9 billion or $10 billion”. That is $9 billion or $10 billion since February 23 and this is from a minister who said that we should not tweak the budget, who said that we should not change any part of the budget. Where are we now?
When the farmers were in a crisis in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and western Canada, this government could not find any money to help. Where were the farmers when this new deal was negotiated? Where was the money for them? The government said there was no money for them.
Some of the farmers are going through the greatest crisis of their lives. My learned friend from Alberta indicated that there were four suicides in Saskatchewan. They have the pressure of bankers, the pressure of suppliers and the pressure of not being able to get the crop in the ground. There is no money. There is no way to do it. But if the Liberals can cling to power they will pay whatever they pay to cling to it without any principle.
The minister went on to say, in the fiscal responsibility part of his speech, “It ensures that the decisions we make today do not become the debts our children will have to bear”. He said the government would “keep the federal books solidly in the black” and continue to set aside reserves.
What has happened to that? What have we come to?
Let us look at another point. This particular party attempted to have a motion of no confidence put on the floor and the government took away the supply days to ensure that it could not happen. It used every rule in the book to prevent it from happening and plugged up the House with legislation from committee.
The Liberals filibustered their own bill. They did everything in their power to prevent a confidence motion. They were running from the ability of Parliament and the people to decide whether they should stay in power. What is worse, as they were doing this, they were spending money, making announcements and attempting to buy votes.
If there was ever a time when there was a clear issue of confidence raised, it was when there was an indirect motion. At that point there was an obligation on the government to put its own issue of confidence before the House at the earliest opportunity. It failed to do so. It was either last week or Monday of this week and the Liberals chose not to do it. They postponed it to today. I think that constitutionally they lost the right to govern. At the first opportunity this motion should have been brought to the House, but they continued because it did not suit the whims or the desires of the Prime Minister.
What kind of country do we have? What kind of democracy do we have when it is the Prime Minister's convenience and not the constitutional law of the land that governs?
We have passed that point. During that time moneys have been spent on the Liberals flying back and forth throughout Canada, using taxpayers' money and using government jets, making announcements of millions in Regina, millions in Edmonton and millions in New Brunswick and Ontario, while we are past that constitutional point and the government should no longer be governing.
The responsible thing to do would have been to have the Liberals bring the motion before the House on Monday. What do they do instead? They try to influence people, to buy them through money, power or position, and in some fashion cling to power.
There is something wrong in politics. There is something wrong when we come to this place. There is something wrong when we use every available ruse. It is worse than what happened in the sponsorship scandal in Quebec. That was done under the cover of darkness. That was done with another set of books. What is happening here is happening in broad daylight and it is wrong. Sooner or later, the government will go down.
That is why I will not support Bill C-48. It was born in duplicity. It was born in the wrong place. We cannot support that.
We saw the leader of the NDP go fishing one day and ask if there was some chance that the budget could be changed, yes or no. The finance minister said:
The principles of the budget are the principles of the budget and we stand firmly by those principles. If there are technical issues to raise...[we will] hear them.
Since when is $4.6 billion a technical issue? And $3,000 for a family of four? What has happened to principle? It was sold out for the simple purpose of hanging on to power at all costs. That is wrong.
The price will be paid when the people of this country have a chance to pass judgment. It will not be Gomery but the people of the country who pass judgment and the sooner that happens the better.
That same leader of the New Democratic Party said:
Mr. Speaker, it is a little hard to determine if that was a yes or a no. Our frustration with trying to work with the Liberal government is growing day by day. Putting aside the issue of corruption....
How can that leader support a government that he believes is birthed in corruption for the simple purpose of gaining some money? It does not matter if one gets paid $4 billion or $2 billion or $1. One should not sell out one's principles for that. Since when has the NDP come up with the deal he thinks he has? When the NDP asked for this favour, the finance minister said:
Mr. Speaker, that is really like asking whether I would be prepared to buy a pig in a poke. Quite frankly, no minister of finance, acting responsibly, would answer that type of question.
Maybe he is not prepared to buy a pig in a poke, but the NDP was certainly prepared to buy a pig in a poke. Let us have a look at Bill C-48 and see what the government actually promised to get this deal. It states that “the Minister of Finance may, in respect of the fiscal year 2005-06, make payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund” provided there is a $2 billion surplus. The Minister of Finance “may”, in 2006-07, make a payment if there is a surplus of $2 billion.
A paragraph in the bill states:
The payments made under subsections 1(1) and (2) shall not exceed in the aggregate $4.5 billion.
The government did not say that the NDP deal will get $4.5 billion; it said if the money is there it might happen, but it will never be more than $4.5 billion, so no guarantee. In fact, let us look at the budget bill agreement. I have 10 seconds left and I have not even started yet.