Debates of May 30th, 2005

Budget Implementation Act, 2005

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the last point, we will miss that kind of lucid understanding of the budgetary cycle and how the House of Commons works. Maybe we should try to encourage the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell to go for another term.

He is absolutely right in what he says. With respect to the first point, it highlights the hypocrisy or the inconsistency of the party opposite. When our finance minister tabled the budget, I sat here and was moved because it was such an excellent budget. Therefore, when I heard in the scrums that the leader of the Conservative Party actually said that there was nothing much his party could argue with in the budget, I was pleased but not surprised because it was and is an excellent budget, which is why it is so important to deal with the budget as a whole.

There is no need to hive off a portion. We know what the politics are. To please some of the Atlantic Canadian members of the Conservative caucus they want to hive it off and fast track it. However the problem is that we have an excellent budget, not just with the Atlantic accord but we have so many measures in the main part of Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 that are absolutely stupendous and which Canadians want.

I actually engaged and listened to what people were saying over the last week, and not just Liberal supporters, and they unanimously said that they wanted the budget passed but not in little bits here and there. Canadians want the budget passed but the members opposite are not listening or they are listening but are not acting upon that information.

I absolutely agree with my colleague. It has to be seen as one whole piece and we need to deal with Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 expeditiously so Canadians can get the benefits of those measures.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I watched with amusement as this thing played out over the last month. This Atlantic accord goes back a couple of years. An arrangement was worked out not that long ago and, as everyone in the House is aware, it was a very difficult and complex negotiation.

During the negotiation, the Minister of Natural Resources came under extreme pressure and criticism by the member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl and the member for St. John's East. According to published statements, he was called a Benedict Arnold and a weasel. They seemed to be enjoying this.

Like a lot of things in life, what goes around comes around. The deal was worked out. It was included in the budget and the only thing left for this House to do is to pass the budget and move on.

The member has been here for 10 years now and is a longstanding parliamentarian with an excellent reputation. Does he have any advice for the member for St. John's South--Mount Pearl and the member for St. John's East?

I do not even know if a weasel is a species indigenous to Newfoundland but perhaps he could tell me that also.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not been a student of biology and I could not say if those particular breeds are indigenous to certain parts of Canada. I am sure they are not actually based on my own sense of things.

My colleague from Charlottetown hits on a very important point. We should try to represent all Canadians in this House. We should stop thinking only about narrow political and parochial views. We were elected to represent the people of Canada.

The Atlantic accord is very important because of the levels of income and unemployment in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia, but we can deal with that now if we pass the whole bill, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. Let us not be so parochial. Let us get on with the job of representing Canadians.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the motion today.

Much has been said about the recent federal budget and about what it does and does not do for Canadians. In my remarks today I would like to set the record straight on at least one important area and that is the question of a strong and productive national economy. There can be no question that one of the biggest challenges facing our country in the early years of the 21st century is the issue of improving the productivity of the Canadian economy.

At the present time, Canada faces a demographic time bomb when it comes to our national workforce. Currently, there are more than five people of working age in Canada for every person of retirement age. Within the next 15 years, as the baby boom generation begins to retire in large numbers, this ratio will fall to four working people compared to those 65 years of age and older. The ratio will keep falling until it is ultimately cut in half.

This situation presents two unique challenges for Canadian society. First, it will place a significant burden on our system of social services, particularly the health care system, which will face a major increase in the number of people needing both sustained medical attention and longer term care facilities when they are no longer able to look after themselves.

Second, and more germane to the matter at hand, is the issue of maintaining our current standard of living. As our working population ages, a smaller and smaller percentage of Canadians in the workforce will be required to support a larger and larger group of retirees. If Canadians are to maintain their current standard of living and see further improvements in their quality of life, we must address the challenges facing the smaller workforce that will be available to us in years ahead.

Given this situation, it is imperative that Canada's economy must see a significant improvement in productivity levels if we are to meet this demographic challenge, as well as the increasingly competitive global marketplace, which includes the fast growing economies of India and China.

Before going any further I would like to make the point that when it comes to increasing our productivity, Canada is not starting from scratch. As recent statistics show, the rate of Canadian productivity growth has increased 60% since the mid-1990s. That is a good start but there is still a long way for us to go if we hope to close the gap on productivity with our most important trading partner, the United States. Let me be clear on this point. Our government is committed to taking the necessary action to help boost Canada's productivity. The actions we have taken in budget 2005 and in our previous budgets provide clear evidence of this.

There are three ways Canada can grow its productivity rate: by investing in physical capital, which includes technology and infrastructure; by investing in human capital, which includes education and training; and by investing in innovation, which includes research and development.

Let me begin by outlining the measures we have taken to invest in our nation's physical capital.

Since our government first brought the country out of deficit in 1997, we have invested more than $12 billion in infrastructure projects in communities, both large and small, right across the country.

Programs, such as the Canada strategic infrastructure program, the border infrastructure program and the municipal rural infrastructure program, have committed to the rebuilding and maintenance of roads and highways, the construction of new community centres and parks, and the building of new facilities to handle both solid waste and waste water.

These programs work in consultation with the territories, the provinces, the municipalities and the private sector. They are the major drivers of our effort to rebuild and reinvigorate Canada's urban infrastructure. They are improving the quality of life for Canadians from coast to coast to coast and are making our cities, towns and villages better places in which to live, work and invest. Make no mistake that healthy and prosperous communities are key components in our efforts to boost our national economic productivity.

Recognizing the importance of these programs, our government has committed $4 billion over five years in budget 2004 and an additional $5 billion over five years in budget 2005 to help our cities and towns rebuild their vital infrastructure elements. The $5 billion announced in our most recent budget is part of the new deal for Canadian cities which, among other things, pledges that the government will contribute a portion of the federal gas tax revenues to our cities and towns to help them meet their infrastructure needs. By 2009-10 the funding flowing to municipalities will amount to $2 billion annually, equivalent to 5¢ per litre, representing strategic investments in cities and communities.

These tangible commitments will result in the revitalization of infrastructure and the construction of new facilities that will benefit Canadians for years to come. Long after the debates and the discussions on this issue have ended, these projects will stand as reminders of our government's foresight and commitment to a better quality of life for all our citizens.

I want to digress for a moment and explain how cogent and effective this has been in the north. The government has had a special sensitivity in recent years and in recent budgets to the people in the north and how important these infrastructure programs are to the nation and ultimately to the relationship of various orders of government in Canada. Obviously the members of the opposition need to hear this. Unfortunately this is one of the things that is at great threat. Many people have told me they are very worried about an election and the fact that they could lose these major infrastructure initiatives. They are important to my riding and justify my taking a few moments of my time here to speak to them.

First, the strategic infrastructure program, which is the one infrastructure program the opposition has gone on the record of supporting, is very important. We have two borders in my riding. There are unique problems in the north. Borders across the country are very instrumental to our economy, and this is a very important investment. More important, when our government came out with the first municipal infrastructure program, every municipality in my riding benefited. Across the nation thousands of communities benefited in some way from the first infrastructure program.

It was so popular that the program was extended. Once again virtually every community benefited. Communities built their roads, their bridges, their water and sewer works. To give an example of how much this was needed, one community, which I will not name, is replacing wood sewer staves through the municipal infrastructure program.

When the government saw how popular and important these programs were, it reinvested in them. It also saw that with small projects going out to all the little communities there was not a good way to fund very large projects that would help a number of cities, or a region of a province or a territory, or a province or a territory as a whole. If the money were put into one large infrastructure project, the smaller players would think that was money that had otherwise been accessible to them. The government came up with the strategic infrastructure program, which is another tremendously successful and popular program.

I can talk about it in my riding because of a great sea change which showed a tremendous recognition of the north by the government. It realized that in the north the same per capita formula for infrastructure would just not work. There are very few constituents and they are miles apart in a very rugged and changing climate. Permafrost can heave and break sewer pipes. It wreaks havoc with the roads and highways. The local tiny northern villages cannot afford that type of infrastructure. The per capita amount would not go very far. It could provide maybe a mile of infrastructure in one community of the entire territory, one of the 13 regions of the country. The government was very sensitive to that and put in a base amount of allocation in the first round of strategic infrastructure programs.

In my area in particular where we would have received less than $1 million on a per capita basis on the strategic infrastructure, we were allocated $20 million as a base amount. That makes it fundamentally possible. With those funds, for instance, we have reinvigorated the Alaska Highway, the remaining part of the Canadian portion from Haines Junction, Yukon to Whitehorse. The bridges from Whitehorse to Watson Lake can be repaired. This is one of Canada's most famous highways and this program with this extra base amount for the north makes the repairs possible. It is a remarkable achievement. We can understand why people would want to keep this government in place.

This program was so popular in the north that the government renewed it again and extended it for another round. In the second round it understood that in the north the per capita amount would not be sufficient. The three territories each again got a base amount of $20 million, of course to be cost shared with the territorial governments.

This has been a remarkable, exciting initiative for the economy and the infrastructure of the north. In one particular region, I think it was in the Northwest Territories, there was some access to very productive economic areas. In Yukon we are using it for the revitalization of major waterfronts in Whitehorse and Carcross. For decades it has been the dream of Yukoners to build vibrant waterfronts in these locations, similar to those built in Winnipeg and other major cities in Canada, as focal points for people to celebrate, for street festivals, and for tourism in general. The second round of strategic infrastructure and the extra money, the base amount, has been tremendously successful for the north.

We now come to the third round, that of municipal infrastructure. I was very excited about this particular amount because there is a third dimension. Not only is the infrastructure program itself one of the most popular programs in Canada, but there was also a base amount for the north, this time in the municipal infrastructure. It was allocated to the municipal rural infrastructure fund where a majority of the funds go to rural Canada, to rural municipalities, cities, towns and villages.

The government's commitment to rural Canada is particularly exciting. Not only is there the rural secretariat and the rural projects that have been going on under the agriculture department, but this is an initiative across government. It shows the commitment of the government not only to large cities and to urban Canada, but to the smallest villages as well.

In the third round of municipal infrastructure, rural infrastructure, my constituency would have got roughly $600,000. Once again, understanding the harsh conditions in the north, each territory got a base amount of $15 million plus the $600,000 we would have got on a per capita basis. There are all sorts of projects in the smallest towns, villages and cities in Yukon.

We add to that the other elements of the new deal for cities. That includes the GST rebate. As members opposite were saying in question period today, municipalities would like to have stable revenues for certain projects. People in my riding were very excited, as I am sure they were across the country, about the GST rebate for municipalities to use to build better communities across the nation. It is secure funding they can depend on.

What has sent me off on this tangent is my excitement about the part of the new deal related to the gas tax. The deal was signed about four days ago when I was in my riding for constituency week. It was a very exciting event. I would like to expound on it, so it looks like I am not going to get through the rest of my speech and I will have to save it for another time.

It is an exciting new way of working. It is a bit different in my constituency. The infrastructure minister should be commended for being very flexible and for developing models that are effective in different parts of the country. I am sure everyone in the House of Commons would agree that this is leading in governance.

In my area there is a breakdown of the funds. A portion goes to traditional municipalities, which are governments on their own. A portion goes to the first nations governments. A portion of the funds goes to unincorporated communities. This is particularly creative because some of these communities may have otherwise fallen through the cracks.

I give great credit to the Yukon government, the Association of Yukon Communities and the grand chief of the Council of Yukon First Nations for working together to come up with this formula so that all communities in the Yukon can partake in this program. It is particularly exciting that these communities will be developing sustainability plans into the future before they apply for the funds. They will have outlined a plan. Some of the very small communities may not have had the capacity and there will be some funding for that. They will create a sustainability plan for the future. It is a modern, vibrant innovation which I hope other regions of the country will look to.

In some of our areas the sustainability plan includes the coordination of a first nation community and a municipality which are in the same community adjacent to one another. They have to work together if they are building sewers, water works and roads. It would not make sense to have uncoordinated efforts taking place.

There will be a sustainable community plan that includes both portions of a community. This is a very exciting innovation. The grand chief and the president of the Association of Yukon Communities spoke very eloquently about the first nations governments and the municipalities working together in a shared common vision of future sustainable communities.

This is permanent, stable funding for communities to become sustainable in the future so they can look at things like bike lanes, clean water and sewers, things that are so expensive in the northern communities. Creating sustainability plans in the north is very exciting for my riding. It will continue into the future. After the five years expires, there will be $15 million a year that our communities, with their very small tax base and very large demands, will be able to count on to have sustainable, attractive and economically productive communities in the future.

I am very excited about all the items I have talked about today related to this budget. I could make 20 more speeches on various other themes in the budget but time does not permit it, so I will conclude.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to say that I was absolutely bowled over with enthusiasm by that last speech, but I have to say that I was not.

In fact, I would like to tell the hon. member about a little phone-in contest held by CBC North. I know that he represents the north. I represent a certain section of the north. It was based on the fact that the town of Iroquois Falls had to sell its municipal office to pay to pave its roads. The call-in show on CBC in Sudbury asked what other things we could sell off so that small northern municipalities could actually have paved roads.

I have to tell members that my wife almost had to tie me to the chair because I had so many choice suggestions about what we could sell off to benefit people in northern Ontario. Now that I am a diplomatic member of Parliament I will not give members some of the suggestions, but if anybody wants to go out for a beer afterwards I would be more than willing to share some of my suggestions.

So here we have the town of Iroquois Falls, which is suffering from years and years of neglect, but it is not suffering on its own. In fact, our whole corridor up Highway 11 is suffering from years of neglect and a lack of infrastructure dollars. There is no excitement up there about any promises on infrastructure, because we were told that the great COMRIF program was going to revitalize the north and all our little communities were going to get a fair chance. Everybody did their best and tried to make sure they would get a share of the funding.

Lo and behold, when the first round came back we found that Moosonee was turned down. Hearst was turned down. Kapuskasing was turned down. Timmins was turned down. Iroquois Falls was turned down. Smooth Rock Falls was turned down. Kirkland Lake was turned down. In fact, we could actually take a road map of Highway 11 north and see where this Liberal government said, “Sorry, none of these communities qualify”.

I am talking about municipal rural infrastructure. Who are we losing out to? We are losing out to the big municipalities in southern Ontario, the urban municipalities. Our small communities of 500 and 1,000 people are losing to them. Let us be honest and frank here. If governments are going to be putting in money, they are going to be putting it into where the votes are, so our northern municipalities got zero, zippo, nothing.

I would like the hon. member to explain this. Will this government commit in this new budget to actually delivering on some of the promises for our region of the north?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping the minister responsible for infrastructure will ask me a question in order to allay the hon. member's fears. It sounds like I have to give my speech again and outline all the various infrastructure programs that are available to his communities, but I will make--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

They get zippo.

[An hon. member]

We need highways.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

First of all, as members know, infrastructure is originally provided by the municipal tax base. After that it is provided by subsidies through provincial governments. I think the members should have concentrated on all those years before this and the relationship between the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Ontario provincial government, when cuts were being made to municipal infrastructure.

There is no lack of spending in these programs. Municipalities, municipal associations, provincial governments and the federal government work together on criteria and they work together on the allocation of funds to the areas they would go to.

I cannot speak on the specifics about the hon. member's particular region, but I know that every single municipality in my region benefited extremely well from these programs. There have been very few programs in the history of Canada with such a pervasive success story for infrastructure.

To recap, municipal infrastructure funding is very important. It was reinstated a second time. Then came the strategic infrastructure fund for large projects in provinces and territories, which was very popular and exciting in that once again it was a second round of strategic infrastructure projects. Then the gas tax was allowed. Iroquois Falls and all the municipalities in the hon. member's riding can use that money and put it toward their infrastructure. They have their municipal GST rebate. The gas tax rebate will be coming. These communities can also use the third round of rural municipal infrastructure funding. There are all sorts of funds available for the hon. member's communities.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Minister of State (Infrastructure and Communities)]

Mr. Speaker, this is by way of a somewhat rhetorical question to the member for Yukon. Is the member for Yukon aware that the municipal and rural infrastructure funds are available to every province and territory upon the signature being arrived at with that province or territory and the federal government, and that this is for the smaller communities, including smaller communities in the region the previous member alluded to?

I just want to make sure that the hon. member for Yukon was aware that there was total fairness in the municipal and rural infrastructure funds.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, that was a very good rhetorical question. I wish it had been longer.

While we are talking about these large amounts of money, seeing as it was a rhetorical question I would like to take the opportunity to finish what I was going to say about the new deal. The new deal is not simply all these various programs and funds that I talked about, which are available to communities across the country for the first time in history to build exciting, sustainable communities. It is also about a whole new relationship among governments in Canada. The new relationship is I think a monumental step forward by the government.

It first started out with the relationship with one order of government in Canada, which are the first nations governments and the great national day of aboriginal leaders, which is now broken into round tables. They will very soon be meeting with cabinet and coming up with recommendations in specific areas.

With the four orders of government in Canada, there is a whole new working relationship being developed. Now there is a new deal and there is a whole new relationship being developed with municipalities, but not just municipalities and the federal government, because of course the federal government is respecting provincial and territorial jurisdiction over municipalities, so that it is a tripartite agreement, a partnership, a working together to make this country great.

As I just outlined, in our particular gas tax deal signed four days ago, it is a four way partnership of first nations government, municipal government, federal government and territorial government to make Canada a better place to live.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, through his speech, I would think that my hon. colleague would probably agree with me that through the whole budget process here, the actions of the official opposition could at best be termed bizarre.

First there was the rare show of wisdom on the part of the leader of the official opposition. Upon the budget being delivered, with the ink barely dry on the budget, he stood and offered his support for the budget. He saw nothing in the budget that would bring this country to an election. I thought it was a rare show of wisdom.

Then, of course, there was first reading of the budget when the entire official opposition decided to phone in sick. When it was the turn of those members to stand and vote in the House of Commons, where were they? They were sitting on their hands. They did not want to engage in this. They decided to opt out of the job that Canadians have sent us to do here in the House of Commons.

Then, of course, came the bump in the polls. The official opposition experienced a little bit of a spike. I know it is a young party, but in those members' post-pubescent glee they thought that Canadians were overwhelmingly driven and wanting an election. I think that has been replaced by the “what the hell were we thinking” phase. I nearly forgot about the “I am going to hold my breath until I turn blue” phase, when they did not show up in committee. They would not do their parliamentary duties. They tied this place up for a week. We were sent to Ottawa to do this duty, but they opted out on that one.

Here is my question for my colleague. Looking at the situation that the members from Newfoundland and Labrador find themselves in and the call from Danny Williams to stand to support this budget, does he think this is yet another ploy to mask the true intentions of the official opposition?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I forgot to say in my speech was that the three northern territories are also getting $6.7 million extra in the equalization type of funding.

I would also like to say how well the member behind me represents not only his area; he is always supportive of initiatives in other parts of Canada. I think that is a great hallmark of this party.

I do not want to beat up on the opposition with a partisan answer to this very partisan question, but I would like to say that I think Conservative voters must be very disappointed with that party. We were elected to govern with another party on various initiatives. Conservative members withdrew their support from the budget and Conservative voters must be very disappointed that they forced us into a coalition with another party and a lot of extra expenditures, which, by the way, I think are good expenditures.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate. Some interesting and different aspects of the budgetary process have been brought out. There are a couple of things which for sure will encompass some of the comments that we have made. One of them is on this infrastructure program.

I was talking to the chairman of the Regional Municipality of Niagara. I offered him a dollar because, I said to him, it was one more dollar than he has seen from any Liberal infrastructure program. That would come from a Conservative and that would be one dollar more than he or any of those municipalities have seen.

It is a little like the child care commitment. All the members are preparing for an election. The Liberals want one in the wintertime. We thought it more reasonable for it to come at this time of year or perhaps in the fall, but they are already gearing up their child care or day care package. It is a beautiful sight to behold except for the fact that we now have seen it about five times in a row. This would be, by my calculation, the fifth election in a row in which the Liberals have proposed a day care program, and when we add it all up, five bucks has not come. Five elections and we have not seen $5 of this, but the Liberals are prepared to trot it out one more time.

I say to those members that they will eventually support the motion by the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. My two colleagues from Newfoundland have been pushing, along with our Nova Scotia members, to have the Atlantic accord split out so that they do not get bogged down with Liberal budgetary promises that no one will ever see. They want this now because they know it is good for Atlantic Canada, it is good for Newfoundland and Labrador and it is good for Nova Scotia.

I am going to make a prediction. Those members over there will eventually come to that conclusion. They will back these two members and split this off from the budgetary process. I ask those members of the Liberal Party why they are still worried about the budgetary process. It is not their budget anymore. They turned over the budgetary process to the NDP--

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Nineteen members did what 99 of you guys couldn't do.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

The hon. member says those 19 members are responsible for the budgetary process. I agree. He is right. It is the NDP. The leader of the NDP says it is a NDP budget. Of course it is: it is one that is short on specifics and long on spending commitments, lots of them. That is an NDP budget right there.

When I saw the deal the Liberals and the NDP cut, a two page budget of $4.6 billion, it reminded me of the one comment the Prime Minister made in the last election that I agreed with. He said that whenever the NDP looks at a problem, the solution to every problem starts with a dollar sign and ends with a whole lot of zeros. There is no doubt about that.

I say to the Liberal members that the Prime Minister was right. That one time, he was right about the NDP members. Why are those Liberal members worried about the budgetary process? I say to them, do the right thing with the Atlantic accord and split it off. How much do they owe to the NDP? In my opinion, those members owe more to Atlantic Canadians, the people from Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. The Liberals owe more to them than they owe to the people in the NDP.

I say to them that they should support this. If the Liberals do not want to do this, I think there is something that is important before they cave in on this. They have a terrific record about which I would love to go on at length on all the things they have caved in on, but before they cave in on this one and split it off from the budgetary process I think every single Liberal should have the opportunity to make a speech and get on the record why they oppose this so they will have something to talk about to explain why they will change their minds a little later.

At this point I want to give them that opportunity, so I am prepared to move the following motion. I move:

That pursuant to Standing Order 26(1), the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering Motion No. 51 in the name of the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl.

Let us go all night long on this.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion is in order. Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places?

And more than 15 members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

More than 15 members having risen, the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.

(Motion withdrawn)

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 51 which is on the notice paper and is in the name of the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl. In the motion at the beginning and at the end it states:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Finance that it divide Bill C-43...be reported back to the House no later than two sitting days after the adoption of this motion.

Bill C-43 is the budget bill. Tomorrow at 11 a.m. the finance committee will be meeting. If the Conservative Party wants to have the Atlantic accord passed, tomorrow at finance committee members should appear, pass Bill C-43 and get it back to the House tomorrow, two days early.

This is not a simple matter. What has been asked is that an element in the budget, a budget which has 24 different segments in it, be carved out and be dealt with separately. It is certainly not a matter of parliamentary tradition. More important, we are talking about a budget in a minority scenario. It was 25 years ago that Joe Clark was prime minister of Canada. He told the country he would govern as if he had a majority. We know exactly what happens when a party governs as the majority when there is only a minority. A minority government is an important concept in democracy. Minority governments can work. Minority governments have worked and it takes cooperation among the parties.

However, what we have here is an example of duplicity in terms of what the official opposition would care to do. First, if the Atlantic accord is so important, then why did the Conservatives support the budget, Bill C-43, on May 29, which includes the Atlantic accord, and then on the immediate subsequent vote, vote against Bill C-48 which would have dissolved Parliament and sent us to an election, thereby killing the Atlantic accord?

If they were really honestly and truly behind the Atlantic accord, which I know our party is because it is an important part, how could they somehow vote for part of the budget implementation bill and then turn around and vote to dissolve Parliament? That is not the way this place works. It is certainly not the way a minority government works.

Why would the official opposition decide to have an unholy alliance with the Bloc Québécois, which sole purpose to be here is to promote the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada? The Bloc leader said just yesterday on a news program that his members were going to vote against the budget. They are against the Atlantic accord and yet the Conservative Party has an alliance with them to defeat the government. The leader said, “let's defeat this government at the earliest opportunity”.

How many different alliances do they have to have? If it were really important, they would have come together with the rest of the House, ignoring the Bloc's narrow view of Canada, and worked with the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party to find a way to work toward a solution. What happened? There was no goodwill, no good faith shown by members of the Conservative Party to make minority government work. All they wanted to do was defeat the government and send us into an expensive election that was not necessary. They know very well that it would have resulted in another minority government after spending another $250 million.

I understand the thrust of the motion. I support the Atlantic accord. I support it as part of the budget. It is part of this government's budget. It is part of the budget bills combined, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, which are reflective of the collaboration and the cooperation that is necessary for a minority government to work. Official opposition members are opposed to Bill C-48. They want to defeat it. They want the government to fall and they will continue to play games. How can we understand the sincerity of their support for the Atlantic accord?

The Atlantic accord will die if Bill C-48 dies. The best way to get the Atlantic accord in force is to get the budget passed. Get both bills, Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, to committee. Get them back to the House quickly without amendments at report stage, have a quick debate at third reading and get it to the Senate. Let us get royal assent and let us get things moving.

The way a minority government has to operate is in collaboration. I wish everybody could have everything that they want for their constituents and for their parties, but we are a Parliament of Canadians. We are here on behalf of all Canadians. We have to balance those interests. We have to ensure that the interests of all Canadians are considered, not just one segment of a budget.

That budget went through an exhaustive process of consultation with all Canadians across the country. The finance committee visited every region of the country to ask Canadians what was important to them. They came before the finance committee here. All the economists and financial experts came before committee. The committee had representations of every region of the country, all the major groups and organizations, came and advised the government on their priorities.

What were they? I have a list here. I do not think I have to go through and read them. The priorities included such things as lowering taxes for Canadians, increasing the limits that could be contributed to RRSPs, eliminating foreign property limitations, increasing disability benefits for children, increasing the period for registered education savings plans, increasing the maximum medical expense supplement and extending the date for charitable giving with regard to the tsunami relief effort. Do members remember that? Also included were an increase in the GIS for our seniors, the changes to the air travellers security charge and the excise tax cut. If the members would like to look at the summary of the bill, part 12 enacts the Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador additional fiscal equalization offset payments act.

I could go through each of the elements of the budget and I could tie it in to the advice that Canadians gave to parliamentarians, to the finance committee and to their members of Parliament with regard to important elements. Some of those elements are directly related to certain regions of the country, but on balance it is a budget for all Canadians and that is how it has been presented to Canadians.

When I looked at this motion, I asked myself very honestly whether I felt it was coming in good faith and good will. We had a vote on May 19 on Bill C-43 and Bill C-48. I remember what happened. I think Canadians remember what happened. The Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP supported the budget. The Bloc Québécois members, those who want to separate from Canada, voted against the budget. Unless it has something to benefit Quebec, they do not care about the rest of the country. That is who they are representing. Then on Bill C-43 the Conservatives no longer supported the budget, including the Atlantic accord.

[An hon. member]

What were they supporting?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

What were they supporting? They were supporting the Bloc Québécois to defeat Bill C-48 which would have defeated the government and put us into an election.

Why would they support the budget and then turn around and dissolve Parliament? This motion is precisely the same thing. When was it tabled in the House? It was tabled on May 26, last week when we were off. It takes 48 hours notice. This is yet another point of evidence about the bad faith that the Conservatives have shown with regard to making a minority Parliament work. That is the issue.

Let us consider what happened with the 2004 budget. It was introduced in mid-March and it received royal assent on May 14 of the same year. When Parliament works, the budget implementation bill gets passed.

This year's budget was introduced a week later in the calendar cycle, on March 25. It is already May 30. This budget could have passed already.

If it had not been for the bad faith of the Conservative Party and the unholy alliance between the right and the wrong, then this budget would have been addressed. It would have been referred to the finance committee. We would have had the budget dealt with at the finance committee, back in the House and given royal assent.

Now we have this motion. I note that throughout this day, other than the mover of the motion, members from the Conservatives and the Bloc have not been participating in the debate. They do not care about the motion. This is yet another example of failure to cooperate in a minority environment.

The Conservatives know quite well that the finance committee starts its hearings on Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 tomorrow at 11 a.m. The opposition has the majority of the members on that committee. I urge Canadians to watch what will happen at that committee to see how true they are to their word that they want the Atlantic accord to pass.

If the Conservatives believe that the Atlantic accord should move forward swiftly, then they have to pass out of committee both Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 without amendment. I do not think that will happen. I think we will see some games start tomorrow. I think we will see a lot of obstructionism. I think we will see that those bill will take a long time. I do not think they will give the budget a chance to come back to this place before we rise for the summer break.

I think the whole issue here is whether there ever will be a good faith gesture on behalf of all parties, which are at least in favour of a united Canada, to work together to ensure that the important issues of the day, which affect Canadians from region to region to region, are dealt with by this place.

We must understand fully that we will never get everything that we want. However, if there is a good faith gesture to be given, now is the time to give it. Now is the time for the parties to work together, to work with the priorities to ensure that they are properly represented.

If it had not been for the Prime Minister to sit down with Premier Williams, the Atlantic accord would not have existed. There was a serious problem there. I do not believe there is a member in the Conservatives, Liberals or NDP who has a problem at all with the Atlantic accord. We want to see it implemented.

For the Atlantic accord to be implemented, we have to get the bill out of committee unamended. We have to get it back into the House without report stage motions and with restricted debate at third reading so we can get to the vote at third reading. Then we can show our collective will to support the budget implementation bill in all its elements to which I have related.

When I came to this place in 1993, I wanted to work as a member of Parliament, to be a part of the House and maybe leave a fingerprint somewhere. I wanted to have some influence and to work hard for my constituents. It did not matter whether I was an important person in cabinet or something like that. That was never an issue. I think if most people in this place were asked, they did not even know how much a member of Parliament made when they ran for public office. It was not a consideration. They wanted to come here.

This last session has probably been one of the least comfortable sessions we have had. I understand we are in a minority situation. However, I have never seen such a deterioration of the collaboration and the communications between members. I have seen friendships broken. I have seen people start to become meanspirited.

Parliament and committees cannot work when that is going on. As far as I am concerned, we must begin on a member by member basis to renew our trust in each other and to do the right thing on behalf of Canadians. We must do our job at committee and we must come here to participate in debate, not lay out ideas on how to trip up the government in order to cause an election. If that is the idea, why all the games? Why not just keep putting forward confidence motions?

All I know right now is that as a member of Parliament I am prepared to work within a minority situation to try to do the best that we can.

I talked earlier about Joe Clark's government and the fact that it was a matter of numbers. I do not think members want to have to go through that again.

When I ran in the February 1980 election as a Liberal candidate for the first time, I was proud to represent a political party and its views. I suspect every member in this place were dedicated to their party and to its platform. We all wanted to come here to make those things work, to make a difference, to fight on behalf of the interests of our regions, to work hard to resolve the issues our constituents had relating to federal jurisdiction and to represent the interests to other jurisdictions.

As we can see in this budget, it touches upon many areas that are principally provincial jurisdiction: post-secondary education, day care, infrastructure, a deal for cities and the health care system. Delivery of health care is at the provincial level but it is done through collaboration and cooperation. The Canada Health Act provides the framework under which it operates but each of the provincial governments has those responsibilities.

We are collaborating with our provincial counterparts to make sure that policy, even at the provincial, regional and municipal levels, is acting on behalf of the best interest of all Canadians.

We should take the lead role in terms of providing the example to all elected officials at all levels of government that we have to work together.

I think the motion comes from the heart of the member. I have talked to him many times about this and I know he honestly believes this. However he also knows that if Bill C-43 passes through committee tomorrow, and it could if there is a will, the Atlantic accord, along with that, would come back to this place and we could deal with it. It would be faster than even this motion.

Why the motion? The motion basically makes me wonder whether there is this element of goodwill that still exists. It is a very important for Parliament to demonstrate that goodwill.

We heard the members from Cape Breton, Charlottetown, Yukon, Toronto and Scarborough, the parliamentary secretary, talk about the importance of this budget to their regions, but we also heard them clearly say that they understood the importance of the Atlantic accord. It is just as important as any other aspect of the budget because together it forms a framework where Canada becomes a better place in which to live and work.

We are here to do the best we can to ensure Canada is a better place in which to live and work.

[Loyola Hearn, Conservative, St. John's South, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to see what transpired here this afternoon. Those members have completely and utterly ignored this issue since we first brought it to the House. They procrastinated and refused to deliver benefits to Atlantic Canada but then were embarrassed and forced into it during the last election and made a promise. When they won the election, we then had to do everything to force them into an agreement. Once they got an agreement, they tried to drag it out as long as they could through comprehensive legislation. This afternoon, when they had a chance to speed up the passage of the single piece of legislation, they talked it out so there would not even be a vote.

How can the member, in good faith, in light of what is going on at the Gomery commission, where, because people did not scrutinize legislation in the past, millions of dollars have been wasted, ask this House, through committee, to pass everything in the wink of an eye? How can he be responsible and ask a question like that? Why are you trying to hold Atlantic--

[The Deputy Speaker]

I would remind the member to address his questions through the Chair. The hon. member for Mississauga South has a minute to respond.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the member is asking us with the wink of an eye to pass one element of the budget. I do not know why he would discriminate against seniors, child care, moneys for the environment and health care.

The budget has been scrutinized and a number of elements will require technical amendments. All I have to say is that we support the Atlantic accord, we support the budget and we support Bill C-48. We ask all hon. members to do the honourable thing, which is to pass both bills and let us get royal assent.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question today for the Minister of Justice relates to an item of business that arose in question period on February 18. I asked a question at that time. I will read it and then ask for his response to it. At the time, I asked:

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week the government reversed half a century of Liberal policy by declaring that the Minister of Justice favours retaining the power of disallowance--

That is Parliament's power to disallow or strike down provincial laws.

--under which his cabinet can unilaterally strike down provincial laws.

It was explained that his position is that the federal Liberals are prepared to use this power under what were described to the House as extraordinary circumstances. I invite the minister to explain to the House which provincial laws, actual or hypothetical, he would categorize as being sufficiently extraordinary to be disallowed by his cabinet.

I should mention that a cabinet power is a power that is not exercised by the House. It is exercised by the federal government. This is a power which has fallen to disuse and I will speak about that in a second. His response was simply to say:

--I am not speculating on when such a power would be used or if, even, such a power would be used. The power is there. I do not speculate on hypotheticals.

Surely that is one of the most inadequate answers ever recorded in the House.

The power of disallowance is an antiquated, colonial vestige, a holdover of the period during which Canada was a British colony, the immediate post-Confederation period. The imperial government in London had the power to strike down federal laws and the government in Ottawa was seen in a sense as a colonial power that wanted to move over the provinces. This was at a time before there were was any form of a charter of rights and this was seen as a means of protecting rights through essentially colonizing lower orders of government.

This is an antiquated power. It has not been used in Canada since 1937 and has not been contemplated since the 1940s. It is really 60 years of Liberal policy that has been reversed.

I thought I would take a moment to talk a bit about the last time this power was considered to be used. That is the only guide we have to the suggestion by the Minister of Justice that he would be willing to revisit and reuse this power.

In 1944 the CCF government in Saskatchewan was elected, the first social democratic government in North America. It proposed a series of pieces of progressive legislation, which would now be regarded as essentially middle of the road pieces of legislation, and Mackenzie King's government considered striking down those laws. This prompted Tommy Douglas to go on the radio in Saskatchewan to make certain points.

He said, “If the federal government has any doubts about the constitutionality of our legislation, this is a matter for the courts to decide. Certainly it is not a matter which comes from the duties of the federal government.

He also pointed out that in 1937 when the Quebec government passed the padlock law, which was an infringement of the rights of a free people, the federal government refused to take any action on the grounds that it could not interfere. However, when Alberta endeavoured to pass certain pieces of legislation affecting large corporations, the federal government acted with a swiftness and a ruthlessness that was amazing.

Eugene Forsey commented that one could always count on the federal government using its power to intervene on the side of the big guns, as he put it. It seems to me this power remains a great danger for this reason and it seems to me it is appropriate and indeed incumbent upon the Minister of Justice to say that he would never under any circumstances use this power.