Debates of June 16th, 2005

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

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise in the House tonight to talk about Bill C-48. I think that Canadians should know how much information there is in the bill about the $4.5 billion that it covers. I will read it out so that Canadians understand the lack of detail. It states:

(a) for the environment, including for public transit and for an energy-efficient retrofit program for low-income housing, an amount not exceeding $900 million;

(b) for supporting training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education, to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.5 billion;

(c) for affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.6 billion; and

d) for foreign aid, an amount not exceeding $500 million.

There is no detail. It is a blank cheque. Canadians should understand that there is no detail. Why would we support something of that nature?

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that every Canadian can live in a country with the highest standard of living in the world. Our goal is that every Canadian who wants a job should be able to get a job. Our goal is that every region of the country will enjoy economic growth and new opportunities for the people of those regions. Our goal is to make Canada the economic envy of the world. We want every mother and father in Canada to be able to go to bed at night knowing that their children will have the chance to live the Canadian dream. They will be able to get post-secondary education, find a good, well paying job, afford to start a family, buy a house, save for their retirement, and ensure that they can have a bit left over for summer camps and vacations. One can only do that if the government does not overtax Canadians and then recklessly spend their tax dollars.

Instead, in most Canadian families, both parents need to work, one just to pay the taxes. In my opinion, a dollar left in the hands of the family household or entrepreneur is more beneficial than a dollar left in the hands of a bureaucrat or a politician.

As the Conservative member of Parliament for Oxford, I am offended by these gross budget surpluses. They are nothing more than poor forecasting and overtaxing. If the finance minister had $4.5 billion left over after he created the original budget in Bill C-43, why did he not apply it to the national debt? Why did he not use it as a tax break for middle income families?

Bill C-48, which we have come to know as the $4.5 billion NDP budget, is a prime example of how not to govern a country. We have before us a budget bill that in effect promises money to be directed to social programs, contingent on the fact that there is a budget surplus in 2006.

This fairytale deal was born in a hotel room by a Prime Minister desperate to survive the Gomery inquiry testimony of Liberal Party scandal and corruption. His partner, the leader of the NDP, chose to ignore the stench coming from the Gomery inquiry and instead chose to improve his own public profile by making a deal that nobody, including the Minister of Finance, wanted. Today we find ourselves debating a bill that has no specific plan. I just read it out loud. It has no details, just pie in the sky promises on how to spend $4.5 billion.

Let us take a moment and think what $4.5 billion would have done for farmers in this country. In the main budget we have to use a microscope to find a mere mention of Canada's agricultural sector. In this add-on budget it aims to take away experimental farms that are vital to serving the different regions of the country. That is the Liberal way, cut here and spend it there.

What would $4.5 billion have done for the development of more doctors in this country? The Conservative Party has consistently opposed the Liberal approach to spending without an adequate plan, which is reflected in Bill C-48. The Liberal approach is cruel not only to taxpayers, but more importantly to those who depend on promised services.

Think of what we could have done with that money to address Canadians' concerns with waiting lists. How many more MRI machines could have been purchased to alleviate the wait for those who are suffering? No, instead we needed to earmark $4.5 billion to the ideals of the NDP. In turn, what Canada received was another 10 months of governing by a party that lacks vision, leadership and integrity.

Just because we are opposed to this budget of convenience does not mean my party lacks a social conscience. The Conservative Party wants to ensure the social needs of Canadians are met. We recognize that many Canadians are not receiving the level of assistance from the federal government that they deserve. This is a direct result of the Liberal government's approach to problem solving: throw money at problems without an adequate plan to ensure the level of service actually gets delivered and meets the targeted results it was created for in the first place.

It would be irresponsible and cruel to Canadians in need to know that more money is being thrown at programs that are not meeting their objectives. The responsible Conservative Party approach would be for the government to first ensure that existing money is spent effectively to improve programs and services to ensure that nobody is left behind.

At the finance committee the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition rejected Conservative Party efforts to restore prudent fiscal management, to include real solutions for Canadians, such as matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women and to ensure accountability and transparency.

At report stage the Conservative Party has tried once again to move amendments to make the spending in Bill C-48 more accountable to Canadians and to reflect a more prudent fiscal approach.

The Conservative amendment to clause 1 would raise the amount of surplus that would be set aside for debt paydown. The interest saved as a result of additional federal debt paydown is needed to prevent cuts to social programs as a result of the impending demographic crunch.

The Conservative amendment to clause 2 would force the government to table a plan by the end of each year outlining how it intended to spend the money in the bill. Spending without a plan is a recipe for waste and mismanagement. It is cruel not only to taxpayers but more important, as I said, it is cruel to those who depend on promised services.

The Conservative amendment to clause 3 would ensure that important accountability and transparency mechanisms were in place for corporations wholly owned by the federal government. Accountability and transparency should be paramount to any government, especially in this case, considering Bill C-43 advocates spending an additional $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money. Accountability and transparency, as I said, are important. We have lost that in the government and what we end up with is wasteful spending of taxpayers' money.

There has been a lot of discussion in the House today from the NDP and the Liberals questioning what it is that we do not like about Bill C-48. I would like to make it clear that it is not so much what is in Bill C-48 that we do not like, but has more to do with what it lacks. There is no concrete plan on how that money will actually bring reality to the promises made.

I would like to give some examples of why my party has no faith in the promises made by the Liberal Party. The Liberal record on spending without a plan should strike fear into any taxpayer in this country. Since 1999-2000, program spending has gone from $109.6 billion to $158.1 billion, an increase of 44.3%, a compound annual growth rate of 7.6%, when the economy itself managed to grow by only 31.6%, a compound annual growth rate of 5.6%. Once the Liberals had our tax dollars, they could not resist spending them even faster than the economy was growing.

It is not surprising there is so much waste with the government. Often the Liberal government responds in a knee-jerk way by throwing money at problems. The Liberals confuse spending money with getting results, such as throwing money at a firearms registry as a way to deal with the criminal misuse of firearms but with no explanation of how this would prevent criminals from getting and using guns. The registry was to cost $2 million. Reports now indicate that the actual cost is close to $2 billion.

Not long ago the Canadian public saw television reports of children high on gasoline and the Liberals simply threw money at Davis Inlet without a plan. The community was moved to new housing a few miles away at a cost of $400,000 per person but the problems went with them.

The Quebec referendum shocked the nation. The Liberals responded by throwing money at it but without a real plan. The result was the sponsorship scandal, a $350 million waste of money with $100 million illegally funnelled to Liberal friends and the Liberal Party. Even worse, it has reinvigorated Quebec separatism.

This bill will do nothing for Canadians. It has no information in it and no plans for spending.

On behalf of my constituents in Oxford, I believe that if there is a budget surplus in this country, Parliament should have a say on how it will be spent, not two leaders looking to advance their own political agendas. We need to keep in mind that this is actually Canadian taxpayers' hard earned dollars, not Liberal dollars, not NDP dollars, but Canadians' dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the hon. member's speech and I rather liked his speech. I was wondering why I liked the speech and then realized that I had heard it before. I suppose a repetition of nonsense kind of wears on a person after a while. Maybe it has a certain amusement factor.

I want to ask the hon. member, what part of Bill C-48 does he not like? Does he not like the notion of putting money into affordable housing that is a priority of Canadians? Does he think that throwing money at the environment is not something that Canadians appreciate? Does he think that throwing money at foreign aid is not something that Canadians want done? Does he think that throwing money at students is not something that Canadians want done?

We could go through the list of the four items which we have identified as spending priorities in this bill. We have to wonder why the hon. member characterizes this as throwing money at those items. Why does the member think that it is fiscally irresponsible to throw money at something less than 1% of the budget of the Government of Canada?

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to tell the Liberals over and over before it finally sinks in that they are wasting Canadian taxpayers' money. We are tired of hearing their questions about what part we do not like. What we do not like is the lack of detail. Money cannot be thrown out there and expect it to stick to the problem. That is all this bill does.

We would ask where the government went from Bill C-43 to get to Bill C-48 and some of the commitments that the government made in its throne speech. They are now non-existent. With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, there is lots we do not like and the government will hear a lot more of the same thing.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too thought it started off as a pretty good speech until I realized I had heard it before as well. I realize that we all have to rely on good solid researchers. Even I have to rely on researchers here.

The hon. member referred to the growth in program spending. There might be a reason why there might be a blip in the increase in program spending. I will ask him to confirm whether or not he agrees with this or not.

After the Liberal government of 1993 had to face program review and get rid of that $42 billion deficit and the $580 billion debt, there was a huge cut in program spending. I remember the average in 1995 and the cut across the board average was 15%, and that was huge.

All of us in this House had to carry that on our backs at that time. Canadians realized they had to do some belt tightening and they did it. We went through that period. After that there had to be some increases.

The member has criticized the increase in program spending. However, Canada's program spending as a ratio of GDP is away below the G-8 average and was the third lowest in the G-8. According to the OECD this will continue in both 2005 and 2006. Why is he complaining about the growth in program spending? We are almost the leader of the pack.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member kindly forgets that the deficit period that was there when you came in was actually inherited by the government that you also followed. It was a government that was led by a Liberal Prime Minister named Trudeau. Perhaps you will recall him.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

May I remind the hon. member. Thank you.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

The problem with increased program spending is the effect of increased program spending. The program spending was increased in Davis Inlet and there is no question about that. It did not help anyone. The program spending increased in the firearms control. It did not help anyone. It is the increase in program spending that is of little or no value that we are concerned about.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate Bill C-48. It is interesting to hear the rhetoric from the other side of the House, on the Liberal side. The Liberals have accused some of our members of repeating ourselves on the issue of fiscal responsibility, accountability, excesses and scandal. I think those are the terms that have been used on our side and certainly does bear repeating.

However, if we all think back to 1993, when the Reform Party came into this House, the issues at that time were just as paramount on issues of accountability and fiscal responsibility as they are today. In fact, they are worse today, and there is only one government that has been in power and that is the Liberal Party. It has been in power since 1993.

At that time, the debt was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $525 billion. The servicing of that debt was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $40 billion to $45 billion every year. That was a huge amount of debt and debt servicing. In 1995 this country almost hit the wall fiscally and economically. It was so close.

In the first two years that the Liberal government was in power, how much did it add to that debt? It was $525 billion or $520 billion. It bounced up to near $550 billion. In fact, if it were not for the Reform Party back in those days, there would have been no control exhibited on the other side of this House on expenditures. That is how serious the matter was back in those days.

If it were not for the efforts of the members on this side of the House, the issue of smaller government would not have even entered the mind of the Liberal Party. In fact, it was pretty much embarrassed but had to cut back on the size of the bureaucracy for a while. The Liberal Party was embarrassed because it had to deal with the deficit spending that it was so engaged in and could not control. It was only because of members on this side of the House which brought that about. We had a message to deliver from the ridings to the government. It was not the other way around.

Up until that particular time, the government of the day was the messenger to the outlying areas. The representatives went back there to tell the constituents what was good for them. We are fast approaching that kind of scenario again. In fact, it never really changed. However, we did manage to dampen that ridiculous spirit that the Liberal Party had in trying to turn things around and tell people in this country what was good for them.

Since that time, in the last two, maybe two and a half years, the bureaucracy is again on the rise. It has increased somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25%. That side of the House does not understand what it means to prepare for those days when things may not be as lucrative as they are now. We will come upon those days. It is a matter of course.

No doubt the majority of us came to the House to make things better in this country. At least that was my intention and I know that was the intention of many of my colleagues on this side of the House. We wanted to make things better for the whole country, not just for part of it and it was certainly not to line our own pockets or that of our friends. We did not have those intentions.

It is an embarrassment to say that has happened in this nation. We have had one scandal after another and they never stop or slow down. They are always there just below the surface and every so often they bubble out and we get a scandal involving an abuse of taxpayers' money.

What has changed? To be honest, I have not seen the rate of decay as significant as it has been over the last few months. There is the deal with the NDP to prop up the government. That is the only reason why it took place. It was not to make things better because this so-called deal has a thousand holes in it. It was just to prop up the government when it deserved to fall.

We are dealing with an eleventh hour deal to keep this corrupt government alive. Liberals included this strange little package in the budget to do it. Really, it is very deceptive to say the least. There is an old saying “desperate times call for desperate measures” and that is exactly what has happened with this arrangement between the NDP and the Liberals.

Bill C-48 commits $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money to NDP spending initiatives. No one really knows what they are. There is no plan and no accountability. When I think back to 1993, I came here for fairly significant reasons. There was no accountability with government. All we heard were messages out of Ottawa telling us this is what is good for us. There were no significant plans and proposals that would make a person in the outer reaches of the country very comfortable. The other issue was the massive debt that had accumulated over time which started under the Liberals and just went sweeping on through and the Liberals expanded on that debt.

The other issue that brought many of us into the House in 1993 was the fact that we were looking into the future of what our kids and grandkids were going to have. It was very bleak. We had a debt with massive debt servicing. We had a government that was not accountable to the people and it continued. It listened in no way, shape or form to anyone out there apart from those who were touting the Liberal message. The Liberals were spending then like drunken sailors and they are still spending like drunken sailors.

Looking at Bill C-48, how far does $4.5 billion go? Can the average taxpayer really understand that? If we were to look at it from the point of view of every man, woman and child, they would each have to fork over $140 to pay off this NDP arrangement. That is significant. Looking at it from the point of view of a family, it would be somewhere between $550 and $600. Maybe that does not sound like a lot to Liberal members, but $550 to $600 will do a lot of good in the hands of the average taxpayer in this country.

The other thing we recognize clearly is that if one puts a dollar into the hands of the average taxpayer in the country, he will make better use of it than any politician or bureaucrat. It is well known. That typifies everything that has gone on in here because the money that has been squandered over all these years is inexcusable.

I could go on and on about how we could address these issues when it comes to expenditures where they would be better placed and the like, but I have to say that Bill C-48 is a bad piece of legislation, to say the least. What makes it even worse is that it was a cooked up deal between two parties, and in fact the finance minister was not even part of it, and it has been sold in a very false way to the people of this country.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, certainly no one would accuse the member that that speech had been made before.

I am confused in that the member talked about when he came to the House in 1993 and how bad things were. I want to remind the member that his party was in power in 1993. I want to remind him that the annual deficit at that time was $43 billion. I want to remind the member that in Bill C-48 there is a clause that the government will not go into a deficit. It is so unfortunate that when his party was in power someone had not thought of putting in a clause when the deficit was going to $43 billion.

When the Conservative Party was in power and it accumulated a debt of $43 billion, why did someone not think to put in a clause and show some fiscal responsibility? What happened to the Reform Party? Is there any chance of bringing the Reform Party back to the House?

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the member that I am very proud of my roots, believe me. I have a very solid foundation when it comes to these issues that we brought to the House. I have nothing to be ashamed of. I do not believe there is one single person sitting behind me who has anything to be ashamed about regarding our position not only on fiscal matters but on social conservative matters as well. We have nothing to be ashamed of.

As we have heard in the speeches tonight by members of my party, we are continuing the legacy of fiscal responsibility, smaller government, transparency and accountability. What more would one want? That is still what we represent.

Let us look back to 1993 when there was a $43 billion deficit. The member is absolutely right in that there is no running away from that. How did the Liberal government straighten it out? The Liberals did it on the backs of the workers who paid EI. That is what they did. They brought in high premiums that paid down the deficit on the backs of the working people in this country. Shame on the Liberals.

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bad day for a guy like me to have a Liberal cheering because I have no use for them.

I think the member realized as I did in 1993 when we came here that some very serious problems existed. For 12 years in a row we listened to budgets being presented from that front bench, all saying the same things year after year. The Liberals were going to deal with child poverty. They are still saying that. They were going to fix housing. That is still the same thing. I hear it again and again. In every budget for 12 years they are going to do these wonderful things.

The Liberals say they are going to take care of post-secondary education. They do not even talk about the real problems with post-secondary education. They talk about paying tuition, but they do not even talk about what it costs to live, about housing, furniture, eating and everything else on top of that. Every year it is in the budget. Every year the same things are in the budget. If it is in the budget every year, does that not tell the member, as it tells me, that the Liberals have accomplished absolutely nothing?

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Wild Rose certainly comes from the same background as I do politically. We want to see fiscal responsibility. We want to see some accountability, smaller government, programs to honestly and legitimately help other people and security in this nation. I could go through a list of things that have fallen apart, which I and most of the members sitting in this chamber behind me have experienced over the last 12 years.

Yes, the same programs and the same issues keep coming up time and time again. No one seems to know where all the money goes. Every so often we hear about a scandal over the way some of the programs have been handled. We hear of friends of those who are sitting on the other side benefiting in a substantial way from contracts. By the time we add it all up, we are looking at billions of dollars. That has gone on for 12 years.

I do not know how members on that side of the House can live with themselves without addressing some very, very significant moral questions. I do not understand it, but the issues are real and they have to be addressed.

Fortunately, there are some members on this side of the House who want to hold the members on that side to account, and we will continue to do that.

[Jim Gouk, Conservative, Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier tonight the member for Scarborough—Rouge River asked a question with regard to the pension plan. He said there was no integrity on this side because members opted out and then they opted back in.

The reality is many of us opted out and we had no guarantee of getting back in. But what was the result of the sacrifice made by the members on this side? The pension plan that was 5% is now 3%. There is now an age requirement. Double dipping has been removed. There was integrity on this side of the House. The sacrifices were made on this side so that costs could come down in this Parliament. We did our part.

Could the hon. member tell us what, if anything, he has ever seen the Liberals do to cut--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.

[Art Hanger, Conservative, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address that point. Certainly, I was one of those members who had opted out and later stepped back into the pension plan. At that point it was at a reduced rate.

In all fairness there were members on that side of the House who felt the same way about that pension plan. There were members in the NDP who felt the same way about the plan. There were some in the Bloc who felt the same way.

It took initiative to do something about it, because these things do not happen on their own. Somewhere, somehow, someone has to sacrifice something. We were prepared to do that. I believe our action benefited all members of the House, not just ourselves. I will not, and many of my colleagues will not, take full credit for what happened. However, somewhere along the way someone has to stand up and stop the bleeding and make it more accountable. It is not hard. It just takes the will to do it.

We often talk about the will not just in matters of fiscal restraint, but in other areas as well, such as supporting security measures in this nation. If we had the will to do it, we would do it. We would support it, but it takes more than that politically. Someone has to sacrifice something.

I am still prepared to do so for my part in this whole initiative as a member of Parliament.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to speak to Bill C-48, which has been described as a New Democratic-Liberal budget bill, notwithstanding it is described as an act to authorize the Minister of Finance to make certain payments.

It is a very strange bill. Normally when the finance minister prepares a budget, the finance minister holds hearings. The finance minister could have his people go all over the country and listen to Canadians as to what should be in the budget. The finance minister receives correspondence and briefs from different groups around the country. The finance minister listens to committees. Then the finance minister finally prepares a budget, which could be quite thick, and makes a presentation giving in very specific detail what is in the budget.

This document, which I say is not a budget, is the most vague piece of legislation that we have seen in this place for a long time. I am repeating some of the things that have been said but I hope the Liberals will finally get it. The word “may” is used throughout the bill.

The bill says that for the fiscal year 2005-06, payments may be made. There is no guarantee that those payments are going to be made. It is the same for 2006-07, that payments may be made. We do not know whether they are going to be made. They may be made; they may not be made.

Then the bill gets into what the allocations are going to be. It says that payments shall be allocated for the environment. What in the world does that mean? It does not say how much. It does not say what they are going to do specifically. It just says “for the environment”.

Then it says “including for public transit”. That is the same thing. What does that mean? The question of public transit has been talked about. Most of the gas money for public transit that has already been given, which is outside this amount, has been given, at least in the province of Ontario, to the city of Toronto. What about the rest of the province? Why can the rest of the province not receive moneys for transit? Why is it all being allocated to the city of Toronto? I live in an area where there is minimal transit, albeit, but the fact is I do not think we are going to see one dime for transit in my riding of Dufferin--Caledon. I do not think we are going to see it under Bill C-48.

The bill states, “For an energy-efficient retrofit program for low-income housing, an amount not exceeding $900 million”. Again, we have no idea what that means. We know it is going to be up to $900 million, but we are not sure.

The bill goes on and on. It talks about training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education.

Of course those are wonderful things. Why can those people not tell us what they are going to do with the money? Why can they not be specific and outline the programs that they are going to spend on? Why be vague? Why be cute about it?

The bill talks about foreign aid. There is a blanket statement, “for foreign aid, an amount not exceeding $500 million”. What does that mean?

All these statements are vague and really, I think, designed to dupe us. The NDP members of course have been duped. They think they got something. They do not have anything. They have no idea what this bill means. They really do not know. Furthermore, they say, “If you pass this budget, if you pass C-48, the cheque will be in the mail tomorrow”.

Do members remember when the 2004 budget was approved in this House? It was approved after the introduction of the 2005 budget.

Maybe they are going to get the money, maybe they are not. Whatever it is going to be, if it is anything, it is going to be a year from now.

It is a very deceptive bill. As I said, the word “may” is used, “The Governor in Council may specify the particular purposes”. Then it talks about all these other programs that the government may get into. It is may, may, may.

Why do they not use the word “shall”? Why do they not outline the programs? Why are they being so deceptive?

The other issue I would like to talk about is that it appears the moneys will be paid out of surplus. The bill says it will make certain payments out of the annual surplus in excess of $2 billion. I must confess that I find this whole process of making payments out of surpluses very strange.

There was a surplus set aside for 2004 and a huge surplus set aside for 2005. Then the government almost failed a few weeks ago. Does everyone remember when the government made all the commitments of payments? It was an enormous amount of money, something like $1 billion in a very short period of time. That is strange. I thought this place decided the specifics of how we would vote on certain programs, but the finance minister and the Prime Minister decided how this would happen.

The leader of the New Democratic Party thinks he has decided. He met with the Prime Minister in a hotel room in Toronto, wrote the budget out on the back of a napkin and that was okay, but that is not the way it is done. That is not the way it is supposed to be done in our country. That is one of the many reasons why I am voting against Bill C-48. It is the most inappropriate way to deal with the finances of our country, on the back of a napkin. What a strange process.

There is no plan whatsoever in this budget. It was done on a wing and a prayer. We expect better from the government and we are not getting it.

I would like to look for a moment at a trend set by the government when it comes to spending Canada's tax dollars without a plan.

Since the 1999-2000 program, spending has gone from $109.6 billion to $158.1 billion, an increase of 44.3%, a compound annual growth of 7.6% when the economy itself managed to grow by only 31.6%, a compound annual growth rate of 5.6%. Once the Liberals had our money, they could not resist spending it even faster than the economy was growing. It is not surprising that there is so much waste by the government with little planning. Bill C-48 is a prime example. I groan at the waste that will come out of this bill.

Often the government responds in a knee-jerk way by throwing money at programs and it confuses spending money with getting results. This is one of them. Bill C-48 is a prime example. The example has been given over and over about the firearms registry. There is absolutely no plan to deal with that. Originally it was estimated that it would cost $2 million. Now it is around $2 billion. It has crept up to that.

The government does not like us to talk about that because it has been a complete failure. Bill C-48 will be a complete failure.

The public saw children high on gasoline on television reports and the Liberals threw money at David Inlet without a plan. The community was moved into new housing a few miles away at a cost of $400,000 per person but the problems went with them.

The Quebec referendum has been referred to by many people on this side of the House. The Liberals responded by throwing money at it but did not have a plan. The result was the sponsorship scandal, this thing that has consumed the government and this place the entire session. There were $250 million of wasted money and $100 million illegally funnelled to Liberal friends and the Liberal Party. Even worse, it reinvigorated Quebec separatism. The Liberals claim they are trying to solve the problem, but they have created the worst problem the country has ever seen.

I could go on and on talking about matters that have been brought up here tonight. The fact is this not the way we should be spending the public's money, simply on the back of a napkin. I hope that there is opposition in the House to defeat this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke rather eloquently about Liberal theft, Liberal corruption, Liberal bribery and Liberal fraud, all of which have been a great cost to Canadian taxpayers. He is right.

I would like to ask him about what I believe will prove to be one of the most spectacular acts of government waste the government will ever engage in, and that is saying something. I refer to of course the $10 billion to $13 billion it plans to spend on its day care scheme. That will mean higher taxes for parents and fewer choices for families. This $12 billion day care scheme will go only to the small group of parents who chose to put their children in mediocre, government-run day care centres to be set up by the government.

In this party we understand that child care is not federal jurisdiction. It is not provincial jurisdiction either. It is parental jurisdiction and that is why we will take child care dollars and put it directly in the pockets of parents, letting them decide how to raise their own children.

The other side, the Liberal-NDP coalition, which is a coalition of socialism and corruption, believe that they should take other people's money and spend it on raising other people's children. We here believe in just giving those dollars directly to the millions and millions of child care experts who already exist. Their names are mom and dad.

Would the hon. member elaborate on that quintessential difference between our party and theirs: us trusting parents, trusting young mothers, trusting young families and them putting control in the hands of bureaucrats and people who have no understanding of the needs of the folks whom we represent?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal child care program, or day care program, has been talked about for 12 years.

[An hon. member]

And it is going to cost $12 billion.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

The member has pointed out that it is going to cost $12 billion. There is no way that we have enough money to pay for all that. We will have to raise taxes to pay for it. When I say we, I mean this institution. The money is not there. That is a lot of money.

Poll after poll has been taken and the people of the country do not want the institutionalized type of day care that the government is proposing, which is all children be put in institutions.

I come from a riding which does not have a lot of those types of institutions. There are some but they are out in the country. People out in the country simply do not have the resources and the availability to bring their children to those institutions. They would rather raise them themselves. If we are to help people raise their children, why in the world would they put them in institutionalized type of day care?

The Conservative Party of Canada believes in choice and that is the only answer as to raising the children of this country.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. gentleman talk about a plan. We in the NDP are a bit confused over the plan of the Conservatives. We heard their spokesperson for child care say in a television interview that they would spend more than the government on day care, so I am a bit confused as to where they are going.

His hon. colleague just said that they would put money in the hands of families so they could raise their children. How much money per year would each family receive from the Conservatives, if they were in government, to raise their children?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing the member is talking about a plan. Those members write plans on the back of napkins. They have a lot of gall talking about what we are going to do.

The Conservatives are going to put the moneys for child care in the pockets of parents, not in institutions.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we will try to tone this down a bit and I may bring a different perspective to this debate than has been brought forward so far.

I came to the House for a specific reason and that was to make life better for Canadians. I have been here now since 2001 and I have learned the hard way that this is not really the aim of government. The aim of the Liberal government is to stay in power.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

That's a big change in tone.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson, BC]

No it is not a big change in tone. I will talk to the member across the way afterward. I have a speech to make.

I came from a background of business and in business there is a very simple motto: one needs to have a business plan in order to survive. One can not just do it by the seat of one's pants and expect to thrive as a business and one cannot do it by the seat of one's pants as a government and expect to thrive as a country. One has to actually plan ahead.

When the government brought forward Bill C-43, the Conservative Party--