Debates of June 20th, 2005

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

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we want to keep our promises, but on that side of the House, promises made are promises broken.

We want every parent in Canada to go to bed at night knowing that their children will have the chance to live the Canadian dream. Our children should be able to get post-secondary schooling, get a good paying job, buy a house and start a family. That can only be done if the government does not spend too much and does not tax too much.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my name to the list of those who are fiscally responsible members in Canada, those who oppose the New Democratic budget, Bill C-48.

I joined my party to vote in favour of Bill C-43, the original bill. It was hard enough in some ways to vote for that bill. Yet there were some measures in it that were some lukewarm attempts to imitate Conservative Party policy. For that reason it seemed to be the expedient and proper thing to vote for that bill. It seems these days the only time the Liberal government is not involved in corruption is when it is imitating our party, when it is trying to mirror something that the Conservative Party would do. We wanted to affirm those halting attempts to be fiscally responsible, hoping that the government would speedily implement those measures that are really to the full advantage of Canadians across the country.

When we get to the other bill, Bill C-48, on the other hand, it is really irredeemable. Many members in my party, and I assume in the other parties, have made comment, and especially the Bloc has objections and problems with the bill as well.

Bill C-48 even makes the finance minister gag. He has to hold his nose I would imagine each time that he dutifully expresses his support for the bill, for that irresponsible piece of legislation which was thoughtlessly thrown together at the last minute by the NDP leader and also by his right-hand man, the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister tried to get this coalition together to keep his corrupt government in power. He is clinging to power with the help of a political party that is prepared to look the other way.That is what the NDP-Liberal government is prepared to do. It is prepared to look the other way when we see some of the things from this worst corruption scandal in the recent memory of this country.

The Liberals are willing to spend billions of taxpayers' dollars to fund this addiction for power and that they should be in power at all times in the history of our country. This is a direct result of the loss of their moral authority to govern. Not only should this bill not be passed, but the finance minister should resign for tabling it. We have called on him to do that. The NDP leader has more influence it would seem on the budgetary framework than the Prime Minister's own Minister of Finance.

Bill C-48 is heavy on the public purse but it is quite light on details. It is quite scant and sketchy. It commits hundreds of millions of dollars in broad areas without any concrete plans as to how that money would be spent. Bill C-48 authorizes cabinet to design and implement programs under the vague policy framework of the bill to make payments in any manner it sees fit.

The government has reserved the right to use the first $2 billion in 2005-06 and 2006-07 budget years from the federal surplus, presumably for federal debt reduction. Any surplus that exceeds $2 billion can be used to fund programs related to the bill.

The government would actually need to post $8.5 billion in surpluses over the next two fiscal years to fully implement the NDP's Bill C-48.

The areas addressed in the bill largely fall under provincial jurisdiction. It is more intrusion, more of the camel sticking its nose into the tent, more of moving into the provincial realm of authority.

Bill C-48 also violates a principle held by the NDP as was presented in its own prebudget report, that Parliament should have an opportunity to decide on the allocation of any budget surplus.

The Conservative Party has consistently opposed the Liberal approach of spending without an adequate plan. This is probably the biggest fault with Bill C-48. The Liberal approach is cruel not only to taxpayers, but more importantly to those who depend on those promised services.

The Auditor General has raised some very serious concerns about the ability of certain departments to actually deliver the programs effectively. Even if the dollars were shovelled off to a particular department, there is a pretty serious question whether in certain areas it would actually be able to make the best value of that, including Indian and northern affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency.

In addition the Office of the Auditor General has stated that it currently is auditing the Government of Canada's climate change expenditures which will be finally released in 2006.

The Conservative Party wants to ensure that the social needs of Canadians are met. Our party recognizes that many Canadians are not receiving the level of federal assistance that they deserve. That is a direct result of the Liberal government's approach to problem solving, which is basically to spend money without an adequate plan.

In most Canadian families both parents need to work, one just to pay the taxes. These Canadian families are receiving less and less each year for the taxes they are forced to hand over to the government. They are receiving less and less in the way of social programming and social services. The Conservative Party has long held that a dollar left in the hands of a homemaker or an entrepreneur is more beneficial than a dollar left in the hands of a bureaucrat or a politician.

It would be very irresponsible and cruel to Canadians in need to throw more money at programs that are not meeting those objectives. The responsible approach would be for the government to ensure that existing money is spent effectively to improve programs and to improve services to ensure that nobody is left behind.

Let us look at the Liberal record in respect to spending without a plan. Canada could have more better paying jobs and a much higher standard of living, but Ottawa taxes too much and spends too much.

Since the 1999-2000 program year, spending has gone from $109.6 billion to $158.1 billion, an increase of some 44.3%, a compound annual growth rate of 7.6%. The economy itself managed to grow by only 31.6%, a compound annual growth rate of about 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 with the government.

Often the government responds to problems in a knee-jerk way by throwing more money at those problems. The Liberals too often unfortunately confuse spending money with getting results. The Liberal government seems to have no true interest in getting results for low and middle income Canadians. As the Gomery inquiry has demonstrated, the Liberal Party is only interested, it seems, in getting results for the rich and the powerful, and for those who can return the favour.

A recent poll shows far more support for the Liberal Party among wealthy Canadians than among low and middle income Canadians. The Liberal Party has declared war on low and middle income Canadians, exploiting them to the advantage of its special friends and for any scheme that guarantees Liberal control over the reins of power in the Dominion of Canada.

Here are three examples of the Liberal government's wasteful and knee-jerk spending on programs that do not work.

We have heard for years now that the wasteful gun registry is the way to deal with the criminal use of firearms, but with no explanation of how this would prevent criminals from getting and using guns. The registry was to cost $2 million. Media reports say that the actual cost is around $2 billion at present and it is adding on as well.

The public saw television reports showing children high on gasoline. The Liberals threw money at Davis 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 simply moved along with them as they relocated to that new location.

The Quebec referendum is another example which shocked the nation. The Liberals responded by throwing money at it, but without a real plan. The result was the sponsorship scandal, a $250 million waste of money, $100 million illegally funnelled off to Liberal friends and the Liberal Party. Even worse, it has reinvigorated Quebec separatism and hurt the face of federalism in the province of Quebec.

In 1966-67 real federal program spending per capita was $3,466. It will have risen to $4,255 in 2005-06, an increase of $800 per capita in volume terms, or $3,200 for a family of four. Current Liberal-NDP spending plans will take it to $4,644 by 2009-10, an increase of almost $1,200 per person.

Increases in real government spending do not necessarily equate to solving problems or even getting better results. That is the major concern we have with Bill C-48. It was written up quickly and is very scant on detail. There is not much there. As a result, the Liberals want to put it through quickly because they say it is very short. Because it is so very short is the reason it needs rigorous evaluation, assessment and scrutiny. It is also why it deserves our full condemnation and rejection at this point.

Much more could be said, but suffice to say that the Conservative approach would be rather different. It would be a responsible and detailed plan that would reflect rather different priorities and rather different results for the Canadian tax paying public.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have really outdone themselves in embarrassing themselves today.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad they are applauding that they have embarrassed themselves.

They spent the morning with no member talking about this bill, costing taxpayers thousands of dollars, and now they are so desperate tonight that they are using the exact same speech. The media will have a field day when they check the speeches. If they look for the line, for instance, that refers to the Auditor General, the department of Indian affairs and CIDA, and if they match all the speeches and find the exact same thing, the media will wonder why we are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on debate.

I have a great deal of respect for the member who just spoke. I know he had to use the speech from his researchers for his first 10 minutes. I will give him a chance now to speak on his own about what is in the bill. Just so that party knows what is in the bill, there is money to follow the plans that we have but we did not put enough money in the past. They are already in our plans and we are spending in these areas. This just enhances it .

The bill provides for the environment, including for public transit and for an energy efficient retrofit program for low income housing, an amount of $900 million. There is money for supporting training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education, to benefit among others, aboriginal Canadians. There is money for affordable housing, including--and I have to admit there was a member opposite who talked about affordable housing, and I compliment him for that--for aboriginal Canadians. For foreign aid, there is an amount not exceeding $500 million.

I would like the member to comment on any of those four items and whether he thinks any of those four items are a good investment for Canadians to be making.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather important to note that it seems that the questions coming from the other side have a familiar ring. It seems that the Liberals are putting recycled questions to us.

The member needs to clearly understand, and I think if I know a little bit of his background he should have an appreciation for this, that the biggest objection we have as a party to this particular budget is the fact that it is unplanned spending. It is somewhat ad hoc.

We would have been interested to know why there was not any of that kind of response in the initial bill, Bill C-43, of the Liberal government. It has been added on at the very end. Was it not a priority early on? Did the Prime Minister and the NDP leader get together and all of a sudden decide there was a need for these things?

Certainly there is a need for some of the things that the member mentioned. However, if the Liberals give out money to some of these particular approaches or programs that he is talking about, who is to say that it would actually get through? Our biggest concern in any of these program areas is, will the dollars actually get through to be spent in the best way for the Canadian public, in respect to housing, in respect to transit? We have pretty good reason to believe there would be some reason to doubt that. We believe there is some question about that. I think the hon. member would want to provide us more detail if he is really sincere about getting some help for these different areas.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party that he might want to read other budget bills and begin with the one he just supported, Bill C-43. In that bill many of the clauses requiring allocation of very large sums of money have even less detail than that entailed in Bill C-48.

For the information of the member, he should know that it is not uncommon to actually spell out in broad terms the provisions, knowing full well that it is this Parliament that will hold the government to account and scrutinize spending.

I would suggest in fact that the Conservatives are in so desperate need of an issue that they are prepared to gloss over the facts, misrepresent the actual situation and provide a lot of innuendo and hearsay, none of it having any basis in truth.

How does the member feel about the $50 million that was allocated in Bill C-43 to the Cattlemen's Association without any specific details in terms of how that money should be spent? Does he have the same concerns about many provisions in other budget bills as he does with respect to Bill C-48, or is it the fact that he just does not like to see any money going to students who are trying to get an education, or to families who are trying to deal with smog and pollution, or to people who just want to get--

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was a little nervous as the member was speaking because she was trying to convince me and talk me out of the fact that I voted for Bill C-43 by saying there was less detail and less concrete things in it. I will not be quite persuaded of that this evening, but I will reiterate what I said before, we have a concern with Bill C-48 because there is very little attention to detail in respect to these things.

I have been, as a student for many years, in the realm of needing assistance with respect to loans and grants and those kinds of things. It took many years to pay it off. We do need dollars in those areas, but we must ensure that we get those dollars to the students. I am not convinced by what I see in respect to the details to which she speaks on those particular items that it is in fact going to get through to those who most need it as well as the environment, housing and the other areas. We do not have concrete details to actually even suggest that it will get through.

I would suggest that it will be a matter of promise made, promise broken between these two parties. It is a coalition that will make a promise, but also break it as readily.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was elected to represent and protect the taxpayers of the riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. I came here as a member of Parliament for the Conservative Party of Canada to represent it and the values conservative Canadians believe in.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that our goal should be to give Canadians 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 should 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 mom and dad in Canada to go to bed at night knowing that their children will have the chance to live the Canadian dream, get post-secondary schooling, find a good well-paying job, afford to start a family, buy a house, save for their retirement, and ensure that they have a bit left over for summer camps and vacations. Maybe they will want to start a business. They can only do that if government does not tax too much and does not spend too much.

When I rise to speak on a substantive issue in the House that is brought before the House in good faith, I always begin my speech by saying what an honour it is to address the issue. However, I cannot honestly call it an honour to speak to this sham of a budget bill. Bill C-48 can hardly even be called legislation. It is not a spending plan. It does not lay out any strategy for dealing with substantive issues. Bill C-48 is only two pages long and proposes to spend $4.5 billion.

Two pages is not enough to lay out a responsible plan for spending that much money. Not one of the cabinet ministers called by the Conservative Party to appear before the finance committee would actually come to the committee to explain how their departments would spend the money this bill allocates to them. Obviously, they do not even have a plan, or at least they are not sharing it with Canadians. When ministers are spending $4.5 billion of the taxpayers money, they owe them an explanation.

The Liberal-NDP coalition will tell us that this bill is all about the environment and aboriginal affairs and all kinds of things, but simply saying that it will spend a bunch of money on something is not a real plan and it will not solve any real problems. In fact, this bill proves that the only result the Liberals care about is staying in power just a little while longer and they do not care how much it costs Canadians.

The sponsorship scandal proved that the Liberals are more than willing to use Canadians' money to buy power, and this bill is just more of the same. Canadians should be outraged and horrified by this kind of reckless, ad hoc, back room legislation. The $4.5 billion proposed spending means about $300 from the pocket of each and every taxpayer in Canada. That is not the kind of thing a government can reasonably or responsibly address in a two page bill drafted in a hotel room.

The finance minister did not even have any input into the deal, yet Buzz Hargrove, an unelected and undeniably biased individual, did. In fact, the finance minister had already tabled a pretty fat budget because the government did not expect, quite frankly, to last this long. The original budget was a Liberal tax and spend pre-election budget that would have increased program spending by 12% in a single year.

The extra money promised in this bill simply goes too far. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce says that to say the program spending is out of control would be an understatement. The Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, chartered banks, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and virtually every other economic expert in the country have expressed very serious concerns about the bill, and for good reason.

The Liberal-NDP government says that this agreement has to be passed now by Parliament to provide immediate relief to all kinds of issues. That is simply disingenuous. In reality, no matter when the bill is passed, if in fact it does pass, none of that money will start to flow until at least August 2006, if ever.

That is because the bill says $4.6 billion can only be taken from the federal surplus in each of the next two fiscal years and only after $2 billion per year has gone to debt reduction. The government will not know if it has a surplus until August of next year which also happens to be well after the federal election.

The Liberal government is misleading Canadian taxpayers. The vague promises and massive expenditures in the bill are nothing but premature campaign promises which will probably never bear fruit. Even those few who support the bill, including the NDP, should be worried about whether the Liberals will ever follow through. At best this bill is a hoax against the NDP and at worst it is a fraud against taxpayers, not to mention seniors, students, the homeless, aboriginal Canadians and all other Canadians mentioned in the bill.

The $1.6 billion to be allocated for relief of the homeless will only be spent, if ever, starting in August 2006 on affordable housing including housing, whatever that means. There are no plans, no definitions and no details. In the area of tuitions, the bill is to provide for an amount not exceeding $1.5 billion for supporting training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education to benefit Canadians. That is far from an iron-clad commitment to lowering university tuitions.

The bill is simply bad for Canada's economy. Even the OECD is warning that the extra spending included in this bill will lead to high inflation and high interest rates. Canada's economic health and reputation will suffer under this legislation. In short, my Conservative colleagues and I will do everything in our power to oppose the bill because it is bad for Canadians, including those it purports to help. I call on all members to put the interests of Canadians ahead of the political interests of those who concocted the bill and vote against Bill C-48.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy listening to the economics of the Conservative way. Let us take a look at what happened in 1993 because that is when many of us came here. We had an unemployment rate of over 10%. We had an interest rate which was very high which hurt everyone who had a mortgage to pay. When we talk about tax cuts, we have to keep in mind that people are paying record level low mortgages, so to pay 4% versus 8% on a $100,000 mortgage would equal $4,000 a year.

However, I want to put into perspective the $4.5 billion the hon. member mentioned. We have a one time expenditure of $4.5 billion, but the portion of the national debt that grew each and every year the Conservatives were in office went from $200 billion to $500 billion in nine years, at a cost to each Canadian of $1,500 a year and it repeats year after year. We are talking about investing in Canadians in very critical areas. My hon. colleague mentioned a one time payment of $300, but the Conservative portion of the debt is $1,500 a year, year after year. I wonder if my colleague could put that into perspective.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about economics the Conservative way and I would love to talk about that but before I do I would like to talk about economics the Liberal way.

He talked about when the country started going into deficit. If I recall, history seems to indicate that started under a Liberal regime. Yes, it was continued through some bad periods of inflation, but I want to remind the member for Kitchener—Waterloo that under the circumstances, with low interest rates right now, what is going to happen, as all the chambers of commerce and economists are now telling us, is that because of this budget interest rates will go up. What will happen to our payments then on this massive debt?

What will happen when interest rates go up another 2%? Where will all the money come from? I would dare to say that if the interest rate goes up 2%, as most people are predicting it will, we will have a heck of a hard time trying to pay the interest on what is close to half a trillion dollars.

Let us talk about economics the Conservative way. This is how we do economics the Conservative way. Our goal is that every Canadian who wants a job will be able to get a job, that every region of the country will enjoy economic growth and new opportunities for people of other regions and to make Canada the economic envy of the world. That is economics the Conservative way.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member, along with other of his colleagues, has spent a bit of time talking about surplus and that the existence of a surplus means that Canadians are being overtaxed. I wonder if the member would care to comment on the fact that, to the extent there is a surplus, that surplus is used to pay down debt. Some $65 billion of debt has been paid down at a savings of some $3 billion a year that is available for the permanent funding of tax reductions, new programs or additional funding for health care.

The question really come to this. If the member wants more tax cuts for Canadians, what does he consider to be a substantive tax cut and can it be afforded without going back into deficit?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things I have to offer the member for Mississauga South.

Yes, we do believe that Canadians are way overtaxed. If we were to discontinue overtaxing Canadians and put more money into the pockets of Canadians, it would spur our economy and the country would have more taxes and each person would pay less tax on average.

The member said that $65 billion have been paid down on the debt but he neglects to talk about the $45 billion that the workers and employers were overcharged in this country. Where did that $45 billion go? Every Canadian employer and employee was overcharged $45 billion, along with the $25 billion that was taken out of health care. That amounts to $70 billion.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the $4.6 billion tax increase that Bill C-48 proposes to collect from all Canadians.

I remind the Liberal-NDP socialist coalition that contrary to what misinformation is spread about business taxation and who does or does not benefit when business taxes are reduced, corporations do not pay taxes. People pay taxes.

What this socialist pact accomplishes in Bill C-48 is a double hit. By reducing productivity and maintaining the high level of taxation on business, while at the same time increasing taxes on Canadians by $4.6 billion, the net effect of the damage is magnified.

Forget about the discussion of a surplus and the Liberal-NDP illusion that the $4.6 billion is spending, not new taxes, that it is the budget surplus, the budget surplus is a myth. There is no budget surplus. The long term debt for Canada exceeds half a trillion dollars.

Canada has a serious deficit when it comes to health care, our military, municipal infrastructure and services, just to name a few. There is no surplus. Talk of a surplus is a hoax that is being perpetuated on the people of Canada by a scandal ridden administration that is out of control and reduced to buying votes with taxpayer dollars.

The Liberal-NDP out of control spending coalition is hoping that most Canadians have forgotten or do not remember the last time this pair teamed up to ruin the country's finances. The last time there was a minority government where the NDP propped up the Liberals was in 1972.

Between 1972-73 and 1974-75 fiscal years, spending jumped by 50%. While spending jumped by 50%, taxes jumped by 52% over the same period of time. From October 1972 to July 1974, the inflation rate more than doubled, from 5.2% to 11.1%.

The rise in inflation led to chartered bank prime rates almost doubling. They climbed from 6% to 11% and the rate on a five year mortgage during the same time climbed to 11.37%.

Canadians need to look at the fiscal record of the last Liberal-NDP accord to appreciate why I and the Conservatives oppose and have consistently opposed the totally irresponsible way the finances of Canada are being run by a government intent on buying support from the NDP in order to cling to power.

We should make no doubt about it, Bill C-48 represents crass, last minute deal making of the worst kind. What makes thoughtful Canadians critical of the Liberal-NDP spending pact is that it represents a huge tax increase. In this case, the Liberal Party is throwing taxpayer dollars at the NDP to buy its support.

The worst part of this misuse of taxpayer dollars is that while lofty goals are being stated on where the new taxes will be spent, there has been no thought and no plan that the intended spending will actually end up in the pockets of those who are the intended recipients.

Of particular interest to my constituents in the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is the plan for families with children and helping those children receive a post-secondary education.

I have been listening with interest to the comments made by the NDP finance critic when the statement is made that the $4.6 billion tax increase will benefit students. Specifically, it is alleged that the Liberal-NDP budget would allocate $1.5 billion to lower tuition costs for students. However this is false because with the hasty way this deal to increase spending was put together, there was no indication of how the $1.5 billion would be spent, much less where.

Let us contemplate for a moment that cash was allocated to reduce tuition, which is the line being pushed by the NDP. In an example provided by Mr. Alex Usher, vice-president of the Educational Policy Institute, let us consider the following.

Let us take a student of sufficient affluence with no grants or loans. Let us assume the student's tuition and fees are about $5,000. Her net cost is $5,000 minus the value of her tuition tax credit, to net out at about $3,800. Now let us give this same student a 10% reduction in tuition. Her cost now would be $4,500 with a net after tax benefit of $380. With a $500 tuition reduction, the affluent student would be better off by $3,800.

Now let us take a high needs student, such as a single independent student, with costs minus resources of $9,000 in Ontario. This student has tuition and fees of $5,000. As with the more affluent youth, the net cost after tax would be $3,800. Now if he has $9,000 in loans, of which anything over $7,000 would be remitted at the end of the year, meaning that effectively he would be carrying a $7,000 loan and a $2,000 grant.

Let me show members what happens when tuition costs are lowered by 10%, which may or may not be the percentage in the budget payoff to the NDP to prop up the Liberals. At a 10% tuition reduction, costs would go down by $500. Therefore the need drops by $500, dropping the student's loan from $9,000 to $8,500. In Ontario, because the threshold remains the same, this student would still have a $7,000 loan but $1,500 in grants. Therefore by not planning or consulting with the province, the student is no better off because the $500 gained through the lower tuition fees would get clawed back by the student aid program, and it does not end there.

Thanks to the tax department, both students would lose $120 of the $500 benefit due to the decrease in the tax credit. Therefore giving a high needs student a $500 break on tuition would mean taking away $500 in grants and $120 in the tuition tax credit.

To summarize, reducing a high needs student's tuition by $500 would make him worse off by $120. What we now have is a Liberal-NDP education policy for post-secondary students where the students are worse off than before the decision was made to increase taxes by $4.6 billion. The $1.5 billion, according to the NDP finance critic, being directed at tuition costs is doing more harm than doing nothing at all. This is a policy where kids who do not need something benefit while the students actually in need lose something.

That is but one example of why Bill C-48 is bad public policy. Bill C-48 hurts students. This budget tax increase hurts all Canadians. The Liberal-NDP approach to spending, without an adequate plan, is something we oppose in the Conservative Party.

I urge all members of the House to opposed Bill C-48, this $4.6 billion tax increase. It hurts all students and it hurts their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, after a speech like that I wonder whether the hon. member has actually read Bill C-48. It is kind of pathetic that she is opposed to spending $4.6 billion. The bill does not call for spending $4.6 billion, or $4.5 billion, to be more accurate about it, unless and until there are certain contingencies achieved. If in fact there is a surplus beyond such and such an amount, namely $2 billion, then the government will spend in these areas. It is called unplanned surplus legislation.

I want to know from the hon. member what she has against affordable housing. Does she think the government should not spend in areas like that? Does she think we should not be spending money on the environment? Does she think we should not be spending on matters to do with post-secondary education? Is there something wrong with spending on foreign affairs and things of that nature?

If the hon. member had actually read the legislation, she would know that there is no commitment to spending unless a certain contingency is reached. If that contingency is reached, then there will be spending. The member is completely misleading in her speech in trying to have people believe that this is wild, reckless and crazy spending.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for confirming that this is wild and reckless spending on the part of the government.

The hon. member spoke about education. Apparently it is not getting through that the bill is actually hurting high need students. In Ontario, for example, a high need student can receive up to $7,000 in loan and $2,000 in grants.

If this plan without a program goes forward, or this plan without a plan, actually, and the student has a 10% decrease in tuition, let us say, the tuition drops for this student by $500. However, because of the clawback provisions in the Ontario government's policy, this student actually gets less money than if the bill had not gone forth in the first place.

There is all this talk about how it is only going to be spent if there is a surplus, but in reality there is no surplus. We have almost half a trillion dollars worth of national debt. Until that is paid off, we really do not have a surplus.

[Roy Cullen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and wondered if she had actually been apprised of what is in Bill C-48, because she talked about the fact that there are no surpluses. Perhaps she thinks the surpluses that the government has produced for Canadians for the last seven years are imaginary as well.

The government has consistently posted surpluses, which has meant that debt is being paid down, and in fact by some $50 billion, which is saving Canadians some $3 billion or so each and every year as an annuity on the debt service costs. The government also has helped to create the economic climate that has been good for business, with business development at roughly 3% growth every year. Unemployment is down to the lowest levels in years, to below 7%. There was the largest tax cut in Canadian history, of $100 billion, in the year 2000. The fact is that people are able to go out and buy homes for the first time because of the low interest rate regime that the government has helped create. There is low inflation.

I think fondly back to the days when my colleague, Hector Cloutier, represented that area. I am sure that Mr. Cloutier had a better understanding of these bills as they came to the floor of the House of Commons.

Perhaps the problem is this. I understand that the Conservative party gutted the entire bill at committee. Perhaps when the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke read the bill, there was nothing in the bill because the committee, on the recommendation of the Conservatives, had gutted the bill. Maybe she saw the bill, there was nothing in the bill and she drew a blank, because she clearly does not understand the bill. She does not understand the fiscal performance of the government.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it must be getting very tiring for the member opposite to make such misogynistic comments.

It is the Bank of Canada and not the Government of Canada that sets the interest rates. A $4.6 billion increase minimum per year in taxes is going to shoot interest rates through the roof. Fewer and fewer people are going to be able to afford to purchase their own house, let alone pay for the increased rate of a mortgage.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate seeing you in the chair again, first in respect of Bill C-38, and now in the context of the House with respect to Bill C-48.

I too want to make a few comments here. I think some of my Liberal colleagues have a lack of understanding as to what the function of Parliament actually is. Going back to the time of the Magna Carta, Parliament was simply a device that would hold the king accountable for the spending of money. The nobles at that time simply revolted and said they would not pay any more money unless the king took their needs into account.

Parliament is essentially that concept. The role of the opposition, and indeed the role of everyone outside of the executive, is to hold the executive accountable. I see at least three members of the executive here tonight. It is our responsibility as members of the opposition, as well as the responsibility of backbenchers in the Liberal Party, to hold the government accountable.

This is not an issue of Liberals asking Conservatives questions or New Democrats asking Conservatives questions; it seems the only ones who are prepared to stand up and speak about this issue are the Conservatives. Every party should be standing up and holding the executive accountable for the money. We are talking about $4.6 billion; no, $4.5 billion, I am sorry, that is correct. Hanging around Liberals one begins to think of money in that kind of way. In my riding, $100 million is still a lot of money, never mind $4.5 billion.

That is our responsibility here: to ask the executive what it is doing with $4.5 billion. I dare say that if I stood up and read the bill into the record as part of my speech, Canadians would be no wiser as to what the executive is actually going to do with their money.

I was a little disappointed to hear the socialist colleagues of the Liberals state that we are somehow wasting time by standing up in Parliament and debating this issue and asking these questions. Wasting time, that is what was said. It has been mentioned that thousands of dollars in overtime is being spent because of this debate. Let us put that into a realistic context.

That is thousands of dollars in overtime when we are talking about the expenditure of $4.5 billion. What we are doing here tonight in terms of overtime does not come anywhere near to what that money could gain in terms of interest or, indeed, if it were put back in the pockets of Canadians. So yes, there is a price to democracy. Yes, there is a price to running Parliament, but our obligation to the people of Canada is to ask questions of the executive to determine exactly where that money is going.

The point was made also that in another lifetime the Conservatives were spendthrifts and spent all kinds of money. I just want to make a short point here. As I understand it, before the Conservatives came into power, the debt and the deficit were run up by the Liberals. It was a huge debt, especially for that time.

If we look at the spending during the Mulroney years, if we took into account what we had to pay in terms of interest on the debt that the Liberals accumulated during the good years, and if we took that interest away, out of the payments, the Mulroney government would have run a balanced book every single year. That is the reality.

There are some of us in the Conservative Party today who were not happy with Mr. Mulroney. We were unhappy with Mr. Mulroney for other reasons, but in fairness to Mr. Mulroney, he balanced the books. If it had not been for the Liberal debt, running this deficit would not have occurred. That is absolutely clear. Now the Liberals are saying--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know there are some enthusiastic members, but they will have their opportunity to ask me some questions when I am finished.

Now the Liberals are saying, “We rescued Canada”. On what basis did they rescue Canada? There were two policy initiatives that brought money into the coffers of the government. What were those two initiatives? The GST and free trade. Again, both were initiatives by Mr. Mulroney. Whether we like him or dislike him is quite irrelevant: those initiatives brought the money into the treasury and have made the prior finance minister, now Prime Minister, look good. All he had to do was collect the money. That is essentially what happened.

At the same time, of course, the Liberals were raising taxes and spending, spending, spending. I find it interesting that at the same time as all the money was rolling in, some of my colleagues were in provincial governments. We bore the brunt of the finance minister's cuts in health care, education, infrastructure and all of those matters. We had to balance the books while they balanced their books on the backs of the provinces and the municipalities.

Some of their socialist friends still do not understand what free trade has done for the country. In my riding, there is a New Democrat candidate who said he is proud to be a member of a party that is opposed to free trade. On the front page of my weekly newspaper there is a New Democrat saying he is proud to be a member of a party that opposes free trade. In my riding, 80% of the manufactured goods go across the line into the United States. If free trade was shut down, thousands of my constituents would be out of work. I dare say the same is true for many of us here. Yet we have a New Democratic Party that is opposed to free trade, that wants to shut down trade.

Just recently, in fact, we had a member of the House stand up and call for sanctions against the Americans because of the international water dispute over Devils Lake. I disagree with what the Americans are doing on Devils Lake, but to simply say “let us impose trade sanctions against the Americans” when we are sending 80% of our manufactured goods across the line is the kind of philosophy that has generated this $4.6 billion spending spree. Those people actually think the money would occur, as it did in the Trudeau years when it was just printed. If we run out of money, we just print it, that is the philosophy. Inflation runs up. Interest rates run up. People suffer.

That philosophy of the NDP against free trade, against the workers in my constituency, has infected this Liberal government and the evidence is in Bill C-48.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's demonstration of the insanity of the Mulroney fiscal economics. For goodness sakes, if we have not learned anything over the past number of years, surely it is that we cannot run deficits in the country.

Mr. Mulroney occupied office from 1984 to 1993. Not one year did the accumulated deficit, or what we call a debt, go down. After this government took over in 1993, it took us three years to arrest that slide into deficit. It was only in 1997, after we had paid a huge political cost, were we able to arrest that fiscal insanity as given to us by the Mulroney years.

The hon. member invites us to go back to Mulroney economics. I do not think so. For goodness sakes, in 1989 we had some of the best economic circumstances the country had ever enjoyed and still we had a runaway deficit.

I wonder whether the hon. member actually knows that the bill was returned to the House as a blank piece of paper and that we have only been able to put back into that blank piece of paper the fiscal contingencies that are necessary in order to propose this unplanned surplus legislation?

The government has learned from the Mulroney excesses and that member and his party have yet to learn from the Mulroney excesses.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not go through my entire speech. If the member was not listening the first time, I would invite him to go back to the transcript and read it very carefully.

No one is against low income housing. No one is against post-secondary education. No one is against helping out aboriginal Canadians. The point is, Liberals like to throw out a few catch phrases and say that if we are against this, we are against affordable housing or aboriginal Canadians and spending on their programs. The point is, as an opposition party, we have the obligation to ask the government questions. Where is the plan? Where is the detail?

My constituents understand that when they send me to Ottawa, my role is to ask those questions. We have not heard one answer from the government as to where that $4.6 billion will go. All they know back in my riding is this is the government that said a gun registry would cost $2 million, and it is costing $2 billion. That is Liberal economics and that is what my constituents want me to stop.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has said that he has not heard one answer from us as to where the money will go. I invite him to read the bill, which he never mentioned in his speech.

The money is will go to the environment, including public transit and energy efficient retrofit programs for low income housing in the amount of $900 million. All this is in the same detail as in every budget. The money will go toward supporting training programs, enhancing access to post-secondary education to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians. It will go toward affordable housing, including housing for aboriginal Canadians. It will go toward foreign aid in an amount not exceeding $500 million.

Why was his whole speech on nothing that was in the bill? He spoke about free trade from decades ago, about Trudeau from decades ago, about Devils Lake, about Mulroney and about the GST. Perhaps he could comment on affordable housing, foreign aid, tuition for students, items that are in the bill?