Debates of June 20th, 2005

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

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Three times in the last five minutes, including twice in the last 30 seconds, a member has referred to other hon. members by their names in the House of Commons. It is clearly out of order, whether to denigrate another member or to compliment his own leader, which he was attempting unsuccessfully to do. Either way, that is not in order. Our rules are very clear.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I thank the member for Glengarry--Prescott--Russell. He is correct. We refer to members by their titles and by their ridings. Resuming debate, the member for Calgary Centre.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary South Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, if the hon. member had been paying attention, he would have realized that I was simply quoting from a newspaper article from this morning.

Many people here know in fact who the Prime Minister is as well as the leader of the opposition. We will not have to repeat that for the hon. member.

In any event, the Prime Minister said that it was time for the Conservative Party to stop playing politics and help pass amendments to the federal budget to ensure municipalities would get millions of badly needed funding. The coverage pointed out, however, that in fact the budget, which includes a phased in 5% share of gasoline tax for municipalities over five years, passed last Thursday.

Without naming the Prime Minister, I would point out that he was a little confused, as well as many people might be with having two budgets, an original budget and a new non-budget. For clarity, I wanted to point that out. I appreciate the hon. member's note that it is not just members such as himself, but even the Prime Minister who is a little confused about the budget to which we now are speaking. It is the amendments negotiated with the NDP for an additional $4.6 billion in spending which have yet to pass.

We are talking today about Bill C-48, the NDP budget, which is the non-budget, or the absence of a budget. It is in addition to the original budget which was passed last Thursday and which our party supported. This addition of $4.6 billion is simply an NDP promissory note to buy votes. It is more socialist spending to prop up a failing Liberal government clinging to power.

The so-called budget, Bill C-48, is heavy on the public purse but light on details. It commits hundreds of millions of dollars under broad areas without any concrete plans of how that money will be spent, as the member for Wild Rose mentioned moments ago. We have seen the damage that can be done by spending without a plan.

Bill C-48 would authorize the cabinet to design and implement programs under the vague policy framework of the bill and to make payments in any manner it would see fit. It is $4.6 billion in less than two pages. It is very vague and general and it has no plan.

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

The government would need to post $8.5 billion in surpluses over the next two fiscal years to fully implement the budget. The point is there is no money. It is all talk. The reason it is vague is these promises to the NDP for this additional budget, Bill C-48, to Bill C-43 will never see the light of day. The money simply is not there.

In order to have sufficient funds and the surpluses, the Minister of Finance would have to have another phoney budget, as he has had before, declaring a surplus every year. There is only one reason to declare a surplus and that is because the people have been taxed too much. It is just bad accounting and bad budgeting. It is not budgeting. It is an absence of budgeting. It is bad management. It is a lack of a plan.

The government has a lack of planning in everything it does. We are still waiting for Kyoto. I see the member for Red Deer is here. He is the Conservative environment critic. He has explained to the House time and again that we have been eight years without a plan on Kyoto. We are eight years without a fiscal plan from the government.

The government has a broad plan. It asks people what they want today do buy votes? Today we are spending $4.6 billion buying the votes of the NDP.

I mentioned the news comments this morning and the Prime Minister's confusion over legislation in the House; that is what bills have or have not been passed. I see the Department of Finance has done a poll on behalf of the government to determine what people think of the budget. Is that not a great expenditure of taxpayer money? “Let's go out and poll and see how we're doing so far”.

This is a government that spends tax dollars polling and running ads with taxpayer money. It is a constant election campaign funded by taxpayers, whether it is through ad scam, the sponsorship scandals, or running polls through various government departments, the Privy Council Office or the Prime Minister's Office and now the Department of Finance to find out what the people think. It wants to find out the current consensus of Canadians. The government then runs around to the front of the parade and says to the people to follow it. That is how to govern our country? I do not think so. Again, it is done without a plan, it is expensive and it is taxpayer money.

Canada could have and should have more better paying jobs and a much higher standard of living. However, Ottawa taxes and spends too much. Since 1999-2000, program spending has gone up from $109.6 billion to $158.1 billion, an increase of 44%. In the last five years, spending has gone up 44% in our country, a compound annual growth of 7.6%, when the economy itself managed to grow by only 31%, a compound annual growth 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 there is so much waste in this government.

Often the government responds to problems in a knee-jerk way by throwing money at problems. The Liberals confuse spending money with getting results. Let me list some examples. They have thrown money at the firearms registry as way of dealing with the criminal misuse of firearms, 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. How could they possibly spend $2 billion on a simple gun registry?

[An hon. member]

The Liberals could find a way. They would probably need an inquiry.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary South Centre, AB]

They probably had to have an inquiry. They probably had to run some polls and say, “How are we doing so far?”. They had advertising to suggest to Canadians what a great benefit this program would be. It simply has not achieved its end. The costs continue to rise. Two billion dollars on a worthless gun registry and the costs continue to climb. It is taxpayer dollars, our money.

The Quebec referendum shocked the nation. The Liberals responded by throwing money at it, again, without a real plan. The result was the sponsorship scandal, a $250 million waste of money, $100 million illegally funnelled to Liberal friends and the Liberal Party. Even worse, it has reinvigorated Quebec separatism. Again, they have thrown out money without a plan. They are throwing out tax dollars, taxing too much, running surpluses and spending our money.

Imagine if some of that money was left in pockets of Canadians in the form of lower taxes? While the Canadian government spending goes up, according to Statistics Canada, families saw their aftertax income stall in 2002 and fall in 2003. As the Liberal government spends more, we have less.

This arrogance of Liberal conviction, that the Liberals can spend the money of Canadians more wisely than they, has to stop. We have to hold them accountable. We have to say, “Where is this money going?” This is a classic example of making up legislation, governing on the run, staying ahead of it, clinging to power and trying to get in.

We now have an additional budget of $4.6 billion proposed to the House of Commons simply to buy Liberal votes, to cling to power and to remain in office.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, this theme has come out a few times and I would like to hear the member's answer to it. It has to do with the issue about bringing in Bill C-48 simply as a matter for keeping. power. That is what the Conservatives have said. However, Canadians also said that they did not want an election.

We have not had a minority situation since the Joe Clark government of 1979. It is going to take collaboration and cooperation among all parties in the House to show that Parliament can work.

The member is speaking against Bill C-48. Would he say he speaking against Parliament working and that he really wants to go to an election right now?

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary South Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, not at all. It was demonstrated clearly by our side of the House. The Conservative Party acted responsibly and tried to make Parliament work. It agreed to support the budget presented by the Minister of Finance. That was Bill C-43.

I began my remarks by suggesting that members opposite were confused, including the Prime Minister, as to what we were debating today. It is not the budget. The budget that would prevent an election, which we responsibly supported so we would not have an election, was passed last Thursday.

Maybe I could repeat that for the hon. member and others who do not seem to get it, including the Prime Minister. The budget that prevented an election was responsibly supported by Conservative Party members . We did not like it at all but wanted to have Parliament work. Therefore, we supported it, voted on it and it passed last Thursday.

What we are talking about today is an additional budget by the NDP for the Liberals to cling to power. It has bought the votes of the NDP at a cost to the taxpayers of $4.6 billion. That is the point and it is irresponsible.

You brought that bill in. This is not to save us from having an election.

[An hon. member]

Who is you?

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Order, please. It is important that we recognize that there are some protocols in the House and ways in which we address each other. We speak through the Chair.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to ask my friend a couple of questions of clarification. We want to be historically accurate when we tell stories in the House of Commons because there is a permanent record of everything my colleagues say.

First he said, “We supported the original budget”. History will show the Conservative Party members sat on their hands during the vote and had no opinion. The Queen's official opposition had no opinion on the budget. That would be the historically accurate way to portray what really happened in the evolution of the budget as we know it today.

A second inaccuracy I would ask my colleague to correct, when he gets a chance, is this. He has said that the NDP proposals would cost the taxpayers an extra $4.6 billion. The $4.6 billion was already spent, squandered in even more corporate tax cuts. All we did is redirect some spending that was already scheduled. The dutiful ties to Bay Street were withdrawn somewhat and redirected to the interests of taxpayers.

If there is a champion of the taxpayer here, it is the New Democratic Party that has redirected taxpayer dollars to serve the needs and interests of taxpayers instead of shoveling it all to Bay Street with reckless abandon and with no real strategy or plan.

Where is the empirical evidence that giving the fourth tax cut to corporate Canada in a row will create jobs and that the money will not simply be invested offshore or taken as dividends or profits to shareholders? Where is this orthodoxy, this near religious fervour of the Conservatives clinging to this concept that tax cuts for corporate Canada will yield to job creation?

The final point I have to add, in the interest of accuracy, is there are still tax cuts in the budget that the Conservatives are being asked to support now for small and medium businesses. The only tax cuts that were postponed is the fourth tax cut in a row for Bay Street and corporate Canada.

I hope the member can correct these inaccuracies he has--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary South Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for reminding Canadians that the Conservative Party is in favour of tax cuts for all Canadians. We do not want to continue to saddle Canadians with these spending programs proposed by the NDP.

Yes, we favour tax cuts for all Canadians and corporations so middle and low income families pay less tax, which can be squandered to form surpluses for the Liberal Party to waste in additional programs for the NDP.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-48, the Liberal-NDP budget bill.

I want to make it clear at the outset to all Canadians that we are debating a bill that is two pages long and contains 400 words, yet the spending proposed as a result of this legislation is $4.5 billion. The bill was brought here at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer in order for the Liberal government to buy the 19 NDP votes. This has been the pattern of desperation as the Prime Minister has begged, pleaded, cajoled, bought votes, and sold positions, while hanging on with his fingertips, doing anything he needs to do to cling to power.

Canadians need to ask themselves how the Liberals and NDP could support a bill which would spend $4.5 billion of their money while nobody seems to know where or when it would be spent.

The Conservative Party has fought to bring attention to this fiscally reckless piece of legislation. The Conservative Party will continue with its principled, fiscally responsible position on the reckless economic policy of the Liberal-NDP government. The Liberal-NDP coalition wants the House to hand it a blank cheque. These are the finances of the nation we are dealing with, and the government is treating them as though they were its own personal bank account.

This legislation represents the kind of free for all spending which led to previous and ongoing Liberal spending fiascos, such as the gun registry and the sponsorship scandal.

In response to other amendments the Conservatives put forward at committee, how the NDP voted clearly showed that the Liberals are not the only party compromising its core values to keep this unholy socialist alliance alive.

At report stage we have tried once again to move amendments to make the spending in Bill C-48 more accountable to Canadians. We want a prudent fiscal approach to managing Canadian taxpayers' money.

For example, our amendment to Motion No. 1 would raise the amount of surplus set aside to pay down the debt. The unholy Liberal-NDP alliance refuse to open its eyes and see the impending demographic crunch. There is a giant train entering the station at full speed. The locomotive is 40, 50 and 60 year old Canadians who will require medical and social services, and pension assistance over the next 20 to 30 years. Where will the money come from if we continue to be saddled with a national debt? We cannot pay interest without cutting into the future dollars required to fund social programs for an aging population. Canada's NDP finance minister refuses to consider the concept of prudent forecasting.

The Conservative amendment to Motion No. 2 would force the government to table a plan by the end of each year outlining how it intends to spend the money in the bill. Spending it without a plan is a recipe for waste and mismanagement. We need to ensure there are accountability and transparency mechanisms in place.

More telling than anything is the Liberal-NDP refusal to protect matrimonial property rights of aboriginal women. I know that is hard to believe, especially of the NDP when it professes to be the party of conscience in the House. So I ask, how far will the NDP go to prop up this corrupt establishment? As the Leader of the Opposition has said, leaving the Liberals in charge is like keeping the executives of Enron in charge while their court case proceeds.

The Conservative Party is not alone in our damning criticism of this unholy NDP-Liberal union and the creation of this budget bill. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, representing 170,000 members including local chambers of commerce, boards of trade, business associations and businesses of all sizes and from all sectors and all regions of Canada, in a letter to the finance minister said, “To say that program spending is out of control would be an understatement. It is time for the government to take the steps necessary to put Canada's fiscal reputation back on track”.

In the latest issue of The Economist is this headline regarding the Prime Minister's fiscal recklessness, “From deficit slayer...to drunken spender?” The article goes on to say, “He ended a quarter-century of federal overspending, turning the public finances from red to black. But as the Prime Minister of a tottering Liberal minority government since last year, he appears to have thrown fiscal restraint to the wind”.

As noted, the NDP members themselves have a strange rationale for their support of this legislation. On May 19, 2005 in the House of Commons, I challenged the member for Winnipeg Centre by stating:

It is an absolutely amazing, outstanding event that the NDP would actually come to the House and exert its influence to prop up the establishment.

The MP for Winnipeg Centre said:

It is my personal belief that the Liberal Party of Canada is institutionally psychopathic. Its members do not know the difference between right and wrong and I condemn them from the highest rooftops.

But before the last Liberal is led away in handcuffs, we want to extract some benefit from this Parliament and that means getting some of the money delivered to our ridings before this government collapses.

Does this make any sense? By their own admission the NDP members are prepared to prop up a tired old discredited establishment for a crack at some dollars that may or may not flow at some time in the future. The Liberal MP for Victoria questioned the Prime Minister's judgment for agreeing to $4.5 billion in new social spending concessions to ink a deal with the NDP. He said, “The agreement between the Prime Minister and the NDP leader concerns me as it appears we have taken...away money for debt reduction. It is debt our children will have to deal with”.

A Toronto Liberal MP, the former finance committee chair, had some words of caution for his boss. He said that the Liberals should not be taking advice from the NDP and cautioned against agreeing to the NDP's demands. He said: “I would be very careful to take advice from the NDP when it comes to growing the Canadian economy”.

The Conservative Party and some Liberal MPs are not alone in their criticism of this flawed legislation.

Jayson Myers, chief economist with Manufacturers and Exporters Canada added, “It is a little difficult to boost productivity with one arm tied behind your back with some of the highest tax rates on investment in new equipment and technology”.

Nancy Hughes Anthony, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce said, “Without a fiscal update, we are flying blind when it comes to Canada's finances with only vague assurances from the government that it will be able to balance budgets in the future. Until Canadians are given all the facts and figures, we have every right to fear we are flirting with future budget deficits given the government's excessive spending”.

On June 16 the Bank of Nova Scotia said in a report, “The $4.5 billion New Democrat budget deal, new provincial health care and side deals, changes to equalization payments and a surge in program spending under the Liberals have led to a crazy-quilt of programs and blurred the lines between federal and provincial responsibilities”.

“The billions in extra spending on top of the finance minister's budget will so stimulate the economy that it will push the central bank to raise its interest rates more quickly”, said Marc Levesque, the chief fixed income strategist at Toronto Dominion Securities.

“Inflation is up and major investment firm Nesbitt Burns is warning that interest rates could follow as a result of the passage of the free-spending Liberal-NDP budget. The combination of rising prices and an inflation rate that is above the Bank of Canada's two per cent target, plus a hefty dose of additional federal spending, will prompt the Bank of Canada to resume raising interest rates by July”, Nesbitt Burns predicted in an analysis of the impact of the budget spending increases and an inflation report by Statistics Canada.

The OECD took note of the Prime Minister's spending spree in its latest forecast and concluded that the Bank of Canada would have to hike interest rates by 1.5% before the end of 2006 to forestall any inflationary build up.

What does that mean for the average Canadian? If mortgage rates were to rise 1.5%, Canadians taking out or renewing a $100,000 mortgage with a 20 year amortization would pay an extra $85 per month. Over the course of a five year term they would pay an extra $6,929 in interest. If the increase was permanent, then over the course of the 20 year loan, they would pay an extra $20,525 which is enough for a brand new car in their driveway. A Canadian taking out a $20,000 five year car loan, by the way, with the same increase in rates, would pay an extra $859 in interest over five years on that new car.

According to the government's rule of thumb for its own borrowing costs, 1% translates into $1 billion in added debt service costs after one year. That adds up to $84 per man, woman and child, or $336 a year for a family of four with this grossly irresponsible budget.

Already on the hook for the $4.5 billion in taxpayers' money that the Prime Minister has used to secure the support of the NDP, Canadians now have to worry about the fallout from this deal and the extra costs it will mean for them in their daily lives.

This budget is a disaster.

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

Madam Speaker, I just hope that Canadians across the country watch this debate for the rest of the week. They will see how the Conservatives are wasting thousands and thousands of taxpayers' dollars and they are not saying anything about the topic being debated.

We are debating a budget bill with four items: transit, foreign aid, housing and post-secondary education. The member opposite mentioned that it is a 400 word bill. It is past one o'clock and the Conservatives have spent the entire day without saying one word about the items that we are debating. I hope they are not going to go the whole week. I hope they will find new researchers to write their speeches so they address the four items in the budget.

Let me remind those members and their researchers that the topics are transit, foreign aid, housing and post-secondary education. We will be sitting until midnight tonight and tomorrow night. I hope they will come up with at least one member who will debate the topic.

What have those members been talking about? They are saying we should have more tax cuts. We have the biggest tax cut in history of $100 million. The member just talked about families. That reduces the rates by 27% for families with children. It takes a million taxpayers off the tax rolls. For businesses and entrepreneurs the result is that it puts our corporate taxes 2.3 percentage points below those in the United States. Members cannot complain about the tax rates.

Let us go on to Kyoto. It was embarrassing that a member opposite suggested that there was not a Kyoto plan when we have one of the most modern plans in the world. It has been praised by environmental organizations in Canada. We had a debate on it. It is a thick document and the loyal opposition does not even know there is a plan.

Conservatives should be most embarrassed for raising the topic of aboriginal Canadians. We have increased more than other items in the budget, year after year, the money for aboriginal Canadians for land claims. We have made slow progress, but how could the Conservatives bring it up when they voted against every increase for aboriginal Canadians, for land claims and self-government that have helped aboriginal Canadians take control and responsibility for their destiny? The Conservatives voted against it. It is an embarrassment that they would bring that topic up.

One of the member's colleagues suggested putting tax points over to the provinces. Why would he want us to have more debt and more taxes at the federal level, not spend money on the military, agriculture, aboriginal people, health and pension for the aging, and just transfer the taxes to the provinces?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was certainly a very interesting rant but the reality is that what we are debating today is a blank page of paper. There is nothing that we are debating at this particular point, except that the Prime Minister has managed to buy the support of the NDP. The NDP fundamentally has put itself in a position of propping up an old, completely discredited establishment. That is what we are debating here today. All of the bluster, all of the words of the Liberal member do not change that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Kootenay--Columbia is too good an MP to honestly believe the speech that he was sent in here to read. He knows and I know, and I think most are aware, that it is so packed full of misinformation that it really constitutes their gnashing of teeth and shaking their fists from the sidelines because they have been left out of what is really going on in Parliament today.

I would only ask my hon. colleague if he would not agree that it is the role of a good opposition party to use whatever political leverage and political capital it may have to advance its legislative agenda. Would he not agree that that is what the NDP has done, whereas his own party, with even more seats, has failed to do so?

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Madam Speaker, in fact what the NDP has done is sold itself. The member for Skeena--Bulkley Valley said:

During the campaign I promised to vote against budget increases to the federal gun registry. I kept my word then, voting against a motion last fall - against the wishes of some in my party - to increase this budget.

That was in the Cariboo Press in February. He also said, “Sadly, the gun registry has not been a positive solution to Canadians”. He went into all of the reasons that the gun registry is an abject disaster. He ended up voting, along with the member for Winnipeg Centre, along with the other 18 members in the NDP caucus, to continue the wasteful spending on the useless gun registry: $64 million. They have basically sold themselves.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to enter this rather interesting debate in the House today on the subject of Bill C-48.

It surprises me that the member for Winnipeg Centre, who was speaking a moment ago, was again attacking the Conservative Party and trying to defend the NDP record on the bill. A few moments ago in his intervention, he seemed to equate business tax cuts with spending, suggesting that somehow the NDP took money that was going to be spent anyway on business tax cuts and instead spent it on social programs, as if it is the same money.

I do not know what it is about that party that does not understand a very basic principle: tax cuts stimulate the economy. That is well understood all over the world. Let us look at a country like Ireland, which took some decisive work in that direction and made the country very competitive. Unemployment is down, the Irish economy is up and Ireland is booming worldwide.

What is it that the NDP does not understand about this? When we spend, spend, spend, and especially when we tax, tax, tax, it affects our productivity. “Productivity” is a simple word. We are in a very competitive world and Canada is falling behind.

Then we heard the Liberal member from Yukon say a moment ago that we are not debating the substance of the bill, but the whole point is that there is no substance in the bill except a very big price tag attached to something that is basically an empty promise. It is a two page bill, and with the cover pages we could add a little more to that, but there is no substance here. The substance of the bill is only two pages and there are approximately 400 words to describe spending that would amount to $4.6 billion.

Others have said before me that the procedure done with the bill is unprecedented. It is basically a blank cheque for cabinet to decide how, if and when the money will be spent. Of course in order to come across as being fiscally responsible somehow, it is labelled as contingency spending. I wonder if Canadians expect that as soon as this bill passes, if it should pass the vote that will be coming up shortly, the money is going to flow immediately.

However, of course, this is contingent upon maintaining a budget surplus of about $2 billion. That is before any of the money will be spent. I wonder if the NDP has not bought a bill of goods and is trying, along with the Liberals, to sell it to Canadians in a desperate move to prop up the government and keep it afloat. It is not likely that even a penny of that money will be spent before an ensuing election, when Canadians will be offered the same promise again, the recycled promise that if Canadians vote for the Liberals then they will get the money.

Spending without a plan is a formula for waste and mismanagement. We have seen a bit of that around here lately. In fact, that is very much an understatement. We have seen a lot of problems due to spending without a plan. For the record, since 1999 program spending has gone from $109.6 billion to $158.1 billion, for an increase of 44.3%. That is annual growth of 7.6% while the economy managed to grow in the same period by 31.6% or a compounded annual growth rate of 5.6%. Spending has been exceeding our economic growth.

What happens when we spend without a plan? The government seems to think the answer to every problem is spending. A few years ago, for example, we saw a very tragic event happen involving guns in Montreal in the massacre that took place at the university there. It was a tragedy, but suddenly the government responded by saying it would fix that by spending a pile of money, taxing the duck hunters and the farmers in the country, to somehow deal with a problem created either by criminals with illegal firearms or a man who was clearly mentally unstable.

How can we have a program budgeted to cost $2 million that ends up costing us $2 billion, with the price tag still increasing? We probably need another inquiry to try to figure out where that $2 billion went. I know that many people are concerned about how all that money can be spent on a rather useless firearms registry.

It has cost $2 billion and it is estimated that 80% of the registrations have errors, which in itself probably needs an inquiry. How could there be so many errors? For example, people in my own riding were told to send in their registrations for four firearms and they got back five licences. That is interesting: they got an extra registration. When they called the firearms centre to say that there had been a mistake, that they had an extra licence and did not own a fifth firearm, they were told to just tear it up.

My constituent said he could not do that. Let us just imagine that. We tear it up, the registry says it has an extra firearm and someday a police office will be at the door looking for that firearm; if we cannot produce it, we are in big trouble.

I cannot tell members how many people have come to me about the errors in this program. That itself probably could be the subject of an inquiry.

As intelligent people we should be able to come up with programs that actually address what they are purporting to accomplish. On this side of the House we are concerned about spending without a plan or spending that creates an illusion of action when it is actually misdirected.

We saw another example of this prior to the election in 2000 with the HRDC boondoggle. Money was spent without any accountability mechanisms being put in place. It was very wasteful spending that went into programs in the hands of government friends, Liberal friends or patronage friends. They got money for programs to produce something, programs that in essence did not accomplish what they purported to. Those people declared bankruptcy a few years later and came back to the purse with another proposed idea to get more money. There was no accountability and there were no objectives and no measurements of whether they were actually accomplishing what they headed out to do.

A short time ago we had a very big concern about a problem in Davis Inlet with the Inuit situation there. It was a tragic situation for many young people because they had very little vision for life and were involved in substance abuse. It was a tragedy. The government had the bright idea to move the settlement a few miles away at a cost of some $400,000 a person. We might wonder how it could possibly cost that much. We know that housing costs are high in remote areas and building and construction costs are high, but how could it possibly cost $400,000 per person to relocate this small number of people in a program that has apparently not solved the problem?

Then, of course, just a short time ago we saw the government's approach to the threat to federalism and the very close vote we had on the Quebec sovereignty issue. The government decided to solve that with money. The government decided to spend $250 million to solve the problem. We all know through the Gomery inquiry what a tragedy that turned out to be, with nearly $100 million misdirected and a lot of the money going back not only into the hands of Liberal friendly firms but into the hands of big donors to the party, with money itself going back into the Liberal Party coffers to run an election. Thus, spending without a plan creates problems.

We have had record surpluses and that is a very good thing in the country. It is a good thing when a government runs a surplus, but we also have a very large debt. We are still carrying about $510 billion of accumulated debt. It costs the country about $29 billion a year to service that debt.

At a time when the government has surpluses, that is a time when prudent financial management would say we have to pay down the debt so that we are not continuing to pay those very high costs into the future. Those costs are a mortgage on our own future and on our children's future.

We do not know if our economic prosperity is going to continue at the same unprecedented levels that we have had in these last few years. In fact, the evidence is that we are falling behind. If we do not increase our productivity, our economic future is going to be threatened. That is clear.

I have with me a recent article from the June 13 edition of The Economist , a very prestigious magazine. The economic elite likes to read The Economist . Some members of Parliament might occasionally read it. Perhaps there are some regular readers in the House, particularly those who are economists, such as the Leader of the Opposition. This magazine has a global readership. The article is about the indecisiveness of Mr. Dithers last winter. As well, in last week's edition, our Prime Minister was derided as Canada's drunken sailor thanks to his recent spending spree.

I am concerned for Canada's international reputation. This is a magazine that only 18 months ago in a cover story called Canada “cool” for the way we were managing our economy. On the edge of an election, suddenly things have become uncool. This magazine, read by leaders and politicians around the world, takes a jaundiced look at the Prime Minister's administration, which has devoted billions of unbudgeted dollars to staying alive as a besieged minority Liberal government.

We also have the Canadian chambers of commerce talking about this deal, saying that:

--the Liberal government's spending promises made in anticipation of a spring election, coupled with a $4.6 billion NDP budget deal, leave it with little or no financial room to focus on productivity enhancing initiatives.

Canada is now 18th out of 24 industrialized countries in terms of average productivity and growth.

There are many priorities that need to be addressed in the budget, but creating an illusion by offering to spend money that likely will not be spent before an election is not sound fiscal management.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on his speech. He is the first member of the Conservatives to acknowledge that paying down debt is a good thing, that it does improve productivity, and that when we pay $29 billion in debt servicing that is money, and if we could pay down more of the debt obviously that would be something good.

The member for Calgary Centre, the member for Wild Rose and the member for Cariboo—Chilcotin have said that the existence of a surplus, which is used to pay down debt, means that people are being taxed too much and therefore what we really should do is--

[An hon. member]

That is not what they said.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

They said the existence of a surplus means that a government is overtaxing.

We cannot have it both ways. The member has got it right: there has to be a balance. Sometimes there must be tax cuts. There also has to be orderly debt repayment so that we can continue to reduce debt servicing costs. There would be a savings annually each and every year for matters like investing in Darfur, foreign aid or energy retrofits for low income housing.

I want to congratulate the member, but would he like to explain to his own colleagues a little further as to why it is important to have a balanced approach toward spending, debt repayment and tax reduction?

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think that is a little bit of a mischaracterization of the Conservatives. Yes, our members who spoke to this did mention that people were being taxed too much and certainly that is true. Too much money is being taken from them. A balance is necessary.

Paying down the debt is part of the Conservative policy, by the way. In a Conservative budget we would mandate a portion that had to be paid down. In every budget, a portion of that budget would be mandated to go to debt repayment because we feel that is important for the future.

In terms of productivity, it is the high taxes that take investment elsewhere. We are living now, whether we like it or not, with the global economy. We have to be competitive. We are falling behind. Some members fail to understand that when business taxes are too high, and they are too high in Canada, investment begins to go to other countries. The tax cuts that those members across are trying to slay here were slated for the future, but they were a signal to investors that tax cuts were coming, tax cuts that would make their investments more competitive in a global economy.

As Nancy Hughes Anthony, president of the Chamber of Commerce, said:

We wished he had converted prior to agreeing to spend $4.6-billion as part of the NDP deal...and placed the country in a straightjacket.

The most recent data indicated that Canadian productivity edged upward only .2% in the first three months of this year, compared with .6% for the United States of America. Frankly, we are falling behind. This means that investment dollars will go elsewhere. Jobs ultimately will be lost. As for the union members who like to support the other party over there, many of them will be crying because they will be losing their jobs if we do not maintain a competitive edge.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a very quick question for my colleague from Vancouver Island.

The fact of the matter is that I, like all of us, return to my riding during weekends and breaks from Parliament and I continually hear from my constituents in Prince George--Peace River that they are concerned about the fact that the mountain pine beetle crisis in central British Columbia is ravaging our province's forests. They are getting insufficient help on that front.

As well, they are concerned about the ongoing debacle of the softwood lumber agreement. They are concerned about the agricultural program known as CAIS, which is completely inadequate to help our beef farmers in their time of crisis. Crisis after crisis is affecting our families and their bottom line; they cannot make ends meet.

Instead, we see a $4.6 billion deal drawn up on a napkin to spend more money on these issues with no plan in sight while these very important crises are going unaddressed. I wonder if the hon. member is hearing the same thing from his constituents that I am from mine in Prince George--Peace River.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we certainly do have the same issues in my riding and softwood lumber is a major concern. The pine beetle is a big concern to anyone in British Columbia, certainly in the forestry sector with the lodgepole pine. It is more of an interior problem right now but it is spreading into Alberta. These are things that need strategic investments to move ahead. We need to harvest the lumber while it is still harvestable or we will lose it.

With regard to BSE, our farmers have been left out to dry. They are still in big trouble there. We have not increased the production to allow them to cull their herds.

There is also a big problem on funding for coastal surveillance. We are worried about Chinese spies in our country with migrant ships coming in. We have no radar, no interception and no money for the Auroras to patrol our coast. When we do see ghost ships going by, as we have seen recently, there is no response, no jet scramble and no intercept out there to check it out. They just go by without any response from the government. It is not acceptable.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, again it is a pleasure to speak in the House to Bill C-48, the NDP supplementary budget to the government.

I think all Canadians have certain days they want to commemorate, such as birthdays, anniversaries and special occasions. In politics, we remember days of elections and times when budgets or policy documents are brought forward. Those are the days we remember.

This past spring the government brought down a long anticipated budget, Bill C-43. After the budget came down I had the opportunity to host five or six town hall meetings in different areas of my constituency, such as Oyen, Drumheller, Strathmore, Camrose, Stettler and Hanna. I hosted these town hall meetings to explain what the 2005 budget contained. I can say that coming from a rural riding in Alberta, an area that has been devastated by droughts, BSE and other various elements, the budget was a tough sell. Then again I am certainly not much of a salesman when it comes to trying to sell Liberal budgets in Conservative ridings.

However in the town hall meetings I commented on a fairly recent speech that the Alberta minister of health had given. In that speech she noted in the public forum that mental health issues were on the rise as Albertans attempted to balance their work and family commitments and struggle with ensuing financial hardships. In her speech she made reference to the turbulent times, such as drought and BSE, mainly in rural settings. No one knows more about those financial hardships and the stress of dealing with those burdens than our farmers.

At the time I conducted these town hall meetings throughout the constituency, the NDP had not made its deal with the Liberal government, the deal to prop up the corrupt government. That April 26 deal resulted in the legislation that we are discussing today, Bill C-48. Bill C-48 provides the legal framework for the outlandish NDP spending measures that we in this party adamantly oppose, measures that total up to $4.6 billion over two years.

I do not have a copy of Bill C-43 but it was a thick document. Bill C-48, amounting to $4.6 billion, is one double-sided page, half English and half French. Someone has already made reference to the fact that it contains 400 words but just like that spends $4.6 billion. Bill C-43, the first budget, spent $193 billion. Bill C-48 spends an additional $4.6 billion. That is big government. The deal that the NDP made with the Liberals made the spending even bigger.

That goes against what Conservatives believe. Conservatives believe that the people who earn the money, who go out and work for their paycheques, who are putting the crop in and taking the crop out, are the ones who are best able to spend the money. The Liberals say no. They believe they need more money to spend, and the NDP is right there with them. They say they want to build a larger bureaucracy so they can spend the money.

Where does the extra $4.6 billion come from? It comes from all hardworking Canadians who basically trade their time for the paycheque. They go out every week and give up the 40 hours or 50 hours of work and at the end of it they get a paycheque. The government now says that it wants to take that time and the money they received and control how it is spent and where it goes.

We in the Conservative Party believe in smaller government, in lower taxes and we believe the private sector is the main engine of economic productivity, growth and prosperity.

What did we not see in the 2005 budget? What we did not see in that budget and in the companion budget we are discussing today was any type of financial commitment to farmers who are undergoing terrible conditions.

The budget speech delivered on February 23 by the finance minister was very long and detailed but lost in those details was the fact that farm incomes in this country have been in a negative position for a number of years. We all know why. Those living in Crowfoot and throughout Canada, specifically in some parts of rural Canada, understand that there have been successive years of drought and BSE. Now, in much of my constituency and in constituencies in southern Alberta, we see unrelenting rain and flooding.

As I speak here today, in part of my constituency in the area of Drumheller, 2,700 people were told to get out of their houses because the river was swelling and there would be certain flood damage. I could go on and talk about Drumheller because it is a great community. It is a great tourist centre and a great place to visit. I hope everyone here will take the opportunity to go there.

Drumheller, which is a good area for farming and agriculture, if we were to go south of Calgary we would see that many fields are now under water. The member for Macleod told me that 80 acres out of 160 acres, or a quarter section of land, are now under water. A lot of these farmers are looking at flood damage and another year of negative growth.

In 2003, farmers had negative farm incomes for the first time since the great depression. Today grain and oilseeds prices are even worse. They have fallen through the floor. We are still suffering from the mad cow crisis.

To be frank, I was disappointed at the continued lack of respect and attention that agriculture producers and hardworking families received in this 2005 budget. Farmers will get no more cash in their pockets because of this budget. Despite Agriculture Canada's forecast of another year of negative farm income, there was little mention of agriculture. When the NDP decided to prop up this corrupt government and talked about the four areas, there was not one mention of agriculture. It is no wonder that the NDP in Saskatchewan have been basically shut out. It has forgotten about agriculture and about rural Canada.

In a question earlier, the member for Prince George talked about the CAIS program. One day the Liberal government was telling us it could not take away the cash deposit requirement. It said that it was not able to set that aside because farmers could not afford to put it into the CAIS program. A few days later, after it was voted on, it came out in the budget. I will give the government credit because what it said it could not do, it did. We applaud it for that even though it is what the Conservative Party of Canada had stood up for as we were defending farmers. The government accepted that and we applaud it for that.

However, with regard to the total new funding for agriculture, the first budget only had $130 million in it. It is important for Canadians to know that money did not get to the kitchen table of farm producers. It was not for the producers. It was there to build a bigger bureaucracy and to add consultants. It did not put dollars on the kitchen table. It was not designed for producers.

Programs that were brought out by the government in the spring in some cases forgot about a whole sector of agriculture. They forgot about some of the new farmers who have come on, some of the new farmers who have allowed their farms to grow.

Don Drummond, a former deputy minister of finance and now an economist for the TD Bank, said it is time that Canadians have a pay increase. He said Canadians need lower taxes and in effect that will give them a pay increase. We could not agree with him more. Bill C-48 would make people pay more because we are going to spend more, make government bigger, and have larger bureaucracies. Bill C-48 is a bad piece of legislation and we will be voting against it.