Debates of June 20th, 2005

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

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we believe in having balanced budgets. However, when we have balanced budgets to the degree where the Prime Minister can go into a cloakroom with the leader of the NDP and on a napkin give away $4.6 billion in exchange for votes in the House, that is hardly a narrowly focused federal budget.

We believe in balanced budgets, but we also believe in giving more power into the hands of families. The Conservative Party has the youngest parliamentary caucus in Canadian history. We have 20 members of Parliament under the age of 40. We have 4 members of Parliament under the age of 30. This party more than any other party in the House is concerned about the massive debt that the government has put on my generation.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, the member for Mississauga South told the House that the Liberal government had paid the debt down by $66 billion. While the debt may have been reduced by $66 billion, it has not been paid. In fact, it has been the result of the lowering of interest rates and the fact that we do not have as big an obligation of debt service that we had prior to the interest rate adjustment.

I would like the member for Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam to comment on the misrepresentation by the Liberals that they actually paid down the debt by $66 billion.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has done not nearly enough to help young Canadians by alleviating the problems of the long standing debt in this country. There is no question about that.

When program spending in the past two years in this country has gone up almost 20% and on top of that the government still has surpluses and it is giving away $4.6 billion, then yes, the government has surpluses that are too high. The government can meet its spending requirements and have surpluses left over. A surplus is by definition overtaxation, overtaxation that should go back to families and to paying down the debt, so we can get this country going.

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's North, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few comments on Bill C-48, a bill which the government calls the companion bill but which many of us call the NDP budget bill.

The Conservative Party is not against a better deal for post-secondary education. We are not against giving municipalities across the nation better access to funds for the provision of infrastructure such as water and sewer or urban transit facilities. We are not against the provision of additional social housing for the disadvantaged.

On the contrary, we see a Canada where our young people can receive an affordable education, get a well-paying job, buy a house and raise a family and so on. We believe in the Canadian dream and the right of every citizen to have access to that dream. This bill is less about the Canadian dream than it is about the Liberals' dream of staying in power forever. It is also about the NDP dream of being a bigger player in the parliamentary process.

The bill, as we are all aware, was scratched on the back of an old envelope in a backroom in the middle of the night. It is not about good government at all. It is about political expediency. It was the price of the NDP for propping up a corrupt government which is determined to cling to power at any cost. It is long on promises and short on detail, just the sort of bill that the NDP knew that the Liberals would like. The NDP has sold its soul to the Liberal Party. The NDP members are accomplices now to corruption, scandal and to ever bad spending decision that the government has made over the last year since the election campaign.

If the items in the bill are so important to the Liberals, why did they not include them in the original budget bill, Bill C-43? Given the government's cuts in transfers to the provinces in its effort to balance the national budget, it is no secret that students, health care, services at the municipal level, and the unemployed have been hard hit. Simply put, the Liberals balanced the budget in the nineties by passing the deficit down the line to municipalities and the NDP knew that.

Many times in the past eight year period since I have been here, I have supported NDP motions that called attention to the devastation that had been wreaked by the government over the decades. The NDP knows that the Liberals have been in power too long, long enough for the rot of corruption to set in, yet the NDP made a deal with the Liberals and it is not a deal of which it should be proud.

As part of its deal the NDP insisted that tax cuts for business be dropped from Bill C-43, the main budget bill. The tax cuts were designed to make Canadian business more competitive in the global economy. These tax cuts were aimed at allowing businesses to expand and create more jobs. We supported the tax cuts.

Why has the NDP refused to support tax cuts which create more jobs for the unemployed is beyond me. We in the Conservative Party are not against creating more and better jobs all across the land. Neither would I suspect are the tens of thousands of people from all over Atlantic Canada who have had to leave their homes for jobs in Ontario and Alberta.

The NDP portrays itself as the workers' party, but I ask, what is more important to a worker today than a good job? The business sector is the greatest creator of jobs in this country and why the NDP cannot support that is beyond me.

When the Liberals came to power in the early nineties, they gutted the employment insurance system. They made it more difficult for workers in seasonal industries to qualify for EI benefits and when they did qualify, it was for fewer benefits for a shorter period of time. In other words, the Liberals used the EI system and the moneys that they generated on extra premiums to amass a massive surplus which they used on things like the sponsorship scandal. These are the kinds of policies that the NDP is now supporting.

I asked earlier, what is more important to a worker than a good job? I would further ask, what is more important to an unemployed worker than a good EI system, a system that can carry a seasonal worker over until he or she gets back to his or her place of employment again? This is where the NDP fell down on the job. Not only did its budget deal strike out against job creation, it did not use the leverage with the Liberals to get much needed improvements to the EI system.

How can the NDP call itself as a socialist party and then forget about the workers in its deal with the government? It was in a position to really do something good for the workers of this nation and it failed.

Then there is the Atlantic accord. The first Atlantic accord was signed back in 1985. It gave the province of Newfoundland and Labrador about 70% of its revenues. Then all these revenues were clawed back under equalization. During the election campaign, the Conservative Party committed to the province to give it 100% of its offshore resources.

The Liberals had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into a deal with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We made numerous attempts when that deal was passed to have the accord split from the main budget bill and introduced as a standalone bill for speedy passage.

The Liberals constantly refused. The NDP supported us in that regard but yet, when it was cutting a deal with the Liberals, did it insist on a standalone Atlantic accord bill? No. Did it insist on that being part of the budgetary package? No. The NDP abandoned the Atlantic accord just like it abandoned the workers and the people of Atlantic Canada. It did not use the position it was in to get better benefits on EI for Atlantic Canadians who have a big seasonal workforce. It abandoned the people of Atlantic Canada when it came to the Atlantic accord by not insisting on standalone legislation.

If the NDP were to win power at the ballot box, I would not, and I am sure no one in this nation would not, begrudge it to right the priorities around the budget when it came to introducing a budget. I might disagree and others might disagree with some of the spending priorities, but if the NDP had the people's mandate, it would have every right to bring this kind of budget forward that it is bringing forward now.

However, the NDP did not win power. Indeed I remember in the latter stages of last year's election campaign the Liberals crushed the NDP by telling the people that a vote for the NDP was a vote for the Conservative Party of Canada. They were not too anxious to prop up the NDP at that time, but still, the NDP remained so anxious to prop up a corrupt, scandal-ridden government. I believe that in the long run the NDP will pay big time at the polls in the next election campaign.

We stand here today debating a budget bill that came about as the result of a backroom deal between the NDP and the Liberals. The deal was scratched on the back of an envelope, probably at 2 a.m., and is worth $4.6 billion. Is this any way to run a country, to have the NDP writing the budget bill in a hotel room in the still of the night on the back of an envelope or an old napkin? Is that any way to run a country?

Bill C-48 is not a budget bill in its own right. It is a bunch of loose promises made, as I said, in a backroom in the middle of the night, when the Prime Minister was in his bleakest political moments. It is not about honour. It is about political expediency. It is about a place at the table of power. Canadians deserve much better.

[Russ Powers, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his comments in this debate. Perhaps he will be able to explain to the House something which I find difficult to understand. All the dialogue that we have had led to the successful vote that was participated in by all last week on Bill C-43. There clearly was a positive contribution from the Conservative Party, the NDP and the Liberal Party in support of Bill C-43 and all the elements that are associated with it. There is the infusion of money for cities and communities, the movement toward the project green and the Kyoto protocol. There are so many good things, including the Atlantic accord which benefits certainly the hon. member and the area that he represents.

If Bill C-43 was so good for the members of his party just the other week, why are they having a problem with the enhancement to Bill C-43 that is contained in Bill C-48?

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's North, NL]

Madam Speaker, I have absolutely no problem supporting Bill C-43. As the hon. member mentioned, it contains some very good things. It contains the Atlantic accord legislation. While we were against the way the Liberal Party introduced the Atlantic accord as part of an omnibus bill instead of a stand-alone piece of legislation, we did support the budget Bill C-43 and there is Bill C-48 as well.

As I mentioned a moment ago in my comments, if the NDP were to win power at the ballot box, no one would begrudge the NDP the right to bring in a budget. The NDP would bring in things I am sure we would agree with and others that we would disagree with vehemently. But the NDP is not the party in power at the moment. That is no way to run a country.

That is no way to bring down a budget. The government which happens to be in a minority situation found itself in a difficult position with regard to staying in power and all of a sudden the NDP came along with what I call a blackmail bill and bringing in things that should not be introduced. It has taken the corporate tax cuts away from the budget, things which would give business the opportunity to expand workforces, to employ more people. That party, which claims to be the party of the workers in this country, is actually suppressing jobs. As I said, the NDP will pay a heavy price for that at the ballot box.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to question my colleague from St. John's East on some of the misinformation that he has been spreading today. I know that my colleague is a former ironworker as I am a former carpenter, both former representatives of the building trades. I am wondering how he is going to explain to the working people in his riding that his party is opposed to just two examples of our better balanced budget, Bill C-48.

One example is the energy retrofit fund. Homeowners in St. John's will be able to retrofit their homes, creating jobs for building trades workers, reducing their operating costs, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They will get a grant to do that. I wonder if he has canvassed the working people in St. John's East to see if they would be critical of that.

The second thing that he would have a hard time explaining voting against would be the wage protection fund that the NDP managed to negotiate on behalf of working people in Canada. In the event of bankruptcy there would be a fund whereby people could draw the back wages owing to them instead of having to wait for years for the trustees in bankruptcy to discharge the assets of the bankrupt company.

How does he explain to the good people of St. John's that he is going to vote against those two very good ideas?

[Norman Doyle, Conservative, St. John's North, NL]

Madam Speaker, those might be very interesting questions, but what would be even more interesting would be for the hon. member to ask his leader why he fell down on the job so badly.

Last week a member of the NDP was actually trying to get a private member's bill through on EI. When the hon. member's leader found himself in a position of having influence over the Liberal government, why did his leader not say to the Prime Minister of Canada, “We have been fighting long and hard for EI reform and EI changes. Bring about these EI reforms to help seasonal workers in the Atlantic area and seasonal workers all over Canada”?

While the hon. member's questions might be interesting, what he is trying to do is divert attention away from the real issues like employment insurance, the Atlantic accord and many other issues which his leader failed to support.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-48 on behalf of the constituents of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar.

My constituents have consistently opposed the Liberal approach of spending without an adequate plan which is evident in Bill C-48.

It is surprising that the Prime Minister was willing to put his fiscal reputation into jeopardy with this budgetary process. Obviously his desire to hold on to his fragile grip to power has driven him to pursue paths undreamed of 18 months ago when he could do no wrong. It is because of this obsession to hold on to power at all costs that I feel this budget does not have the proper priorities at hand. It is more of a feel good budget than a do good budget. It looks fairly good today, but watch out for the consequences tomorrow.

The Liberal approach is cruel not only to taxpayers, but more important, to those who depend on the promised services. I must draw to the attention of my colleagues what I believe is the biggest deficiency of this budget document.

Over the last few years there have been thousands of stories in the media and hundreds of speeches and questions in the House of Commons on agricultural prices in Canada. Imagine the shock and disappointment my constituents and I felt when the bill did not even mention their dilemma. There was not a word. Just when they felt that perhaps their call for help had been heard in Ottawa, they discovered they were being officially ignored by the Liberal government. This only became worse when the NDP got involved and did not secure an ounce of help for them either. Only the Conservative Party is advocating for our farm families and rural communities.

Farmers have been promised programs in the past, but the government has not delivered. The programs are ineffective, burdened by paperwork and delays. They have failed those who need the help so badly.

The Auditor General has raised serious concerns about the ability of other departments to deliver programs effectively. These are departments to which the Liberals want to give more money in Bill C-48, including Indian and northern affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency.

In addition, the Auditor General's office is currently conducting an audit of the Government of Canada's climate change expenditures, which will be released next year. One can only imagine what negative effects that could have on all our citizens.

The Conservative Party wants to ensure that the social needs of Canadians are met. We recognize that many Canadians are not receiving the level of assistance that they deserve from the Liberal government. This is a direct result of the Liberal government's approach to all problems, throwing money without an adequate plan. The Liberals just throw money at the problem until it goes away, or at least their critics do.

This philosophy has cost Canada in the past and it will cost us even more down the road. Reckless spending has never led to long term stability and national prosperity. It is irresponsible and cruel to needy Canadians to throw money at government programs that are not meeting their objectives. Besides being a disservice and raising false hope, it is a waste.

The responsible approach would be for the government to first ensure that existing money is spent effectively, to improve programs and services to ensure that no one is left behind.

Committee stage is an important part of the legislative process. It is supposed to be an opportunity to improve the quality of legislation with expert testimony and the experience of all members. At committee stage the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition rejected Conservative efforts to restore prudent fiscal management.

The Conservative Party attempted to include real solutions for Canadians, such as matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women and to ensure accountability and transparency.

I was involved in the process through the aboriginal committee. The committee spent months in efforts to isolate the problems, identify the solutions and to put forward the recommendations. As with too much committee work, we feel our efforts have fallen on deaf ears.

As MPs we will not suffer. It will be our constituents, our fellow Canadians that will pay the price with a wasted opportunity.

Also, at report stage the Conservative Party tried to move amendments to make the spending in Bill C-48 more accountable to Canadians and to reflect a more prudent fiscal approach. There was a genuine effort to avoid a repeat of the waste, the mismanagement and the boondoggles that have dogged the Liberal government for years. Taxpayers have demanded better accountability and we have tried to deliver it, but the Liberals and NDP have restricted us at every step.

One amendment proposed was to raise the amount of surplus that would be set aside for debt repayment. The interest saved could prevent future cuts to social programs as a result of the upcoming demographic changes. Another amendment would force the government to table a plan by the end of each year, outlining how it would intend to spend money in this bill.

The Conservative amendment to clause 3 would ensure that important accountability and transparency mechanisms would be in place for corporations wholly owned by the federal government. These include crown corporations like the Mint, Canada Post and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Accountability and transparency should be paramount to any government, especially in this case, considering Bill C-48 advocates spending an additional $4.5 billion of taxpayer money.

The Conservative Party will continue to hold the Liberals and the NDP to account where spending is unfocused and wasteful. As the social development critic, I was deeply concerned by the format the government chose to use for child care funding.

The $700 million allocated for spending this year was put into a trust account. These trust accounts have been criticized by the Auditor General as their activities fall outside of the purview of Parliament and the Access to Information Act. This is no way to introduce accountability to a program that we know will cost billions of dollars. It is quite likely that we are witnessing the beginnings of the next billion dollar boondoggle. If the minister is so proud of his work, why is he not willing to be transparent with us? Why is he opening himself up to the scandal and mismanagement?

It is also worth pointing out that those trust accounts are a convenient way to say it has spent the money without actually spending it. In fact, only $351 million of the $700 million has been allocated to the provinces so far for child care. That means basically half remains unallocated and unspent. Unfortunately, if this trust account is like the others, such as the millennium fund, this money is lost unless spent. It cannot be returned to general revenues.

I sincerely wish the Liberal and NDP governments would have accepted the genuine efforts of the Conservative Party to improve the bill. Even more so, I wish our farm families, rural communities and seniors had not been forgotten. There have been lots of lost opportunities in this budget but the real damage will not be evident until long after it is passed.

[Wajid Khan, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the hon. member's comments, she talked about prudent fiscal management. I would like to take the member down memory lane.

Everybody has been talking about a $42 billion deficit, but I want to correct those numbers. Under the Conservative government, the deficit went from under $200 billion to over $600 billion and the projection in the next year has been $53 billion. Canadians and Canada could not afford it for even a minute longer. That is why the Conservatives were reduced to two seats in the country. They should not forget that.

They are trying to teach us prudence and fiscal management, but we have had continuous surpluses and the highest employment record budget after budget. If this government is fraught with corruption, why did the member and her party support Bill C-43?

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to reassure the member that there were a lot of good things in Bill C-43 and we did not oppose it. We voted for it last week because there were some excellent things in it. However, we do not feel confident about a bill written on a napkin. I do not know what time of the day it was written. Some of my colleagues said that it was late at night in a dimly lit room.

I just do not believe that is the way for a finance minister or a government of a country to write or add to a budget. If these things were so good, why were they not put in the original budget? Why did the finance minister not include them in the budget? Why did the Liberals bring forward a one page bill and submit it to the House of Commons. Why was it not in the original budget?

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, we in Saskatchewan have seen what happens to economies when the socialist NDP has its policies enacted. Businesses have been driven out of the province. A generation of young people have left and made their homes in other provinces where there are more economic opportunities and it is easier to find a job and raise a family.

If that happens on a federal scale, will we see people leaving the country instead of moving from one province to another? A few years ago there was a lot of talk about the brain drain as people moved to the States to find economic opportunities. I fear the same thing might happen again if this NDP socialist budget is enacted. What happened to our economy in Saskatchewan will be applied at the federal level. The NDP drove young people and businesses out of the province. Will we see that on a federal level if some of these policies are enacted?

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, we are so proud of our province of Saskatchewan which is celebrating its 100th birthday this year. The province has a lot of natural resources, but we see a lot of problems with mismanagement and money that has gone astray. A lot of money has been spent in crown corporations that is unaccounted. We have seen it over and over again. Young people are leaving our province because they cannot find the jobs. The climate in Saskatchewan is not there for jobs or for people to open small businesses.

I spoke with a group of disabled people on the weekend. They talked about our government not putting forward the money from the multilateral agreement it signed with the federal government. If it had not been for Conservative members of Parliament fighting for equalization for our province this year, no one would have gone to bat for the province. No one stepped up to the plate. Premier Williams came to bat. He came to Parliament to meet with the Prime Minister, but our premier did not do that very well.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-48, the back of the napkin, Buzz Hargrove and leader of the NDP budget bill.

With the NDP ready to make more demands on the Prime Minister and the Liberals in exchange for their continued propping up of the Liberal government, I believe it is important that Canadians be made aware of the record of the last federal Liberal minority that was propped up by the NDP.

Here are just a few points to consider regarding the last Liberal-NDP coalition government. Between 1972-73 and 1974-75 fiscal years, spending on federal government programs jumped by 50%, from $18.8 billion to $28.2 billion. The taxes and other revenues taken from Canadians climbed by 52%, from $19.2 billion to $29.3 billion.

From October 1972 to July 1974, the inflation rate more than doubled from 5.2% to 11.1%. Chartered bank prime almost doubled, climbing from 6% to 11%. Five year mortgage rates jumped two full percentage points to reach 11.4%.

It is no wonder that groups like the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business have expressed grave concerns about Bill C-48 and the reckless spending that it proposes.

This out of control spending is made worse by the complete lack of a plan as to how this money will be spent. Spending without a plan is a recipe for waste and mismanagement. It is cruel not only to taxpayers but more important to those who depend on promised services.

As the official opposition critic for agriculture and agrifood, I find it incredible that despite criticisms of both the NDP leader and the NDP agriculture critic, Bill C-43 had nothing in it for farmers in rural Canada. The NDP did absolutely nothing to address these blatant omissions in Bill C-48.

Let us remember that it was the NDP leader who in the House said the following in regard to Bill C-43, “How can the member stand and support a budget that gives nothing for farmers when they are living on the edge?”

Furthermore, the NDP agriculture critic had several things to say regarding Bill C-43. He said, “The Liberals presented the budget in the House just a few days before the R-CALF decision came down and we got to see what their five year plan for agriculture was. It was a big zero”. He also said that it is “a budget that has made no attempt to address the long term issue of agriculture in Canada” and “to the rural farm families of Canada the budget has offered them nothing”. He added, “There was nothing in the budget to encourage young families to take up farming. Unfortunately we have seen the plan for rural Canada. It is laid out in the budget, and there is nothing there”.

Despite the NDP's claims that farm families were shut out of the government's budget Bill C-43, the Leader of the NDP ensured that farm families received nothing in Bill C-48 either.

The Leader of the NDP's actions make it obvious that the NDP does not care about farm families and will not support them in their times of need. In spite of the NDP's lip service toward the needs of the agriculture community, it did nothing to help our agricultural producers with Bill C-48. I guess this shows where the NDP's priorities truly lie.

The government talks about declining farm income. In spite of this, most of our export oriented agricultural producers continue to receive the blunt end of a stick from the Liberal government's intransigence which dictates to western Canadian farmers that they can have no choice but to market their wheat and barley through the so-called Canadian Wheat Board.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes the Wheat Board's monopoly on grain marketing should be abolished. Farmers should have options. They should be able to market their own grain if they so choose and take advantage of market conditions to maximize their profits.

Furthermore, the current unfair market situation facing our grain and oilseed producers is simply not sustainable or acceptable. Our grain and oilseed producers continue to face crippling foreign subsidies and unfair tariffs imposed upon them by foreign bodies at the WTO. Canadian grain farmers are losing $1.3 billion annually to the hands of European and American subsidies.

The Alberta Grain Commission estimates that if tariffs were reduced, farmers would get $16 a tonne more for wheat, $19 more for barley and $71 more for canola.

In this context, the Conservative Party of Canada supports the goals of the Doha round, those being substantial improvements in market access, the phasing out of export subsidies and substantial reductions in trade distorting domestic support.

This position is affirmed in the Conservative Party's international trade policy, which reads:

In future rounds of trade negotiations, a Conservative Government will vigorously pursue reduction of international trade barriers and tariffs. A Conservative Government will pursue the elimination of trade-distorting government export subsidies within clearly established time limits. A Conservative Government will seek a clear definition of what constitutes an export subsidy.

We are pleased that a NAFTA panel has ruled that U.S. duties on Canadian hard red spring wheat are unjust. However, this government's handling of the grain hopper cars runs the risk of more U.S. duties in the near future.

Speaking of the grain hopper cars and budgets, the Liberal government announced nine budgets ago its intention to dispose of 12,000 government-owned grain hopper cars. Nine years later, the cars are still in the hands of the government.

This process should not be complicated. The government and grain industry conducted an extensive review known as the “Grain Handling and Transportation Review”, led by Justice Willard Estey and evaluated and supported by Arthur Kroeger. Estey's recommendation was to dispose of the cars for fair market value.

The government can dispose of these cars on a commercial basis; a process that would be fair to all Canadian taxpayers. Instead, the backroom deal being made by the Minister of Transport, at the expense of Canadian taxpayers, will see the cars given away for next to nothing.

The United States views the government-owned hopper cars to be an indirect subsidy to Canadian grain farmers. Even worse, a non-commercial transfer of the grain cars will run the risk of further U.S. duties on Canadian wheat.

This government continues to fail farmers by providing inadequate income support programs for producers struggling with circumstances and conditions outside their control.

It is unspeakable that both Bill C-43 and Bill C-48 have nothing whatsoever to help our Canadian farm families. Canadian producers are fighting for survival. They should not have to fight their own government.

The Conservative Party has consistently opposed the Liberal approach of spending without an adequate plan, which is reflected in Bill C-48. This bill is a reflection of the new federal budget, an NDP budget, one that the Liberals have put forward after they said it could not be done.

The lack of detail regarding programs that would be developed as a result of this bill, combined with the Liberals' poor track record on delivering value for money, provides little guarantee that the objectives of this bill would be met, that taxpayer money would be spent properly or that Canadians would be better off.

The Conservative Party wants to ensure that the social needs of Canadians are met and recognizes that many Canadians are not receiving the level of assistance they deserve from the federal government.

It is unfortunate that the NDP-Liberal coalition blocked at report stage the Conservative Party's efforts to move amendments to make the spending in Bill C-48 more accountable to Canadians and to reflect a prudent fiscal approach.

Our amendments aimed to do several things: raise the amount of surplus that would be set aside for debt payment; force the government to table a plan by the end of each year outlining how it intends to spend the money in this bill; and ensure that important accountability and transparency mechanisms are in place for corporations wholly owned by the federal government.

Unfortunately, both parties to the NDP-Liberal coalition prefer to remain unaccountable for their spending of Canadian taxpayer dollars. For this, I will be voting against Bill C-48.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the hon. member opposite, particularly given the Conservative track record on management of financial affairs.

Let us look at the Mulroney Conservative government of the 1980s and 1990s. We had record deficits, as we know. We also know that in the last federal election campaign the Conservative Party presented the most expensive platform in Canadian political history. It just wanted to shovel that money out the door.

We also know that with Bill C-43 the Conservatives did not even show up to work on that particular day and were fully supportive of $4.6 billion being shoveled off the back of a truck to the corporate sector.

What we have is a pretty deplorable track record from the Conservatives in financial management when it has been in government. Two-thirds of the time across the country, provincially or federally, they have been in deficit. They had the worst deficits in Canadian history when they were in government, and they had the largest bill to the taxpayers for their bloated promises in the last federal election campaign. Happily, most Canadians rejected that.

I was interested in the member's comments about supporting farmers, because there was nothing in Bill C-43 that dealt with the agricultural crisis. Our agricultural critic for the NDP, the member for Timmins--James Bay, has been fighting in this House to make sure that farmers are fully aware of what needs to be done, but the Conservatives have basically sold out farmers right across the country by refusing to support supply management institutions.

The hon. member made reference to that in her speech, saying that she was not going to support the supply management institutions, that she favoured the type of sellout we could possibly be seeing through the WTO.

I am concerned because the Conservatives have a very poor financial track record, particularly when we talk about fiscal period returns, and we have from the Conservatives as well a very poor track record on standing up for farmers across this country, on supporting the corporate tax cuts and not pushing the agenda. In this corner of the House, the NDP has been fighting very hard to make sure that the government addresses those issues.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to offer my NDP colleague across the floor a tape of the speech I just made this evening, because it would seem that he missed virtually every point I made, representing them in entirely the opposite fashion.

He did make reference to a Conservative track record and an NDP track record in budget performance. I come from Ontario. The very first time Ontario had an NDP government, we suddenly had a thing called “Rae days”. This was something that no Conservative government had ever brought in. The NDP actually cut people's wages, making them work longer hours for the same wages. That is not the sort of budget we want to see going before Canadians. We lived through that in Ontario. They were tough days.

This is my great concern with the federal Liberal-NDP budget that we are discussing tonight. These are the kinds of things that we want to avoid. As Conservatives, we want to see a plan for the spending. We do not want to see a revisit of the Rae days that those of us in Ontario endured during the 1990s.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the NDP blackmailers talk about their concern for agriculture, because they did not negotiate anything for agriculture in their NDP budget. Let me give an example from my constituency--

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

The hon. government whip on a point of order.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate the fact that emotions run high and people have a lot of passion, but I would hope that through your good stewardship you would encourage all members to have a little decorum and use appropriate language in this House.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

That is not a point of order, but I would at the same time encourage the member to be careful that the adjectives and the descriptors he uses do not impinge on the members' reputations.

[Bob Mills, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am just repeating what I hear in my constituency about this kind of deal. I represent my constituents. That is in fact what they call those people.

I will just give an example of malt barley, if I may, and of what the hon. member across the way and our agriculture critic were talking about. Today, malt barley in Alberta, where I come from, is $2.45 a bushel. In Ontario, it is $4.50 a bushel if it is low grade and $5.50 for the top grade. It cannot be found in Ontario.

It would cost about $1 to ship a bushel of barley from Alberta to Ontario to fill that market, but we cannot do that. When asked why we cannot do that and why the price is so low, the answer from the barley buyers down here is that we have such a socialist system in the Canadian Wheat Board. It does not apply to the Ontario farmer, but it does to the prairie farmer. I wonder what the minister or rather the member thinks of that; she should be the minister.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly thank my colleague for his vote of confidence.

He is absolutely right. We have heard too many stories about this. Allowed to compete in open markets, western producers of grain would have a much more profitable year than they do through the Wheat Board.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate tonight. I have heard over the past couple of days different issues talked about in reference to Bill C-48. I have heard some of my colleagues and others talk about the fact that this no-tell hotel deal was signed on the back of a napkin. It is similar to former Prime Minister Chrétien and his deal with the Grand-Mère Inn and the golf course, where he brought forth a deal which had been signed on a napkin. That is not the way one would expect business to be done in this place. It is not acceptable. To spend $4.5 billion with just a few words that mean very little, such general statements as to how that money should be spent, is unacceptable.

I do not want to talk about any one particular issue but rather talk about the impact on real people across the country and what this extra spending above Bill C-43 budget will do. When we look at this issue and talk about budgets, taxes and government spending and so on, we should remember that Canada should be the country with the highest standard of living in the world.

There is no reason why that should not be the case. We have the resources. We have well educated and trained people. We have everything that should be required to make Canada truly the number one country in the world when it comes to our standard of living.

Sadly, that is not the way things are. The reason for that can be attributed to the government and how it has handled taxpayers' money and the business of this nation over the last 12 years. As a result, and it has been exposed over the past year by studies that have been done, with the economy going so well and the government taxing at an ever increasing rate and spending at a wildly increasing rate, our standard of living has not improved one bit.

For some groups, I would argue that things have become worse. Canada should be the envy of the whole world. In fact, it is no longer the envy of the whole world. I went to a meeting of the NATO parliamentarians in February in Brussels where we dealt with security, trade, and of course defence and security issues. After those meetings I attended a meeting of the OECD in Paris which is the body that provides the best unbiased information for many things, but in particular, economic forecasts.

I attended a meeting of the OECD with members of the economic committee from NATO countries and from observer countries with experts giving economic forecasts. I was shocked that the OECD no longer talked about the G-7 but the G-6. All of the charts that talked about economic forecasts did not even include Canada any more. Canada was left off the list. That is a sad commentary on what has happened to our country under the guidance of the government over the past 12 years.

Canada should be truly, unarguably the envy of the world. Unfortunately, when it comes to international bodies, we are anything but. We have lost that status and we must get it back. There is no reason why we cannot. However, to do that, the government must show some leadership and there are some things that must be done which are not being done.

As a result there are two groups in particular that are being hurt and whose standard of living has dropped. Things have become a lot more difficult for them over the past 12 years rather than just holding their own. I am speaking of young families where in most cases now both parents have to work away from home. That makes it very difficult to raise a family.

Then there are the retired people, the elderly who are on fixed incomes. The government brags again and again about how wonderfully it is doing with the finances of the country because it runs surpluses. The surpluses are increased spending. It is taking more money from the taxpayers who simply cannot afford to be taxed at the level they are and especially young families.

I have had many people in my constituency, as have many members of Parliament in the House, come to me to tell me how difficult it is to make ends meet, how both spouses are working. I guess I know best about my own family.

My wife Linda and I have five children. Four have just recently completed their post-secondary education. My youngest daughter is still in university taking engineering. She is in a co-op program, which is a wonderful program, but she has a couple of years to go yet. The other four are all in the process of starting families. Two are married. The other two are single. All four of them are either building a house or buying a house right now because they are working and they have to have a place to live, and they prefer to buy rather than rent.

In the case of my two children who are married, both the husbands and wives work away from home because they have to, not because they want to. In both cases they desperately want to start a family but because of the high taxation levels, they cannot at this time. I only talk about my family because it represents exactly what is going on with so many other families across the country.

The government talks so lightly about everybody expecting to and having to pay taxes and so there is a level of taxation it forces people to pay. People are told to just pay it and not complain about it. What the government does not say is that it has the perfect situation right now to lower the tax rate. The economy in the country is going quite well. It is a golden opportunity to lower the tax rate and yet the government has done so little in the budget to do that.

What that has done is force our young families to have both parents working, even in cases where they want to start a family. They do not want to both be working away from home and yet they must.

The other group that I mentioned was the elderly, many of whom are on very low fixed incomes. In spite of the fact that an elderly person makes even $15,000 in retirement pension, they still have to pay taxes. It makes it very difficult, quite frankly, for them, especially those who want to remain in their own homes, or those who have to pay high rental costs. Everyone knows about the increase in power and gas bills.

Many of the elderly I am talking about still are driving a vehicle and want to remain active and mobile. We know the price of gasoline. All these costs have gone up and yet they still have to pay taxes. The government does not seem to see a problem with that. It is a golden opportunity to give substantial tax breaks to Canadians across the country. That is what the Conservative Party put forth in the last election. It was a plan to lower taxes in a substantial way and that is something that the Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party before that focused on.

We would focus on lowering taxes so that our children, people who have a very difficult time making ends meet would not have to pay taxes or pay much less tax than they do now. I hope that Bill C-48 will be thrown aside. Instead, we should have a tax reduction that would lead to making things easier for young couples who simply want to start a family and cannot at this time because taxes are too high.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his family and wish all members of his family success.

Does he not think that a young couple starting out would not be more likely to want to start a family if they knew that there was a well publicly financed health care system available to help them along the way? When they think about the future and the possible health care needs of their children, would they not be more likely to want to take that step forward?

Would they not feel more optimistic about starting a family knowing that there is that social safety net? If they did not have publicly funded health care, would they not be less likely to want to start a family when they think of the exorbitant costs of private health care insurance in a country such as the United States? Would they not worry that if someone in their family became unfortunately ill that they could face bankruptcy? How would they feel then about wanting to start a family?

The hon. member is the chair of the government operations committee on which I have the pleasure of sitting. It will be proposing an independent body for federal public servants to go to if they wish to whistleblow. I thought I would add that in seeing as the member is the chair of that committee.

How can the hon. member say that the OECD does not reference Canada or think about Canada, when the OECD has said that Canada is the only OECD country that will have a surplus next year? How can he say that the OECD does not think about Canada or reference Canada?

Those are some of the questions for the hon. member.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member of the government operations and estimates committee for his questions. I acknowledge that he is a very valuable member of that committee. A lot of good work has been done by this committee. It is a relatively non-partisan committee. It certainly will become the most powerful committee of the House without a doubt. It is well on its way there already.

The member talks about the OECD and the economic forecasts showing that Canada is the only country that is running a surplus right now. In spite of more than a 10% increase in government spending for each of the last two years, and in spite of the fact that taxes are so high, Canada is still running a surplus. Why would the government brag about running a surplus? Certainly, we do not want to go into a deficit position.

We could reduce spending and certainly stop the rapid increase in spending. We could reduce taxes substantially and still not get into a deficit position. That would leave more money in the pockets of the people who make it.

We all support social programs. When so much of what people earn is taken from them by government and spent by government, it is simply unacceptable. We must move to a better balance where the tax levels are more reasonable and people who earn the money get to spend more of it themselves. That is what we are looking for.

In terms of health care, the member has some nerve to bring up the issue of health care after what happened last week or the week before. The Supreme Court said that over the last 12 years the government has run down our health care system to such a level that private health care has to be allowed to operate alongside public delivery. That is what the Supreme Court said.

I guess the government's hidden agenda is to run down our health care system, so that we do have a huge private component as well beyond what we have now. The Liberals have accomplished that by running down the public system.