Debates of June 20th, 2005

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

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre once characterized the Liberals, not that long ago, as institutionally psychopathic. I would not say something like that, but there is obviously something institutionally schizophrenic here.

On the one hand we have the Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Finance standing up and saying that there is no bill here, that there is nothing on here, that there are no pages. Then we have another parliamentary secretary standing up and asking why I did not talk about the bill and that I could have talked about low income housing.

Which is it? Is there a bill or is there not a bill? These two parliamentary secretaries cannot even make up their minds as to whether there is anything in the bill. Before they ask questions like that, they should at least get their stories straight.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House tonight to speak to Bill C-48. Bill C-48 is also known as the desperation bill that was struck with the NDP. It is also known as the power budget. It was brought about by a Prime Minister in such a dither to stay in power that he made a desperate attempt to do so and in doing so decided to go fishing. Off he went fishing on the socialist river. He landed a catch of 19. I have been on a few hunting and fishing trips, but I never had a trip that cost me $240 million a fish.

This trip is paid by the Canadian taxpayer. Not only did each one of these fish the Prime Minister landed cost more than $242 million each, the government also went and cancelled a big part of the original budget that would have created hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada, thus doubling the financial blow to Canadians.

The budget is also filled with unplanned spending and it is an approach that is a recipe for waste and mismanagement. It is $4.6 billion that will be in the control of 30-odd Sheriffs of Nottingham who surely will be looting all Canadians, but definitely these merry spenders will not be giving it to the poor.

The budget is a joke to Canadians, to those in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, who depend on the promised services that might never come to fruition and to the many farmers who have been devastated by BSE who will not receive anything from this desperate power budget. There is not one red cent in additional funding for agriculture in this $4.6 billion. Shame.

A responsible approach to this or any budget would be for the government to first ensure that existing money is spent effectively to improve programs and services to ensure that nobody is left behind.

Liberals have a lot of experience in spending without a plan and we have seen the ridiculous results. Take, for example, the gun registry that has been mentioned here before, but it has to be mentioned again. It was supposed to cost $2 million and it has ballooned to almost $2 billion without saving any lives. In fact, last week the government voted to dump millions more into it instead of scrapping it when it had the chance, or at the very least fixing the flaws in the program. Even some members from across the House who said they did not approve of it sat on their hands and let it happen.

In 1997 real federal program spending per capita was $3,466. In 2005-06 it will have risen to $4,255. That is an increase of $800 per capita in volume terms or $3,200 for a family of four. Current Liberal-NDP spending plans will take it to $4,644 by 2009-10. That is a projected increase of almost $1,200 per person. However, increases in real government spending do not necessarily equate to solving the problems or even getting better results.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes that our goal should be to give Canadians the highest standard of living in the world. That should be the goal of any government. Our goal is that every Canadian who wants a job should be able to get a job. With this part of the budget that has been taken out, job creation is defeated.

Our goal is that every region of the country will enjoy economic growth and new opportunities for the people of all regions. Our goal is to make Canada the economic envy of the world, and we can do it. We want every mom and dad in Canada to be able to go to bed at night knowing that their children have the chance to live the Canadian dream. We want them to be able to get post-secondary schooling and to find good, well paying jobs, and that goes back to that job creation, so they can afford to start a family, buy a house, save for their retirement and ensure that they can have a bit left over for summer camps and a vacation. Maybe they will want to start a business. One can only do that if the government does not tax too much and spend too much. The government eliminated the only benefit in the original budget to business when it crawled through the window and into the bed of the NDP. Lust, just a pure lust for power.

According to Statistics Canada, while government spending went up, Canadian families saw their after tax income stall in 2002 and fall in 2003. A dollar left in the hands of a homemaker or an entrepreneur is much more beneficial than a dollar left in the hands of a bureaucrat or politician.

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

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

The Conservative amendment to clause 2 would force the government to table a plan by the end of each year, outlining how it intended to spend the money in this bill. 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.

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. Accountability and transparency should be paramount to any government, especially in this case, after what we have seen happen in recent years.

However, the Liberals only agreed to this bill to save their political skin, a deal that they cut to win the support of the NDP. It is shameful that they are willing to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to fund an addiction for power.

If all this spending was such a wonderful idea, I would like to know why it was not included in the February budget. In the end, the Liberals spent $4.6 billion to buy 19 votes

However, now, we have to look at the other side and why the NDP members sold their souls for $242 million each. It is not about the $4.6 billion or the budget at all. It is all about their will to get a bill passed, Bill C-38, a bill that two-thirds of Canadians do not want to see and a large number from across the House. It is a bill that should not even be on the books. Hundreds of my constituents tell me that. This is another example of the lack of direction and ideas from the government.

The Conservative Party is the official opposition. The job of any good opposition party is to call the government on anything not good for Canadians. Bill C-48 is not good for Canadians. Dithering and desperation together can be thrown into a hat, but when we pull them out, they do not spell delicious . I do not like the taste of this Let's Make a Deal budget. I will be voting against Bill C-48. We will continue to hold the government to account where spending is unfocused and wasteful on behalf of Canadians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many of the things the member said in his speech I have heard in every other Conservative speech so far, a lot of platitudes.

He did ask one interesting question about why the deal, why the spending. It is not because someone wants to hang onto power. The member has forgotten that Canada has not been in a minority government since Joe Clark in 1979. This is 25 years later. Everybody can remember what happened to Joe Clark. If a party governs a minority government as if it had a majority, what happens? It loses the next election. It loses the budget and it loses the election. Governing is about working with what we have. In a minority situation, it was important to collaborate and work with other parties, and that is part of it.

I can see by the animation here when opposition members hear the truth, they just cannot take it.

On Bill C-48, the member asked the rhetorical question. He asked where the plan was. If he would read beyond the first couple of clauses, he would see it recognizes that certain of these items are provincial jurisdiction and that arrangements and authorizations have to be made. The bill asks for those.

What part of Bill C-48 does he personally disagree with? Is he against providing assistance for retrofits for low cost housing? Is he against post-secondary education assistance for students? Is he against affordable housing? Is he against foreign aid for countries like Darfur? If he is against Bill C-48, which one of those is he against?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, my colleague across the way started out by talking about all the other speeches and pretended he listened to them. However, as my hon. colleague from Provencher said earlier, I will not go through my whole speech again. When it comes right down to it, he was not listening.

After all the denial and whatnot from all over the place, I enjoyed hearing him admit that the government played Let's Make a Deal . It had to make a deal to save the party. That is what it was all about, staying in power. The truth finally came out and I thank the member for finally being honest about that.

It still all comes down to the long and short of it. We know what this was about. The Prime Minister just could not bear the thought of not being in power. He did whatever he had to do: sell souls at $242 million a shot. It is very shameful.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is talking about how the NDP sold its soul. What does my colleague have to say about the Conservatives who voted for Bill C-43? Where does he see a plan in Bill C-43? He is saying that Bill C-48 does not have a plan. Where does my Conservative colleague see a plan in Bill C-43?

The leader of the Conservatives walked out of the House before the Minister of Finance even finished his speech and said that there was no way that he could not vote for this budget because it was something that he could agree with.

I do not see a plan in Bill C-48. I would like my colleague from the Conservative Party to tell us if they were blind when they agreed with Bill C-43.

The Conservatives talked about the NDP voting with a corrupt government. Where were the Conservatives on Bill C-43? Could my colleague explain? I have a hard time to understand when they say that Bill C-48 is the worst budget that they have ever seen, but Bill C-43 is all right because we are giving money to the big corporations, but not for affordable housing, not for students who are in debt, not one extra cent to the municipalities. The Conservatives said that the municipalities were left behind. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on why they voted for Bill C-43 with no plan.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Grey—Bruce—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to sit back and think about this. Any deal that comes from this side of the floor will not made in some clandestine hotel room in Toronto, as the new finance minister from Toronto—Danforth did.

I would like to ask the hon. member from the NDP a question about agriculture. When the member for Toronto--Danforth made this deal with the Prime Minister, why did he not add something in there for rural Canada and agriculture?

For example, the member for Timmins—James Bay stands up here night after night and pretends that the NDP sticks up for rural Canada and agriculture. This budget is a prime example of the lack of respect the government gives to agriculture in this country.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House tonight to address concerns with Bill C-48. I refuse to call this bill the budget because it hardly reflects the intent of the original budget presented in the House.

The original budget bill had some key elements that were extremely important to improving the lives of Canadians, as well as strengthening our economy. Some of the critical elements that were fundamental in the original budget were cast aside in favour of what is being debated this evening.

Bill C-48 is not about improving the quality of lives for Canadians, giving our children a brighter future, or helping the environment. It is definitely not about giving our seniors what they were promised and worked so hard for. This bill is nothing more than a deal to keep the Prime Minister and his party in power for a little while longer. This is a deal to buy votes. In buying the votes of the NDP, the Liberal government has ignored the democratic responsibility to Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

It is interesting to note that while the Liberal government has no moral dilemma in buying votes, the NDP also has no moral problem in being bought at the expense of Canadians. I find it interesting that the NDP has continually criticized the government on the democratic deficit and yet it is the one propping up the corrupt Liberal government.

In recent months the Prime Minister has stood before Canadians announcing deal after deal. These are not deals that will improve the lives of Canadians. It will only improve the life of the Liberal government. It is simply a deal with the devil. The Prime Minister used taxpayers' dollars to buy NDP votes and continues to use Canadians' hard earned money to maintain the little power he still has. If the so-called measures in Bill C-48 were truly in the best interests of Canadians, why were they not in the original budget?

The Prime Minister's recent spending spree, including spending involved in this bill, is not in the best interests of Canadians. When will the Prime Minister learn that governing is not about clinging to power? It is about giving Canadians the highest standard of living possible. The Liberal government is not interested in letting hardworking Canadians enjoy the fruits of their labour. The Liberals are interested in and have been successful at filling the pockets of their friends. Why will the Prime Minister not let Canadians hold on to more of their hard earned money?

I would like to take this opportunity to speak about an elderly couple living in my constituency, Kate and Bill Alsopp. They are fighting to maintain a decent standard of living. Kate and Bill have worked hard all of their lives to provide for themselves and their families. They supported their children when they were dependent upon them and worked hard so that they could enjoy their golden years.

The government of this country made a promise to Kate and Bill and other Canadians just like them. It promised all hardworking Canadians that their tax dollars would be there when they needed them most. The government promised programs that would allow seniors to maintain a high standard of living, yet the government has continually broken its promise. To Bill and Kate these promises mean very little any more. Let me provide one specific example of how the government has let Bill and Kate down.

Bill will wait for one full year before he receives the hip replacement surgery he needs. While the Liberal government has recklessly spent his and Canadians' tax dollars, Bill continues to wait for the surgery that he deserved a long time ago. When Bill needed it most, the government failed him.

The Liberals have not only failed seniors but our parents, children, veterans, low and middle income families, new Canadians, businesses, the military and many others. The worst of it all is that it is not only ignoring the voices of Canadians but ruining the finances of this country.

The proposed blank cheque budget, better known as Bill C-48, will not improve the lives of Canadians like Bill and Kate because it has no definite plan. In my past career as a small business owner, one of the greatest lessons I learned is that without a coherent and well thought out plan, a business is doomed to fail. With such failure, those who depend on the business will be left with nothing.

In Canada half of all small businesses fail within three years of start-up. The predominant reason for that failure is that they have no plan. The Liberal government refuses to understand the simple principle. When the Liberal government proposed the spending of billions of taxpayers' dollars without a plan, it is not the only one paying for these great mistakes. It will be hardworking Canadians who will be victimized by this reckless budget.

There is absolutely no logical reason why Canadians should be victims of their own government. Bill C-48 is truly an injustice to all hardworking Canadians. Canadians must be assured that every single tax dollar collected is directed in an open and transparent manner and with a sound plan behind it.

The Liberals have made it clear with this bill that they are not working in the best interests of Canadians. They have made it explicitly clear that they will take whatever measures necessary to preserve their government. When will the Liberals learn that government is not about trying to create legacy? It is about democracy and honouring promises.

All parties in the House claim to have the same objective which is to improve the lives of Canadians. The question is, which party has a plan that will actually accomplish this objective? The Liberal government has clearly shown that it is not interested in a plan. Liberals are more interested in patting themselves on the back for spending more and more money. It is for this reason that I question the Liberals' sincerity of achieving the goal of improving the lives of Canadians.

It is time for the Liberals to realize Canadians want a government that will plan for the future and not just spend for today. The Conservative Party of Canada understands the goal of all Canadians and knows what they want. The goal is simple. It is what all hon. members have been entrusted to do when they are elected to represent the great people of Canada. It is to better the lives of Canadians.

It seems like a simple goal which makes me wonder how it could be forgotten by the Liberal-NDP coalition. The Conservative Party has a plan that is built around the fundamental principle of putting more tax dollars back in the pockets of Canadians where they belong. We will put Canadians and their needs first and foremost. We will ensure that every tax dollar spent will be spent in a wise and prudent fashion and we will provide Canadians with an accountable government they can be proud of.

We will continue to hold the Liberal government to account for its mismanagement and reckless spending. The Liberal government has stood before Canadians claiming to have solved issues such as the fiscal imbalance, lack of infrastructure for cities and the health care crisis. These announcements are only spending announcements. They are empty promises. Where can we find the plan that goes along with the billions and billions of dollars promised to fix the largest problems facing our country today?

I have yet to see these plans and Canadians continue to wait to see how the Liberal government will use their money to improve their lives. Canadians continue to pay some of the highest taxes among G-8 nations while their take home pay continues to decrease. The Liberal government is stripping more dollars out of the pockets of individuals and giving them less in return. The promises made to individual Canadians are not the only promises being broken. Promises are also being broken to the business community.

In the original budget the Liberal government promised to cut taxes for businesses. This tax cut was supposed to give businesses the opportunity to grow and thrive in a global marketplace. Canadian businesses have been at a competitive disadvantage for years because of overtaxation.

The excise tax, for example, on exported Canadian wine is but one of many examples of how the government has constrained the growth of our economy. The Prime Minister and his government expected Canadian wineries to pay tax on wine being exported to other countries while they allow international wines to be imported at a much lower rate. How is the industry expected to grow when small wineries cannot afford to pay this archaic policy?

Canada has been recognized in recent years as having some of the best wines anywhere in the world, yet the Prime Minister through unfair taxation is not allowing Canadian wineries to be competitive on the world market. Is it not the duty of the government to act in the best interest of our businesses? Why is the government then taking the obvious measures necessary to promote a healthy economy?

The original business tax cuts would have stimulated the economy, created new jobs and provided more incentives for businesses to remain in Canada, but the Prime Minister decided it was more important to spend money to make his party look good in the public eye. The wine industry as well as others will remain in the shackles placed on them so that the Liberals and their NDP cohorts can continue to run amok with the finances of this country.

The original budget was obviously flawed and lacked a coherent implementation plan, but it did address issues that are important to Canadians. The Prime Minister has manipulated the original budget so much that it no longer adequately addresses the needs of Canadians. Even worse, the billions and billions of dollars he has committed since the original budget bill was tabled have absolutely no implementation plan.

We cannot allow the Prime Minister to play politics with taxpayers' money. We have seen hundreds of millions of dollars go to waste and stolen under the leadership of the Liberals through ad scam and other scandals. Millions more will go to waste if we do not see an implementation plan for the $4.6 billion promised in this bill.

It is for this reason and this reason only that I cannot and will not support this Liberal-NDP coalition deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the member that last week this House approved the appropriations of approximately $180 billion to be spent on programs across Canada. Tonight we are only talking about the $4.5 billion supplemental appropriations for public transit, access to post-secondary education, foreign aid and affordable housing.

The hon. member went on with what seemed to be a litany of problems. He seemed to be repeating everything that has been said over the last number of days, stating that there is a real problem with the economic management of this country. Let us look at every external indicator, and I am not talking one or two, I am talking about every one of them.

The employment growth is the highest in the G-7 with 280,000 new jobs created in the last 14 months. We have the fastest growth in the standard of living in the G-7. We have good GDP growth. We have low inflation rates which in turn lead to low interest rates. There has been an extreme reduction in the debt to GDP ratio. We have had eight surplus budgets, something which has not been seen in any other country. We have paid down $65 billion on the debt.

In any external indicator, this country ranks among the top. When the Conservative Party, the member's party, was in power we saw the exact opposite. The last year that the Conservative Party was in power the debt was $43 billion. They say interest rates were high. I say interest rates were high because the Conservatives were in power and lost control of the economic and monetary policies at their disposal.

After hearing the member talk about the fiscal mismanagement that he alleges, why is it that every external indicator indicates the exact opposite?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a couple of interesting points to which I would like to respond.

The first one was about the implementation of this $4.5 billion ad hoc deal. The concern we have is that when the government went through the original proposal with Bill C-43, there were all kinds of discussions and consultations. The Liberals were very clear when we talked to them after the budget that there could be no tinkering, that there could be nothing done with this budget, that it would be absolutely unreasonable, it would be reckless. The finance minister said that there was no flexibility in looking at trying to change in the budget. I find it somewhat ironic today as we stand here to debate this additional ad hoc deal. We all know that the real reason this has happened was just to save the political hide of the Liberal Party, for it to continue to stay in power.

I guess the real question will probably be what will happen next when the NDP is done propping up the Liberal government. Will there be more reckless spending? Will the honeymoon be over and will we be back at the table?

The next point the member mentioned was that so many people support this bill, that so many people are in favour of it and they have done a good job. What we have in Canada in terms of where we are right now and where we have been for the last 12 years is missed opportunities. We have had tremendous opportunities. We could have done a lot better than we have done so far.

The analogy I use when I talk to people is that they have a case of beer in the fridge, but what they do not realize is they could have had a couple of cases of beer in the fridge. At some point in time we will have missed our opportunity and they are going to open the fridge and there will be no beer in there at all and then they will be very disappointed with what has happened.

[Shawn Murphy, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

From Niagara, it should be a case of wine.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON]

A case of wine, sorry; a case of beer is a bad example.

The other thing is in terms of different groups that have been critical with this budget and this particular deal. Once again the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has been pretty vocal in saying that this deal does not complement the priorities of small businesses, which favour allocating the federal surplus to debt reduction and tax relief over additional spending. Small businesses are the engine of the economy. They create all the jobs. They are the ones that need the tax relief to be competitive in other parts in the world. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives raised concerns that reneging on corporate tax relief would jeopardize investment and jobs in Canada.

The problem is not that we have had some good years of financial success. Our concern is the kind of footing that we are putting ourselves on as we move forward. We really believe that tax relief would help make us more competitive and help us to continue to be competitive in this global economy.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell a little story which might make it interesting for the people back home.

[An hon. member]

The minister of defence is all ears.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

I am glad to hear the Liberals across the way are perking up their ears.

I have been reading a lot about ancient history recently. History does not really care about whether one is right or left. It does not really care about whether one is capitalist or Marxist. It really only cares about whether or not there is success or productivity and whether or not something has survived and thrived. That is all it really cares about.

I have been reading Edward Gibbon's The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire . I have been reading Arnold Toynbee's A Study of History and Will and Ariel Durant's The Story of Civilization . I would like to tell a story about Rome.

Edward Gibbon talks about the time before Augustus and Octavius. In that capacity one of the things that afflicted Rome was excessive spending. It did not have sound finances. The society was no longer frugal. It also suffered from its young men being unwilling to bear arms to be trained in the art of war and to defend the Roman empire. It also suffered from a large degree of extortion, moral decay, corruption and a general disregard for religion. Therefore, it also had a low birth rate.

Augustus came along and he said that he was going to change some of those things. One of the things he did was he cut taxes. For every single child that a person had, the person's taxes would be reduced by 20%. Someone who had five children would pay no tax at all. He also made sure the Romans had sound financing and frugality. He made sure they had a strong military.

Another thing he did is very important, and it touches not only on this bill but also many others that we will be dealing with in the next little while and some we have been dealing with over the past while. He governed with moral authority. He sought a society with strong faith. He removed those people who were unworthy administrators.

This is what I want to focus on in light of Bill C-48 and some of the other bills we are going to be dealing with. If we do not have a society that largely believes in a very concrete set of right and wrong, most often provided by religion, then the only thing that actually rules is the covenant of the sword. The only people who police the difference between right and wrong in that capacity are either the military or whatever police function there is in that state.

The great problem that arises with that is that the police and the military are largely a reflection of the society they serve. If we get to a circumstance where the society is becoming more and more accepting of moral decay, extortion, corruption and various things, then we cannot be surprised if the military, the police and the people who are there to administer the law themselves become corrupt and caught up in it. Then it is merely as Hobbes would have said that life is nasty, brutish and short because one is ruled by those people who have the right of might and the sword. It is the survival of the fittest in the most base way.

De Tocqueville also talks about this in his writings on early America. Sadly, one of the things that pains me across the way, one of the things that Augustus would have never stood for as a Roman emperor, is if there had been corruption on the level and scale that we have had brought forth by the Gomery inquiry, he would have done his utmost to rout it out. Because of the moral authority that he brought to that position, his rule of 50 years was extended by another 300 because people tried to largely leave unchanged many of the things he put in place. Had he not been around, the Roman empire would have been a blip of only 150 years rather than the pax Romana of 800.

One of my great frustrations when I look across the way is that I see a Prime Minister and to a large part a party that is complicit with regard to this form of extortion and corruption, this scandal, whether it is involving the sponsorship money or if it is the unity fund or various things, and it portends very badly for the future of this country and where we are all going.

Let us talk about some of the solutions then--

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know it is getting late but the member just said that the Prime Minister was complicit in corruption. He has directly mentioned a member and he has impugned the reputation and the motives of that parliamentarian. That is contrary to the rules of Parliament and the member should be asked to withdraw his comments and to apologize to the House.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if he would like me to explain my words I will go on and do so. Putting aside some of these other comments for a second, I will address his concerns specifically. I remember when I was a rookie member of Parliament in my first term from 1997 to 2000 and I was in the human resources development committee--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hon. member for Calgary West knows very well that he is now entering into a debate. It is not the intent of giving you a reply on the point of order. Do you want to reply to the point of order?

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my reply to the point of order is that I do believe that this government is complicit in scandal and corruption and the Prime Minister is the head of it. I stand by that. I do not apologize for that. The Gomery inquiry is elucidating that daily in the press.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hon. member for Calgary West knows well that he may talk in general but certainly not in regard to one individual that he would identify. If the hon. member was accusing one individual, I would ask him to withdraw.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I accuse a number of them, not just the Prime Minister. Does that satisfy it?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

I would ask the hon. member for Calgary West to please withdraw. Whether it be one, whether it be two, whether it be three, if you accuse them individually, please withdraw.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

I accused them generally, Mr. Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The hon. member claims that he was accusing generally. We will look at the blues and at Hansard . In the meantime, continue.

[Rob Anders, Conservative, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read some stories into the record, if I may.

In my rookie years from 1997 to 2000 when I served on the human resources development committee, the current President of the Treasury Board was the chair of the committee. At that time he told us that the minister of finance, who is now the current Prime Minister, had his finger in every single expenditure of the government and had the accounting software flagged for anything above $10 million.

We have heard about $800 million that has gone missing or was misappropriated with regard to the sponsorship scandal and the unity fund. That would imply to me that at least--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

The time for debate has elapsed. We are now into questions and comments. The hon. Minister of National Defence.