Debates of June 5th, 2014

Report Stage

[An hon. member]

He does not listen.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

No, Mr. Speaker, he does not listen.

Less than two weeks later, on February 26, 2014, the mayors of 22 of the biggest cities in Canada met in Ottawa. These cities alone represent 65% of the population of Canada.

As he left the meeting, Régis Labeaume, the mayor of Quebec City, stated:

My colleagues, not just those from Quebec, but everyone around the table, support us in calling on the federal government to make recreational and sports infrastructure once again eligible for the program. [Both the UMQ and the FCM agree.] We are asking the government to listen to us a little bit...

The day before, the president of the Union des municipalités du Québec and mayor of Rimouski, Éric Forest, was very direct in his comments about the new Building Canada fund. He believed, in good faith, that the new fund would continue to provide one-third of the funding for recreational and sports infrastructure, as the previous program did. However, that is not the case.

I quote:

When they got down to work in 2008 [when he says “they”, he means the Conservative government], we delivered infrastructure projects to help with the economic recovery. It is crystal clear that we spent money in anticipation of receiving funding. We went deeper into debt. If we were not there, who was going to do the work? We are currently out of breath, and we need that oxygen. However, they are slamming the door in our faces.

A few hours later, Richard Lehoux, the president of the Fédération québécoise des municipalités, said:

The federal government fanned the flames by refusing to allow the municipalities to use the amounts provided for in the building Canada fund for sports facilities. The municipalities need flexibility. We know our needs, and so we are in the best position to know how the investments should be used.

I would not dare suggest in the House that the minister was not telling the truth, but perhaps he twisted the facts.

The new Building Canada plan is supposed to be the biggest infrastructure program in Canada's history.

When the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the mayors of Canada's 22 largest cities, the Union des municipalités du Québec and the Fédération québécoise des municipalités say that they are unhappy and are surprised by the announced details of the program, which is supposed to address an infrastructure deficit in the country, I think there is something that is not working.

The municipalities hold more than 60% of the public infrastructure in Canada. However, did this outcry wake up the minister? The answer is still no.

I just came back from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' annual conference in Niagara Falls, which ended last Monday. Do you know what the delegates wanted to talk to me and my colleagues about? The criteria for the new Building Canada fund. They also came to talk to me at length about the issue of housing, but I will keep that for another discussion and another minister.

I would like to bring my colleagues up to speed on municipal news from the past few days. Just to provide a bit of context, when we asked him when he would unveil the details of the new infrastructure program and about municipalities' fears of losing the construction season if they did not know how to apply, the minister told us that negotiations were proceeding well and that the details would be available by April 1.

However, on May 9, more than one month after the start of the construction season and the implementation of the new infrastructure program, the past president of the FCM, Claude Dauphin, said:

We’re still in the dark. None of our members can apply because we don’t know how to apply...To tell the truth, we’re a little bit worried. We cannot afford to lose an entire construction season...

In other words, the money is there, but they still do not know how to access it. It was expected that construction work would be under way already, but that does not seem to be the case.

This is the last quote I would like to share, because if I were to quote every elected official who has weighed in with the media in recent weeks, we could miss question period.

This time I will quote someone from this area, the mayor of Gatineau, Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin, who was attending the FCM annual conference. This quote is from the June 2, 2014, issue of Le Droit:

He pointed out that the City of Gatineau must make significant investments in many infrastructure projects such as roads, water filtration plants, libraries and arenas.

[According to him,] a city cannot manage all this with just property taxes...The Maison du citoyen renovations alone will cost $12 million....Ottawa and Quebec City have to be part of the solution.

Those are the facts, and I have spoken only about infrastructure today. I heard the same story at the FCM convention about the funding for social housing.

We will strongly oppose this bill because it fails our communities.

Our leader, the member for Outremont, was actually warmly received at this convention with his credible partnership offer for Canadian municipalities. The municipalities are now even more aware of which party they must turn to in 2015 to advance their priorities.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the weekends, most of us return to our home constituencies and are often afforded the opportunity to take a little time to drive or walk around our constituencies. Quite often when we do that, we get a good sense of the infrastructure, whether it is the condition of the sidewalks, roads or community centres. There is a list of things that one could easily come up with to improve our social and structural infrastructure.

We have seen infrastructure expenditures to the degree where the federal government does get involved, such as Forks development, North Portage Place, Kenaston underpass and so many other projects. The member made reference to this. For many of these communities to get the infrastructure, or to get some of these larger projects off the ground they need Ottawa to participate.

Would the member like to take the opportunity to reaffirm how important it is that Ottawa get involved on this file?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course Ottawa needs to be involved in this file. Municipalities cannot afford to raise taxes. Let me give one example.

The maximum federal contribution has been set at 30% under the Building Canada fund. In the past, municipalities could draw one-third of their infrastructure costs from the Building Canada fund, one-third from the gas tax and one-third from the provincial government. That is no longer the case. Now, the maximum federal contribution for a project will be one-third. As a result, municipalities, which have 60% of the infrastructure in Canada, will have to raise taxes or get the money from somewhere.

I am also very concerned about the fact that much of our infrastructure is crumbling. We have an infrastructure maintenance deficit. Despite that, $6 billion from the previous Building Canada fund has not been spent. Why is that?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that local governments cannot raise taxes. Where is the money going to come from?

We have also heard that the NDP supports a carbon tax, which would dramatically increase the cost of heating fuel and fuel to drive cars and whatnot. Is that where this extra money is going to come from?

She said she wants the federal government to participate. For 14 years I was in local government. I remember in the 1990s when the NDP cut billions of dollars in transfers for social programs and education, all the programs. There was no one-third, one-third, one-third. It was zero from the federal government. Under this government, there is the permanent gas tax, which we have never cut in that respect. We are also participating.

Where is the money going to come from? Is it going to come from natural resource royalties? Where is the money going to come from? Other than the carbon tax, which we do not support, where is the money going to come from?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the money is already there. Municipalities used to be able to use the gas tax in addition to the Building Canada fund. Why can they no longer do so now?

Since we are talking about a lack of investment, I will talk a bit about housing. The end of the social housing agreements means that the federal government is cutting $1.7 billion at the expense of the people who need it most, the people living in social housing units.

How does my colleague explain those cuts?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just spoke to the issue of social housing.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities studied some aspects of this bill during a meeting. However, it was unable to hear from anyone other than people from the department.

Could my colleague talk about how beneficial it would have been to hear what people with varying expertise had to say about certain aspects of this bill?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately that is what we get with omnibus bills. The government changes 60 laws and gives us only one hour to talk about housing, which is the foundation of so many things, including people's health. Only one witness was called. This is absolutely ridiculous.

If the government was asked to vote on a bill that brought back the gun registry, something it opposes, but that also included harsher sentences for criminals, something it supports, would it vote in favour of that bill? That is exactly what the government is asking us to do. What is more, it is reducing our speaking time and we hardly have any time to speak in committee. This is not democracy.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to represent beautiful Langley, British Columbia, and to have the opportunity to speak briefly to the many strengths of Canada's new economic action plan 2014.

I would like to begin my comments by reflecting on what I have heard from the NDP. I was shocked, maybe I should not have been, that it does not want us to balance our budget. It wants us to continue all the different programs that have reached the end of their lives. They want to continue deficit spending. That is not what Canadians want.

We will continue to work hard creating jobs and an environment where the economy can grow and we can balance the priorities of Canadians.

I would like to highlight the important contribution that our natural resources, forestry, and agriculture make to the Canadian economy, which is a pillar of our government's economic action plan. These sectors create jobs and prosperity, particularly in rural communities across Canada.

For example, consider Canada's natural resources sector. This sector represents 18% of the economy and over half of our exports. It supports 1.8 million jobs directly and indirectly. That is where a large percentage of the money for programs is coming from. Furthermore, it generates over $30 billion annually in revenues to governments, which is equal to approximately half of all spending in hospitals in Canada in 2013.

There are hundreds of natural resources projects under way or planned in Canada over the next 10 years, representing a total potential investment of $650 billion. That is huge.

A significant element of this economic boost is represented by Canada's unique oil sands industry. This sector is an asset that will increasingly contribute to the prosperity of all Canadians, including the programs that the opposition NDP and Liberal parties want but do not want to pay for.

The oil sands is among the world's largest technological projects, contributing about 275,000 jobs across Canada and $48 billion in GDP, numbers that could grow to an average of 630,000 jobs and a contribution of $113 billion in GDP per year by 2035. That is huge. This is due to an increasing global demand for resources, particularly from the emerging economies.

Increasing global demand for resources like our oil, particularly from emerging economies, will create new economic and job opportunities from which all Canadians will benefit. However, Canadians will only reap the benefits that come from our natural resources once investments are made by the private sector to bring these much-needed resources to market.

Approval processes can be long and unpredictable. Delays and red tape often plague projects that pose few environmental risks. That is why our government has worked hard since 2006 to streamline and improve the regulatory process while safeguarding and protecting the environment.

A modern regulatory system should support progress on economically viable major economic projects and should sustain Canada's reputation as an attractive place to invest. That is why, as part of Canada's economic action plan, we are modernizing the federal regulatory system by establishing clear timelines, reducing duplication and regulatory burdens, and focusing resources on large projects where the potential environmental impacts are the greatest. That makes sense.

For example, we are implementing system-wide improvements to achieve the goal of one project, one review within clearly defined time periods.

In addition, we have invested $54 million over two years to support more effective project approvals through the major projects management office initiative. In our most recent budget, we announced $28 million over two years for the National Energy Board for comprehensive and timely reviews of applications and to support the participant funding program. We have also eliminated tariffs on mobile offshore drilling units used in offshore oil and gas exploration and development.

We also announced an extension of the mineral exploration tax credit to March 31, 2015. This credit helps the junior exploration companies raise capital by providing an incentive to individuals who invest in flow-through shares issued to finance mineral exploration. The credit is in addition to the regular deduction provided for the exploration expenses flowed through from the issuing company. Since 2006, this measure has helped junior mining companies raise over $5 billion for exploration. Promoting the exploration of Canada's rich mineral resources by junior mining companies offers important benefits in terms of job creation and economic development across Canada, including in rural and northern communities.

Our government has also amended the Coasting Trade Act to improve access to modern, reliable seismic data for offshore resource development. Since 2004, mobile offshore drilling units used in oil and gas exploration and development have been permitted to be temporarily imported into Canada on a duty-free basis under the Mobile Offshore Drilling Limits Remission Order. This remission order was extended in 2009 for another five years and was set to expire in May 2014.

Economic action plan 2014 proposes to eliminate the 20% most-favoured-nation rate of duty on imported mobile offshore drilling units. This measure would permanently eliminate the disincentive for exploration leading to oil and gas discoveries in offshore Atlantic and Arctic regions and would create a level playing field with other major oil and gas countries competing for offshore petroleum industry investment.

Offshore oil and gas developments create jobs and support economic growth in Canadian communities. Continued exploration activity is required to bring new projects to communities and to sustain these economic benefits over a long term. However, it depends on modern, reliable seismic technology and data. That is why amending the act would ensure that companies have the information they need to identify potential resource development opportunities.

In addition to supporting responsible resource development, we must not forget the important contribution our forestry sector makes to our country. Canada's forestry sector directly employs over 200,000 workers in all regions of the country, including in 200 communities that rely on the sector for at least 50% of their economic base. Our government has helped keep this vital industry strong. The investments in the forestry industry transformation program, introduced in budget 2010, has been successful in enabling Canadian forestry companies to lead the world in demonstrating the viability of innovative technologies that improve efficiencies, reduce environmental impacts, and create high-value products for Canada's world-class forestry resources. Through programs like the IFIT, we have seen an over 1,000% increase in exports to China, which has helped the sector weather the economic downturn in the U.S. Economic action plan 2014 would build on this success by providing $90.1 million over four years, starting in 2014-15, to renew the IFIT program. Our government will continue to work with the forestry sector as it invests in innovative new products and pursues new markets for Canadian forest products.

Finally, the last topic I would like to highlight is our support for the agriculture and agri-food sector. The agricultural and agri-food sector in Canada accounts for over $100 billion in economic activity and provides employment for over 2.1 million Canadians.

Langley is an environmentally friendly community, but agriculture is also very important. I invite all members during the upcoming summer to spend some time out in beautiful Langley, British Columbia. Also, I encourage all members in this House to support Canada's economic plan. It creates jobs, it creates prosperity, and it is the right thing to do.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during second reading of this bill, I asked a very simple question about something my constituents of Beauport—Limoilou are concerned about.

There is a palpable sense of insecurity among parents of primary, secondary and college students. There are four schools along the railway. It is a very busy line that is used to transport potentially dangerous materials from the Port of Québec to the rest of Canada and even the United States.

Bill C-31 provides for certain amendments that will allow cabinet to make decisions on rail safety in total secrecy, and I do not accept that.

How can my colleague accept this secrecy?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, our hearts go out to the families of those who lost their lives in the tragic rail disaster in Quebec. This government and the minister are doing an incredible job in dealing with those important issues.

I am really shocked again that the NDP is using its delay tactics. Our government wants to take action because we are a government that gets things done. We make sure that the rails are safe for Canadians.

I would ask the member across the way to work with our government and that his party not to attack and delay. Delay means putting off what Canada needs in terms of safety in our rail system. The NDP is trying to delay that, and that is not what Canadians want.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to be following the member with my speech. I do have a question for him with respect to the process, because I plan on spending a bit of time on it in my speech.

The government is trying to sneak through, via the back door of a budget implementation bill, serious changes to a wide spectrum of other pieces of legislation that should have been and could have been stand-alone pieces of legislation. The government has invoked time allocation on this important budget bill, thereby limiting the amount of time members of Parliament will have to speak to it.

I am wondering if my colleague could explain why the majority Conservative government is using such mechanisms to pass laws, mechanisms that not only abuse the rules but are not in the best interests of Canadians.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the former Liberal government had a reputation of not getting things done because it would do too much studying, and I think of the Sydney tar ponds, formerly the dirtiest, most contaminated site in Canada. It was studied many times. Within months of our becoming government in 2006, I had the honour of going there and announcing that we were going to clean it up. Now it is a beautiful park. It is a beautiful site.

This is a government that gets things done. We do not delay as the former Liberal government did or as the opposition wants us to do. We get things done.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, one of the key items that has been discussed little in this Parliament with respect to Bill C-31 is the increase in the cap of the adoption expenses tax credit. In our last budget we recognized that some 30,000 Canadian children are adoptable but are not being adopted.

I wonder if the member could comment briefly on the importance of not only the last budget wherein we increased the number of eligible expenses but also this budget in which we have increased the tax credit itself to cover more of those expenses.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank that member for his work in raising this issue. For many Canadians he is a role model for adoption, with his love for children and his big heart.

This government values family. As I said before, we get things done. We do not just talk the talk; we walk the walk.

This is another example, showing in tangible ways how we support families, including adoption.

I would like to thank that member for all the work he has done on that file.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I was not digging for a compliment, but I appreciate it. I was simply looking to increase the visibility of adoption as an issue in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill C-31, our government's budget implementation act, to speak about the importance of the budget that we put forward for Canadians. Obviously, we are focused, as a government, on the economy, creating jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians. We do have the strongest job creation record of any country in the G7, with over a million net new jobs, with over 85% of those being full time and in the private sector. I am proud of our government's record.

We have been able to keep taxes low while we are growing the economy, maintaining or increasing transfers to our provinces on an ongoing basis. That was not the Liberal record back in the 1990s, where the taxes went up and the transfers went down. We have been able to do both and grow the economy.

We have also made difficult decisions. Budgets do not balance themselves. They do take time, especially post-recession. To bring the government's budget back into balance, it takes some tough decisions. We have been making them. We are on track to balance the budget. That is good news for Canadians because ongoing structural deficits, like those they have in Ontario, lead to tomorrow's taxes. We do not want to see that situation. That is bad for the economy. In fact, our tax increases save the average Canadian family about $3,400 a year, and that is very good.

Obviously, we recognize that for economic recovery the outlook remains fragile, when we are looking globally at the G20 and beyond. Growth among these countries continues to be uneven, as it is here in Canada. We must continue to do more. That is why this budget and the implementation act become very important to us.

I do want to highlight a few of the items that I think were really critical, with respect to what the government is doing on its budget, including the significant investments in a new international crossing between Windsor and Detroit. We put $631 million down over the next two years as cash to begin to really accelerate projects to bring that into reality.

We heard recently that the Coast Guard in the United States, only yesterday or the day before, gave the final permit for that bridge to move ahead.

Obviously, we would have a binational authority to oversee the project, which would be populated with important Canadians and Americans, to move that project forward. We look forward to that development.

That initiative, though, would build upon the tremendous record of this government, beginning back in 2006, with the gateways and border crossings fund, with a significant down payment in 2007 on what is now the Rt. Hon. Herb Gray Parkway. That was a $400-million down payment. There were investments to begin purchasing land on the Canadian side of the border for a plaza, a customs inspection plaza, connecting to that Rt. Hon. Herb Gray Parkway. There was the Bridge to Strengthen Trade Act, which came in a prior budget in this House, to insulate the DRIC from further lawsuit on the Canadian side. We have done our best to move that forward. This will be a P3 project that would be very significant for our region, not only in terms of construction jobs when it comes, but for the long-term business investment that Windsor-Essex county needs, not only for the auto industry, but for every other industry in the region to continue.

That was also fulfilling an important component of our national auto strategy that we announced in 2008.

Both Bill C-31 and our budget, also, would take important next steps with respect to the Regulatory Cooperation Council and our beyond the border action plan, another part of our auto action plan strategy in 2008, where we could see greater harmonization of standards particularly important for the auto industry, where they now produce a North American car, so to speak, instead of cars for various balkanized regulations across North America. That is important, in terms of the productivity and the forward-looking projections for that industry. This is an important component that we had to have, and we would make further progress on that in Bill C-31.

Our budget also included significant investments for rural broadband. I know that, just since the announcement, our Essex County Council has already been working hard to update its strategy for not only extending broadband to its last remaining regions but for upgrading the speed on that.

There is nothing more important, in my humble estimation, if I want to speak to an issue of real passion for me in Bill C-31, than the adoption expenses tax credit.

In 2008, I brought forward Motion No. 386. It was calling for a study at the human resources committee, where we would take a look at the supports that were available on the federal side for adoptive parents and adopted children. That laid the groundwork, with its ultimate hearings and report, and a solid foundation for us to begin to look at it in a systematic way, to see what we can do from the federal side to improve adoption outcomes across Canada.

Anybody who has been paying attention to the adoption issue will know there are some important things that need to be done. One is baselining the actual number of children we have and what forms of temporary care they are in across Canada. The provincial and territorial systems report very differently on these matters, but we know that there is an emerging crisis in child welfare across the country, if we look cumulatively at what is happening.

From that, we know that there are an estimated 30,000 Canadian children who are at the stage where they are ready for adoption permanence, but there is no plan for adoption permanence for them.

When we looked further, in our study, we looked at areas where maybe the federal government could help. One of those is financial supports. The process for adoption, unless one goes through a public agency, can be very expensive.

I remember my interventions with then-minister Jim Flaherty in pre-budget consultations for budget 2013. He asked what we could do, and I suggested that the first thing we needed to do was expand the eligible criteria to more accurately reflect the range of costs that parents would face if they were choosing adoption.

Prior to that, the adoption expenses tax credit only covered the post-placement costs, those costs that are incurred once a child is placed and going forward. We note, for those who have to incur a home study, for example, that they can be very costly. In Ontario, people have to undergo what is called “PRIDE training”, important courses to understand the types of transitions that parents and children are going to go through in the situation of an adoption or a foster-to-adopt. Those can be very expensive as well.

That was the first thing we did with economic action plan 2013. Our government, to its credit, knew that there was more to be done. It did make a commitment in the last throne speech that it would do more to help with respect to adoption. That is why, in our economic action plan 2014, we would raise the adoption expenses tax credit from just a little over $11,700, where it has currently risen by way of index. Now we would raise that to $15,000, and it would remain indexed over time, as well.

That would apply to adoptions that are finalized, beginning in 2014 and going forward. That should be encouraging news. We do know that the cost of adoption is one of the two major financial obstacles.

The other, of course, is the environment that happens in the provincial and territorial systems, which we cannot touch from the federal side, and that is the process of adoption and how the child welfare systems work. I certainly would hope that at some point the Council of the Federation will speak of this issue in a structural, ongoing way that they need to have more adoption outcomes as a result of their system.

Currently, they only conclude cumulatively about 2,000 domestic adoptions a year. Meanwhile children are continuing to go in the front end in alarming numbers in crisis intervention, so they would do well to encourage themselves to target an increase in the number of adoptions that they finalize over time, and to monitor their improvement over time, as well. I certainly hope they do that.

These are some of the aspects I spoke of last spring in my national adoption action plan in this House. There is so much to do on this particular issue, and I am proud to say that our government is doing its particular part. Those financial obstacles are a very fundamental key, one of the two keys that parents will face in a decision about whether to adopt.

The more we can bring that a lot closer to affordability for them, the more chance that these children are going to get into permanent, loving, adoptive families. It is critical they do. What we know from kids who age out of the system is that they are more likely to end up in poverty, more likely to end up homeless, more likely to have poorer educational outcomes and poorer relational outcomes over time, including intergenerationally. We know that they are more likely to end up either in the mental health stream or the criminal justice stream. Society is paying for this on the back end. We are looking at ways, obviously, over here where we can pay a little bit on the front end to help get them into situations that are a whole lot better.

I think that is worthy, and I think it is something all members of this House can support.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked this question of the member for Winnipeg South Centre and it was ducked, so I am hoping the member opposite will not duck it.

On the FATCA portion of the budget implementation bill, a former U.S. diplomat, James Jatras, has said:

The primary purpose of the agreement is to nullify protections under the Bank Act, the Personal Information Protection and Electronics Documents Act (PIPEDA), the Canadian Human Rights Code, and especially the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The people affected are not just resident Americans but at least a million Canadian citizens.

This includes, I suspect, a significant number of citizens who live in the riding of the member opposite, because his riding is very close to the Detroit-Windsor border. Therefore, those protections that Canadians used to enjoy will not be enjoyed by a number of individuals, including children of those individuals, because the U.S. has decided that those children are now subject to FATCA.

How on earth can the government claim to be protecting the privacy and the personal information of Canadians when they are ordering banks to just give it away, including that of children in his riding?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member did not pay attention to my intervention, but I will try to answer his question on FATCA nonetheless.

I will not speak to what the U.S. motives are in all of this. It is its own sovereign decision as to whether it wants to start looking at dual citizens abroad, for example, but I will say that if the government did not act, the U.S. rules would still be in place. In fact, they would be far more stringent than what is coming out as a result of an agreement we made on that particular issue.

I think we have done some amount of service to dual citizens on this side of the border by doing the best we could to obtain an agreement, for example, that would exempt certain classes of investments altogether from consideration, so this is a marked improvement relative to what would have been in place had there been no agreement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, major municipalities are convening in Canada to try to get a better understanding of how Ottawa could play a more significant role in building infrastructure.

We in the Liberal Party have been advocating that the government has done a massive disservice by cutting in excess of 80% monies that should have been spent in this fiscal year.

The reason why it is doing it, on the surface would appear, is because next year is the election year. Instead of spending the money this year when our communities are in need of that money, the government is holding off and choosing to spend it next year.

Can the member tell us why it is the Prime Minister has put politics ahead of the needs of our communities in Canada?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that is actually in the budget implementation act. Having said that, our government has announced the longest and largest infrastructure program, and because we have participated with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, for example, in over a dozen round tables and because we work closely with them, the way this plan is structured responds to some of the very things that the FCM members have been asking for. For example, they wanted to have greater flexibility with respect to the gas tax plan. They wanted it indexed. That is something we did, something members on the other side opposed. I cannot help it if they did that, but we have done the right thing to put more money out there for municipalities.

I know the member wants to play a cute trick with respect to the difference between main estimates and public accounts and budgets and all that, but the point is, we put more money down on the table. We have given greater flexibility to municipalities, which would build more and better things that would matter to our economy and shaping our economy going forward. We have done it without the help of the opposition members. They keep voting against that and that is a shameful record. Ours is a good one.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says the government has put more money on the table. The “more money” that Conservatives have put on the table does not actually become realized until after the next federal election.

The Liberal Party is saying that the need is today. Municipalities across Canada need infrastructure dollars to be spent this year. How does the government respond? It turns off the tap in favour of spending the money in the next year, which happens to coincide with an election year. Members of the Liberal Party believe that the government is playing politics with infrastructure dollars as opposed to servicing the needs of our communities across the country.

Having said that, I would like to focus attention on what we are doing today. We are talking about the supplementary budget bill. This is a bill in which the government is attempting to pass through numerous other pieces of legislation. We are dealing with issues from the Supreme Court, to rail transportation, to food safety. It is all being bundled up and put into a budget implementation bill.

Conservatives do that so that they do not have to bring in separate pieces of independent legislation that would have allowed members the opportunity to debate and most importantly, allowed Canadians the opportunity to get a better understanding of exactly what the majority Conservative government is up to.

To make matters even worse, Conservatives are also invoking time allocation and by invoking time allocation--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is awfully noisy in the chamber, and I am finding it quite difficult to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North. It may be the same case for other hon. members. I cannot be certain of that, but I would ask hon. members to recognize the member for Winnipeg North has the floor and will have for the next several minutes.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know quite often that the truth does hurt.

It was interesting the other day that the member from Calgary was standing and saying what the number one priority for people in Calgary was. The number one priority is balanced budgets.

[An hon. member]

Right on.