Evidence of meeting #10 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
In the French version it would read as follows:
[...] in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board and in accordance with the priorities established by the provinces.
The idea is to always take into account the priorities established by each of the provinces. For us, in the Bloc Québécois, it would ensure that Quebec's priorities are being well considered. It also applies to all provinces. I do not know if my colleague will agree to the addition to his amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I have a ruling on the subamendment.
The subamendment is inadmissible because it introduces a new concept into the bill. The introduction of provincial priorities is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-10 and is therefore inadmissible. If you refer to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 654, it says: “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” Therefore your subamendment is inadmissible.
The chair's ruling is not debatable, but the member can choose to challenge it if he wishes.
Monsieur Carrier.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Chairman, I take issue with that decision. It's surely not contrary to the intent of the infrastructure program that the provinces be concerned by the setting of their priorities.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Carrier, it's not debatable. Do you wish to challenge the ruling of the chair?
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
I challenge your decision, because we consider provincial priorities to be essential.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
The motion, then, is that the chair's ruling be sustained. We'll have a recorded vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 8; nays 3)
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Can the record state that this is your first challenge and you survived it? Welcome to the finance committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you. It's a little more exciting than the industry committee, I must say, in certain ways.
Is there any further discussion with respect to NDP-1?
Monsieur Mulcair.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Chair, despite your decision, which I am not going to challenge, as you said yourself, I nevertheless hope to convince my colleagues that not being able to guarantee that the priorities of the provinces will be taken into account... this list would normally be taken into account. I hope that my colleagues will support this proposal. To give a concrete example, the City of Montreal can in no way afford to match these amounts. Mayor Miller of Toronto clearly stated that he cannot afford to meet federal demands. Much of that money simply is not there.
I think it would be a serious mistake not to accept the amendments proposed by the NDP, especially since it does not incur any new expense for the government. Try as they might, the Liberals won't find anything wrong with this clause. All we're saying is that we want the money to be delivered with no strings attached.
In closing, Mr. Chair, we would like our colleagues to support this proposal.
Conservative
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are some things I am willing to let pass, but not others. In recent weeks, I met with the directors general of the City of Montreal. They want the budget to be adopted and they are ready to do their share in order to obtain the funds required for infrastructure.
I do not think it is a good idea to speak on behalf of other people when what you're saying is false, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Is there any further discussion? If not, I'll call the vote on amendment NDP-1.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1)
(Clause 300 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)
(On clause 301--Maximum payment of $495,000,000)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We have amendment NDP-2.
Mr. Mulcair, do you wish to move this?
Mr. McKay has a point of order.
February 24th, 2009 / 10:50 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Could we seek to know from the mover of amendments NDP-2, NDP-3, NDP-4 and NDP-5 whether we could group these votes, as they're essentially all the same vote and essentially on all of the same arguments?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Mulcair, Mr. McKay is proposing to group NDP amendments 2, 3, 4, and 5, arguing that they deal with the same subject matter.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
As you'll notice, Mr. Chair, clause 300 deals with infrastructure spending related to rehabilitation. Clause 301 is more specifically dealing with sums provided for provinces and territories under the provincial-territorial infrastructure-based funding program for infrastructure projects. How could I ever deprive our Ontario MPs of the ability to vote against David Miller, to vote against infrastructure spending in Ontario and in the major cities of Ontario? I think everybody in Ontario should see what a bunch of spineless, unprincipled people the MPs from Ontario are.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I'll take that as a no.
Mr. Mulcair, do you wish to move amendment NDP-2?
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Our second amendment seeks to amend clause 301 which is currently found under the title “Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Base Funding Program.”
Clause 301 reads as follows:
There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Transport, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board, a sum not exceeding $495 million to provide payments to provinces and territories under the Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Base Funding Program for infrastructure projects.
We propose amending lines 2 and 4 as follows:
There may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, on the requisition of the Minister of Transport, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board—except those requiring a contribution from another level of government— a sum not exceeding $495 million to provide payments to provinces and territories under the Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Base Funding Program for infrastructure projects.
You will understand, Mr. Chair, that this topic is different from the preceding one. This is why they must be dealt with separately. Once again, the people who advised you on these matters have told you that these amendments are fully authorized. The people listening to us may wish to understand why some of the amendments proposed were never debated. It is because by proposing an amendment that incurs additional expenditures for the government, we are violating one of our own rules. A committee is not entitled to order a new expenditure.
However, our committee is entitled to amend the conditions set out to make this money available. This program provides for $495 million for the provinces and territories. That is a substantial amount. As has already been said, if we look at their past record, we cannot rely on the Conservatives to deliver the funds that they promise under these programs. Statistics have shown that only 4 per cent of past funding has been paid out of the public purse. It is possible to improve the provinces' financial situation with federal monies and that's what we're trying to do here today, except that the Conservatives insist on setting yet another condition, namely, that the municipal and provincial governments match federal funding. But that's completely unrealistic, because most municipalities simply cannot afford to do so.
I'm going to give you a very specific example, that of my home town: Montréal. Mayor Tremblay stated categorically that he simply does not have that money. We're not talking about a direct transfer of funds for this purpose: the condition is that he come up with money that he does not have. Once again today, we witness obstacles being put in the way of a project for which funding will not be able to flow.
Mayor Miller of Toronto said the same thing. It is crystal clear from his reaction to the budget that these amounts will never see the light of day. Once again, we can see how the Conservatives try to burnish their image. With the figures they spout, they're trying to make us believe that they will meet G7 and G20 requirements and spend over 3 per cent of our GDP to stimulate the economy, but that's not the case.
With the proposed amendment to clause 301, the NDP is seeking to eliminate the requirement that the provinces and municipalities match federal funding. We feel that this is the best way to ensure that the funds allocated — and we're not changing the amounts — are actually spent.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Merci.
Is there any further discussion on this amendment?
Monsieur Laforest.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
The Bloc Québécois members are not in favour of this amendment for a specific reason. It might have been interesting, but the Quebec government's jurisdiction is not guaranteed in a situation like that. As long as we don't have that assurance, we will consider this amendment to be insufficient.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I said it delicately and a little bit indirectly when we talked about clause 300. However, since the term jurisdiction has been used, I want to be as clear. The amendment we are proposing, if adopted, would ensure that the money would really be spent. If our proposal is rejected and nothing else is added with regard to jurisdiction, then nothing will be done to ensure that the money is truly spent. I think that the Bloc is making a mistake with this here today.
It is always important to ensure that the rights of the provinces, pursuant to the federal compact, be respected at all times, in all respects the same way that Quebec has prohibited municipalities from dealing directly with the federal government. We believe these things go together.
I ask my Bloc colleagues to think about the meaning of the amendment on the table. Our proposal changes nothing, except the fact that, if passed, we will have taken out the obligation of municipalities or provinces to contribute matching funds. As I said earlier, nothing changes with regard to jurisdiction. Under existing agreements, jurisdiction would remain with Quebec, which will always prohibit direct dealings with the municipalities. I think this is a good idea, which is somewhat paradoxical, given the extensive research done by the Liberal Party and made public by Gerard Kennedy last week. It proves, with statistics and analysis to back it up, that 4% of the billions promised last year in the budget have never seen the light of day.
It's an excellent reason to vote in favour of this amendment in order to ensure that the money will really be spent. It would be unfortunate not to do so because you cannot make another clarification for technical reasons. You are presuming there will be a problem, but there might not be. That said, this clarification would not create one either way. However, it is clear that if this amendment is not adopted, the condition that the City of Montreal provide matching funds will remain. The money will therefore never be spent and the City of Montreal will not be able to complete its projects. Whatever the case may be, the City of Montreal will always be subject to Quebec legislation, legislation passed by the Quebec National Assembly, which prohibits the municipalities of Quebec, including the City of Montreal, from dealing directly with the federal government.
I am appealing to the good sense that I know my Bloc colleagues have and I'm asking them to vote in favour of this amendment. We would be abandoning municipalities in Quebec if we do not vote in favour of the amendment.