Finance Committee on Feb. 24th, 2009

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The question, then, is whether clause 224 shall carry. We want a recorded vote.

(Clause 224 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

(On clause 225--Subsection 55(7))

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Again I'll ask the member whether he wishes to introduce amendment BQ-2. I'll just provide a hint to my friend, Monsieur Carrier, that there may be a ruling on this as well.

Does the member wish to introduce this amendment?

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The ruling is very similar. Bill C-10 provides for new schedules concerning weeks of benefits. The amendment BQ-2 seeks to amend the bill so that benefits are received, following schedule 8, after September 11, 2010.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice states at page 655:

An amendment must not offend the financial initiative of the Crown. An amendment is therefore inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury, or if it exceeds the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment proposes a new scheme that seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation, and therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Chairman, you said that BQ-1 and BQ-4 were covered by your first decision. Does it cover another article, another amendment, or will BQ-3 be ruled in order, in this case? In order to avoid doing needless work, it is better to know now whether other clauses will be affected by this decision, which limits the benefits agreed to during the recession to a short period of time, whereas people will probably be impacted by the recession for a longer time than that forecast by the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Crête.

BQ-4 was consequential to BQ-1. That's why I linked the two of them together. In response to your question, I appreciate that.

BQ-2, BQ-3, BQ-5, and BQ-6 are all inadmissible because of the same argument with respect to the royal recommendation. They all require the royal recommendation. I was going to go through them one by one, but if you so choose, that argument applies to all of them.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Could we do this immediately for BQ-2 and BQ-3 and deal with the others later on? These ones come much later in the bill and I need to rethink them.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. So BQ-2 and BQ-3 are inadmissible.

The question is on clause 225. Well, we have from clause 225, because BQ-2, BQ-3, and BQ-4 are all inadmissible, to clause 299 in which we do not have any further amendments.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

In order to help you with your deliberations, to make the job easier for you, I said at the beginning of the meeting that you should be assuming that the NDP will always be requesting a recorded vote. Given that one of the objectives is to not delay work needlessly, you could perhaps simply take my general request into account. However, if you want me to make this request each and every time, I will do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. The request is for a recorded vote on every one even if we do group them.

We'll have a recorded vote, then, from clause 225 to clause 299.

(Clauses 225 to 299 inclusive agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

(On clause 300--Maximum payment of $2,000,000,000)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have the first amendment with NDP-1.

Mr. Mulcair, do you wish to move the amendment?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-10, in clause 300, be amended by replacing line 35 on page 285 with the following:

Treasury Board, except those requiring contributions from other levels of government, a sum not exceeding two

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

The amendment is in order. Is there any further discussion?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I would like to provide a little context for the proposal before you. The best way to do so is to distance ourselves from the wording. I will come back to it later on to explain the technical reason for the amendment. I am now speaking more generally.

Yesterday, the Minister of Finance appeared before this committee. He tried to put a really big one over on us. He claimed that there was an increase in government expenditures of over 3.4 %, that is to say that we are in the process of spending 3.4 % of our gross domestic product in order to stimulate the Canadian economy. He said this was in order to align ourselves with the G-7 and the G-20. If that were true, it would indeed be the case and we would be in the process of aligning ourselves with the groups in question. There is a French expression to describe this. In English, it is something else. In French, we would call this freeloading.

The Minister of Finance is trying to benefit from the work that is being done in other jurisdictions around the world at this time. In fact, when he tables these figures in order to explain the percentage of GDP that is currently being spent to stimulate the Canadian economy, he includes things over which he has absolutely no control, and which are in the end artificial.

Let's look at the facts. Here, we are beginning with clauses that refer to Treasury Board rules, and the minister has already announced that this will mean that the provinces and municipalities will be obliged to make investments equal to those of the federal government in order to benefit from these initiatives. We see the gimmick. He takes a very significant sum of money as a baseline—tens of billions of dollars—and then he says that this money will be spent to stimulate the Canadian economy. However, it is conditional. It is contingent upon the provinces, who often do not have the money to do so, or the municipalities, who in certain cases do not even have the right do deal with the federal government, contributing matching funds.

We will therefore move, over the course of the morning, a series of amendments to ensure that the municipalities in particular, and the provinces will be able to benefit from real a economic stimulus without being forced to contribute matching funds by the federal government.

That is why you were obliged to state that this amendment was in order: we are not asking for more to be spent than was provided for in the budget. We are staying within the set amounts, but we say that we must stop claiming that an equal amount will be added to this sum at the provincial or municipal level. That is a fiction; stop it. Take this money that is in your budgets and ensure that it will flow and be spent quickly.

I come back to what my colleague Mr. Menzies was saying earlier when he stated that this must happen quickly.

If my colleague Mr. Menzies is sincere in his wish to see this spending take place, he's going to vote in favour of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

From Mr. Flaherty's speech yesterday, it's clear what the government is doing. This fiction of over 3% GDP spending to stimulate the economy is just that; it's an intellectual fraud perpetrated on the population, because the sums they put up, the $10 billion or so in infrastructure and other spending they refer to, is conditional upon the municipalities or provinces ponying up a similar amount. That's why the amendment here is being declared receivable. We're not asking the federal government to spend a dime more than what's been provided for in the budget. What we are saying is that the money can flow.

Everybody has used the new buzzword “shovel-ready”. None of these guys has ever held a shovel, but that doesn't matter; it has to be shovel ready. You can see them out there with their bulldozers.

Those projects can indeed start being built, and the construction can begin, if this money doesn't have strings attached. Right now it's pure fiction. They're assuming that provinces or municipalities are going to spend money they don't have. What is provided for in the budget is money the federal government does have, and we want that money to flow. We want it to go to infrastructure and other programs where it can count.

The amendment being proposed by the New Democratic Party to section 300 is to replace the line in section 300 that provides that the Treasury Board will set conditions. We're going to add this: “except those requiring contributions from other levels of government”.

We keep with the same amount, in this case $2 billion, to provide funding for infrastructure projects primarily related to infrastructure rehabilitation. This is one of the first amounts, a specific $2 billion for infrastructure rehabilitation, and the NDP is proposing we take away the strings the government has attached so the money will actually be spent.

The Liberal Party has pointed out and has done the research to prove that in the past year money that was targeted for infrastructure spending in Canada was not spent. In fact, only 4% of targeted infrastructure money actually made it out the door. That, of course, is a problem of competence in public administration, but it's beyond that. It's an indication of the fact that these are just numbers on a piece of paper if we keep strings attached to them.

What we're trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is to make sure that what everybody seems to agree on, that the economy needs to be maintained, that stimulus spending is part of the solution, actually occurs.

The Conservatives are playing sleight of hand here. This is a shell game. They're saying they're putting $2 billion on the table, but the provinces and municipalities are going to have to pony up and that's going to be a condition of getting access to the money. It's never going to make it out the door. The provinces and municipalities don't have that money, but they have the projects, the so-called shovel-ready projects.

As for the projects ready to be built yesterday, we had the Canadian Urban Transit Association here in committee. They provided us with a very long list of projects ready to go in cities across Canada. It's an important area in which to be spending. Here we're talking about infrastructure rehabilitation. A lot of things can be done with that as well, Mr. Chairman, but the money will not flow, the projects will not be built, and more importantly, Canada will simply be slipstreaming. It will simply be following in the wake of the current being produced by the other economies that are actually spending the 2% to 3% of GDP to stimulate their economies. This is what the Conservatives are actually up to. There's no real intention on the part of the Conservatives to spend this money because this type of condition they're putting in ensures that it will be like a lot of their other promises in the past; it's not going to happen.

I'm thrilled to know that for once the Liberals are actually going to vote for something, because of course having done the excellent work they did last week--and I find it's important in politics to be able to recognize when something is done well by another party--the Liberals actually did something well. They did their homework, they crunched the numbers, and they were able to prove that 96% of the money that was promised last year was never spent. I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, this time the Liberals, having done that homework, having proved that the Conservatives can't be trusted when they put up numbers on infrastructure spending, are actually going to, for once, find their spinal column and vote for something. In this case, it's not for a single penny more of expenditure so they can be relieved. It can't be considered a confidence motion because we're not requiring the government to spend another penny.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. I suspect that if they don't vote for this, Mr. Chairman, the Liberals will be proving that they actually fear fear itself, because there is no logical fear here. I know how afraid they are of being wiped out by the NDP in the next general election. That's why they won't be calling it any time soon or they won't be joining with us in defeating the government any time soon. Whether or not that election ever comes before Michael Ignatieff becomes eligible for his pension...no, he'll never become eligible for his pension. He's never worked in Canada, but that's an aside. Let's just say that, sticking with the subject of clause 300, the Liberals finally have a golden opportunity to show that they have principles, that they didn't do all this for their own self-interest, that their voting 53 times in the House with the Conservatives is now over. On an issue where they've done their homework, where they've proven that the Conservatives can't be trusted and that we're doing something to make sure the money actually flows to the provinces and to the municipalities on infrastructure, we're convinced, Mr. Chairman, that the Liberals are finally going to find their hands, the ones they have been sitting on for three and a half years throughout the Dion-Ignatieff reign. They're finally going to follow Mr. McCallum's leadership and they're going to vote to make sure the money flows.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Mulcair.

We'll go to Monsieur Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask a question of Mr. Mulcair in order to better understand the substance and the impact of this amendment.

From what I understand from Mr. Mulcair's presentation, the Minister of Finance prides himself on making an impact on the economy implying the commitment of parties such as the provinces and municipalities, without necessarily being able to ensure the availability of those funds. Moreover, based on past history, the reality will be this: funds will be promised, but at the end of the day, there will not be any impact on the economy. That at least is what I understand.

I would like to know if the passage of the NDP's amendment could mean that the money could be spent without the agreement of the provinces, the municipalities, or any other body with which they have an agreement. If that is the case, I would like to know how, in his opinion, this money might be spent by the federal government in such a way as to respect the various areas of jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Monsieur Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My colleague Mr. Crête raises an excellent question. I can tell him about an experience I had when I was a minister in the Quebec provincial government. I found myself facing an immovable obstacle in the person of the former Liberal leader, Mr. Dion, on the issue of the $326 million which represented Quebec's share in the area of climate change, if you recall. Ontario had received $550 million and Mr. McGuinty was very proud to explain the way in which he had obtained this amount. When Quebec asked for its share, you should have seen the conditions that the federal government suddenly wanted to impose on the province. Furthermore, it absolutely wanted to deal directly with municipalities. These being creatures of the Quebec parliament, however, it was out of the question that the federal government deal directly with them or choose the programs.

Of course, this would depend on the attitude of the province concerned. In fact, some of them would have no problem with it. All I can say is that Quebec legislation would continue to apply. The absolute ban on municipalities dealing with the federal government remains in place, and the Province of Quebec will take care of what happens within its borders. Could the federal government repair one of its own bridges? Yes, but within the limits of what they can do today.

In summary, we wish to amend clause 300 by replacing line 35. It currently reads as follows:

300. 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 $2 billion to provide funding for infrastructure projects primarily related to infrastructure rehabilitation.

The change would amend line 35 which would then read as follows:

300. On the requisition of the Minister of Transport, in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board, except those requiring contributions from other levels of government, a sum not exceeding $2 billion [...]

In summary, and in answer to my friend and colleague Mr. Crête, the intention of this amendment is quite simply to make it impossible for the federal government to make this expenditure conditional on matching contributions from the provinces or municipalities.

I would be so bold as to conclude by saying that the problem is, at the moment, that the federal government presumes to be able to spend the municipalities' and provinces' money. They are so certain of it that these funds are included in the figures that the minister provided us with yesterday, when he appeared before the committee. He boasted of the fact that the stimulus package represented more than 3% of GDP. It is this assumption that is arrogant and that goes against the federal compact. He is telling us that the provinces and the municipalities will spend these sums.

That is why we are removing those strings. The money should be divided among the provinces on a proportional basis for projects that will be determined.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Very well, thank you.

Mr. Crête.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I would like to ask another question in order to get some clarification.

What this means is that if we had a scenario such as the one suggested by the NDP and its amendment, we might not have seen the bottleneck in the spending projected in the budget, where the money was not spent. Perhaps the slowdown in the economy that we have seen might have been dealt with much more effectively if, over the last two years, the money that was provided for in these programs had been spent, rather than announcing the expenditures and then not making them because an agreement was not reached with the provinces or because the provinces do not have the same financial means. That is what led to this result. It's rather depressing. I feel it is almost shocking that we are faced with this reality. For the past two years, many expenditures have been announced for infrastructure but we have not seen the expected results, because the necessary agreements were not concluded and the money was not spent; and yet today we hear from all sides that construction must start quickly so that we can replace the lack of consumer spending that is a result, for example, of the decreased economic activity in the United States, that carries on through to Canada.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Once again, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Crête has summed up the situation very well. It is for these reasons that I was so optimistic that the Liberals would rediscover the use of their hands and vote with us on this subject. It was in fact the Liberals who proved the Conservatives' mismanagement of the expenditure of these funds. Let us remember that within last year's budget, 96% of the money was never spent because there was so much bureaucratic red tape and incompetence on the part of the government. We will see that a little later on today. We'll come to that.

Some people have had the gall to suggest that the fact that they are protecting the environment is what is holding up these projects. It is outrageous to make such an unsubstantiated statement. On the other hand, while they are at it, in order to further their extreme right-wing agenda which is against the rights of women, unions and social rights and the environment, the government is benefiting from the economic crisis. We can never be certain what the Liberals will do in such a situation. Allow me to remind our Conservative colleagues of this: the infamous $326 million that the Liberals, out of obstinacy, refused to pay out to Quebec that has finally been transferred. And by whom, do you think? By the current Conservative government. If the Liberals could not see the wisdom in this money being spent, who knows what they think? There may be enough thoughtful Conservatives who understand that it is in the interest of the economy. They're always droning on about how stimulating the economy is in everyone's interest. If they truly wish for these funds to be spent and allocated to good projects, they really should vote with us.

As for the Liberals, it must be said that one can never really count on them, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Very well, thank you.

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the arguments set out by my colleague Mr. Mulcair appear acceptable to us. At the end of the day, the objective is to ensure uniformity in the federal government's spending powers across the entire country. I would like to move a subamendment or a friendly amendment. In fact, we are very concerned regarding Quebec's responsibilities in terms of establishing priorities.

The end of the amendment which has been tabled would read as follows:

In accordance with the terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board and in accordance with the priorities set out by the provinces.

This is the subamendment we are moving in order to ensure that the government's spending power takes the provinces' priorities well into account.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Very well.

I'm going to ask you to repeat your amendment. My understanding is that it's after the word “to”.