Finance Committee on Feb. 24th, 2009

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I share the opinion of my colleague, Mr. Mulcair. Clearly, the priorities of the provinces concerned must be considered in terms of what the federal government is planning.

You said earlier that all of the Liberal and Conservative members voted against specifying or repeating that the provinces would be setting their own priorities. This demonstrates the importance that this be recorded to ensure that it is not forgotten. The federal government, given its importance and overall budget, is often tempted to ignore provincial jurisdiction. That is why it is important to mention it, since it people seem reluctant to agree that it be written down.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

It might have been useful to add that if we could have, but we can't. You have ruled the amendment out of order. Let's deal with things as they are. We would have liked to do that in line with provincial priorities and the maintenance of project control, but we can't.

What we can do, however, is not impose an obligation on the City of Montreal to find amounts that it does not have in order to access federal funding. Let's at least take away what we can take away. It's like saying that, because you cannot repair both the doors and windows of a house in which both need to be repaired, you won't at least repair the windows. We could repair one defective element in this bill. If I understand correctly, the Bloc's argument is that, since we cannot repair two things, we will not even repair the one thing we can repair. I don't think that argument holds water.

What we should do, rather, is help the City of Montreal. I know that is not the Bloc's first concern. I would also like to help the City of Toronto. Mayor Miller has been very clear on this—he needs to have the money flow as well.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think we have to do everything we can to make sure the money actually flows. Mayor Miller of Toronto has been very clear on this matter, that he won't be able to come up with the funds to match the federal funds. A lot of the provinces are in the same boat. So once again we're faced with the following situation, where the federal government is putting up a large number, saying that it represents Canada's stimulus spending to meet the G7 and G20 requirements, but they're making it conditional; there are strings attached, and we think that's a mistake. What we're trying to do with clause 301 is to remove some of those strings to make it possible for cities like Montreal and Toronto to have access to that money.

And I'll say in ending that it's very clear from the fact that a lot of this money goes to the current Minister of Transport, Mr. Baird, and—I hope this doesn't come as a shock to you—he is just slightly partisan. I know this might come as a bit of a surprise, but he's ever so mildly partisan, and he has made it clear before certain groups, including groups that work in areas such as urban transit, that they'd better come from an area that has some Conservative MPs if they want to see any of the money. So with this slush pot they're putting together, we could, at the very least, make sure some of it flows to the cities, like Montreal and Toronto, that won't be able to match the funds if we don't make this change.

That's why we maintain our suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that clause 301 be amended as we suggested, that is to say, that clause 301 be amended to take away the requirement for cities or the provinces to match the funds, and that the money spelled out in clause 301 actually flows to infrastructure projects in conformity with the provincial-territorial infrastructure base funding program.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 1)

(Clause 301 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

(On clause 302—Maximum payment of $250,000,000)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have amendment NDP-3.

Mr. Mulcair, do you wish to move amendment NDP-3?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The third amendment moved by the New Democratic Party amends clause 302 of Bill C-10, which covers the communities component of the Building Canada Fund. It would amend line 15 on page 287. Clause 302 reads as follows:

302. 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 $250 million to provide funding for infrastructure projects in communities that have a population of less than 100,000.

After replacing line 15 on page 287, the amended clause would read as follows:

302. 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 contributions from other levels of government, a sum not exceeding $250 million [...].

Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that my Bloc Québécois colleagues will support this amendment, because this covers communities that have fewer than 100,000 people. Under current National Assembly legislation, those communities are officially prohibited from dealing directly with the federal government. Quebec will thus find its prerogatives intact.

I hope that my colleagues from Ontario, who represent regions with communities comprising less than 100,000 people, will agree and see the wisdom of this amendment. Once again, we are assuming that municipalities, towns and communities comprising fewer than 100,000 people can provide significant amounts to match the amounts provided by the federal government. Two hundred and fifty million dollars is quite a sum. That money will have to flow. However, as we have already said, if the funding is provided on condition that those small communities match it, we can safely bet that the money will never flow, and will never leave government coffers. That would once again support our belief that the Conservatives are simply claiming that they will spend enough money to come up with a figure that stands at over 3% of GDP, but do not really mean to spend any of it.

Here, an assumption is being made about the money that communities, cities and provinces will spend. The government has also claimed that it has saved some $8 billion by cutting spending in departments—that is a joke, Mr. Chairman, because Conservatives are the worst public administrators in Canada's history. In just three years, before tabling this budget, they had already increased government spending by $40 billion a year, over 23%, without any concrete results for Canadians. It goes without saying that even more spending is provided for here, Mr. Chairman. Once again, there is no vision and there are no real results.

In addition, the government is now talking about $250 million that will go to communities. Yet, we already know that those communities are in no position to provide their own share of the funding, a share they must put up before the money can actually flow.

In defence of those communities with a population of less than 100,000, the New Democratic Party begs its colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party to understand that the money will never be spent if they do not support our amendment. Our amendment is in order because it does not incur additional government spending. What we do want, however, is for the federal government to actually spend the money, and to stop making that spending conditional on municipalities' or provinces' matching the funds.

Mr. Chairman, to sum things up in English, right now we're looking at the communities component of the Building Canada Fund, $250 million for communities with a population of fewer than 100,000 people. I think that in a municipality with less than 100,000 people it's quite obvious we're going to be dealing with the type of situation we've already described. The federal government is putting up a big number, $250 million, but it's not going to get spent.

Most of those municipalities can't pony up the cash to meet their part of the obligation. Provinces have already said that money won't be there. And to assuage my colleagues from the Bloc, I would remind them that existing provincial legislation in Quebec, duly enacted by the National Assembly of Quebec, provides that those municipalities are not allowed to deal directly with the federal government, so any concern that they might have regarding jurisdiction is obviated.

I think the City of Montreal, as much as the City of Toronto in the previous example, deserves their money; the smaller towns and cities of Quebec, Ontario, B.C. and all the other areas of Canada that so sorely need this money--there are a lot of municipalities that fall into this category of under 100,000--deserve the support. They don't have the money to meet this new requirement that they match funds with the federal government. That's why we're proposing it be removed. The amount, of course, is being maintained; there just won't be any strings attached anymore, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Monsieur Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chair, for the same reasons I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to this amendment. We have no guarantee that Quebec will have full control of this type of project under this clause.

We noted that despite existing laws and regulations, as Mr. Mulcair said, the Conservative government nevertheless intends to deal with the municipalities. So we are not reassured. That is why we will be voting against this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

Monsieur Mulcair, did you want to respond?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yesterday, our friend Mr. McCallum, on behalf the Liberals, tried to get the minister to say that everything, every comma in the bill, should be seen as a question of confidence. That would mean that the government would feel free to go to see the Governor General to call an election—I suppose that is what he is hoping for. With a leader as weak as Mr. Ignatieff, I would not blame him for doing so.

However, the Liberals are inventing fears. There are some matters in a budget that are not questions of confidence. Removing such a condition is acceptable in your opinion, Mr. Chair, because this does not involve any expenditures. So the Liberals can vote for that.

However, yesterday, the Liberals managed to invent some fears when they questioned Mr. Flaherty on this. They are afraid to be afraid. If they're not afraid enough, they will invent a fear so that everyone continues to be afraid and to provoke the Conservatives. I dare say that my friends in the Bloc are inventing a fear this time, because all we are trying to do here is to remove the requirement placed on municipalities with a population of less than 100,000 to spend an amount equal to the amounts to be spent by the federal government.

If we make this change, the municipalities in question—and there are many of them in the various regions—will be able to get these funds without having to contribute the same amount of money. We can almost understand for the other levels of government. In the case of the provinces, or more generally the federal government, we could follow their argument that this was not clear. However, they cannot argue that in the case of clause 302. It is legally impossible to claim that in clause 302 there is a concern about a lack of respect for provincial prerogatives and jurisdiction. It is impossible to seriously claim that there is such a concern with clause 302, because Quebec has legislation which absolutely prevents municipalities from dealing with the federal government. It is written quite clearly, in black and white. That cannot be changed. They cannot change that. So there is no reason to be afraid.

So this is a case where the Liberals are inventing fears in order to support the Conservatives. They are afraid of defeating the government; that is quite a feat! This is unique in Canadian political history. We have an official opposition that has become the official abstention here today. We have seen them do it. They are afraid of being afraid, of failing to live up to their own record of voting with the Conservatives. I think their record of abstaining today will be equal to their record of voting with the Conservatives in the past. It is sad and pathetic to see people elected to stand up for their communities just lying down and playing dead. We knew they were sell-outs, but we didn't know that their price was zero.

However, I'm looking again at clause 302; that is what we are talking about here. I will call on my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois to realize that municipalities with fewer than 100,000 people will not get any money at all for their projects if we do not pass this amendment. I do not think we have to get into far-fetched constitutional arguments to vote against an amendment that would simply make things easier for these municipalities. We are trying to make things easier for them. That is the objective. This would remove the condition that the government could impose through Treasury Board regarding matching funding. I have the right to present this motion because it does not involve any additional expenditure of money. I would suggest that my friends in the Bloc think about clause 302, which is different from clauses 300 and 301, and vote for the amendment.

Who knows? There may be some hope. Life is all about hope. The Liberals may find their backbone and vote with us to remove from municipalities the requirement to match federal funding in order to have access to these funds which, as the minister constantly reminds us, are being spent.

He says that this is real money. He cries it from the rooftops. He says he has complied with the demands of the G7 and G20, but he has not, and this has been proven here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

We'll have the vote on NDP-3.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)

(Clause 302 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

(On clause 303—Maximum payment of $200,000,000)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Clause 303 is on page 287. We have an amendment, NDP-4.

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

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This amendment has to do with the Green Infrastructure Fund. Clause 303 reads as follows:

303. 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 $200 million to support infrastructure projects that promote a clean environment.

This time we would replace line 24 with the following:

303. 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 contributions from other levels of government, a sum not exceeding $200 million to support infrastructure projects that promote a clean environment.

In light of the chainsaw massacre that the Conservatives are about to inflict on the century-old Navigable Waters Act, I think that at the very least we must ensure that these sums, however small, provided for in clause 303 not come with any strings attached. We therefore suggest that this money be made freely available, with no restriction.

Unfortunately, if we do not pass this amendment, the money will never be spent, except in the form of patronage from Minister Baird.

We are therefore suggesting that the requirement for matching funding from the municipality or another level of government be removed. We are asking that the money for green infrastructure start flowing. We would have liked the budget to do more along these lines.

In Brundtland's view, sustainable development may be defined as one generation's obligation not to pass on an environmental, social or economic debt to a future generation. However, unfortunately, this budget is passing on a heavy financial debt to future generations. At the very least, there should have been provision for green infrastructure, which would have benefited future generations. However, this was not done. The sums mentioned in clause 303 are tiny.

So we are moving an amendment that would prevent the federal government from making this funding for green infrastructure conditional on matching funding. Our objective is to get the money flowing. As with the amendments to preceding clauses, we want to ensure that the money will actually start flowing.

Mr. Chairman, in summary, the amendment is proposed to clause 303, which right now reads:

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 two hundred million dollars to support infrastructure projects that promote a clean environment.

We find that unfortunately we're already bequeathing to future generations a heavy financial burden, because we're going into debt with this budget, so they have to pay it off. The very least would have been for us to come up with some real spending on the environment through green renewable energy, clean renewables. Something that future generations would at least be able to take advantage of if we're going to be leaving them with this debt. What we have in fact is a rather paltry sum of $200 million in section 303, and this is why we've been proposing the conditionality be taken out in these various sections.

The problem is that when you say in clause 303 “in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board”, of course the government has already announced that those terms and conditions will include the obligation to have matching funds. So what we in the NDP are saying is that we'll take out that condition, so we're saying “Treasury Board, except those requiring contributions from other levels of government”, whether they be municipal or provincial. We want the money to actually flow. We don't find the money sufficient, but we do think that at the very least, if the government is going to be putting up this number of $200 million for spending on green infrastructure, it should not be conditional on similar spending by the municipalities or the provinces.

That's why the NDP's amendment 4 seeks to remove from clause 303 this condition, which the Treasury Board could impose, that there be similar contributions from other levels of government.

Now, you've already ruled that these amendments are acceptable under the provisions governing the workings of these committees as we look at a budgetary statute, because we are not asking that new money be spent. If my amendment had sought to change $200 million to $250 million you would have ruled it out of order. I'm not asking the government to spend more money, although I would like them to, but that's not the purpose of this amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the paltry $200 million that is there on the environment...I say it's paltry not because $200 million is an unimportant sum but because in relation to the overall needs of the environment and our obligations toward future generations it is very minor. We want to make sure that, despite the fact that it is minor, it actually gets spent.

In closing, since in this case there can be no link of any sort with relations between the federal government and Quebec, I hope my colleagues in the Bloc will support this amendment to remove the conditionality of green funding. If we start talking about jurisdiction or trying to deal with constitutional disputes, the same objection can be made to everything. If the objective is to help Quebec generally, then ultimately, we must be practical.

We just saw the Bloc vote against an amendment that would have allowed funding to go to municipalities with populations of less than 100,000. I hope that in the case of the environment, the Bloc will not vote against this amendment, which seeks to ensure that the money will actually be spent. In the case of the Liberals, we can always hope for a miracle. For once in their lives, I hope they will not give in and simply play dead as they do every day. I hope they will summon up a little courage and behave not like the official abstention, but rather the official opposition.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

M. Carrier.

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to talk as much as my colleague from the NDP, and I don't want to give a speech, but all the same, I would like to remind him, since he mentioned the Bloc's position, that we want the government to pay out the money as quickly as possible, and that this funding be used to spark the economic recovery that we need so badly. However, that's no reason to create chaos and have all the various orders of government investing in all possible fields, just to create an economic recovery.

The provinces have their own areas of jurisdiction. It is important for the provinces to establish their own priorities with regard to infrastructure, and that's why the cost of these projects concerns them. Green infrastructure projects are even better, since they are intended to both protect our environment and encourage sustainable development. Once again, these projects involve the municipalities, which are the creatures of the provinces. So it's important for the provinces to always have their say when the time comes to set priorities, and that the federal government make a contribution. This is not a whim on our part; this is essential if we wish to maintain agreement between the orders of government and respect each level's area of jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

I will call the question then on the amendment NDP-4.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3)

(Clause 303 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Colleagues, I have clauses 304 to 311, where I do not have an amendment.

(Clauses 304 to 311 inclusive agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

(On clause 312—Maximum payment of $500,000,000 )

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We have three amendments for clause 312. We'll start with NDP-5.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chairperson, thank you.

You have the amendment before you. In effect it will—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, I am advised that I have to give a ruling first on the Bloc amendments.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Colleagues, for clause 312 we have three amendments. We have NDP-5, we have BQ-5, and we have BQ-6. I'm assuming the Bloc wants to read both amendments. Monsieur Crête had asked how I had ruled earlier on the previous Bloc amendments. The ruling of the chair will be the same with respect to the royal recommendation, and I can read that:

Bill C-10 provides $500 million for the renovation and retrofit of social housing.

The amendments BQ-5 and BQ-6 seek to amend the bill so that this sum is increased.

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 which seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the Royal Recommendation, therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible for both BQ-5 and BQ-6.

As I've stated before, the ruling is not debatable, but members can challenge the chair on the ruling.

Monsieur Laforest, you'd like to challenge the ruling?

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I challenge your ruling. The two amendments are not identical. Our sixth amendment does not change the amount in question. I realize that you are giving a ruling similar to the others for amendment BQ-5, but BQ-6 amends the clause by replacing the words “backlog in demand for the construction, renovation” and not the amount. That's very different.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

No, and I'll clarify that. BQ-5 seeks to amend the bill so that the sum is increased from $500 million. BQ-6 seeks to amend the bill to provide for new construction. In both cases the amendment proposes a new scheme that seeks to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation, and therefore the amendment is ruled inadmissible. That is the ruling of the chair.

Monsieur Laforest has indicated he wants to challenge the ruling. Therefore, it will be that the chair's ruling be sustained. We'll have a recorded vote.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 8; nays 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The chair's ruling is sustained.

We will now move to amendment NDP-5. This amendment is in order, so we'll let Ms. Wasylycia-Leis introduce the amendment.