Thank you, Mr. Chair.
All these funding programs have specific guidelines. They are agreed to among the partners, whatever the level of government, or, as in this case with the stimulus money, through the partnerships with the municipalities and the provinces. I would be really concerned if all of a sudden we extended the terms of that agreement, because it would set a precedent such that in the future there would be nothing to stop various members from deciding that they should extend the program because the municipality they represented didn't do their due diligence and make sure that the project was completed. They could decide that there would be a lackadaisical type of attitude towards these funding programs.
We have to have structure. There has to be discipline in government to properly manage the affairs of taxpayers' dollars and budget cycles. There's that consideration for the provinces in this case, and for the municipalities. Our Minister of Finance has set out a plan for the stimulus; it would finish by March 31 so that we can pursue a further plan to address some of the deficit challenges we have as a government. I'm just concerned about the precedent this would set.
The other thing is, what is the magic number of six months? Why not three months, why not five months, why not a year? All of a sudden we've thrown it out there that there will be a six-month extension for the completion of these projects. There's no logic behind it. The minister has reported to the House that when there are challenges, he is listening to those challenges and working with our partners, but ultimately it's important to stick to the guidelines in the agreements we have established with the provinces and the other partners in this funding of the stimulus money.
I was a mayor before. If every time we applied for funding from the senior levels of government we weren't compelled to meet those deadlines and use the money that the agreements entailed, it would give you an attitude that you could just about do anything. I don't think taxpayers would feel this is the proper way to run their business. You couldn't do it in the private sector; I don't think we should do it in the public sector. We have those disciplines in place.
Once again, I want to get back to the fact that this sets a precedent. What is going to happen down the road with these guidelines set out with these funding programs? I can't understand where we're going with this.
As I said, I'd like to know from the presenter of this motion why it is six months and not three months or a year. Where did this magic number come up? Is there a detailed construction plan that says that all these things will be done in six months' time? Are we going to be dealing with this again? It's a cycle, and I would not want to get going down that road because, frankly, it would prove that we are incompetent in putting forward these funding programs and adhering to the guidelines we set initially.
Thank you Mr. Chair.