Transport Committee on Nov. 30th, 2010

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

On a point of clarification--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We don't have “clarification”. If there's a point of order, you can raise a point of order.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to assure my colleagues across the table that indeed I had the pleasure of making announcements in many opposition-held ridings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to stop you there; it's debate.

Continue, Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Gaudet is next.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, whether the work is completed tomorrow or in six months, the cost to the government is exactly the same.

Second, I am always interested when I hear someone talk about fairness. We know that in the last budget, the government invested close to $10 billion in the auto industry, which is concentrated in Ontario, as well as about $200 million in the forest industry throughout Canada while 60% of forest activities take place in Quebec. This is a very selective interpretation of fairness.

I am going to be very candid now. When it is equal for everyone, Quebec’s money is as good as Toronto’s or B.C.’s.

I think Quebec is entitled to its share. I cannot imagine people talking to me about fairness this afternoon. This gets on my nerves. If you can say these things, Mr. Trost, you do not know what fairness means. When things go your way, you are all for it. Otherwise, you are opposed.

Under the circumstances, I will vote in favour of the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci.

Go ahead, Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few points to make on the particular motion as presented.

First of all, it's my opinion that it's premature to have a report, precisely because the testimony of the witnesses has in fact been quite mixed. There have been some who appear to have a very bona fide and perhaps significant problem with it; there have been others who do not.

Second, the witnesses' testimony has been mixed as to what the resolution should be. Not everyone agreed that there should be a blanket exemption, or a blanket exemption for six months.

We also haven't heard from other witnesses who may entirely disagree. We haven't heard from the mayor of Windsor, Ontario, where, for example, projects are ahead of schedule or on time. I don't know the answer to the following question, because I haven't asked him, but were he to appear, would he agree with the idea that there should be a blanket exemption for six months? We don't know, but it's possible there are witnesses yet to come who could entirely disagree with that proposed remedy.

We also haven't heard from witnesses who were ahead of schedule and under budget, and who have already been approved for additional ISF projects to be completed by the same deadline. What are their thoughts? There are municipalities in that situation. They're spending surplus because they were in fact ahead of schedule or on time. Would they agree with such an interim report?

Mr. Chair, if the majority of members of the committee have already precluded hearing those types of witnesses—and they are out there—and have already come to the conclusion about what the remedy should be, then why should we even consider Mr. McCallum's next motion, which would be to have more meetings? Why not just conclude, forget an interim report, and have the committee give a final or concluding report? I think the testimony yet to come is just as important as the testimony we've already heard. It should give us a report, at the end of the day, that's based on the fullness of testimony.

So I'm not prepared to support this motion, and certainly not as it's written. I'm going to oppose it, and I think I have given good reasons to oppose the motion at this particular time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Monsieur Guimond.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It may have been better to postpone the vote on this motion to next week. I seriously thought about it and I remembered that since the House resumed on September 20, I asked the minister several questions both personally and on behalf of my party. We have heard municipal union representatives from almost all regions of Canada, including two from Quebec, who were requesting an extension of the deadline.

There was a problem in Quebec due to a lack of information. Minister Courchesne, president of the Quebec Treasury Board, came to meet with Minister Strahl who has all the required information to make a decision. I think the situation has now matured enough and that the motion should be passed. We have to stop beating around the bush. Municipalities need to know if the deadline will be extended or not.

After careful thought, I have decided to support the motion, so

I put the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Regrettably, you can't call the question when we have other people on the list. I still have four or five names. It's 12:59, and we have a committee setting up at one o'clock.

I'm going to adjourn the meeting and continue this debate at the next meeting. I must advise committee members that it will interfere with what we had planned for December 2.

We'll continue this debate before we move to clause-by-clause consideration.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Are you saying that this would be the first order of business?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's on the floor. It has to be.

The meeting is adjourned.