Debates of Feb. 26th, 2009

Opposition Motion--Municipal Infrastructure

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Western Arctic.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, if he is confused about my speech, I am a little confused about his question.

Quite clearly I said in my speech that the NDP supports the motion. We put similar motions forward in committee where the Liberals would not support them. I outlined in greater detail the reason why we were not very happy with the budget, because that is the larger issue.

I hope the hon. member now has a clearer understanding of what I said. I will have to get back to him later to get a clear understanding about the nature of his question.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from the Northwest Territories for his very cogent comments on the motion, which the NDP supports. What is regrettable, as the member has mentioned, is it was not in the original budget or brought forward by the Liberals as an amendment.

Would the member from the Northwest Territories talk a bit more about any problems the municipalities in Canada have faced in receiving the funds under the building Canada fund and how having it through the gas tax might enable municipalities to access money?

Would he also speak to the issue of it being fine to provide the money to municipalities to repair roads and crumbling sidewalks, but what about money for energy conservation?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the gas tax idea for municipalities came out of a lot of work that the leader of the New Democratic Party did when he was president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We support the concept of consistent per capita funding to municipalities for the work they require on new projects. That is exactly what the gas tax does.

The Conservatives have chosen a different approach, which not only requires the municipality to identify the project, but to get the money together, complete the project and then apply to have the dollars reimbursed. This has caused municipalities a good deal of grief in getting the money out of the building Canada fund for the past number of years. We have seen evidence of this in terms of the 4% of dollars that have been released out of billions of dollars that were promised over the last few years.

The NDP agrees that the gas tax methodology is the one to follow to get money to communities.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear. The NDP is not speaking out of both sides of its mouth, that it is in favour of this motion even though it does not like what the Liberals did when they supported the budget and that the Liberals should have moved this as an amendment to the budget.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party put amendments forward at the committee level, which followed the same general direction the motion today follows, and the Liberals did not support them. Now they have come forward with this motion as cover.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the transit system across Canada carries 1.76 billion passengers per year. Any investment in public transit dramatically affects the quality of life for millions of Canadians. Any investment impacts on their cost of living and it greatly impacts on the environment.

According to many sources, including CUTA, there are 167 transit infrastructure projects across Canada that would stimulate the local economy of various Canadian communities while improving local transit networks. They are shovel ready. They are ready to go. For many years, different transit commissions and different mayors have been saying that we need the investment now.

What is cruel about this budget and cruel about this motion in front of the House today is that the municipalities or the commissions have no money to match the federal dollars that are being dangled in front of them. Why? Well, let us look at some facts. Of all the G8 countries or even G20 countries, Canada is the only country that contributes nothing to the operation of public transit.

Last year the total operating costs of public transit was $44.5 billion of which 60% was generated from fare revenue, 29% from municipal governments, and only 6% came from provincial contributions. What kind of money does the federal government contribute? Nothing. Zero. Not one penny.

When we look at transit capital costs, in 2006 it was $1.68 billion, and 37% came from the federal and provincial governments. Actually, to be precise, most of it, the majority of it comes from provincial contributions. In the city of Toronto, for example, what was the total federal grants to municipalities? It was 2% of Toronto's $8.7 billion budget. So there is nothing there to be applauded. Twenty-three percent came from municipal governments.

Municipal governments are trapped in high property taxes and high debt because they, alone mostly, are carrying the operation of the transit system. In Toronto, for example, a budget that I am very familiar with, it already has a $1.6 billion capital budget. This year the property tax increase is 4%, and 2% of that 4% is actually a direct result of the Conservative government not being able to change the employment insurance program so that not one extra unemployed worker is going to get employment insurance. They are going to go on the welfare system, therefore increasing the welfare roll in Toronto by 20,000 people. That will cost $38 million, and guess where that money comes from? Property taxes. There is not a chance that many of the municipalities have the funds to cost share this budget proposal, the money that is in front of us.

What is happening across Canada is that there is real ridership growth. Canadians want to take public transit. They want to help Canada decrease its greenhouse gas emissions. They want to reduce their carbon footprint. If we look at transit systems across Canada, there has been a 15% increase in a five year period.

Interestingly enough, the biggest growth in ridership comes from Canada's smallest municipalities, such as Middleton, Charlottetown, Welland and Yellowknife. The greater Vancouver transit link saw an increase of 7 million new trips in the last year or two. Canadians want to take public transit. They want to do something for the environment. For municipalities, more riders means more costs. When a transit system has no funding and not a penny of operating costs from the federal government, municipalities have no choices.

If there are more riders, they either increase property taxes or transit fares. Neither of those are good things to do to stimulate the economy. Municipalities are stuck. In the meantime, there have been reports, including a groundbreaking economic study conducted by HDR Decision Economics, that said that Canada needs a 74% increase in more transit services to unclog roads, save on commuter time and increase productivity. In total, CUTA identified $40 billion of investment needed for the period of 2008-12. This includes the expansion of subways, streetcars and buses, and the maintenance and upkeep of the current system to accommodate more riders.

Unfortunately, the motion in front of the House of Commons is meaningless. The Liberals have the opportunity to amend the budget that is being debated in Parliament right now, whether it is in committee or at report stage tomorrow, by inserting two small clauses. We should allow the funding to flow without cost sharing and have it come through using the gas tax formula so that it is not tied up with red tape, so it is block funding, and so that municipalities and provinces will know in a very assured way that the funding will flow. This instead of the building Canada formula of project-by-project approach, which ties it all up with different legal agreements and various project negotiations that are totally unnecessary.

It reminds me of a short story. A young man, let us call him Mike, walked by and saw a boat sinking. There were 77 people drowning. He could have thrown some rope or helped out, but because he was wearing new shoes he refused to do anything. He refused to help the people who were drowning out there. He went on his laptop and wrote out a perfect plan of how to rescue the 77 drowning people, but he would not do anything. That is what we are facing today. There will be a budget debate tomorrow. The House is debating this right now and we have this motion in front of us. Why should it not be inserted into the budget debate tomorrow?

I move the following motion: That the Liberal opposition motion be inserted into the report stage of the budget implementation bill, Bill C-10, being debated currently in Parliament, and inserted as an amendment.

I hope the House will consider this amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion.

Therefore, I ask the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not in favour of the amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There is no consent. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

I will move to questions and comments and recognize the hon. member for Burlington.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the NDP member for her intervention on this motion. It is interesting that the member called the motion meaningless, yet the NDP still intends to vote for it. That tells me something about the credibility of that party on this issue.

Just last week on February 17, the Prime Minister and the Premier of Ontario announced a $6 billion investment, shared between the province and the federal government, for improvements to the GO Transit system in the GTA, where the member who was speaking is from. Does she think that if the Liberal premier was not happy with the investment in transit that has happened currently, not considering what has happened in the past number of years, would he have shown up and supported a transit announcement worth $6 billion?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will know that GO Transit is, by and large, funded by the province. The province can get into debt or into deficit. Municipalities across Canada cannot run a deficit budget. They have to balance their budgets.

The province of Ontario can go into a deficit situation, fund GO Transit, and cost share with the federal government, but that is not available to most municipalities. As I said earlier, a lot of the funding for operating public transit is done by the local municipalities. They can run a debt but not a deficit.

It is really cruel to dangle money in front of mayors all across Canada and say to them that this is our offer, even though they are drowning in property tax increases. They cannot take any of the money, but we dangle it in front of them. That is a really cruel way to go.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to read the Liberal motion today. Any criminal in this country would dream to have a parole officer like the Liberal Party. When it comes to holding the government to account, Liberal members once more brought their plastic bats in to do battle and then they will all go home. Meanwhile, the crisis in our communities across Canada continues. I am getting letters from communities in my riding asking how they can meet the requirements of the new funding model because they do not have the tax base in their communities.

The ability of many of these small and rural communities to raise taxes to meet their share is simply not possible. In the city of Sudbury, tax increases had to be turned down because of the downturn in the economy. The city could not meet its share. It is having to find other means.

However, much smaller communities are being heavily impacted and they are turning to us, believing that Parliament has to have a mechanism to allow small communities to meet the bar of this so-called stimulus package. Yet, it is clear it is not there. The government is really not all that fundamentally intent on getting the money out in any significant manner and it is setting the bar too high that it knows many municipalities cannot meet.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comments on that.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely true. The sad part is that it is precisely the smaller communities that are demonstrating the fastest growth of transit riders. If we read the reports and the studies, people in small municipalities want to have public transit because it is a viable option for them.

Canada faces an aging population. More and more seniors feel it is not in their interest to continue to drive. They prefer to take the bus. Yet, they have to wait for a long time, the bus is just not available or not going to the places they want to go. Small municipalities do not have the property tax base. They cannot run a big debt. That is why they will not be able to access the federal dollars that are being offered to them.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be standing here today speaking in support of the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Parkdale—High Park regarding municipal infrastructure.

The general theme I would like to present to the House today deals with the situation of rural Canada and I would like to focus on that for an important reason.

The vulnerability of rural Canada right now is one that I would put in the category of high stakes. Some statistics show that over 80% of the people live primarily in urban settings and that rural areas are diminishing. As a result, many of the measures put forward in the economic stimulus package disfavour many of the over 200 rural communities that I represent. Members can well imagine how far apart we live and how spaced out we are as far as geographical regions are concerned.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I notice my hon. colleague finds this particularly funny but I am dealing with my own riding and not his.

I am honoured to be splitting my time with the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming who will be following me today.

To put this in historical context, I would like to talk about the Canada infrastructure works program that was introduced by the federal government in 1994. As a $6 billion temporary cost-shared initiative, it was a program that went particularly well for us in our region back in the early part of the 1990s because a lot of the infrastructure that was done in the 1960s had upgrades.

One of the biggest issues in my riding is drinking water. Many of the communities, far above the average, I might add, are currently on a boil water order. This is a major issue for reasons that are obvious. It is a universal right for everyone to have clean drinking water. My hon. colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis spoke eloquently about that and I commend him for that.

One of the things we need to talk about here is that we need the infrastructure in place, even in smaller communities, and this is not cheap. It is not inexpensive to bring the facilities up to par to allow people to have clean drinking water. I am talking about small towns with populations of 200, 400 or 500 people. The majority of the communities in my riding have 2,000 or 3,000 people. Of the over 200 towns in my riding, the largest town, Grand Falls-Windsor, has 13,000 people. To say that the delivery of infrastructure in my riding is a challenge might be considered by some as an understatement.

The municipalities of Newfoundland and Labrador have many smaller communities that are struggling to provide the services they need because of the structure we have today. In 1997, the government announced an extension of what it called phase 2, which provided an additional $425 million and a further $850 million. I add these numbers simply because what we are talking about here is an incredible amount of money. This, in turn, creates work beyond that. The local economy is stimulated by the construction jobs that are created. We also provide services for businesses when we want to attract business.

I talked about the water supply. If a particular fish plant closes down in my riding and another company wants to take over that fish plant, which probably employs somewhere in the vicinity of 200 to 300 workers, in order for it to do that it needs to have a good, clean, reliable water supply. Otherwise, 300 jobs or more are gone all because of the lack of infrastructure.

Plants that rely on natural resources usually require a huge workforce. These plants are usually the only game in town, the only employer and, therefore, municipal infrastructure is incredibly important

It was expected that infrastructure funding at the time would be matched fully at the municipal level because of difficulty in raising their one-third share as a prerequisite. This is the quintessential point for me to raise today and the challenges that we have with rural infrastructure. We are talking about one-third, one-third and one-third. I will focus on the last one-third, which is the municipality's responsibility to raise that money. When we are talking about a multi-million dollar upgrade on infrastructure, that is a tremendous burden and responsibility for the municipality.

I would like to go back to the point I made earlier about fish plants and saw mills needing reliable municipal infrastructure in order to survive. If that game leaves town, what kind of business tax or revenue can a small municipality maintain? It needs to seek out financing from the bank but that becomes very difficult to do when its credit rating and tax base are not there.

I understand and acknowledge that there is some talk in the budget about financing but where is it and how does this work? If this is to be shovel ready, then the financing option needs to be really quick or the situation will crumble.

I would also like to talk about recreation in the sense of community centres that mostly consist of stadiums. In Newfoundland we call hockey arenas stadiums and everywhere else they are called arenas, but I will preface that and call them stadiums.

Back in 1967, we had a centennial fund that went toward building many of the stadiums in smaller communities. It was not so much an economic boom, obviously, because the revenues were somewhat limited, but these stadiums became a social centrepiece of every small community. In 1967, in the last campaign, the Liberal Party put forward a proposal that allowed the stadiums or the arenas, to be refurbished and brought up to a standard whereby the community could survive.

The plan here today is to provide money for recreation in smaller communities. It is a great idea but the nub of the issue is that it wants it cost shared fifty-fifty.

Some of my hon. colleagues over there have said that we cannot just give the municipalities a blank cheque. They are not getting a cheque at all, nothing, blank or any other kind. What we are doing is telling them that they will have a certain amount of stimulus money so their community or recreation facility can provide services, but not quite so. We need their cheque.

How will I be able to go to a place like Bishop's Falls, Botwood or Buchans and tell the people that the $1 million they need for their stadium, that we need their $500,000? These are towns of about 600 or 700 people. Is this financing? Will this provide them with the money they need? I really have my doubts, which is why we are debating here today. This is the issue that is repeated. People from many of the towns in my riding are calling and asking me how this will work and why they need to put up money.

My hon. colleague talked about the process by which the gas tax funding flows. The gas tax and the incremental funding is what we are looking at because it provides that money and hooks the municipalities up to an immediate investment. That is shovel ready, if that is the term we would like to throw out. I would not want to think that the only way we are applying shovel ready is when anybody in the ministry actually speaks. That would be very sad.

I spoke earlier about basic facilities like drinking water. Many towns in my riding, such as Bonavista and New West Valley, drinking water has been a problem on and off. Broadband Internet is also an issue that has not been included enough in the infrastructure spending. I acknowledge the fact that there is money in the budget, so I would like to see more detail on that as well.

I want to talk about towns like Bonavista. I have heard from New West Valley, Trinity Bay North, Little Catalina, Elliston, Botwood, and Buchans. These are the towns that are the lifeblood of what we know as rural Canada but the challenges and the bar that the government has set is so high that this will prove to be insurmountable for most of the small communities. They are the lifeblood and that is the point I wanted to make today.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's comments and I, like him, have a lot of small communities in my constituency.

One of the things we talked about when we were discussing the plan and how it would work was the very fact that smaller communities have a smaller tax base. Nonetheless, since the announcement of the building Canada fund, my communities, I suspect like his, have stepped up to the plate and have made decisions, but they were not easy decisions. I have sat on a small municipal council and I know how tough it is for those councillors to make a decision to invest a small tax base in a specific project, be it a recreation complex or a water or sewer project.

Nonetheless, there are ways to do things. I think of my own experience growing up in a small community of 100 people. We were able to put sewers and water into that community by being a little creative. We had a little help from the government, but also the will of the people dictated to us that it needed to be done and therefore it was.

In the member's comments, he talked about the gas tax. It is important for him to know, and perhaps he does not, but this year the province that he represents will see their gas tax go from $16 million last year to $32.9 million, more than double. I suspect that his communities will tap into this and take great advantage of it. I would ask the member to comment on that.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his suggestion and I do empathize with the situation when it comes to smaller communities.

The question of the dollar values that he mentions is not in question here. The question is the method by which the money is delivered. I am hearing that apparently there will be a lot more money than that going to my province if it is being matched at that one-third, one-third, one-third level. That is the problem with the building Canada fund.

What the member needs to understand is that the building Canada mechanism is one that will set them back. Only 4% of it will go out the door. I am talking about the insurmountable ways in which these people need to come up with the money. The fifty-fifty on recreation is a situation as well. That is what we are trying to come up with here. If the total pot of money is one that can be directly accessed, then great, but we are not talking about that.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate where the hon. member is coming from. My grandfather emigrated from his province at the turn of the century to Canada.

I support the opinions the member has put forward but I would put forward that it is equally important that the larger municipalities gain the benefit of this gas tax mechanism as well as the smaller communities.

In my province, both small and large communities have borne the brunt of the boom from the tar sands, which both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are apparently supporting to be expedited even further than it has been in the past. As a result of that, we have burgeoning populations in both the larger municipalities and in the smaller municipalities stretching between my city and the town of Fort McMurray.

I am wondering if the member will speak to whether or not, when we have a booming economy, we should be putting pressure on the municipalities to come up with half the money.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from the NDP who represents the Edmonton area. Her point is very valid. We received correspondence from the largest city in our province, St. John's. Councillor Tom Hann said that the availability of and access to that transit money needed to be done in a quick fashion.

I do sympathize with her in the sense of the economic boom situation. A lot of people from my province are actually contributing greatly to the particular boom situation that she is talking about. In the last little while, it has taken a few hits, obviously, with the price of oil, but, nonetheless, I do empathize with her. I see the need regarding that particular situation because I also see that need in our situation, where we do have a burgeoning economy on the east coast of my province.

For that very reason, the growth that is involved in this particular situation is one that will dictate that the facilities and the channels by which these local governments receive that money, such as the gas tax transfer, will be that much more essential and things like the building Canada fund need to subscribe to that way of thinking.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I would like to remind members that in terms of the question and answer period, most of the speeches today are 10 minutes. That means there is a five minute question and answer period. The Chair is trying to get two questions and answers in. I am reluctant to cut people off, but if members do not look at me for a cue, or are not mindful of the time, I will begin to cut both questioners and respondents off in order to have a fair allocation of time.

I ask the indulgence and cooperation of all hon. members as I try to give everyone a fair chance to ask questions and the members to have an opportunity to respond to them.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nipissing—Timiskaming.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor. I come from northeastern Ontario. I have often said that rural northern Ontario and Newfoundland have a lot in common. Funding is one of the big issues, especially in the rural areas when we want to build infrastructure.

Today I stand in the House not only as a member of Parliament but also as a former municipal councillor, one who understands what happens with infrastructure and what exists right now in the aging infrastructure that Canadian municipalities are faced with.

It is aging in that the road surface looks okay. We have a lot of frost driving in potholes and making it difficult, and that is something that is apparent, but the average Canadian who drives over those roads does not realize what is underneath, especially in older communities where the average age of the infrastructure underground is between 80 and 100 years. That is old material that has been buried there for a long time. We never know where it is going to break and when it is going to happen.

Mr. Speaker, you are from a rural setting as well, so you can understand what kind of infrastructure work the smaller communities actually look forward to and have to put in place just to keep the same standard that exists at this time.

The motion today states that at least half of the proposed infrastructure funding be distributed on a per capita basis over the next two years. That is using the gas tax model. That is probably one of the most important things out there.

This will allow municipalities of all sizes to participate in this program in a quick and effective manner. This will allow funding to be injected directly into the economy. It will invest in infrastructure and allow for infrastructure to take place. More important, it will create jobs evenly in all the communities across Canada.

We only have one chance at this stimulus. We are in for tough times and we want to make sure that it is done right and that it is done effectively. More important, one thing we really have to look at is that it is timely. It is how we get it out there.

One of the complaints I hear from many municipalities in my riding is that there is just too much red tape that exists within the program. There are long bureaucratic delays. Municipalities are also trying to work the program into their budgets. They are already three-quarters of the way into their budgets and they are having to reshift things in order to take advantage of the existing program. That is reshifting things for the possibility of getting in on that program. That causes a lot of problems and a lot of delays. They put the money there and then find out they did not qualify. We want to see a constant flow of money that is going to help the communities plan for their infrastructure and be able to come up with it.

Many members of the House have mentioned the concept of one-third, one-third, one-third. A large municipality can put a certain amount aside or reshift things and that is fine, but when it is a community with a population of 300 or 1,000, one-third of a project is a lot. It really bites into the infrastructure and causes a lot of problems with the infrastructure that exists in smaller communities.

When we make it a flat amount, such as the gas tax, on a per capita basis, the model not only gets rid of delays, but it is not influenced by politics. It promotes fairness. This is not about allowing the government or the party in power, regardless of which party it is, to go to the trough and help themselves to it. Other parties have done it in the past, regardless of colour, but what I am saying is that this makes it fair for everyone. All communities are treated equally.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has cited the gas tax model as the best way to flow money into projects quickly and it affects, as I said earlier, new infrastructure and it stimulates the economy.

The Conservative government has a reputation of offering money through announcement and it looks good, but once the press release expires, unfortunately so does the money. It has been mentioned earlier and I will mention it again, that in 2007 the Conservatives launched the $8.8 billion building Canada fund. The first year zero dollars flowed. We do not want to see history repeat itself.

The gas tax model would get the money where it is needed right away, and that is in the hands of Canadian municipalities. Mayors are saying that the Conservative model does not allow access to funds in a timely manner. As I mentioned earlier, it is the bureaucratic red tape that really slows things down. The gas tax model not only gets the money out there, it allows municipalities to plan on it.

I had the chance to speak to a number of mayors in my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming in northeastern Ontario. If we made the changes, this would allow them to take on projects that they would otherwise be unable to undertake. It is not the huge projects they were looking at; it is the day-to-day projects, the capital projects that have been put off because they need that amount of money up front. By allowing them to have all the money, they can budget and they can put money in. Otherwise they would be shut out completely. That is one of the problems with the one-third, one-third, one-third model.

It allows smaller communities to go forward with urgent upgrades.This plan guarantees funding to municipalities. One thing that is very important is it removes the use it or lose it approach which is strongly used by the Conservative government. It allows smaller communities to put the money aside for multi-year projects. Yes, we will hear the argument that if we give them the money they are going to bank it and wait until next year and the stimulus is needed now. That is a possibility, but it allows them to plan ahead and put other money aside so they can get started with some spending on the planning and then have the major project, or even the smaller project, go ahead in a timely and effective manner.

Communities make up the foundation of this great country. What happens so often is that foundations start to crumble and we just stand back and watch them fall because different levels of government say it is not theirs to take care of and they do not want to be bothered with it and it is not their responsibility. We have heard it from the finance minister in the past about municipalities and we will probably hear it in the future, but what we have to do is look at the bigger picture.

The municipalities are the foundation of this country. If we do not have a strong foundation, it crumbles and the house above it falls as well, it is just a matter of time. In order to keep this country strong, we have to keep that strong foundation and keep our municipalities operating in a strong and effective way.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming for his remarks. One of the things we have heard a lot from across the floor is the per capita sum of the gas tax. If we did per capita by municipality, and I do not know how many thousands of municipalities there are in Canada, it does get diluted. As I pointed out earlier, just because a project goes to one municipality, it does not mean the jobs all go to the people in that municipality. It does not mean the benefit goes just to the people in that municipality; it goes to everyone in that region.

It is a bit fallacious. If we are going to follow that per capita idea, we might as well divide up the money and send everyone a cheque and nothing would get done. We need to put common sense in this.

What the member says has some reasonable aspects to it, but it is not the most practical way to go. I would remind him there is a $2 billion credit facility to borrow from. For municipalities that do not have the money to get the project done, they submit the bill, get the money, and pay it back. It is a great process. As soon as the budget bill is passed, we can get on with it. I would like the member's comments on some of those aspects.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question about per capita. I will be honest that it was a concern I had as well for smaller communities and smaller municipalities, but the motion states that half of the money would be spread out that way and the other half would continue on the larger projects. That is the best of both worlds.

It allows for smaller communities to get money injected right away. What happens all too often, especially with some of the applications, is that some communities are left out. They do not have the money to put up to fund the projects. By allowing the money to flow directly into those municipalities, there is no delay or wait. The money is directly injected at the municipal level to get projects up and going. The people of Canada benefit right away. The municipalities do not have to wait. They do not have to apply. More important, they do not have to get bogged down by red tape.