House of Commons Hansard #19 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.

Topics

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Questions and comments, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

NDP

Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON

Mr. Speaker, while I understand that the leader of the Liberal Party has ragged his finger at the Conservative Party members and said they are on probation and put them in the proverbial corner, there still seems to be some important things missing from budget 2009. Among those I think is social infrastructure.

I understand how important the infrastructure is that we have been talking about: streets, transit, roads and sewers. However, there is something missing in terms of social infrastructure: child care, the extension of employment insurance to those who are excluded, the training that comes with that, and new affordable housing.

I would like to inform the member that we have done some studying and $1 billion in tax cuts creates about 5,000 jobs. A billion dollars in traditional infrastructure creates about 11,000 jobs. A billion dollars in social infrastructure creates 20,000 jobs. Would the member please comment about these statistics and should social infrastructure have been included in budgets 2007, 2008 and 2009?

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her progressive views and her commitment to social infrastructure.

I would like to remind the member that in fact it was the Liberal government that committed to those progressive social values. When it came to child care, who brought in the landmark agreements with all 10 provinces? It was the Liberal government. Who brought in the Kelowna accord that would help the aboriginal population? It was the Liberal government. Who brought in the agreements with the communities and cities? The Liberal government. On all those things, I can tell the member that I am proud of the record of the Liberal Party.

However, today we have a problem. We are going through a tough time and we want to have infrastructure funding that should go to the cities. We are saying this is the Conservative plan and we are going to hold it accountable. We want to see these dollars flowing today into our municipalities.

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Davenport, Human Rights; the hon. member for Gatineau, Culture.

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and for clarification I would like to seek unanimous consent to replace the motion adopted earlier concerning a subcommittee on the automotive industry with the following motion: That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology create a subcommittee whose membership will be composed of five members with two from the Conservative Party, one from the Liberal Party, one from the Bloc Québécois and one from the New Democratic Party; that the chair be from the Conservative Party; that the subcommittee have all the powers and authority of a standing committee to undertake a study of the crisis faced by the automotive industry in Canada with the understanding that any legislation referred to the full committee take precedence over the work of the subcommittee; that the subcommittee not meet at the same time as the full committee; that the subcommittee report its findings and recommendations to the main committee no later than March 21, 2009; and that the main committee present the report to the House no later than March 31, 2009.

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newton—North Delta for sharing his time with me today.

I have entitled my part of this debate, “Infrastructure: The Municipal Challenge and Opportunity. What We've Been Promised, What We're Missing, What We're Worried We Won't Get”.

Infrastructure investment needs to be a part of the stimulus package and we have rare all party agreement on that. However, despite significant dollars committed in the new budget for infrastructure, we are seriously concerned, first, that much of the money announced for infrastructure will not flow due to the non-spending track record of the last few years and, more important, because of the way most of the budget's spending is structured, requiring matching funds from municipalities, which, in many cases, are unable to do so.

Second, infrastructure spending should be focused on ensuring future productivity and competitiveness. This does not include cottage decks.

Third, infrastructure spending should be done with an eye to a greener, more energy efficient future. Not surprisingly, the word green does not figure prominently in the new budget.

Despite our concerns, we did understand the need to pass the budget, flawed as it is, to ensure the flow of funds in this time of extraordinary need. We will use our agreed to report cards to monitor this very closely and to keep the government to account.

However, we have reason to be worried. Over two years ago, the Conservative government announced, with much fanfare, the $33 billion infrastructure plan called the building Canada plan for the years 2007-2014. Most of this plan was a restructuring and rebranding of existing Liberal programs and funding arrangements. That is fine. We do not mind people taking our good ideas, although a little credit would be nice. Of the $33 billion, $11.8 billion came from the gas tax funds initiated by the Liberal government and $5.8 billion came from the GST rebate initiated by the Liberal government.

The $8.8 billion rebranded building Canada fund was itself largely a replacement of other infrastructure programs created by Liberal governments, which the Conservative government refused to renew at the time and then brought back. In effect, not much new but with a new Conservative name. The remainder was mostly made up of other Liberal programs carried over, such as the public transit capital trust and the municipal rural infrastructure fund.

However, the details of this $33 billion program indicate that although the regular formula-based funding under the gas tax and GST rebate has flowed, virtually none of the much vaunted $8.8 billion building Canada fund have been spent.

Of the $1.5 billion allocated for the two years 2007-09, information suggests that as little as $80 million have been spent, only 5% of the amount allocated. Not coincidentally, this is the program that relies on projects receiving matching funds from the provinces and/or municipalities.

The above discussion relates to more than numbers. The unfortunate result of the past delays is simple but serious: job losses. In November 2008 alone, out of a devastating 71,000 full time jobs lost, 44,000 of those jobs were lost in the construction industry. So what now?

In my prior role as critic for infrastructure, I engaged in many prebudget consultations on this issue. In those prebudget consultations, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities made it abundantly clear that more of the same building Canada fund process simply would not work. It made it clear that to truly get infrastructure money out the door and the shovels into the ground quickly, a transfer mechanism similar to that used for the gas tax fund should be implemented. The Conservatives ignored this recommendation completely.

All of the infrastructure promises in the budget follow the process of the, to date, failed building Canada fund. For the Conservatives to spend any infrastructure money, they require matching contributions from the provinces and/or municipalities. Few municipalities are in a position to fund projects not otherwise accounted for in the coming year, first, because of their reliance on property taxes alone, unlike the federal government and the provinces that tax on economic growth, they have a decreasing ability to contribute; two, they have already committed to budgets requiring spending over several years; and three, they are subject to legal restrictions on borrowing.

The budget does not help most municipalities. It, therefore, begs the question as to why the Conservatives are requiring matching funds when they already know that most municipalities cannot do so.

Frankly, we are concerned, a concern supported by many municipal representatives that the Conservatives know that the municipalities cannot match these increased funds, that the Conservatives will therefore not flow the funding, and that those same municipalities will be the ones blamed when needed infrastructure does not get built.

I ask all members of the House to support the motion to ensure that infrastructure money really does flow to the municipalities, those that know the infrastructure needs and know how to meet them at this time of extraordinary economic need.

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, my colleague keeps talking about municipalities not being able to match funds and she is right. Some municipalities will not be able to or will find it difficult to match funds. However, Toronto, for example, went to bed with $190 million in its budget last year, so some municipalities do have money in the bank. For those that do not, we have a $2 billion credit facility from which they can borrow. As soon as they send in the bill for their project, the money will be paid. If that does not work for them, we have agreed with the provinces that we will go fifty-fifty, province and federal, for projects like that.

For the member to say, cart blanche, that municipalities just do not have the money to participate is wrong, in my view, and I would like the member's comments on that.

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, coming from a riding in Toronto, the good riding of Willowdale, the ability for the province and that particular municipality to participate is welcome. I give credit where it is due. The public transit needs in Toronto are significant.

However, there are many more municipalities across this country, most of which are not as large as Toronto. Municipalities across the country have been making it clear to us that although some municipalities, generally the larger ones, are in a position to take advantage of some of these funds, the majority of municipalities, particularly smaller ones, are simply unable to do so. Although there may be some credit available, they have made it very clear to us that even with that facility they are simply not able to participate.

I am not making this up. We are responding to repeated pleas from municipalities all across the country saying that they understand the needs in their community, that they know how to fill those needs but that they need to be able to address those financially but that the federal government, by insisting on matching funds and, even worse, knowing that the matching process has not worked, is of real concern.

I will repeat that the municipalities have made it clear that they are ready to build and to get these projects going but they would much prefer a process of funding that was much more similar to the gas tax fund that was not matching.

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, a comment was just made in the House around the fact that not only can municipalities borrow money, but they need to pay the bills upfront and then get repayment from the government. What that means is that they can borrow money and essentially fund the project 100%. They have to front the federal government's portion as well.

I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that many small municipalities simply do not have the resources available to them to pay 100% of the cost upfront and then wait for reimbursement from the government.

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, needless to say, I thank my colleague for her question because it is, in part, a response to an earlier statement that suggested that municipalities were in a position to take advantage of a credit arrangement being purported by the current government as an answer to these problems.

It is not the answer because most municipalities cannot take advantage of the credit opportunity simply because of the process and the requirement that is being placed upon the municipalities to do it all upfront.

We are in a time of significant economic challenge. That is not lost on anyone, except perhaps for those who have structured this infrastructure process to deny the opportunity to so many municipalities to spend the money on infrastructure as quickly as possible.

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Macleod Alberta

Conservative

Ted Menzies ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to engage in debate on today's Liberal supply day motion brought forward by the member for Parkdale—High Park.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, who is an eminent expert on this debate because he has been tasked with this exact role of ensuring this money gets out. While it is not part of his official title, I dare say that he is one of the hardest working ministers of the Crown, and I say that out of total respect for the individual.

Before I continue with my remarks, I want to take a moment to thank the member for Parkdale—High Park. We greatly appreciate his continued support of our Conservative government's budget and, more important, Canada's economic action plan contained therein, a plan the member for Parkdale—High Park has judged positively and as “a really serious effort”.

He will be happy that it is an effort that has also gained the favour of many of his former colleagues in the provincial Liberal government in Ontario. Provincial Liberals, like the Ontario minister of finance, Dwight Duncan, who heralded our Conservative government's recent budget as “a step in the right direction“. He went on to say:

...the federal government has come to the table and has made the much-needed infrastructure investments Ontario has been calling for.

We appreciate that the federal government has moved to help Ontarians....

Ontario Premier, Dalton McGuinty, highly praised our budget as well, including the $1 billion southern Ontario development fund, an initiative, I note, that previous Liberal governments had steadfastly refused to support.

In Premier McGuinty's own words, he said:

I put that (idea) to all the parties.... This prime minister has actually delivered.

This is real, it's meaningful and it's coming here just in time. This is a time when we're taking a shellacking in the manufacturing sector in southern Ontario.

I want to commend [the] Prime Minister...and his government for listening to some of the very significant specific concerns Ontarians have expressed [for an extended period of time].

We have a Prime Minister who delivered for Ontario and we have a government that delivered for Ontario; a sea change from the previous Liberal government under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin that neglected, in fact, that mocked and ignored the demands of Ontario's elected representatives and the pleas of the people of Ontario only asking for fairness.

Under the Martin Liberal government, for instance, when Ontario raised concerns about the fairness of certain federal transfers in 2005, such as health transfers, it was met with verbal abuse of almost unparalleled vitriol. The McGuinty government was even compared to a separatist at one point by its federal Liberal cousins for even broaching the subject.

Reading from an account, as described in the April 30, 2005 edition of the Toronto Star, of a speech given by the current Liberal finance critic, my friend from Markham—Unionville, who was then a federal Liberal cabinet minister, it reads:

Clearly speaking with the backing of Prime Minister Paul Martin, [the member for Markham--Unionville] told a Bay Street audience McGuinty is eroding “Ontarians traditional Canada-first attitude” with his “analytically deficient” numbers showing Ontario is being shortchanged. By doing so, McGuinty is playing a “nationally dangerous” game....

In effect, [the member for Markham--Unionville] is suggesting McGuinty is threatening Canada's future by seeking fairer treatment for this province from Ottawa. [The member for Markham--Unionville] blames the premier for intensifying the self- inflicted damage the federal Liberals have done in Quebec with the sponsorship scandal.

Such comments, as one would expect, proved to be extremely offensive to all Ontarians.

At that time, Dwight Duncan, then the minister of energy in the McGuinty government, was so offended he asked for an apology. He said that to suggest that this campaign somehow helped the separatists was poppycock and that he took it as a personal insult.

Minister Duncan's cabinet colleague in the McGuinty government at the time, then minister of education, who is now the current member for Parkdale—High Park, shared the outrage publicly, remarking:

—what's dangerous for Canada is a country that doesn't show the capacity to solve problems....There's a billion dollars missing in transfers on health and post-secondary education from the federal government.

I am happy to report to the member for Parkdale—High Park that after the failure of the previous Liberal government to act, this Conservative government did act. We have acknowledged that problem relating to Ontario's transfers, while the Liberal government denied it.

Again quoting Dalton McGuinty's glowing commentary following budget 2009:

The federal government has...addressed an outstanding concern related to the Canada Health Transfer. We are now going to be treated the same as Canadians in the rest of the country when it comes to the funding that we receive for the Canada Health Transfer.

We recognize, more important an even larger problem related to a fiscal imbalance that existed between the federal government and the provinces. We took action to correct that imbalance, starting in budget 2007 and continuing in budget 2009. That is why federal support for provinces is now at an all-time high and will continue to grow. We acknowledged a problem existed. We took action and we delivered.

What does that mean for the provinces in cold, hard dollar amounts? Sticking with the Ontario example of consistency, in 2009-10 that province will receive $15.8 billion in federal support, a $4.3 billion increase over the last year of the former Liberal government, over $4 billion more in support for the people of that province to ensure the best health care, post-secondary education and much more.

Some may ask what the preceding has to do with today's motion. In a word, everything. If my colleagues could take a few moments to read today's motion and reflect, it states as its objective an increase in a particular mechanism that could increase support for municipalities.

However, what are municipalities? Who do they rely upon for their considerable financial support? We know the answer. It is obvious. It is their respective provincial governments.

Let us ask ourselves, knowing that, under what conditions can municipalities best be in a position to support investments in a particular activity like infrastructure? Would they be well served by a provincial government suffering under the weight of a growing fiscal imbalance, perpetuated by a federal government oblivious to its existence?

We all know what happened when the Liberals radically slashed transfer payments to the provinces and territories in the 1990s. We all know what impact it had on the ability of provinces and territories to provide basic health care, education and other services upon which they depended.

We saw the strain it had on the efforts of municipalities to support infrastructure. In the words of the longest serving premier in Canada, the NDP premier of Manitoba, Gary Doer:

Everybody understands that what happened in '95 is the deficit was moved from the federal government to the provinces and from the provinces to the municipalities. We still have potholes in our country from what happened in '95.

We understood what happened. We learned from a history of Liberal neglect, and we will not repeat those mistakes. That is why our Conservative government has ensured federal support for provinces is now at an all-time high. That is why our Conservative government is making the largest federal public infrastructure investment in Canadian history through our $33 billion building Canada plan. That is why our economic action plan provides an additional $12 billion in new infrastructure funding.

We took action and we delivered. We are making the necessary investments to help stabilize the economy for today, while laying the groundwork for the growth of tomorrow.

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL

Madam Speaker, I to thank the parliamentary secretary for his less than insightful remarks. There is a saying back in Labrador, “It's no good to have education if you've got no common sense”.

I come from Labrador where communities range from a population of 10,000 down to around 35. They are in dire need of infrastructure. The turmoil across the country is affecting Labrador just like it is other Canadians.

The parliamentary secretary's minister has said that he will vote for a budget even though he has made mistakes. One of those mistakes is the methodology by which the government will transfer infrastructure money. All municipalities across the country agree the gas tax method is the best way to flow the funds.

Why not adopt this common sense approach to get more money into the hands of municipalities, communities like Pinware and Black Tickle that need water and sewer or places like Williams Harbour that need road connections? Why not flow the money down this avenue?

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's questions are usually about equalization, but we would welcome Newfoundland and Labrador to the have provinces, and we congratulate it for that. We have seen a few changes in the country this year.

I might remind the hon. member that this Conservative government always ensures that taxpayer dollars are utilized in the most efficient way. Many public-private partnerships are willing to step forward. We may in fact, and I am sure the hon. minister will allude to this in his speech, be able to triple this investment through partnerships to provide the economic stimulus that we need to get this economy growing again.

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON

Madam Speaker, as a former municipal politician for 13 years in the city of Burlington, I am glad someone finally stood in the House today and said good things about municipalities and the fine work they do with the respect that the House should give to them.

In my community alone, 13 projects worth $40 million were proposed. Selection criteria has been checked off, including whether they have money already budgeted.

Does the parliamentary secretary have confidence in the municipalities of our country to deliver on their one-third and make a difference in terms of stimulus in a time of need?

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague who has done yeoman's work in the finance committee. He did a tremendous job in ensuring that the economic action plan got through committee. He also is working hard to ensure that our senators recognize it and keep it moving.

Am I confident? Absolutely. I am almost as confident that the municipalities have the amount of money they need for their share as I am confident that the minister who looks after getting the infrastructure out the door will get it out the door.

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the parliamentary secretary. It is one thing to talk about effective expenditure of money, but for me another issue is to ensure the money is spent in a way that is in the interest of Canadians. In the area I represent, there are health issues with respect to boil order advisories in a lot of the communities.

Does the parliamentary secretary not see that an expenditure of infrastructure money to help some of these communities would be a wise investment and, at the same time, create employment?

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB

Madam Speaker, absolutely. That is part of our infrastructure spending, especially on first nations. We have put money aside for first nations. Many of these people are on boil water orders. In fact, there is a residential community in my riding in Alberta that is not a first nations community. We hope to provide infrastructure money to that community and many others. There is nothing more concerning to us than to have communities on boil water orders.

Opposition Motion — Municipal InfrastructureBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario

Conservative

John Baird ConservativeMinister of Transport

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to talk about infrastructure and this government's efforts in that regard. As my colleagues before me have mentioned, our government has a very important economic action plan to help stimulate economic growth, create jobs and bring back hope and prosperity to our great country. We are working hard to roll it out.

We are experiencing, expanding and accelerating our infrastructure investments and we will provide almost $12 billion in additional stimulus to the Canadian economy beyond our building Canada plan. Our economic action plan provides $4 billion of our economic stimulus fund to help provinces, territories, communities and municipalities get projects started as soon as possible. It provides $2 billion to accelerate colleges and university construction. The budget mentions Algonquin College, a great college in Ottawa—West Nepean. It has a project all ready to go that can create a lot of jobs and help create more once it is complete by training more tradespeople. That is good news.

It provides $1 billion to create a new green infrastructure fund. That is good news. It provides $500 million to support the construction of new community recreation facilities and to upgrade existing facilities. My constituency provided the genesis for this idea. We have the Merivale Arena. It is in bad shape. It was a centennial project in 1967 and it desperately needs to be repaired and renovated. Right across the country, whether it is in Oxford County, New Brunswick or Manitoba, projects like that can do a lot of good and get Canadians working again.

We are also accelerating additional funds for infrastructure to move it up and get those projects going now. Some municipalities expressed a concern when we did our prebudget consultations, particularly the parliamentary secretary who did some excellent consultations, that they might not have the money. There is a $2 billion fund of loans to support those municipalities.

I speak to my constituents in Ottawa West—Nepean. They say that in these challenging economic times they want to see their governments work together. We have led the way in the province of Ontario. We have put aside past political grudges and my premier and I are working constructively to make things happen for the people of Ontario. That is good news. That is what taxpayers expect.

We are also working very well with Ontario's minister of energy and infrastructure. George Smitherman and I just a few weeks ago announced a $1 billion for almost 300 infrastructure projects right across the province of Ontario. Three levels of government are all in the same boat, all with an oar in the water and all rowing together, helping to invest in our communities and get Canadians working again.

Let us look at what municipal leaders said about these investments.

South Stormont-Dundas Mayor Bryan McGillis said of his residents, “We've been waiting for this money for 30 years. I've almost got tears in my eyes I'm so happy”. That is incredible.

Now, one might say that I just fished out one quote. There are more.

Quinte West's public works chair said, “I'm excited, dumbfounded and astonished. This is a project that we've needed to get done for a long, long time”.

Merrickville-Wolford Mayor Doug Struthers said, “It's been a tremendous day for our municipality”.

The member for Leeds—Grenville has been pushing hard for this project in Merrickville. Its existing sewage treatment plant was in danger of collapsing. We could have had raw sewage going down the Rideau Waterway, just after it was named a world heritage site. That goes through my constituency and right to the border of Parliament Hill. By working together, we can accomplish things.

People said that these must be Conservative mayors and politicians. What do Liberals say about these announcements? Let us take a look.

My good friend Dave Levac, a Liberal MPP from Brant, said, “This is the kind of co-operative venture that produces the most effective and efficient projects any level of government can hope for”. Is that not good news? He works well with the mayor of Brant.

I suppose I could go on and on, but I will resist that temptation. However, I have news for the member from Toronto and other members. Premier Dalton McGuinty and I are not satisfied that we have done enough. That is why tomorrow morning we will be doing it again. We will be creating more jobs and more opportunities. The Prime Minister is in British Columbia spreading the good word, investing in our cities and public transit. Premier Dalton McGuinty and I will be working together and announcing even more funding. The key thing is that we are all working together.

Instead of creating 1,000 jobs, if we get more money from the province, we can create 2,000 jobs. If we get municipalities on board, we can create 3,000 jobs. We can create more jobs by working together and get more economic stimulus. The size of the growth package will be much bigger. We are leveraging funds and that is good news.

There were other views. When we did the prebudget consultations, everyone said that the fastest way to create stimulus is to just give the money to them. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation said just to put it all in their pockets and they will spend it faster. The provinces said the model of an infrastructure trust would be better. Just give all the money to the provincial premiers and they could spend it. The municipalities said the same thing. Just give all the money to them right away and they will spend it.

We are taking a balanced approach, just as the Prime Minister and this government always does, fair and balanced, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Airports wanted the money to go to them. The Commercial Rail Association wanted it all invested there. The public transit folks said to skip the municipalities and go right to the transit authority. However, as usual we are taking a measured and balanced approach.

We have extended the now permanent gas tax transfer so it creates the kind of partnerships so municipalities and projects around the province and around the country can get support.

Another benefit of the government's approach is that contributions by all three levels of government are dedicated to specific projects. Taxpayers know what their money is being used for and how it will benefit communities.

There have been times in the past when it has not worked that way. I am sad to report that in my own community, the city of Ottawa diverted provincial infrastructure money meant to go for road maintenance into its snow-plowing budget. We want to make sure that does not happen. That money was meant to fix our roads, not to be syphoned off for operating expenditures.

The government of my friend Dalton McGuinty ultimately passed a law which prevented the misuse of infrastructure money. The Investing in Ontario Act received royal assent on May 14. The City of Toronto in the past has used provincial infrastructure money to pay down debt. I understand that Toronto is in a difficult situation. Mayor Miller is a friend of mine and does a good job of representing the city, but we want to ensure this money gets Canadians working and simply does not go to pay off bonds or to plow snow.

I know that is important to the member for Labrador. We want to create jobs and strengthen our economy. We have a lot of cooperation for that.

We are doing a lot to cut red tape. We have made changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act that have gone through this House at second reading, which one premier called the biggest job killer in his province. That is your province, Madam Speaker, British Columbia.

My premier came forward with a five inch binder, a business case which took an additional nine months to prepare, which has slowed down the Spadina subway going to the riding of the member from York West.

We are working to streamline those efforts, because when my premier has advice, we listen and we work together. That has always been my approach.

Another favourite premier of mine is the premier of Manitoba. One of Canada's best premiers, Gary Doer, came out and said that we should have one project, one approval, not one project and three, four or five approval processes through two levels of government and that “perhaps we could spend our time and money a little more effectively”.

This is what the premier of the province of Quebec, Jean Charest, said:

“I am always fascinated by the question of whether there will be national norms, as though the people of Quebec and Manitoba care less about the environment than some bureaucrat in Ottawa”.

Even David Miller, my good friend the mayor of Toronto, with whom I have a good relationship, said that he thinks it is right to harmonize the federal process with the provincial. When we are going to do the right thing for the environment, we are actually doing the right thing for the economy in the long run.

That is very good news. We are committed to working together with our provincial and municipal partners. We are committed to making investments in important community projects in those other areas, whether it be an airport, whether it be a port. Working together we can go further, faster and get the job done. That is what the people of Ottawa West—Nepean sent me to this place to do, and that is exactly what we are doing, working in partnership.

5 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Before we proceed with questions and comments, I am going to read a message from the office of the Governor General.

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

February 26th, 2009

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 26th day of February, 2009, at 5:30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a bill of law.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila-Marie Cook

Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor

Industry, Science and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and for clarification, I would like to seek unanimous consent to replace the motion adopted earlier concerning a subcommittee on the auto industry with the following:

That the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology create a subcommittee whose membership will be composed of five (5) members, with two (2) from the Conservative Party, one (1) from the Liberal Party, one (1) from the Bloc Québécois, and one (1) from the New Democratic Party, and that the Chair be from the Conservative Party; that the sub-committee have all the powers and authority of the Standing Committee, to undertake a study of the crisis faced by the automotive industry in Canada, with the understanding that any legislation referred to the full committee take precedence over the work of the sub-committee, that the sub-committee not meet at the same time as the full committee, that the sub-committee report its findings and recommendations to the main committee no later than March 24, 2009, and that the main committee present the report to the House no later than March 31, 2009.

Industry, Science and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to present this motion?

Industry, Science and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Industry, Science and TechnologyCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

5 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?