Debates of Feb. 26th, 2009

Opposition Motion--Municipal Infrastructure

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my Liberal colleague's speech. He recently joined us on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

My question is simple. And the member will soon know our party's position regarding the Liberal motion. However, in terms of how things work on the ground, I would like our colleague to remember that municipalities, according to the Constitution, are creatures of the provinces.

In Quebec, the Act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif prohibits all spending or direct negotiations between the federal government and municipalities or school boards without written permission from the Quebec government.

Is my colleague aware of this?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I know that there are legislative agreements with the Quebec government, but there is also an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Quebec government concerning the gas tax transfer—I have a copy here—that requires that the provincial government's jurisdiction be respected. The method of distribution differs across the country. The agreement differs depending on the level of government. In Ontario, the agreement is made directly with certain municipalities, but it is a different agreement in Quebec.

The goal is to find the most efficient method, based on the methods that have already shown themselves to be efficient. That is the goal of this motion.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to engage in this discussion. As a former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I can tell the House of those dark days when the Conservatives ignored infrastructure, and it was nice to see the Chrétien government bring in the infrastructure program in 1994.

My colleague raises a very important issue, which is that if in fact we are going to have an economic stimulus package from the government and if the government is really serious about getting people to work and getting infrastructure programs going, one would wonder why it would have such a complicated approach. The gas tax is the most efficient and most effective way, and we know that many municipal budgets have already been set, so municipalities cannot necessarily find money out of thin air to match.

I ask my colleague that if in fact in this particular case the idea is economic stimulus, why would we ignore a program that even the government had supported in the past, which is the gas tax? How does the member see this as a more effective instrument in delivering the kinds of projects municipal governments require and would like to fund today? Could the member elaborate on that for us?

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

Mr. Speaker, I trust that all members of the House are aware that the method being proposed by the government requires municipalities to wait for funds. They cannot start or they lose access to funds. They must wait for approvals, sign specific agreements, and detail due diligence. The big hand of big government is reaching over them and holding back those projects, whereas the gas tax fund can actually be borrowed against immediately and be used immediately to get shovels in the ground.

That is what the mayor of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and Mr. Carl Zehr, the mayor of Kitchener, Ontario, speaking for the big city mayors caucus, said very clearly:

To counter a recession this year we need a program that gets money to projects in time for the spring construction season. A program based on the gas tax funding model is the best tool for the job.

We know that. Will the government give up its patronage? Will it give up the other temptations and serve the interests of Canadians fairly and effectively? This is how municipalities can put Canadians to work and build the infrastructure that will put us in a position of advantage for tomorrow.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's intervention.

I want to carry on in a slightly different vein from where the member for Abbotsford left off.

We talked about where money goes in a particular riding that may have been held by an MP from a particular party. The simple fact is that when money goes into a particular riding for a project, it is not just people in that riding who get the jobs. It is not just people in that riding who enjoy the facility. I will give two examples.

In Edmonton, the member for Edmonton—Strathcona is a member of the New Democratic Party. The Northlands exhibition facility is in my riding. I can guarantee that the people of Edmonton--Strathcona use that facility and that people from Edmonton--Strathcona will be employed in the expansion of that facility.

Another example is Ipsco Place in Regina. The member for Wascana was complaining the other day that the money was spent outside his riding. It is 3.93 miles from his riding. I guarantee that people from Wascana will use that facility and I guarantee that people from Wascana will be employed in that construction.

With respect to the municipalities and their ability to raise funds, we have a $2 billion credit capacity. They can borrow on that. When they present the bill, it is paid.

Toronto underspent its municipal budget by $190 million last year--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point raised by the member opposite about multiple benefit and so on, but the fact is that 70% of the $2.5 billion pledged is mainly for Conservative ridings.

However, it is much simpler. All that members need to agree on is that a per capita distribution is fair and that the extra speed and accountability that come with the gas tax transfer make this approach superior. Why get tangled up in selections? Why does the federal government want to do that, when it says its goal is economic stimulus and when its record is to not get money out the door effectively, even today? The record last year was 4%.

The point is raised because it is the temptation of government to keep a hand on the rudder to serve those smaller purposes. I say to the member opposite and to all members of the House that we must resist that temptation--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. We are going to try to get one more brief question in here. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians watching this will be mystified at what is actually happening, having heard that the Liberals were supporting the Conservative budget without conditions with respect to flow of money for infrastructure projects although, as the Liberals themselves pointed out, 96% of infrastructure money in the past has not flowed even though it was promised by the Conservatives.

How is it possible that the Liberals proceeded with support for this bill without any conditions attached and without questions about how the numbers would flow? How can they justify their support for a budget that may not provide any kind of stimulus, the likes of which Canadians need and deserve?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park only has about 20 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, I say very quickly to the member for Winnipeg North that we need to get the money out to Canadians and also take responsibility for choosing the best method. We have decided to support the budget, but this is improving on that support and making sure the money can get where it is going.

I enjoin her to support it on that basis. Let us do the best job possible for Canadians in making infrastructure happen quickly.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to contribute to the debate on this motion from the hon. colleague. I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont.

I think we should start the debate by talking about why we are in the situation we are and by understanding what is happening globally, because if we do not understand that and deal with this motion in that context, we are going to miss exactly what we are trying to do. We will get into the gutter and start playing politics, as petty as they can become in the House.

Let me try this out for a bit. We have to understand how the banking system in the Unites States has failed and how the asset-backed commercial paper and mortgages in the United States have collapsed and brought us into this situation. It is not only in the United States; it has rippled into the banking systems in Europe and Asia. We are not immune to it, because America is our largest trading partner.

This is a global slowdown. It is not something that has happened just to us. It is not something we caused or asked for or had any part in promoting in any way. However, we nonetheless have to deal with it. We have to deal with it collectively, because any stimulus money that is put into the American, European or Asian economies will not spin us out of the global slowdown if it is not done collectively. It is only if we put our collective efforts together as the G20 and do it respectively in each of our countries that we will see Canadians, Americans, Europeans, Asians and so on go back to work. Then we will spin our way out of this situation.

Failing to do this, we will see a repeat of what happened in the 1930s. Hopefully we have learned from history and we will work collectively to get out of this slowdown. We have to look at the stimulus package in that light.

It is not that this is our first stimulation package. This is the second one. As the world economy was slowing down, the first package we saw started in the fall of 2007 with a $200 billion stimulation package. This package included lowering the GST from 7% to 5%, implementing child tax credits and putting $100 per child into the hands of ordinary Canadians for child care, lowering corporate taxes to 15% and lowering small business taxes to 11%. These agendas were started long before we got into what was recognized by the world as an international economic slowdown.

We have to understand that what we are trying to do with the infrastructure and stimulus funding is actually twofold. First of all, we have to put Canadians back to work with their own money. We have to do it now, because they are losing jobs at the present time. However, we have to do more than that. We have to build an infrastructure that will prepare us to compete and be productive long into the 21st century and long after the current economic slowdown has passed.

That is why we are putting money into transit which is green. It not only improves the quality of the systems that get individuals to and fro in our major urban settings, but it is also environmentally friendly and it allows us to breathe cleaner air. We are also putting money into waste water, making sure that we have cleaner water. We are also making sure that we have green projects, that we have the very best of municipal waste disposal systems in the world, the best coal-burning and biofuel facilities in the world and the ability to create energy from those cellulosic and forest sectors and other opportunities that we have.

If we can do that with our infrastructure money, we will not be playing that petty game of who gets the most, which municipalities win and which municipalities lose. This will sustain us well into the 21st century. Everyone in Canada will win and we can be very proud of the technologies we design and the progress that we make.

We started this stimulus package three years ago. We came into power with the understanding that the infrastructure across the country was deteriorating and we had to do something about it. We put forward a $33 billion infrastructure program. That program is being built on with our action plan, which is another $12 billion. That $12 billion is split up a number of different ways. We have $4 billion in infrastructure stimulus funding.

One of the magic parts of this economic action plan, which I appreciate the opposition supporting, is the concept of use it or lose it. If we are going to stimulate the economy, we have to do it now and create the jobs when jobs are being lost. If we do not include the concept of use it or lose it, the money will go out beyond the time when it would be of appropriate use, not on the infrastructure side but on the stimulus side. It has to be done now and it has to be in new projects.

We are not prepared to put money into the hands of the municipalities or give them blank cheques and tell them they can spend whatever they want, because they would just balance their books on the backs of the federal government. They would not use the money as a stimulus for creating new projects. This money has to be used to stimulate the economy, to put Canadians back to work and to create jobs that would not normally be there.

Also, there is $2 billion to accelerate the construction of colleges and universities across the country. Canada has nothing to hide or to be ashamed of when it comes to post-secondary education. We are number one in the world when it comes to post-secondary graduates, but we can do better. We can keep on top of this agenda. When our young people are educated properly and have the best facilities to obtain that education, we will win in the 21st century. We have to put money into the high tech part of it and make sure our universities are creating the very brightest and best. Our future is based on the strength of our educational system and our youth. We are very pleased to be able to put $2 billion into that.

There is another $1 billion for the green infrastructure projects. This goes right to the visit of the President of the United States, who was here last week. He told Canada that he is very interested in the carbon capture and sequestration programs. We have to make sure that we are not only using fossil fuels in the cleanest way possible, and developing technologies that we can sell internationally, but that we are also working together to make sure that technology works.

As well, dealing with coal, which is another source of energy, we realize that if we are going to keep our GDP growing and our economic growth the same in the next 30 years as we have in the last 30, we have to double the amount of energy in that time period. Doubling the amount of energy in a clean, environmentally effective way is no small task. It is something that all of us have to look at intelligently. We have to do it in a way that understands the politics of the world. A lot of the fossil fuels come from unstable political regimes such as in the Middle East, Venezuela and so on. These are the challenges of North America and we can meet those challenges.

There is another $500 million in support for construction of new community recreational facilities. We were very proud, as were all Canadians, when a lot of these rinks were built for our centennial anniversary in 1967, but they are getting old. They need refurbishing. This infrastructure funding is there to help build centres for cultural and other activities in the small communities across the country, from one coast to the other. We are very proud of that and it is something that is needed to sustain the infrastructure in the local communities.

We are going to do it, which goes to the essence of question in the motion before us that we are debating. How are we going to get the money out? How are we going to do it effectively? We are going to be working with the provinces to be make sure that we fast-track key infrastructure projects.

For example, part of the infrastructure project is a base fund of $25 million over a five year period. Every province gets the same: $25 million. That is $175 million over seven years per province. We are not going to wait for seven years before we spend it. We are going to accelerate that so the provinces can spend that $175 million right now. They can do it on good projects that are based on criteria set by municipal and provincial governments. It is leveraged three to one, so we are going to see not only federal money but also municipal and provincial money going into those accelerated funds to build capacity for more employment and more infrastructure.

It is timely, very important and smart to do this kind of spending at this time because there is better competition in the bidding process for the jobs that are out there right now. I was talking to a number of the premiers. I was talking to one premier's office last week and I will be talking to another one this afternoon. What I am hearing right across the country is that the competitive bidding process is better today than it was a year ago. In fact some are telling me it is 25% to 30% better. Our dollar is going to go much further and we are going to be able to build more infrastructure because of the way we are doing it and the time in which we are doing it.

Let us do it smartly. Let us clean out some of the hindrances that we have seen. That is why in Bill C-10 there is a portion dealing with the Navigable Waters Protection Act to make sure that we get a lot of the bureaucracy out of the way, deal with the appropriate places where the environment is compromised, and not be so phobic about some of the things that are ridiculous under the act. We are going to change the definition of navigable waters. We do not want to duplicate environmental studies. We want to make sure that we do the appropriate study on that.

This government is building a tremendous amount of infrastructure projects at the present time and we are going to continue to do a lot more. I ask all members to please stay tuned.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government fails to understand that the FCM put forward a notion that the gas tax is the best approach to take because it is the most efficient, and the money should go toward new projects, not into general revenue.

I heard the minister talk about the building Canada fund. The government is great on announcements but very short on delivery. It announced $8.8 billion in 2007 but how much was actually spent in that first year? Zero. The government spent nothing on infrastructure projects in that first year. Last January the FCM announced that less than $300 million of the $1.5 billion announced for the last two years had actually flowed from the building Canada fund.

If the minister is serious about having projects go forward in a short construction season, then he should not play politics and leave the infrastructure issue to the provinces. The government should be dealing directly with the municipalities. The way to do that is by way of the gas tax. They are going to advance their five or ten year capital forecast and move forward.

I would ask the minister to comment on that.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member's question gives me an opportunity to explain about what we are doing with the gas tax.

The concept to some degree is right, and we agree with it. The amount of gas tax for the province of Alberta, for example, in 2008-09 is $95 million and in 2009-10 it will double, to $195 million. It is not a matter of the municipalities not having the money.

There is a principle and a concept that my hon. colleague needs to understand. If someone is not prepared to invest his or her own money in something, then he or she does not value that item very much.

We are asking municipalities to use the money the federal government is prepared to offer and leverage it with the money from the province and the municipality's own money. If municipalities do not have the money, we have put aside a fund so they can make the political decision as to whether or not to borrow against that at a very low rate. Municipalities have no excuse for saying they do not have the money. They have the money, but do they have the political will? That must be there if they are going to invest in the right projects.

There will be all kinds of fancy projects that may not meet the ultimate goal of building the best infrastructure for the country in the 21st century. We need to make sure that we get that concept across.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the minister when he talked about some of the programs the government was putting in place on the energy front.

He said that the Conservative government invested $2.2 billion in the biofuels program. This is a pork-barrel program. This program in this climate and with what is happening in the world is going to deliver zero dollars toward renewable energy. It is going to put a lot of money into corn-based ethanol, which is not the way to go. Those dollars are being badly invested.

In the latest budget most of the money that should be going into energy will go into carbon sequestration. This process has been totally unproven on a commercial scale. It is going to take many years to develop the technology. The companies that want to invest in this have not decided how they are going to invest. This is not a stimulation idea.

The U.S. is putting $150 billion into proven renewable energy technologies, such as wind power and solar power. These things are really what President Obama was talking about in his address--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will have to stop the hon. member there to give the hon. Minister of State a chance to respond.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe that I am hearing that kind of nonsense from an NDP member. I thought he was concerned about cleaner air, cleaner water, cleaner land. Not only biofuels but cellulosic ethanol biofuels and biodiesel will create more than that.

The forestry sector is looking at state of the art projects, things that perhaps my colleague needs to become informed about. It is looking at using forest products to create energy and electricity.

One of the projects that President Obama was talking about was zero CO₂ emissions for coal and we all know that coal will be a tremendous energy source in the future.

I am appalled at the short-sightedness and lack of understanding that an NDP member would have on environmental issues. I encourage that member to come and talk to me and I will educate him on some of the exciting projects that Canada will have in the future.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this motion.

As many of my hon. colleagues may recall, in November 2007 this Conservative government made the largest single commitment to Canadian public infrastructure in over half a century when we launched the building Canada plan. This is the largest investment in infrastructure since the second world war. Since then we have moved quickly to implement this plan, working together with our counterparts in the provinces, territories and municipalities.

We have signed framework agreements with all provinces and territories. We have taken action to develop our gateways, borders and trade corridors. We have made the gas tax transfer, which provides municipalities with stable and predictable funding, permanent. We have delivered significant public transit initiatives. We have flowed money to provinces and territories so project work can begin quickly. We have committed more money to infrastructure projects across the country than any other government in Canadian history.

All of these actions will help provide a solid foundation for our country to weather the economic storm we are facing. Building Canada money is already at work in communities across the country. It is being used for more than 4,700 projects with many more on the way. These projects are not only creating jobs and stimulating local economies in the short term, but they will also have many lasting benefits. For example, we are investing millions of dollars in the expansion of the Manitoba Red River floodway and flood protection measures in British Columbia. This investment will help protect hundreds of thousands of people and billions of dollars in property from the possible ravages of flood waters.

We are helping fund the expansion of the Spadina subway and GO Transit in the greater Toronto area, new buses in Montreal, and the SkyTrain in B.C. These initiatives will encourage more people to use public transit, which is good for the economy and the environment. It will help create a better quality of life for our families and our communities.

Our government is also investing in projects that will result in cleaner water for Canadians to drink, use and enjoy. We are helping to pay for the cleanup of the Saint John harbour in New Brunswick, upgrading storm sewers in Nova Scotia, and developing better water treatment plants in Nunavut.

Every day millions of Canadians and Canadian goods take to the roads, highways and airports, all activities which support our economy. Our government is investing heavily in making those roads, highways and airports safer and better. By facilitating the movement of people and goods, we are encouraging tourism, trade and commerce, all of which have enormous benefits for our country.

Our building Canada plan will help important projects, such as the Trans-Labrador Highway, the Montague Street bridge in P.E.I., the Kicking Horse Canyon highway in B.C., and many more.

We are also investing in infrastructure that makes Canadians proud to live, work and play in their communities. Sports, tourism and cultural infrastructure across this country are getting a much needed boost from our government.

Calgary will see a redeveloped Stampede Park. The Quartier des spectacles in Montreal and Evraz Place in Regina are being revitalized. Right in our backyard, Ottawa will soon be home to a magnificent world-class convention centre that will attract business and other groups from around the globe, opening the doors to enormous economic opportunity.

In 2011, Halifax will welcome the world for the Canada Winter Games. Our government is proud to support this event by helping fund the Halifax Mainland Common Centre, which will be a primary venue for this event and a world-class facility for training high performance and competitive athletes.

By investing in community recreational infrastructure, our government is committed to building healthy communities so that families, friends and neighbours can come together.

All of these infrastructure projects are only possible through the co-operation of all levels of government. As Canada's Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has said repeatedly, together all three levels of government can go three times further and three times faster. Ontario's Minister of Finance has said, “Today, the federal government has come to the table and has made the much-needed infrastructure investments Ontario has been calling for”.

No one level of government alone can accomplish what we need to get done. Our government has stepped up to the plate with $33 billion in infrastructure funding under building Canada, plus another $12 billion in new funding announced in the most recent budget.

We will speed up the flow of these funds to the provinces, territories and municipalities. We will cut the red tape, so provinces and territories can put shovels in the ground quickly to create jobs. Together we will build the infrastructure that will allow Canadians and the economy to thrive now and in the future.

We will continue to work with the provinces, territories and municipalities to invest wisely, quickly and efficiently to address the needs of Canadians today, tomorrow and into the future. This is our plan.

I want to read a couple of articles. We have talked at different times in the House about the leadership the Prime Minister has shown on the international stage and comments from different organizations that have commended us for our world leadership. Around the globe we are the envy of other countries when it comes to the way that we not only acted prior to the slowdown but how we have worked during this time to ensure that Canada will come out sooner and stronger from this economic slowdown than other countries.

It is interesting to note, for example, an article from the Daily Telegraph in the U.K., that came out during the G8 meetings this past summer. The article significantly lamented the lack of leadership among the other G8 countries as we headed into the economic slowdown, but it singled out one world leader for specific recognition and excepted him from the comments it made regarding the leadership, saying that our Prime Minister had shown specific positive leadership. Here is a direct quote:

Of all the leaders, only [our Prime Minister]...is able to point to a popular and successful record in office. Some will regard it as alarming that, in current times, world leadership should rest with Canada. But the Canadian Tories are a model of how to behave during a downturn.

At the end of the article it says:

If the rest of the world had comported itself with similar modesty and prudence, we might not be in this mess.

I am not going to quote from the article, but there was a recent article in The Guardian in the U.K. that viewers can check that commented a little bit on the Liberal leader and there is a stark contrast between the two comments.

I am now going to turn to an article that appeared in Newsweek recently on February 16, talking about Canada under the headline “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative”. This is a direct quote:

Guess which country, alone in the industrialized world, has not faced a single bank failure, calls for bailouts or government intervention in the financial or mortgage sectors. Yup, it's Canada. In 2008, the World Economic Forum ranked Canada's banking system the healthiest in the world. America's ranked 40th, Britain's 44th.

The article went on to say:

Canada has done more than survive this financial crisis. The country is positively thriving in it. Canadian banks are well capitalized and poised to take advantage of opportunities that American and European banks cannot seize.

In closing, the article went on to say:

If President Obama is looking for smart government, there is much he, and all of us, could learn from our...neighbor to the north.

Wise words there from Newsweek.. On the international stage, Canada is regarded as a world leader because of the steps we have taken, not just during this global slowdown but as the hon. member who spoke just before me mentioned, well in advance. Right from the time that we formed the government in 2006, we have been taking steps to make Canada stronger. In the long-term those steps have served us very well up to this point and helped us to enter the slowdown later, have ensured that the slowdown here will be felt less than in other countries, and will ensure that moving forward we will come out of this slowdown sooner and stronger than other countries.

With that I will end my comments and I look forward to questions from opposition members.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be simple.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry heard the speech given earlier by the Minister of State (Transport) who said, among other things, that these infrastructure programs could help solve the forestry crisis. I was a little shocked by this, given that he has some knowledge of the industry.

For the forestry crisis, the Conservative government announced only $170 million over two years. My concern is simple, and this is my question for the minister. What can we do to help a municipality such as Lebel-sur-Quévillon, for example, which has lost 40% of all its jobs in the forestry sector? That is, 40% of all the jobs in the municipality have been lost, and all as a result of the forestry crisis. What will with infrastructure program do to stimulate job creation in that municipality?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the slowdown affects sectors and industries across the country. It is a big issue. Obviously it is a global situation that affects countries around the globe and within Canada, there will be effects across the country.

Many of the steps we have taken are specific to industries. There is the community adjustment fund. There are modifications we have made to EI, for example, that makes it easier for people to get the support they need. We have the targeted initiative for older workers that the members from the Bloc have been talking about.

In terms of infrastructure, we have a $4 billion stimulus fund to help the provinces, territories and municipalities all across the country get projects started as soon as possible to put out of work Canadians to work as soon as we can.

There is $2 billion to accelerate construction of colleges and universities, which will have a short-term benefit in terms of the jobs that will create, but a long-term benefit in terms of the ability to train Canadians to be global leaders for the future.

There is $1 billion to create the new green infrastructure fund. There is $500 million to support the construction of new community recreation facilities and upgrade existing facilities, again, putting Canadians to work.

It is such a long list, it might take a little bit longer to go through it.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do have a question for the hon. member.

Over the last number of days I have spoken to a number of municipal leaders in my communities. The mayor of Mount Pearl, who calls the gas tax fund one of the most innovative new programs we have delivered in the last 100 years, thought this kind of program gets legitimate revenues moving forward in communities very quickly. He has a number of projects waiting to be done that he wants done. Mayor Simms would be very encouraged if we could move this motion through.

I spoke as well to Councillor Tom Hann in the city of St. John's who said he had over $92 million in projects waiting for funding today. If we were to actually move forward on this motion, he could have shovels in the ground, people at work and good economic development in the city of St. John's and the city of Mount Pearl immediately.

My question is to the member, and I appreciate his comments. Why would the government not consider this motion? Why would it not consider this move toward putting some of the infrastructure dollars in the hands of communities immediately so that we can move forward on economic development, on good infrastructure development, and on getting people to work immediately?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to serve on the industry committee with the hon. member. As a new member, it is always a challenging thing to come into the House.

I would especially note that she is in a unique circumstance in that for the first time in history, an opposition leader allowed a free vote on the budget, and she took the opportunity to vote against the budget, as did her Newfoundland colleagues. With that free vote, 90% of her Liberal colleagues took the opportunity to support the government in the important steps.

In terms of the steps we are taking, our budget contains a long list of initiatives to stimulate the economy and make sure Canadians are working. We have doubled the amount of money in the gas tax and made it permanent. For this year it will be doubled. It is now permanent, something municipalities find very important.

My encouragement right now would be to ensure that we get the budget implementation bill back to the House, that we vote on it and that we all support it. Hopefully this time around the hon. member will rethink her position with the free vote and actually support the budget in an attempt to get the money flowing to the communities she talked about.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to this Liberal motion. The purpose of the motion is to recommend to the government that investments in infrastructure programs be made in the same manner as in 2005, namely, through a formula for the distribution of the gas tax, which was a per capita distribution for each municipality. This investment represents half of all the funds available in budget 2009.

First of all, our party will support the Liberal Party position. We are setting partisan politics aside, because the situation is critical. We are on the brink of an economic crisis and one good way to stimulate the economy is to invest in infrastructure.

When I say we are setting partisan politics aside, I am choosing my words carefully. That is not what the Liberals did when it came to the most recent budget. They have a political agenda and that is how they practice politics. They chose to support a budget that offered no real solutions for the forestry and manufacturing crisis that mainly affects the province of Quebec, but the Bloc Québécois has made a different choice.

Setting aside political partisanship, we can see that the needs are great. Every city in Quebec has infrastructure needs. That is why the Province of Quebec created the coalition on infrastructure, a huge coalition that includes more than just the cities and is headed by the mayor of Laval, Gilles Vaillancourt.

This coalition also includes contractors and engineers, all the infrastructure stakeholders in Quebec, who, when the coalition was formed in the early 2000s, said that Quebec already had an infrastructure shortfall of more than $12 billion, just for upgrading existing infrastructure. I am talking about equipment and buildings, and also underground pipes such as water and sewer systems.

Quebec already had a $12 billion shortfall. In the early 1990s, the federal Liberal government inherited the Conservatives' deficit and decided to achieve a zero deficit by reducing transfers to the provinces. The provinces could not pay their infrastructure costs on their own, because of rising health and education costs, so they downloaded part of the cost to the municipalities. That is what happened. I was a member of the Union des municipalités du Québec at the time, and I even served as president of the organization from 1997 to 2000.

All across Canada, or at least in Quebec, the provincial shortfall was downloaded onto the municipalities and school boards. Obviously, the municipalities absorbed the costs, but that does not necessarily mean they invested in infrastructure.

Those who took part in discussions in 1992 about the municipalities in Quebec or who were following what was going on at the municipal level know that in the wake of the Ryan reform in Quebec in 1992, the Government of Quebec decided, with the stroke of a pen, to again transfer all local roads and some regional roads that came under the provincial government to the municipalities.

It transferred these roads directly to the cities and municipalities. The same thing happened with all types of works: bridges, culverts and all public construction. These public works and engineering works— municipal bridges and culverts—were transferred all at once and without a cent attached. The cities had to absorb the cost of repairs and maintenance. There was a reason why, last year, following the collapse of an overpass in Laval—a public engineering work belonging to the Government of Quebec—the government undertook a study.

Because the works ceded in 1992 were not being maintained, last fall the Government of Quebec decided to take back all the bridges and engineering works it downloaded in 1992. You can imagine the condition of the infrastructure it turned over in 1992—fairly important works such as bridges, overpasses and sewer and water systems—given that the municipalities had not invested any money in their maintenance.

Money was not invested because of the burden transferred in 1992 under the Ryan reform and in 1998 under the Trudel reform. I am not being partisan. This happened under both Liberal and Parti Québécois governments. The Quebec government had no choice because provincial transfer payments were cut. That is the reality. We have started to reinvest and to give.

There is a reason why the Bloc Québécois has been working hard to have the fiscal imbalance recognized. It has led to an imbalance in tax revenues that has had a domino effect on cities, and I will not even mention the school boards that were affected by this new transfer of the fiscal burden. This led to the creation of the Coalition pour le renouvellement des infrastructures du Québec chaired by the mayor of Laval, Mr. Vaillancourt, as I mentioned earlier.

The idea was to try to address this infrastructure deficit and to restore and upgrade the equipment that already belonged to the cities. And I am not talking about developing new infrastructure. A great deal of pressure was brought to bear on the federal government, which bore the brunt of the responsibility. That is a fact. When it began slashing provincial transfers to try to achieve fiscal balance and a zero deficit, it created an imbalance at the municipal level. The governments, especially the federal government, realized this. Consequently, when it started generating surpluses, it began wanting to give some money back to the cities directly.

As I said earlier to the member for Parkdale—High Park, the Liberal critic who gave a speech on behalf of his party, the problem is that Quebec has a law that prohibits any direct federal transfers to municipalities. I am going to take the time to read section 3.11 of the Act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif:

Except to the extent expressly provided for by law, no municipal body or school body may, without the prior authorization of the Government, enter into any agreement with another government in Canada or one of its departments or government agencies, or with a federal public agency.

Municipalities and school boards in Quebec are therefore prohibited from negotiating directly with the federal government. This is in keeping with the Canadian Constitution, because the cities come directly under the provinces. Some provinces do not have such requirements. That is why I want to tell all the members to be careful when taking action and making statements or even election promises.

I see that the Liberals analyzed the money invested in infrastructure programs. They found that 70% of the money spent to date has been spent in Conservative ridings, but not in Quebec. That stands to reason, because in Quebec, it is not the federal government that decides how the money will be invested, but the Province of Quebec. You have not seen us rise to say that there has been patronage in Quebec. There has been no patronage simply because the province decides how the money will be divided up. The Government of Quebec uses a formula involving representatives of the two municipal unions.

There are two main municipal unions in Quebec: the Union des municipalités du Québec, which includes most large and medium-sized cities, and the Fédération québécoise des municipalités, which represents small and medium-sized cities as well as regional municipalities. Both unions are represented on the selection committee.

Quebec already has a framework for distributing the funds, provided that the funds are part of a negotiated agreement. That was the case for the first agreement that the Liberal government at the time had negotiated. As our Liberal colleague showed earlier, agreements were signed concerning the gas tax, the municipal rural infrastructure fund and other funds. Each time there was federal money involved, an agreement was negotiated between the Quebec government and the federal government.

Until now, this has operated by means of agreements. One of those was the gas tax agreement: part of the envelope is distributed per capita, per municipality, with a minimum amount. It was very well received. I personally helped with the planning. At that time, it was Liberal minister John Godfrey who undertook this work on the gas tax. He invited me, as the former president of the Union des municipalités du Québec, into his office and I had the opportunity to discuss it with him and his officials on two occasions. He wanted to know my opinion on how the money should be distributed. I felt, obviously, that the best way would be to ensure that each municipality benefited, since every municipality has needs.

Do not try to tell me that municipalities can receive money through this program even when they do not need it. On the contrary, every municipality has needs and requests. Since 1992, when the federal government decided to cut transfers, municipalities have had to take on extra burdens, for the equipment and infrastructure that was downloaded. Yet they had neither the time nor the money for upgrades.

Clearly, at this time, it would be best to take part of the money and continue to redistribute it equitably among municipalities, on a per capita basis. This will enable them to bring forward some plans. Indeed, each municipality in Quebec must produce a three-year infrastructure plan in its budget and submit it directly to the Government of Quebec. Each municipality therefore has its three-year plan. Under the agreement with the municipal union, the minister can ask the Government of Quebec to produce the three-year plan and he will very quickly learn the infrastructure needs of each municipality. Everything is already very well planned and structured

All municipalities have infrastructure needs. Why not use this opportunity to take 50% of the funds available? That is why we will support the Liberal motion here today, for the sake of fairness, and simply because if we can set party politics aside, it is once again the best way to ensure that work can begin and that the economy can be stimulated everywhere, in all the regions. Of course I will come back to this.

With this motion, the Liberals seem to be trying to address a patronage problem. I want to be honest here, since I said I would not play party politics. At present, since budget 2005, the Conservative government has spent very little, if any money in Quebec. They made a few investments, but they were not made in the context of any agreements.

For instance, the building Canada fund was proposed by the Conservative government in 2007 and the Bloc Québécois supported it. However there has yet to be any agreement reached with the Government of Quebec. We need to know why, and that is the problem. Is it because the Conservatives wanted to engage in patronage? Did they have a new way of presenting that? Time will tell, but so far, I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, because the Quebec government has not shown any openness either, and will not tell us why it has not signed the agreement.

However, one thing is clear: the Conservative government has not spent one penny on any programs in Quebec, so there has not yet been any patronage. We can forget that. I want everyone to be very comfortable on that score.

Obviously, if this motion were adopted, it just might resolve the apparent impasse between the federal government and Quebec, with no agreement yet signed. Is it because they are completely at odds with one another? One way of resolving the impasse would be to send 50% of all infrastructure monies directly to each municipality, which is the current practice. SOFIL, a non-profit corporation, was established. Every municipality has its own amount of money. It negotiates with Quebec the work it has to do and Quebec outlines the main requirements. At present, in the first phase of the gas tax transfer, water and sewers are the priority. After that, investments will be made in roads. However, I know that municipal unions are asking that the process be more open and that additional new work be funded through these envelopes. That would surely allow recreational, cultural and other types of facilities to be built and that would create jobs.

I agree with the Conservative government that one way to create jobs is to invest in infrastructure. Our main point of contention about the last budget was not about infrastructure; we were asking for a different cost-sharing formula. That is why, today, with the sharing of the 50%, municipalities would not have to invest directly. We are asking for a new formula: 50% from the federal government, 35% from the provincial government and 15% from the cities.

As we all know, cities have reached their maximum debt loads. This is a little complicated because municipal debt loads are not the same throughout Canada. We have to be honest with all of the members and try to better understand the situation. In Quebec, the province's credit rating is excellent right now, and one of the main reasons for that is our cities' debt load. Historically, the province has always kept municipal spending in check to ensure a better credit rating. That is the reality. In Quebec, municipal debt loads are a lot lower, which helps the province maintain a better credit rating. That is how we have always done things. Other provinces allowed their cities to go deeper into debt. In Quebec, there is more oversight, and in some cases, to avoid accumulating debt, cities are not allowed to go ahead with certain projects. That is why we need more and more direct funding and less municipal participation because they have reached the maximum debt load allowed by the province.

That is the reality we have to deal with. The Liberals have suggested that, with this new program, if 50% of the money were to be allocated per capita with no obligation on the municipalities to invest, the government would be helping the vast majority of municipalities who have already reached the limit because every other program forces them to invest one-third. When the Liberals were in power, they had infrastructure programs and there was a gas tax, but even with the gas tax program, municipalities were required to participate. Now they understand and they are more open to municipalities, so they would not demand a contribution. We would be happy with that.

On the other hand, we also need to question the Liberals' will to solve this problem when they could have done it in their agreements with the Conservatives in the latest budget. It is a bit surprising that this comes along a few days after the budget was adopted. The Liberals have decided to find themselves a new vocation—saving the cities—when they could very well, when negotiating their support of the budget, have asked the government to include these standards in it. I still do not understand why they did not. Once again, they woke up too late. That is the Liberals' problem. They got kicked in the—pardon the expression, I will leave out the rest—in the last election and they are having trouble getting over it. That is the reality. They are always a month, a month and a half, or two months behind everybody else. One of these days they may catch up; that day will come. But it is still surprising that they did not take advantage of their negotiations with the Conservatives around the latest budget to get this included. The municipalities would, of course, have greatly appreciated that.

As I said at the start, this is serious. One good way to jump start the economy and create new jobs is to rebuild the infrastructures. We are very much aware of that. That is one reason we have always fought here in the House to get a fair shake for the forestry and the manufacturing sectors. The investments that can be made serve to protect existing jobs. We are well aware that, in the forestry sector, modernizing businesses in order to enhance their competitiveness will not increase the number of workers. One good approach is to stop the loss of workers in these industries—and the same thing goes for the auto industry. Investment is needed to stabilize the situation. An approach is needed that will create new jobs to offset the ones lost all over the country. The situation is not as the Minister of State (Transport) has described it. The forestry problem will not be solved with the infrastructure program. A program is needed to help the forest industry. One good way of doing so is what the Liberals are proposing, and we will be supporting this motion.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to the speak to the motion. The NDP will be supporting the motion of the member for Parkdale—High Park.

I will be splitting my time today with the member for Trinity—Spadina. Her expertise as a city councillor for many years has given her a great understanding of municipal financing and the difficulty in bringing forward projects that can really benefit a municipality in a very short period of time.

As a former mayor for many years in a smaller community, I have the same understanding of this issue. I was involved in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' green fund for five years. This role gave me the understanding of how long it took to put forward projects that could turn the direction of a community toward more greener and environmental purposes.

The reason we will support the motion because in the finance committee our party has called for similar action from the Conservative government. We put forward amendments in committee. Unfortunately the Liberals sided with the government and those amendments were not brought forward. They were very similar to what we are dealing with today.

Why do the Liberals think it is important today to take up an opposition day when they would not consider the time in committee, when proper amendments could have been brought forward that would have changed the nature of the budget bill?

The real reason is the Liberals need some cover on this issue. Therefore, today is spent to provide that cover for the Liberals to show they really do care about these issues. Their support of the Conservatives' attack on women, on collective bargaining and on the environment is really not their heartfelt desire. Rather they have moved forward with a motion today to show that they do have some differences from the Conservatives.

We cannot have it both ways. Either we support the Conservatives, like the Liberals, or we work, like the New Democratic Party, in opposition and speak up about the things that are not appropriate in the budget bill. The municipal infrastructure program, as a stimulus package, is simply not appropriate.

There is little difference right now between the new leader of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister and his cohorts in the way that they think about issues. The coalition that has been established between the new Liberal leader and the Prime Minister is one based on similar thought.

In a 2007 study commissioned by the FCM, the municipal infrastructure deficit was found to be $123 billion. Under the Conservative plan, this deficit will grow because municipalities will be unable to access the funding because they will be unable to come up with the kind of matching funds required under the building Canada plan.

In the last election we committed to increasing the gas tax fund and to creating new funding for municipalities. Fixing the infrastructure deficit must be a priority. However, I do not think it will solve all our economic woes.

The world's economy is in need of change. The current economic situation was created by governments' deregulation that was driven by one thing, and that was greed. Deregulation was carried out mostly by the Liberals and cheered on by the Conservatives. Look at the mess we have today.

The great recession of the 21st century is growing worse day by day. We cannot afford to sleepwalk any more and think that because somehow our banks have done okay, the rest of the country is okay. It is not.

We have had massive job losses in Canada and around the world. Businesses are failing and banks are going under all over the world. For example, just today one of the biggest banks in Britain, the Royal Bank of Scotland, reported the biggest loss in British history. Because of this, Britain has announced a bank bailout plan of over $700 billion.

What we need right now is a vision of the long term to restructure our economy. The President of the United States is correct when he says that our current economic situation should be seen as a chance to rebuild and restructure, a chance to build a better economy, one that is sustainable. This is our vision for the economy.

What would this new economy look like? It would be greener, that is for sure. We should create a green collar jobs fund of approximately $750 million a year to train new workers and retrain displaced workers. Moving people in the direction of the new economy is so important. It is not simply good enough to house them on EI or on make work programs. We need to see their skills move in the direction that will lead to energy efficient renewable energy technology.

We will fall behind the United States if we do not move in this direction. President Obama has committed $150 billion over three years for renewable energy and energy efficiency programs. That is so much more than what we are putting in. We need to take hold of the new economy developing in the United States. The North American continent has an integrated economy. We need to invest in our country in the same types of projects and the same types of direction.

We also need to invest in Canadian production of low emission cars to ensure our auto industry remains viable. Aggressive incentives for manufacturers that develop and manufacture in Canada cars with low or zero greenhouse gas emissions should be a priority of the government. That is what is going to bring our car industry forward in a good and acceptable fashion.

All over the world industries, governments and workers are collaborating to build new opportunities for jobs in innovation. Canada has taken the opposite approach. Experts agree we need a proactive plan to keep our country, our industries and our workplace in leading global position. That should be our job here. This should be the direction that is provided by the budget, rather than the scatter gun approach to investing a little here and a little there, maintaining the status quote with some increased expenditures.

We need pan-Canadian sector based strategies. These sector based strategies will come through a systematic review of sector specific tax measures. We need to eliminate those that are economically or environmentally counterproductive. We need to add new measures to stimulate investment in the broader public interest. We need to commit to a better building retrofit and energy efficiency strategy, perhaps modelled on the city of Toronto. We need to undertake an immediate top to bottom review of how banks, insurance companies and other financial service providers are regulated in our country.

On a more local basis, in my own constituency in the Northwest Territories the federal Minister of the Environment has been pushing the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline as though that is all the Northwest Territories and Canada needs. This is an example of muddy thinking.

Yes, we need the pipeline. However, it needs to be thought out as a larger plan for the creation of a gas industry that will stretch up and down the Mackenzie Valley, a plan that should include the construction of a highway along the Mackenzie Valley as an equal or greater priority for the government than a pipeline. The highway will set the stage for proper development of a pipeline.

We need forward thinking, not cynical political damage control as we have with the motion today, which really will not accomplish much and will not move us forward in the direction in which we need to go. We do not need the blind attachment to the past that we see from the Conservative Party, exhibited with its approach to energy where most of the expenditures it will make are simply not appropriate.

We have discussed those at great length in the House of Commons, but we have not brought that discussion out to the country yet. We need to have a discussion in the country about how our energy systems will develop and what direction we will take, and not enclosed in a special interest group around the Prime Minister and his Minister of the Environment, which will not solve the problem.

I look forward to questions and comments.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, based on what I heard, I am under the impression that the NDP is opposed to the motion presented by the Liberal Party. I am not sure if that is the case, but that was the indication. Based on all the comments the member made, the discussion was that this was the wrong approach and the motion was not accurate.

I hear the New Democratic Party asking how the Liberals can criticize the economic action plan and then support it. The NDP cannot criticize the motion, then support it and then complain about somebody else criticizing and supporting something else. It has to get it straight.

The member was a former municipal politician, a mayor of a community. I have great faith in the municipalities in Burlington and across the country, and so does FCM. In a statement about the budget of January 27, Jean Perrault, president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the mayor of Sherbrooke, said, “Today the federal government took concrete action to create new jobs—