Debates of Feb. 26th, 2009

Decorum in the Chamber

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today when the member for Timmins—James Bay got up to ask a question at around 2:58 p.m., there was a lot of heckling from members, including the member for Crowfoot, who said, “You're a low life”. Yesterday, February 25, at around 3:00 p.m., the same member heckled the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. Earlier on, he heckled the member for Toronto—Danforth. This has been a pattern. I can give you the whole long list, Mr. Speaker. On February 2, at around 2:30 p.m., the same member said, “Apologize to all Canadians” while he was heckling the member for Toronto—Danforth, et cetera.

This area of the House is a bit further away from you, Mr. Speaker, and there is a tremendous amount of heckling in this area. I want to bring this to your attention because I hope that when language such as “low life” is being used, you would ask those members, who are repeat offenders, to stop the heckling.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I thank the hon. member for Trinity--Spadina for her comments in this regard. I can assure her that there are things being said at this end that she cannot hear either that would cause her concern if she were sitting up here. There is a lot of heckling that goes on in the House. I always encourage hon. members to refrain from excessive noise and of course that means sometimes excessive language, too. We have had a number of points of order today arising out of question period because of allegations that the language used was improper or excessive, depending on one's point of view, which I will be reviewing.

I am sure that all hon. members in the House would share the concerns expressed by the member for Trinity--Spadina and will raise the issue next week at caucus, and maybe next Wednesday the House will be much quieter as a result.

Now, I believe we have a question that the opposition House leader would like to ask, it being Thursday, and I apologize for having delayed this somewhat.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my goodness, it is almost Friday. I have the normal Thursday question for the government House leader about his plans for organizing the business of the House for the next week or two. I wonder if he could be as specific as possible about his designation of opposition days in that period of time. He will know, of course, that the end of the supply period is March 26 and it would be very helpful to know which day on or before March 26 will be the last supply day in this particular supply semester.

As the government House leader knows, there is a reporting procedure now in place as a part of the amendment to the budget address that requires certain reporting to the House of Commons five days before the last supply day in this semester. Therefore, that day could be rapidly approaching; indeed, it could be as early as next week. It would be helpful if the minister could be as specific as possible about all opposition days, including the last one in this semester.

I would also like to ask the minister about a matter that appears in the main estimates that were tabled today by the President of the Treasury Board. The minister was kind enough to provide opposition spokespersons with some advance notice of this item. I am referring to page 1-116 of the main estimates and vote item number 35, which provides for an extraordinary power in relation to expenditures to be made between April 1 and the end of June, this year, related to certain budget matters.

Because that power is extraordinary, I would ask the minister if he would be prepared to entertain some discussion with respect to equally extraordinary reporting procedures with respect to any decisions that the government may take under that particular vote, bearing in mind that it is an unusual provision that I understand has never been included before in the estimates. Accountability is important, and I wonder if the minister would entertain some discussion about how to make sure that accountability is there.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I will address the usual Thursday question first.

I look forward to the business of the House of Commons and the business of the government for this next week. Despite the unprecedented tactics of the Bloc Québécois earlier this morning, we will continue the debate on the Liberal opposition motion for the remainder of today.

Yesterday the Standing Committee on Finance reported the budget implementation bill back to the House. This means tomorrow will be the earliest opportunity, according to our rules, to begin debate at report stage of the budget implementation bill. It is our hope to complete report stage tomorrow and then move quickly on to third reading.

The budget implementation bill will remain the government's top priority for next week. Following the completion of that bill, we will schedule debate for Bill C-13, the Canada grains, and Bill C-7, marine liability. Both of these bills are at second reading.

In reference to opposition days, or supply days as they are known, I will be designating Thursday, March 5 next week as an allotted day. However, I serve notice that if the budget bill is not adopted by then, I may have to return to the House to change that designation.

As to my hon. colleague's request about the last supply day in this cycle, that is still open for discussion. He will know that we have had quite a lot of discussion among all House leaders at our weekly meeting and in meetings subsequent to that to look at the schedule moving forward to ensure there is ongoing consultation, communication and co-operation among all parties as we try to get the budget bill passed as quickly as possible and get this much needed stimulus to Canadians and Canadian families that need it.

As to the extraordinary power that he looks to in the main estimates that were introduced today, referred to as special vote 35, I assure the hon. member, all members of the House of Commons and, indeed, all Canadians that accountability is paramount to this government, and we will be assuring accountability. As always, we are open to discussions with the opposition parties as to any way in which we can ensure greater accountability, not only for those moneys that will be spent under special vote 35 but for all taxpayer dollars.

Appropriation Act No. 4, 2008-2009

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have been informed that a clerical error has occurred during the drafting of Bill C-12, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2009. Accordingly I have instructed that the bill be reprinted.

For the information of all members, I am tabling a copy of the letter addressed to the Speaker from the Law Clerk in which the necessary changes are described.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion — Municipal Infrastructure

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before the oral question period, the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche had the floor. He has seven minutes left to complete his remarks.

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was getting quite carried away in my speech previously, about the importance of insuring that the money gets to the communities. I will continue in the same vein because this is a topic of extreme importance.

We have heard from several Conservative members that a lot of money has been distributed at this time, or rather announced. There is a huge difference between announcing a project and putting the first shovel in the ground.

I mentioned two facets of the project in the Eel River Bar community in the Restigouche region. The first dealt with providing drinking water in order to create a tourist development. The second aspect is the tourist development project itself, an aboriginal garden.

These two aspects need funding if they are to be finalized. They are not new projects, but existing projects, ready to be finished. Where the water supply is concerned, the province of New Brunswick has even made a commitment: if the federal government was in it, so was the province.

So there are two parts to the project and the Conservative government says that money is available, that the sod has been turned, that projects have been announced. But in the meantime, in actuality, there has been no progress whatever on these two phases of the project. One of them cannot be finished because the federal government does not want to give the necessary funding, and as far as the other is concerned, the federal government does not want to contribute to improving the drinking water infrastructure.

Hon. members will understand that I am more than skeptical when I hear from the Conservative members that money is on its way to the communities. The truth is that, at this time, no money has gone out to the communities. Promises have been made in the House. We hear plenty of great promises from the government MPs, but the reality is that our communities are not getting the results.

It would be interesting to know what the situation is in small rural communities all across the country. Part of the riding I represent is entirely rural. There are a lot of important projects that need to be done. The communities, for their part, have to be accountable to the people who live there, provide them with services, and improve their quality of life. They must also be able to carry out these infrastructure projects. If they want to do them, as things stand now, the federal government asks them to provide so much money that they are unable to draw up plans and get the projects rolling because they do not have as much as the Conservative government wants them to provide.

We want the government to speed up the funding to these municipalities, towns and villages. What we need first is speed. Then we need flexibility. Finally, we need to ensure that the program to return the gasoline tax will give these cities, towns and villages the funds they need to complete the most pressing infrastructure projects for the people of their communities.

I also gave the example of the city of Edmundston. This is a real priority. The sewage system needs to be divided, separating the storm and sanitary sewers. This is a quality of life issue for the people. We need to ensure that people’s houses are not inundated when there are major floods. I am not talking about floods of drinking water but of stuff that is not very appealing on the environmental level. The City of Edmundston is ready to proceed with this project, but the government says that it probably does not fit the current funding situation.

I want to hear the opposite. I want to hear the government members say that projects from Eel River Bar, the City of Edmundston and all the others that have been submitted by municipalities in my riding, or will be over the next few weeks and months, are going to get done. Even better, I want the funding to be there and the projects to start. I want a real infrastructure program to get the Canadian economy going again and put the businesses in our rural communities back to work. If they are back at work, there will be employees on construction sites erecting buildings and making roads. People will have water and sewage systems.

That is the way it is. What we want is very straightforward. We want to make sure that our municipalities have access to what they need to provide services to their residents. It is not that complicated, so I cannot understand why the government thinks that citizens will believe their little promises about spending money all over the place. Our constituents want results. They want to see shovels in the ground. They want water and sewer services. They want the infrastructure they need to get those services. That is what they want. They do not want promises. They do not want to hear that the government is working on it. They want to see people put shovels in the ground. They want to see the grader grade and the backhoe dig. That is what they need.

The Conservative government must change its mind about our motion and admit that the Liberal idea is a good one because it would put money directly in the hands of communities.

All we can do now is hope that the government will open its eyes. Someone once told me that we might have to think of the Conservatives as little babies or kittens that suddenly open their eyes and understand common sense. That is what we are trying to make the Conservatives understand. People in communities just want the Conservatives to accept common sense. They want access to the money now so that they can get started on their projects.

I know that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. I hope the Liberal motion will pass. This is an extremely important motion for the infrastructure in our communities.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in the last week I visited two municipalities in my riding, Victoria County and Cape Breton Regional Municipality.

When I met with those two councils to get a better sense of what requirements they have in infrastructure, they said that their municipalities were tapped out. They do not have the money to step up to the plate and they are worried it will pass them by. They simply do not have the funds to access the infrastructure programs.

My hon. colleague, the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, has a similar riding to mine, with a low tax base and a high demand for infrastructure. Could he tell the House how the Conservative government's present infrastructure program will pass those rural, small and cash-strapped communities by?

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Sydney—Victoria because his question is very relevant. These municipalities, towns and villages do not currently have, like most of the others, the means to carry out infrastructure projects. They have a project, but are unable to borrow the funds they require. No municipality today has a third of the money required in its bank account. The municipalities have to borrow. Who repays the loan? The taxpayers and the people of these towns and villages have to. They do not have the means to do so. The communities have to meet demands and provide basic services.

At the moment, if we are to accept the Conservative government's approach, which means that if it continues not to listen to us, all small communities across the country, the cash strapped cities, towns, villages and rural communities, will be passed by. These communities will have to watch the train roll on by. Meanwhile, they need money. They need it so that, when this train will stop where they are waiting and the work can be done.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke and the member who asked him the question talked about municipalities that possibly could not take advantage of the infrastructure program because they had no funding.

First, the member obviously knows the tax rebate that goes out to all municipalities will go up quite a lot. Second, page 135 of the budget recognizes the fact that some municipalities will be unable. Therefore, $2 billion have been put in over two years in direct low cost loans to municipalities through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

If these municipalities are strapped, there is an ability for them to get money at a very low interest rate and that money can be used to help access infrastructure funding. That, on top of the gas tax rebate and the other programs the government has in place, should allow municipalities an opportunity to take advantage of this.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two comments. First, I am pleased to see that the Conservative member opened his eyes, because the gasoline tax rebate was a Liberal program. As to the matter of the tax rebate to the municipalities when there are projects, it was a Liberal bill passed when we were in government. In fact, we did some very fine things.

Think about the government's position now. They talk of lending money to municipalities. The municipalities need money in their operating budgets now in order to provide fire and police services and basic services to the public. The government is going to tell them it is not a problem if they have no money, because it will be able to lend them money and charge interest, too. So, in the end, the municipalities will no longer be able to provide the basic services to their residents, but, according to the Conservatives, this is not a problem; they will not be able to say that the government did not help them.

In fact, the municipalities do not need that. They need direct aid, like the gasoline tax. The government must be able to give them money immediately and not compromise the future of the communities for the next 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. We are talking about our children's future here. So, if their future is to be assured, they cannot be burdened with debt forever. The fact of the matter is that the Liberal motion must be passed, and the public will benefit.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Lethbridge talked about low interest rate loans being available but that does not recognize the reality in our small towns. For example, the pulp and paper mill in North Cowichan may not be able to pay its taxes this year. A low interest rate loan would not help that municipality which sees this company as a significant tax revenue source.

I wonder if the member could comment on what he thinks needs to be done to help out those small rural communities that are in desperate straits because their single industries are looking at financial difficulties.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a similar situation in my riding. This is the reality for the city of Dalhousie, the third largest city in my riding. The Bowater pulp and paper mill closed down. That is exactly the same situation, and the municipality's revenues are dwindling as a result.

So, first of all, revenues are dwindling and the federal government wants them to take on additional debt. This means that the municipality's debt level will go on forever. As they say, the sky is the limit. At some point, we need to slow things down, because the reality is that the municipalities cannot be mortgaged for life.

We should help them out, so they can breathe a little easier and work on infrastructure projects without mortgaging the future of the communities or that of the citizens.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Halifax.

I appreciate the opportunity to debate this motion put forward by the member for Parkdale—High Park.

It was crystal clear to those of us who were paying attention that this country was going to face an enormous downturn of profound proportions in our economy. It was clear to our cities, labour community, NGOs and institutions like those involved in health care delivery and education. The only group that seemed to be oblivious to the impending economic downturn was the Conservative Party of Canada and the government that fronts for it.

In August 2007, we watched as the American mortgage sector went into meltdown. People lost their homes, savings and hopes for the future. That meltdown sent shock waves through the American economy and real and obvious warnings to the global community, to us here in Canada and to those of us in the New Democratic Party.

We have seen over and over again that what happens in the U.S. has a significant impact on Canadians and on our economy. That is the very reason that our leader and our caucus pressed the government to address the signals in our economy that all was not well.

I would remind members of the job losses: more than 14,000 in my community in just the past few months. In fact, London has experienced a 75% increase in those seeking employment insurance in the last few weeks. These are desperate families who come to my office. They are terrified of losing their homes. They do not know how they will manage or provide for their children and dependants. These are people who have been given no recourse or hope because of the vacuous economic update that we heard from the government last November, which was an insult to all Canadians.

The equally empty 2009 budget, in turn, offers nothing to those facing unemployment. Sixty per cent of Canadians do not even qualify for EI despite the fact that they paid into the employment insurance fund.

The same government is offering $60 billion in tax cuts to the most profitable corporations, big banks and big oil. The same government took away women's human rights when it inflicted its so-called pay equity bill into the budget implementation bill and rolled back women's equality to the 1950s.

The same government gutted Status of Women Canada, abandoned veterans and their widows, undermined the Investment Canada Act and opened the door to foreign takeovers of Canadian business. It is the same government that absconded with $54 billion from the surplus in the EI fund and denied first nations their rights by rejecting the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and completely ignored our obligations under the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

It is the same government that created a $3 billion slush fund and now refuses to say what it is for. This is the same government that is asking Canadians and the House of Commons to trust it when it comes to the distribution of the infrastructure dollars that we keep hearing about. I, for one, have real doubts. I have profound reservations because I do not trust it.

I do not know how the government spent its time over the past fall and early winter, other than proroguing the House when its incompetence became unbearable, but I can say that members of the New Democratic Party caucus were talking to Canadians and asking how best to defend against the coming economic storm. We talked to workers who were unemployed or about to be unemployed. We talked to seniors, educators, students, health care providers, the chambers of commerce in our cities, small businesses and NGOs. We even talked to our municipal leaders.

One of the crystal clear messages we heard from all sectors was that there was no time to waste, that we needed to act responsibly and quickly to address the economic crisis. That is the reason that my leader went to the Prime Minister on November 12 with a plan that met the needs of those with whom we had consulted. The Prime Minister, unfortunately, rejected all that support and cooperative gesture from my leader.

However, the fact remains that the advice that we took to him was the same advice that we heard in those town halls from the experts, from the people who are living with unemployment, the municipalities, the businesses, the people who deliver our services.

I met with members of the council for the city of London and they were very clear in what they had to say. Like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, they told me that the long term health of Canada's economy was closely linked to the scope and quality of municipal infrastructure investment and that municipal infrastructure deficits were a national issue requiring national leadership. They were very clear that there was no time for a top down, project by project delivery of infrastructure dollars. They needed and respectfully requested that the vehicle for delivery of the infrastructure money be on a per capita basis in the manner of the methodology used to deliver gas tax money.

As I am sure the House will recall, the transfer of money to municipalities came about in 2005 because the government adopted a policy put forward by the New Democratic Party. Since that time, municipalities have made effective use of those dollars, be it for public transit or other important kinds of infrastructure.

In my own city of London, the London Transit Commission, working closely with the members of the Amalgamated Transit Union, used gas tax money to upgrade our transit system to meet the needs of Londoners with differing physical abilities and to increase ridership. It was a very welcomed improvement for the workers, students, seniors and physically challenged ridership in London. The general manager of the London Transit Commission was very kind in his praise for NDP efforts with regard to gas tax funds for municipalities.

It has also become clear that in the past four years this money has been used wisely and well by municipalities. They know what is critical and most effective in their own jurisdictions. They are the level of government most familiar and responsive to local needs. That is the reason, among those I have already mentioned, that the method chosen by the government makes me very skeptical about the appropriate use of the promised money and, indeed, whether the money will actually flow.

Last January, my leader and I attended a town hall meeting in St. Thomas, Ontario. That community, as the House may recall, has been devastated by job losses and the exodus of the manufacturing industry is breathtaking. It is a town of about 35,000 people, with perhaps 17,000 to 18,000 families, and of those families nearly 5,000 have been affected by lay-off at Sterling Trucks, Lear, Formet and many more. It is absolutely catastrophic. We were meeting with these families, and the mayor of St. Thomas was present because this issue was at the heart of the crisis lived by the people of the St. Thomas area every day. The mayor of St. Thomas told us that while he appreciated the extra $7 billion in infrastructure money, he said that it would do no good if it was not spent.

I would like to remind the House that in budgets 2007 and 2008, $33 billion was set aside for infrastructure. We asked the mayor of St. Thomas, indeed, many of the mayors across the country, about that $33 billion and, without exception, they reported that they could not access the money. It was never spent. It was never intended to be spent because it was tied to a share put in place by the municipality and the province.

These municipalities are broke. They are stretched to the limit. They have no money for infrastructure. We need an honest vehicle for this money and we need flexibility. We need to see it flow but I do not see that in budget 2009.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

I would like to thank the member for London—Fanshawe for agreeing to share her time with me.

The motion is essentially a way to address the failings of the budget implementation bill. It is really trying to send a message to the government.

Bill C-10, which is currently before the finance committee, simply does not go far enough to address our current economic crisis. Further, in the budget implementation bill the Conservatives have attached a series of ideological riders. They are trying to sneak through the back door a series of ideologically driven measures that have nothing to do with the stimulus package.

Hidden in this document of more than 500 pages are the Conservatives' proposals to take a woman's right to pay equity out of the human rights act. The bill would open up Canadian industry to more foreign ownership and would make it easier to go after students punitively. The budget fails to protect the vulnerable, fails to safeguard the jobs of today, and fails to create the jobs of tomorrow.

Today we have a Liberal motion to transfer money to municipalities via the gas tax and to transfer at least half of the proposed new infrastructure funding with no requirement that these funds be matched by the municipalities.

At the finance committee this week, New Democrats proposed amendments to Bill C-10. We proposed to strike the clause that proposes changes to the human rights act to prevent women from taking pay equity complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. We proposed to strike the provision that relaxes rules around environmental assessments under the Navigable Waters Act. We proposed to strike the provision that unilaterally tears up collective agreements signed by the government. We proposed to strike the provision that introduces punitive changes to student loans. We also proposed to strike the provision that weakens control on foreign companies taking over Canadian ones, and we tried to strike the clause that required other levels of government to match funds before they flow.

The motion does try to fix one problem with Bill C-10, and that is a laudable premise, despite the fact that the Liberals abstained from a vote in committee earlier this week that could have done essentially the same thing. They abstained when a vote of “yes” would have meant a majority and would have meant that there would not have been strings attached to infrastructure funding.

Our proposed amendments were practical proposals for change. Our amendment to address environmental assessments in particular under the Navigable Waters Act was a proposal that was demanded by the people of my riding.

Constituents have written to me in shock that the Conservative government would see environmental regulations as red tape to be cut through. One constituent, Joel Richard from Halifax, wrote to me and said:

When we protect public access to waterways in Canada, we are also protecting the natural environment of those waterways. We understand that it is important to initiate infrastructure projects to stimulate the economy. But we should not use that as an opportunity to dismantle safeguards put in place to protect Canada's environment.

It has been made abundantly clear in the House that the budget and its implementation bill use the economic upheaval we are facing to push through a tax on women, workers and students. New Democrats would like to see less of that brutal agenda and more of the funds that are needed to get Canadians back to work.

The budget is another very good example of the government's inability to develop strategies, strategies to address issues such as the economic crisis, climate change, or gang violence.

Today the Minister of Public Safety introduced another bill that lacks a real strategy. In their attempt to address gang violence, the Conservatives have introduced a bill that really does not do much.

New Democrats will support the bill. In fact, we call on the Conservative government to fast-track it. When it comes to tackling violent gang crime, New Democrats are calling on the Conservatives to move farther and faster.

We need a comprehensive federal anti-gang strategy, but the bill is not a strategy, much like the budget implementation bill. A comprehensive strategy must include not only tougher sentences but also more police officers on the street, improved witness protection, tougher laws to tackle proceeds of crime, modernization of the laws that cover surveillance and evidence-gathering, and a comprehensive plan for prevention to ensure our kids are diverted from gangs in the first place.

The people of my riding are used to New Democrats getting results for people, and we have continually done just that.

Back in 2005, New Democrats in this House were able to get Bill C-48 passed. That was the NDP budget bill. The leader of the NDP and the member for Winnipeg negotiated hard to get billions of dollars for infrastructure and housing investments. This meant real investments for Halifax transit and infrastructure.

The NDP's 2005 budget amendment meant around $85 million in new investments for Nova Scotia, including $26 million for transit, $29 million for university and college infrastructure, over $20 million for much-needed affordable housing, and almost $8 million for off-reserve aboriginal housing.

Very much as a result of the member for Toronto—Danforth's work when he was president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and then later the leader of the New Democratic Party, we saw a new funding model that allowed money to flow in a quicker and more equitable way. This gas tax formula was superior to the previous system of always requiring matched funds.

It is clear that New Democrats know how to work collaboratively and represent Canadians in Parliament for results.

Housing is an area of provincial and municipal jurisdiction that the federal government can assist via infrastructure funding.

Until the mid-1990s, Canada had been a world leader in developing cooperative and not-for-profit housing, but it has done very little since. The Liberal government of the day allowed affordable housing investments in this country to stall for a decade because of the requirement for provincial matching funds at a time when provincial coffers were bare, so it is welcome now to see that the Liberals have adopted the NDP approach as their own.

New Democrats enthusiastically support this motion. I would have preferred that the members over there would have agreed to try to amend the budget bill instead. That would have actually changed the funding models in reality. As I stated earlier, these same members blocked our amendments that would have done exactly what this motion calls for.

Unfortunately, even if it is passed, this motion will have no real effect on these funds flowing out now. We will continue to see a requirement for matching funds from municipalities and provinces already stretched to the limit, and we will continue to see a lack of private funding slowing down projects. This will lead to unacceptable delays.

Just last month, I held a press conference with builders and housing advocates to illustrate how investment in affordable housing can address a serious housing crisis in a city while at the same time acting as a powerful fiscal stimulant. This conference was held at a site purchased and ready for affordable housing units, but waiting for adequate funding.

We have seen record job losses across the country, and the sad irony is that many of those jobs were in the construction industry at a time when thousands are waiting for sustainable and affordable housing to be built.

At this press conference, I was joined by Carol Charlebois of the Metro Non-Profit Housing Association, who spoke eloquently about the poverty-alleviating effects of affordable housing, and by Peter Greer, from the carpenters' union, who addressed the creation of jobs that would come from this type of investment. Jennifer Corson was there from Solterre Design, and she spoke about the carbon-reducing benefits associated with building environmentally sustainable units. It is win-win-win.

We had hoped that the budget would at least have a plan for creating jobs and helping those in need through affordable housing investments, but instead we saw small investments with these onerous strings attached.

I was also honoured last week to second the member for Vancouver East's bill to establish a national housing strategy. If passed by this House, this bill will bring all levels of government together to work to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for all Canadians. What we need is strong legislation to guarantee that money is turned into housing, so I hope all my colleagues here will support the member for Vancouver East's bill when it comes soon before the House.

In closing, I support this motion, but again wish that the members opposite had decided to do something about this just a little earlier.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member touched upon the issue of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. This act is 130 years old. There has been virtually no revision to that act since it was first introduced many years ago.

Our economic action plan takes steps to make sure that duplication is eliminated within that act, duplication of certain steps that have to be taken to preserve the environment. We are not eliminating environmental statutes; we are eliminating duplication of processes.

I had the fortune of sitting on the transportation committee in the previous Parliament. Unfortunately this rookie member was not able to participate. Only one witness appeared before that committee who opposed the changes we wanted, and that one witness agreed that the Navigable Waters Protection Act is not an environment statute, unlike what the NDP member has suggested.

I would ask her this: has she gone back and familiarized herself with the committee evidence that dealt with this particular issue, and would she go back and read the economic action plan and understand what our proposal actually will do for investment in Canada?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure a bill that old does need some revision. It might be a very good thing to do, but publishing for 30 days in the Gazette is absolutely unacceptable when that is supposed to be the environmental assessment that we are going through. Just publishing something, saying it is what we will do, and saying that if anybody has anything to say about it, they had better let us know now is not an acceptable way to get infrastructure money out the door, which is exactly what we in the NDP are trying to do. We are saying that the money needs to get out the door, but not at the expense of women, students or the environment.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have been on the floor during debate with the member for Halifax. As a fellow Nova Scotian, I would like to welcome her to the chamber.

Communities within my constituency see opportunity in the stimulus package and the infrastructure package, but some of them are facing great challenges. Some of the smaller communities have extended themselves and accepted a fair amount of debt over the years, and they are challenged to get involved. They do not have the 30% of the dollars to get involved in the program.

Does the hon. member see this motion as a measure that would at least provide some hope and opportunity for these communities, and not necessarily smaller communities, that are carrying a fair amount of debt at this time?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the opposition whip for his warm welcome. It is nice to see Nova Scotians here today. I appreciate his question, because a similar question was raised earlier.

I will quote from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities:

Municipalities build, own and maintain the majority of this country's infrastructure--infrastructure that supports our global competitiveness and enviable quality of life.

Earlier there was a comment to the effect that we are going to give some loans to these guys. Loans will not cut it. Both smaller municipalities and larger municipalities need funding from government to continue to maintain the majority of this country's infrastructure.

Canada's infrastructure deficit continues to grow because municipalities lack the resources and the fiscal tools they need to deal with infrastructure needs and to meet a growing list of responsibilities that now include immigration, housing and the environment.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I would like to put on the record, and perhaps get her to respond to, a letter from the president of the FCM. It says that the recent federal budget announced billions of dollars in new funding for projects that will help to create jobs, strengthen economic growth and build a greener, more competitive Canada, and that the FCM strongly supports these investments.

Perhaps the hon. member could respond to that letter from the FCM.

As well, the hon. member spent a lot of her speech on housing, which is certainly an interesting topic, but the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada and its member housing cooperatives across the country appreciate our government's decision to include important social housing measures in the January 27 federal budget.

Will she acknowledge that the budget has been very warmly received by the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities?

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the quote from FCM says that they support the investments, and I am sure they do, but will they be able to match? This is the big question.

Housing is my critic area. I know that the Cooperative Housing Federation of Canada and other housing organizations have said they welcome this money, but there are criticisms about it. The criticisms relate to the most vulnerable, to the homeless and to how they can do this if they are required to match funds.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Willowdale.

Municipalities across Canada are rising up against a government that dangles the carrot of infrastructure money but then puts enough strings on it to keep it in political limbo. In other words, it wants to give the money if it is necessary but not necessarily give it.

Every single member of the House has constituents facing very tough times. The words “infrastructure spending” are nothing more than a conversation if money is not reaching our ridings, municipalities and cities. The cities want less talk and more action.

The inability of municipalities to contribute to major infrastructure projects is one of our system's vital flaws. The fact is that of the revenues collected by all levels of government, the federal government receives 49¢, the provincial and territorial governments receive 43¢ and, yes, that leaves only 8¢ for municipal governments.

To add further weight to this imbalance, for every dollar spent on infrastructure the federal government gets 35¢ back through income and sales tax. One would think the federal government would be doing more to reach out to the one level of government most affected by this imbalance, the one level of government that must manage the fallout from inadequate infrastructure funding.

Yet, because of administrative delays, the cost shared $8.8 billion federal building Canada fund announced in the 2007 budget has so far financed very few projects, leaving close to $3 billion in unspent federal money. The application process for the building Canada fund makes a complicated mess out of transfers that should be seamless.

In fact, the provisions of the program are ridiculous. The communities component project funding for municipalities with less than 100,000 residents is based on a one-third model, a split between all three levels of government. If the community cannot come up with the cash, the federal government will withhold its commitment and give nothing to the municipality. As a businessman, this kind of logic makes absolutely no sense.

Let me get this straight. Cities like metro Vancouver and Montreal, with millions of taxpayers, are having a hard time paying for basic infrastructure such as road repairs and municipalities with small populations are going to be asked to pick up one-third of the tab. This is not going to work.

The government has played politics with municipalities, a tactic that it seems to pull with any issue of importance. In 2005, the Liberal government renewed a number of infrastructure programs, including the municipal rural infrastructure fund and the public transit capital trust. Over seven years $11.5 billion would have been transferred to communities for desperately needed infrastructure projects, but since taking power the Conservative government has made its priority to eliminate programs that have the ability to make a real difference in our communities. The Kelowna accord is a perfect example. So too is the cancellation of the Liberal national child care program.

In the case of infrastructure, the Conservatives took the municipal rural infrastructure fund and the public transit capital trust and removed over $7.5 billion of that funding to put toward the building Canada fund. In 2007, the new $8.8 billion building Canada fund was introduced to provide much needed help to fund the long list of infrastructure projects from coast to coast to coast. Unfortunately, in the program's first year the building Canada fund flowed zero dollars into the economy.

At the end of the day, the government can tour the country and make announcement after announcement, as many as it wants, but until the money reaches the communities that need it most and flows directly to the shovel ready projects Conservatives are talking about, it is all a fantasy. There is a better way to flow funding to cities and not surprisingly, it was previously implemented by a Liberal government.

Currently, the gas tax is one of the most stable and reliable sources of revenue for municipalities and used for: public transit, community energy, local roads, and improvements to water, waste water and solid waste infrastructure.

Not only is this motion proposing that at least half of all infrastructure moneys be distributed through the gas tax for the next two years, but it also asks for the suspension of the municipal matching commitments that are part of the current formula. Let us allow Canada's cities to catch up from years of neglect, cost downloading and underfunding.

If we talk to any mayor across Canada, it is clear that most are missing the cooperative relationship that had existed before the Prime Minister arrived onto the scene. What the government fails to understand is that this is not the time for rhetoric. Empty promises about infrastructure spending do not put workers back to work or assist in making up for the losses Canadian families have felt in their investment portfolios.

We must stop looking at municipal infrastructure issues through the lens of the Constitution. Instead, we must understand that cities are the economic engines of our economy and poor infrastructure is an obstacle to growth.

The Minister of Finance has been hiding out in recent weeks, keeping a low profile as the economy sinks into deeper trouble. His absence makes sense. When he deals with the provinces, he tries to bully them and when he hears the cities speak up for their needs, he calls them “whiners”.

The government is playing a political game of chicken with the municipalities. It allows them to collect minimal revenues and then gives them an ultimatum under threat of withdrawing funds. This is not the basis of any kind of relationship that puts the needs of the country ahead of politics. But once again the government is so concerned with maintaining power at all costs, it cannot get away from petty politics, even when the future of the country hangs in the balance.

To conclude, I just want to remind Canada's mayors and councils that help is on the way. The Liberal Party of Canada has committed to holding the government to account with quarterly performance reports which the government has agreed to provide to Canadians and the House of Commons. Failure to distribute the infrastructure money in a timely fashion would surely be a recipe for defeat, something that we are not afraid to do if the government does not start flowing money to communities.

I urge all members of the House to support this worthwhile motion in the name of our municipalities, in the name of the residents of our municipalities, which hang in the balance as we debate this important issue here today.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Surrey on his re-election. He and I live in the same region and share some of the same problems, especially problems of crime that are infecting many of our communities.

However, he did start off by suggesting that he is the spokesperson for municipalities across Canada, that there is this groundswell of opposition against our infrastructure program. There is one organization that does in fact speak for all municipalities across Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I checked with what it had to say. Its president, Jean Perrault, said:

Today the federal government took concrete action to create new jobs, fight the recession and invest in a safer, greener, more competitive Canada. FCM strongly supports the federal government´s commitment to invest significant new dollars in infrastructure projects that will put Canadians to work in 2009 and 2010.

Why does my colleague from British Columbia not take the FCM's word for it, because it speaks for municipalities?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and congratulate him on his re-election as well. I would like to remind the hon. member that when he brought in his first private member's bill on crime, I was the first member to support the hon. member. On every crime bill I stood in the House to make sure that we have the toughest and most effective laws.

However, it took the Conservative government three years to bring in those RCMP officers to the region. The hon. member for Abbotsford is well aware that we need more RCMP officers now, on the ground in metro Vancouver, to deal with the emergency we have with the gang violence and the gun crimes. I will come back to that later.

However, regarding municipalities, I have already said that I am speaking on behalf of all municipalities. I am not going to speak about Abbotsford and Surrey, but I am going to quote the mayor of Labrador City, Mr. Graham Letto. He said, “We're very disappointed in the fact that, yes, there is new money there, but the right model is not in place to access it in a timely manner”.

That is exactly what--