Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2009

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the leprechauns that I have known are perhaps much more jolly than the minister and the comparison was not fair.

In short, will the hon. member--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I think we will move on to another question, unless the hon. member is willing to withdraw the remarks.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the remarks. The comparison was unfair.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

If the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre wishes to respond, he may.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think sometimes it must be difficult to be Liberal members because I do not know if there is any road map or guide book that they are given when they join the Liberal Party. How do they keep track of who they are and what they stand for when it gets turned upside down all the time, inside out and backwards. It is like nailing Jell-O to a wall, in trying to grasp what they really stand for. Here they rail against the budget and now they are going to stand up and vote for it.

The member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, whom I have great respect for, is far too good an MP to really believe some of the speaking notes he was given here to read when he walked in. As a former municipal politician, he would know that the way that the Conservatives crafted this particular budget makes it virtually impossible for a lot of municipalities to avail themselves of the spending. First, it was disingenuous when the government said it would be a 2% of GDP stimulus because that 2% contemplated the share of the province and the share of the municipality in the spending, so really it is like one-third of that in total stimulus.

Second, the mayor of Winnipeg has now said that he would have to borrow money or raise taxes to have the municipality avail itself of this stimulus. Frankly, it is not that easy to go out there and borrow billions of dollars on the open market, even if one has a good credit rating these days. The way it is structured and the strings that are attached to it in itself warrants voting against it. I think the coalition that we had contemplated could have put together a better package. There is a song that goes: Anything you can do I can do better. We could have done better.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from my colleague from the New Democratic Party. He spoke about cheap suits three times in his speech, so he is demonstrating, I guess, some level of expertise in the area.

The hon. member just referred to the success of the opposition parties and the coalition in forcing the government from a November economic statement that, we can all agree, not only had failed to provide any economic leadership for the country but had egregious attacks on women, trade unions and opposition parties' political financing. In fact, we have seen progress from the government. It dropped some of those egregious measures and returned to the House with this budget. We can disagree with some of its directions and steps, but there was a stimulus package.

One of the greatest achievements of the coalition was the fact that the NDP was willing to move forward with the biggest step in its economic policy in over 40 years probably and embrace what all other social democratic parties in the world have embraced; that is, modern tax policy. The NDP joined the ranks of the Labour Party in Great Britain and social democratic parties in the Scandinavian countries and actually recognized the importance of corporate tax cuts in creating a more competitive economic environment and attracting capital, creating good jobs and more productivity, and a greener economy.

I want to commend the coalition for success on not only how it changed the Conservative Party's perspective on some of these issues but on how the NDP position on corporate taxation changed. The NDP went from being globophobic socialist Luddites who did not believe in a competitive corporate tax advantage to actually embracing it and becoming proponents of corporate tax reform for growth, productivity and prosperity.

I would like to ask him, because he is quite right about the importance of consistency in public policy, will the NDP's fervour and support for corporate tax cuts continue in its next platform as we go forward into the next election?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I like the way the member for Kings—Hants stormed the barricades to stand up to the Conservatives and really negotiate a great deal, so that the Liberals could take that home and justify voting for the budget. What did they trade their support for? A piece of paper. Well, it is a report. No, it is regular reports. Now the government of the day is going to have to table a report saying what it spent. Does not the public accounts committee already do that, or the government operations committee, or the finance committee? I mean they traded their support for nothing. They were so afraid of being thrown into an election that they let their constituents down by supporting a budget that is clearly inadequate to meet the needs of the country and to stimulate the economy.

The member for Kings—Hants, again, is too good an MP to really believe some of the things that he says here because he himself is the one who must be wrestling with the monumental hypocrisy that he has been asked to perpetuate in about 15 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I think there is enough time for a brief question or comment. The hon. member for Burlington.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I have pages of quotes from different organizations of what they thought of the economic plan. There is one here in particular I want to read. Manitoba's NDP finance minister said, “The federal budget is good for the province and will stimulate the slowing economy. The budget had something in it for everyone from consumers to businesses”. Let me read one more. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry. I will have to cut off the hon. member for Burlington. It is almost 6:15 p.m. I will give the floor back to the member for Winnipeg Centre to allow him to respond.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no self-respecting members of Parliament from my home province of Manitoba should vote for this budget. They should all vote against this budget because we have as many quotes opposing this budget as the member may have thrown together in support of it. It is a bad budget for Canadians. We could have done better. The Liberals traded their cow for three beans.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will stop the hon. member there.

It being 6:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of ways and means Motion No.1.

The question is on the motion, as amended. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion, as amended?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #3

The Budget

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion, as amended, carried.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question I put to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) replied.

My question was as follows:

—the Minister of Finance has no more credibility when he claims to want to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. The proof is in his latest budget. He is going to invite private contractors directly to build recreational facilities in municipalities.

How can the Minister of Finance still claim to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces when, with this measure, he will not only be going over Quebec's head, but over the heads of the municipalities? So much for respecting jurisdictions.

On page 146 in the English text, the economic action plan talks about recreational infrastructure in Canada.

Budget 2009 provides $500 million over two years—

Thus, if we take Quebec's percentage of 22%, that would mean about $110 million for Quebec.

—to support construction of new community recreational facilities and upgrades to existing facilities across Canada. Eligible facilities include recreational facilities owned by municipalities, First Nations, counties,—

These are called RCMs in Quebec.

—community organizations and other not-for-profit entities.

These are facilities that belong to municipalities, first nations, counties, and not-for-profit entities.

The initiative will support...50 per cent of the total cost of eligible projects, with the balance to be provided by provincial and municipal governments, community organizations, and the private sector.

This is the first mention of the private sector under the infrastructure heading; it is not mentioned in the previous paragraph, which discusses the owners of these facilities. The private sector is mentioned in the part of the paragraph that states that the other 50% will have to be paid for by provincial and municipal governments, community organizations and the private sector.

The section of the budget on Recreational Infrastructure Canada reads, in part, “—recreational facilities...including hockey arenas, soccer fields, tennis and basketball courts, and swimming pools. Many of these facilities were built in 1967...and are now in need of upgrading and renewal”.

Basically, what the government is saying on page 146 is that the private sector can now cover 50% of the cost, and that is the subject of my question for the Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec). How can the government allow the private sector to pay half of the cost and go over the heads of municipalities, RCMs and local authorities, which are, once again, responsible for managing most of these community recreational facilities?

Why does the government think that it is okay to deal directly with the private sector rather than the municipalities, county corporations or RCMs in Quebec? Why is the government going over the heads of local government?

That was the point of my question, but the minister answered that the government would respect its partners. In the budget, however, the government is taking on a new partner, the private sector, which will have the opportunity to pay half the cost of a facility that belongs to a not-for-profit entity, a municipality or an RCM, which means that these facilities could be paid for by the private sector.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond in greater detail to the question raised recently by the hon. member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

First of all, I would remind the member that our government has always made it a duty to defend what it considers the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. In partnership with the provinces, territories and municipalities, as well as first nations and the private sector, our government has established a number of joint infrastructure programs.

One of the federal government's main priorities is to improve the quality of life of Canadians. We are working to make Canada a world leader in community development. Thus, the measures recently announced by the Minister of Finance should be seen as a historic effort to upgrade our bridges, roads, tunnels and aqueducts and to improve the quality of life in Quebec communities and across the country.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that these new infrastructure measures have been warmly welcomed by Quebec government representatives, and by the mayors of major cities such as Montreal, Laval and Sherbrooke.

The government has come up with an action plan to stimulate the economy, protect Canadians and invest in our long-term growth. We have expanded and stepped up our infrastructure investments by adding nearly $12 billion in economic recovery measures.

Over the next two years, our government will invest $4 billion in an infrastructure stimulus fund to carry out projects with our provincial, territorial and municipal partners, $2 billion to accelerate construction at colleges and universities, $1 billion to create a new, green infrastructure fund, $500 million to support the construction of new community recreational facilities and modernize existing facilities, and $2 billion in low-cost loans to municipalities to invest in sewers, water lines and other renewal projects.

The Canadian people gave us a stronger mandate in the most recent election because of the economic crisis. Canadians expressed confidence in the Conservatives' ability to manage the crisis, and that is exactly what we are doing. All last week, I invited my Bloc Québécois colleagues to demonstrate cooperation and solidarity, values Quebeckers hold dear, in order to implement Canada's economic action plan as quickly as possible. But unfortunately, the Bloc voted against the plan this evening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I see that the parliamentary secretary is doing a good job of reading his text. However, the question was quite simple. I repeat, why allow private companies to pay—and this is in the budget—50% of the cost of recreational infrastructure? He did not give us a complete list of all the infrastructure eligible under the program. I would like him to answer the question. I doubt that the mayor of Montreal, or the mayor of Quebec City, or the mayors of towns in his riding will be happy to learn that he will be able to deal directly with private businesses for sports and leisure facilities, bypassing the municipality.

My question is simple. Given that the text is clear, that the facilities belong to the municipalities, First Nations, counties, community organizations, other non-profits—it does not say that the facilities belong to private businesses—why allow the private sector to bypass the municipalities?