House of Commons Hansard #60 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was labour.

Topics

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

InfrastructureAdjournment ProceedingsGovernment Orders

7 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with a quote from page 2 of the budget, which states:

Canada is in recession today. Measures to support the economy must begin within the next 120 days to be most effective.

Those 120 days come to an end the day after tomorrow and we remain very concerned that money simply has not been spent.

First, under the building Canada fund, we know that a fraction of the infrastructure money promised three years ago has been spent. We are very concerned now to learn that only a fraction of the stimulus funds approved in the budget has been spent. This is despite repeated recommendations that the program to spend infrastructure money for the purposes of stimulus be done not on the matching basis, as put forward by the government, but on the basis as recommended by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the official opposition, a gas tax-like program. The Liberals presented an motion recommending that the infrastructure money be spent on the basis of and in the process of a gas tax-like program as opposed to requiring matching, which a majority of the House voted in favour.

We are concerned, a concern that is supported by many municipal representatives, that the Conservative government knew when it made this plan that the municipalities would be unable to match the funds, as many municipalities expressed. The government therefore knew the funding would be slowed down and that those same municipalities would then be the ones blamed when needed infrastructure did not get built.

These are very serious concerns. The municipalities have said repeatedly that the gas tax fund has worked very well. We all know that strong accountability works well. They recommended that this type of process be used to fund the infrastructure, which is so desperately needed, and that the money flow. The official opposition has recommended the same. As I said, a motion was put forward in the House, which was adopted by the majority of the House, supporting that very notion.

The current government has, as with a number of motions unfortunately, ignored the opinion of the House and the suggestions of it. It has continued to insist on an infrastructure program that requires matching funds from provinces and municipalities, knowing all along that most municipalities are simply not capable of matching the funds.

I have two questions for the hon. member.

First, how much money has actually been spent so far to date? I will preface by saying not announcements or re-announcements, but how much money has actually been spent, given the 100 day window? I insist on an answer that is money that is incremental to the building Canada fund. What has actually been spent over and above anything that had already been approved in prior budgets?

Second, why has the government actively ignored the recommendations of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and many individual municipalities and why has it ignored the motion to use a gas tax-like program to fund this, notwithstanding the majority view of the House of Commons?

InfrastructureAdjournment ProceedingsGovernment Orders

7:05 p.m.

Fort McMurray—Athabasca Alberta

Conservative

Brian Jean ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the question raised by the member for Willowdale sometime back in March, and I am pleased to do so.

I would like to take this opportunity to remind hon. members of the efforts of this government and the tremendous efforts it has taken since introducing budget 2009 in January. We have taken real efforts to stimulate economic growth, create jobs and support Canadian families where they need it most.

Budget 2009 provided almost $12 billion in new infrastructure funding over the next two years. This includes a $4 billion infrastructure stimulus fund to help provinces, territories and municipalities get projects started as soon as possible. This is tremendous because this is new money to stimulate economic growth.

Further, the budget provided $2 billion to accelerate construction at colleges at universities so that Canadians can get more education during this time of economic downturn.

Third, the budget provided $1 billion to create a new green infrastructure fund. Canadians and Conservatives from coast to coast are adamant on having a new and better green future.

Finally, the budget provided $500 million to support construction of new community recreational facilities and upgrades to existing facilities, as many places in Canada need upgraded facilities. Some communities do not have facilities. This is a very important for families.

Since the budget was originally tabled, it should be clear to the member opposite that we are taking serious action. In fact, we have announced more than 950 projects across the country worth almost $3 billion in combined funding. I believe the records will show that the Liberals, when in government, never spent over $2.3 billion in any given year. We did it in just months. This includes notable projects like the Sheppard East light-rail transit line that will extend the Sheppard subway line out to Scarborough and into the member's riding, which is good news. I see that she is giving us the thumbs up on that.

We also doubled the gas tax fund, which she talked about, from $1 billion to $2 billion per year. In fact, we accelerated it because we listened to municipalities from coast to coast. We accelerated the first payment to municipalities from July 1 to April 1. That is great news for them. It is more money more quickly to start action quicker and get shovels in the ground. This is money paid directly into the pockets of municipalities, which they have been asking for and which this government delivered on.

We are continuing to work with our colleagues at provincial and municipal levels, including the member's own premier, Mr. McGuinty, in order to cut red tape and get projects moving as soon as possible. A big part of the success of this approach involves working with our partners. We work with the provinces, territories and municipalities in order to get the job done in the best interests of Canadians. By doing this, we will be able to invest three times more to do more projects and create three times more jobs.

We are only seven weeks into the fiscal year. We are getting the job done for Canadians and we are doing it in record time.

InfrastructureAdjournment ProceedingsGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the government patting itself on the back for doubling the gas tax fund that was promised by the Liberal government when it was still in power. I am pleased to see that the current Conservative government did not turn its back on that original Liberal promise. However, I would appreciate that when credit is being taken that credit would be given to the source.

The Minister of Finance, when he was attempting to get the budget pushed through and was worried that funding would not happen until the summer, said that it would not be good to wait until the summer because thousands and thousands of people would be negatively affected. He went on to say that the infrastructure would not be happening and that the spending would not be happening in our municipalities to repair roads, bridges and so on. He said that the whole purpose of the economic action plan was action, that it was not to wait six months or a year to get the job done.

I will remind the hon. member that, despite his efforts, he did not answer my questions. Action has not been taken. I wanted to know exactly how much money has been spent because announcements and re-announcements do not pay wages.

InfrastructureAdjournment ProceedingsGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Mr. Speaker, based on my experience in the House and seeing what has happened before, I can assure the member that if Liberal cheque promises could be cashed, every Canadian would be a multi-millionaire by now. However, that is not the case.

We are moving 10 times faster than any government in history. We are getting the job done for Canadians. We are taking serious action across the country, not just in Liberal ridings. In fact, there are 140 projects in British Columbia with joint funding of $290 million. In Nova Scotia, there are 26 projects with joint funding of $55.8 million. In Newfoundland and Labrador, there are 22 projects, including joint funding of $106.5 million. In Alberta, there is $160 million. In Manitoba, there are 24 projects with $160 million.

In a very short period of time we are getting the job done. Even in Ontario, there are 2,700 project proposals from 425 municipalities province wide. We are setting records, getting Canadians to work and doing it in record time.

Government SpendingAdjournment ProceedingsGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, last March I asked a question of the Minister of Finance concerning infrastructure money that had been budgeted in previous fiscal years by the Conservative government, which was approved by the House of Commons and which the government appeared to be letting lapse. There were still 26 days left of the fiscal year. There were $2 billion of infrastructure money, the building Canada fund, that the Conservative government brought forward in 2006, money that had been approved and that the government had not sent out the door via cheques. Therefore, it was going to lapse.

The Minister of Finance tried to make fun of me saying that I did not know what I was talking about. In fact, that money did lapse. The money has been approved. It was money that municipalities and provinces were hungry for, that Canadians needed for eroding infrastructure and the government allowed it to lapse.

The parliamentary secretary referred to the Conservatives' January 2009-10 budget and their economic action plan. He said that they had announced 950 projects worth over $3 billion. How many cheques have been mailed for those 950 project? We have seen the government make the same announcement over and over again, as though it is new money, it is a new project, but it is not. In fact, some announcements the Conservatives made recently were the same announcements made back in 2007, the exact same project, the exact same program, the exact same amount of money.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities wants the government to let the federation's members use the gas tax fund. The federation itself says that the gas tax transfer method is efficient and transparent. Over 95% of the gas tax fund has been distributed to municipalities over the past two years. Let us not forget that it was a Liberal government that set up the fund. It was a Liberal government that said it would double the amount in 2005. If the Conservatives—who are trying to take the credit for doubling the gas tax rebate—had followed through on the Liberal government's commitment, we would be talking about $3 billion now, not $2 billion.

It is clear that the government is not sending the money out. The government is incompetent. The most efficient, effective and transparent way to ensure that infrastructure, which is needed for an economic stimulus in this Conservative recession, happens is to transfer the money to the municipalities and the provinces through the gas tax fund, a direct transfer. They will then be able to carry out the infrastructure. The Conservatives know that many of the municipalities cannot borrow the money.

Why will the government not take the most effective, efficient way to get the money out the door to the municipalities so Canadians can have an infrastructure and an economy that might actually pick up?

Government SpendingAdjournment ProceedingsGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Macleod Alberta

Conservative

Ted Menzies ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for that rambling question, which I guess I can summarize what we are doing in this economic downturn. I am happy to take this opportunity to inform Parliament about how Canada is navigating during the current global economic downturn.

Before I continue, I would like to draw the attention of Parliament to the IMF's regional economic outlook that was released last week. I am sure members have read it, but let me quote directly from that report.

Canada is better positioned than many countries to weather the crisis. It entered the crisis from a position of strength, reflecting a track record of strong policy management that has supported underlying macroeconomic and financial stability. It has taken proactive steps to stimulate demand, ward off deflation, and enhance the toolkit for dealing with worsening financial strains if they emerge. Thanks to these factors, the strains evident in other countries, especially in the financial sector, are markedly less serious in Canada

Furthermore, when commenting on Canada's economic action plan and the other related actions to stimulate the Canadian economy, listen to the following report from IMF:

Building on the permanent tax relief measures announced in October 2007, the authorities tabled further fiscal stimulus of around 2.8 percent of GDP in January 2009. Taking into account supplementary provincial actions announced following the federal budget, the measures are among the largest across G-20 countries.

No wonder both the IMF and the OECD have declared that Canada will experience both the smallest contraction in the G7 for 2009 and the strongest recovery in the G7 for 2010.

Why are such respected international organizations supportive of Canada's economic outlook? It is likely because of the strength of the economic action plan, an aggressive plan that has taken, and continues to take, timely, targeted and temporary measures to first of all help families and stimulate consumer spending by lowering taxes, help those hardest hit by the global recession by extending EI by five weeks and protecting jobs and supporting businesses by investing in infrastructure. It also ensures access to financing for businesses and much more.

No wonder a wide array of public interest groups heralded our economic action plan. Groups such as the CME noted that “Budget 2009 took critical steps in the budget to stimulate liquidity, provide incentives that will encourage manufacturers to invest in machinery and equipment..”. The Certified General Accountants' Association of Canada declared that the 2009 budget “provides the necessary support for economic stimulus and job creation”.

What is the Liberal leader's only idea during the current global economic downturn? It's that Canadians are not paying enough taxes and must send more of their hard-earned money to Ottawa. To quote the Liberal leader himself, “We will have to raise taxes”. The Liberal leader embracing the discredited tax-and-spend liberalism, as he muses about increasing the GST and imposing a new carbon tax, is clearly not what Canada's economy requires.

I ask the member opposite whether she agree with her leader's demand that Canadians must pay higher taxes.

Government SpendingAdjournment ProceedingsGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member is telling falsehoods in this House, and he should be ashamed of himself. But let us get back to the point at hand, and that is this incompetent government.

The Canadian Federation of Municipalities has said that the gas tax fund and transfer to municipalities is the most effective, transparent and efficient way to allow municipalities to actually upgrade infrastructure and get the shovels in the ground now.

Under the gas tax fund, which was created by a Liberal government, the City of Dorval, in my riding, from the time it was created in 2005 until the end of the current fiscal year in 2010, will have received $2,008,700. Montreal West, another municipality, will have received $608,816. If they took the infrastructure money and put it into the gas tax transfer, Dorval would receive an additional $803,000, whereas Montreal West would receive an additional $243,000--

Government SpendingAdjournment ProceedingsGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Government SpendingAdjournment ProceedingsGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is always more effective with finger pointing.

While the Liberal leader muses about increasing taxes, we are lowering taxes and keeping them lower even for Dorval airport. Indeed, in budget 2009 we delivered $20 billion in personal income tax relief.

The Liberal leader apparently does not approve of lower taxes and is demanding we impose new job-killing taxes. What do Canadians think about the Liberal leader's musings? To quote from The Windsor Star:

[T]he last thing that Canadians want to hear during a recession is a politician talking about tax increases. But [the] federal Liberal Leader...has said he won't rule out a tax hike....

[His comments] ... should be setting off alarm bells with taxpayers.

Financial InstitutionsAdjournment ProceedingsGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

NDP

Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON

Mr. Speaker, it was a few months ago when I started asking the Minister of Finance what the government was doing to protect consumers from credit card gouging.

Last Friday, the government finally announced its plan but it fell well short of what is needed. Canadians were hoping for real measures that would cap sky-rocketing interest rates and stop the outrageous fees and penalties paid by consumers and merchants alike.

What Canadians got were half-measures on credit cards, half-measures that will offer no interest relief to working families that are struggling to make it through this economic recession, and half-measures that in the past have proved to be ineffective, such as financial literacy campaigns.

Only a few weeks ago, Saul Schwartz, a leading economist, revealed that there is no strong evidence financial literacy programs make any difference. The economist went on to say that the impact is limited and literacy programs represent a cynical attempt by financial service providers to avoid direct regulation.

It seems as though financial institutions have the last word when it comes to drafting government policy. This is bad news for Canadians who were hoping for much more on this credit card issue from the government. These half-measures fall well short of those that I put forward a month ago, measures that have the support of a majority of this House.

The measures I introduced are modelled on those that were recently passed by legislators in the United States. The act that was passed by our southern neighbours includes a clause that would stop arbitrary credit card rate increases, or any time, any reason interest rate hikes.

I have numerous examples of average Canadians, Canadians who work hard and pay their bills on time being hit with sky-rocketing interest rates. One individual showed me his bill. His interest rate jumped from 18% to over 25% because he made his payment two days late. It does not end there. I have emails from parents who are concerned about their 17 year old who was targeted by a credit card company and has a $1,000 limit that is now maxed out, and that they are responsible for.

There are no clear guidelines and no transparency from the credit card companies. That is what we need.

It seems the government still does not understand what needs to be done. It would rather take its cues from the big banks and the Canadian Bankers Association.

This past Sunday on Rex Murphy's program, Cross Country Checkup, the president and CEO of the CBA echoed the government's response when he was asked what was being done for consumers last month. Nancy Hughes Anthony said that consumers should shop around for the best interest rate.

I think Ms. Hughes and the government need to come to terms with the fact that low interest rate cards should be offered by all banks and financial institutions.

The New Democrats have a plan to stop credit card gouging. The motion passed last month includes measures to stop abusive fees and penalties, and the any time, any reason interest rate increases and account changes.

The reality is that having a large box on the bill or increasing the font size on credit card contracts does not help Canadian families who are hurting right now. It is time the government took bold action and listened to the will of Parliament instead of the will of the Canadian Bankers Association.

Financial InstitutionsAdjournment ProceedingsGovernment Orders

7:25 p.m.

Macleod Alberta

Conservative

Ted Menzies ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take this opportunity to inform Parliament about the important new proposed regulations that the Minister of Finance announced last week to limit business practices not beneficial to consumers, and provide clear and timely information to Canadians about credit cards.

This announcement follows through on our commitment in budget 2009 to ensure Canadian consumers using credit cards are treated fairly.

Unfortunately, the NDP members voted against the commitment in our economic action plan along with every single initiative we have introduced to protect consumers of financial products, but that is their record.

The NDP members voted against protecting credit card users, against improving financial literacy and against protecting consumers of stocks and other investments with a Canadian securities regulator. The list goes on and on.

The proposed regulations announced last week will first of all mandate an effective minimum 21 day interest free grace period on all new credit card purchases when a customer pays the outstanding balance in full.

The regulations will lower interest rate costs by mandating allocations of payments in favour of the consumer. They will also allow consumers to keep better track of their personal finances by requiring express consent for credit limit increases, as well as limit debt collection practices that financial institutions use in contacting a consumer to collect on a debt.

The regulations will also prohibit over the limit fees solely arising from holds placed by merchants. They will ensure clear information on credit contracts and application forms through a summary box that will set out key features such as interest rates and fees. They will assist consumers to manage their credit card obligations by providing information on the time it would take to fully repay the balance if only the minimum payment is made very month.

The regulations will mandate advance disclosure of interest rate increases prior to their taking effect, even if this information had been included in the credit contract. The proposed regulations would apply to credit cards issued by federally regulated institutions. Some provisions in the regulations would have a broader application to other financial products, such as fixed and variable rate loans as well as lines of credit.

I note that our announcement was warmly received by numerous public interest groups. For example, Casey Cosgrove, Director of Financial Literacy Initiatives, Social and Enterprise Development Innovations, applauded it as it would “contribute to financial literacy by bringing clearer and more transparent information to consumers”.

Mel Fruitman, Vice President of Consumers' Association of Canada, on CTV Newsnet, heralded the announcement claiming it would “solve some of the most egregious practices of the credit card companies...it's a big step in the right direction towards helping us control the amounts we pay on our credit cards...it will greatly improve the situation”.

Even the Toronto Star cheered our Conservative government's action, noting that “welcome regulatory changes that will both introduce more transparency to the system and save consumers more money”.

Financial InstitutionsAdjournment ProceedingsGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

NDP

Glenn Thibeault NDP Sudbury, ON

Mr. Speaker, I guess I must congratulate the hon. member for acknowledging that he got some acknowledgement from the Toronto Star which rarely acknowledges anyone else but the Liberal Party. Therefore, congratulations on that.

I think it is important though that we talk about, yes, education is an important piece to this. I agree that it is an important piece. However, the concern that we are hearing from Canadian families right now, people who are holding their credit cards, is not people saying, “I wish I had a bigger font on my credit card bill to show me that I'm getting hit with 26% interest”.

What they want to know is what their bills are going to be at the end of the month. During this economic downturn, they need to be able to ensure that they are paying their mortgage and all of their other bills. Unfortunately right now, the credit card companies are not following through with this and we need to ensure that the government is at least looking at some type of legislation to protect consumers and merchants as well.

Financial InstitutionsAdjournment ProceedingsGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, while we took strong action to protect consumers using credit cards, the NDP members voted against it. What would they do instead? Interfere and control key aspects of the Canadian banking sector by dictating interest rates, something our government and the vast majority of public interest groups understand would be ineffective and unfeasible.

Listen to Duff Conacher of the Canadian Community Reinvestment Coalition. He said, “The problem with a cap on rates is where do you put it? Any number would be pretty arbitrary. And the banks are quite likely...to deny credit to some people”.

We also help consumers make informed credit card choices through the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada where they can compare packages and services. I would invite all Canadians to visit this website at www.fcac.gc.ca.

Financial InstitutionsAdjournment ProceedingsGovernment Orders

7:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:32 p.m.)