Madam Speaker, after they called us the “crew over there”, I referred to members on the side opposite as “the gang over there.” I apologize for using that word and I withdraw it.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 56% of the vote.
Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act February 3rd, 2020
Madam Speaker, after they called us the “crew over there”, I referred to members on the side opposite as “the gang over there.” I apologize for using that word and I withdraw it.
Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act February 3rd, 2020
Madam Speaker, I admit that I stooped to their level, and I apologize.
Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act February 3rd, 2020
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague talk about his concerns with the Prime Minister after the President of the United States clearly said that renegotiating NAFTA was his number one priority and that he was going to do it, come hell or high water.
The Prime Minister said that he was willing to negotiate and to meet with the President on those terms. Was there a way the Conservatives could have avoided President Trump renegotiating? There seemed to be a suggestion in the hon. member's presentation that the Liberal government should have refused to talk to President Trump, should have refused to renegotiate and should have refused to meet the President on his terms. Quite clearly this was the President's number one priority heading into office. Now it appears to be the number one claim the President makes to his legacy.
How were the Conservatives going to avoid dealing with President Trump if he insisted on ripping up the old agreement?
Business of Supply January 28th, 2020
Madam Speaker, Langley is a beautiful city, and I will read a headline from its wonderful news service, the Langley Advance Times, from October 16, 2016, on the result of our infrastructure program. The headline is very clear about exactly where dollars have been lent: “Langley City among first B.C. municipalities to benefit from federal infrastructure grant.” In fact, it was the largest grant in B.C. in 15 years. The difference between B.C. and Alberta is that B.C. has a provincial government that wants to partner with municipalities and the federal government to deliver real results. In Alberta the provincial government wants to cut, cut.
Could the member opposite explain to me the Conservative proposition that we can build SkyTrains, highways or water sewage plants with tax cuts? I was a municipal councillor for 10 years and never saw a single piece of infrastructure built with a tax cut. It is built with investment.
I know I am not going to get thanks for the investment in Langley, although we heard that from the previous MP, but I will say that the largest investment ever made in Langley by a federal infrastructure program was made by this government under this program.
Business of Supply January 28th, 2020
Madam Speaker, I am happy to show the member the money, but I would need her to explain why the provincial government in Alberta just cut the Calgary transit budget by 86%.
The green line project, which we approved and were prepared to spend money on, has suddenly disappeared as a project because of a cut from $550 million by the province to $75 million. Without the provincial contribution, matching federal dollars will not flow.
I could also show the member opposite a $200-million investment that the previous government made before Kenney came to office. He has cut $200 million, and now the LRTs will not be rebuilt. Federal dollars were going to match the provincial dollars there, but because Kenney has spent the infrastructure budget, now the federal dollars will not flow.
The hard part about our infrastructure program is that we do not spend the money unless there is a real project. We do not send money to Alberta hoping that it may someday decide to build transit projects. When they start to be constructed, the federal government will cash out the receipts as they are submitted. That is part of the reason why the money remains in Ottawa until such time as a city spends it.
Fundamentally, if the Conservatives in Alberta are worried about unemployment and worried about construction trade workers getting jobs, they destroyed the green line project by cutting 86% of the provincial funding, which eliminated the federal contribution to a project we had already approved and were ready to build. It is pretty hard to show the Conservatives the money because they do not want to spend it.
Business of Supply January 28th, 2020
Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges we had in the first term was that when we put infrastructure dollars on the table, when we put infrastructure dollars at the front door of provincial parliaments, out the back door provincial cuts undermined the program. In particular, in Alberta, we had a significant problem with this, where we did not bind the government into spending levels with conditions. What we had was a government that simply used federal money to fund provincial programs and did not add to the mix. We are trying to increase infrastructure spending, not simply change who is funding it.
If the Auditor General comes back with a report saying that we have to bind provincial spending levels in order to have impact, would the member not agree that is a reasonable request, without setting priorities from the province of Quebec, to ensure we do not lose provincial dollars while we put federal dollars on the table so municipalities get the benefit of both programs instead of just one or the other?
Business of Supply January 28th, 2020
Mr. Speaker, I will give the new member a break on this, and perhaps he could talk to one of the long-serving members in his caucus, because the infrastructure program and the accords we signed with the provinces were effectively rolled over from the Harper years, which were effectively rolled over from the Chrétien-Martin years, when the one-third, one-third, one-third formula was put in place. The one difference we made was that we give cities much more priority in setting the projects than provinces.
However, on the stretch of highway that the member referred to, if the provincial government nominates a city's request, we do not stand in the way of funding it. Therefore, the question he was asking would be better put in the B.C. legislature or perhaps in the city council chambers where his constituents will find their representation locally.
We do not set the priorities. We do not choose from the list. We do not edit the list. Cities nominate, provincial governments agree and we fund. When the provincial governments do not participate, the money stays in Ottawa, and that is not our fault, that is the provincial government's fault.
The good news in B.C. is that the Government of B.C. is actually one of the more aggressive provinces in spending infrastructure dollars, especially on climate change adaptation. I suggest the member write the minister a letter.
Business of Supply January 28th, 2020
Mr. Speaker, one of the limits placed upon the Office of the Auditor General is that it cannot investigate jurisdictions outside the mandate of Parliament. In other words, provincial, indigenous and municipal governments are not part of the scope of work that the Auditor General could do.
In Manitoba, close to 90% of the money has not been opened up for applications from municipalities. We just need to talk to a Manitoba mayor to find out very quickly where the frustration lies. It is not in our program; it is the provincial governments that somehow do not want to spend money on infrastructure, even though even MPs in this chamber are asking for those dollars to be spent.
How is the Auditor General going to uncork the challenges we are having in provincial capitals where Conservative premiers are refusing to participate with the infrastructure program? Ontario is just not opening up the avenues for applications, and mayors are screaming and begging Conservatives to invest in their communities. How do we get the Auditor General to investigate the behaviour of provincial premiers who seem pretty stubborn and pretty determined not to build a good country?
Business of Supply January 28th, 2020
Mr. Speaker, I am curious to hear the member opposite's response to this observation. The infrastructure program is not a program where the federal government picks and chooses priorities in different municipalities or provinces. Provinces open up the application process to municipalities, municipalities choose their priorities, the provinces sign off on them and then the funding flows. There are two components to that which are critically important.
One is that it is the cities that drive the priority setting, but provinces can actually play a role in that. In my home province of Ontario, the Ford government has gone out of its way not to approve anything. In fact, it has not opened up many of the files to get our dollars flowing. The second part of it, something the PBO corrected in the second report but not the first report, is that when a $20-million bridge is approved, we do not send a cheque for $20 million to the municipality. The municipality sends us the receipts and we cash out the project, which means the commitment is there, but the dollars do not flow until the project is built. Sometimes cities do not get them built as quickly as we would like, but, nonetheless, the dollars are still committed there for future governments.
Is the member aware of those two criteria and could the Conservatives assist us in making provincial premiers, particularly a few Conservative ones I could name, get the dollars flowing?
Questions on the Order Paper January 27th, 2020
Mr. Speaker, as per the ESDC national shelter study, 2005 to 2016, 1.8% of shelter users, an estimated 2,400 people, reported having served in the military in 2016. This is a decrease from nearly 3,000 people, or 2.2%, in 2014.
Veterans who have used emergency shelters were more likely to be male, at 84.4%. Male shelter users tended to be older, 48 years old on average, than female shelter users, who were 38 years old on average. Nearly half, or 42.7%, of females having served in the military were under age 30, compared with 13.8% of males.
The national shelter study provides a national estimate of veteran emergency shelter use. However, reliable provincial community estimates of veteran shelter use are not available, as some provinces are under-represented in the data, and there are communities for which we do not receive data for the entirety of the shelter system.