House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2015, with 31% of the vote.
Committees of the House June 9th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of her speech, the hon. member spoke about prevention.
I believe that the recommendations laid out in the report suggest that there are relatively simple measures that could be taken to prevent sexual harassment and to ensure that all workplaces, including government workplaces, are completely free of all forms of harassment.
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 June 5th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately that is what we get with omnibus bills. The government changes 60 laws and gives us only one hour to talk about housing, which is the foundation of so many things, including people's health. Only one witness was called. This is absolutely ridiculous.
If the government was asked to vote on a bill that brought back the gun registry, something it opposes, but that also included harsher sentences for criminals, something it supports, would it vote in favour of that bill? That is exactly what the government is asking us to do. What is more, it is reducing our speaking time and we hardly have any time to speak in committee. This is not democracy.
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 June 5th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, the money is already there. Municipalities used to be able to use the gas tax in addition to the Building Canada fund. Why can they no longer do so now?
Since we are talking about a lack of investment, I will talk a bit about housing. The end of the social housing agreements means that the federal government is cutting $1.7 billion at the expense of the people who need it most, the people living in social housing units.
How does my colleague explain those cuts?
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 June 5th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, of course Ottawa needs to be involved in this file. Municipalities cannot afford to raise taxes. Let me give one example.
The maximum federal contribution has been set at 30% under the Building Canada fund. In the past, municipalities could draw one-third of their infrastructure costs from the Building Canada fund, one-third from the gas tax and one-third from the provincial government. That is no longer the case. Now, the maximum federal contribution for a project will be one-third. As a result, municipalities, which have 60% of the infrastructure in Canada, will have to raise taxes or get the money from somewhere.
I am also very concerned about the fact that much of our infrastructure is crumbling. We have an infrastructure maintenance deficit. Despite that, $6 billion from the previous Building Canada fund has not been spent. Why is that?
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 June 5th, 2014
No, Mr. Speaker, he does not listen.
Less than two weeks later, on February 26, 2014, the mayors of 22 of the biggest cities in Canada met in Ottawa. These cities alone represent 65% of the population of Canada.
As he left the meeting, Régis Labeaume, the mayor of Quebec City, stated:
My colleagues, not just those from Quebec, but everyone around the table, support us in calling on the federal government to make recreational and sports infrastructure once again eligible for the program. [Both the UMQ and the FCM agree.] We are asking the government to listen to us a little bit...
The day before, the president of the Union des municipalités du Québec and mayor of Rimouski, Éric Forest, was very direct in his comments about the new Building Canada fund. He believed, in good faith, that the new fund would continue to provide one-third of the funding for recreational and sports infrastructure, as the previous program did. However, that is not the case.
I quote:
When they got down to work in 2008 [when he says “they”, he means the Conservative government], we delivered infrastructure projects to help with the economic recovery. It is crystal clear that we spent money in anticipation of receiving funding. We went deeper into debt. If we were not there, who was going to do the work? We are currently out of breath, and we need that oxygen. However, they are slamming the door in our faces.
A few hours later, Richard Lehoux, the president of the Fédération québécoise des municipalités, said:
The federal government fanned the flames by refusing to allow the municipalities to use the amounts provided for in the building Canada fund for sports facilities. The municipalities need flexibility. We know our needs, and so we are in the best position to know how the investments should be used.
I would not dare suggest in the House that the minister was not telling the truth, but perhaps he twisted the facts.
The new Building Canada plan is supposed to be the biggest infrastructure program in Canada's history.
When the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the mayors of Canada's 22 largest cities, the Union des municipalités du Québec and the Fédération québécoise des municipalités say that they are unhappy and are surprised by the announced details of the program, which is supposed to address an infrastructure deficit in the country, I think there is something that is not working.
The municipalities hold more than 60% of the public infrastructure in Canada. However, did this outcry wake up the minister? The answer is still no.
I just came back from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' annual conference in Niagara Falls, which ended last Monday. Do you know what the delegates wanted to talk to me and my colleagues about? The criteria for the new Building Canada fund. They also came to talk to me at length about the issue of housing, but I will keep that for another discussion and another minister.
I would like to bring my colleagues up to speed on municipal news from the past few days. Just to provide a bit of context, when we asked him when he would unveil the details of the new infrastructure program and about municipalities' fears of losing the construction season if they did not know how to apply, the minister told us that negotiations were proceeding well and that the details would be available by April 1.
However, on May 9, more than one month after the start of the construction season and the implementation of the new infrastructure program, the past president of the FCM, Claude Dauphin, said:
We’re still in the dark. None of our members can apply because we don’t know how to apply...To tell the truth, we’re a little bit worried. We cannot afford to lose an entire construction season...
In other words, the money is there, but they still do not know how to access it. It was expected that construction work would be under way already, but that does not seem to be the case.
This is the last quote I would like to share, because if I were to quote every elected official who has weighed in with the media in recent weeks, we could miss question period.
This time I will quote someone from this area, the mayor of Gatineau, Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin, who was attending the FCM annual conference. This quote is from the June 2, 2014, issue of Le Droit:
He pointed out that the City of Gatineau must make significant investments in many infrastructure projects such as roads, water filtration plants, libraries and arenas.
[According to him,] a city cannot manage all this with just property taxes...The Maison du citoyen renovations alone will cost $12 million....Ottawa and Quebec City have to be part of the solution.
Those are the facts, and I have spoken only about infrastructure today. I heard the same story at the FCM convention about the funding for social housing.
We will strongly oppose this bill because it fails our communities.
Our leader, the member for Outremont, was actually warmly received at this convention with his credible partnership offer for Canadian municipalities. The municipalities are now even more aware of which party they must turn to in 2015 to advance their priorities.
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 June 5th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, last February, I gave a speech after the tabling of the 2014-15 Conservative budget. I told my colleagues in this House about my concerns with regard to the issues of housing for the homeless and infrastructures. Now I think I am going to be repeating myself.
Bill C-31 contains no proposals about community access to the Building Canada fund, and this is a huge flaw in a budget implementation bill. However, rather than repeating exactly the same thing that I have been saying about all the Conservative budgets, I would like to quote the people who are the most deeply affected by the government’s poor decisions.
First I would like to put things in context. In the 2013-14 budget, $14 billion over 10 years was announced for the creation of the new Building Canada fund. When the 2014-15 budget was tabled, one year later, we still did not know how to submit projects for the fund. It is always the same thing with the Conservatives: they pat themselves on the back when telling us about new programs, but always wait until the last minute before telling us any details about them.
Meanwhile, groups, other levels of government and the people who should be using these programs are worried about the possibility of breaks in funding, potential layoffs or construction seasons that are being threatened.
That being said, almost a year after the announcement of the new Building Canada fund, on February 13, 2014, the details were finally announced. However, when you look into what is happening at the municipal level and the positions taken by a number of mayors, it seems that the government failed to consult the municipalities before announcing the details of the new program.
I do not understand this. Every time he is asked a question, the Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs spends his time giving us the same talking points: the municipalities have been consulted at every step in the design of the new Building Canada fund.
The Canadian Federation of Municipalities has in fact had an opportunity to make submissions on the broad lines of the new infrastructure program, but has the federation really been consulted on the details? The answer is no, and those are the facts.
The Minister of Infrastructure, Communities and Intergovernmental Affairs is always quoting the same statement by the immediate past president of the FCM, Claude Dauphin, to show that the municipalities were pleased with the announcement the government made on February 13, 2014. Clearly, they were pleased. They had been waiting for a year to get more details. The problem is that the minister did not read to the end of Mayor Dauphin's statement.
He went on to say:
However, important questions remain about how the rest of the New Building Canada Fund will be used to meet local needs.Municipalities own a significant majority of public infrastructure [about 60%] and, for a fund that will span the next decade, we must be sure that it is used accordingly. This is the only way to ensure that local governments can address infrastructure challenges in their communities. We are also concerned by rule changes that could force municipalities to carry a larger share of infrastructure costs in the future, the eligibility rules for local roads, the screening process for projects structured as public/private partnerships (P3s).There are 45 days before April 1 when the municipal construction season begins. The federal government needs to work with FCM on details of the New Building Canada Fund...to [ensure that] it delivers the best value for Canadians.
It is rather strange that the minister is telling us that he consulted the FCM, when the very day the details of the new program were announced, the president of the FCM asked the government to work with the organization to review the criteria. Did the minister hear that plea from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities? Once again, the answer is no, and the evidence is mounting.
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 June 5th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague from Chambly—Borduas that railway safety has nothing to do with a budget implementation bill.
However, because it is in the bill, I would like to ask his opinion about trains carrying hazardous materials in municipalities. Municipalities will not be able to find out whether a train was carrying hazardous materials until three months after it has passed through the area. Municipalities cannot therefore be prepared for any eventuality.
What does my colleague think about this?
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 June 5th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, the minister wants to quote Claude Dauphin of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, so let us quote him. In talking about the Building Canada fund, he said, “We are also concerned by rule changes.”
“We’re still in the dark. None of our members can apply because we don’t know how to apply.”
How does the minister respond to that? He did not provide the full quote from Claude Dauphin.
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 June 4th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, today there were representatives of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada on the Hill. They were there to ask the government to renew social housing agreements. I know that there are co-operative housing units in my colleague's riding and that social housing is an important issue for her.
I would like to know what she thinks of the fact that there is money for social housing in the budget, but there is absolutely nothing about the renewal of long-term agreements between CMHC and social housing groups such as co-operatives.
Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1 June 4th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about rail safety earlier. I wonder what this is doing in a budget bill. Does my colleague know why it is in the bill?
Since this is a budget bill, I wonder what my colleague thinks of the fact that municipalities will not find out until three months after a train has passed whether it was carrying dangerous goods and what those dangerous goods were. Does she think that makes sense?