Government Operations Committee on Nov. 24th, 2009

[John Forster]

We're in your hands. However you would like it, we'll provide it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Good. I think the committee would like to hear the figures and then the committee would like the hard copy. Thank you.

[John Forster]

So approximately 2,500 projects are under way. For stimulus, it's around 1,250; major infrastructure, Building Canada, about 20. The community component of Building Canada--remember this is for the small communities of under 100,000 people. Between that and the top-up money--remember the budget added $500 million to that program--we have about 900 projects under way. On the National Trails Coalition, over 360 projects are under way across the country.

So together that adds up to over 2,500. But we will provide it, if you wish, in writing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Good. Thank you.

Monsieur Nadeau, s'il vous plaît. Vous avez cinq minutes.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Based on the criteria, has infrastructure funding in Canada always been based on a per capita amount?

[John Forster]

I'm sorry, could you please repeat the question?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Yes. My question is about investment on a per capita basis. Have we always done things this way in Canada? I was just wondering about the principle of the matter.

[John Forster]

Generally speaking, that is true. There are some exceptions. For example, there are base funds. In the 2007 budget, the majority of the Building Canada Fund was divided per capita, that is, per person. In the plan, there was a fund of $25 million per year over a seven-year period. Each province or territory received exactly the same amount. This is a kind of base funding that can provide assistance to the smaller provinces and the north—a minimum. In general, it is per capita.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

That said, the figures we have correspond to projects underway, projects that have begun. Ultimately, we want to invest in projects, in society.

With regard to employment, will this renewal or this commendable attempt at renewal ensure that we can effectively or efficiently fight to return people to work who have been laid off or who have lost their jobs?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Jobs for Canadians and jobs for those who are unemployed are absolutely critical. Economists and governments around the world believe one of the best ways to actually stimulate the economy and create employment activity is through infrastructure projects. As I mentioned before, the overall job numbers are reported to Parliament on a macro level, on all the economic stimulus package, not only on infrastructure.

However, as we're going through, our partners are giving us numbers in terms of job creation. You asked about Quebec. In the Lac-Saint-Jean area, with the Véloroute des Bleuets, the province is reporting that it created 160 jobs working on that particular project. So we are getting anecdotal information around the jobs, but the job numbers overall are reported across the whole economy.

We're hoping that these investments are helping people on the ground and employing many Canadians. Again, these numbers are supported by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Okay.

Let us consider the correlation between the money invested in projects and the jobs created. Is the main goal jobs or the number of projects created? Or is one independent of the other, depending on the criteria?

[John Forster]

For our part, the number of jobs is not a program requirement. The goal of the program is to start construction projects throughout Canada. So, there are ways, economically speaking, to do an analysis and develop models to estimate the number of jobs that will be created by investing in construction.

For our part, the purpose of the program is to start construction projects, and the stimulus comes with those construction projects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Merci.

Monsieur Holder, for five minutes.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank our guests for their dedication and commitment. As I reflect on the kind of effort that has been required to make all these projects work, and the organization, basically from the ground up—from a zero base—what you've done has been absolutely unprecedented. I think all of us on the committee need to acknowledge the tremendous effort of your department, and we'd like to say thank you for that.

Reflecting on the comment I was making, not as a point of order but about when you were asked for a further report...if I were a guest of this committee, I would have some fear and trepidation, because the significant amount of work that has come out of this after the fact is quite staggering in terms of reporting. While we have a great need to know, and I respect our need to know, you have to get on with your work as well. I would simply ask that you never be shy. If there's a simpler way to do it, I know we would accept that accordingly.

I have a few brief questions. Much has been asked about the issue of the per capita funding as a dollar amount. I just heard it most recently in terms of jobs, and I appreciate your response. But is the per capita funding based on a dollar amount, or is it based on the number of projects when they're allocated per province?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

It's a dollar amount.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Okay, that makes sense. So there's certainly a fairness about it across all provinces.

Did any of the provinces turn any of the dollars down?

[John Forster]

Not so far. We still have some work to do, though.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Okay. I thought I heard that if there are projects that are not completed—and please confirm that is correct—the provinces get to reinvest in their province, so no province is disadvantaged as a result of a project not being completed.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

It's not the government's intention to disadvantage any province.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you.

I don't want to feel like I'm besmirching any party, but in broad terms, I heard my colleague from the NDP talk about the Huey Long approach to things. I thought that was a curious term; I'd rather Canadianize terms. I didn't get a sense that he was supporting road work, but I don't care which party...I don't think there are bad projects per se.

I want to come back to the approval process. Was it the federal government alone who chose the projects? I'm not being silly when I ask the question; I'm trying to make a point. Was it just the federal government that made decisions with respect to which projects were determined?

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

No. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, and we have been stressing this very important point, it is the federal government along with our partners, the provinces, the municipalities. This is important, for a number of reasons. It allows for joint decision-making, but it is also important that the money will go to the projects on the ground where the need is. Municipalities and provinces identify where the need is, and we work with them to finalize these projects.

John, do you want to add any more on the process?

[John Forster]

I think you've hit the main points. These projects may be provincial or municipal. If they're municipal, they're approved by their city council or mayor. If they're provincial, they're approved by the provincial government. They're jointly funded by all three levels of government. We are all putting money into this.

The reality is, and pardon me for saying this, if we had looked back in February and said, gee, do you think by August we could get 13 jurisdictions to sign contribution agreements with the federal government, agree to match dollar for dollar, and in some cases two dollars for one, that the federal government is putting in, and collectively, between three levels of government, sit down and approve over 3,000 projects in about seven months, I think people would have laughed at us.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I have a very quick last question. Is there anything in your recollection or knowledge of Canadian history—and I can take this right back to 1867—where that level of cooperation, with that kind of unprecedented spending, the number of projects that have been asked for or undertaken, would suggest these unprecedented projects...?

[John Forster]

I'll bow to your expertise on history, but certainly in terms of our recent and modern-day infrastructure programs, there isn't a similar example that I can think of.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you for your hard work.