Government Operations Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Committee members, could you please take your seats. The ministers are here and they are busy ministers. We'd like to respect their time.

Welcome to meeting number 36 of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Thank you, Ministers, for coming. We have before us Minister Baird and Minister Merrifield, with their officials. I'm going to try to pronounce the officials' names correctly because I don't like my name being mispronounced. We have Madam Komarynsky, Madam Baltacioglu, and Mr. Forster from Transport and Infrastructure, and from Finance we have Doug Nevison.

Ministers, this committee has been studying the issue of infrastructure spending and its impact on the economy. We have had officials before us and we've had stakeholders. They claim they can't tell us how much money has flowed out, and they have told us that you are the custodians of the figures. I'm hoping that in the question and answer session you'll be able to put these uncertainties to rest.

I understand that both of you have opening remarks.

We had requested that the officials stay for the second hour, because we understand that you ministers are busy. I'm hoping that the officials will stay for the second hour, in case the committee has additional questions.

Minister Baird.

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

These are not easy times. When the global economic downturn began to threaten Canadians' livelihoods, we sought advice to determine how they wanted the federal government to act. We were told that infrastructure spending had to be part of Canada's response to the global economic downturn, and that was indeed one of the central features of our response.

We accelerated our existing infrastructure funding. That's been one of our great successes. We steamrolled and fast-tracked approvals and made more money available sooner. We committed almost $12 billion in new funding for ready-to-go infrastructures projects.

We are making unprecedented investments in infrastructure. Municipal administrations, together with our government and the provincial governments, have responded to the call in just a few months time.

As part of Canada's economic action plan, we have now committed almost $7.5 billion to more than 5,000 infrastructure projects. When combined with contributions from our funding partners, the total commitment to projects is over $22 billion. From the new infrastructure stimulus fund alone, fully 75% of all projects that were slated to begin in 2009 were under way as of September 1.

According to John Beck, chairman and CEO of construction giant Aecon Group, “I've been in this business for 45 years. I've never seen as strong a pipeline of work as we see today.” Bill Ferreira, of the Canadian Construction Association, stated, “We are starting to see a lot of competition for infrastructure projects.” He also said, “Many of our members say they are very busy and it will be one of the busiest seasons on record.”

By working with our partners in the provinces, territories, and municipalities, we are leveraging matching funds from each level of government. This means that, compared with what would have been possible if we had sent the money only to municipalities, we will be able to go three times as far, with three times the results, and three times the number of jobs created.

We are working with Premiers Danny Williams, Dalton McGuinty and Gordon Campbell, as well as with municipal leaders from all political stripes in order to select projects that will create jobs and provide hope and opportunity for Canadian families.

The simple fact is the federal government is funding municipal projects identified as priorities and managed by those same municipalities. Our role is to green light the projects in concert with our provincial partners, something that we've been doing at a record pace. Our government respects municipalities and has confidence in their abilities.

Those who are concerned about what infrastructure projects are moving forward and where they are located should talk to the provinces and municipalities who approved each and every agreement with us. To quote the current Mississauga city councillor and former Liberal MP, Carolyn Parish, the decisions were made by the city. She is right. It is the provinces and municipalities who help determine their infrastructure needs, not unilaterally the federal government.

Last week our government unveiled an unprecedented infrastructure investment for the Johnson Street Bridge in the city of Victoria. Victoria Mayor, Dean Fortin, said, “Today's announcement is the largest investment Victoria has ever seen, and we are grateful for [that] partnership.” I know the vice-chair knows that Mayor Fortin is not known for being a hotbed of Conservative Party support, but we have enjoyed an excellent relationship with him.

Last month, together with Toronto Mayor David Miller, we announced nearly $200 million of federal funding for more than 500 projects throughout the city.

The highest per capita spending anywhere in the country is Windsor, where unemployment is the highest, and we don't have seats in these places. We are simply doing what's right and making sure that we create jobs where and when they're needed.

To those who accuse the government of partisan infrastructure spending, I want to respectfully disagree, and so does Ontario's Deputy Premier, George Smitherman, who said last week:

I think overall when we see how all the infrastructure dollars that are stimulus related have been allocated, I am pretty confident that there is going to be a very, very equitable...distribution.

With respect to transparency reporting, as soon as we announce a project, it's made public and posted on the web. We will continue to report on our progress to Parliament. This government has provided detailed spending plans in the original budget documents last January and three follow-up reports to Canadians, and the extraordinary stimulus spending is the right thing to do.

A request from the Parliamentary Budget Officer for a status update on the infrastructure projects under the purview of Transport and Infrastructure Canada was received on September 2. This is a substantial request and the reply to the PBO on September 16 indicated that. Of all the 5,000 announced projects that are currently verified on a project-by-project basis, this process is nearing completion, and today we began sending the information to the PBO as per his request.

Our government continues to focus on getting projects approved and creating jobs. Together with our funding partners, I think we're having a meaningful impact on job creation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Minister.

Minister Merrifield.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

I want to say thank you for inviting us to come and give you as much information as we have with regard to infrastructure. My specific responsibility is working with Minister Baird with regard to Alberta, Saskatchewan, and some of the crown corporations. I'll explain some of that.

Really our focus is jobs and the economy and making sure that we get through this very difficult economic time on behalf of Canadians. Canadians are coming out of it. We didn't ask for this recession, we didn't cause it in any way, but we are certainly dealing with it as best we know how.

Most of my remarks will be focused on Alberta and Saskatchewan. That's my specific role with regard to the infrastructure dollars. We work very closely with the municipalities and the provincial governments, and this is a very important part of it, understanding that they put up two-thirds of the money and we leverage three to one as much as possible. So we dovetail alongside in a coordinated effort, not only in choosing the projects but also in funding the projects and how they are administered. We work very closely with them in the whole area of stimulus funding, and actually the acceleration of the $33 billion, which is the Building Canada fund. So they have been accelerated as well.

We have listened to the small communities, such as Vibank, Saskatchewan, which selected projects for quality drinking water. It's important to know where our priorities were, where the provinces' priorities and the municipalities' priorities were. No question, waste water was number one. Roads, bridges, and highways usually came in at number two. Then transit and also ring roads became very hot and very important to the areas of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I believe that is reflected right across the country.

I'm pleased to report to the committee that of the 28 members of Parliament in Alberta, I have not heard one complaint of any of the infrastructure spending. That includes the member from Edmonton--Strathcona, who is the only opposition member. In fact, this is what she said: “To tell you the truth, I've noticed that I am attracting a lot of money to my riding.” That was the member from Edmonton--Strathcona in the Edmonton Journal on September 25, 2009.

We have to understand that the leveraging part of this is very important, making sure that we leverage two to one, three to one, wherever possible, and we've been able to do that. I can get into the numbers in the question and answer part more clearly.

In the time I have left I'd like to talk a little bit about some of the crown corporations, because they have a significant amount of stimulus as well. We have 16 crown corporations under Transport, 15 under my jurisdiction. Many of you have been watching VIA Rail very closely. VIA Rail is one. There is $407 million in the economic action plan primarily to be able to deal with the refurbishing of the locomotives and making sure they are more energy efficient and more environmentally acceptable and also able to provide the service for Canadians long into the 21st century. The corridor between Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal is where the bulk of the money is being spent with regard to rail upgrades. At the end of that, we'll have a half-hour shorter train ride when it goes from Montreal to Toronto. That is very important.

Marine Atlantic is another one that is very important to us. We brought on a new Atlantic Vision ship that will help, and it has helped, although there are some significant problems with Marine Atlantic yet. We were out there a week or two ago to address some of that and look at the long-term goals. But we have been able to invest in some of the harbour infrastructure as well as CATSA, the airport security--a significant amount of money, $355 million, in the economic action plan. We dare not be the weakest link when it comes to security.

Our project is timely. We have to get this money out now. We have to make sure we deal with putting people to work and getting Canadians good infrastructure. It has to be targeted so that it's projects that are very important to Canadians and to long-term sustainability and competitiveness. Believe me, it has to be temporary.

With that, we do see the green shoots coming. We do see some positive signs, but we have a way to go. We just have to work hard together to be able to make these green shoots take root.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you very much, Minister Merrifield.

We have the ministers for one hour so we will have to have very succinct--

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I'm told by my staff and officials that the committee was informed that we as a team could be here for an hour, and the officials had not agreed to stay for the second hour. I am informed that if you want to put a request in, they could come back at a later date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

The committee had requested the officials to stay because we knew you were busy as ministers. We appreciate it.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

That's very correct, you did, but I think it was informed before the meeting that they could stay for one hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

What I said was the committee had requested that they stay. If the ministers are leaving and the department officials can stay, that would continue.... We would like to bring closure to this issue. We would really like to put it to bed. It has been going on for too long. So if they could stay, that would be what the committee would like to do, and then close this subject.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but they had agreed to stay for one hour, and I understand you were informed of that before the meeting. The deputy informs me they are willing to come back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes, Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

On the same point of order, we've got the biggest outpouring of money since the Second World War flying out the door at breakneck speed. We're the parliamentary committee that oversees the estimates of the spending and the veracity of the claims made by the government. I don't think the bureaucrats get to say whether they will or will not stay for the second hour of this meeting. If a parliamentary committee says we want you to stay, you stay, ministers notwithstanding. We can't compel ministers to stay here. The House of Commons can, but the committee cannot. But the bureaucrats: what have you got that's better to do? What else have you got to do that's so important you can't answer a parliamentary committee about the management of these billions and billions of dollars?

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

As I've said—

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Minister, it's okay.

I have Madame Hall Findlay and then Mr. Jean, and we will then bring it to a close, because I need the ministers to answer questions.

Madam Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I share my colleague's frustration at the lack of time. I will say we understand all the department officials have a great deal of work to do, and we appreciate the work you all do, but recognize that one of the most important jobs for us as parliamentarians is oversight of government spending. This is a huge outpouring of money.

I would like to ask the chair if we could ask the committee if we can get unanimous consent to ask at least the department officials to stay for the second hour, because we need these answers now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Is there unanimous consent that the officials stay?

There is no unanimous consent.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Let's be clear, Madam Chair. An invitation was sent to the minister along with his officials. There was a request for an hour and a half. They said they could spend one hour here. This is the second appearance by the minister in some two weeks of committee hearings in relation to the same issue. Certainly, he's suggested they come back at a later date on an invitation from the committee. I think that's very reasonable, and I think the request of Mr. Martin, quite frankly, is not reasonable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I would like to move, then, that the officials be compelled to attend this committee for the second hour of this meeting, and instead of unanimous consent, it should be put to a majority vote of this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I can't have unanimous consent, but I can put it to a vote.

Are you asking that we ask the committee to vote whether the officials stay here for the second hour?

Yes, Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

There's no notice in relation to his motion. We need 48 hours' notice in relation to a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Just one second. Instead of going into a procedural debate, I'll consult with the clerk.

The clerk informs me that the 48-hour notice is not relevant in this case. The motion Mr. Martin has put forth is in order, because it relates directly to the business under consideration. Therefore, I would like to call the committee to vote.

Yes.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Is this motion not debatable?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

It's the ruling of the chair, and the ruling of the chair is not debatable. You can challenge the chair and we'll take the vote.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I challenge the chair.