Transport Committee on Dec. 13th, 2007

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

I know what it is.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I know you're impatient.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

I'm not impatient.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

If you want the information we'll give it to you. We're here to be able to exchange in a very reasonable fashion. You were talking before about mathematics, and I'm giving you the numbers. I can even leave you this table--

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

I have the table.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

--so you'll be able to read it, like me.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

I have the table. I just need a yes or a no.

You've been quoting $33 billion in the House. The difference between the $37 billion and the $33 billion is the $4 billion from the Liberal government infrastructure initiatives--municipal rural infrastructure, infrastructure Canada, Canada's strategic infrastructure, border infrastructure, and public capital transit trust. Is that correct?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

You know, it's the money you guys didn't spend.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

I'll take that as a yes.

However, the $4 billion in these infrastructure funds is not the only Liberal money, as you call it, that is in the Conservative budget documents that are outlined in the Building Canada fund. Of the $33 billion that you quote, there are three line items from your budget documents that replicate, curiously enough, Liberal announcements and Liberal programs you voted against: the gas tax of $11.8 billion over seven years; the GST rebate of $5.8 billion over seven years; and the Asia-Pacific gateway initial funding of $570 million over seven years.

Is it true that not one penny of the $18.1 billion is new money?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

No, that's not true. My colleague is trying to fudge the information. Indeed, the previous government committed to the gas tax—and surely he will be in agreement with me—until 2010. Then we added $2 billion a year for the next four years, so that is an additional $8 billion coupled with the remainder. You have to remember that we committed to continue the gas tax. Therefore the amount of $11.8 billion is there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Thank you for being here, Minister.

I agree with you that I advised Minister Godfrey in the same way at the time: you don't play with the cities, that is to say that you don't just take an interest in the cities because you want to win votes. That's what the Liberals wanted to do, but they poorly analyzed the situation, and—you're right—they didn't add any money.

However, my problem—and you say it in your presentation—is that half of the $33 billion will go to the cities. Except that, as you now know, the needs of the cities amount to $123 billion just to repair their existing infrastructure. You announced, and that's good, that there could be new cultural and sport infrastructure. You even talk about regional and local airports in your brief.

I'm trying to understand. Where do you get the money? There's only $33 billion, and $17.6 billion is allocated to rebuilding infrastructure. Where do you get the money for new infrastructure? You're probably signing an agreement with Quebec? That's what I understood, Minister. Is that correct?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

In fact, Mr. Laframboise, thank you for your shrewd comments on the Liberals' intentions. I share your opinion.

When we arrived in power, I met with the members of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. At that time, the apprehended infrastructure deficit was $60 billion. So we built a program around objectives that it requested of us. They asked us for predictable, long-term funding, and they asked us for flexibility.

The components of the Building Canada program contained these objectives. There is the gasoline tax, extended to seven years, which allows for better planning of financial needs. There's the flexibility that Quebec and the other provinces demanded, that is to say $25 million a year for the next seven years, or $175 million. There's also an equal partnership. For example, if Quebec decides to invest in the rebuilding and rehabilitation of its roads and bridges across the province, it is free to use those funds to do so.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

That will be in the agreement, Minister?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

That will be part of the agreement.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

As for the decision whether to give priority to bridges, airports or new cultural or sport infrastructure, will Quebec be negotiating the agreement with you?

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Unlike the other provinces—as you know as a result of your professional past—Quebec sets its priorities respecting the small communities and informs the federal government of them.

Instead of being for municipalities of 250,000 inhabitants, the program is now aimed at municipalities of 100,000 inhabitants so as to be much more realistic about the scope and necessity of providing small Quebec and Canadian communities with reasonable amounts and a fund from which they can draw. It's Quebec that decides on that.

In addition, the deputy Prime Minister of the Government of Canada has determined that we should have clean water and a water supply and sewer system and that we should purify our water.

We can do it thanks to this.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

The old programs—

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

We extend it as it is. We don't change it. We respect the sovereignty of the municipalities in their choice of priorities. It's not the federal government's role to set them.

More generally, we worked on priorities with which the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was in agreement, that is to say urban transit, water purification, clean water and the road system.

So there are categories that, in my humble opinion, essentially reflect the needs defined by both the municipalities and the provinces.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

If the regional airports need it, and if Quebec doesn't give them priority, there won't be any money for them in this agreement.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

That's correct. For example, I repeat to the mayor of Drummondville or the mayor of Trois-Rivières that we have expanded our program to encourage or allow major projects to be carried out for the smaller communities. So that means that, if Trois-Rivières wanted to redo, expand or extend the runway, each of the three levels of government could pay one-third of that.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

So Quebec will have to include that in the agreement.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Yes.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

If Quebec doesn't include airports in the agreement, that means that—