Transport Committee on Dec. 13th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

That is not a point of order.

I have instructed people that their questions and answers should be pertinent. I believe that the minister was in the process of answering your question. I'll give him 15 seconds to respond.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

This project has always been scheduled to start in the summer of 2008. So I'm asking him whether he has any additional information that it was to start in the summer of 2007. He is giving the impression here that the federal government is not stepping up to the plate, and indeed we are, because when we receive the invoices we pay. We are not holding back the realization of this project.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Minister and deputy minister.

I was mayor of a small municipality. I don't want to engage in partisanship. I know there are election plans in the air, but that's not very important to me. If I correctly understand what you and my colleague said earlier, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is seeking $123 billion. If we divide that amount among the three orders of government, the federal, provincial and municipal, we come up with a figure of $41 billion. In your address, you said that $17.6 billion was budgeted for municipal infrastructure. So we're $23.4 billion short.

The government said that there would be a surplus of approximately $69.5 billion over the next five years. If the government didn't say it, the Bloc québécois did. Whatever the case may be, someone said it. In my opinion, improving infrastructure related to quality of life is the best way to affect everyone, from birth until death. Investing everything in infrastructure, water and sewers, for example, would benefit all members of society.

I would like to know why we're short $23.4 billion. I don't understand why the government and officials don't assign this to the municipalities and provincial governments. It seems to me that would be a good initiative. It would be good for everyone. No one could say that you were more generous with one than with another.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

I met with representatives of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I also met Mr. Généreux quite recently, at the signing of an agreement on the MRIF attended by the deputy Premier of Quebec.

I could be mistaken, but I essentially believe that the problem is not the amount of money involved. There's already approximately $33 billion on the table. In addition to that amount, of course, is the contribution of the municipalities and that of the provincial and territorial governments of the country, which, taking the P3s into account totals approximately $60 billion. It seems to me we can get a good part of the job done with that amount.

Yesterday, in Le Droit, I read a reaction to the presentation of the budget of the municipality of Gatineau, where I sat for a number of years. You are absolutely right: considering the IRP, $400 million could be spent in one year, but that's clearly not possible. Allow me to cite a passage from that article:

Gatineau will be transformed into a vast construction site in 2008. The municipality plans to start up $75 million worth of works thanks in part to the contribution from the federal government.

That contribution was approximately $45 million in my time. The fuel tax rebate is a source of funding that previously didn't exist and to which the Building Canada Fund is now added . I think we're able to do a good part of the job together with those amounts. After that, we'll continue on.

Your colleague Mr. Laframboise and you have been mayors. I'm merely a former municipal councillor. You saw that there were also disputes between Quebec and the municipalities over municipal taxation. I think we've come a long way. We've had discussions and we're open to the idea of doing things.

The transfer of the gasoline tax enables municipalities in my riding and that of Mr. Laframboise as well to do a lot of things. I had an opportunity to go to my riding, particularly to Montebello, not long ago. Together with Mr. MacMillan, I was able to announce some things that are important for the community at the local level. In no case can one order of government resolve everything alone. On the other hand, I think that, together, we're able to get things done.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I agree, what you said is true, but not all the municipalities are equal in terms of property wealth or any wealth whatever.

Your plan would resolve the case of the municipalities from the Canadian standpoint. You could add $23.4 billion to the $17 billion. It's true that you're investing $33 billion, but, of that amount, only $17.6 billion is allocated to municipal infrastructure. If you added $23.4 billion, which the government already has, that would suit everyone, as I told you. It isn't just part of the population that would benefit from it. The entire population of Canada and Quebec would have the same service, the same quality of life.

Certain municipalities currently can't do it because of their tax rates, or whatever reason.

I want to hear what you have to say on that subject.

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

You're right. For me, when we came up with the program's design and architecture, the challenge was to be able to meet the needs of the smaller communities. There are smaller communities in my riding, there are in yours as well, as there are in that of Mr. Laframboise. There are smaller communities of 2,000 to 8,000 souls across the country. Those small municipalities must pay exactly the same costs, the same professional fees.

When the Government of Quebec asks the municipalities to install a water supply and sewer system, to purify waste water and to provide drinking water, they pay the same cost. When they do business with an engineering firm, they pay the professional fees.

We tried to readjust. In our parameters, we felt the limit of 250,000 inhabitants for small projects was unreasonable. It seems to me the City of Gatineau, which has 249,000 souls, can pay that, but the municipalities of Maniwaki, Fort-Coulonge or Montebello perhaps don't have the same resources to do so. We lowered the threshold and said it would be 100,000 inhabitants. We retained the same fund and we said that this program would be aimed at small communities of 100,000 inhabitants.

We also made it so the requirements, for local roads, for example, were lower than for a larger city, not in terms of construction, but in terms of compliance with requirements. We found resources, we spoke with the small municipalities, with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which has a caucus of small municipalities. We had the same discussion with Mr. Généreux.

I went to Saguenay—Lac-St-Jean, I met with the mayors, and we had this discussion. You have to respect commitments, which are just as important at that level as they are elsewhere. We readjusted our program based on all that.

There's also the gasoline tax. Instead of doling it out in dribs and drabs, as the Liberals did, we extended the share of the gasoline tax to its maximum, as a result of which, in the Quebec Outaouais, for example, there will be twice as much over the next seven years as what was announced .

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

As we previously agreed, we would have the minister for an hour. I know you have another commitment and have to move on, so I would thank you for attending.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, you can see there's a great deal of interest around the table for the minister being here. If he doesn't have time to stay today, or his officials don't have time to stay today, I think it would be appropriate to have the minister come back early in the new year, if that is agreeable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I was actually getting to that in my final comments.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

I just wanted to help you out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think there is enough--

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I have a point of order too, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's not a point of order. Can I finish and then I'll recognize you, or do you want to speak now?

Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I spoke to the clerk earlier and I wanted to see if we had enough time for a second round of questioning; otherwise I would have split my time with my colleague Mr. Bell. I was told there would probably be time for him to ask a question, and that's why I didn't end up splitting my time.

I just wonder if the minister would at least accommodate five minutes in order for my colleague Mr. Bell to ask a question. Otherwise, I would have split the time, based on the question--

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's not a point of order.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

What is a point of order, then, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We had a previous agreement that the minister would come for an hour. He's been here for well over an hour, and I'm going to thank him--

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

When I asked the clerk--

[Lawrence Cannon, Conservative, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'll be more than pleased to come back and discuss this issue. I have a cabinet meeting at 10 o'clock. Unfortunately that's the priority. I'll be back.

I wish you all a happy Christmas and a happy New Year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, and the same to you and yours.

We're just going to suspend for two minutes while the minister and staff leave, and then we'll finalize our plan coming into the new year, which will include another meeting with Infrastructure Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm going to be very brief. I just want to advise the members that when we come back at the start of the new session in January, I'm asking members to provide the witness list for Bill C-23. We've had some contacts, and we're just trying to get that in an orderly fashion.

I also want to advise the committee that we will be inviting the minister and his staff back for a two-hour meeting on infrastructure.

Finally, the agreement at our last meeting, as I understood it, in regard to railway safety, was that we were going to wait for that final report, but in the interim, we'll try to get the executives back from CP to meet with the committee.

Are there any other comments?

With that, I'll wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

Thank you to everyone. Have a good one.

The meeting is adjourned.