Transport Committee on Oct. 7th, 2009

[The Chair (Mr. Mervin Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC)), Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome back, everyone.

Just to complete the discussion that we had in the previous meeting, you were all given a subcommittee report. It starts out “Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure”, it's the third report. If you turn it over to the second page, item 5, the only thing that has changed from our discussion is the date on which we will first entertain Bill C-310. Originally in our subcommittee we had talked about October 7. Based on the committee's decision today, it's now November 2.

All I would ask is that the committee as a whole give approval to this as amended.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you very much.

Now moving into the second part of our agenda, we have notices of motion to deal with. We have two notices of motion from Mr. Kennedy. I'm not sure in what order they were received.

Mr. Kennedy, do you have a preference as to how you would like to deal with each motion?

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Yes. The motions aren't numbered, but there's one referencing the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and I would prefer to deal with that first, followed by the one dealing with Gordon Landon, regional councillor for the Town of Markham.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Kennedy has introduced a notice of motion:

That the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, be invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities at the earliest opportunity to discuss his knowledge and analysis of the Government's infrastructure spending.

Mr. Kennedy.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for this opportunity. I moved this motion regarding Mr. Page so that we could discuss his ability to review stimulus spending on infrastructure in Canada. I think it is very important that this committee, the only parliamentary committee that is accountable to the public for this type of spending, conduct a review, as one committee member already mentioned, several months after the launch of a program described by the government as the most sizeable infrastructure spending in Canadian history. I hope that we will be able to agree to invite the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Page, to appear before the committee given that the independent position was created by the government.

I believe it's quite important that this committee, the only committee with a mandate to oversee what the government calls its largest outlay of infrastructure spending, do so at a juncture now where the government has filed certain information, but where we have not had an independent review of whether or not the infrastructure program, at a cost this year in the order of $9 billion, is actually accomplishing its objectives. I think that the particular responsibility, almost a fiduciary responsibility, for this committee is unique.

Through the clerk, Mr. Chair, I'd like to table some documentation dans les deux langues, a report that I did in my capacity as critic, called “Breach of Trust on Jobs: The Status of Infrastructure Stimulus Spending in Canada”, Not that this would become a committee document, but simply for the benefit of the committee members, we culled 1,000 projects in the course of a couple of weeks to determine the status of infrastructure spending. Again, my point today, and the motion today, is about bringing in someone independent. I don't expect members opposite to agree that every finding we put forward is one they're happy with, but I do expect no one on this committee to shy away from the findings and the explanation and the requirements of the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. To do less, frankly, is to say to Canadians out there that not only should we simply not have the oversight this committee has in terms of the dollars that have been voted, but that we don't have the sense of responsibility towards them to give them the assurance that this very large historic outlay for....

To be clear, all parties, I think, have agreed that there is a circumstance in the country that required a stimulus to take place. But I would suggest to you that on its face--and this is in support of the motion--there is at least a reason given in the report I've put up for circulation to have this kind of examination at this time.

There are two findings in that report. One is that only 12% of the funds have actually reached the stage of creating jobs, contrary to some published claims by the government. The second is that there are questions that can be raised, from the limited data we have available as members of the committee.... I assure you that we have asked the committee for both briefings and have been denied on several occasions now. We have filed Order Paper questions--and I'm happy to make those available to members of the committee--many of which were left with large gaps in terms of information. It is the responsibility of someone in government to have available full information about the status of these large outlays of funds. Again, I don't ask the members of the committee to accept the findings of the effort I put forward, but I would say to you that there are things there that should be concerning.

The second concern is that the dollars were allocated and targeted based not on economic need but rather on political considerations in at least several of the programs in several of the provinces and, in fact, in each of the programs and provinces that we have been able to obtain public numbers for.

I suspect that it's in the interest of the government, in particular, to clear the air and put forward its own version of things in detail. It's something that on at least two occasions, both the Prime Minister and the minister responsible for the conduct of the infrastructure program have said they would make available. I think it would be passing strange if it were not this committee, with the expertise of the people around the table and the engagement they had with the minister and other people early on in the discussion of the infrastructure program, that would express that interest.

Again, the motion is quite simple. It's that the Parliamentary Budget Officer come and tell us about his knowledge and analysis. I'm not asking him to entertain anything other than that. I think that is in keeping with the responsibility we have, given the size, the scope, and perhaps some of the questions that have been raised about the infrastructure program. I think it's simply good government--and some level of accountability--to have Mr. Page perform his duties in front of this committee with respect to this particular outlay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Merci bien.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Mr. Kennedy for his motion, because quite frankly, I had an opportunity to review parts of the information Mr. Kennedy has tabled--I believe it's the same report--and I would recommend that he get his facts correct before he tables this, because quite frankly, we've received more motions from Mr. Kennedy than from any other member of this committee, including the government, and his attendance is less than any other member of this committee. I know that Mr. Dhaliwal wants to come to his rescue once again, but Mr. Kennedy is quite capable of taking care of himself that way.

We have actually--

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Just for the purposes of civility, the same rule that applies in the House applies here as well, and that is that we avoid making references to people being present or absent. That will probably keep the discussion on the basis of rational debate.

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

Well, my rational debate is going to continue on another basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's not a point of order, but it's a point well taken.

Mr. Jean.

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

My point is this. As I mentioned before, we had a trip to the United States. We studied high-speed trains, and what we found, the conclusions we came to as a committee--and we've heard from the Bloc and the NDP and the government side--changed our entire focus for that particular study. And indeed, no Liberal member from this committee came on that study, and it was very important that they did, and that's--

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

None came as a Liberal member.

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

Right, none came as a Liberal member from this committee. That's why it's so important. In this case, Mr. Kennedy points out that there are 135 projects in British Columbia. There are actually 300 projects under ISF alone. Since January, this government has initiated another 496 projects under other programs.

He claims that $383 million has been spent or is being spent under ISF. It's actually $740 million and nearly a billion dollars for 188 other projects, such as the Evergreen Line, which he doesn't refer to. If instead of making your phone calls from the secretary of state of infrastructure development that some of our offices received, instead of having your staff doing—

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

They were calling from their office.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Order, please.

Mr. Kennedy.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I have a point of order.

Mr. Jean neither amuses nor intimidates, but he ought not to make points in error. No people from my office ever identified themselves. Mr. Chair, I expect you to make sure that debate remains free of insults and gratuitous comments. That's more a reflection of Mr. Jean—perhaps he is putting his character on display. But there is a role for you, Mr. Chair, to make sure that debate stays on the motion. I won't have my office taken to task on frivolous matters simply because Mr. Jean is unable to deal with the matter in hand.

I'm sure you want to see a debate on this issue, Mr. Chair. But when Mr. Jean attempts to put falsehoods into the record, I look to you to protect the rights of members. I don't wish to interrupt Mr. Jean, much as I may disagree with him. I will have my opportunity. But on a number of occasions he raises things that are unparliamentary in nature, and I look to you to protect the privileges of the members of this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington, do you wish to address the same point of order?

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I will rule.

It isn't a point of order; it is a point of debate. I heard the Speaker say today that it is not his role to interpret what the truth is or is not; it is to hear the arguments from both sides. You have had an opportunity to present and you made some comments about government, without interruption or contradiction. I'm going to allow Mr. Jean to make his comments as well.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

For future reference on this point of order, a tone of debate that involves the calling of names or casting of aspersions has in previous situations been considered a matter for the chair, and I would invite the chair to look for this distinction. I am not asking him to adjudicate facts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean.

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

If the thousand phone calls were made and the callers from your office—I thought you mentioned it was your office—didn't introduce themselves as an infrastructural investigation team or something of that nature, then I apologize. But that is the information we have from some of our members of Parliament and other people.

I was going to suggest that instead of making phone calls, the member could simply go on the Building Canada website. I have in front of me some 97 pages listing what's happening in Ontario. I don't have it in both official languages, but it is available on the website in both official languages. It lists all the different projects for which funding has been given or announced. They are significant with regard to what you're suggesting has taken place in Ontario and in British Columbia. You admit yourself that some of your numbers are ambiguous. But you can find the correct information just by pointing and clicking on the map of Canada. That is available to you. As you are aware, you voted for this budget, on which we are, as agreed, making quarterly reports to Parliament.

So you have the opportunity to find out how things actually stand. We are making good on our promises and we have received a 90% rating. I disagree with bringing in Mr. Page, and I would suggest that in the past we've had a very cooperative committee. Mr. Volpe, Mr. Laframboise, and all the other members have gotten along very well. We actually accomplish a great bit of work, the members who show up. I would recommend that you get the facts straight before you to try to pass motions that are not helpful to the committee's work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Both the government and Mr. Kennedy submitted figures. I take both sets of numbers with a grain of salt. The purpose of the motion before us is to call Mr. Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, before the committee. Before we invite him, I would like to ask him if he is able to answer our questions. Theoretically, the Auditor General should be the one who conducts the audit, and we cannot interfere with her work. She will no doubt do it, but she is probably waiting for more projects and spending. At some point, she will table a report on infrastructure spending.

I would say that those who would have good reason to object would be municipal officials. In Quebec, the infrastructure program is working fairly well, even though federal authorization can sometimes take a while. The Quebec government is the one setting the priorities.

I would prefer that we write to Mr. Page to ask if he is able to answer certain questions that we have and, if so, how much time he would need to do so. I would not want to waste his time, since he has other files that already take up a great deal of it. We want him to appear before the committee so that he can talk about his knowledge and analysis of the government's infrastructure spending. If he needs to do three months of research before he can answer our questions, I want him to say so, and we could invite him in three months' time. I do not want him to come here for nothing. I would prefer that we write him, but that is not what the motion says. We could agree to ask Mr. Page what he is able to do, if he has the time and the staff to do it, and how long he would need.

You can be certain that I am against this motion as it stands now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Brown.