Transport Committee on Oct. 7th, 2009

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to reiterate that indeed the economic action plan our government put forward.... The opposition had requested that we put forward three report cards, as it were, and we were on probation—I believe that was the word being used—until those reports were brought forward. Our government, on its own initiative, offered a fourth report card, and that report card has now been delivered to the Canadian public in the form of the economic update. We are putting forward those numbers on a regular basis.

About this report that the member opposite has compiled, I too have been made aware of phone calls that were made under the auspices of an infrastructure secretariat doing a review, but the number went back to his office. So I question the report. How else did he compile those numbers? That would be my question.

But my third point is that the people who have been in attendance at this committee on a regular basis have made the decisions on the issues on which we want to go forward. We've been discussing high-speed rail. We have a major project there that has been undertaken. We have spent public money on that trip to the United States, and that needs to be dealt with. We have Bill C-310 coming forward. We have the legislation on the capital commission that needs to be done. And those of us who were here had made the decision quite some time ago that we were going to be discussing the Arctic, and that is nowhere on our agenda at this point in time.

I suggest that this is an inappropriate motion for us to be discussing, and I am going to be voting against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

To my mind, most of what's been said here would lend itself well to the Parliamentary Budget Officer speaking before us. I think Mr. Laframboise has a good point, that the motion may not outline exactly what the Parliamentary Budget Officer would bring forward to discuss his knowledge and analysis of the government's infrastructure spending. So he's going to come before us to explain what he understands of his knowledge of that infrastructure spending. It would probably be a good thing to have that identified, as well as the analysis.

Over the past six months, I've made requests as well that we have the criteria for the infrastructure program early in front of this committee. That was stonewalled by the government, by the Conservative members. I feel we've neglected our work in this area right from day one with the infrastructure spending. We didn't bring these new programs in front of this committee for examination. We didn't understand what the criteria were for the distribution of funds and how those funds would impact the development of infrastructure in this country. We chose not to look at it at all.

This committee made a choice in April and May not to examine the infrastructure spending, and I can refer to the records on that. I think both Mr. Kennedy and I made representations at the time that it would be a useful thing to do. Now I think it would be useful and would clear the air. If the government is so proud of its record in infrastructure spending, I don't know why it wouldn't want to see the Parliamentary Budget Officer here, describing to all of us exactly how the expenditures have been taking place--an independent analysis that we can all trust so we can all put this to bed.

I see this as being a win-win situation for the infrastructure committee, and it could be a win for the government as well. I don't understand the reluctance of the government to see this kind of endeavour take place. Then we could get the actual numbers out there and understand the regional distribution and the kinds of arrangements that were set up between the provinces and the federal government to make these funds work for Canadians. I assume that is part of the work that is very important for us to do as the transport and infrastructure committee.

So I could support this motion. It could be fleshed out with the particular details through an amendment perhaps. But I don't see this as something we should be avoiding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Kennedy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am disappointed. It would appear that some members of the committee are afraid to get the facts on infrastructure spending.

Given concerns and the accountability dogma that some people have, it is passing strange that nothing Mr. Jean has said is actually available. The hard data is there, and I refer people to the website where they can actually see lists.

On the government website, the pricing of each program is set as between $100,000 and $1 million. Between $1 million and $5 million there's a breathtaking lack of accountability. Given previous statements by members here, I thought members didn't necessarily want to be complicit in anything about hiding the failure of the job creation program. I think good reasons can be put forward. There can be explanations. There are things that can be gainsaid by someone sitting in that chair and giving us the opportunity to get at actual facts.

Mr. Jean has given several numbers on British Columbia, all of which contradict information from his own department. In other words, the ISF program is not the size he indicated. The number of projects can only be validated if.... The government, in one press release, says it has adopted a program that is actually the British Columbia government's infrastructure program from March 13.

Now, I say to the members opposite and

and to the member from the Bloc Québécois, with the utmost respect,

that we don't have to agree with one another to not be able to find grounds under which facts will have themselves on the table. I invite Mr. Jean to any public forum that he might wish to attend to debate the veracity of facts and opinion. I think it would bore this committee; it's not what I'm proposing. What I'm proposing to this committee is that the duly appointed officer...and with greatest respect to Mr. Laframboise,

the Auditor General has a different responsibility in terms of expenditures, once they are complete.

And the question right now, while this program is in progress, is whether this unusual outlay of funds, this unusual program that was put together to do it, is working for Canadians.

Right now we have 408,000 more people unemployed in this country than last October, and 175,000 more people have lost their jobs since the budget. In the construction industry, which you'd think we would see impacted, anything that Mr. Jean, or the Prime Minister, or the minister have given us by way of assurances.... Again, 80% is the number people keep using, Mr. Jean, and up to 90% today. But if that were happening, then the number of people working in construction would surely be impacted, and yet the only discernible impact is that there are 108,000 fewer people working in construction, according to Statistics Canada numbers, than this time last year—and 75,000 fewer since the budget.

And again, given the lack of concern or curiosity being expressed so far, I would think that if the members of the government were truly confident their program were working and if they could produce the numbers and list to back up those claims, they would not be afraid of the Parliamentary Budget Officer being the arbiter to make sure those are done in an independent forum. I think it really and truly does beg the question

And I would say, Mr. Chair, this is a very modest request. It doesn't require anyone here to change their idea about the efficacy of government. It affirms a position that various people from various parties have said they would like to have, and I understand that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has prepared information and is prepared to put it forward. I think he's prepared it for the finance committee and has served notice to that committee that the information is forthcoming, and he's been in discussions with the chair, who's working with him very cooperatively. But on the particular matter of the overall infrastructure stimulus program, if it doesn't come to this committee, it's only because this committee is afraid to see it.

This is the infrastructure committee. How could it be that for all of these months, the infrastructure committee is afraid to look at what's happened with infrastructure spending? How could that be possible? Under what possible grounds could this committee give up its responsibilities towards the Canadian public in that regard? It's the only committee in Parliament that can accomplish this, and I would say, with the greatest of respect, that I appreciate the work being done on high-speed rail. I appreciate that we're also working on it at the very same time as there is a study taking place, and the parameters for that are set for one year. If there are problems with infrastructure—if there are—then it's important that they be dealt with now, because there are hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians who should not be forced to go through a winter without jobs if there should be some correction done to these programs.

I would say, therefore, not to take away from what the government has put forward so far as its agenda for this committee, there should be more than room for these people and dollars to be examined.

So Mr. Chair, I look forward to Mr. Jean taking me up on my challenge to come and meet me in any public forum, under any set of debating rules, and table before the public his numbers from the government, because unfortunately from the standpoint of the assurance from Ms. Hoeppner, when you look in the actual report tabled in Saint John a week ago, there are no claims made in it about jobs created by the infrastructure stimulus program. They're entirely absent. Only a handful of other ministries, for example INAC, puts forward that they've created 150 jobs in their clinic program, 150 jobs in their other program. Those are the numbers, and at least they're there and are straightforward. That's not what the ministry of transportation and infrastructure put forward in its report on infrastructure. Not only is there no basis for the numbers, but there is no number being forward in terms of the number of jobs being created.

I think for an allocation of money to be made on the premise of creating jobs...and here we are eight months later without the government so far having put forward any numbers or any justification. When members of Parliament are given the chance to be here in committee and spend their time looking at useful things, to say that's not useful...I do not know what the members of the government are afraid of. What do they think they're going find if the Parliamentary Budget Office comes forward with numbers?

I think this is your chance to be vindicated from all the calumny that Mr. Jean and others are alleging is taking place. And here's the other thing I would say to the members opposite: when we were calling the various offices of municipalities, who were very cooperative all around the country, they were being followed by phone calls from the Department of Infrastructure, so we know the Department of Infrastructure was making phone calls. We know they have a database. And on September 16 they told the Parliamentary Budget Officer that he can't have their database.

So despite the act of Parliament that says the Parliamentary Budget Officer should have access to the information within government--according to rules that protect the operation of government--they have been denied access. But he does have information, he does have value to bring to this discussion, and I would hope the members opposite would reconsider.

I'm happy to take any alternative motion they like. They can put any safeguards in they want, as long as the Parliamentary Budget Officer can bring forward what he knows and look at the programs. I'm very happy to accept any amendments whatsoever from the government that would make sure it's a fair examination, scrupulously fair to the government and scrupulously fair to its objectives, and so on.

In its absence, it speaks volumes for why the government would not want to hear from this officer of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have five more people on the list and then I'm going to close debate and ask for the question.

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've listened to the original defence of the motion put forward by Mr. Kennedy. He mentioned large gaps. I thought he was going to link that to his attendance record at this committee, but sadly he did not. The only thing missing at this committee, to answer Mr. Kennedy, is usually him.

I note that the media are here today, which is a rarity at this committee. And why is that so, Mr. Chair? That's because most of the work we do is not politically sexy, though it's important to the interests of the country. We have a very solid record at this committee of doing an awful lot of things. I find the media only show up when Mr. Kennedy shows up. Quite frankly, that's an offence to this committee, every member sitting around here, and the hard work we do.

I will say that the only time they show up is when it's an opportunity to politicize the work of this committee. For example, when Minister Baird comes to the committee, suddenly Mr. Kennedy is here, media in tow. Or today, with an opportunity to flog his specious pet project, his little report, here come the media in tow. Quite frankly, it hurts the good reputation of this committee, and quite frankly, if it was up to me, he wouldn't be on this committee. But that's the choice of his leader. It's a poor one at that.

We have just finished approving a very ambitious agenda. We have lots of important issues to tackle; legislation is coming to this committee, and an important high-speed rail study. I can tell you that people in Windsor are looking forward to the report on that. That could very well affect our future there. We have other important work with a lot of investment in it, and quite frankly, in the interests of redeeming the reputation of this committee in the public eye with the media watching, I suggest it's time to get on with the important work of this committee and reject the motion in front of us right now. I will be voting against it in the interest of upholding the good name of this committee and the work we do here.

Let's get off the politicization of this committee and get back to the work people that expect us to do. Some of it is, again, not politically sexy but nonetheless very important to communities all across the country. So I will be voting against it.

I encourage Mr. Kennedy to show up a little more at this committee and participate in some of the other maybe more mundane and less politically sexy work we do here. I would strongly encourage him to do that.

I'm actually glad, Mr. Chair, that we tackled this issue in the second hour and not the first hour, because I'm sure Mr. Kennedy would have left the room after the first hour. I'm sick and tired of it. It's an insult to the committee and the work we do day to day when he's not here.

Mr. Chair, I'll be voting against the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Ms. Hoeppner.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would agree with my colleague Mr. Watson. I will not be supporting this motion.

I think there is a high level of frustration on all sides, because we are working very hard on this committee. As Mr. Watson said, it's not always popular, extremely interesting work. There is not media here covering it, and it's not a joke. These are serious issues we're dealing with.

We have an obligation to reflect the priorities of Canadians, not our own political agendas. That's something we've been very careful to do here. We really want to listen to what Canadians are talking about and reflect on what they want us to speak about.

My concern is that this is just another attempt on the part of some Liberal members to try to find a way to force an unnecessary election. They have no reason. Canadians don't want an election, so what are they trying to do? They find a little pet project or a little pet issue they can wave around and try to get some media attention.

The fact is that we are hearing from mayors, reeves, and premiers across the country who are thrilled with what we're doing. They're thrilled with the stimulus package. Finally somebody is paying attention to the needs they have. They've been ignored for 13 long years. Finally we're responding to them. We're getting this money out faster than any government in history. And what are we doing here? We're taking time to argue a political point, which is ridiculous. So I will not be supporting it.

I would encourage you, my honourable colleague, to come to the committee. Again, we have some really strong goodwill on this committee. We've travelled together, we've done this work together, and I think it would build the credibility that you would have on the committee if you would show up a little more often.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would agree with Mr. Bevington and Mr. Kennedy, because when it comes to telling us we affect the credibility of the committee, we can ask the Parliamentary Budget Officer to come and appear before us. In fact, it would give us the credibility that we are committed to accountability and transparency. In fact, if that is the model Mr. Harper hangs the election on, then his team should not be worried about bringing that accountability and transparency to Canadians, and the priority for Canadians is the stimulus funds. I can tell you, I can speak for my riding, I can speak for Surrey and North Delta, by saying only 16% of the funds that were promised have gone into that community. I can tell you there are two ridings there that got zero projects. Most of the projects that are allocated are to the Conservative ridings. If you are not worried about that, then let the budget officer come forward and bring that truth forward.

Mayors and councillors--Mr. Chair, I'm talking to the same mayors and councillors and they are telling me one thing, that there is only one model, and that is the gas tax model brought in by the Right Honourable Paul Martin.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

A point of order has been made. Mr. Mayes is on a point of order.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

There are two motions before us and Mr. Dhaliwal is speaking to the second motion, isn't that right?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

No.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Then why are you talking about the allocation of the infrastructure money, that it's not being allocated equally?That is what you were talking about a minute ago. Is that correct?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Again, I may--

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

That's going to be dealt with in the second motion, is it not? We're now dealing with the motion that says that Mr. Kevin Page be invited to appear before this committee.

There are two different issues here and two different motions, so let's speak to the motion that we're dealing with now, the first motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Chair, both motions are very related, because it's all about infrastructure money that we're talking about. I personally see that if the committee members on the Conservative side are not worried about the accountability and transparency of the government and the minister, they should welcome this decision. So I will be supporting this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Earlier, I reached out to the government. I still hold that I would prefer that we write a letter to Mr. Page to explain what we want, ensure that he is able to answer and find out how much time he needs to do it. I know that he is very occupied with other committees. That was the reason for my suggestion, but it was rejected by the Liberals.

I repeat, I am against this motion. I will ask the parliamentary secretary to look into it and see whether this could not come from the government....

I do not want to call on an official or a department head without giving him time to prepare so that he can answer all of our questions. He should have the chance to tell us in writing what he will need before coming here. This is how the Liberals do things, and we can see where it gets them. Personally, this is not how I do things. For that reason, I am reaching out to the government. Think about it, and get back to us later.

If Mr. Kennedy wants to move another motion, he can do so. He has the right to give 48 hours notice, and he can move one motion per meeting, if he wants. But, if possible, I would like to know whether Mr. Page can answer certain questions that we have and how much he would need to do so. I will give the government time to get back to us on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, and then the final comment to Mr. Kennedy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Tweed and Mr. Chair.

I just want to say this. First of all, in response to Mr. Kennedy's comments, it's here in www.buildingcanada-chantierscanada.gc.ca regions. It's all here. You mentioned it wasn't available. It is available on the website. If you can't find it, I'd be happy to help you do that.

I'd like to table that, Mr. Chair—it's not in both official languages—or at least table the first page of it, so that Mr. Kennedy can access the website.

My issue is this. I think the best article I've seen on this particular issue is from the The Record in the Waterloo region, from Gord Hobbs, the director of engineering services at Jennimark Inc. in Cambridge. He explains in this article that first the municipality generates an application for funding, submits it, and awaits approval. That's one month minimum.

Second, the city's engineers specify exactly what work is required and issue tenders to a minimum of three competent contractors. That's another month.

Third, contractors assess the requirements and respond with fixed pricing. That's one more month.

Fourth, the city's engineers review the bids and negotiate changes, and the winner is selected. That takes another month.

Fifth, the selected contractor's engineers design the repairs, meeting all applicable safety codes, and plan the day-to-day work to be performed. That takes two months, minimum.

Sixth, specialty materials and components are ordered, received, and checked for compliance. Add on another two months.

Seventh, machinery and people are scheduled to assemble at a given start date. That takes another month.

Finally, workers start digging.

If we sum up the contributions to delay, as Ignatieff in this case refers to it, we see that it's improbable to have publicly visible progress on any project in less than nine months. Since the stimulus package was announced on January 27 and voted on later by the Liberals who agreed to it, I quote Mr. Hobbs: “it would be a miracle if work had started before October 27th. I think it's remarkable that 12 per cent of this work is already under way! Obviously many people have been working overtime”, referring to our government.

Seven billion dollars has been committed this year so far. The most the Liberal government ever did was less than $3 billion. So $7 billion has been committed already by this government. But the most important issue here is that Mr. Page has to bring forward.... And I think all of you have to recognize that it's amazing, but MPs don't go out and dig. In fact, we don't have anything to do with the implementation of the work. It's the municipalities, it's the provinces, it's the cities, it's the towns, it's the hamlets. It's our partners. We are funding partners. We are not the people who get out there and do the projects. So it is their responsibility.

Is Mr. Page going to make a thousand phone calls and cite himself as the infrastructure secretariat? My question—and I think the real question here today, and the question I want answered by Mr. Kennedy—is who did he represent, who did his office represent themselves to be when they made these phone calls, and who did he call? That's the question I have for him, and I really think, in all honesty, that's a real question. Who did his office represent themselves to be?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

I'll defer to Mr. Kennedy for a closing comment. I ask that you try to be brief if you can, please. We have another motion.