Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think the parliamentary secretary is being disingenuous, because at the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer. That's for the record.
I also think the parliamentary secretary is being disingenuous on his commitment, an ongoing commitment, to cities and municipalities. We know for a fact there wouldn't have been an infrastructure stimulus fund if the opposition parties hadn't gotten together and required them after the first prorogation. Let's put that on the record.
The fundamental issue here, as I see it, is the lack of openness and transparency, and we've talked a lot about fairness in the process. Largely, unrealistic timeframes were imposed. Clearly the only municipalities that benefited and that could benefit were those that had projects either under way or almost under way. Certainly those with severe weather issues or union problems were going to be penalized, and many other projects would be ineligible. Certainly projects that were in the vision stage or in the feasibility stage would be ineligible. Legacy projects such as the City of Toronto's subway completion were going to be ineligible. I think the infrastructure stimulus fund was a missed opportunity for a one-time legacy project. Here we have $50 billion being invested. Did it go to a higher-speed rail or an LRT system? No, no, no. The moneys were used for roads, sewers, bridges, maintenance, etc.
You made reference to the City of Mississauga and Hazel McCallion. Of course I'm the member for Mississauga--Streetsville, very proudly, and we have a $1.5 billion infrastructure deficit over the next 20 years, which is $750 million annually. So the money we received, frankly, is a drop in the bucket.
You made reference to our reserve funds. Well, those reserve funds are dwindling. In fact, in 2012 we'll have only $30 million available for infrastructure rehabilitation projects. We know from the FCM that the current needs of municipalities across Canada are $123 billion, and as I said to begin with, there's only one taxpayer. The money has to come from somewhere.
Let me ask you this, Mr. Vaillancourt: how many of your projects were eligible and ineligible? Did you have projects lapse? If the timeframes weren't so punitive, what would you otherwise have used the funds for?