Transport Committee on June 15th, 2010

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you.

I'd like to go back to a comment you made about the nature of the last FCM meeting and the fact that you didn't receive a lot of representations on this issue.

Well, it's still a year away from the deadline, and I'm sure many communities probably don't want to raise this issue while they still have hope--perhaps some faint hope--that they can get their projects completed. As well, sticking your neck out as a municipality on these issues may also have some negative connotations attached to it. Municipal politicians are just as smart as any other politician about biting the hand that feeds. So I think we might see that situation change.

What we're trying to do here is come up with a solution that would forestall that kind of action. Of course, a solution on some of it may have to wait until after the next election, but that's something this government has to deal with itself.

Coming back to this idea of the three partners in this, it's quite clear that the one partner who is... The parliamentary secretary indicated the amount of money that this government has put into this. Well, that's actually money that will come out of the pockets of future taxpayers, because of course this is all deficit money. It's all deficit financing that the government has entered into. It puts a burden on future taxpayers. We're all in on this equation. This is not a gift from this particular government but an ongoing debt that all of us will have to take on.

So we see that, you know, we're being a little tough and inflexible on bargaining right now in terms of this limit, but as time moves on, I think this meeting will become very important, because it sets the parameters of what needs to happen. Eventually, I think, the government will come to its senses on this and recognize that.

At the same time, I understand the government's position. They want to continue to put the pressure on municipalities to complete their projects in a timely fashion over this next construction season, and I appreciate that. The government wants to get its conditions met in the development of these projects.

I think the motion perhaps is something that will not achieve anything at this point in time. I think we're going to have to see you come back here a little later on to talk to us again about this when we get a little closer, after this construction season is finished and we have a better understanding of how many projects are going to be in arrears.

Is anybody looking at that scenario, and do you want to talk about that?

[Michael Buda]

Well, I think you've put your finger on the head of quite a few important issues. At the end of the day, I think everyone here has been very clear that this program is working extremely well. There are challenges in a small number of communities at this point. But you're right, a lot of it is actually still fairly hypothetical; there are still nine more months until the deadline. A lot can happen. It depends on weather, on supplies of labour and materials. Things will change.

What we're asking of the Government of Canada, and indeed our provincial and territorial municipal association counterparts to be asking their provinces and territories, is just for some common sense--for all three partners in these projects to sit down when problems arise and solve those problems so that these projects can be successful both in terms of creating jobs and ensuring that infrastructure projects are completed that meet the needs of those communities. We're asking for common sense to solve problems in a very small number of communities. This isn't about scoring points or anything else.

As I think Mr. Carlton pointed out, municipal leaders are a pretty practical-minded bunch of folks. They just want to get this stuff done and they want to get it done at as reasonable a cost to taxpayers as possible. As I said, it's just common sense.

So I think, absolutely, Mr. Bevington, you've put your finger on the head of quite a few issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you again, witnesses.

There was a Senate committee meeting about five or six weeks ago. The FCM was at that Senate committee meeting. Is that correct?

[Michael Buda]

Yes.

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

In fact, at that meeting, project proponents put forward an examination of exactly what we have here today, and they found, I understand, that 1% of the projects were at high risk for non-completion. I see you shaking your head, but the mike can't pick it up.

[Michael Buda]

Yes, the last time I spoke to the department, they had data from the March 31 progress reports, as you know. Of course, they, themselves, cautioned that the March 31 reports weren't going to show a lot of activity in the case of many projects, because they wouldn't have been able to start until around then. I think the June 15 progress reports will be coming in any day now. They'll give a lot more detail. But you are right; we stay in very close contact with department officials. So far, the number of projects that they're considering high risk is extremely small, as we've stated repeatedly. This is an issue in a fairly small number of cases--

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

Mr. Buda, to be fair, you haven't actually stated that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

There's a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, if I understand correctly, it's an official government department report, and I'm wondering if this committee could, through you, request that report. Clearly it's being discussed as germane to these deliberations, and I'm wondering if that report and the supporting data could be made available to this committee. I think we're at a distinct disadvantage if apparently the association has access to this report... If this committee is meant to have these deliberations, it's only fair and proper that we have access to that information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's not a point of order, but I will refer to the parliamentary secretary for comment.

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

I have no comments on the point of order. I want to continue on.

Was that taken out of my time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

No, we'll start you again.

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

Thank you very much.

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

Are you refusing to get us the information?

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

Just to be clear, then, it's been identified by the department, which has been working closely with all the proponents, as being at 1%. So if we put it in numbers, if we can... That was the evidence that was given at the Senate committee, was it not?

Who was at the Senate committee?

[Michael Buda]

Do you mean who was there from the department?

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

Yes.

[Michael Buda]

I'm not sure who was there from the department. From FCM it was Brock and Gabe and Basil.

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

Then my questions are directed towards Mr. Carlton. Did you hear that 1% number? Do you remember hearing that?

[Brock Carlton]

I don't remember.

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

Mr. Buda, you obviously heard a 1% number. I'm the last questioner here, I think, or pretty close to it, and this is the first time 1% has come up, as far as I'm aware. I've heard it was a small number, but I never heard 1% before.

[Michael Buda]

Could I answer?

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

I'll just do a little analysis here for a second, if I can, Mr. Buda. One percent of 4,000 projects is 40 projects that may not be completed. That's about $400,000, based on an average per project. Now, if we look at that, the government has agreed not to claw back 100%, to pay whatever's done before March 31, and in fact to wait 90 days, which is, quite frankly, I think good business practice, to receive all the invoices. At FCM, the Prime Minister was very clear that there will be no extension on the March 31 deadline. Everybody heard that. I know that because I talked to Mr. Cunningham after that. Everybody heard that deadline. Is that not correct?