Transport Committee on Nov. 30th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

When we last.... As far as I know, the minister is confirmed, yes.

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

That's taking place on the Monday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Absolutely, yes.

When we last left, Mr. McCallum wasn't here, but we were in discussion on his motion.

We have three motions. The first one deals with the documentation, paper and electronic, but I'll let Mr. McCallum take the floor.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There are three motions, but first I'd like to move the one that is number two on this piece of paper. Perhaps I'll just read it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Jean, on a point of order.

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

My understanding is that the motions are already moved. They come to the floor in the order they were brought to the committee, and number one is in relation to the amount of the money from the minister's office, $32,885. I understand that's the motion before us right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm told that because it hadn't been moved at the last meeting, procedurally Mr. McCallum can introduce whatever motion he wants.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion that I'm introducing reads as follows:

That the committee immediately produce an interim report to the House related to its study of the March 31, 2011 deadline for infrastructure stimulus projects and that the report read as follows: The Committee recommends that the Government move immediately to extend the stimulus deadline by 6 months for all projects across Canada.

I think, Mr. Chair, the motion speaks for itself. There are many municipalities out there with projects that won't be completed. They don't have certainty and they can't do their planning, so we think that the simplest and most sensible thing to do is to grant a blanket extension of six months for all municipalities. It won't mean that the government is committing any more money than it already has, and it's not as if unemployment is going to drop dramatically in the next six months.

For all these reasons and more, we think it is a good idea, so that is the proposal before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

The motion by Mr. McCallum is as put.

Is there any debate?

Go ahead, Ms. Brown.

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

Mr. Chair, I question whether the federal government has the right to make that kind of recommendation, since our contracts were municipal and provincial. Unless we have agreement from all levels of government, I'm not sure the federal government has the right.

Effectively what we're asking them to do is break our contract. We had a contract with the provinces that their money would come to the table--one-third--and the municipalities are also part of that contract.

Effectively what we're trying to do is unilaterally break a contract by making this recommendation, and I'm not sure we have the right as a committee to do that without consultation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Trost.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In all my experience on committees, I have tended to believe that reports should be based upon the testimony of witnesses, and while I wasn't here—I've only been a member of the committee since this fall—the testimony that I've heard in regard to this matter doesn't seem to back up my colleague's recommendations.

I think back to when we had SARM, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, here before us. We talked about how Saskatchewan had effectively had the toughest, most difficult season in things that could get in the way. Not only did they have the elections for municipal government, which has been cited as a problem in the rest of the country in getting the projects done, but we also had the most difficult construction weather in the whole country this season. We had considerably more rain and considerably more weather-related problems.

It has been noted in other parts of the country that there were shortages of manpower and material. Well, Saskatchewan had that problem, too. When it comes to construction, we're basically tied up in part of the oil sands. We have the same demand for road construction, for heavy construction, that comes from Alberta and that area. I know it may seem a little strange to other members around this table whose constituencies have gone through a recession, but my constituency has a labour shortage, and when you have a labour shortage, it's difficult to get these projects done. I should know; I've been working with friends of mine on some private projects, and it's tough.

But amazingly, Saskatchewan appears to have got almost all of theirs done. Saskatoon, which had one of the more difficult situations, is down to two projects that may not be 100% completed. One is in the southern part of the city and is 60% completed; the other is in my constituency, and it is 90% completed.

If Saskatchewan doesn't need a six-month extension--and this was the testimony we heard here from the representatives of SARM, and I heard similar testimony from Manitoba representatives and others--then I don't see why we would go against a large amount of testimony that we had here.

The other reason I would not support this recommendation comes down to a basic element of fairness. I represent 34 municipal governments. On top of that, there are two Indian reserves in my constituency. Not all of them have the same resources when it comes to accessing municipal funds, equipment, or engineering resources. The rural municipal governments in my constituency are particularly disadvantaged, yet they played by the rules.

Actually, one of the problems is that whenever these infrastructure programs come up, they all have to bid through the same engineering firms to try to get their projects done, so it's difficult. We didn't bend the rules when it came to submitting bids; we didn't bend the rules to start. When you're a smaller municipality, you have to bid everything out, so you're disadvantaged vis-à-vis the larger ones that have their own workforces.

Fundamental fairness is at stake here. We did not change the rules so that they would give advantage to the smaller municipal governments at the beginning, yet now, because of the six-month extension, we're doing something that will assist the larger municipal governments. They always had access and could push the line a little more aggressively. They didn't have to build in as much room to manoeuvre and as much room for problems arising, because they have access to their own crews and their own equipment, which they own and possess.

I think there's a fundamental fairness question. If everyone had known from the beginning that the rules were going to be fudged, different projects would have been submitted. It's very possible that different projects would have won the bidding. That would be the second objection I have.

Let me summarize. First of all, I do not believe that witnesses' testimony backs up what is being moved in this report or what is being stated by the honourable member. Second, I don't think fundamental fairness is addressed. Those would be my two fundamental objections to this report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Trost.

Mr. Dhaliwal is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would not agree at all with Mr. Trost, because in fact it's his own government and his own minister who brought in the statement that they're willing to extend the date project by project, municipality by municipality. What Mr. McCallum is bringing in this motion is very fair, because in this way, the government will not—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean has a point of order.

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

I just want to clarify.

Mr. Dhaliwal said that he is going to extend project by project. I think what he said was that they're going to be “fair and reasonable” and look at it project by project.

Is that what you meant, Mr. Dhaliwal? I'm just not sure, because I think he said “fair and reasonable,” and they're going to look at it project by project.

I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

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

That's exactly right. We're on the same page.

What Mr. McCallum brings in takes all the politics out. We know the projects went into those municipalities where the Conservative ministers are in power, and that's all on the record. Now we do not want those municipalities where right now there are no Conservative MPs sitting—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean has a point of clarification.

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

Did Mr. Dhaliwal just say that the Conservative ministers are in power, and all the infrastructure money went to Conservative ministers' ridings?

I want to know, Mr. Dhaliwal, just to clarify.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's not a point of anything; it's debate.

Mr. Byrne has a point of order.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I simply want to point out that I am not aware of any term or reference to a “point of clarification” in any of the standing orders or as a matter of convention within Parliamentary procedure. That does appear to be a point of debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I think I ruled accordingly.

Continue, Mr. Dhaliwal.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In fact this is a very fair motion that Mr. McCallum has brought in, and it's very well thought out. Every municipality and every project that's not finished gets equal treatment.

As Ms. Brown said earlier, all we are saying is that we are not tearing up any contract. All we are doing, Mr. Chair, from the federal side is giving a go-ahead so that extending the date does not put undue pressure on municipalities, which only collect 8¢ on the dollar in taxes.

I support Mr. McCallum and would ask honourable members to support Mr. McCallum instead of filibustering the meeting.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Go ahead, Mr. Mayes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All of these funding programs that—