Evidence of meeting #39 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was list.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Thank you and good morning, everyone.
Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 39, as amended, on committee business, resuming debate on the motion by Mr. McCallum. I think everybody is aware of the motion itself, and I have--
Pardon me?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, are we maintaining the speakers list as it existed at the end of--
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
I don't think Mr. McCallum was on the floor. I think we were over here....
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The list that we kept over...I think we'll just start with that.
Mr. Trost.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think this will be my last intervention on--
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
My memory is that I was up next, but I'm not going to--
12:05 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
If it's a serious problem, I'm not going to absolutely stand on my right to be the next speaker, but as I said, this is going to be my last intervention on this debate.
The honourable member has brought forward three motions. I guess it is actually fortuitous that he will be speaking later on. There is something I fundamentally do not understand about his motions, including the one we're debating now:
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.
What I don't understand is that the honourable member moved another motion on the same day at the same time and that reads:
That the Committee hold a meeting on December 8, 2011, from 3:30-5:30 pm on the topic of the March 31, 2011 deadline for infrastructure stimulus projects and that municipal officials be invited to testify.
To my mind, there is a bit of a contradiction there in the motions. As I said, I'll ask the honourable member to explain this later on and to expand on why he has moved the two separate motions. Because it seems to make some sense to me that if we're going to do a report, with a conclusion, we should listen to all of the witnesses and all of the testimony that has been given before.
Now, it is very possible that we've heard all the witnesses and testimony that we need to hear on this. I'm of the view that we really don't need this December 8 meeting as well. But if he is moving for a December 8 meeting--and by my time, today is December 2--why would we do the report ahead of time? Why would we not wait until after the December 8 meeting?
My suggestion to the honourable member would be--because I do think he is serious about all of the motions he is moving here--that he amend or take off the table this motion we're currently debating and set it back, for after December 8. That would seem to make more sense to me, because it's very possible that if the motion for the December 8 meeting goes ahead and we actually have witnesses at the December 8 meeting, we'll get some information that will cause us to change our minds on his motion. It's possible that the witnesses may say something that may cause us to want to extend the deadline by three months, or we may not want to extend it at all.
I think it's unfair to call witnesses for a meeting and unfair to ask them to testify when we've already written our report. I realize this is a small report, and there could be other things one could add to that, but let's be realistic here: if you're going to have a report, you need to have all the witnesses listened to.
I'm actually going to ask the honourable member, when he does this, to table his motion. Then we could resume debating it after the December 8 meeting, assuming that one goes ahead, or at least after we see the results of the motion on December 8. How many more meetings there will be is a good question.
But I am not prepared to even consider any sort of report, let alone this report, until we know for sure that we've had all the meetings we're going to have and that there is no possibility whatsoever that we will see more witnesses. For me, it's a matter of simple fairness to the witnesses, and it's a matter of just basic common sense: you listen to all the witnesses before you have a report.
I hope the honourable member takes my suggestions into account. I hope he tables this one until after we've dealt with the other one, because while I think there are good points to be debated in all of his motions, perhaps he has the order of them mixed around. Perhaps he should reconsider the order of his motions and deal with them in a way that makes more logical common sense.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Next I have Mr. Byrne, who's not here anymore, so I'm going to move to Ms. Brown.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My intervention won't be very long.
When we were listening to witnesses, we had, first of all, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. We also had the union of Quebec municipalities. I don't have it written in my notes, but I remember that one of them, although I would have to check the blues on this, specifically made the statement--perhaps it was the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and someone can correct me—that for some projects, it wouldn't matter what the length of the extension was, because they would never get them completed.
I have some concern that perhaps we've never heard from any of those projects and that there might be individuals and municipalities who would have a vested interest in seeing a longer extension on this. Perhaps we're shortchanging them if we don't listen to that group of people as well.
I don't know if the Federation of Canadian Municipalities could forward us some of those names or if they came from the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, but they specifically told us that there were some projects where it didn't matter what the extension time was. I think we need to hear from those people to hear about what problems they are facing, what the barriers are to getting this done, what kind of timeline they are looking for in order to get this accomplished, and if they would be willing to come and be a witness before this committee.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Quite frankly, I'm of the mind that we should get on to some other business. I have a few things to say, but after that I think we need to deal with these motions and then get on with Bill C-42. We have a lot of people here.
I do want to talk a bit about infrastructure investments and what we've done as a government. Certainly, since introducing our economic plan in January of 2009, we've invested approximately $10.7 billion in federal funds toward more than 6,100 projects. It's no small feat. If we look at the history of Canada, this is the first time this amount of action has ever been taken in relation to infrastructure stimulus revitalization.
I'm very pleased with that and I'm pleased with the fact that we've worked well with our provincial, territorial, and municipal partners. We've done a great job and they've done a great job in implementing the infrastructure rollout. For sure, $30 billion has been invested; in fact, over $30 billion has been invested by all of us. Our partners have even applauded us for the work we have done. They have indicated to us that this has been very important.
There are other things we've done. One, obviously, is making the gas tax permanent and doubling the amount. There are a lot of other things we've done with our partners, basically in listening to the FCM and others and building a truly national partnership with the provinces, the territories, and the municipalities.
When the Auditor General came out with her report, I was very, very pleased that she said the economic action plan is being delivered effectively. Her report actually says that the Government of Canada reacted quickly and effectively to design and implement the plan and fund eligible projects.
As of the end of September, provinces, territories, and municipalities reported that work was completed on about five times as many projects--that's right, Mr. Chair--under the infrastructure stimulus fund as they reported in March, so quite a bit has happened even since then.
We were also pleased to see that more than 61% of the projects are being constructed at least 30 days faster than originally forecasted. In fact, if we look at it even more deeply, 99% of the reported infrastructure stimulus fund and communities component top-up projects are now under way or completed. As we know, these projects put people to work when the economy needed it most and we are a shining example in the world of what a country can do when it comes together with its partners--provincial, territorial, and municipal.
But it's important to note that as the economic action plan winds down, a plan that was always intended to be targeted, timely, and temporary, and as projects complete construction, the Government of Canada has made a long-term commitment to continue to work with the provinces, territories, and municipalities--especially as can be seen, as I said, by the gas tax funding and what we've done there—to build world-class public infrastructure for the quality of life of Canadians and to make sure their quality of life continues to be so great.
The $33-billion Building Canada plan complements that economic action plan, and I think all of us can see what we've done with our partners in that area. Where the economic action plan targeted the shovel-ready projects that could kick-start the economy, the Building Canada plan focuses on the longer-term projects that require more time to plan and build. This means that funding for these projects under the programs like the Building Canada fund will continue to flow past next March. Of course, Mr. McCallum's motion that is before us today deals with the economic action plan.
As well, this government increased the gas tax fund to $2 billion a year and made it permanent, as I said, and that has been applauded by all the municipal group and by municipalities and provinces. Municipalities can rely on this funding and use it when they need it, whether that's as they receive it or at some time in the future. Of course, the Conservative government would not take that away, and hopefully no subsequent government would either.
Mr. Chair, I do have a press release that I would like to circulate among the members, but I would like to read out some parts of that. As was said this morning by the Prime Minister: “Canada's economic action plan is working. Our government expects that 90% of infrastructure projects will be done by the ambitious deadline that we set out”.
Certainly, most groups, engineers, and economists have applauded us, because that was a short timeline in order to make sure we spurred the economy. Now, since July 2009, more than 420,000 net new jobs have been created across Canada, and about 23,000 projects are under way or completed. The government has provided $16 billion to modernize public infrastructure, including roads, bridges, water, parks, transit, and recreational facilities.
I'm reading verbatim from the press release: “Today, we have extended the deadline for completion of economic action plan infrastructure projects by one full construction season, to October 31, 2011”. Of course, that was said by the Prime Minister just a few minutes ago. “This will allow sufficient time for completion of the remaining projects,” he said.
I would like to circulate this in both French and English, if I may.
Now, I would say bluntly that Mr. McCallum's motion,at this stage, is moot, I would suggest. The difficulty with it, of course, is that it's not accurate on what we have actually done this morning.
You've asked for a six-month extension. We've actually made it a seven-month extension. I don't know where else we could do a better job than what was proposed by your motion, but certainly I would suggest that we have done that. That has now been done, so as far as that motion goes, I would suggest that it's moot.
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
To be sure that Mr. Jean will understand what I will say...we have very good interpreters, but there will be no filter between what I think and what I will say.
With this announcement that we have today, I realize why you were not available at 11 o'clock this morning and why the meeting was postponed to noon. It was because at noon, there was a meeting, a press conference in Mississauga, with Prime Minister Harper, Chuck Strahl, and a third minister. I think it was Mr. Clement. You knew that very well. This is the reason you mentioned that you were not available: because of the timing. That is the reason why you didn't want to discuss the motion of Mr. McCallum. As far as I'm concerned, that's a first strike.
Second, I realize why you asked to postpone every discussion on this motion for one more week. It was because you knew very well that there would be an announcement today at noon. Apparently, you had a good relationship with Mr. Laframboise. Well, check your references about me. As far as I'm concerned, this is the second strike, Brian.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I kind of agree with Mr. Guimond about the behaviour on the government side, but I won't focus on that.
It's rare that the government does almost precisely what the opposition tells them to do. It will be entertaining to reread the arguments of the Conservative members from the last meeting or two as to why this was such a terrible idea.
But it's not costless, the fact that they delayed, because we proposed this--which is precisely what they've done, apart from one month--in mid-September, so as a consequence of delaying it until now, which is more than a month and a half, municipalities have had to spend unnecessarily on overtime because they were rushing to this arbitrary deadline. They were working around the clock in some cases. Because of this deadline, they had to bid for materials, pushing up prices.
The government has totally flip-flopped and has totally come around to our position. I guess I could say better late than never, but as a consequence of that delay, they have imposed unnecessary costs on municipalities and created unnecessary uncertainty for a longer period of time.
That's it.
I think Mr. Dhaliwal wants to speak.
