Transport Committee on Nov. 29th, 2012

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Several departments in the negotiations are of course concerned by the future of the operation of this bridge. In particular, we are talking about the relationship with aboriginal people and with Canadian Heritage. As you know, another cemetery has been discovered on Nuns' Island. Are the negotiations being conducted at the same time so that we do not waste any time?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Absolutely, we will meet our schedule, which we know is already too long, but it has to be met step by step. Everything is being done within the allotted timeframes.

As you suggest, in the negotiations with the first nations, we have to consider recognition of all the heritage elements in the same way as environmental elements.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

You are walking and chewing gum at the same time.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

All that is being done simultaneously because we want to be on schedule, sir.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

With regard to the additional $40 million for Ponts Jacques-Cartier et Champlain Inc., what is the current situation regarding the Mercier Bridge? I know the Jacques-Cartier Bridge will be closed again on the weekend. Is this an endless cycle or are you satisfied with the way the work and the safety are being addressed there?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

As regards the Mercier Bridge, sir, you know that the federal portion of the work was mostly completed. A part of the work that also involved the Quebec government has been postponed because we could not agree on the awarding of the contract. That caused some delays for us and funding had to be carried forward. This was somewhat the same principle as for infrastructure, as we were discussing a moment ago. The money must be requested and it will be paid once we have the invoices. So that part is going well.

The Jacques-Cartier Bridge, as you know, is monitored in the same way as the Champlain Bridge, which is monitored daily. This bridge is probably monitored more than any other in the country, using all those sensors, to guarantee safety.

I personally use it quite a bit less often than a Montreal resident since I come from Lac-Saint-Jean, but I have no problems driving on it. I know that people from the South Shore are following this with great interest. The bridge is being monitored to a high degree. Regular and work is done on the Jacques-Cartier Bridge, but it still has several decades of life left in it.

The condition of the bridges in Montreal is very well monitored at the present time. A new bridge will be built over the St. Lawrence. The status of the Jacques-Cartier Bridge is religiously monitored. The federal portion of the Mercier Bridge is paid for and we will be completing talks with Quebec for the rest of the work, and we will also respect the first nations.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Minister Lebel.

We'll now move to Mr. Poilievre and Mr. Holder.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Thank you very much for being here, Minister.

Thank you also to your public servants, who run a lean and results-driven department. Special recognition, of course, goes to your outgoing deputy, Yaprak Baltacioglu, who did an excellent job. And to your incoming DM, Mr. Lévesque, welcome.

Our goal is to get results, and the main criticism from the opposition seems to be, Minister, that you're not expensive enough. I think Canadians would agree that their goal is to see infrastructure in their communities, not higher taxes out of their wallets.

On that question, I look at the municipal revenues over the last decade, and since 2001 revenues for municipalities have grown by 68%, even though the combined rate of population growth and inflation has only been 30%. That is to say, municipal revenues have grown twice as fast over the last decade as has the need. Where is the money going? In large part it's going to employee compensation, which has grown by 62% over the same period—again, twice as fast as population growth and inflation combined.

How can we work to ensure that when we invest dollars in infrastructure, they achieve results for the taxpayers, who pick up the bill?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you for the question.

First of all, one thing is for sure: the revenue for municipalities, for provinces, and for the country always, always comes from the same taxpayer. It's always, always the same taxpayer.

We always try to have a balanced approach in respect of any level of government. That's why I think we have good results. For sure we don't want to have a fight with other levels of government. We respect their jurisdictions. We want to work well with them. But we will not expend money we don't have. That's the way we want to manage the infrastructure program, and I'm sure that's the way the population wants to have it too.

When we are in municipal politics, we can do a deficit...like a mayor, or that's the law in Quebec, at least; I know more the law in Quebec on that.

I think sometimes we have to invest money to stimulate the economy, which is what we have done, for a specific time. The country was needing that. But for the rest of the time, we have to balance the budget and to manage the money that comes from the taxpayer—always the same taxpayer.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

There are results from your work. If you look at the statistics, the average piece of infrastructure in Canada today is about fourteen and a half years old. When we took office, that number was closer to 17 years old. In fact, infrastructure has not been as new as it is now; you'd have to go back to the late 1970s to find a year where our infrastructure inventory was as new as it is today.

Can you talk about how it is that we've achieved these results in renewing our infrastructure?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

I'm an old man now, and I can say that I have had a lot of past experience. I was a full-time mayor from 2000 to 2007. Never has a government—and I know the former government started the gas tax fund—supported the infrastructure of this country as our government has. That's very important to remember.

I'm sure we're better now than we were in 2005, and I'm pretty sure we'll be better in our infrastructure at the end of the other plan, and we will continue to support it. We have made the gas tax fund permanent because we understand the needs of the country, the needs of municipalities and the population.

With the money we have invested through the Building Canada plan, through the economic action plan, because the country needed more support, we've changed the face of the infrastructure of this country. Do we still have a job to do? Yes, sure, we still do, and we will continue to do it. But now, for the most part municipalities have a plan. They know what they have to do, which infrastructure they have to change. We will continue to support them in their own priorities. We will not decide on behalf of the municipalities.

I'm sure, if we're able to discuss this in 2015, 2016, or 2017, we'll say that our infrastructure is in better condition than it was in 2012.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to all our guests.

It's interesting, Minister, when you speak in terms of the funding through the gas tax. You may know that I come from the tenth-largest city in Canada. In London our prior mayor—I don't mean the current mayor—once said that if the federal government would only provide us with funding that was guaranteed...and then we talked about doubling it, but doubling it and making it permanent, that they would never come back to us for another ask about infrastructure funding.

So it's rather interesting; when my colleague opposite talks about the mayors across Canada looking for more predictable funding for infrastructure, it's clear—to me, at least, as I review this—that they have done that.

It would prompt this question. As Minister of Transportation, Infrastructure and Communities, what message might you give to the mayors across Canada?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I am going to tell you an easy joke. To use an expression I have heard, I would say we have added a fountain of youth to our infrastructure. I do not know whether it is a fountain of youth for London; that is another matter.

[A voice]

Oh, oh!

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Whatever the case may be, we can say that we are still offering our support.

They can trust our government. We judge people more by what they have done in life than by what they say, and we have delivered it. That's what I want to say. They have to continue to support us because we have delivered more money for the infrastructure of this country than ever in Canadian history. They know that, and they will continue to be partners with the new infrastructure plan.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

May I say, I think one of the most—

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have about five seconds, Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Congratulations on the initiative with respect to the Windsor-Detroit bridge, which passes by the tenth-largest city in Canada. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Lebel, I wanted to comment on your comment about the infrastructure. I spent almost 13 years in local government as well, and I know that in terms of the delivery of the programs, I guess it was under Minister Baird at the time, I'd never seen anything delivered better, and that was important.

Mr. Adler, seven minutes.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair. I am happy to be here.

Thank you, Ministers, for both being here today.

Minister Lebel, I was really interested in your comments earlier, and I was hoping that you would have taken more time to explain all the great work that you have done. I know that we could be here for hours, as you said, and I would certainly be very interested to hear the entire list of everything you've accomplished so far. It certainly has been a lot, so congratulations on that front.

I do want to ask you a couple of questions. One is on the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I know our friends opposite keep claiming that it's about the environment, and we don't see the word “environment” once appearing in the act. Could you please help my friends opposite and explain...? I'm feeling very generous today, and I just want the members opposite to come to an understanding on why this has nothing to do with the environment.

Maybe the language we've been using up until now has been maybe just too difficult for them to understand. Perhaps you could just help them out, in very plain, simple language, in understanding why this not about the environment.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you for the question.

At the beginning, I can tell you that over 90% of applications received for navigable...or under this bill never posed any threat to the navigation. Any small project for a pier, wharf, or personal dock at your summer house or cottage has to go through this process, for absolutely nothing. And that's a Transport issue. Environment Canada is doing its job. Fisheries and Oceans will do their job too. Us, we have to manage the navigation of this country. We can see

a little stream or a little river

and say that it's about navigation, but any of these projects had to go through this process before we made these changes. We don't think this is a responsible use for taxpayers, and shows just how we have to change this act.

We will focus now on navigation. For sure the list has been built by science. It's not politicians who have done that, it's the department. They looked at where it was more navigation than in other waterways. The list was created after a rigorous process, using up-to-date statistics including nautical charts, freight movement, historical data, and applications of local knowledge. All the lists have been built.... It's not because I'm coming from Lac Saint-Jean that I add Lac Saint-Jean to the list. That would be nonsense. But we have to respect the mandate we have and that's about navigation. That's what we have done and we will continue to do so.

Going forward on the list of waters, for sure we will have some discussion about how it will go. But the regulations have to keep pace with changing traffic patterns and must meet one of the conditions of economic interests, public interest, and requests by local authorities, and at that time this will be seen through the regulations. But that's the science we talked about. That we want to change the channel and to...[Inaudible--Editor]...about environment, that's not the truth. We only want to manage in the best way we can the navigation in this country to support the economy of this country.

Some projects are important for municipalities. Here I have letters of support from provinces and territories and they have asked that of us. Our department consulted all provinces and territories before we launched the process.

We created the process and now we are sure we are doing the right thing. None of the provinces and territories had concerns with the list. That's where we are now. We are going to continue to improve that, to work very well to make better navigation in the country. It's about safety, and about the economy. That's very important for the future of our country. We know we have many economic developments to come in our country so it's important to manage our navigation well.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I hope that my friends opposite were listening closely, and that they understand now and will be able to take that message back to their colleagues within their own caucus.

I do have another question for you. As you indicated during your remarks, there is one taxpayer. If we look at that taxpayer as a chicken with feathers, I think that bird's been plucked in terms of all of the taxes it could possibly pay. There is—

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair—