Transport Committee on May 12th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We'll call our meeting to order.

I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here today. We have representatives from the Canadian Public Works Association, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or FCM, and the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships.

Thank you to all of you.

We'll start with Ms. Kealy Dedman from the Canadian Public Works Association, for 10 minutes or less, please.

[Kealy Dedman, President, Canadian Public Works Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Committee members, fellow witnesses, and ladies and gentlemen, I'm pleased to be with you this afternoon to represent the Canadian Public Works Association. Thank you for inviting us to participate in your examination of federal government investments in federal, provincial, and municipal infrastructure over the past 20 years.

Members of the CPWA are often unseen and unheard, but we are ever present in the lives of most Canadians. When you turn on your kitchen tap and clean water comes out, that's us. When you approach an intersection with traffic signals, that's us. When the snow is plowed in front of your home or business, it's the public works department of your community at work.

Canadians do not generally know CPWA members are also an essential part of the first responders teams when emergencies and natural disasters such as major floods hit cities and towns across the country. We clear public roadways of snow, ice, and other obstacles for police, ambulances, and fire trucks to respond to emergency situations. We ensure water comes out of the hydrants when firefighters are on the scene to fight a fire.

We have a great interest in all things related to the construction and maintenance of public infrastructure across Canada. Our focus is on what we believe to be an exciting future for public infrastructure in our country.

The new building Canada plan announced in budget 2013 and the new public transit fund announced a few weeks ago in budget 2015 represent an excellent opportunity to build, rebuild, and refurbish much needed public infrastructure across the country. We believe that with this opportunity comes an obligation to ensure Canada’s new infrastructure investments are built to endure and are managed effectively.

As we look to the future, our focus is on two policy issues: asset management and sustainable infrastructure.

We think the single most important issue to consider and plan for when significant investments are being made in public infrastructure is proper asset management. Extending the useful life of major infrastructure assets by insisting upon proper asset management practices respects the prudent expenditure of public funds. It also keeps community infrastructure safer for longer.

A holistic approach to managing municipal infrastructure assets is being practised in other jurisdictions such as Australia and New Zealand, and is also making inroads in Canada, particularly in our western provinces. Canadian municipalities have a growing interest in applying proper asset management principles and practices to the infrastructure they are responsible for planning, building, operating, and maintaining.

One of the issues is that municipalities often need resources dedicated to building capacity at the local level in order to undertake proper asset management assessment practices.

As you think about the future of public infrastructure investments, we hope you will agree there is an important role for the Government of Canada to play in promoting asset management and capacity building within municipalities. We believe dedicated funding would be beneficial.

The second issue I'd like to summarize for you this afternoon is sustainable infrastructure.

The principles of sustainable development are now considered to be fundamental to how civil engineers and the public can more successfully address the return on investment in infrastructure and meet today’s societal needs. These concerns have led to the development of sustainability rating systems that provide a holistic framework for evaluating and rating the community, environmental, and economic benefits of all types and sizes of infrastructure projects. These include not only the roads, bridges, waste-water treatment plants, and public parks municipalities deal with, but also the massive infrastructure projects such as pipelines, airports, dams, levees, power transmission lines, and telecommunications towers.

Our association believes in adopting and adapting best practices where possible, which is why in our written submission we provide an example of a sustainability rating system that has been developed in the United States called Envision. Used as a planning tool for projects, rating systems such as Envision can help identify sustainable approaches during the planning, design, construction, and operation of infrastructure.

In closing, Mr. Chair, here again we see a potential role for the federal government to play. The government could consider taking a leadership role in supporting the use of sustainability rating tools and systems for evaluating and rating the community, environmental, and economic benefits of all types and sizes of infrastructure projects.

Mr. Chair, I will leave it there, and I look forward to questions from the committee members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mr. Carlton from FCM.

[Brock Carlton, Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As you can imagine, this is a really important study for us. We are keenly interested in this discussion, so I really appreciate the invitation to be here today. I also send regards from our president, Brad Woodside. He is on stage right now as a governor in a graduation ceremony. He'll be giving his own son his graduation diploma, so that kind of trumps the committee today, unfortunately.

I'm here representing Mayor Woodside and the FCM. I'm also joined by Daniel Rubinstein, manager of policy and research at FCM and the senior policy staff on infrastructure and transportation.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is the national voice of municipal government. Our municipal members represent 90% of Canada's population and all parts of our country. Our members include Canada's largest cities, small urban and rural communities, and 20 provincial and territorial municipal associations. As a leader in the municipal movement, the FCM works with all parliamentarians in order to strengthen municipalities and Canada. Canadians know that cities and communities are the drivers of employment and the economy and that the quality of our public infrastructure is directly related to Canada's productivity and long-term prosperity. A stronger economy is key to a higher standard of living for all Canadians.

In our big cities, public transit is a absolute necessity, and that is why the FCM was pleased to hear about the public transit fund announced in budget 2015. This investment is a big step forward on one of the main challenges that Canadians have to face on a daily basis. If such a high level of funding were allocated on a permanent basis, it could transform public transit across the country.

There are important details which remain to be discussed, such as ensuring that local governments retain the flexibility to determine the appropriate degree of private sector involvement. There is no one-size-fits-all for P3 projects, and in the end, it is the municipality that best understands the local context. Each municipality will need to carefully assess the impacts of local borrowing limits and debt-servicing costs on a project-by-project basis.

In addition, as a permanent federal investment envelope, it is critical that the federal government invest as a true one-third partner in these projects, as alternative financing through mechanisms like P3 does not reduce the need for government funding for the capital costs of public goods like major transit projects. While the public transit fund offers certainty and predictability for major municipal transit projects, Canadians still face growing challenges with roads, bridges, and water systems, the core infrastructure that they depend on each day.

Canada is at a crossroads. The core infrastructure that Canadians rely upon is at risk. That’s what the first edition of the Canadian infrastructure report card told us in 2012. The report card measured the physical condition of municipal roads, drinking water, waste-water and stormwater infrastructure and found that one-third of these assets are at risk, requiring significant investment in the years ahead.

On top of these current challenges, new federal waste-water regulations pose a troubling challenge for our communities. The new building Canada fund has renewed funding in this critical area. However, even if every dollar were to be invested into updating municipal waste-water systems, it would not be enough by itself.

Municipalities across the country supported the new waste-water regulations when they were introduced several years ago. Local governments must comply to upgrade existing water and sewer infrastructure by 2040. Highest risk systems will be required to meet the new obligations by 2020.

FCM continues to call for dedicated funding to assist with meeting the new federal waste-water obligations given the scope of the challenge, especially for our smaller communities. We estimate the full costs of meeting the new federal regulations to be $18 billion, with $3.4 billion needed to meet the 2020 deadline.

Here are some examples: Madam Young, in your riding, metro Vancouver will need to find $700 million to upgrade the Lions Gate waste-water plant by 2020. Mr. Watson, Chatham-Kent, your neighbouring community, will require $16 million for upgrades in addition to the projects already in their capital plan. In Montreal, the estimated cost of compliance with these federal regulations sits at around $1 billion alone. In total, Quebec communities are under pressure to upgrade 174 systems, 30 of which will need to start now to hit the 2020 deadline.

Canadians expect all governments to come together to find solutions to these and other challenges. Investing in roads, bridges, transit, and water systems is one of the best ways to create local jobs and generates $1.20 in annual GDP growth for each dollar invested. In addition, investment in core infrastructure meaningfully improves the quality of life for all Canadians and helps business attract the best talent in a global market.

In order for the Canadian economy to thrive, we must ensure that the flow of goods and people in our cities and communities is not held back by crumbling roads or aging transit networks. We all know by now the cost of congestion: countless hours lost by Canadians commuting to and from work and $11 billion per year lost in productivity just in the Toronto area alone. Clearly a plan for our cities and communities is a plan for the economy.

The permanent indexed gas tax fund provides a long-term predictable investment that cities and communities can plan on and bank over time. Municipalities have repeatedly and unanimously endorsed the gas tax as a model for federal-municipal partnerships going forward.

The new building Canada fund also provides an opportunity for the federal government to partner with cities and communities, as well as with provinces and territories, to build and refurbish important municipal infrastructure across the country. Local governments have welcomed these announcements as significant steps towards a return to meeting and then exceeding historic averages for government investment in infrastructure.

There still remain a number of outstanding questions about how municipalities can access these programs. While these issues remain unresolved, jobs are not being created and core infrastructure that fuels our country's national competitiveness is not being built. Cities and communities require long-term predictable investments to move forward. We still have a lot of work to do on this front.

The OECD has reported that total infrastructure investments by all orders of government currently stand at approximately 3.9% of GDP. To put this number in perspective, Canada spent well over 4% of GDP on infrastructure during the late 1950s and through the mid-1970s, a period of urbanization and of population and economic growth. However, the level of investment then dropped to close to 2% by the late 1990s, and we are still paying for this underinvestment. The needs of Canadians and businesses are much more complex now than in decades past, and meeting these needs requires long-term investments dedicated to core economic infrastructure at the local level.

Current federal investments are a step in the right direction for the infrastructure challenges we will face today, but what about the emerging challenges that Canadians will face tomorrow?

I've spoken about the new federal requirements for local governments with respect to clean water, but our local infrastructure is also under stress from more severe weather and environmental pressures. We have all witnessed the dramatic rise in weather-related emergencies across Canada, from the flooding of the Bow River to the ice storm in the GTA, to forest fires and countless other disasters that have led to people and families being displaced, property being damaged, and local economies being disrupted.

Floods in Calgary and Toronto contributed to $3.2 billion in insurance claims by Canadian property owners in 2013. Canada's smaller rural and northern communities face additional geographical and capacity challenges responding to these events. The new building Canada fund will not be enough on its own to tackle these emerging pressures on our economy and on the cities and communities that drive it.

Canada's municipalities have consistently demonstrated that with a willing partner, we get the job done. We saw it during the great recession and it is consistently demonstrated in projects of economic significance around the country. What cities and communities need is further commitment to ensure long-term predictable and sustainable investment to tackle the challenges of today and those of tomorrow.

In closing, recent federal investments have signalled the beginning of a broader partnership with the federal government. It shows what we can achieve when municipalities and the federal government work together to ensure a strong future for Canada. We need to build upon these successes on other shared priorities, including the building of the core infrastructure that is essential to job growth and Canada's long-term economic competitiveness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for listening. I look forward to addressing any questions you may have at the appropriate time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Carlton.

We'll now move to Mr. Romoff from the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships.

[Mark Romoff, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships]

Good afternoon, and thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, the clerk, and staff for inviting me to speak with you today.

The Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization, with more than 400 members from government and the private sector right across Canada and further afield. It promotes innovative infrastructure and public services delivery solutions through the use of public-private partnerships. We provide the venue, the research, and the expertise to assist representatives at all levels of government to make smart public policy choices when procuring infrastructure. We seek to build awareness, acceptance, and adoption of P3s and we encourage all interested committee members to engage with us if you want to learn more about this particular sector.

Among our various activities across Canada and internationally, our signature event is our annual national P3 conference. This will be held in Toronto on November 2 and 3 and will be our 23rd annual event. It attracts more than 1,200 delegates from around the world. It's the largest conference of its kind and is recognized as the premier gathering of the P3 community across the world. It's a symbol of the success that P3s have had across Canada.

We take considerable pride in advancing the research agenda, promoting the next generation of talent among youth and women, and exporting Canadian expertise in the P3 sector. There are plenty of opportunities for the government to collaborate with us on these efforts.

If we were to look back at the last 20 years of infrastructure development in Canada, I would say we have come a long way, but there is more work to be done.

At the federal level, the last 10 years under successive building Canada plans have seen put in place the largest federal investments in infrastructure in Canadian history. The latest, a 10-year, $70-billion investment, including a second $1.25 billion over five years for the P3 Canada fund, has provided long-term certainty around future federal investments. In turn, we have witnessed provinces stepping up to the plate with their own long-term plans. Not to be outdone, the Province of Ontario unveiled its own 10-year plan, investing $130 billion. Action at the two senior levels of government has also given more certainty to municipalities as they develop their own long-term plans.

The recent budget 2015 announcement of an annual $1-billion public transit fund is yet another important investment that shows the federal government’s commitment to infrastructure renewal and expansion across the country.

Could more be done? Always; we know the infrastructure deficit is in the hundreds of billions of dollars, but let’s take a moment to remember where we were 20 years ago. In the early to mid-1990s, governments at all levels were faced with deficits, mounting debt, and underinvestment in infrastructure. In many ways the country was at a crisis point. Fiscal prudence since the mid to late 1990s by successive governments allowed Canada to invest heavily in infrastructure during the 2008 global financial crisis, taking on modest debt but ultimately coming out ahead of its G-7 partners.

One of the successful moves of the 1990s in Canada was a slow shift in the way government procures its infrastructure. Many realized that government alone cannot manage multiple major infrastructure projects. Tired of overbudget projects running well past their expected completion dates, governments simply could not afford the status quo.

The emergence of public-private partnerships, P3s, became an increasingly attractive option for governments. The partnering of the public and private sectors and the sharing of risk based on who is best able to manage it has led to an impeccable record of on-time, on-budget, high-quality infrastructure projects across the country.

The Confederation Bridge was one of Canada’s first P3 projects, and though it is still a huge national success story, there are now, in part because the P3 market in Canada has come a long way, 224 projects operational, under construction, or in procurement across the country. The value of the projects that have reached financial close exceeds $72 billion.

In an independent economic impact assessment of P3 projects undertaken over the 10 years between 2003 and 2012, we found that over 290,000 direct FTE jobs were created, adding $25.1 billion to the Canadian GDP, bringing in $7.5 billion in tax revenues for federal and provincial governments, and saving taxpayers $9.9 billion. These are very compelling outcomes.

Going forward, the future for P3s in Canada looks bright with new jurisdictions coming on board, including provinces, territories, municipalities, and first nations communities, and new sectors achieving prominence, including urban transit, water and waste water, social housing, energy, broadband, resource development, and government services.

We also know that P3s share widespread support among the Canadian public. In a recent survey by Nanos Research, 62% of Canadians supported the use of P3s. That support grows when they are familiar with a project in their own backyard. For example, residents in Sault Ste. Marie had support for P3s climb to over 70% with the recognition the hospital there was built under this model. In fact, the vast majority believed that without the help of the private sector, the hospital would never have been built.

We have also recently conducted across Canada focus groups and elite level surveys with municipal and aboriginal leaders that show further strong support for the use of P3s Those results will be published in the near future.

There are two important facts about P3s that I believe need to be emphasized.

First, P3s are not privatization. Government always owns the asset. The private sector simply designs, builds, finances, maintains, and in some cases operates the asset for a set period of time, but the government always owns it, controls it, and is accountable for it.

Second, P3s are not a panacea. P3s make up roughly 10% to 15% of projects across Canada. This is because they are only done where there is value for money in using the model and where risk can be appropriately transferred to the private sector. Where these conditions are not met, we will be the first to say, “Do not use public-private partnerships”.

What do we need to do to build upon the successful use of P3s in the future in order to help fight the infrastructure deficit? Municipalities and aboriginal communities face the biggest infrastructure challenges in Canada while having the lowest capacity to raise revenues. Awareness of P3s is still low among these jurisdictions and many myths still exist. Less than 25% of Canada’s P3 projects are done at the municipal level, and even more notably, only one first nations project has qualified for funding from the P3 Canada fund.

What is needed? First is capacity building at the municipal and aboriginal level. Second is streamlining the model for smaller projects that would involve less paperwork, fewer upfront costs, and easy to access technical services. Third is removing the P3 funding disincentive. Currently communities are only eligible for 25% of the costs under the P3 Canada fund, while they can receive 33% under the building Canada fund.

Our organization is also in the midst of a new research project that will look at what barriers exist to successfully procuring P3 projects in aboriginal communities. The need is clearly there, but certain barriers exist that prevent its wider use. It is our hope the research will provide a road map for government, aboriginals, and the private sector to capitalize on the success of P3s.

The new public transit fund is addressing a sector in need of better infrastructure. The Canada Line in Vancouver is a perfect example of a light rail transit project done as a design, build, finance, operate, and maintain. The provincial government has saved over $90 million compared to projects delivered this way using more traditional methods. It is now providing a direct link from the Vancouver airport to downtown.

Transit projects in Edmonton, Winnipeg, Kitchener-Waterloo, York, Toronto, and Ottawa are now under way using P3s, but we know much more needs to be done. In Toronto, a downtown subway relief line is needed, as is funding for Mayor John Tory’s SmartTrack proposal. Ottawa has plans for phase two of its LRT, and there's a need for at least two new lines in the greater Vancouver region. These are just a few examples of the needed projects across the country.

Another area to which the government can turn its attention in the same way it has for transit is water and waste water. With stringent new regulations coming into force, and given the direct health and safety impact of having safe, clean drinking water, many municipalities and first nations will need to invest in new infrastructure in these sectors.

The 2011 national assessment of water and waste-water facilities on reserves showed over $1 billion in immediate investments were needed and over $4 billion in investments were needed over the next 10 years.

P3s have a track record of success in this sector. The new Regina waste-water facility will save the city over $130 million and provide a state-of-the-art facility. Smaller towns like Goderich, Ontario, have also been able to use this model successfully, despite some who say it is only applicable to very large projects.

The last point I'd like to make to the committee has to do with Canada having taken major steps at addressing the infrastructure deficit in this country while maintaining a strong fiscal position. Furthermore, we have developed a P3 approach that is recognized globally as best in class, and Canadian industry has acquired the experience and expertise to successfully compete on the international stage.

Now is not the time to take our foot off the gas pedal. We have seen the damage of the past because of underinvestment in infrastructure, and it will be future generations that will pay the price. As the fiscal situation improves, the government should ensure that a significant portion of future surpluses is spent on infrastructure renewal. To ensure that money is stretched further, and ensure high-quality, well-maintained infrastructure that is delivered on time and on budget, I would suggest to you that public-private partnerships are a proven procurement tool at the disposal of government.

Thank you. I look forward to the discussion that will follow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Romoff.

We'll go right to questioning.

Mr. Kellway, for seven minutes.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and through you, I thank the witnesses for their presentations today.

Mr. Carlton, perhaps I could start with you.

I think you described our study today as an important one. I agree with you, but it is also, I think, a bit of a curious study in that there's no explicit purpose for it. I think you have to read between the lines.

In the absence of a clear purpose statement for what we're doing here, I was wondering if you might lend us one. If you were to say, “Guys, you ought to be studying this issue in infrastructure and this is why”, what would the why be? How would you advise that we go about this study? What metrics ought we to be using here to see whether we're meeting the purpose that you give it? I'm going to presume for a moment that the purpose is have we done it right for the last 20 years, have we spent the right amount of money on the right things, have we spent money prudently, has it been too much or too little?

Does that make sense?

[Brock Carlton]

Sure.

The purpose of this study, as far as I would advise, is that there is a history of experience in investing in infrastructure. It has different forms, different shapes, and different sizes, but in all of that there are lessons learned. There are lessons learned about how to go about the process of investing in infrastructure, about the quantum, about the kinds of collaboration that were acquired, and all with the intention of making the Canadian economy as strong and competitive as it can be and the Canadian communities environmentally sustainable as they can be.

To me, the purpose statement is that the experience has led us in lessons learned. What are those lessons learned? What is that going to tell us about the future investments in infrastructure? What's the best way to go about investing in infrastructure so that the different actors can work most effectively together and use the money most efficiently to the benefit of Canadian communities?

I think the metrics would be something sometimes as simple as job creation, the metrics that one would employ to assess economic competitiveness and growth, local economic development, and the metrics around environmentally sustainable communities and managing an environmental footprint at the local level that would be appropriate for a country of our wealth.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

You have the economic and the environmental in there. Would you throw any social criteria in there, too?

Metrolinx recently commissioned a report about transit equity in Toronto. I wonder what your thoughts are about the role of infrastructure in, broadly speaking, equity issues.

[Brock Carlton]

You're absolutely right; social issues should be included in there.

I was part of a summit last week on reducing poverty, and one of the thrusts of the conversation highlighted the importance of effective public transit as one way of helping to level the playing field and enabling those who are less fortunate to move easily around the city and go to and from jobs.

Certainly, investments in infrastructure have a strong social benefit along the lines of poverty reduction, as I was just mentioning, but also in terms of enhancing the quality of life for seniors and the quality of life for immigrants. These are the populations that disproportionately use public transit. Investments in public transit and investments in infrastructure help to create, as I said, a more level playing field for the various groups and those less fortunate than others in our society

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

You've laid out a number of metrics for us. Broadly speaking, what are the major lessons learned over the last 20 years?

[Brock Carlton]

One of them would be that infrastructure investments should be maintained at a level of somewhere between 4% and 5% of GDP. One of the facts of our history is that we were at that level, and then there was a dip, and we're paying for the fact that we took our foot off the pedal for a period of probably a couple of decades. The lesson there is that we need an appropriate and sustained level of investment in infrastructure.

The second lesson would be that it is much more effective for infrastructure investments to be framed in long-term, predictable financing arrangements, so that our interests—well, in our case, obviously municipalities—are able to understand the level of investments from the federal government and understand it over the long term so that they can actually plan.

When we find ourselves in an environment in which infrastructure funding is short term and ad hoc, what that situation means is that municipalities can't plan for the long term. It's harder to plan for a sustainability agenda, harder to plan for a P3 environment, if you don't know what your longer-term investment scenario is going to look like.

That's covering some degree of order of magnitude, the long term and the predictable. I think it is a fair assessment that all three orders of government are in this, as well as private sector and other entities, but right now my remarks are specifically with the three orders of government. The three orders of government need to be putting resources into the game so that the collective investment in infrastructure is significant and sizeable.

Also, if you're going to frame infrastructure programming that is going to have results on the ground, you have to work with the municipalities. The municipalities have to be partners in the design of whatever the infrastructure investment program or framework is going to be and in the design of the metrics that allow us over time to monitor and evaluate success of those investments. I would say that's the key.

There are three features there that I think are lessons learned from where we've come from, over...I know this study is 20 years, but one could expand the scope beyond that and consider those as key lessons learned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Mr. McGuinty, you may have seven minutes.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Carlton, picking up on your lessons learned, can you tell us right now what your understanding is? Leaving aside the gas tax, how much money is the federal government investing in infrastructure this fiscal year, from April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016?

[Brock Carlton]

I don't have the figure for 2015.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

You don't have a figure for this fiscal year?

[Brock Carlton]

No, we don't have a figure for this specific fiscal year. We know what the frame is for the new building Canada fund over the five- and ten-year timeframe, but I don't have a figure for this fiscal year, partly because it's on a project-by-project basis. Projects need to get under way, and then receipts need to be sent in to the government for payment.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

For your members, up to what amount would that be? Is it unlimited?

[Daniel Rubinstein, Manager, Policy and Research, Federation of Canadian Municipalities]

For the building Canada fund in particular, the cost share varies from 32% as a typical federal maximum, and as we talked about before, currently there's a 25% cap on it, if it's procured through P3.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I understand that. How much money are we talking about? You represent the FCM, thousands of municipalities. How much money is available to your members this year? If they make applications for this fiscal year, how much infrastructure money is available?

[Daniel Rubinstein]

I think the key, again, is to look at a program such as the building Canada fund, which is application-based, over the duration of the program. What our members look at is whether they can bank against a guarantee of having a project funded. As Mr. Carlton said, they get reimbursed when construction happens. Right now, at the beginning of a program like this, what matters is that guarantee.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Going back, Mr. Carlton, to one of your lessons learned, “long-term, predictable financing arrangements” for planning, is this a long-term, predictable financing arrangement for planning?

[Brock Carlton]

Do you mean the new building Canada fund?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

No. How much money is available to your members? If I'm a mayor from a small town right now and I want to apply and I call up your offices, can you tell me how much money I can apply for?