Debates of Feb. 26th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Federal Infrastructure Plan

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely thrilled to begin my speech by replying to my hon. colleague from Essex.

This debate is far too serious to play the “my dad is stronger than your dad” game. The Liberals invented the infrastructure program and really emphasized it. This is not about what has been done, but what we can do right now, and that is the goal of my colleague's motion. We are not judging what has already been done. We can be critical and partisan. Besides, it was minority Liberal governments that helped bring forward this kind of budget.

What is important today is to reflect appropriately on the federal government's role in relation to the municipalities. We must not get caught up in a constitutional dispute, since some will say that municipalities are creatures of the provinces. The reality is that sharing, funding and pilot projects will help improve people's quality of life.

The Liberal Party and I will be supporting today's motion. We believe that not only is it important to do so, but the motion itself is also consistent with our party's position on infrastructure.

Indeed, we need an effective strategy and we need to listen to our constituents. As my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher said earlier, we now have an infrastructure deficit of $171 billion. What is more, we also know that over 30% of existing infrastructure is failing and in deplorable condition. Of course, no single municipality or provincial government will be able to resolve the situation.

At present, we have a serious governance problem. One of the most important measures that we need to adopt is what is known as “dedicated funds”. Now, we have a certain amount of money, we set that money aside and we do not necessarily know where that money will go. If we want to be effective when it comes to transportation, housing and infrastructure, we need to bring back the notion of “dedicated funds” for urban transit and basic infrastructure. When it comes to infrastructure, if we are talking more and more about sustainable development, we also need to do things differently, to do them correctly.

We must find a new way to invest more, particularly in the greater Montreal area, where there are problems with bridges and public transportation. This is the digital age and we have new management methods, as my colleague, the official opposition transport critic, said, and the whole notion of productivity is closely tied to infrastructure.

That is why the Prime Minister at the time, Paul Martin, was the first to talk about bringing back the gas tax. I commend this Conservative government for having the good sense to make it permanent. Just because we are in the opposition does not mean that we must oppose everything. Of the many initiatives put forward at the time, making this tax permanent was a good thing, but we must now double it and index it.

It is an ongoing process. We need to make sure that from now on it is not only permanent, but it is indexed and doubled. This is key.

My colleague from Essex was right when he talked about its importance to municipalities, but it is not a one-shot deal. We need to find a better way with these dedicated funds to provide the right funding for the future. It is a good policy, so we have to go further than that, I would suggest.

One of the problems was that we thought we knew the Conservatives' track record since 2007. The reality is that we will renew this plan in 2014. If we want to do so, we must start now to develop benchmarks for the future. We must think in terms of dedicated funds and also long-term funding.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, for one, is talking about planning for up to 20 years. This must be the start of a discussion on governance. We may be able to think about a 20-year span, but with renewals every five years. Do we need benchmarks? They do not necessarily need to be written in stone.

We definitely need to redefine the long-term vision. We can no longer operate only in the short term. In the current context, we also often need to take measures that will give the municipalities the tools they need—updated tools—even if they are receiving money on a permanent basis. Unfortunately, this is too often not enough. The Liberal Party is supportive of a long-term fiscal commitment to municipal infrastructure.

We have been calling for predictable and sustainable funding for a long time. We need to redefine what we mean by “infrastructure” in order to determine whether we are referring to productivity, housing or other aspects.

When I was president of the Privy Council, I called it “smart regulation”. We need to bring back the notion of smart cities. Smart cities mean smart citizens and smart regulations. It is not just based on mortar; different digital strategies have to be put forward as well.

We are proud of our country. However, people identify less and less with their country or continent and, instead, identify with their city. We must go beyond the issue of jurisdiction and share tools interdepartmentally. It is no good to have a department responsible for infrastructure. Human resources, the Minister of Industry and the person responsible for innovation must work together to acquire the necessary tools. The word “infrastructure” must be clearly defined.

For that reason, I think we must consider holding a federal-provincial conference. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister may be meeting with premiers individually instead. It has been too long since the last federal-provincial conference. We need a specific strategy for infrastructure and the future of the municipalities. We must develop tools in order to improve people's quality of life. I am thinking about green infrastructure, digital infrastructure and core infrastructure.

Montreal is having major problems despite all the money invested. We are still losing 40% of our drinking water, despite current investments. We do not need just the money that is currently being invested. We also need to acquire the necessary tools so that the government can invest more. As hon. members know, entities other than the Canadian government are responsible for over 60% of all infrastructure projects.

The government needs to develop a national public transit strategy with funding of its own, and a national general infrastructure and funding strategy.

Above all, I think that the government must avoid partisanship. It has to give itself permission to commend past investments and it has to come up with the right tools. There is still a long road ahead and a lot of work to do.

Earlier, the hon. member for Essex was talking about all the money from the building Canada fund. Instead of talking in concrete terms about the future, he said that the Conservatives have invested more than the Liberals. I would like to point out that an extraordinary minister, a prominent politician and a great Canadian, Herb Gray, also played a role in his region. We do not need to get into who is better. We need to start recognizing the infrastructure sector.

It is an ongoing issue. It is not just based on what one has done in the past, or if one has invested more than another. It is all about what is in it for the future. The more we invest for the future, the more impact we will have on the quality of our lives, on sustainable development and on other policies. However, we have to realize that if we do not have that kind of strategy, it will have an impact on human resources.

As a former minister of immigration, I was always there to discuss with my counterparts the future within the cities. For example, 87% of all the immigration goes through Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.

Of course, we need that kind of dialogue. We need the infrastructure. We need the transport because it has a direct impact on quality of life. This is not just an infrastructure debate; it is all about what kind of society we want to live in and what the future should be for our great country.

This motion may be the beginning of an interesting debate. As my party's critic for transport, infrastructure and communities, I already started having this conversation on the future of infrastructure at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I imagine there is a cause and effect relationship between that and the NDP's opposition motion. That is why we are in favour of this motion and why it must be adopted.

I think we need to take this debate further. This is an extremely broad issue. As far as repairs are concerned, we are talking about improving productivity in Canada, as I was saying earlier, and we are talking about partnership and transparent funding for the long term.

There is another important aspect that the government side touched on earlier.

It is important to make sure we are not living in a one-size-fits-all, so for every policy and program we promote, it is also important that we realize it is not just the major cities, but all the communities. If we want to make sure we are inclusive and everyone feels like a first class citizen, we will have to make sure we are listening to them.

This is an opportunity to counter cynicism. All political parties in this House must work together on this. It is a motion. We are constantly reminded by this government that a motion is not really binding. In my opinion, this could be the start of a worthwhile debate.

When I go out to speak to the people in my riding of Bourassa and the people of my city, Montreal—I am referring to the Montreal metropolitan area—many people talk to us about this issue. They do not have questions about the Constitution. They believe that we are all part of the solution and that we have specific work to do.

We have talked about social development and sustainable development. However, economic development is extremely important. If we want to be one of the world's great countries, and if we want to ensure that all cities can accommodate more businesses, it is important that our cities have decent infrastructure. Canada is an exporting country and does a huge amount of business with the rest of the world. We have to study what infrastructure can do for economic development and quality of life.

For example, as we prepare to enter into a free trade agreement with Europe, we must ensure that we put this infrastructure in place, because when European businesses want to become established in Canada, they will go to Montreal and have a look at the infrastructure. This is not just about the cities and provinces. When these people arrive, we welcome them to Canada. If we really want to welcome them to Canada, we have to ensure that we build proper infrastructure and that we work towards that.

I am very pleased to have participated in the debate on today's motion and, on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, I can say that we will support this motion.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and am very pleased to see that the Liberal Party of Canada supports the opposition's motion. However, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question.

When the Liberal Party of Canada was in power, why did the Liberals just talk about this issue and make promises? They failed to take real action to support infrastructure in Quebec and Canada. Why do they have the bad habit of constantly signalling left and turning right?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that question is somewhat unfortunate.

First, I am an extremist of the centre: my heart is on the left and my wallet on the right. Second, one thing is certain: we invented the infrastructure program. As Minister of Sport, I remember I made sure I put forward component 3 so that there could be recreational and tourism development, which made it possible to build the Rivière-du-Loup arena and various sport infrastructure facilities. I can tell my colleague from Sherbrooke that the green and gold is playing football today because your humble servant provided the stadium for the under-17 Canadian Track and Field Championships.

I find it somewhat unfortunate that the member is engaging in partisanship. We are in favour of infrastructure development. We put infrastructure in place. We made massive infrastructure investments. We must invest more.

Despite the curveball he is throwing me, we will nevertheless support this motion because it is more important to invest for people than to score minor political points.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech on infrastructure.

I was pleased that he emphasized, for example, the fact that 40% of treated water in Montreal still seeps into the soil. Consequently, failure to invest in infrastructure has a cost, a cost in terms of waste, in terms of the transportation of goods and in terms of the economy and trade. I would like him to tell us a little more about the cost of the Conservative government's inaction.

Second, since we know that the municipalities are being squeezed, that they are responsible for several types of infrastructure and that they do not have a lot of leverage to raise financial resources, I wonder what he thinks about the fact that, with PPP Canada, the federal government is limiting the municipalities' requests for federal government assistance in a highly ideological and obtuse way. All projects have to be PPPs, when the municipalities might want to take the conventional route or go their own way. What does he think about that?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his very pertinent question.

I agree that too often, unfortunately, the Conservative government takes a partisan approach. However, the official opposition should not follow the government's lead either. We currently are experiencing leadership and follow-up problems. In particular, we see what is happening with the Charbonneau commission. One thing is certain: we must not reject the PPP model outright. The Canadian government must assume its role as a full partner, but it must also invest and give itself the tools it needs to resolve certain matters. That does not mean that we have to go this route, but if the PPP model is one possible solution, then it should not be rejected outright.

That said, we should have dedicated funds for transportation, for example. The issue here is sustainable development. It makes no sense for a municipality to lose 40% of its water. Clearly, investing is important, but equally important, leadership must be redefined. As a large municipality, Montreal must play a leading role, but the same also holds true for all Canadian municipalities.

So yes, the government must change its partisan approach. Yes, there must be dedicated funds. Perhaps by having dedicated funds and a genuine national strategy, the government—which unfortunately believes that a government means less government—will be able to address the problems. However, I would advise my colleague not to go to the other extreme and to weigh all of the options. The PPP model could very well be a good option, but that does not mean it is a panacea either.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the answers from my colleague. One of the things I would ask him to re-emphasize or talk about is the importance of infrastructure, in general, and the role the federal government plays, because at the end of the day, municipalities all over Canada do not have the financial resources to meet their needs, in terms of building their infrastructure. I wonder if he would comment on that.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke in French before about when I was the sports minister. I can assure the member that the federal government has a major role to play. When we had the Pan American Games in Manitoba in 1999, it showed a very direct, concrete approach where the federal government could play a role.

Now, that is about sports and recreation and leisure. However, at the same time, if we are talking about sustainable development now, if we are talking about transport, if we are talking about the economy as a whole, I think the federal government has a role to play.

Of course, we can be respectful of our jurisdiction. I know a lot of people would say that the municipalities are a provincial jurisdiction. However, at the same time, I think we have no choice now but to talk to each other, because if the federal government is not included in some of the partnerships, it would have a direct impact upon our citizens. That is why the federal government did that with the gas tax. That is why we have those infrastructure programs.

We have to stop saying look at what we have done in the past. We have to look ahead and send a clear message to our taxpayers that the federal government has a role to play and it would have a direct impact on their own quality of life.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the website of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities says there has been an infrastructure deficit, a backlog of delayed repairs and construction that hurts every Canadian family and business. It says that, for 25 years, Canadians have watched the symptoms of the infrastructure deficit grow—rusting bridges, crumbling roads, crowded buses and subways and thousands of drinking water warnings. It points out that municipalities own 53% of the infrastructure in this country but receive only 8¢ of every tax dollar paid in Canada.

Of course, 25 years is a long time to develop an infrastructure deficit, but it has been estimated at over $100 billion. Since 1988, we have had successive Conservative and Liberal governments. I am wondering if my hon. friend can comment on how he thinks such an infrastructure deficit was created if Liberal and Conservative federal governments had been doing their job properly, or is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities incorrect about what it is saying?

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps some questions need to be put to the provincial NDP governments.

It is not a matter of labelling; it is a matter of what is for the future. That is the reason why, in 1993, we put up that infrastructure program. It is never enough. Of course we have to recuperate for the sake of our future. We just mentioned in Montreal that we are losing 40% of our drinkable water. So it is not about who we should blame; it is about what are we ready to do together to make things better. I think that is the essence of the motion. It is everybody's business, in a non-partisan way. We have to push forward.

New structures and funding plan timetables will be just as important as increases in funding. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities is also asking for increased infrastructure funding based on a percentage of GDP, to match levels reached between 1950 and 1970.

Acknowledging that there is a problem is the first step. Yes, solutions have been put forward, but between now and 2014, the infrastructure plan needs to be renewed in keeping with certain parameters and investment strategies. The Canadian government has a role to play, and it needs to invest in our infrastructure.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Beaches—East York.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the motion introduced by my colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina. I sit on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, where, week after week, we witness the Conservatives' failure to do something about the infrastructure-related problem that will arise in a year when the Building Canada Fund expires.

At the start of his speech, the Conservative member said that investing in infrastructure means investing in community development. I entirely agree with him, but I do not see how he can say that, then turn around and say that he will be voting against our motion, because that is what the motion is about. We want a stable, long-term, non-partisan infrastructure investment plan.

When we say infrastructure, we are talking about four classes: roads, highways, the sewer system and water treatment and supply facilities, and bridges. The current application-based process is flawed. We noted that when we conducted a public transit study.

For example, if a community says it needs a better sewer system, it cannot also apply for its public transit system because that would cause several of its projects to compete with one another. What is also unfortunate about individual applications, and we are currently seeing this, is that it is very easy for a majority government such as this one to make partisan decisions, to favour certain communities because they vote for the government and to fund projects that will improve the lives of the citizens of those communities while the community next door, particularly Quebec, will not receive much because it does not vote for the government. That is what I find unfortunate.

I will begin by saying exactly what we want, and then I will cite specific examples of the problems Montreal and my riding face every day, problems that could be solved by agreeing to the motion my colleague is introducing today.

We are asking for the necessary tools to manage infrastructure funding effectively. We want an effective long-term infrastructure plan to be announced in the 2013 budget, a plan based on ongoing consultations with the provinces, territories, municipalities and aboriginal communities. This government consults less than most, even though it has boasted all morning that it is conducting consultations. We want this to be written down so that we can see it happen.

Like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, we want a 20-year plan, one that permits better long-term planning and support for long-term projects. Ultimately, if a municipality wants to carry out a long-term project—I just heard my Liberal colleague mention a football stadium in Sherbrooke—that represents enormous costs for it. We need to know that there is a federal fund that will help us support that. The federal government is providing a smaller and smaller percentage of infrastructure-related costs. A 20-year plan would enable us to do a better job of planning projects and federal government support for major projects.

Next, we want the plan to include clear targets and funding criteria. We want transparent, accountable, non-partisan funding mechanisms to facilitate the application process. As I explained earlier, partisanship is the order of the day right now, so we want a plan that will prevent that from happening.

As well, we want a plan that encourages the use of innovative technologies for greater efficiency and sustainability. We want to set aside funds for replacing and expanding infrastructure in rural, remote and northern regions, and for public transit, to reduce commuting times between home and work.

Public transit is a major issue for Montreal, so I am going to say a little more about that. I will start with two quotations that support my argument. Quebec's transportation ministry produced a report on traffic congestion that says:

By 2016, the number of trips per day in the Montreal metropolitan area will increase by two million, a 25% increase, and we will have to manage 10.2 million trips per day.

This goes to show that we have a lot of congestion in Montreal. As further evidence, I read about a TomTom GPS survey in The Gazette. I quote:

A North American traffic survey conducted by the TomTom GPS manufacturer found that of the 26 cities studied, Montreal ranked number four when it came to traffic delays. ... Montrealers are delayed a total of 92 hours a year because of traffic jams.

So we are wasting 92 hours of our lives sitting in our cars. That is incredible.

People in my riding are coping with some really serious problems. Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lachine, Dorval and Montreal West are located on the west side of Montreal. Unfortunately, I do not have a metro station in my riding because I live on the outskirts. We manage with the commuter trains and the bus system, which are unfortunately not very efficient.

MPs from Montreal met with the STM officials two weeks ago to talk about this. I asked them what was happening. In my riding, when I travel from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce to Lachine by car, it takes me 10 minutes. Walking is not really an option; it would take an hour because it involves crossing highway 20. Buses are rare, and they take about an hour and a half. Some of my employees who live in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, in my relatively small riding, spend over an hour on the bus.

Constituents have called me to say that they would like to come and see me at my office, but that getting there is a problem. The Loyola campus of Concordia University is in my riding. A lot of students find this situation difficult. The 92 hours they spend on public transit means 92 hours they cannot spend studying or working, if they need to work because tuition fees are high, but that is a whole different issue.

This is really a problem. These people who come to see me are families who cannot spend time with their children, or partners who see less of each other. It is sad.

The Train de l'Ouest—the line from Vaudreuil to downtown—is another project in my riding. We have a lot of problems with that line. It is the only train that travels fairly quickly from my riding to downtown Montreal, but not often. There are 16 trains a day, and we are having trouble getting more funding to completely rebuild the western line. It will be very expensive. We do not yet know what is going to happen with this project. The federal government has not promised to provide enough money to improve the situation. This affects my constituents’ quality of life.

I find it sad for the people who voted for the Conservatives. Their slogan was: my region in power. If the people voted for the Conservatives, money would flow to the riding. If they did not vote for the Conservatives, then there would be no money. Senator Smith, who at the time was running in Lac-Saint-Louis, said that if constituents wanted the Train de l'Ouest, then they needed to vote for him. Sadly, it seems he was right.

I would like to conclude by mentioning another misguided infrastructure project in my riding, namely the Vendôme metro station. It is not accessible. A person with disabilities cannot access the metro, yet the new Montreal hospital is under construction a mere 20 minutes away.

We want a stable, long-term, non-partisan infrastructure plan, one that addresses problems of this nature. Right now, the situation is discouraging. I hope the 2013 budget contains a plan. VIA Rail was hit with massive cuts, which is very sad.

I hope that the government will continue to invest in infrastructure and give us projects that make sense.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, it helps to look at the recent history. Twenty years ago there was no federal funding for municipal infrastructure. Municipalities handled their own infrastructure without federal programs. Throughout the last two decades, programs have formed to fund capital projects, and we now have the very generous gas tax transfer. Our government made it permanent, and it has drastically increased municipal revenues.

Municipal revenues have grown by over 60% in the last decade, even though inflation and population growth combined have been roughly 30%. On top of that, direct revenue to the municipalities, such as large capital programs like the economic action plan and the building Canada fund, fund one-third of the costs of individual projects.

We have seen a massive increase in federal and provincial resources available to municipalities to fund their infrastructure and a prodigious increase in the direct revenues that municipalities enjoy, yet the NDP still believes that more money is the solution to our infrastructure problems.

My question is this: why did the NDP vote against all of the previously instituted programs that have so dramatically increased the resources available to our municipalities?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We voted against the omnibus budget bills because in our opinion, they contained hundreds of provisions that were unfair to Canadians. I will answer my colleague’s question with one of my own, because he very much enjoys doing the same thing.

Why is Canada the only G8 country without a long-term strategy in place to fund public transit? Why must I tell my constituents that Canada cannot have public transit systems because the government is unwilling to pay for them? Why do northern communities still not have access to drinking water owing to the lack of government funding?

Admittedly, some positive measures have been taken in the past, but we are not talking about the past. We are talking about what will happen in two years’ time, in 2014, when funding under the building Canada plan ends. Will we be able to assure municipalities that stable, non-partisan funding will be available for them?

Our colleague opposite is currently keeping mum about that. He claims to have helped municipalities. However, when we look at where the money went in Canada, it is clear that the funding was allocated in a partisan way. What we want is a non-partisan funding process. My colleague opposite has been unable to answer that question.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we listen to members on the government side, it is clear from the way they talk about how perfectly cities work today that they either have never taken a bus or a subway or they have never ventured into a city.

Just this weekend the United Way and McMaster University tabled a study about precarious work. It stated that roughly 50% of all workers in southern Ontario work in precarious employment. They have part-time jobs or contract jobs. They cobble a living together with a variety of different employment sources. The issue around public transit and gridlock is particularly important to this incredibly precarious group of workers.

We need stable funding and we need a plan. Today's motion talks about a plan. We want government members to take a plan seriously so that we can work through the gridlock.

I wonder if my colleague could make some suggestions as to why the Conservatives are so afraid to sit down with municipalities and work out a plan.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

I know that Toronto and other major cities in southern Ontario have the same issue as Montreal concerning transportation and quality of life. In the report, I read that 92 hours are eaten up by transportation, and that amounts to a lot of days.

Our plan is to sit down with the provinces and territories, aboriginal communities and other communities to see what needs to be done and what direction we should take.

I did not have a chance to mention this earlier, but we want reports tabled on a regular basis so that we can see where the money was invested and determine where improvements can be made.

We need to start by discussing a plan with the provinces and territories, aboriginal peoples and communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the NDP opposition day motion put forward by my colleague, a champion of Canadian municipalities, the member for Trinity—Spadina.

The basis for the motion today is fundamentally economic, and it is succinctly captured in the submission from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to the government on this matter last November. The introduction to that submission reads in part:

Municipal infrastructure provides the foundation on which our economy rests. Small businesses need quality roads and bridges to deliver goods and services. Workers need fast, efficient public transit to connect them with jobs. And growing companies count on high-quality community services, from libraries to hockey rinks, to attract skilled workers. Yet today, those foundations are buckling under the strain.

In these terms, support for today's motion seems pretty obvious, and so it is that there is a broad near consensus outside of this House for the motion we are discussing today. As we will hear throughout the day, the call for a long-term, predictable, accountable federal infrastructure plan in partnership with other levels of government is supported by business leaders, trade unions, economists, civil society organizations, experts of all kinds and, of course, municipal leaders.

I say “near consensus” because there are still those who seem to lie outside this consensus. They are, curiously enough, the two federal parties, the Conservatives and Liberals, who have swapped power back and forth over the last 40-plus years, as they withdrew investment, indeed withdrew the federal government, and watched the foundations of our economy and municipalities crumble.

In seven years of government, the Conservatives have yet to even acknowledge the urban reality of the country we live in, the fact that nearly 80% of Canadians live in cities. They seem entirely incapable of imagining a Canadian economy other than resource extraction or a Canadian economy led by the necessarily social urban process of innovation. Thus, we get the dismantling of federal environmental framework to facilitate resource extraction, in place of a modern and environmentally sustainable economic strategy that sees cities as the place to research, develop, create, innovate and exploit the enormous opportunities to tackle climate change.

The Liberal Party is the same, having reduced infrastructure funding throughout the 1990s. It has never given more than lip service and pennies when real full dollars were called for. More than that, it downloaded federal fiscal challenges to other orders of government, ultimately to our cities, which is the order of government least able to maintain, much less build, infrastructure, collecting, as they do, only eight cents on the dollar in tax revenue.

We can watch the trend line of investment in infrastructure as it goes steadily down from its high of about 3% of GDP in the late 1950s and early 1960s, to bouncing along the bottom through the latest Liberal majority governments at about 1.5%. That difference represents about $24 billion in missing annual investment in public infrastructure, according to a recent study. That same study shows that net investment in infrastructure was actually negative for two years of Liberal government, as existing public infrastructure stock depreciated faster than new development.

Now, if all else had stayed the same, that would be one thing; that would be trouble enough. However, the technological, political and economic context has been changing as well over the last 40 years. Broadly, we call it “globalization”, but the implication is that old ways of governance have to give way to new ways of governance that recognize the political and economic importance of urban regions and economies. As one observer put it, “A practical implication is that cities have become central to the study of federalism”.

Therefore, this motion takes place in the context of Canadian federal politics that is and has been for very many years out of step with the rest of the developed world in terms of its understanding and respect for the role of our cities in a global economy in generating wealth for our country. In most other developed countries and economies, governments have become major players in the financial, economic and cultural life of their cities, and it is past time for ours to do the same.

Instead, we are left with this enormous infrastructure deficit, estimated at over $170 billion. It is a deficit that is so obvious to every citizen of my city, the city of Toronto.

We have famed urbanist and urban economist Jane Jacobs, who could say of Toronto in 1969, “Here is the most hopeful and healthy city in North America, still unmangled, still with options”. By 2004, in her book Dark Age Ahead, she described the town that she had made her home as “a city in crisis; indeed, multiple crises”. However, one need not have the keen eye of Jacobs to be frustrated and concerned. As the Conservatives and Liberals swapped power back and forth over the last 40 years, the contours of these crises, to use Jacobs' term, became increasingly obvious.

For those who have not witnessed their emergence, as Jacobs did, the transition over 40-plus years has been amply and convincingly recorded in statistics and maps by University of Toronto Professor David Hulchanski and colleagues. That could take us through 40 years of growing social and spatial inequity and economic decline in a kind of tour de force of time-lapse cartography. The final image we are left with is a Toronto that has been divided into three socially, economically and spatially discrete cities within the city, with great swaths of Toronto's geography characterized by the absence of infrastructure. These are infrastructure deserts of various kinds.

We have in Toronto what the Toronto board of trade calls “a conundrum”, a city of strong economic fundamentals, but not world-leading productivity, GDP or disposable income growth. With the Toronto region providing nearly 50% of Ontario's GDP and 20% of Canada's GDP, solving this conundrum seems imperative. The board of trade itself points to infrastructure as what needs to be addressed first and foremost. It describes it as “the biggest threat to our continued growth and economic prosperity in the Toronto region and Ontario generally”.

While the lack of infrastructure, and the crumbling infrastructure generally, poses an enormous obstacle to Toronto's growth and prosperity, it is public transit that is the top priority of the board's members because of “its outsized impact on the Toronto region's global competitiveness”. This is an analysis and priority shared by many other organizations studying Toronto's economy in the global context.

As of 2006, it was estimated that the cost of congestion to the economy of the Toronto region was $6 billion annually. That is an old figure now. However, the outlook is even more grim as Toronto continues to grow, with one of the fastest urban growth rates globally. Every year we add about 100,000 people to our city, so that within 20 years Toronto will be 50% bigger. Absent any significant action, the productivity cost of poor public transit will skyrocket to an estimated $15 billion annually. In terms that are more easy to relate to, that means Toronto commuters, already experiencing the longest commute times in North America, can look forward to spending an extra three work weeks per year stuck in traffic.

We are the only OECD and G8 country without a national transit strategy. At our economic peril, do we continue to be so. It is well past time for the government to drop its aversion to thinking ahead and put in place, in partnership with other levels of government, a long-term, predictable infrastructure plan. Join the consensus.

The crises that Jane Jacobs referred to are, in her terms, “the tangible consequences of tangible mistakes”. They need not be so forever. We can fix these problems and grasp the great opportunities that lie before us. To start, we should support today's motion.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to ensure the federal government commits to an infrastructure funding plan on a long-term horizon. The important piece is that communities cannot keep going year by year to find out if they are going to get infrastructure dollars.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario states:

Every day, municipal infrastructure provides the foundation that allows our residents and businesses to participate effectively in the modern economy. For example, transportation infrastructure connects people to jobs, consumers to producers and enables businesses to bring their products to market, both locally and abroad. In fact, research by Statistics Canada notes that businesses save 11 cents for every dollar invested in public infrastructure. In manufacturing, a large component of Ontario's economy, costs are reduced by 22 cents for each dollar that is invested.

When we look at the infrastructure dollars, it is not just about the services that are being provided to people in those communities; it is with respect to the economy.

I will ask my colleague to speak a bit more about the important piece that is missing by the current government. Even with the economic action plan, we saw from community to community how some of them found the timelines too tight. They need more flexibility, and long-term funding would do that. Could my colleague elaborate on that a bit more?

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

Mr. Speaker, indeed the motion calls for long-term funding that municipalities can rely on. The investments required are so enormous and the planning horizons so long that municipalities are understandably concerned and afraid about making investments in their own infrastructure in the absence of a long-term plan and partnership.

My colleague is quite correct that this is fundamentally about economics. I have seen statistics that show that businesses benefit 17¢ on the dollar for every dollar invested in infrastructure, and of course there are multiplier effects from that. One only needs to look at the appendices to the government's own budget documents to see that investing in infrastructure pays great economic dividends for job growth in this country. Most importantly, it is about connecting workers to jobs. In a city like Toronto, that is a hugely difficult thing to do with the presence of public transit deserts.

My colleague from Davenport referenced a United Way and McMaster University study talking about precarious work and the need for almost 50% of workers in southern Ontario to stitch part-time jobs together that are not next door to each other. That means workers have to get on buses and travel for two hours to a part-time job, at the end of which they get on another bus or streetcar and travel for another couple of hours. This is not good for the productivity of our city or our country.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from the Beaches on his speech. He covered a lot of issues there. However, I want to outline that the Toronto Region Board of Trade says that gridlock is now the greatest threat to economic prosperity in the region. We know there are six million people in the GTA, which is the largest urban municipality in Canada. People in this House do not generally talk about concerns about Toronto because they think everything is hunky-dory there, but we have a significant crisis, as the member has pointed out.

Could the member comment on why members opposite, who continue to talk about the mantra of jobs, growth and prosperity, may not support what this partnership that is implied in the strategy is all about?

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

Mr. Speaker, I confess I do not know the answer to my colleague's question. It confounds me. The government purports to be concerned about jobs and prosperity in this country, and yet we see an obvious failure to invest in Canada's largest urban economy, with clear detrimental economic effects.

It is interesting that the board of trade and its members identify public transit as the biggest problem in Toronto. That is the opinion by way of a survey of its membership.

I suggest that the Conservatives stop using the Liberals as the bar that they need to get over because that bar is very close to the ground, if not below ground, and that they start to turn some attention to fixing the economy and the real-life concerns of Canadians.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this opposition motion today. I do not know whether I would use the word “ironic” or “humourous” to describe how, finally, after seven years, New Democrats have realized that we need infrastructure in this country. Hopefully, they will support and recognize some of the things that we have done.

The record of our government on infrastructure is very obvious and very strong. We believe that modern, world-class public infrastructure is vitally important across the country. It provides the foundation for vibrant, prosperous communities while at the same time creating jobs and strengthening our economy.

Our government has made a commitment to develop a new approach to infrastructure. We have developed an approach to infrastructure investments that is providing long-term, predictable funding for both large-scale and local priorities, the building Canada plan. Launched in 2007, a $33 billion building Canada plan was an unprecedented federal investment in the nation's infrastructure. The building Canada plan provides funding over seven years and includes several programs and initiatives, including the building Canada fund, the provincial-territorial base fund and the gas tax fund.

Taken together, these and other programs represent a comprehensive suite of infrastructure investments providing funding over a seven-year timeframe. This is the longest commitment that any government in recent history has made to infrastructure. The programs provide the flexibility to meet local needs while supporting national priorities.

I want to highlight how these programs are playing an important role in supporting and renewing public infrastructure across the country.

It is important to underline that when the global economic downturn in 2009 hit the Canadian economy, our government supplemented existing infrastructure funding programs by providing timely, targeted and temporary funding, such as topping up the building Canada fund communities component and launching the infrastructure stimulus fund.

The building Canada fund provides funding through a dual approach. It addresses national and regional priorities as well as community initiatives. The major infrastructure component of the fund focuses on larger strategic projects of national and regional significance that deliver economic, environmental and social benefits; the communities component supports local initiatives through funding set aside for projects in communities with populations of less than 100,000.

I want to point out that I will be splitting my time with the hon. Minister of State (Transport).

The communities component recognizes the unique infrastructure needs of Canada's smaller communities and focuses on projects that meet economic, environmental and quality-of-life objectives. Originally established at $1 billion, the fund received a $500 million top-up in 2009 under the economic action plan. To date, that program has funded more than 1,400 smaller-scale projects that improve water, waste water, public transit, local roads and other types of community infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, I know that many of those projects were in your riding, my riding and the ridings of many other members in the House. The NDP decided to abandon smaller communities by not supporting that government action.

While the major infrastructure component of the building Canada fund targets larger-scale projects, these projects can be found in both big cities and small communities. They are projects that not only benefit the communities in which they are located but have farther-reaching benefits that are of regional and national importance. Through this fund we are seeing the concrete and lasting results of strategic investments in water and waste water treatment. We are supporting the movement of people and goods through investments in public transit and in our national transportation system.

For example, residents in Nipigon, Ontario, recently celebrated the completion of upgrades to their waste water treatment centre. These upgrades mean an improvement in the quality of water released into Nipigon Bay on Lake Superior, supporting the health of local residents and helping to reduce pollution in an environmentally sensitive area. This is another example of how we should care about Canada, and if New Democrats care about Canada, they should have supported that action plan.

We are contributing funding toward the completion of ring roads around Calgary and Edmonton. These ring roads will improve traffic flows, lower collision rates and streamline shipping routes in and around the two cities. Reducing traffic does not seem to be a priority of the NDP.

In Pictou County, Nova Scotia, residents are taking advantage of opportunities to get fit and stay active thanks to the recent completion of the Pictou Country Wellness Centre.

Although the building Canada fund was established for a seven-year period, funding will continue to flow beyond 2014 as construction continues on projects.

I want to talk a bit about the provincial-territorial base fund. Through this fund, provinces and territories receive predictable, stable, flexible funding geared toward their priorities. The funding is streamlined, with simplified administrative requirements. Through the fund, each province and territory was allocated a total of $175 million, receiving $25 million each year over the seven years of the program. Under the economic action plan, jurisdictions were given the additional flexibility of accelerated access to the funding in support of economic recovery.

Flexibility is not a word in the NDP dictionary, so as a dogmatic party, it also voted against this initiative.

The provincial-territorial base fund is supporting upgrades to Chilliwack's east dike that will increase flood protection to more than 40,000 people residing in the flood plain. These upgrades will help increase protection for critical infrastructure such as rail lines, the Trans-Canada Highway, oil and gas infrastructure, utilities, hospital and care facilities and a waste water treatment plant. The funding is also supporting the widening and paving of the Trans-Labrador Highway between Red Bay and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The Trans-Labrador Highway is the region's primary public road, crossing some of northeastern Canada's most remote terrain. These are significant highway improvements that will create numerous local jobs, drive economic growth and strengthen the communities there.

Just last Friday, together with the Government of Alberta, we marked the completion of 12 important highway infrastructure initiatives that are also supporting economic growth across that province. Communities across Alberta are benefiting from safer roads and improved traffic flow, which is promoting growth, job creation and economic prosperity.

To meet the unique needs and circumstances in the small communities of the three northern territories, the government combined the building Canada fund allocation in the territories with its P-T base fund allocations. The combined funding is delivered under the terms and conditions of the P-T base fund, which gives the territories considerable flexibility in addressing their infrastructure needs.

In Nunavut, Kugluktuk residents are benefiting from a new two-storey hamlet office. The building brings all hamlet employees together under one roof to increase productivity, improve service to the public and reduce operating costs. This hamlet office will have a positive impact on local residents and businesses for years to come.

Next is the gas tax fund. This is something that I and many others in the House lobbied for while we were in municipal politics. We always felt that it should come back. Even though the NDP voted against it twice, the gas tax fund allocation is now permanent, providing $2 billion per year in predictable and long-term infrastructure funding to Canada's cities and towns for local priorities. The program provides considerable flexibility. The funds do not have to be matched, they can be banked for future years and they do no require upfront application processes for individual projects. Through the gas tax fund we are providing provinces, territories and municipalities with stable, long-term funding geared toward their priorities. The funding is streamlined and flexible, with simplified administrative requirements.

Our government has a proven track record of providing infrastructure investments that are tailored and targeted to meet specific infrastructure needs. We are providing targeted investments that focus on both community and large-scale infrastructure, supporting priorities such as clean drinking water and transportation infrastructure.

Our government continues to deliver infrastructure funding that is supporting strong communities and strengthening our economy. The last thing the government would do is implement a huge, costly, job-losing carbon tax.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the member actually believes his party's rhetoric with respect to whether the NDP support infrastructure or not. He knows full well that in 2005, under pressure by the NDP, the gas tax fund set a new bar with predictable funding for five years.

Let us not forget that his government made a promise in 2011 with respect to working with the provinces, territories, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and other stakeholders. That promise is still unfulfilled. Will his government commit to doing that?

As well, I have a letter from the Township of Tehkummah, which I am sure the member is well aware is on Manitoulin Island. It is having a problem with low water levels in the channel of South Baymouth. The letter speaks to the importance of the economy for those communities without the Chi-Cheemaun. It states that the immediate participation of the federal government is required to ensure the channel is dredged for safe passage of the Chi-Cheemaun ferry to ensure the continued economic viability of the entire Manitoulin Island.

Will the member advocate for that?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the comments by the hon. member from across the way highlight how the NDP members like to live in the past. I think she recollects a dream that she had back in 2005 about their involvement in a coalition with another party. Let us get with the future here. The infrastructure provided over the last seven years that I pointed out is unprecedented in Canadian history.

She talked about the Chi-Cheemaun, a ferry that connects the north end of my riding with the south end of her riding. I am quite familiar with it. Since I live on Georgian Bay, I know what the depths of the waters are. All I can say is that a good member of Parliament would see to it that her harbour was dredged up there.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, who sits right behind me, for a great speech on what the government has accomplished and what we have done.

On behalf of Alberta, we can thank this government for those highway projects that were named last week. I know a number of the highways are going into my constituency, some of them into the community of Camrose. It is all very positive spending.

The member also talked about the gas tax rebate. That was another issue that our municipalities brought to members of Parliament; they asked if they could have it a little earlier and as long-term funding so that they could know it would be stable. This government responded to that request.

Also, as a member of Parliament I was able to get out and talk to councillors this past week, as I am sure my colleague did. They thanked me for the infrastructure money, money they had never received in the past but are receiving now from this government.

Would my colleague like to share with the House some examples from his riding of the stable, long-term infrastructure funding that we have provided for projects with long-term ramifications?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my good friend and colleague quite well. The people of Crowfoot are lucky that they have a very hard-working MP. I think he is the second-hardest-working in the country, after the MP for my riding, of course.

With respect to some of those projects, I have been very fortunate to get a number of projects that meant a lot to my riding, and not just for the municipalities that they are based in, but for the region. Two examples are Owen Sound and Hanover, at the south and north ends of my riding, which both built fantastic structures. The City of Owen Sound got money for the expansion of their waste water infrastructure. It was one of the last big municipalities on Georgian Bay where raw sewage would overflow the odd time during severe rainstorms and the like. We are working to help the City of Owen Sound and doing other projects to make sure that does not happen any more.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Transport)]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to highlight the action our government has taken to support Canadian communities and to create jobs. Our government has played an important role in strengthening Canadian communities. It helped drive economic development well before 2009 when the world's economy took a turn for the worse.

Because of our quick and decisive action, today Canada boasts the strongest rate of employment growth among the G7 countries. The timely support of the Canadian action plan and Canada's solid economic fundamentals have enabled our country and our economy to weather a period of continuing global uncertainty. Our government will continue to focus on creating jobs and growth for Canadians across our great nation.

Thanks in part to our strategic community and economic development programs, we have seen the creation of 900,000 net new jobs since the end of the recession. To continue to encourage economic growth as part of economic action plan 2012, our government announced the creation of the community infrastructure improvement fund, commonly known as CIIF.

CIIF builds on our commitment to further modernize Canada's infrastructure by committing $150 million over two years to support repairs and improvements to existing community facilities. The program supports the beating hearts of Canadian communities, such as community centres, libraries, parks, museums and sports fields, from coast to coast to coast. They are the places where families, friends and neighbours gather.

It is also an important part of our plan to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians right across the country. In Saskatchewan, my colleague, the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification, announced significant funding for the Kenaston swimming pool. That was made possible thanks to funding from this federal government.

In total, the minister announced $46 million in funding across western Canada. I am delighted to see that the funding has met with the same enthusiasm right across the country. We are going to be working on approximately 300 projects that have already been announced throughout the west.

As of today, in British Columbia, we have already announced 80 of these projects. They are under way and are benefiting Canadians across the province. For example, Castlegar and District Public Library will have improved energy efficiency through the replacement of the library's heating, ventilation and air conditioning system. In addition, our government has helped the district of North Vancouver rehabilitate Maplewood Farm to increase visitor use and to improve accessibility. Since opening in 1975, Maplewood Farm has become a hub of community activity and is one of North Vancouver District's most popular visitor attractions. It receives over 90,000 visitors per year.

In Alberta, nearly 90 projects are helping to revitalize key community infrastructure. For example, upgrades to the Walsh and District Community Hall will improve the accessibility of the kitchen for mobility impaired individuals. The renovations will ensure that members of the community can easily and affordably access the hall.

Federal funding under CIIF is also supporting the expansion of soccer turf at Calgary's Foothills indoor soccer centre as well as the installation of protective boards and netting.

In Saskatchewan, there are over 60 jobs, including extensive renovations to the Learning Disabilities Association of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. In addition to mechanical and electrical upgrades, clients and staff will have a new kitchen, automatic doors to the foyer and three new washrooms that meet accessibility standards.

In the village of Paradise Hill, our government is supporting upgrades that will enhance public safety. Renovations to the arena include the installation of new posts and tempered safety glass on the boards surrounding the ice surface.

In Manitoba, my home province, over 70 projects have already been announced. A CIIF investment is helping the Royal Canadian Legion Charleswood Branch in Winnipeg become more energy efficient by replacing its roof, two rooftop heating and air conditioning units, and the lighting system.

We have also invested in the Army Navy and Air Force Veterans facility to improve its parking lot. We are investing in the St. James Civic Centre Pool to help with renovations. We have provided money for the Assiniboia Curling Club and the Charleswood Curling Club. These are all community-run organizations that would not have been able to make the changes necessary if it were not for the grants from the federal government.

While we are on Manitoba, I would be remiss if I did not mention the Plessis underpass. The federal government, through the building Canada fund, has put in a substantial amount of money, fulfilling a local campaign promise to make transit much better for the people of the Elmwood—Transcona area. I would like to thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for all his hard work on that project.

I could go on and on. There has been $146 million for recreational infrastructure projects in the four western provinces.

Over the last seven years, $33 billion has been invested in the building Canada fund, which was introduced in 2007 and was Canada first long-term infrastructure plan. It will continue to deliver results until 2014 and beyond.

As my colleague mentioned, we made the gas tax permanent. We have ensured that projects can be accelerated. We have cut down on red tape. We have done many things to ensure that the quality of life of Canadians is improved through infrastructure programs.

RInC, the recreational infrastructure Canada program, members will recall, the communities component, invested $500 million in recreational facilities across Canada over two years. This was a temporary economic stimulus that helped create jobs while renewing, upgrading and expanding recreational infrastructure in Canadian communities. It was hugely well received, as were the other portions of the building Canada fund and the other infrastructure programs this government brought forward. We brought them forward at a time when Canada needed them. What we have done has been well received. People appreciate it. Lives are better. The NDP voted against it all.