Debates of Feb. 26th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Federal Infrastructure Plan

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address the NDP motion today. I believe that it is a motion worthy of support. As the previous speaker representing the Liberal Party has indicated, we will be voting in favour of the motion.

Liberal prime ministers, such as Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien, emphasized the importance of infrastructure. If we look back to the 1970s, we will see that a lot of seed money and ideas led to many successful projects in Winnipeg, for example. It takes a government that has the interest and strong leadership from ministers of the crown who believe in infrastructure and want to be engaged with our municipalities and cities.

Look at some of the things the Liberals did in the past. I think of individuals such as Lloyd Axworthy, who was a champion who fought for infrastructure dollars and looked at ways the federal government could support municipalities, particularly for development in the city of Winnipeg. The Forks project is an example. Today it is Manitoba's number one tourist attraction. If it were not for federal dollars, it would not be there.

We could also talk about the development of North Portage. Again, if it were not for federal dollars, it would not have occurred. The impact it has had on the city of Winnipeg is phenomenal. If one saw what North Portage used to look like, prior to the investment and Ottawa coming to the table, one would be surprised by the degree to which North Portage brings people downtown, especially with the Winnipeg Jets and the beautiful MTS Centre. Different levels of government made that happen.

I made reference to the Forks and the federal dollars coming in. Today it is the most visited destination in the province of Manitoba. That would not have been possible had it not been for the recognition that the federal government had a role to play.

I could talk about Reg Alcock in the Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin governments. Reg fought for the Kenaston underpass. It was not an easy fight. Ottawa, the province and the municipality agreed that we needed to have a pool of money. Consultations took place. The city had its priorities. The province had its priorities. Reg, representing Ottawa, said what he thought some of the priorities of the federal government would be. From that, the Kenaston underpass was built.

If we canvassed Manitobans, particularly those who live in Winnipeg, we would hear that the underpass has been a godsend. In fact, IKEA has just located in Winnipeg. Everyone is saying that Winnipeg is doing so much better. If it were not for the role of the federal government investing in that infrastructure, we would not have the Kenaston underpass. The city definitely was not going to do it alone. It was too big a job. It did not have the tax base to sustain it. Today the whole southern corridor is being developed, in good part because there is better traffic flow. It is one reason IKEA moved into the location south of that underpass.

A great deal of construction is taking place. In the north end is the twinning of Inkster Boulevard and CentrePort. Ottawa has a role to play. If Ottawa does not play a role, it is not going to be developed the way it needs to be developed. If we deny that development from taking place, we are preventing other economic opportunities that would generate wealth for Winnipeg, the province, and all of Canada. With the investment and participation of the federal government, we will recognize the dream of CentrePort. These are the types of infrastructure programs that make a difference.

I remember the 2007 provincial election. I was sitting on a street with my then leader, Jon Gerrard, talking about the potholes. We agreed that the City of Winnipeg could not do it alone. It did not have the resources to improve the infrastructure. The province needed to come on board to provide some of those necessary funds.

Ottawa also has an important role to fill. If it does not do that, we will see more of our streets and our back lanes crumble. Everything I said could be applied to every province and territory in Canada.

All of these investments would provide the opportunity for economies throughout our country to prosper. However, it takes political will. It takes courage. It takes leadership for the government to recognize the importance of infrastructure and to start investing not only resources but time. The Government of Canada needs to sit down with the provinces and the municipalities and come up with a strategy.

The Liberal Party has been calling for a transit strategy for years. I hear from rural communities and from my colleagues from the 905 area, who talk about train transportation or subway development and the need for Ottawa to pony up and become engaged. There is a need for a transit strategy.

We have talked about a housing strategy, because housing is part of infrastructure. The Government of Canada has virtually thrown its hands up and has said that it does not necessarily have any role. I have not seen any real sign of the national government wanting to play a role in a national housing strategy. Our housing stock is infrastructure. Infrastructure is more than a brand new building one might stand in front of to cut a ribbon and have that ideal photo op.

As I said, it is the pothole on the street, the sewer system and providing good quality water. Last year we introduced an opposition day motion calling for clean water for all communities across Canada. How many communities do not have access to clean running water? I would suggest that this is the core infrastructure we need to invest in.

We have water advisories in the province of Manitoba, and I do not think Manitoba is unique. In Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador, communities have water advisories. What role does Ottawa have to play?

Municipalities cannot afford this. Look at the overall costs. The revenue base for a municipality is property tax and a few other taxes here and there. None really amount to the dollars that are necessary.

We hear a lot about infrastructure and dollars and how much is really necessary. I would suggest that there are two numbers one could actually take into consideration. There is one big dollar amount, well into the billions and billions of dollars. In an ideal world, this is what we would want to spend. Then there is absolute need. It is hundreds of millions of dollars, well into the billions, that we need to invest in infrastructure.

If we are not prepared to invest in that infrastructure, there will be individuals who will not be able to drink water from their taps. They will have to purchase bottled water. Individuals will not even be able to bathe properly because of water advisory notices.

Cities and municipalities throughout our great nation will not be able to invest the type of money necessary for roads.

That is the reason it is so important. Infrastructure includes roads, highways, sewer lines, hydro, public transit, housing stock, the environment and water. That is some of the basic infrastructure we need to look at long term. It is not good enough for the government to say in budget 2013 what it going to do and to say in 2014 that it will think about it and let us know as we get closer to the 2014-15 budget year.

For years we have been saying that we want sustainable funding for many years. That is the way plans can actually be implemented. Cities across the country would present a five-year capital plan for infrastructure. Now they do not have any real sense of what they can absolutely count on coming from the federal or provincial governments. There needs to be more certainty, because that certainty allows for better planning.

I heard one member make the statement that Toronto spent millions of dollars digging a hole for transit and spent more money filling the hole. Now it has more money to hopefully do the project, so it is digging the hole again. I suspect that we could find stories all over Canada about infrastructure projects that were started and put on hold. They might have been cancelled outright. That is not to mention the ones that were imagined for which requests for proposals were put out.

Imagine the tens of millions of dollars that have gone to waste because we do not have a long-term strategy. That is something we believe is absolutely necessary. That is why I started off by saying that no one should be surprised about what the Liberal Party is doing on this issue. Whether governing the country or in opposition, we have consistently advocated for infrastructure, and we are prepared to invest in infrastructure.

The government crows a lot about some of the investments it has brought in. I should remind the government that it had a minority situation. Many of the investments it brought in were brought in because the opposition forced it to. That is the reality.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

They might not necessarily like that, but that is the reality. The proof is in the pudding. At the end of the day, you needed opposition support to sustain yourselves. I believe that led to more infrastructure—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am going to remind the member that he is to address his comments to the Chair, not to the other side of the room or to other members of the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my eyes focused on you and just kind of have that listening ear, because I know that at times the Conservatives will be a little sensitive because of all the generosity of ideas we provided the government when the Liberals were in opposition. We are the only political party that has been in government that has consistently argued that investment in infrastructure in Canada is the way to go, and that is because we believe in it.

Now we are challenging the government to take it to the next level, and that means recognizing that it has to have a strategy and be prepared to look at long-term investment. That means the Conservatives have to start meeting with and talking with the stakeholders. I have only been challenged on that particular issue. This is the only Prime Minister who has not had a premiers' conference where he has actually sat down with all the premiers. At least, I do not think he has actually met with all the premiers around one table. He prefers one on one.

There is something to be said for meeting with all of the premiers and saying that infrastructure is important to our nation, and by having that group meeting they bring in their supports and staff for the premiers' offices. We should be incorporating our first nations and our territories in this discussion. There is phenomenal infrastructure that needs to be dealt with in regard to our first nation reserves, but the government should bring them to the table and actually come up with a larger plan, like the Kelowna accord was a larger plan. We need to develop a larger plan. We need to see the Prime Minister demonstrate that he is prepared to pony up in terms of money and resources, but also demonstrate that he is prepared to commit the time that is necessary and to work with other levels of government and with our first nations and other stakeholders and see what we can do to address this infrastructure.

As I have indicated, if Ottawa does not come to the table, is not prepared to play that leadership role that is so badly needed today, we will never be able to deal with the infrastructure deficit we have. That is why it was encouraging to see the opposition day motion and why we believe it is worthy of support.

I have talked about some of the other projects we have done and seen in the past, but there is so much more. Over the weekend I had someone bring up the need for a Kenaston underpass. I can recall individuals like Reg Alcock and many others, individuals not only in Winnipeg but outside of Winnipeg, who have talked about a Kenaston underpass and asked what the future is for a Kenaston underpass. Right now there is no such thing, but there is a huge demand for it. Without the federal government coming to the table, the likelihood of work taking place is greatly diminished.

We are talking about significant dollars and if the government were to canvass the many different municipalities that are out there and canvass the needs of our first nations, we would find it getting well into the billions of dollars.

I conclude my remarks by appealing to the Prime Minister and suggesting that he needs to take the issue of strategic planning more seriously; he needs to start working and consulting with the different stakeholders who are out there. At the end of the day we are denying positive economic and social activity by not investing in our infrastructure. I highly recommend that the government support this motion and I look forward to having the opportunity to put it to a vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleague talked about strategy and long-term investment, but that is really strange. Let us not forget that it was under the Liberal government that the cycle of investment in infrastructure declined during the 1990s, which has created an infrastructure gap, and the Conservatives have continued that infrastructure gap.

We need long-term funding for infrastructure, especially for small and rural communities that do not have the luxury of having engineers at the ready, because it takes them a little longer. We have to look at a plan that not only takes us up to the next election but goes longer.

Let us consider places like Chapleau, where the water pipes are deteriorating so badly that the water is coloured and there is sediment present when people open their taps. We can also consider Little Current where, because of the government's inaction with respect to the low water levels in the Great Lakes, the water level is dropping so much that people are having trouble with their pipes in the lake and cannot get water or their lines are freezing or they have to put out another 100 feet of pipe. The township of Little Current could use some of that money to provide much-needed water to those communities. Unfortunately, it does not have the money.

Maybe my colleague could speak about the importance of this to small rural communities, especially those in northern Ontario.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure if the member caught my opening remarks when I talked about consistency. Actually, there is only one party in the House of Commons that has consistently supported infrastructure investment—

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

The NDP.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

—and it is not the New Democrats. I can assure her of that.

Even during the 1990s when the Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien team balanced the books, were able to guarantee health care funding and ultimately built sustainable long-term health care, we still invested in infrastructure. We can talk about the Wellness Institute and others. There were many different infrastructure projects that went ahead.

To answer the specific question from the member, we need to recognize that many of the municipalities do not have anywhere near the tax base it would take to bring up their infrastructure to the degree that they would be able to perform at peak. We could say an infrastructure project is needed in a small rural community, but in order to get to another community, we have to go through that community. It is not just the immediate community that benefits. The broader community benefits even if there is a smaller investment in a smaller community. It is about economic development.

The Liberal Party has consistently looked at infrastructure investment as a way to not only achieve economic improvement but also facilitate social improvement and many other improvements as a direct response to investing in infrastructure.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across the way for his dissertation, but I do not agree with much of what he said.

An interesting point he made is that the Liberal Party is taking credit for things we are doing on this side of the House. I would point out that in 2011 Canadian voters decided we were doing the right thing and believed in what we were doing. They put the Liberal Party in the third party status in the House believing in what it was saying. Clearly, voters have decided who was moving the country in the right direction.

My simple question is this. The Liberal member was talking about a long-term infrastructure plan. Infrastructure plans cost billions of dollars, not millions but billions and billions of dollars. There are three ways to pay for infrastructure, in my view: raise taxes, raise debt or reduce services in other areas.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

You guys have done all three.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I am asking the member who was speaking which approach the Liberals would take. Would they increase taxes, increase debt or reduce services?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem with the Conservatives. They wear blinders and they think it has to be one of the three. They do not realize that there are other benefits. By investing in infrastructure we are creating other economic opportunities. Our overall economy will perform that much better, which will generate additional revenue. If they keep the blinders on, they will not see the side benefits. They have to recognize at the beginning that if we invest in infrastructure in a wise fashion, we will see a more productive economy. We will see social benefits, and when I say social benefits it could be, for example, like the Wellness Institute that is attached to the Seven Oaks Hospital. The institute would not be there if it were not for infrastructure dollars.

We have to take a bit more than just increased debt, increased taxes or reduced services, because those are not really the only options available.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am disheartened to see that the Conservatives are once again reluctant to support this motion, especially since Canada has a serious infrastructure deficit and this sector is plagued by chronic delays.

Although the Liberals had nothing to do with this deficit or delay, I thank my colleague for supporting this motion. I have a question for him about the idea of a long-term infrastructure plan. The NDP thinks that obviously, this is an investment in the economy and not an expense.

What does the member think?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Let me pick up on that point, Mr. Speaker. One of the things I tried to emphasize is the importance of being able to see the different levels of government participate in developing a long-term strategy.

One of the greatest resources in Manitoba is water and hydro development. It becomes much more difficult for Manitoba to develop its grid line unless it can get more support from Ottawa. Today any real support going toward the grid line is marginal. The role Ottawa could play ultimately is to come to the table and work with the Province of Manitoba in developing that grid line, and doing that would have a positive economic impact for the province and Canada. If Manitoba could manage its hydro properly, it would be in a better position to become a have province, which means it would then be able to contribute to other provinces' wellbeing.

Having said that, we also need to recognize that building the hydro Bipole line on the wrong side of Lake Winnipeg could be a billion-dollar mistake. If Ottawa took an interest in helping to build the line, hopefully the line would be built either on the east side or under Lake Winnipeg. Either option would be a lot better, and the taxpayer would benefit and there would be a lot more economic activity. It is a good infrastructure development.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the member for Halifax West, Foreign Investment; the member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, Canadian Heritage.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this motion on an infrastructure plan that is truly essential to economic and community development and improving the well-being of Canadians.

I would like to take a few moments to read the motion for people who are watching and who may be wondering what we are talking about today. The motion says:

That this House call on the government to commit in Budget 2013 to a long-term, predictable and accountable federal infrastructure plan in partnership with other levels of government, as recommended by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in order to: (a) improve Canada's lagging productivity; (b) shorten commute times; and (c) fix Canada's crumbling infrastructure.

I would like to talk about the current state of infrastructure in Canada. Every Canadian, in every riding, can identify these problems. Yes, the realities may differ from one riding to the next, but we all have a problem with the state of our infrastructure.

Canada has an infrastructure deficit to deal with. That deficit amounts to $171 billion, which is a huge sum. Our congested highways, the weaknesses in our drinking water supply systems and our potholed roads: it is all truly shameful for a country that is a member of the G8 and the G20. We are a developed country, and we should not have such a huge infrastructure deficit merely because we do not have a plan.

It is all very well to see the Prime Minister and his minister standing in front of a building and cutting a big red ribbon to make a funding announcement with a big cheque, but that is not planning. Those are just announcements here and there, most often made in Conservative ridings rather than other places. Nevertheless, that is not planning. They are not sitting down with the community and with the provinces. They are not sitting down together to see what is needed. That is the duty of the federal government, the duty of anyone considering infrastructure investment.

I would like to provide some explanation of the situation we find ourselves in on the north shore of Montreal. The population has increased over the last ten years, and the result is that getting into Montreal normally takes 30 minutes, if everything goes well. Morning and evening, however, you can sit in your car for two hours. Sometimes it is even longer, depending on road conditions. If you add it up, that makes four hours a day, or 20 hours a week, that a person—a mother or a father—spends doing nothing. It reduces productivity. Trucks carrying products for delivery are kept waiting. It also reduces revenue. It inevitably affects an individual’s quality of life. When a mother, perhaps a single parent, has to wait for hours in traffic, it affects her quality of life and what she can do for her child. Truly, therefore, this is a very serious situation.

A number of projects are pending. Promises have been made at the provincial level, but unfortunately nothing ever happens. We have Autoroute 19, of course. I can talk about people from Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, who have to travel as far as Montreal on a two-lane highway, one lane in each direction. It is really dreadful. There are hopeless bottlenecks. People are frustrated.

Why can people not just sit down, develop a plan that works for everyone in order to improve the transit system, the bridges and the freeways and see to it that more funding is available? In many cases, that is the problem. We have provinces that no longer have the budget, and communities that have even less. I could point out that the city of Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines is a small community of 14,000. These people do not have the money to do it all themselves. They need support from their government. That is exactly what this motion is asking for.

I have referred to the benefits of this kind of infrastructure plan for the economy, for people’s well-being and improved quality of life, for safety, and for the quality of the environment. I would like to expand on that last point. On the north shore, we do not have a lot of options for public transit. There is the train from Blainville to Montreal, but most of the time, people still need to take their car to get there. Terrebonne is still waiting for its train. There are buses, but they are expensive, and again, you have to take your car to get to the bus.

This is not for lack of will. Everyone in my community would agree to use public transit. It is important; it is good for the environment, it is good for us and it is good for everyone. But money does not grow on trees. Everyone has to sit down together to figure out a plan; otherwise, we will be moving in the wrong direction.

I would also like to talk about the importance of non-traditional infrastructure. Usually, people think of infrastructure as drinking water and sewage treatment, highways and bridges, but I would like to talk about another increasingly important kind of infrastructure in our modern era: access to high-speed Internet. In spite of significant efforts, there are still Canadians and Quebeckers who do not have access to affordable high-speed Internet. They are essentially excluded from the digital economy, which is becoming increasingly important.

As well, while members of Parliament are making increasing use of social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, people without Internet access do not have an opportunity to communicate directly with their MPs via those tools, or even to communicate with the government to claim employment insurance online, for example. High-speed Internet access has become an essential service. Unfortunately, we have no plan for this either. The government made promises—it promised a digital strategy three years ago—but we have seen absolutely nothing so far. Everyone is angry and is waiting for this digital strategy. Rural and remote communities in northern Canada and Quebec are affected by the lack of an infrastructure plan, especially when it comes to high-speed Internet access.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and all the ministers concerned say they are holding consultations for the budget. That is fine, but can they consult the right people? I know it is not the norm for this government, but would it be possible for it to listen to what people want, for once? The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the leading advocate for municipalities, has asked for this.

This motion is our way of asking the government to listen to the communities and sit down with all the stakeholders, provincial and municipal alike, to see what we can do and what sort of leadership we can provide to give Canada an infrastructure plan and a permanent program that includes the involvement of all levels of government.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her wonderful speech.

The government is displaying utter arrogance when it acknowledges the need for $100, when it maintains that in the past it gave $1 and now it gives $2, so it has done enough. It claims to have restored stability to municipalities, to be handing over 8¢ for every dollar and to have accomplished amazing things. How arrogant!

Meanwhile, the situation has deteriorated to the point where people no longer even have clean drinking water. The sewer system has collapsed completely. One need only visit any large municipality to observe firsthand crumbling buildings, roads and infrastructure everywhere. The situation is urgent. We need to invest in this area.

I really liked what my colleague had to say. She talked not only about traditional infrastructure, but also about new infrastructure like the Internet. We are not even talking about environmental considerations, which are essential, but about the economy and the future.

Would my honourable colleague care to comment further on this matter?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. As the member for the riding adjacent to mine, he obviously has a clear understanding of the issues facing our region and of the concerns voiced by our constituents.

Regarding new technologies, we need to look ahead and make sure that the plan includes developing infrastructure for high-speed Internet access. All of theses things must be taken into consideration. Merely talking about one area of the economy and making an announcement in a region because it involves a nice building project is not really a plan.

We need to think about the Internet, sewers, bridges, roads and highways. Everything that comes under the heading of infrastructure must be developed. We need to think ahead and include new technologies because they are increasingly prevalent.

[Paulina Ayala, NDP, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what my esteemed colleague said and made the connection with what we often hear the government say about creating jobs and so forth.

This is indeed a golden opportunity to create quality jobs, not just minimum-wage jobs in fast-food outlets.

Does my colleague agree that if the government truly intended to work with other levels of government, it could be an engine for economic growth, which in turn could lead to the creation of quality jobs, thereby helping Canadians build a better country for their children and for everyone?

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is true. We should not think of the proposed plan as an expense because, in the long run, it is an investment in improving our infrastructure. In terms of the economy, it will create direct jobs.

It takes people to build infrastructure. Workers will be able to find good jobs with good wages. This plan has only benefits. I do not understand why the government is not taking action.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like there is the same situation in many parts of Canada as we have in my riding, where we have extreme traffic congestion.

Over the last 15 years, as a community association president and as a city councillor, we have worked on two alternative projects: the E and N Rail Trail, and commuter rail on the E and N corridor. In each of those cases, the municipalities have had to spend a lot of time applying for funds, again and again. Under the Liberals, we got nothing. Finally, under the Conservatives there was some funding for these projects, but it was broken into various parts. They have to keep redoing the project and redoing the application. It has been a real burden on local municipalities that have had some very good ideas on how to address the infrastructure deficit.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point, because we have seen projects broken into parts. Developing a project and then redoing the application takes a lot of energy. It is very complicated.

We are asking for a permanent program so communities can make long-term plans. That way, if they have a project, they can start planning right away. All that will be left to do is hope that the project is approved, but at least they can start long-term projects, and that is the important thing.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, every summer in my riding of Scarborough Southwest there are some very familiar sights. Many are beautiful, images of the Scarborough Bluffs, beautiful gardens like Rosetta McClain, parks like Warden Woods and the wonderful murals along Kingston Road, to name a few. These sights are traditional and enduring.

However, in Scarborough Southwest we now have a new sight that we associate with summer: the dumpster in front of the house. These dumpsters are not there because people are doing renovations to their homes; they are there because residents are cleaning up their flooded basements after rainstorms. The reason they are having to clean up is because of faulty and decaying infrastructure in Scarborough.

Every summer in Scarborough, far too many people experience flooding due to inadequate and decaying infrastructure. For many, this means raw sewage and stormwater spurting out through their toilets, sinks, shower heads and floor drains. In the past two years, over 1,000 homeowners in Scarborough Southwest have been victims of basement flooding due to inadequate infrastructure.

The impact is not limited to homeowners. In June 2011, less than two months after my election, the basement of my constituency office flooded. That cleanup cost the city thousands of dollars to remediate the damages.

More importantly, in talking about infrastructure today, Variety Village is an exceptional facility in my riding that serves people of diverse needs. Many of Canada's Paralympians train there. People from all across the city make use of the facilities at Variety Village. It is largely funded through private donors, memberships and the generosity of citizens and volunteer labour.

Variety Village made an application to receive some infrastructure funds. Sadly, it was turned down. Then, this past summer during the rainstorms, its roof collapsed. It cost $250,000, which it had to raise. It had to make insurance claims and go through all of that hassle. Rather than focusing on servicing the needs of its members, people with disabilities and people from all over Scarborough, it had to focus and dedicate its efforts toward fundraising for the money to repair the roof.

That is why the current infrastructure funding and plans do not add up. There is not enough there. It is not stable. It is not long term, and of course the build Canada fund is going to be expiring in 2014.

Having said that, my area of Toronto is not even designated as a chronic basement flooding area, like many other parts of Toronto. Most of the homeowners I spoke about must trash their belongings, make insurance claims and spend thousands of dollars fixing their basements. Many ask, how did this happen? Why us?

The answer is that much of our infrastructure is reaching the end of its lifespan. Some sewers in Toronto are 100 years old. In fact, the investment needed to maintain and replace our decaying infrastructure nationwide has ballooned to a stunning $171 billion. That has only grown in the last seven years under the leadership, or lack thereof, of the government.

Current federal infrastructure funding is too little and too beholden to partisan interests and backroom deals. The ad hoc budget-to-budget funding model favoured by the Conservative government is much better suited to photo ops than it is to resolving this serious national crisis. For five years now, the NDP has been calling for a permanent infrastructure program. The federal government needs to get serious and step up to the plate, dedicating significant resources to tackle Canada's serious infrastructure program.

People in Scarborough Southwest, and indeed across Canada, are counting on the federal government to act on this issue and to act now. There is simply no more time to waste. Our cities face debilitating gridlock. Our water and sewer systems are failing at an alarming rate. Our roads continue to deteriorate, and our bridges are literally falling apart around us.

Canadians are counting on the government to act, and to act quickly. The time to act, as I said, is now. The NDP is simply asking the federal government to commit in its budget of 2013 to a long-term, predictable and accountable federal infrastructure plan. We ask that this plan be in partnership with other levels of government, as recommended by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

Developing a plan that would start to relieve the enormous infrastructure crisis facing all Canadians requires a government with political will. Playing politics with the fate of our infrastructure, and ultimately the fate of Canadians' quality of life, is offensive, objectionable and dangerous. What we need in budget 2013 is a long-term infrastructure plan. This plan needs to be developed through continuous consultation with the provinces, territories, municipalities and first nations communities. It should span a period of at least 20 years, allowing for better long-term planning and support for long-term projects. The plan should set clear funding criteria and program targets, as well as use transparent, accountable and non-political allocation mechanisms to facilitate the submission process.

The New Democrats would like to see a plan that encourages the use of innovative technologies that allow better efficiency and sustainability. The plan should also provide dedicated transit funds in order to reduce commuter times. In the GTA and around the city of Toronto, we are facing a loss of productivity that adds up to over $6 billion per year because of the gridlock caused by inadequate transportation infrastructure. Such a plan should contain provisions for regular, frequent and transparent progress reports to Parliament.

It is interesting to note that business groups, such as Canada West Foundation and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, agree that public infrastructure investment is the missing link to correct Canada's sluggish productivity and that those investments must be strategic not political. These groups also highlight the fact that gridlock is a major threat to economic prosperity in metropolitan regions. This is why reducing commute times is a critical component of any long-term infrastructure plan. Instead of one-off funding through an application process that is beholden to partisan interests, clear-cut funding formulas like per capita allocations would ensure reliable, predictable funding for provinces, territories and municipalities.

The federal government must commit to an infrastructure funding plan with a long-term horizon. A budget-to-budget approach is structured so that longer-term funding projects like transit do not qualify for funding. Regular reviews are needed to ensure targets are being met and investment volumes adjusted. During times of economic hardship, a dedicated infrastructure bank can be used to make strategic investments that will stimulate our economy, lower unemployment levels and make use of lower interest rates. A federal long-term infrastructure bank can give municipalities access to federal low-interest rates, keeping costs low and saving taxpayers money.

That is right. It is us on this side of the House who want to see taxpayers' money spent wisely and not wasted on things like the Senate.

The time for the federal government to act, as I said, is now. With the Building Canada fund set to expire in 2014, Canada's municipalities need immediate funding support to avoid missing a vital construction season. With 11,000 jobs being created for every $1 billion in infrastructure investment, job growth and economic productivity hinge on federal infrastructure funding. It is a crucial opportunity that Canada cannot afford to waste.

Going back to my riding of Scarborough Southwest, we have been around for well over 100 years. Where Scarborough was built up over time, much of our infrastructure was built around Canada's centennial, 1967, with many projects happening during that time. One such project was a large water tower that was built at Warden and Eglinton. A few years ago, that tower was in disrepair. It was having all kinds of problems and the water quality for local residents was put at risk. The City of Toronto made the remediation. It put well over $1 million in scaffolding around this water tower in order to make the corrections and fix the problems. Now that the investment has been made and those jobs created, the water supply for residents in Scarborough Southwest is secure for another 50 years. This is the kind of investment we need to see in areas like Scarborough, and indeed all across the country, in order to ensure we maintain a safe and prosperous society for the future.

As my colleague from Terrebonne—Blainville was talking about, we need to look into the future for new technologies and new forms of investment. However, we also have to look at new areas that are being developed and their needs down the road, and perhaps one of my colleagues will give me the opportunity to talk about that later on.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, interestingly, I found myself agreeing with the member, on a number of points. The member suggested that the creation of an infrastructure bank in Canada might be a way to move forward, and I agree with him on that. I think there is a role for large public and private pension funds and so forth to participate in the investment of long-term infrastructure. We have seen that in other places.

However, there needs to be an acknowledgement that the federal government is simply a partner in these things. When we were making record investments in infrastructure over the last number of years, we have been a partner, such as for GO transit in the member's region. We have partnered on many upgrades, with over $1 billion going into Union Station.

I am curious. If we put this on the table, is the member suggesting he is going to vote in favour of infrastructure investments? The NDP did not vote for it in the past.