Debates of Feb. 26th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Federal Infrastructure Plan

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's speech and noted a lot of different projects here and there. It is little a bit of what Jeffrey Simpson called, in The Globe and Mail, slice-and-dice Conservative style, meaning that we give money here and here and there.

We are asking whether the government has a long-term strategic plan for infrastructure, not a slice-and-dice approach. Does it have a long-term infrastructure plan that would address the infrastructure deficit we have in Canada? I do not mean a short-term plan until 2015 and the next election. I mean beyond that, for the next 10 to 20 years. That is what the municipalities are asking for. They are asking for strong financing, predictable financing and a long-term strategy. That is what I would like to ask the member.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is only one government that has demonstrated an ability to implement a long-term infrastructure plan, and that is this government. We had a $33-billion plan at a time when things were very scary in the world economy. Things still are fragile in the world economy.

This member wants to project way out into the distant future. That is irresponsible. We need to be cognizant of changes in world dynamics, such as if, heaven forbid, things go south in Europe as a result of the Italian election. There is a lot of uncertainty in the Middle East and in Southeast Asia. The world is not a certain place. We are dealing with it, and we are creating economic growth in spite of all these difficulties.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the minister.

One of the things I challenge members to give some thought to is the issue of the deficit in infrastructure. It is well into the billions of dollars. The infrastructure we are talking about is roads and bridges, highways and many of our municipalities' sewer lines and things of that nature. There seems to be a never-ending demand for resources for that type of infrastructure.

Does the minster believe that municipalities have the fiscal capability to deal with the demands of today and tomorrow with respect to making the types of repairs that are critically important for municipal infrastructure?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. As the member knows, municipalities are creatures of the provinces. They vary in size dramatically, from Toronto to Portage la Prairie. Different size cities and communities have different capacities as far as being able to apply for programs and to receive the funding required. That is a concern.

There also needs to be responsibility at the provincial level. The member and I are both from the same province. We can think of at least one transportation line that could probably be better placed and the money better used.

It is incumbent on all of us to make wise infrastructure choices and to be extra careful with taxpayers' money.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his comments.

It is not just a question of providing stable, predictable funding for municipalities, which we have done through our building Canada fund and the gas tax rebate. It is also about getting out of the way of municipalities and reducing the cost of red tape burdens. One of the most important things I hear, representing counties in the rural area of Alberta, is about the changes that needed to be made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act to get rid of some of those burdens that cost our municipalities millions of dollars that they could be spending on valuable infrastructure rather than on red tape. Can the minister comment on that?

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I met with the Alberta association of municipalities, the Saskatchewan association of municipalities, the Ontario association of municipalities, the Manitoba association of municipalities and on and on. By far, the amendments we have made to the Navigable Waters Protection Act have been hugely popular. People appreciate it. We do not have the red tape, but we still have the same environmental protection. It has been a huge success. I would like to thank the member for bringing it to the floor. It has been a stellar, uber-successful program.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, I noticed there is a great interest today in participating in the period allocated for questions and comments, as is normally the case with most speakers. We only have five minutes for these questions and comments and with a greater amount of interest in participating, I will ask members and those who respond to questions to keep their comments as concise as possible so more members will have the opportunity to participate.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Chambly—Borduas.

I am pleased to rise in the House to support the motion seeking a long-term, predictable and accountable federal infrastructure plan in partnership with the provincial and municipal governments as well as first nations communities.

I moved a similar motion in the fall of 2011. I urged the government to act in a strategic and thoughtful manner to address the pressing needs of Canadian municipalities and communities.

To begin, I would like to focus on my riding, LaSalle—Émard, which is part of greater Montreal. Montreal was booming in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Highways, government buildings and water filtration and treatment plants were being built. Unfortunately, over the years, this infrastructure has been neglected either because no money has been invested in sporadic maintenance or because of increased use. Our cities are based on outdated models, which unfortunately means that people need cars, even today. We still build our cities that way. People living in the suburbs are further and further away from their workplace and from services that should be close by.

That is why it is absolutely crucial that we have a long-term federal infrastructure plan. This plan must be innovative and make our cities and towns places where active transportation is possible and safe. It must also ensure efficient, affordable and environmentally friendly public transit to maximize the number of trips and minimize the number of vehicles. Incidentally, I would like to know what the government's plan is for public transit infrastructure. How will this be coordinated with transit in the greater Montreal area? I think this illustrates why we need a national public transit strategy, as proposed by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

In its most recent report on the top 10 barriers to competitiveness, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce laments inadequate public infrastructure planning and criticizes the fact that government commitments to infrastructure have been intermittent and the criteria changeable. In a speech given on February 12, 2013, the hon. Perrin Beatty, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, had this to say:

One essential element for Canada’s long-term economic growth and prosperity is high-quality, modern public infrastructure....How Canada renews and invests in its aging infrastructure will help determine our quality of life. But it will also directly serve the competitiveness of our businesses.

Leadership entails pursuing a vision through innovative and forward thinking in order to achieve progress and ultimately success. Making some tough but necessary choices along the way is not easy but it is necessary. Governing requires the same attributes and we cannot focus exclusively on short term temporary solutions for the sake of pointing to progress and claiming victory at glitzy public announcements.

For instance, we saw this last week, when we were working in our constituencies. That is why we need a predictable, accountable and long-term infrastructure strategy.

Traffic congestion in the greater Montreal area is very costly in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and time. According to a report published in La Presse last fall, Montreal ranks fourth out of the 26 major cities in North America with the worst traffic congestion . Also according to that report, trips in the Montreal area now take 40 minutes longer by car than they should during peak periods.

According to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, the overall annual cost of congestion in the metropolitan area alone was over $1.4 billion, or 1% of GDP, in 2008. The report added that a 3% increase in the public transit mode share would cut these costs by $63.8 million per year.

The report continues:

The development of efficient means of transportation generates economic benefits that contribute significantly to productivity and wealth creation.

We are talking about public transit.

Again quoting the report:

Public transit benefits include more purchasing power for households, easy mobility, reduced congestion costs and increased property values in the area.

During visits to businesses and institutions in my riding, LaSalle—Émard, I have met business leaders who have lost employees who were having difficulties getting to work because of the congested roads. Some employees have to spend up to three hours a day on public transit to get to work in my riding. The many construction projects that are under way and will resume in the spring will not help matters in the short term. For example, the Mercier Bridge, which spans the river from LaSalle to the south shore, was closed in the southbound direction all weekend and will be closed again this coming weekend.

This is an urgent situation. If ever there was a time for all three levels of government to show that they can work actively together for the well-being of Canada's communities, it is now. We need a strategic, long-term plan to truly ensure that the infrastructure that we are building or rejuvenating today meets 21st century requirements with regard to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and will be there for future generations.

Just as the economic boom of the golden years from 1945 to 1975 was made possible by the infrastructure built at that time, with a great deal of support from the federal public works department, Canada was built in this way. Hence, we need to leave a legacy of infrastructure that will enable sustainable development in the economy that future generations will build. This is a golden opportunity for Canada to show its know-how and its ability to face challenges through innovation.

The motion calls for a predictable infrastructure plan to enable well-defined, strategic planning to address communities' priorities. We absolutely must ensure that there is predictable, long-term funding.

With the building Canada fund set to expire in 2014, Canadian municipalities need financial help today in order not to miss this opportunity. Canada's job growth and economic productivity depend on federal funding, since 11,000 jobs are created for every $1 billion invested in infrastructure. Canada cannot afford to ignore this opportunity for growth.

In closing, need I remind hon. members that our current infrastructure contributed to Canada's economic growth?

The federal infrastructure plan proposed today has to be a predictable, accountable and long-term plan. This is an investment in the future, which will help build greener, more prosperous communities where no one is left behind.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would like to remind hon. members to keep their questions and comments brief and to the point so that more members have the opportunity to participate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and Infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about the need for more money for municipalities. In looking at facts, according to Statistics Canada, in 2001 local government revenue was $87.3 billion. In 2011, 10 years later, local government revenue was $149 billion. That is a 71% increase in revenue for municipalities over a decade. In exactly the same period of time there was a 30% increase in the combined inflation and population growth.

If financial resources were the solution to the problem, why is the member across the way voted against them in the past, yet proposes them for the future?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this motion calls for predictable funding. If we look at what the federal government has accomplished, we see that the funding is still the same. We need predictable funding to resolve the serious problem of Canada's current infrastructure deficit.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The translation is not functioning.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is it working now?

Unfortunately, interpretation was not available when you gave your answer. I am therefore granting you more time so that you can answer the question again.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, all we are asking for is predictable, long-term funding. We want a strategic plan that will make it possible to eliminate Canada's infrastructure deficit. This is a very positive thing.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the hon. member for her speech. The Conservative member's question does not take into account the reality of the municipalities. Our cities, towns and municipalities receive only 8% of all the tax revenue collected by all levels of government. Eight percent is not enough to meet the major challenge of billions of dollars worth of infrastructure deficit.

Does the hon. member have anything to say about the other points raised by the member opposite?

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her astute comments and her question. Over the years, for several decades, the federal government has shirked many of its responsibilities, such as being an active partner on infrastructure issues. Over the years, the government has passed off these responsibilities and has not provided for any long-term strategic planning or predictable funding.

The motion addresses this issue and calls on the government to think seriously about reducing the infrastructure deficit in a meaningful way and in partnership with the provinces and communities.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my city of Toronto, the Conference Board of Canada has pegged the loss in business output, in GDP, at $6 billion due to gridlock. It seems we need a plan.

Why does my hon. colleague think the government would block a motion like this that really calls for the government to sit down with major stakeholders, with municipalities, with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and work out a plan? This is the prudent thing to do. I would like her to respond to this question.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments on the gridlock problem and how it costs the Canadian economy.

We must work with the different levels of government to develop a long-term plan that will help Canada move forward. We must target the competitiveness issues caused by the deficit we have with our aging infrastructure. We must also come up with a plan to make commuting easier. Our country is very large and we seem to forget to put our transportation capabilities and expertise to good use.

We must work together to overcome these challenges. We must also look at the issues of climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today to speak to the motion of my colleague from Trinity—Spadina concerning infrastructure and the forthcoming budget. Every member of the House will have something to say because it is one of the few issues that demonstrates local and regional impacts in the field.

I am going to use this opportunity to discuss the problems being experienced in my riding, which have led me to support this motion. I am, moreover, very pleased with our efforts as a political party to ensure predictable and long-term infrastructure funding that is viable and stable.

First of all, people often say that transport is a provincial jurisdiction or that the NDP has its priorities wrong. In fact, what we are asking for in the House today as duly elected representatives was suggested by people who really know what they are talking about because they are experts in the field. I am talking about our elected municipal officials, including mayors, chambers of commerce and the federations under which they operate. I am a member of two chambers of commerce in my area. I also meet regularly with 12 mayors from my riding.

I would like to share a few of their concerns. First of all, a loss in productivity can have a major impact on a region’s economic viability. One example that comes to mind is from the keynote address given by the Mayor of Chambly, Denis Lavoie, at a luncheon held at the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie du bassin de Chambly. He remarked that an effective public transit system is important because it encourages local businesses and producers to remain in the region because they can run successful operations. If people are unable to get around efficiently and quickly, they will want to move elsewhere. If they do, then companies and businesses will follow.

It is therefore not only in our interest as elected representatives to encourage people to move to our region, and to provide services for them, but also in the interest of the chamber of commerce, because they will increase their membership and build a strong local economy.

Loss of productivity and public transit are very important subjects. We have only to look at suburban municipalities in the greater Montreal area, in particular those in the CMM, which includes most of the municipalities in my riding as well. They are equally important in the GTA, the Greater Toronto Area, and also in suburban municipalities surrounding Vancouver, Winnipeg and all the major cities of Canada. I would rather not comment too much on these regions, and focus instead on my own region.

As it happens, my region is currently experiencing urban sprawl, a topic I raise frequently in the House. People are leaving the downtown core to live in suburbs, start a family and live in a neighbourhood that is perhaps more peaceful, with all due respect to my big-city colleagues. There are other factors to be considered as well, like population growth in the regions.

I am relatively young, but I can remember when some of the more rural municipalities in my riding were much less urban than they are now. They have become suburban municipalities. The change is remarkable. In Beloeil, for example, there is development along Highway 20. Many of our Quebec companies, like Rona, are locating stores there for the local residents.

I mentioned urban sprawl because the people who live there frequently work downtown. In my case, the people work in Montreal. People who commute have great expectations about the infrastructure they would like to have.

However, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities tends unfortunately to always want to shift responsibility back to the provinces and municipalities, thereby increasing pressure on provincial and municipal elected representatives who come to see us for help.

Ultimately, teamwork is required if we are to provide better results for the citizens we represent. To be sure, we need to respect areas of provincial jurisdiction. Public transit is one example. We are not about to tell the provinces what to do or how to do it. However, the federal government has an important responsibility with respect to funding programs. It must also establish certain standards for these areas of jurisdiction.

I would like now to return to the topic of urban sprawl. It is very important in terms of highways and public transit, and sprawl also affects bridges like the Champlain Bridge. We naturally heard a great deal of talk during the election and again today. It is an issue that is very problematic for us, the people of the south shore and Montérégie, including my constituents who live in Chambly, Richelieu, Saint-Mathias-sur-Richelieu, Carignan and Marieville, and who travel along highway 30 or highway 10 to the Champlain Bridge. Keeping this bridge viable, particularly in view of the public transit strategy that will be adopted, is essential for people who need to commute.

It is essential for all the usual reasons, such as the fact that public transit is good for the environment and all that, but urban sprawl is moving people farther away from downtown cores. The people of Marieville, for example, need to travel along highway 10 and then cross the Champlain Bridge to work in Montreal. They have a 35 to 40 minute commute when there is no traffic, but this can of course be much longer if traffic is heavy. And the traffic is increasing steadily because of population growth. Building a new bridge would be a good way to address not only these problems, but also to come up with a plan that would be viable over the long term.

At the moment, the government is providing very few details or information about this matter, except for what the minister said in the House yesterday, "If there are no tolls, there will be no bridge". We are not given any more details other than the people of the south shore will have to pay tolls.

My colleague from Brossard—La Prairie recently made a request for a more detailed report about the financial planning and the projects that will be undertaken by the federal government, in collaboration with the provincial government, of course. We are still waiting for that information, which is very important to the people in our ridings.

Let us come back to another subject concerning our motion. It also talks about predictable, long-term funding. That is very important. It is something we often hear from the mayors of municipalities in my riding. The problem is not limited to infrastructure; it is the same everywhere. Our community organizations tell us the same thing, but that is unfortunately another subject. In any event, the problem of unpredictable, short-term funding makes it very difficult to make long-term commitments, and consequently to put plans in place that make sense in the long term.

I put myself in the shoes of a municipal representative. It is a bit difficult when residents come to see me to ask me to do something about our roads, our highways, our bridges, and so on. As a municipal representative, the very little information I have about funding and where it comes from makes the job rather difficult. That is a reminder of why these collaborative efforts are important.

I am being told that my speaking time is up. That is unfortunate, because I could talk about this longer and offer more examples of what we see in our ridings.

I will conclude by saying that we could talk more about the Internet, for example, and the digital infrastructure that really has to be put in place. That is very important for us, on the outskirts of the city. Perhaps I will have an opportunity to say more about that when I answer questions and comments.

It will certainly be clear from what I have said that this is just the tip of the iceberg. There are a lot of problems in our ridings to do with these issues. That is why I am very pleased to see the work done by my colleagues from Trinity—Spadina and Trois-Rivières. I am very pleased to support this motion, and hope to see a New Democrat government take office in 2015.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way was talking about the Champlain Bridge and about the need for that type of infrastructure spending. Quite honestly, we have stepped up to the plate on that, and he voted against it.

I find it unfortunate that across the way they voted against the $33 billion we put out in the build Canada fund. They did not support the gas transfer or the GST rebate of $3 billion a year. That is funding that goes directly to the municipalities. It is not all about dollars, as my colleague mentioned about the excess in revenue that has gone out in comparison to the expenses over the last 10 years. That is significant.

However, what is really important is that through our budget and the navigable waterways, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities came alongside and supported us. Why? It was because we talked to them. Would the member stand up now and say this was good in the budget, even though they stood up and voted against it?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which covers several points.

I will try to address each of those points briefly. On the first point, we voted against it because, when you have an omnibus bill, it is hard to say that we support one aspect and not another, particularly when the government refuses to divide its omnibus bills into various parts. However, the Conservatives were able to use their majority to put those measures in place, but the mayors in our ridings tell us that this is not working and that something else is needed.

The member also said this was not all about dollars. We agree with him. That is why I pointed out that we were not just talking about amounts of money here, but also about stable, predictable, long-term funding. Elected municipal members often request this because it enables them to plan and make good use of the money the government gives them.

Lastly, the member mentioned navigable waters. I believe the debate on that matter was quite clear. He mentioned the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. However, it supports our motion because we are on the right track.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say that the Liberal Party, in supporting this motion, has been consistent over the years. One could talk about Pierre Trudeau and the investments in infrastructure that led to the development of things such as The Forks development, the Portage Place development and many roads—the Chrétien government's investment in infrastructure. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in which we have recognized, not only in the past but also today, that the federal government has a leading role to play in infrastructure and in building the infrastructure of our nation. That means working with our cities.

When we talk about this infrastructure, the financial commitment is absolutely essential, but we need different levels of government recognizing what Canadians know is important, which is our infrastructure, and we need to have long-term commitment from the different levels of government, including Ottawa, the provinces and the cities, in working together so that Canadians have first-class infrastructure. Would the member not agree that such consultation is very important?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I do agree with him that good cooperation and a show of leadership are essential in this matter because transport and infrastructure involve a lot of shared jurisdictions.

My colleague also mentioned past governments. I will respond to him by saying that the Champlain Bridge, to name one example, was not built yesterday. The Conservatives have been in power since 2006, but some work could have been done before that to avoid an infrastructure deficit such as the one we now have. We could have hoped for a little more work in that area.

However, we are pleased with the Liberals' support, and I agree on the points he has raised.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague about the situation in rural areas. I will give him some examples from my riding, but I know that he also has rural areas in his riding.

In my riding, a municipality called La Reine will have to repair about 10 bridges over the next few years. This municipality has about 400 people, 200 of whom pay taxes. In addition, the people of Angliers have not had drinking water for three years.

Are these situations acceptable? How could a long-term plan help rural communities like some of the ones he represents?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I am glad that she brought up rural areas, because I live in a funny riding that serves as a kind of bridge between the big city and the rural region.

My riding has a few rural areas, but there are not as many as in my colleague's riding. I think I am pretty familiar with my colleague's riding, but I would not presume to speak to her situation. She is right, though, that we must unite our regions. Making it easier to travel from region to region would be good for everyone, not just for the people who have to commute, but also for producers.

A few weeks ago we were discussing a railway bill about the need to have proper contracts between CN and the people shipping our local products. This kind of issue is exactly why today's motion is so important.