Debates of June 14th, 2016

Concurrence in Vote 1—Infrastructure Canada

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, in his poorly documented speech, said that we include everything in infrastructure. This may disappoint him, but we will not include gazebos, fake lakes with fake docks on them, and sidewalks leading nowhere.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. Since the Conservatives had so many years to distribute funding for infrastructure programs, why is it that there is still so much unspent money and why is it up to us to implement the program and ensure that the money is distributed responsibly?

We lost at least two years of construction under the Conservative regime. We will never do that again.

Why did the Conservatives waste so much time when they should have been helping Canadians?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is gratifying to know that there are no gazebos in the minister's new office, because for that much money, it sort of made me wonder.

When he talks about the infrastructure investments the Conservative government made, it is clearly evident in the budget, and I think the question acknowledges this, that a lot of the infrastructure money Liberals are talking about was money that was allocated by the previous government. The Conservative government had laid out a long-term plan to make significant investments in infrastructure, not infrastructure in this kind of loosey-goosey, could-be-anything way that the government talks about but concrete investments in hard infrastructure.

The government says it will continue with some of this spending. That is a good thing to the extent that it continues with the infrastructure investments that the Conservatives had made, but the infrastructure investments made under the previous government were very substantial. I appreciate the parliamentary secretary at least tacitly acknowledging that in his question.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen to the member with a lot of attention as I have enormous respect for him. I happened to be in the finance committee of the whole that he talked about earlier and listened to him until, I think, one o'clock in the morning, so I paid a lot of attention to his words.

What surprised me when I listened to him today is that he is questioning this government's investment in infrastructure for early childhood development, to make sure that the children of this country have proper infrastructure in order to learn. I am surprised to hear that from the member. This is a government that is going to continue to invest, I can assure him, in Canadian families, to make sure there is infrastructure for our children, because our children are the future of this nation. Why is it that he does not agree with investing in our children?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear. The government eliminated the universal child care benefit. It is now no longer universal. I take no lessons from Liberals when it comes to investing in the next generation. The next generation, by the way, is going to need a very good education to figure out how to unload the debt that it will be left with because of the disastrous fiscal policies of the government.

My point was quite specific. It was about what actually constitutes infrastructure. Child care is important. Child care is not the same as building roads and bridges. It is a category error. When the Minister of Infrastructure says that infrastructure really means everything that Canadians use, there is obviously a lack of coherence there. There is obviously a bit of a problem when we try to understand if Liberals actually know what they are doing when it comes to infrastructure or the stimulative benefits that are supposed to be associated with infrastructure.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. minister just a few minutes ago, as well as the parliamentary secretary, talk about the fact that they felt dollars had not made it through, especially in Alberta. I wonder if the member could comment on the fact that there was no agreement signed by the Province of Alberta with the federal government because the province was going through numerous changes at that time. That was not signed until the end of November and the call for proposals had taken place in the spring.

We hear a lot about how money did not flow, but I wonder if the member could comment on the reasons why that took place.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right to point to the fact that there has to be due diligence on these kinds of projects, working with the provinces and making sure that the necessary time is taken to get to that point. There are, of course, important infrastructure needs in my province. There are important infrastructure needs in my riding and I would remiss if I did not plug the need for a bridge in Fort Saskatchewan.

In particular, there is a need to do the due diligence and the Conservative government made substantial investments while working with the provinces to set up framework agreements that would allow that to happen, and I am very proud of that record.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate.

When I was first elected, I sat on the public accounts committee, so I could speak for a long time about gazebos and all the fun we had at that committee with that story. However, irony has rolled in its grave enough for one debate.

It is important to indicate what it is we are debating before getting into the details. We are talking about votes and also about the total operating budget of the Department of Infrastructure, which is $110 million. When the Conservatives talk about the astronomical amount of $825,000, we can understand that there are questions to be asked. That is legitimate. That is what happens when one is in government. We must answer these questions. However, we must nevertheless realize that we are talking about the operating budget of a department with ambitious projects.

Despite the political differences that we in the NDP may have with the government and the Liberal Party, we are very aware of the importance of infrastructure projects and the gaps that must be addressed in the coming years, and we agree with them on that. Therefore, it goes without saying that there must be an appropriate operating budget in order to have a robust department that will be capable of implementing the programs that we will be working on as parliamentarians in the next few years.

Once again, this is worth elaborating on. Even if we move forward with this operating budget, it is no less legitimate for the Conservatives to ask questions. However, the facts are the same, as I joked when talking about the time I spent on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Whether we are talking about gazebos or other things, I would venture to say that the Conservatives' memory is a bit short when we consider the problems we faced and the questions we had to ask in the last Parliament, in which I sat, and the preceding Parliaments.

It is important to make this clear, and with all due respect to our interpreters, I will say this in both official languages. We are talking here about the operating budget of an entire department. While the government does have to answer questions from the opposition about spending and different line items and we do accept that, at the end of the day, New Democrats do recognize how it is important to get our cities moving and how it is important that we bridge the infrastructure gap that has been created unfortunately over the last couple of years. While we do certainly share differences with our colleagues in the Liberal Party and the government, at the end of the day, we do not feel that these issues amount to the kind of issue that requires us to say no to an entire $110-million operating budget of a department.

Once again, I will point out the irony of that coming from my Conservative colleagues. Perhaps there are questions to ask the minister about the $800,000 in spending, but there certainly were questions that were posed to the Conservative government at the time. Therefore, we find ourselves once again in perhaps the “Liberal, Tory, same old story” conundrum.

That said, I would like to take this opportunity to get to the bottom of things and talk about the topic at hand. We are talking about the infrastructure department's operating budget, and I would like to talk about infrastructure.

First, I want to thank the minister. Since I became the NDP's infrastructure critic, we have had a very good working relationship. We have had discussions. That speaks to his passion for infrastructure issues.

As many of my colleagues in all parties can attest, having a municipal background helps you understand the challenges facing municipal officials. After all, they have a lot of responsibilities and, unfortunately, very few fiscal tools, or at least not as many as the federal government has. We recognize this, and I acknowledge the work that the minister has done.

At the same time, I heard my Conservative colleague who preceded me wading into the weeds of the minister's life as a municipal councillor, and all these ideas of what he may or may not have received for his time as a municipal councillor. I do not want to do that. I do not think it is appropriate for this debate.

I was at the FCM, and again, our policy differences aside, I know that the minister is greatly respected among municipal leaders. I know that my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, among others, worked with him when he was in municipal politics.

I do not want to get into that more personal aspect of the debate. I do not think that is entirely appropriate for what we are facing here today, again, notwithstanding any questions that the opposition can legitimately pose. I think it is important to put that on the record.

That said, we still have questions on substance. Although the minister and I have an excellent relationship, I want to take this opportunity to raise some of these questions and perhaps review how we got where we are today when it comes to infrastructure. Fortunately, I have the time to do so.

There have been some problems with the building Canada plan in recent years. This is worth pointing out, since there were some challenges to overcome to get the money to the right place, into the pockets of municipalities, for projects to reduce traffic congestion, develop good public transit systems that meet people's expectations, and have access to water management systems that meet people's expectations. Obviously, some examples are more well known that others.

In my riding, there is the Champlain Bridge. As we know, this example attracted a lot of attention during the 2011 election campaign. We can give the previous government some credit, but not too much, since there was talk about the lack of transparency and the lack of a concrete plan for truly working with the Government of Quebec and municipal officials.

We also need to talk about the toll on the Champlain Bridge, which the NDP opposed. The toll would have been detrimental to the communities on the south shore, communities like mine. I am thinking, for example, of the municipalities along Highway 10. The people who have to travel to Montreal for work would pay the price. I am also thinking of the lack of co-operation with the former minister.

Expectations of the new government are high. It is facing the same challenge of ensuring that the money makes it to the municipalities and the provincial governments so that we get good results.

It has been a challenge for at least the last 10 years and probably before that, I would argue. We have certainly wanted to find ourselves in a situation where the federal government was able to get the money to those who need it, particularly municipalities but also provincial governments. We want these projects and agreements to respect different jurisdictions and different levels of government.

However, we recognize that if we want to get our cities moving and make sure that we have an infrastructure that is meeting the expectations of our constituents that we represent, whether it is in urban communities, suburban communities like mine, or rural communities, there is a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure that we are making the most of those federal dollars.

At the end of the day, the federal government has a very big purse, but very limited expertise on what it means to really succeed in getting these projects off the ground and making sure we are maximizing the impact these projects have. It needs to make sure that our communities have the resources they need, so that we have less traffic on the roads and so that we are not losing that economic productivity that comes when these work crews get stuck in traffic.

It is kind of interesting when we consider that my drive to Ottawa, twice a week, means that I am spending less time in my car than my constituents spend in traffic on a daily basis going to Montreal from the south shore of Montreal. That is a situation, and whether the solution is public transport, which is certainly important if we are looking to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, or making sure that we have the appropriate infrastructure with the Champlain Bridge, to use a local example, that situation is completely unacceptable.

There is a cost on productivity, and a cost on morale, I daresay, if I can put it that way. At the end of the day, when we consider that our constituents who we represent spend so much time traffic, time away from their families, time they are not actually at work, time that their blood pressure is rising as they sit in their cars, trying to cross the bridge, listening to the same radio show they listen to every day, and I say that with all due respect to the talk radio hosts, that is having an impact on our economy. It is certainly something that needs federal dollars.

We know the government has committed a lot in that sense. New Democrats share that commitment, share that priority, but we need to make sure that the results are actually there. On that front, it certainly remains to be seen. We know it is still early, so I will give the benefit of the doubt to the government, but that is why it is important that it certainly at least have the operating budget necessary to achieve these ambitious goals. New Democrats will be there every step of the way to make sure that we can accomplish these goals, because that is certainly what our municipalities and, most important, our constituents need in order to be more productive and have a higher quality of life. It is certainly something that would benefit us all.

The provincial governments have an important role to play in achieving those goals. That is important in the spirit of bilateral agreements. In that regard, we have questions for the government, but I know that it is a very complex process. Canada is a vast country, and I understand very well the importance of the uniqueness of all the provinces. After all, I am from Quebec. If anyone understands the importance of respecting the uniqueness of a province, it is a Quebec MP.

Having said that, we must take action immediately. Since we are talking about Quebec, I would like to mention once again that I attended the annual meeting of the Union des municipalités du Québec a few weeks ago in Quebec City. We had the opportunity to attend several workshops and hear a speech by the Minister of Finance. We also had the opportunity to have discussions with municipal officials.

I was pleased to speak to municipal officials from my riding and also a number of municipal officials from across Quebec. That is important because I represent a suburban riding. We must listen to the officials of major urban centres and rural communities as well.

Their biggest concern had to do with the urgent need to sign a bilateral agreement. I always hesitate to point a finger at previous governments. We need to look forward, and I think the current government is taking responsibility. However, we cannot deny the fact that part of the blame lies with the previous government.

As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, we missed a number of construction seasons in Quebec, and this created a deficit of several billion dollars in terms of infrastructure projects, which are still on hold. Our dynamic and innovative municipalities are waiting for that money.

Under this new government, everyone is still waiting. I know its members are acting in good faith and it is still much too early in their mandate to accuse them of bad faith. However, there is an urgent need for action, and I want to take this opportunity to reiterate that that is what the Union des municipalités du Québec, the members from Quebec, and the people we represent are calling for. We must act now in order to begin these projects before the 2016 construction season is over.

This issue is not just an issue facing Quebec. I had the opportunity to go to Winnipeg for the first time. The member for Winnipeg North will be happy to hear that I certainly enjoyed my first visit to his city. It was an opportunity to go to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' convention and to meet municipal leaders from across Canada. It was a great opportunity because, as I mentioned a bit earlier in my speech in French, Canada is a large country. We are dreaming if we think that we could find a one-size-fits-all solution. There is no way that is ever going to happen, and we accept that. I think the Conservatives, when they were power, accepted that. I certainly know that the Liberals accept that, as well. That is why it is so important that we get it right, and that we get it right quickly. At the end of the day, suburban communities, urban centres, and rural communities all have specific issues that they need taken care of. That is why these bilateral agreements with provinces are so important.

I know the minister is working hard and again, at the risk of repeating myself and with all due respect to our interpreters, I really think it bears repeating and mentioning again in both of our official languages that it is so important that when we are negotiating these bilateral agreements that the government recognize that there is urgency.

I think it is far too early in the Liberals' mandate to accuse them any sort of any sort of bad faith, but we cannot afford to miss the construction seasons. It is a challenge that we face in Canada. Winters are long. We all suffer through the temperatures that we go through in winter. Perhaps my colleagues from B.C. have a different reality, that is fair enough. We need to make sure that we are maximizing the opportunities that we have to get these projects going.

Municipalities are ready. We have very dynamic municipalities that have projects that they want to accomplish. We have provinces that have their priorities as well. It is so important that we get this right and get it right quickly. I cannot emphasize enough that speed and urgency is of the essence here.

In particular, when I look at the budget and the phase one program, that is the essence of what the government has committed to. We are talking about refurbishing infrastructure. We are talking about repairing infrastructure. We are talking about bridging that gap so that they can bring in phase two. If we really want to accomplish those objectives, we need to get these bilateral agreements signed quickly so that we can maximize what we are doing with the phase one program, so that by the time we reach the next phase of the infrastructure program, at least the provinces and municipalities have had the opportunity to bridge that gap. That is so important. That is certainly a priority going forward. As New Democrats, we are going to holding the government's feet to the fire and make sure that it keeps the negotiation of these agreements as a priority.

We talked about the short term, but we also have to think about the long term. What does the future hold for us when it comes to infrastructure? There are a number of aspects to that, and the Conservatives raised a very important point.

I dare say that I am asking the government a question by way of my speech, and it is about the way the different types of infrastructure are defined. There has been a lot of talk about social infrastructure, and I have to admit that we find that problematic.

At the end of the day, we agree with the government's priorities, indeed all of them. I am thinking about affordable housing, public transit, and infrastructure for early child care, even though I also wonder what exactly this means.

Our concern when it comes to social infrastructure is that we must not lose sight of the different priorities because everything is being put into one big basket.

It is easy for a government member to turn around and say that there is such and such an amount for social housing, such and such an amount for public transit, and such and such an amount for green infrastructure, but the problem at the end of the day is that it is the same money in every case because it all comes out of the same big basket.

It is very important to know that, and we should pay close attention because the government has promises to keep when it comes to the different aspects of infrastructure. It is very important that the government keep those promises and that it understand that the situation is urgent. I am repeating myself, but urgent action needs to be taken given the importance of the various files.

Much to my colleagues' chagrin, I could probably talk about this issue for a long time yet, but my time is running out.

As the leader of the NDP, the member for Outremont, said at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference, we appreciate the government's change of tone.

We certainly appreciate a renewed relationship between municipalities and provinces, but at the end of the day, it does not substitute for results. For New Democrats it will certainly not be enough to keep us off our feet, standing in the House and making sure that the government is living up to the very large expectations that have been set on the infrastructure file.

An example of a sector in which expectations are very high is green infrastructure. I know that is also one of the government's objectives. There are high expectations, and the municipalities are on the front lines working to combat climate change.

Municipalities are certainly key partners in fighting climate change and New Democrats recognize that. We like to hope and I have certainly heard that the government agrees on that point, but now the devil will be in the details. The results we have yet to see will be something that we will be waiting for.

I would like to close by saying that we respect the commitments that the government has made and we share its priorities. I appreciate the work that I have been able to do with the minister and the working relationship that we have established.

However, as an opposition party, we are now going to stand up and ensure that the Liberals fulfill their mandate and live up to the high expectations that municipalities have of them.

Municipalities, provinces, and our constituents depend on our delivering these results. While we appreciate what the government is doing, we are going to be standing up to make sure the government lives up to these very high expectations that have been set on the infrastructure file.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate my hon. colleague's very deep understanding about infrastructure and why we need to invest in areas that the hon. member has identified; whether it is public transit, affordable housing, or making our communities more resilient to climate change under green infrastructure.

I also share the concerns raised by the member about the lack of investments that should have been made in the last number of years but were not made. It will be worth sharing that in 2014 the previous government, despite allocating $1.6 billion for Quebec, delivered zero dollars in the last two years for the province of Quebec, which is a concern to us. It was the same with Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. It is not a new story, how the previous government neglected the needs of the provinces and municipalities.

However, I agree with my hon. colleague to have flexibility, as well as that once I—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his question.

I am old enough to have a certain appreciation for Jerry Maguire and the famous phrase, “Show me the money”. That is what provinces and municipalities are thinking now.

We certainly appreciate the interest in investing more in these different infrastructures. As I said in my speech and I will say again, the priorities that the minister just listed are certainly priorities that we share. What is really going to be important is that we have agreements with the provinces to make sure we can actually deliver those dollars.

At the end of the day, we can promise any amount of money that we want to the provinces and municipalities, but if there is not an agreement to let that money flow in the appropriate fashion, it is for nought. So let us ensure we get it right, and let us recognize the urgency of getting that money to those who need it.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my New Democratic Party colleague for his speech.

When I entered politics, a journalist asked me a question. It was during one of the first interviews I gave after deciding to run. The journalist asked me a simple question: once elected, if I could do one thing to counter people's cynicism, what would it be? I said that I would do something meaningful to prove that we could do things differently.

Even if we set aside the expenses to set up the minister's office, when I see that $850,000 was spent ahead of the multitude of projects that are waiting in every municipality and region in Canada, I really have to wonder.

I would like my colleague to make his opinion on that $850,000 expense clear. Given the choice, not a lot of private companies would spend that much money setting up offices. Even if people tell me that public servants made that decision, I think a minister who wants to show leadership and do things properly from day one should take a close look at that kind of thing and keep an eye on his own department's spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I said in my speech, he is one of the members of this House who understands how important infrastructure is, since he is a former municipal mayor.

To answer his question, as I said many times in my speech, the minister is not immune to having to answer legitimate questions from the opposition regarding taxpayers' money. Let us be clear: what we are debating today is votes that the Conservative Party opposes.

The more than $800,000 that was spent was probably excessive. My colleague and I agree on that. However, at the end of the day, the department's operating budget is $110 million. Should we ask the minister questions about how money is spent? Certainly, but there are also some objectives to be achieved. For now, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

He spoke about doing politics differently. We still share some priorities. I can say that the mayors in my riding, and certainly in other ridings across Canada, at least want to know that we are working with the government to try to achieve these objectives. We will talk again to determine whether the objectives were achieved, and we can certainly ask questions. That is our job as opposition members.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in defence of the Conservatives, their motion sparked some important debate on the spending that the minister's office does.

I was looking at National Newswatch, and this was the top story. I think it has achieved its desired effect. We have had a closer look. We have had the government come to the House and defend itself.

However, I was really intrigued by my hon. colleague's speech that touched on green infrastructure. I just wanted to provide a specific example from my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. We are increasingly seeing the effects of climate change with respect to the Cowichan River getting down to historical lows. One of the big things we need to do is build up the weir, to mitigate the effects of climate change. I think this is a case study that happens right across Canada.

Given the member's recent experience at the FCM and the many conversations he has had with municipalities, I just wanted to hear a little more about the feedback he has received about mitigating the effects of climate change and how important that kind of green infrastructure is to Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, the fight against climate change, as far as municipalities are concerned—and we, as federal MPs, in terms of what the federal government can do to help municipalities—is happening on two fronts.

On the one hand, there is reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the obvious direct fight against climate change and protecting the environment. On the other hand, unfortunately, we find ourselves in a position where, as my colleague highlighted, municipalities also have to deal with the consequences.

The two, unfortunately, are not mutually exclusive. Municipalities need to adapt. I have heard about adaptation, resilience, and mitigation. These are three words that come back very often from municipal leaders, as well as from experts in the field of infrastructure. These are things that are very important going forward.

When we look at the challenge of the environment and climate change, we need to make sure that municipalities and provinces have the tools they need to combat climate change, and also, unfortunately, to adapt to it. New Democrats share that priority. We are looking at the permafrost melting and drought in parts of British Columbia. These are very serious issues that we need to take on, and the federal government needs to play a lead role.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, let me touch base on the bilateral agreements for a minute.

I have an excellent relationship with our provincial counterparts. I had a chance to meet with my provincial counterparts in the province of Quebec. I had a chance to meet with the mayors of Gatineau, Montreal, and Quebec City. We are working in close collaboration to provide the necessary support that our communities need. We are moving forward on signing bilateral agreements.

As far as flood mitigation is concerned, absolutely, we understand. We need to make our communities more resilient and adapt to the impacts of climate change. We are working with our municipalities to do so.

However, the challenges the member has identified are not unique for that particular community. There are challenges throughout the country. Different areas have different needs. I had a chance to visit the city of Red Deer in March. I was surprised to know that I was the first infrastructure minister to visit that city in a decade. That tells us how the needs of the municipalities have been ignored for the last decade.

We will work in collaboration with the municipalities and welcome co-operation from my colleagues to deliver on the necessary infrastructure that communities need.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments and his question.

In fact, I will take this opportunity to talk about the bilateral agreement, more specifically, the one with Quebec. Naturally, it affects my riding. I appreciate and respect both the government's and the minister's goodwill. However, at the end of the day, it is important to hear what is being said right now.

The Government of Quebec is telling us that this is taking far too long, that we must act now or we will miss another construction season, as was too often the case under the previous government. We must act now; I cannot say it enough. Projects worth billions of dollars are ready to go. The minister must show some goodwill. I think the goodwill is there, but we need to act now.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to mention that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Saint-Maurice—Champlain.

I am very pleased to rise today in the House to speak about the important work done by Infrastructure Canada to support the government's priorities and help it keep its commitments to Canadians.

Everyone here today is well aware of the importance of building strong infrastructure in order to create sustainable communities that are great places to live. In many ways, infrastructure is what links Canadians to their communities.

To support Canadian communities, the Government of Canada is committed to delivering a historic plan that will invest more than $120 billion in infrastructure over the next 10 years. Phase one will invest more than $10 billion over the next two years toward the infrastructure projects that Canadians need most: public transit, green infrastructure, and social infrastructure.

In phase 1, we will accelerate delivery of funding for Infrastructure Canada's existing programs and extend project categories to meet the needs of communities because that is what we want to do: meet communities' needs.

New infrastructure projects will continue to be eligible under current infrastructure programs, such as the 2014 new building Canada fund and the gas tax fund.

It is also important to note that we have been working to strengthen our relationship with the provinces, territories, and municipalities and fund their priorities and our shared priorities.

For example, in the past month in Quebec alone, Infrastructure Canada has announced over $55 million from a fund that was set up in 2007. That fund has been around since 2007 and lay idle for years. Thanks to our efforts and the minister's efforts to deliver that funding so it can benefit communities, we have funded projects that the Government of Quebec identified as urgent and top priority. Among these is the Place des Canotiers, the Le Diamant performing arts centre in Quebec City, the Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal, and Saint Joseph's oratory. Other projects are coming on stream just as quickly.

How was this possible? It was thanks to a desire to establish a solid partnership with the provinces in order to advance our common interests to build strong, inclusive, sustainable communities.

In Quebec and elsewhere, the investments target large communities as much as small ones. We have invested in the major projects I just mentioned, but also in small communities such as Trois-Pistoles and Saint-Fortunat, which I had the opportunity to mention earlier. The money invested in Saint-Fortunat, Trois-Pistoles, and other small communities will be used to improve the water supply networks and wastewater treatment.

My counterparts in Quebec told me that our many efforts and our collaborative approach are making our relationships stronger. These relationships and partnerships in turn are making our communities stronger.

Allow me to cite a few examples of support we have received from officials in Quebec. Marc Demers, the mayor of Laval, said:

We appreciate the significant investments in affordable housing that have been announced. These announcements mean a lot to us considering how much money is earmarked for the Val-Martin housing project. The fact that the Government of Canada considers cities to be major partners and reserves funding specifically for them should help them meet their priorities better.

Sandra Desmeules, a member of the executive committee and a municipal councillor in Concorde-Bois-de-Boulogne, had this to say: “As a member of the board of directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I can only applaud the Government of Canada's decision to make major investments in the sustainable development of cities.”

There is also Denis Coderre, a former colleague, who is a well-known and highly regarded mayor.

He said, “I had a feeling like it was like a new deal. This is exactly what we were looking for ...”. This comes from somebody neutral, Denis Coderre, the mayor of Montreal.

Then there is Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin, the mayor of Gatineau, who spoke on behalf of the Union des municipalités du Québec. He said, “When 50% of the cost of projects is covered, that is a big deal for me.”

I would like to read a short quote from the official press release issued by the Union des municipalités du Québec after the Federation of Canadian Municipalities annual conference:

The partnership between the federal government and municipal leaders was front and centre during the conference, as [the] Prime Minister [of Canada], representatives from federal parties, and several Cabinet Ministers outlined their commitments to working with municipal leaders to build a strong country. Municipal leaders confirmed their ability to move quickly with the first phase of the federal government's infrastructure plans, which includes $11.9 billion in short-term investments in key priorities for Canadians such as public transit, housing and clean water.

I have a stack of quotes that I could read to my colleagues, but will stop here and continue my speech.

As solid progress continues to be made on phase 1, I would like to take the time to speak about a commitment for the phase 2 of our long-term plan. I have been working closely with members of Parliament from all parties to ensure that voices from the community are heard in the development of this long-term plan.

We have consulted different stakeholders such as citizens, municipal councillors, mayors, leaders of indigenous communities, and our provincial counterparts, which has allowed us to hear different perspectives on the issues and the pressing day-to-day needs of communities.

From coast to coast to coast, we are learning about the areas of investment that matter the most to our communities and our constituents. We are getting feedback on the type of programs that should be developed in order to help build strong, sustainable and inclusive communities. This is not only about identifying projects, it is about identifying the fundamental and real needs of Canadians and our communities.

This information will help us develop phase two of our infrastructure plan. I recently met with colleagues on both sides of the House to discuss our plan. I thank them for their co-operation and availability, and I would like to tell them that their feedback is important. We will continue to hold extensive public consultations over the summer to ensure that all communities in Canada, whether they are big or small, urban or rural, and all Canadians can have their say.

Communities know, more than anybody else, their pressures and opportunities. We are listening to them and identifying the types of investments that make a difference. It is time to invest in people and in our communities.

Sustainable public infrastructure is key to ensuring that communities prosper, and the Government of Canada's ambitious plan requires ongoing targeted efforts. This is exactly what we are doing.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened both to the minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities. I find it quite stunning that they are trying to defend spending almost $1 million on of office furniture to run this department.

It is important to not get into a lot of revisionist history here, but I think back to the time of our economic action plan. Of course the former minister of transport and infrastructure, John Baird, ran both of these ministries. He managed to get $40 billion worth of infrastructure out the door. Not only that, he did it with the Auditor General being very approving of how that program was managed, and he ran it with half the staff.

If he could run one of the largest infrastructure investments in Canadian history and he ran Transport Canada at the same time with half the staff, why does the minister need almost $1 million in new furniture and office space?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear my colleague speak about the economic action plan of the Conservatives. They spent $750 million on advertising, money thrown out the window for partisan purposes.

We have been clear. We explained that there was no minister dedicated exclusively to infrastructure. As a result, we needed to set up an office for the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, as well as an office for a new deputy minister dedicated exclusively to infrastructure and a full team. This was necessary because we are implementing the largest and most ambitious infrastructure plan in Canadian history.

These are the resources we need and we will use to move forward with this plan.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is funny because I have been listening to both sides in the debate and I get the feeling that the NDP is caught between the two. On one hand, the former Conservative government is constantly bringing up extremely petty subjects. Speaking of furniture, the Conservatives were ready to burn the furniture for heat to make sure that there would not be a deficit and to give the impression that they had balanced the budget.

On the other hand, the Liberals are here saying that they have a new department for infrastructure. They are filing all kinds of issues under infrastructure: spiritual infrastructure, green infrastructure, food infrastructure, and so on. When most people think of infrastructure, they think of roads and highways, pipes, water intake structures, and that sort of thing.

The member has certainly been around long enough to know that, in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, for example, there have been problems at the intersection of Highway 116 and Chambly Road for years. Everyone knows that area. It is next to the airport.

Can my colleague opposite tell me whether he was able to determine how the Conservatives could have gotten so behind in 10 years, particularly with regard to Quebec and its infrastructure? What is he going to do to avoid falling into the same trap?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague asked an excellent question.

The first thing that we need to do when we want to move forward with infrastructure programs is to open a dialogue. It was very difficult for the previous government to sit down with the Government of Quebec, the cities, and the municipalities to discuss priorities, which is something that we have done.

The other thing that is going to help speed up the distribution of infrastructure funding is that we have broadened the eligibility criteria. We have created a larger number of funding categories. We have also eliminated some of the red tape, which means that the tax dollars we are going to invest in infrastructure will be spent more quickly and more responsibly. That will help boost the economy and create jobs and will provide us with modern infrastructure for the new century.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have this opportunity to talk about the major progress that my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton Mill Woods, has made on the infrastructure file. I also want to talk about our plan to create quality jobs, generate economic growth in Canada, and support middle-class Canadians.

As my colleagues have said, infrastructure is an important part of our government's efforts to grow the economy. That is exactly why we have an infrastructure minister. Anyone who consulted Canadians, would realize that, after 10 years of the Conservatives neglecting infrastructure, it is about time we had a dedicated infrastructure minister. I travelled the country to hear from Canadians, which is not something that happened much in the last 10 years. People congratulated us and told us they need infrastructure.

That is why budget 2016 has an infrastructure plan that commits to smart, strategic investments that will grow Canada's economy and improve the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Our plan will focus on accelerating federal investments in the short term by providing funding for projects that rehabilitate and modernize public infrastructure. We will achieve this by working collaboratively with our provincial and municipal partners, who are best placed to quickly identify their priorities for funding.

Earlier my colleague, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, talked about this dialogue, which had not taken place for 10 years and through which the various levels of government focus on the interests of Canadians and put them at the forefront of their actions.

It is like a breath of fresh air to hear my hon. colleague talk about this renewed collaboration with our provincial, territorial, and municipal counterparts in order to work together to identify all the infrastructure needed across the country.

We are getting the money flowing as quickly as possible, so that projects can begin right away. I listened very closely to my NDP colleagues who were saying that they do not want to miss the construction season. The members on this side of the House are motivated by a desire to have good projects that benefit all Canadians and ensure that we do not miss another construction season, which is what happened over the past few years.

We are also working more collaboratively in order to reduce any unnecessary administrative burden and streamline approvals. That is one of the things that people talked to us about. Canadians are calling on the government to take new measures to avoid the same delays that we saw in past years and to be more efficient when it comes to giving Canadians from coast to coast to coast the infrastructure they so desperately need.

My colleague made a very interesting comment. He talked about investing not only in our urban centres, but also in our rural and suburban communities. I have the privilege of representing the riding of Saint-Maurice—Champlain, a riding that is larger than Belgium. When we talk about infrastructure, the people of my region understand what that means.

In order to make the most of the 21st century economy and be an entrepreneur, people need infrastructure. My NDP colleague may not agree with me on this, but in the 21st century, people are no longer talking only about bridges and highways. They are also talking about digital infrastructure. That is why our government is investing $500 million to connect our communities, so they too can participate in today's economy.

The public transit infrastructure fund allocation for the Government of Quebec is quite significant at $923,710,000. The funding allocation is to be distributed in such a way that every recognized public transit system receives a minimum base amount of $50,000, with the remainder of the funds to be distributed based on overall ridership of each transit system.

The clean water wastewater fund allocation for the Government of Quebec is $363,774,400.

This fund will primarily support investments that meet immediate public priorities for clean water and wastewater in order to support a healthier and cleaner environment in our communities.

Allow me to come back to what Canadians said to us. I had the opportunity, and even the privilege, of speaking to Canadians from Moncton to Yellowknife during the prebudget phase to gain an understanding of what Canadians wanted from us to ensure that there was economic growth in Canada. During my tour I also had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities in Edmonton. I saw how much he is respected in his community. He spoke here in the House about his past, and his background, which make him a great infrastructure minister who understands what communities want because he went through the experience. He was a municipal councillor and a bus driver. He is a man who understands, a man with the kind of integrity that no one in this House can deny. He is a man who works for his community.

Allow me to tell you what Canadians told us. I know that the Conservatives are trying to make this a petty debate. We are here in the House to examine the major issues in our society. What is the major issue for our society today? When we travelled around the country, people asked us to help them and their families and to grow the economy. When it comes to helping families, the government delivered. The first thing we did was to cut taxes for the middle class effective January 1 of this year. The second thing we did was introduce the most important social measure in the country since universal health care. The Canada child benefit will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, help nine out of ten families in Canada, and do so in a simpler way. That is what Canadians asked us to do, to give them a non-taxable benefit and to support the economy.

I would like to go back to the issue of infrastructure because when people asked us to grow the economy, they talked about infrastructure. The first thing we did was announce a historic $120-billion investment in infrastructure in the last budget. Why? It is simple. As a result of the Conservatives' historic disinvestment in infrastructure, we had to play catch-up. We believe, as do all MPs, that investing in infrastructure will lead to the economic growth that Canadians need.

When it comes to infrastructure, the minister was very smart. He has a good understanding of infrastructure. He decided to take this on in two phases. The first phase involves $11.9 billion. Of that, $3.4 billion will be spent on public transportation. Why? Because people and goods need to be able to travel around our large urban centres and other places more quickly. I will give a specific example. When I was in London, Ontario, I had the opportunity to meet with people in the community who informed me of a problem. The city is so spread out that there is no longer a way for people who live on one side of the city to get to the other side, where the jobs are. Imagine. In 2016, there is a city with an infrastructure problem that prevents people who want to work from getting to the other side of town where the jobs are and where there is a labour shortage. Members can imagine how much people in that city feel the need for new infrastructure.

There is an economic cost associated with all of this, a cost associated with the fact that people are spending two hours a day in their cars to get around our urban centres. That is why we have made historic investments. I just have a minute to talk about the investments that my colleague, the minister, has made so I will give some concrete examples. The members opposite talk a lot about the government's inaction, but I will tell you what real government action looks like.

The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities has been making investments since he took office. Here are some examples.

In Yellowknife, we have invested $14.8 million in broadband infrastructure. In Saskatoon, we have invested close to $15 million already in the Boychuk Drive and Highway 16 interchange. Let us look at Sudbury. We have already invested $26.7 million in the Maley Drive extension.

Let us look at Halifax. Everyone in the House loves Halifax. There has been a transit-related announcement about Lacewood Terminal, where $6 million has already been invested.

I will finish with Quebec City, since I come from Quebec, where we announced funding of $11.2 million for 32 hybrid minibuses for the Réseau de transport de la Capitale. That is a responsible government.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, as usual, my colleague delivered an excellent speech filled with facts and figures. He gave us a clear picture of how our government is dealing with infrastructure.

I think that what is bothering, surprising, and shocking the opposition is that our government is doing things differently. The Canadian Water and Wastewater Association is happy about the approach we took to infrastructure in our budget. Our approach is both ambitious and cautious. In other words, we will look at asset management before investing in major projects, to see what kinds of repairs our assets require. Then we will move forward. This is a cautious and welcomed approach.

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's thoughts on that.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, who is a veteran member of this House from whom we can all learn. He is also knowledgeable about waste water.

I thank him for his question, because this gives me a chance to talk about a significant investment made in the latest budget. We invested $5 billion in wastewater treatment across the country. I am sure members will recall what happened in municipalities across Canada. We can see how important investments in wastewater treatment systems are to our society.

As a result of the previous government's budget cuts, we had to make a meaningful but prudent investment of $5 billion to enable municipalities to treat waste water in their communities.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He talked about his tour across Canada. He must have heard the same comments I hear in my riding, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. Before becoming an MP, I was a municipal councillor for many years, and the municipalities have long been saying that in programs funded equally by the three levels of government, they get the short end of the stick because some of the money goes back to the higher level of government whether in terms of labour costs or equipment. I would like to know whether a different breakdown is being considered.

The hon. member talked about the importance of helping our rural communities. I represent a riding where the largest city has a population of 53,000, and the municipalities are telling me that they think that once the big cities get their share, there will be nothing left for them. Is that true?