House of Commons Hansard #9 of the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was projects.

Topics

JusticeOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

JusticeOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

(Motion agreed to)

JusticeOral Questions

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

There is one other item before everybody leaves. On the day members did me the honour of electing me as their Speaker, I spoke of my long-standing open-door policy and my intention to continue to be accessible and available to discuss ideas and concerns with my colleagues, whatever their political affiliation.

During the conversation with the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, he made a great suggestion: provide members with a suggestion box.

I thought that was an excellent idea. I am therefore very pleased to announce that, today, I will be unveiling a suggestion box, made from recycled materials, that has been installed near my office here in West Block.

I invite members to join me and the member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola in the Speaker's corridor at 4 p.m. for the official unveiling of the box.

I encourage all members to submit their ideas on how to improve the House of Commons. I look forward to working with all of you, beginning right now in 2020.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has three minutes and 40 seconds, and then we will go to questions.

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, that is not nearly enough time to discuss this very important issue, but I am pleased to continue my discussion on it.

As I was saying before question period began, what this really comes down to, for me at least, is what I see as a good idea that has been put forward by the Conservatives in their opposition motion. It is just perhaps the rhetoric that preceded it in the preamble that makes the motion extremely troubling to support, because if we were to support the motion, we would be supporting the preamble, and the preamble is misleading.

I am very much looking forward to the results that come out, because I have a sense that this motion will pass today. I am looking forward to the results that will come from the Auditor General. I am very proud of a lot of the infrastructure projects that have gotten off the ground in Kingston in particular—

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

At this point, I am just going to disrupt the hon. member for a moment. I know everyone is excited and is having discussions about what is going on in the hall. If members can hear my voice, please say, “Sh”.

There we go. I just want to remind everyone that there is someone making an allocution, and we want to hear what that member has to say.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, please continue.

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I am very proud of a number of those infrastructure projects that have gotten off the ground in my riding.

The government has invested about $45 million into transit, which has leveraged about another $35 million from the province, over a 10-year period. We are building a green fleet, a new transit system, one that is built on what people want to use as opposed to a system that is built on what people have to use.

Some of the infrastructure that has been going on is in my riding and some of it is in various ridings throughout the country. What we know is that this stuff is actually getting done, and I am certain that the Auditor General will come to the same conclusion.

I do support the concept, the main crux of the motion. I support everything that follows the “resolve” clause, basically everything that determines the actions. However, what I cannot support is the misleading information that has gone into the preamble prior to the direction that is given in the motion.

With that, I will conclude. I am happy to take any questions.

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals still have not answered the question as to why they are so opposed to having the Auditor General look at the use of taxpayer money when it comes to infrastructure projects. Many concerns have been raised, not just by opposition members but by people who have seen a difference between what has been purported to in budget papers and what has actually been spent with shovels in the ground.

I fail to see why there is such an objection to having the Auditor General, who is the custodian of public finances in our country, look into the whole extent of the investing in Canada program and provide real recommendations so that all the mistakes that have been made over the last few years will never happen again.

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad the member asked me that question. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that perhaps he did not hear my speech before question period, but he has asked the same question throughout the entire debate. In fact, I asked him a question after his speech. I specifically said that we supported the Auditor General and the work done by his office. However, we have a difficult time accepting the preamble in the motion. I asked him how he could support a motion that he knew would not address the real facts as to what actually happened.

Now we have heard another question about why we do not support the Auditor General's work, but we do. I have been saying that throughout my entire speech. We support the Auditor General and the work of his office. However, we have a problem with the misleading rhetoric in the preamble of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is highlighting the important role that audits play in the functioning of Parliament and the important role of audits being non-partisan and being presented as such, so we can take the criticism from audits at their value. Then we can then be better in the future.

Could the hon. member talk about the audit process as a non-partisan function and the difficulty we have with the motion that presents it in a partisan way?

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, the member for Guelph is absolutely right in what he is suggesting as it relates to the work of the Auditor General. It is very important.

When I first read the motion this morning, I had a difficult time figuring out its angle. I thought it seemed like a fairly decent motion. It asks for the Auditor General to weigh in on something so we can have an open and transparent process in looking at the work this government has done. It was not until I started to look into it and found that the quotes being used in the preamble were predated to another report that updated the information about what the government had been delivering.

I would really like to see the partisanship stripped away from these motions, which we see in the preamble, and have actual dialogue and discussion as to what we can do differently so we can bring forward suggestions and audits, in this case from the Auditor General, and can improve the work we do in the House.

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide my colleague with the opportunity to provide his thoughts on an infrastructure project in his community that has made a difference or has made an impact. I am not looking for the size of it, just an infrastructure project on which he would like to provide his thoughts.

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Mr. Speaker, that project would be the third crossing of the Cataraqui River in Kingston.

This project had been talked about since the 1960s. It was about connecting our community, in particular the centre-west part with the east part. We call it the “third crossing” because it is the third crossing of the river. This is a bridge. As mayor, I have fought and fought, as did my predecessors, to get money for the bridge so we could link the city together.

To be quite honest, I went in front of a lot of Conservative ministers in previous governments, asking for money and the money was never there. Through the programs that have been set up by this government, we were able to invest the $60 million from the federal government. We then saw $60 million from the province and $60 million from the community as well.

This project is a perfect example of how, when we work together with municipalities and provinces, we can build meaningful infrastructure.

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity since the election to address everyone in our 43rd Parliament, I want to take a moment to thank the good people of Brandon—Souris for their confidence in me and sending me to Parliament to work on their behalf. There really is no greater calling than to serve and to improve the lives of the people I represent.

During the campaign, my constituents spoke about the necessity to upgrade our aging infrastructure, and I am pleased to be able to speak to this opposition day motion.

Like many members of Parliament, I represent numerous municipalities with aging infrastructure. While most of the municipalities in my constituency are geographically large, their population and tax base are not. They rely on cost sharing with other levels of government to get projects done and to ensure their communities grow in the future. I firmly believe that one of the most important issues members of Parliament work on is securing the necessary infrastructure funding to get things built.

Whether it is the building of a new bridge, renovating an airport, fixing roads or upgrading water and sewer facilities, these are the types of projects that foster new economic development and they ensure that communities have the capacity to grow.

While I disagreed with many aspects of the Liberals' 2015 platform, I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of their commitment to get infrastructure built and funding out the door. After their full term in office, we know that not only did the infrastructure funding allocated in their platform not materialize, but the Liberals blew past their deficit projections. We got the debt without the projects.

Before I continue, Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for West Nova.

The Liberals are now running structural deficits for as far as the eye can see. Worst of all, we now have an infrastructure bank that is not building any infrastructure. One could be forgiven for thinking that this is an episode of BBC's Yes Minister . It reminds me of when they built a hospital for which they did not have any patients.

The Liberal infrastructure bank should infuriate every member of Parliament, as the taxpayers are paying millions of dollars that could be better spent on almost anything else.

In my constituency, the government freely admits that the infrastructure bank will not deliver a single new infrastructure project. It is projected that almost every rural constituency in Canada will see no benefit from the Liberal infrastructure bank, which is another signal that the Liberals are not recognizing or prioritizing the needs of smaller communities.

These perennial deficits and infrastructure delays are not what the Liberals were originally elected to do, which brings us to today's motion.

As I was elected in a by-election in the fall of November 2013, I had less than two years as a member of the governing Conservative caucus. However, in those years, we got things done.

I worked extensively with Minister Lebel and Peter Braid, who was his parliamentary secretary, so my constituency would be ready to get the projects funded. We took the time to consult with all our municipalities and the provincial leaders on our new Canada building plan, and to outline the infrastructure priorities of our region.

We knew exactly how much funding was allocated for each year and the sorts of projects we wanted to advance. Because we collaborated and were well organized, the modernization of McGill Field, which is Brandon's bustling airport, was the first project to be funded in Manitoba under the new building Canada plan. We had a plan, communicated the plan and then implemented that plan. This is how government should operate.

As the vast majority members of Parliament in the House are not part of the executive, we are not at the cabinet table where these decisions are made. We are not privy to the information to which ministers have access. The information we do have does not give us any comfort on how the Liberal government plans on spending the billions of infrastructure dollars it has allocated or at least talked about.

It has now become apparent that it is time to welcome the Auditor General to conduct a comprehensive audit and I would encourage his office to also do a performance review.

In our parliamentary system, we are presented spending bills to vote on. However, there is limited oversight on how funding is spent or how decisions are made. While some may think that members vote on specific infrastructure projects, we are only given the ability to vote on a whole envelope of funding that the minister is able to disburse. We rely on standing committees, departmental performance reports, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General to give us the information we need to do our jobs, so it is only natural that when we do have concerns we ask them to intervene. That is exactly what this motion in front of us aims to do.

While I appreciate that there is a new Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and our concerns are directly related to her predecessors, I hope that she welcomes the Auditor General to audit the programs of which she is now in charge. Anytime a minister has better information in front of him or her, it will undoubtedly lead to better decisions and results. An Auditor General's report would provide all members of Parliament with a third party and independent analysis of the government's performance.

While some Liberal MPs might be hesitant to invite the Auditor General to conduct this review, in the end it should result in more efficient and transparent ways to get infrastructure projects built. Those Liberal MPs who do not find themselves in the executive must never forget that their constituents did not send them here to defend those in high office. They want MPs to ask the tough questions of their own government, even the ones that might be uncomfortable.

We are talking about billions of dollars here. If the department and the minister do not have a coherent plan to allocate that funding for infrastructure projects, all of us in the House deserve to know. We have a responsibility to hold the government to account and demand better. If we take a historical view of what has transpired over the last four years, Liberal MPs must also acknowledge that their own government has yet to deliver what it promised.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is also quick to note that the Liberals do not provide a list of all specific project commitments under their investing in Canada plan and their spending profiles. As he said, “Infrastructure Canada was unable to provide the data.” That is right from the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

It also goes without saying that there are some serious apprehensions about the costing in the Liberals' recent election platform, particularly in their infrastructure commitments. It is not too far of a stretch to say that the government's commitment to keeping its election promises is spotty at best. After the Liberals gave the Parliamentary Budget Officer the power to review the various party platforms, their own campaign team did not request that analysis on many of their commitments. It boggles the mind how far and how quickly their commitments to transparency evaporated. Even former minister Sohi, who was the minister of infrastructure at the time, said, “There is an information gap from our end.”

Allow me to summarize how we arrived at this situation and why the official opposition put forward the motion. We know the government did not keep its promise to balance the budget. We know the Liberals set up an infrastructure bank that does not do anything. We know they do not have a plan to prioritize their infrastructure funding. We know they failed to get all their infrastructure funding allocated. We know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer does not have the necessary information to know what projects the government wants to fund. We now have a minority Parliament in which to get motions passed, instead of the bewilderment we had to put up with for the past four years.

I urge my Liberal colleagues to vote in favour of the motion. Our constituents and communities expect us to get to work and put forward solutions to issues that have stalled infrastructure projects for way too long. If we are going to build a stronger Canada than the one we inherited, it starts with getting Infrastructure Canada straightened out.

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Yukon Yukon

Liberal

Larry Bagnell LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency)

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member, but I would first like to say as my preamble that I work great with the member. We are both on the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association, and I think we work very well together and represent Canada well when we are with the other Arctic nations. I thank him for that.

All of our rural municipalities have received infrastructure projects and they are very happy about that. First, does the member applaud this?

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

An hon. member

All of them?

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

A Conservative is asking a question. Every single one of our municipalities received infrastructure projects. Obviously they are surprised but are very happy that we are doing that.

Second, the member made a very good point that the provinces have to put an amount of money into projects, although a smaller amount. I am not familiar with his riding and province. Does his premier put in provincial money as quickly as possible to get a project going when the federal government is ready to go?

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I have enjoyed working with him on the Arctic climate parliamentary group as well.

The member said that all of our municipalities have received funds. I think he must be talking about the Liberal ones that he represents, because we certainly have not seen them in the rural municipalities that I represent, and there are some 30 in my constituency.

My speech was about the fact that we had a plan and we delivered the plan. We talked to the municipalities, we talked to the provincial people and we got it done. We delivered the funds, which were put into water, sewer and roads. These are things that build strong communities and keep them going.

To the member's question about the present government in Manitoba, yes, it is waiting for the federal government to be involved in some major projects. Some of them will prevent disasters like the Lake Manitoba drain from taking place in the future.

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Mr. Speaker, when we look at infrastructure announcements and plans, there can be a fair amount of politics involved. I liked how the member, during his speech, underlined not only the role of the opposition in holding the government to account but also the role of the Auditor General, the non-partisan office that is so very good at cleaning through the political fog and giving Canadians the pure, unvarnished truth.

There are communities in my riding, and one in particular, that desperately need infrastructure investments to deal with the effects of climate change, the so-called green infrastructure. The Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities know, as I do, that nothing but good can come from getting this information from the Auditor General.

I would invite my colleague to expand a little more on how important it is to get the unvarnished truth so that we know effectively what we are dealing with and how we can add more efficiencies and improvements to the whole system overall.

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague represents a very strong area of Canada, and we know how important infrastructure projects are for all of the things he just outlined.

That is why I included in my presentation the idea of using the Auditor General. I have had the opportunity to use the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer a number of times with regard to getting information that is pertinent to the government, particularly in the administration and enforcement of marijuana use before it was licensed and in other areas as well. When we get independent information, we can then make solid decisions. I think it would help those on the government side, particularly in their minority position, to make use of the $180 billion in infrastructure that they were talking about, as we know that the majority of it is in waiting from the first term of the government.

I look forward to working more collaboratively with the government with regard to making sure that some of these major infrastructure projects that need to be built are successful. An independent review from the bodies that I talked about and that my colleague asked about would be very beneficial to every member in the House and all Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Chris d'Entremont Conservative West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I rise in the House today to speak to this important motion put together and introduced by my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable, a motion calling for the Auditor General of Canada to immediately proceed with an audit regarding the government's invest in Canada plan announced back in 2016.

We all know that government investments in infrastructure are a very important part of the success of the economic development in our country, provinces and urban and rural communities. Without these investments, it is impossible to ensure strong, long-term economic development in our communities because this is directly linked to their infrastructure needs.

If a rural riding like mine has trouble developing and modernizing, residents will leave its cities, which will have a direct impact on the local economy and broaden the tax base considerably, thereby leaving the remaining population in a more vulnerable position.

I would like to remind our constituents that in 2015, the future Prime Minister announced that he was in favour of imposing modest deficit on Canadians, very temporary deficits, with the aim of significantly increasing his infrastructure spending from coast to coast to coast, which would boost our Canadian internal economy.

We have known for the last few years that this is totally false and that our financial situation is precarious and fragile. The former Conservative government made significant investments in this area and it is therefore difficult to understand the current situation. The Liberal government had announced in 2016 and 2017 its intention to spend $186.7 billion over 12 years on infrastructure projects. I will say that number again, because every time I do it kind of throws me off because it is such a large number: $186.7 billion over 12 years.

Since this announcement, infrastructure spending has been subject to delays. Moreover, it has not actually been as high as the number that was first announced. Today I cannot explain to my constituents, the mayors, the businesses or the entrepreneurs why we are dealing with such a disproportionate deficit from the Liberal government and why the funds planned for many of our infrastructure projects are still on ice, delayed, unanswered or simply refused. I also cannot explain to them how a government that continues to boast that the Canadian economy is doing well is unable to finance its needed and urgent infrastructure projects to create jobs, contribute to economic development and ensure the survival of rural communities, particularly as job creation would significantly reduce the number of citizens in rural regions departing for larger urban centres.

In 2020, the situation is clear. The only record that the Liberals have in terms of infrastructure is their failure. Already in 2017 we learned from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer that the Liberals had barely spent half of the planned infrastructure investments. The following year, in 2018, facing this complete irresponsible and unacceptable situation, the Parliamentary Budget Officer asked for the Liberal infrastructure plan in order to have a better understanding of the situation and quickly realized that the plan did not even exist.

That is not all. A year later, in 2019, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, in order to help us better understand this disaster, asked for something very simple, something basic that any responsible and respectful government of hard-working taxpayers deserve to have in Canada: a list of all specific project commitments under the invest in Canada plan. However, the Liberal government has not been able to provide that data.

Again, this is totally unacceptable and irresponsible. Taxpayers in my riding, across Atlantic Canada and across the country demand the right to have a clear answer about how their money is being spent. Conservatives believe that the Auditor General of Canada must immediately investigate the matter and conduct an in-depth audit of the government's invest in Canada plan.

Given the out-of-control deficits, with more on the horizon, minimal investment in communities, job losses, dearth of job creation, lack of accountability and lack of transparency, there is clearly nothing positive coming our way under the Liberals.

Back at home in my beautiful riding of West Nova, there is an urgent need for infrastructure funding for our local projects. Our local economy depends on it, as I said earlier. If we want to preserve our achievements, continue to develop our markets, share our expertise and attract new investors, it is essential that our infrastructure projects get their funding.

West Nova has been waiting for years for certain pieces of infrastructure. Some, I admit, require partnership with other levels of government, which takes longer to negotiate. Some are completely the responsibility of the federal government. Roads and bridges, especially along the 100-series highways, part of the Trans-Canada system, need partnership, and so far have seen nothing.

There are a couple of interchanges that have been announced, due to their current “unsafe” listing, that need to be installed. Far too many accidents and deaths are occurring. Yet, before the election, a new interchange a couple of hundred kilometres away from my riding, up the highway in the South Shore riding, was announced. This underlines the government's planning process, to announce projects that are politically expedient and not announce them in other areas.

I am not saying that the Bridgewater intersection is not important, but one of the intersections in West Nova was identified as the third most dangerous interchange in Nova Scotia. You would think it would have been “safety first” when we announced these projects, but I guess not.

Speaking of safety and the effects of sea level rise, there are several instances where roads that never flooded are now flooding at every high tide. The Province of Nova Scotia applied for climate change mitigation funding, a part of this project, but it seems that these smaller projects are falling off the table. I need to see work done. My constituents need to see work done on the Rocco Point Road and many others, so that children can get to school, people can get to work and seniors can get to their doctor's appointments. God forbid there might be an emergency when there is one of these high tides.

I move now to Internet and cellphone service. This is a requirement of this century, but many parts of our riding still have poor or no service. It requires support from all levels of government to help build out these large infrastructures. The Nova Scotia government has money available. The municipalities are ready to support projects that make sense, but it seems that several of these projects have been turned down, making organizations and municipalities go back to the drawing board.

I am all for cheaper rates as a goal that has been put forward by the Liberal government; it is one that I support. Let us not forget that many Canadians do not have access to good Internet service or cellular service. I worry that the government pushing back in this respect is pushing back on the very companies that they want to partner with to provide these kinds of infrastructures.

Finally, West Nova probably has the highest seafood landings in all Canada, and the fishers rely on government-owned infrastructure to bring their catches in safely. These ports, in many cases, are anything but safe. Some of them are actually falling into the water. Due to chronic underfunding of these structures over the years, I estimate they will require almost $500 million of investment. Some fall under DFO and small craft harbours, like Port Maitland, East Pubnico and Pubnico, but others, like Digby, due to the failed divestiture program of the Chrétien Liberals, fall under this larger invisible program. Digby has become the safe harbour on the eastern side on the Bay of Fundy.

We are responsible to provide safe harbour for those boats and fishers who will find themselves in unsafe situations due to weather. We can see Digby's usage swell to close to 135 vessels, which effectively almost doubles the capacity of that port. They need help. The fishery is important, and it is time we actually pay attention to them.

Today, in Ottawa, I am working hard to ensure that West Nova's infrastructure projects get their fair share of funding so they can be completed.

When I was a provincial MLA, I always did everything in my power to defend Nova Scotia's interests. Until Conservatives form the next government, I want to ensure that the current Liberal government finally provides the answers to all Canadian taxpayers that they are entitled to receive.

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Spadina—Fort York Ontario

Liberal

Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Mr. Speaker, I am curious to hear the member opposite's response to this observation. The infrastructure program is not a program where the federal government picks and chooses priorities in different municipalities or provinces. Provinces open up the application process to municipalities, municipalities choose their priorities, the provinces sign off on them and then the funding flows. There are two components to that which are critically important.

One is that it is the cities that drive the priority setting, but provinces can actually play a role in that. In my home province of Ontario, the Ford government has gone out of its way not to approve anything. In fact, it has not opened up many of the files to get our dollars flowing. The second part of it, something the PBO corrected in the second report but not the first report, is that when a $20-million bridge is approved, we do not send a cheque for $20 million to the municipality. The municipality sends us the receipts and we cash out the project, which means the commitment is there, but the dollars do not flow until the project is built. Sometimes cities do not get them built as quickly as we would like, but, nonetheless, the dollars are still committed there for future governments.

Is the member aware of those two criteria and could the Conservatives assist us in making provincial premiers, particularly a few Conservative ones I could name, get the dollars flowing?

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Chris d'Entremont Conservative West Nova, NS

Mr. Speaker, I live in a province that is represented by a Liberal premier who has trouble signing off on projects with the current Liberal government. I do not understand why that continues to happen. We have a 100-series highway system that has a number of unsafe interchanges. Some have been listed, by their own work, as the most dangerous in the province and yet in a Liberal-held riding, an interchange that was not on the list was approved before an election. I am sorry, but it looks like cronyism at its best.

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada PlanBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague made reference to the problems that his community is facing with regard to climate change, especially the amount of infrastructure that his community is looking at to mitigate those effects and adapt to them. It is happening in my community and in many others.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives' climate change plan in the last election was largely panned as being completely ineffective against the greenhouse gases that are causing this in the first place, and I am wondering if he could square that circle. It seems to me that if we are going to be effective, how much money are we prepared to spend to adapt to climate change and when are we going to see some effective policies coming from the Conservatives?