Debates of Jan. 28th, 2020

Opposition Motion—Audit of the Government's Investing in Canada Plan

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my riding has been seeing the effects of climate change for many years. When I talk about unsafe harbours, I am talking about wharves that are coming to the edge of the high-water marks. I am talking about roads that are under water at high tides. The Town of Annapolis has declared what is called a climate war because by 2050 it is going to find itself under water. It needs humongous pieces of infrastructure to maintain the cradle of Canada in Annapolis Royal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome this new member to the House representing West Nova. I appreciate very much that in his first speech in this place, he is focused on the issue of climate change and how it affects his riding of West Nova.

We know that the previous member for Cumberland—Colchester used to draw attention to the extreme threats of sea level rise. In particular, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identified more than a decade ago that in addition to New Orleans, probably the piece of land mass in North America most vulnerable to sea level rise would be the Tantramar Marshes, the piece of land that connects Nova Scotia to New Brunswick.

I want to ask the hon. member if he does not think that infrastructure funds are appropriately targeted to this question of both mitigating climate impacts and adapting to them.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, that is what we are trying to find out, whether there is enough money in the $186.7 billion that is being invested in infrastructure. How much is there to mitigate these kinds of things? The Tantramar Marshes are a good example. Grand-Pré and in and around that area is a very important historic part of Canada that we need to make sure is preserved. It has a number of dike systems around it. There was some investment in that, but we are still not seeing what we need across this country.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here to speak on an important topic that impacts Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The region I live in, York region, will see over a quarter of the population growth in Ontario settle there in the coming years. With that, the need for new modern infrastructure investments will be even greater.

Economic activity in York region is second to none. We are an area of almost 1.3 million people. There are leading technology, auto parts, auto manufacturers and tech companies in York region. Modern infrastructure is necessary to get our families and kids home safely in the evenings. It is necessary to have the resources for Internet in rural areas in Canada, including the northern areas in York region.

Before I begin speaking specifically about some of the actions we have taken and specific funds, I want to say that our government is committed to investing in infrastructure across Canada. We are committed in our plan.

When we talk about deficits, we know the prior government left a number of deficits. It left an infrastructure deficit, a social deficit, a green deficit and a cultural deficit. It did that because it had no plan to invest in Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

I hear some of my colleagues on the other side agreeing with what I said. I thank them for those comments, and I look forward to their questions afterwards.

What I will say is we have worked. We have signed bilateral agreements with provinces and territories from coast to coast to coast. We have been working with the cities. We have worked with the FCM. There has been no better relationship for representatives at the table for stakeholders, whether it is mayors, chairs of regional areas or premiers. We have worked in tandem. The door to our government has been open to ensure that projects that are identified by the cities as key projects, and we know it goes bottom up, are paramount for investment.

Looking at the government record, we can see that 4,800 projects have been started and are in different stages of construction, and we can see the $57 billion that has been approved. We are working well with our partners. This is a much different story than what happened in the past. That was not a story we could tell in this chamber that we are privileged to sit in, representing our constituents.

With that, I would like to focus my remarks today on the essential importance of partnerships and the partnerships we have seen through the green municipal fund. The green municipal fund is currently a $1.5-billion revolving fund administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to help support municipal sustainability, innovation, across the country.

It was under a previous Liberal government that the GMF was created as an important policy instrument for gaining experience in the development and execution of sustainability projects. Working together, in collaboration with all levels of government across this beautiful country that we live in, we are continuing to execute the building of necessary infrastructure that we all need for a successful, productive and prosperous country that we call home.

Working together, we have established and are sharing best practices and lessons learned, and improving the overall environmental performance of municipal installations.

Federal government involvement with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities green municipal fund is a reminder of how well the federal government can work with funding organizations and other key stakeholders to support the efforts of municipalities in achieving their environmental sustainability goals.

We know how important climate change is. It was great to announce, in York region, funds allocated to the disaster mitigation fund. It was great to announce, in York region, funds dedicated to waste and waste-water treatment facilities. Those types of dedicated funding sources improve quality of life and productivity in our region. That is what we will continue to do as a federal government, working with the regional authorities, our municipalities and the Province of Ontario.

I want to state that I will be sharing my time with my friend and hon. colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre.

How can these goals be achieved? Our government is in strong partnership with the green municipal fund, which provides financial support to municipalities with environmental projects related to brownfields, energy, water, transportation and integrated community plans.

Since 2000, the GMF has supported more than 1,200 municipal sustainability initiatives through its unique mix of training, resources and funding. Of the initiatives funded to date, 199 have been capital projects that involved retrofitting, construction, replacement, expansion or purchase and installation of fixed assets or infrastructure.

These capital projects have cumulatively helped to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by over two million tonnes, improve the quality of about 700,000 cubic metres of soil, treat more than 240,000 cubic metres of waste water per year, make about 80 hectares of previously contaminated land available for use, reduce water consumption by almost 310,000 cubic metres per year, and divert 170,000 tonnes of waste from landfill per year.

Again, we are making progress in our plan to invest in Canada and in Canadians through our $180-billion-plus infrastructure plan. It is transformational. It answers the call of climate change and it answers the call of a growing population and the need to replace aging infrastructure.

We know what the deficit is. We know the deficit was less. We are chipping away at it. We are working well with FCM. We are working well with our big city mayors. We are working well with the provinces. We are at the table. We are signing those bilateral agreements and, most important, we are listening to the cities and to their priorities.

The GMF is delivered by the FCM on behalf of Environment and Climate Change Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Infrastructure Canada. Our job as the government is to provide oversight of GMF operations through the GMF council and the peer review committee.

For the record, the GMF council comprises 15 members, five of which are federal. The council advises the FCM on the management of GMF. The council comprises federal representatives from Environment and Climate Change Canada, Natural Resources Canada and Infrastructure Canada; municipal officials; and external members representing the public, private, academic and environmental sectors.

The peer review committee comprises 75 members, 20 being federal. This committee provides the GMF and the federal council members with expert environmental science as well as clean technology advice, analysis of funding proposals and the evaluation of the environmental outcomes of the projects that are funded.

In 2000, the Government of Canada created two complementary GMF funds, the first being the green municipal enabling fund and the second being the green municipal investment fund, where program delivery was delegated to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They know best.

Whether in rural Canada or urban Canada, in whatever jurisdiction and whatever province we may call home, the mayors and the local city councillors know best the needs of their cities. Whether it is housing being built, investments in sidewalks or investments in local soccer fields for kids to play on safely, they know and we are listening to them and partnering with them. For more than four years, there has been no better partner for the cities in Canada than this government, and this will continue.

Over the course of 2000-2005, the Government of Canada endowed the Federation of Canadian Municipalities with $550 million to establish the GMF. This amount comprised an initial endowment of $125 million in budget 2000, a subsequent endowment of $125 million in 2001, and $300 million in 2005. In 2005, a new funding agreement was signed, merging the green municipal enabling fund and the green municipal investment fund into a single green municipal fund.

Moving forward, when we brought in budget 2016, the Government of Canada committed an additional $125 million to the GMF as part of Infrastructure Canada's investing in Canada plan.

We know the investing in Canada plan is making a difference in the daily lives of commuters and in the daily lives of citizens across this country, whether they take public transportation or need their own vehicle to commute to work or take their kids to a soccer field, an ice hockey rink, baseball field or to get some STEM lessons, which we know are so important in tomorrow's economy.

This subsequently brought the total endowment to $625 million. To manage this additional funding from budget 2016, a new funding agreement was signed in 2018 by Environment and Climate Change Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Infrastructure Canada and FCM. Again, we are partnering with the partners that know best where these dollars need to flow to and need to be invested.

Budget 2019, I am proud to say, provided an additional $950 million for the GMF transfer through NRCan. The $950 million will support three new program streams, planned for launch in late spring or early 2020. They are focused on increasing energy efficiency. The programs are low-carbon cities Canada, sustainable affordable housing and innovation, and community eco-efficiency acceleration.

To date, the the Government of Canada has invested a total of $1.5 billion in the GMF, of which the FCM is to hold over $1 billion in perpetuity. It is in an annuity, in terms of being able to invest continually without seeing a sunset clause of when those funds will not be there. Long-term strategic investments can be made in what is best for the cities and towns that we call home across this country.

This additional funding will help accelerate the government's climate change objectives, specifically financing investments at the municipal level and energy efficiency in residential, commercial and multi-unit buildings. FCM anticipates the end of the five-year current plan for the GMF in 2023.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple request. Throughout the last several years, we have seen the PBO, in its 2017 estimates and supplementary estimates commentary, saying there were billions missing from the infrastructure fund. We saw that with Mr. Fréchette, and we see it with the current PBO comment in 2018 that money cannot be located.

A Senate report investigating this infrastructure money came up with a finalized part of the report saying there was no metric for success for infrastructure spending apart from the fact that money was spent. It was not carbon reduction, not roads built, not Canadians' health. The government's only metric was that the money was spent.

Why are Liberals opposing having the Auditor General look at this vital issue of money for taxpayers? What are they trying to hide? What are they afraid of?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I read one of the PBO reports that says 900,000 Canadians are going to be taken off the tax rolls with our increase to the basic personal exemption amount and 21 million Canadians will receive a tax break, that is, more tax dollars in their pockets.

I look forward to the PBO undertaking more analysis of our government proposals and plans to invest in Canada and Canadians to keep growing our economy, creating jobs and lifting people out of poverty, because that is what we ran on in 2015 and that is what we ran on in 2019. I look forward to the PBO undertaking further analysis.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague completely avoided answering my question. What is the government trying to hide? Why are the Liberals trying to block the Auditor General from reporting on supposedly $180 billion of spending? By the way, over half of that, according to Library and Archives Canada, was money committed by the previous Harper government, so it is not all brand new money. What is the government trying to hide?

I would ask my colleague to stand, look at the camera and tell taxpayers why Liberals are blocking the Auditor General from investigating this project and this plan.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the Auditor General for the work it has done over the decades for Canadian taxpayers. That is a focus in my riding and for my constituents. They know that we have invested in 4,800 projects since the start of our plan with over $57 billion invested. We will continue to work with our partners at the regional, municipal and provincial levels to ensure those dollars flow out the door and into vital infrastructure, whether it is fighting climate change or investing in public transportation and so on.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, going back to the last two questions that have come from the Conservatives, we have been saying all day that we are not against getting the information to be able to make sure there is openness and transparency with respect to what is going on. What we are against is the fact that there is misleading information in the preamble of the motion.

The reality of the situation is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer came back later on and confirmed that the government had provided everything it was looking for. The Conservatives are cherry-picking the quotes they want to use, which is disingenuous at best when we talk about bringing forward a motion before the House.

I am wondering if the member could comment on how important it is that we see openness and transparency in the work that the Auditor General can do with respect to this.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, openness and transparency are at the forefront of our government in everything we do, day in and day out. We live in a democracy and Canadians demand to know the answers and to have transparency in the government. We know that. We look forward to continuing to work with the Auditor General on many issues, including looking at our infrastructure plans and other things. We need to make sure of the facts. In the opposition motion some statements are incorrect, and we need those corrected.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to our government's commitment to building strong, sustainable communities that will benefit Canadians for generations.

As the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, I have three main priorities. First is to work with provinces, territories and municipalities, as well as indigenous peoples, to get projects built quickly that improve the quality of life for all Canadians. Second is to build projects that grow our economy, create jobs and boost Canada's productivity. Third is to ensure that our projects help build a low-carbon and more resilient future.

There is one thing I know when it comes to infrastructure: When Canada builds, Canada grows. There is hard data to back this up. The finance minister's task force on the economy identified infrastructure as the most powerful driver of growth and productivity in both the short and long term, growing local economies, growing the Canadian economy and creating good jobs from coast to coast to coast. Countless studies have pointed to infrastructure investments as one of the best ways to prepare for the economy of the future. As we face the stark reality of climate change and how to manage it, we know there is also an enormous economic opportunity staring us in the face.

As former governor of the Bank of Canada Mark Carney has said repeatedly, the new lower-carbon economy is worth trillions and trillions of dollars. Building clean, smart, sustainable and resilient infrastructure will put Canada on the front foot as we manage the transition to a low-carbon economy. The benefits are obvious. It begins with improving the lives of Canadians.

Our infrastructure investments are improving Canadians' quality of life, creating jobs, growing our economy and building a healthier, more climate-resilient future. Just think of the Montreal metro blue line, the Quebec City tramway, the Champlain Bridge and affordable housing across the country.

Consider the Gordie Howe bridge between Windsor and Detroit. It is a key economic corridor that will transform the movement of goods between Canada and our most important trading partner, the United States. That is a smart investment in future growth, something I am proud our government supports.

Public transit is a huge part of what we do at Infrastructure Canada. It is key to a more sustainable economy. It is critical to supporting growth in our cities. It is about getting people around faster, cleaner and cheaper. Our government has committed $28 billion to public transit.

We are funding important projects right across the country, from the Millennium Line in Vancouver to electric buses in Guelph. Just a couple of weeks ago I was in Guelph, Ontario, to help announce the city's green transit project. This will replace 35 diesel buses with long-range electric buses, as well as install on-route charging stations. This funding will also help purchase an additional 30 electric buses and build a new bus storage facility fitted with electric charging stations.

The opportunity to electrify bus fleets across Canada is huge. It is why we have committed to help public transit authorities procure up to 5,000 electric buses for their fleets over the next five years. Guess what. We have companies right here in Canada that can help meet that demand. Last week, I saw first-hand in Winnipeg the amazing work that New Flyer is doing in bringing electric buses to market.

Nova Bus is another international leader in the electric bus technology market. STM, the Société de transport de Montréal, has already implemented an electric bus pilot project and will shortly be putting more electric buses in service later this year. Quebec is a leader in Canada when it comes to electric vehicles.

The government is working with Quebec and other partners, such as Hydro-Québec, to install charging stations across Quebec. In fact, by the end of the year, Quebec will have more public charging stations than gas stations. Let us not forget the investments made by the Canada Infrastructure Bank. In Montreal, projects like the Réseau express métropolitain and the Contrecœur port will increase productivity, reduce pollution, transportation and commute times, and, ultimately, get people and goods to where they need to go faster.

Some communities have seen the future of clean infrastructure and are doing amazing things right now, and it is not just big cities. Summerside, P.E.I., with a population of 15,000, is one example.

I had the opportunity to visit there just a few weeks ago. With the help of our government, the province and the private sector, the city is moving forward to build its own solar energy farm and storage facility. This project will allow Summerside to meet nearly two-thirds of its electricity needs through renewable energy, as well as reduce carbon emissions by 21,000 tonnes a year. It is also creating good jobs in Summerside and helping to grow a clean, local economy. That is green infrastructure in action, making lives better for the people of Summerside and reducing emissions for Canada and the world.

There is also the stuff we cannot see but that makes the lives of Canadians better.

In Ottawa, a major project is under way that almost nobody really knows about, but for those who use the Ottawa River, it will ensure that water is cleaner for swimming, drinking and fishing. The combined sewage storage tunnel, a federal, provincial and municipal partnership, will allow the city to largely eliminate the discharge of sewage into the Ottawa River after a big rainstorm. With climate change, we know that severe weather events are more and more common. For our government, those are $62 million well spent.

There are projects like this one right across the country.

In Fredericton, New Brunswick, we are investing in flood protection. Once complete, this project will help protect over 27,500 residents within a 12 square kilometre area. The city says that it will reduce the number of people directly affected by future flooding by 83%. It is also expected to provide long-term savings in recovery and replacement costs for people, government and businesses. These are important investments that will ensure people's communities are resilient.

I have highlighted a few specific projects today, but the reality is I could talk all afternoon about the thousands of projects our government has funded.

To date, Infrastructure Canada has invested in 4,700 projects across the country, making a real difference in the lives of Canadians. This is four times the number of projects built under the Conservatives. If we consider all the infrastructure projects across the federal government, we are investing in 52,000 projects with provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous peoples. That translates to thousands of new buses, light rail, transit vehicles and tracks to help Canadians get where they need. It translates into new systems that produce cleaner electricity; communities that will substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cleaner, safer drinking water; high-quality water treatment plants that protect our homes, families and communities; and affordable housing that is needed across the country.

To make this happen, we are working closely with our partners, including the provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous peoples, who together own approximately 98% of all core public infrastructure. We are doing that work collaboratively, responsibly and quickly to build infrastructure that makes the lives of Canadians better.

When Canada builds, Canada grows. We want to help Canadians everywhere to build a better future.

When Canada builds, Canada grows. We are working with Canadians from coast to coast to coast to build a cleaner, more prosperous future.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for sharing her vision of the infrastructure plan.

I am a little disappointed, but I was expecting the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities to give a long list of all the projects that have been approved in recent years, because the list is long. As the minister said, she could have spent all afternoon reading it. However, this does not answer the Parliamentary Budget Officer's questions about the planning of these projects and the expected results.

The minister talked at length about results related to climate change and greenhouse gas reduction. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer made it clear that there is currently no mechanism for verifying whether approved infrastructure projects will have an impact on climate change or for determining that impact.

All the same, that was one of the objectives. It was part of the government's nice little slogans, like the ones the minister just uttered, such as “building Canada” or “building a better future”. However, everything depends on the information provided to parliamentarians, not the slogans.

Does the minister not believe that parliamentarians of all stripes are entitled to the same information the government has, so they can make informed decisions about the infrastructure plan? Do they not have the right to know whether a plan exists for the funds that were not invested in 2016-17 and 2017-18?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is open and transparent, and we welcome public and parliamentary oversight of our historic infrastructure program, the investing in Canada plan. I am actually pleased to see that members opposite are now taking an interest in our investments to grow the economy, build better communities and fight climate change.

I would like to point out that, during the last election campaign, the Conservatives said they would slash $18 million from our infrastructure investments. Canadians, in contrast, decided to move forward and invest in a better future for their children and grandchildren. Canadians want to know which projects the Conservatives would like to cancel. Will it be Montreal's blue line, the Quebec City tramway, the Champlain Bridge or affordable housing?

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

Mr. Speaker, in my riding in the Cowichan Valley, the Cowichan River, which has long been a source of inspiration for the first peoples who have lived there, a very deep, historical and cultural significance, is really starting to feel the effects of climate change. One of the proposals to help us save that river is to build a new weir so we can hold more lake supply water back in Lake Cowichan and control the flow during the dry spring and summer months.

I look at the motion before us today and the crux of the matter is that we want to see if the plan is living up to its stated goals and promises. The Auditor General's office plays a very important role to help us, as parliamentarians, to see if it is actually doing that.

Why is the minister's government so against us getting this information to see if we can try and find more efficiencies in the plan and give our constituents, who need this funding, the information they need to make the appropriate applications for the resources necessary to get the funding in the first place?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, openness and transparency are hallmarks of our government. We certainly welcome parliamentary and public scrutiny.

On the project that the member has asked about with respect to the Cowichan Valley, I am happy to speak with him. We are looking at ways to ensure we can support municipalities facing the huge impacts of climate change. We want to enhance programs to ensure they are accessible for municipalities. This sounds like a project that is worth pursuing. I am happy to work with the member opposite.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech, her election and her appointment as minister.

Only 2% of infrastructure spending involves infrastructure that falls under federal jurisdiction. The other 98% comes under provincial responsibility. The problem with the government's plan is that the money is not getting to the provinces.

The municipalities and the provincial government want a return to the Conservative government's plan, the building Canada fund. We must give credit where credit is due. The municipalities were satisfied with that fund, apart from the fact that there was not enough money, but nothing is ever perfect. It is great to have lots of money, but it must trickle down to where it is needed, one way or another.

How will the government go about giving the money back to the provinces as quickly as possible? They are the ones that know how to manage that money, and it must be done quickly.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also congratulate my opposition colleague on his election.

We are definitely working with the provinces and territories. That is vital to the projects and investments we are undertaking. We are working with the Province of Quebec on municipal files such as Montreal's blue line, the Quebec City tramway, the Champlain Bridge and affordable housing, to name but a few. Of course it is very important. I have already had the chance to talk to my counterpart. In fact, I have many counterparts in Quebec, and I will continue to work with them.

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

I rise today on the opposition day motion regarding this mind-boggling infrastructure spending debacle that the Liberal government has gotten itself into.

It is a very simple motion that would allow the Auditor General to determine whether “the government’s Investing in Canada Plan, including, but not be limited to, verifying whether the plan lives up to its stated goals and promises; and that the Auditor General of Canada report his findings to the House no later than one year following the adoption of this motion.”

The program that the Liberals had come up with was supposed to do a few things. It was going to have these tiny deficits that would improve economic growth. They said that the program would improve productivity and suggested it would create a lower-carbon environment. All of those things are measurables and should have outcomes which we can look at. There is no accountability and there are no measurables.

Therefore, this is not about the spending necessarily, but the principles of the program. It is about no deliverables, no follow up, no transparency, no economic growth and no tracking of productivity, all the things the Liberals promised to do within the program. It is important for taxpayers to see they are getting value for the dollar.

The way the Liberals have crafted this program, there are over 50 individual programs scattered over 32 departments. It is like an octopus across government, with very serious gaps. It is like Swiss cheese. It is really difficult for anybody to determine where the spending is and whether we are getting value for the spending.

Looking at this from my business background, if I had a strategic plan that was to make some investments and spend some money, I would certainly have measurables and outcomes and I would be able to report back to the shareholders that we were getting the things we said we were going to invest in. This, according to the PBO, is sadly lacking.

From the taxpaying end, the funding recipients are not being held accountable. When the cash is being put out, it should certainly be incumbent upon the grantees to report back to government. We should be able to see results from them and they seem to be amiss on this.

Most of the projects in place, according to the PBO, have either been behind schedule in delivery or have not even been started, and there should be some accountability around that. This is why the Conservatives are asking the Auditor General to look at this use of funds and ensure we are getting these deliveries.

One of the reasons the deliveries are behind schedule is because the government has gone ahead with funding portions before the provincial governments have been able to come up with all the money. There seems to be a lack of coordination, another thing on which the Auditor General could report back. Sometimes provinces are not even contributing to shared projects and shared costs because the feds are not collaborating in advance.

Therefore, there are a lot of flaws and problems within the program, and we are here to protect taxpayer money. We are here to ensure there is accountability for any kind of investment spent and we get the results we expect.

On the productivity front, all the spending was supposed to enable or increase it; However, in good old Liberal fashion, the government has not been able to tell us if it has been able to increase productivity, and that was one of the main goals of the program. Therefore, some kinds of measures should be in place to ensure we get productivity. In fact, on the spending side, only 3% goes toward trade and transportation, which strikes me as a big productivity issue in the country, and we are not investing in it.

We seem to get a lot of answers that are predominantly word soup and we do not really get the hard answers for which we are looking.

On failed spending, the PBO has shown that the Liberals have failed even to get their own infrastructure money out the door and that infrastructure money lapses 60% per year for the first two years. One cannot force-feed the infrastructure with potential amounts of money. These projects have to be well thought out and designed so we get the outcomes on productivity and growth. We certainly are not seeing that today.

The truth is that nobody really knows what is being spent. This business of spreading it out over a large area into a bunch of different programs and departments makes me think it is like a shell game that we would see at the circus: Where is the ball? We never know where the ball is. That is what this looks like. We are having a hard time finding the truth.

The PBO analysis also showed that despite all of the promises and spending, there was no annual increase in infrastructure in Canada. Here is a quote: “Never has a politician boasted so loudly and spent so much to achieve so little.” That was Andrew Scheer. Just 3% of spending is designated for trade- and efficiency-enhancing infrastructure that would increase productivity and GDP.

All in all, the reason we want the Auditor General to get involved is that there is a lack of transparency. The PBO asked some very specific questions about very specific projects and could not get any answers. They said it was a secret, so the projects could not be divulged.

It strikes me that if we really want to make improving the economy and dealing with productivity our goals, then no one should have an issue with a motion like this. It is just good governance to get the Auditor General involved. It is not uncommon to ask for something like this, and it is worthy in this particular case. The motion certainly should have the support of all parties.

I fail to understand why anyone would have difficulty with asking the Auditor General to review this entire program to make sure that the core fundamentals are fulfilled. The core fundamentals that the government said it wanted to be accountable for were productivity, an increase in GDP and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It is not too much to ask the Auditor General to look at that and report back to the House in a timely fashion. It would be in the best interests of taxpayers. That is why we are here. We need to make sure that taxpayers get the answers they deserve in a timely fashion.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, one of the limits placed upon the Office of the Auditor General is that it cannot investigate jurisdictions outside the mandate of Parliament. In other words, provincial, indigenous and municipal governments are not part of the scope of work that the Auditor General could do.

In Manitoba, close to 90% of the money has not been opened up for applications from municipalities. We just need to talk to a Manitoba mayor to find out very quickly where the frustration lies. It is not in our program; it is the provincial governments that somehow do not want to spend money on infrastructure, even though even MPs in this chamber are asking for those dollars to be spent.

How is the Auditor General going to uncork the challenges we are having in provincial capitals where Conservative premiers are refusing to participate with the infrastructure program? Ontario is just not opening up the avenues for applications, and mayors are screaming and begging Conservatives to invest in their communities. How do we get the Auditor General to investigate the behaviour of provincial premiers who seem pretty stubborn and pretty determined not to build a good country?

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the program was designed by the Liberal Party, so one would think that when designing the program, the Liberals would have thought that through. When commitments such as an increase in GDP, an increase in productivity and lower greenhouse gas emissions are made by the government, one would think that the government would understand that it has to have some input from the people to whom it is granting the capital.

The other issue that arises is the philosophy of additional spending. A lot of provincial governments are struggling with their own budgets. When we come with money, they are not in a position to borrow in a timely fashion. This concept of increasing debt across federal, provincial, and municipal governments is likely giving some grief to this program as well. It certainly is an issue across Canada. My province is certainly conscious of it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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, in the days when I was in the opposition, we called upon the Harper government to invest more into Canada's infrastructure. It was a very low priority of the former Harper government. The new government, in 2015, made a decision to invest in all regions of Canada and to work with municipalities and provinces.

One of the areas in which there is concern, as my colleague and friend from Vaughan mentioned, is that different provinces participated at different levels. The government has been looking at ways to ensure that there are sincere, genuine investments in infrastructure throughout the country.

I look to my colleague across the way and ask him this. If he were in government, what would he do to solicit additional support from those provinces that are somewhat reluctant to invest in infrastructure in the way this national government is investing?

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the suggestion in the preamble that the former Conservative government was not interested in infrastructure is a bit of a fallacy. We were certainly interested in infrastructure and made significant investments in infrastructure, particularly in infrastructure that increased productivity, allowed us to be more competitive and helped with Canada's competitive advantage.

I would suggest if the program is designed to do that and can help generate revenues for provinces and municipalities and improve their productivity, there would be a better chance for success.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask my hon. colleague if he has had an opportunity to chat with some of his provincial counterparts, as I have in Alberta, who are very willing to work with the federal government in areas of joint interest but have found a very unwilling partner.

Could my colleague elaborate on whether he has had the opportunity to speak to any of his provincial counterparts?