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

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

11 a.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Thank you for your kind words on my French. I am working hard to improve all the time.

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

11 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I do want to remind the member to address his response to the Chair.

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

11 a.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin this response in the same way that I ended the last one: Better is always possible.

The motion was predicated on the earlier March report from the PBO that identified where we could do better. We did do better and closed the gaps identified in that report. That caused the PBO to issue a second report later in that same year, declaring that we have in fact met the obligations that were set out to us.

I spoke in great detail in my speech about all the transparency mechanisms that are in place, from the infrastructure website to other government accountability websites. I would invite members of the House to agree with the PBO that we have in fact met our obligation to invest over $186 million in Canadian communities to improve the economy and create jobs over 12 years.

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

11 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I too noticed that the member's French is coming along very well, which is great.

In my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby, there are cities desperately looking for infrastructure funding. The deficit on infrastructure funding has increased. It is now well over $170 billion. The concern, of course, is that we need the infrastructure funding, yet tens of billions of dollars have been promoted by the government as part of its budgetary documents but not allocated to municipalities across the country. That is the problem.

That is why it is so obvious to me as a member of Parliament, and should be to all members, including members of the government, that what we need is more transparency. We need the Auditor General to look into this issue. I am a little disturbed by the purported amendment by the government, because it would take away the ability of the Auditor General to look into this.

Therefore, my question is very simple. Given the fact that there is so much concern around infrastructure funding, why are the Liberals opposed to having the Auditor General fully look through all aspects of infrastructure funding?

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

11 a.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Madam Speaker, we are very proud of this plan. We will welcome as many eyes upon it as possible, in fact the more, the better. We are very proud of this plan, which is changing the lives of Canadians every day.

One of the things the member for New Westminster has identified is that there are needs in communities that he perhaps feels are not being met. I would like to take this opportunity to underscore the complexity of many of these projects. The Infrastructure Canada and the federal government do not reach down into communities and declare what is important and what is not.

I find myself having conversations with my constituents frequently. As much as they would like a new bus line, it is not in my ability to design a new bus route. Rather, we create the systems through which the municipalities and the provinces apply. Tenders have to be let, projects designed and, finally, contracts given. This all takes time, sometimes years.

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

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for highlighting the importance of our role as facilitators in this discussion.

It is clearly a role we need to be taking seriously versus saying the federal government is not there at the table. Our role is to be at the table and to make these conversations happen.

Could the parliamentary secretary maybe expand on the role we play as members of Parliament to drive these projects into our communities? Without three levels of government working together, 65 electric buses in Guelph would not have happened.

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

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of my remarks, I talked about how we had engaged meaningfully with first nations, interest groups like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and with provincial and municipal leaders across the country to develop this plan. As I said earlier, the people on the ground and on the front lines know best what is needed.

I often have conversations with constituents in my riding, who are seeking a better transit system, more bike paths for example. I tell them that they should speak to me so I can ensure those criteria and monies exist. However, they also need to speak to their municipal councillors and members of provincial legislatures to ensure these projects are elevated to a high priority level on those agenda as well.

It really is about all levels of government and stakeholder groups, be they bike advocacy groups, or transit advocacy groups or the FCM or the provincial and municipal groups, working together. We have had a really wonderful record over the last four years of just that.

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

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to make two quick points.

First, during our session with the Parliamentary Budget Officer yesterday, he said that the way the federal government administered infrastructure money was like a giant octopus, spreading its tentacles across the federal government, that there were serious information gaps and that Canadians really did not know where the money was going and how it was being accounted for.

Second, I would like to ask the member for Halifax whether he would take a specific look at the Mission sanitary crossing in my riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. My riding is along the Fraser River and our engineers, our local experts, have indicated that if this sewage project is not dealt with appropriately, we will have a serious environmental disaster.

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

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Madam Speaker, I would characterize the infrastructure program as a loving embrace, rather than as the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon characterized it, causing smiles and tears of joy and happiness from coast to coast to coast.

We are absolutely committed to improving lives in every community across the country, including the riding of the member. On his specific points about the sewage project, I would be happy to have a conversation about that, and I look forward to it.

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

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. We will each have 10 minutes, and I am looking forward to hearing his speech.

First off, I want to go back to the content of the motion moved by my colleague, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, so that we can see what it is about. The motion essentially says the following:

That, given the Parliamentary Budget Officer posted on March 15, 2018, that “Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the government's $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan” and that the “PBO requested the new plan but it does not exist”, the House call on the Auditor General of Canada to immediately conduct an audit of 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.

There is something there, and I expect this to be an interesting discussion. Before I begin analyzing our response to the motion, I would like to first indicate that the Bloc Québécois intends to vote in favour of this motion for several reasons. Here are the main three.

The first reason is the delay in spending, which members have already mentioned. Since 2016, the government has delivered on only a small part of the announced infrastructure spending. When money is announced for a project, that money is needed for the project to begin. That is even more important when it comes to infrastructure because infrastructure is something that our constituents, our communities, our towns and our cities need to operate, to grow and to have a healthy economy.

It always fuels cynicism when the government announces $300 million for this or $1 billion for that, but the money never comes. We are obviously concerned about these delays in spending. We would therefore like the Auditor General to tell us what is really going on.

The second reason is the importance of transparency when it comes to economic data. Without numbers, we cannot really get an accurate picture of the situation. The government's numbers are never very clear. It appears to be recycling amounts from previous announcements whose time is running out. Is that money being reclaimed or not? Is it being reallocated elsewhere? Nobody knows what is going on with that money.

Obviously, we think that when the government makes spending announcements, the money should actually be spent on what they said they would spend it on, especially when it comes to infrastructure. Our communities have infrastructure needs, especially Quebec communities, and we will look at why a bit later. Transparency is important because we need predictability. People need a clear sense of the situation not only so they can really trust the information they get from the government but also so they can make good decisions and adjust plans as needed. Without that information, people are flying blind.

The third reason why we plan to vote in favour of the motion is that we believe it is important for Quebec to obtain its fair share. When there is a delay in spending and a lack of transparency in the data, it is difficult to know if Quebec is getting what it is entitled to.

According to one of the PBO's reports on phase 1 of the infrastructure plan covering the period from 2016 to 2018 and tabled in March 2018, Quebec received only 12% of total investment under the program while Quebec accounts for 23% of Canada's population. I think it goes without saying that we find that offensive and, above all, inadequate. Like anyone else, we Quebeckers pay taxes to Ottawa, and we expect to receive our fair share of the taxes that we send to Ottawa until we become independent. Let us hope that happens as quickly as possible.

I will do a brief comparison of amounts received by Quebec compared to those received by the other provinces, according to the table on page 9 of the PBO's report. If we look at the figures for Ontario, for example, we see that it received 32% of total infrastructure investment for 2,884 infrastructure projects, which represents $161 per capita. We see that Ontario's share of the investments was not so shabby.

Other provinces were spoiled even more. On a per capita basis, Yukon received $1,797, Nunavut received $2,146, the Northwest Territories received $1,618, and Newfoundland and Labrador received $1,752. If we look at what each of the provinces received, we can see that Quebec was overlooked and received the least money. Ontario was next, but it still managed to receive nearly its full share. By way of comparison, Ontario is getting 32%, or $161 per capita, and Quebec is getting 12%, or $97 per capita. Some provinces are getting thousands of dollars per capita, yet Quebec cannot even get $100. It is easy to understand why we are not too happy with these figures and why we would like some answers from the Auditor General.

Other things are brought up in that Auditor General report. The Prime Minister had planned to spend $14.4 billion in 2016-17 and 2017-18, as stated in his infrastructure plan. According to the Auditor General's report, however, it appears that only 50% of planned expenditures were actually spent.

There is no excuse. Sometimes, they tell us that it takes a while to come to an agreement, that there are administrative delays and that projects are not being submitted. A little later in the same report, we see that 17% of projects received no funding even though they had been approved. One in five approved projects did not receive any money.

This is inconceivable and inexplicable to us, and we very much look forward to hearing the real explanations that the government will give us. We have not heard any yet, but perhaps the Auditor General will be able to tell us more.

We also know that it is always harder for Quebec to secure funding. We have some demands. We want 100% of the funds earmarked for Quebec to stay in Quebec, we want Ottawa to send the money directly to the Quebec government, and we want it to stop imposing all kinds of conditions. Apparently, that does not suit Ottawa, and it always slows things down.

It is important to know that only 2% of public infrastructure in Canada falls under federal jurisdiction, and the remaining 98% comes under either municipal or provincial jurisdiction. The federal government owns only 2% of infrastructure, yet it controls a large portion of the budget and imposes all kinds of conditions on everyone.

It is not familiar with the reality in the municipalities and the provinces. A central government does not have the credibility to say that it understands the reality in every municipality in the country. Canada has 5,000 municipalities, but the Bloc is concerned first and foremost with the 1,400 municipalities in Quebec. It would be impossible for Ottawa to be familiar with the reality facing each and every one of them. Federal regulations make it difficult for the municipalities to qualify for and secure the funds that are rightfully theirs. This is especially true for small municipalities, which do not have an army of staff to research how to qualify for the various federal government programs, how to submit an application and how to navigate all the bureaucracy.

Clearly, it would be far more efficient if the money were transferred to Quebec so that it could be distributed based on people's needs. The money would trickle down much faster to where it is needed on the ground.

The Bloc Québécois is permanently stuck in this tug-of-war, because we want Quebec to get the money to which it is entitled.

I know that I am running out of time, but I want to close on another topic, namely the Canada Infrastructure Bank, for which the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities is responsible. After all, we are talking about infrastructure. It is very hard to get service in French when dealing with that bank. Since the bank was founded, there has not been a single executive, press secretary or CEO who speaks French. No one can respond to the municipalities in French. It is a major problem. We are talking about $35 billion that the federal government is investing in this bank. The private sector might be investing in it as well.

It was even reported a few days ago that no one at the office of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities speaks French. It is clear that we are more than misunderstood in this country. Quebeckers would be much better off if we could manage our own money.

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

11:15 a.m.

Mount Royal Québec

Liberal

Anthony Housefather LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

I have a fairly simple question for him. The government has proposed an amendment that preserves the intent of the motion, namely to call on the Auditor General to conduct an audit. The government proposed deleting some words in the preamble that are not part of the motion, but are insulting to the government.

Does the Bloc Québécois agree with the amendment, which maintains the substance of the motion?

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

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Madam Speaker, personally, I have difficulty understanding why the government would feel insulted by comments that were not even made by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. Those were the comments of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a completely neutral public servant who provides accurate information to inform the people and parliamentarians.

In my opinion, the fact that the government is ashamed of or insulted by the statements of any public servant shows just how terrible a manager it is and how relevant the elements of the motion are.

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

11:20 a.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Madam Speaker, during the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals made many wonderful promises in response to the infrastructure crisis everywhere in Canada.

What the government actually did was create the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which will privatize Canada's infrastructure. For lobbyists and the government's good friends, it is an open bar.

I am worried about the potential privatization of municipal water systems across Canada. The NDP will fight to defend this principle. Is the Bloc ready to defend this principle and the need to ensure that water infrastructure across Canada remain in public hands?

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

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague from Timmins—James Bay that the Bloc Québécois has always maintained that public infrastructure should remain public and belong to ordinary people, to our citizens. This infrastructure does not belong to lobby groups or to private corporations that want to take advantage and pocket some money at the expense of the people.

We believe that citizens have a right to these services. They pay for these services through taxes and they are entitled to them. These services should not end up lining the pockets of shareholders or companies that have connections with the infrastructure bank or with the government.

We believe that public infrastructure belongs to the public. Whether we are talking about water or waste water systems, it is critical that they remain accessible to the public.

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

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for indicating his support for this motion and I appreciate that comment.

He had a chance to talk a bit about the infrastructure bank, and I would like to hear a little more from him on that. He talked about the administration issues and the poor ability to speak French, etc., and I am sure he is aware that over $11 million was spent on its administration in 2019.

The reality is that rural Canada is suffering because of this infrastructure bank. The infrastructure bank is only going to give projects to rural communities if the projects are over $100 million. I know he has a lot of those issues in his riding and I would love to hear his comments on how it is going to impact rural Canada and rural Quebec in particular.

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

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I did not fully understand my colleague's question, but I do understand he is concerned about how money is being used in the infrastructure bank. He wants the money to serve communities. This is important to me as well.

However, above all else, we must remember that the infrastructure bank makes decisions about public infrastructure. Infrastructure bank money should not be used to put tolls on bridges, highways or water. Citizens will ultimately not be able to pay for these things.

This is our concern. We want Quebec to be able to manage the investments made in Quebec, which cannot really happen with a bank that is controlled by Canada.

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

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is dedicated to strengthening development in the regions of Quebec, particularly by activating Canadian federal government resources and adhering to recognized development principles to create a vigorous economic ecosystem with the Quebec national government, sector stakeholders, and the people of all regions of Quebec.

Like Quebec nationalists throughout history, the Bloc Québécois still has to fight tooth and nail to defend the development interests of Quebec's regions from the Canadian federal government, which constantly interferes in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.

However, the Bloc Québécois can assure the House that co-operation with the Canadian federal government is possible provided that the government pledges to make investments in a specific program or file that meets the expectations of the Quebec government. Here are some examples relating to a rural riding like your own, Madam Speaker.

First of all, let us take the example of sports infrastructure. People who live in regional capitals like Rouyn-Noranda and Thetford Mines do not have access to high-quality sports facilities. Back home in Rouyn-Noranda, there was a multi-sports complex project that never came to fruition. The complex included a soccer field, a pool and other infrastructure. The federal government was not part of this project, and it fizzled out. There is also a pool project in Témiscamingue.

As one member mentioned earlier, in rural areas where the population is less concentrated, people do not have the same means and so it is not as easy for them to carry out such projects. The federal government therefore needs to establish eligibility criteria that correspond with the realities of each region. Once the objectives are established with the federal government, it is up to Quebec and the municipalities to carry out the projects.

I would now like to talk about municipal infrastructure and waste water treatment in particular. Some municipalities along the St. Lawrence River do not have the necessary infrastructure to deal with their waste water, which means that raw sewage is sometimes being dumped into the St. Lawrence River, as others have mentioned. Many Quebec municipalities dump their waste water into lakes and rivers. That is unacceptable. Municipalities must be given the means to improve their existing infrastructure.

Speaking of water, I also want to give the example of the municipality of Angliers in Témiscamingue, which does not have any drinking water abstraction infrastructure. Its residents have to drink bottled water, which is distributed by truck. That is unacceptable. That is also the reality in far too many indigenous communities, which lack the modern infrastructure required to provide clean water.

While we are on the subject of indigenous communities' infrastructure needs, let's talk about housing, a very important issue at the root of many social problems. Sadly, indigenous individuals live in some of the worst conditions in Quebec and Canada. Their homes are too small and in terrible condition. That affects their development.

That makes social housing infrastructure transfers top priority for us and for other parts of the country. The federal government must transfer funds to build social housing units and repair existing units, and it must put Quebec and municipalities in charge, no strings attached. Vacancy rates are very low right now in Quebec and pretty much everywhere else. In Rouyn-Noranda, the vacancy rate is 1%. The need for social housing in Abitibi-Témiscamingue is great. Here again, the criteria do not reflect regional realities, and we have to wait for money to get these projects going.

In addition, the shortage of affordable housing is exacerbating the problems of housing and homelessness. Housing is sometimes more expensive than in large urban centres. Inflation is an issue across Quebec. The lack of affordable housing is also exacerbating the labour shortage, since it seriously hinders our ability to attract newcomers, be they from Quebec or elsewhere, and help our businesses remain competitive and address the labour shortage. This again raises the issue of appeal.

Still on the topic of infrastructure, another issue that affects the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region as well as the Laurentides—Labelle riding is the infamous highway 117, also affectionately known as “bloody 117”. It is one of Quebec's deadliest highways because of the often dangerous conditions and the amount of heavy truck traffic. There is little room to pass other vehicles, and this sometimes leads to dangerous behaviours. This piece of infrastructure comes under the Quebec department of transport, but it is also part of the Trans-Canada Highway. In the past, the federal government has invested $11 million in repairs to various parts of that highway, including a bridge.

Could the government give that some thought?

As far as road infrastructure is concerned, the village of Moffet wants to bring the Grassy-Narrow bridge back into service. This will be a collaborative effort with the Anishinabe community of Long Point First Nation. The goal is to open up this part of eastern Témiscamingue, improve forestry development conditions for the companies and provide access to tourists or those who use the land recreationally.

Infrastructure for our farmers is another issue that is important to me, especially when it comes to slaughterhouses. There are many farmers in Abitibi-Témiscamingue. Can the federal government contribute to ensuring that we can consume locally produced meat? A federal government contribution can make a difference by funding local initiatives. The reality is that our cattle and other livestock have to travel 800 kilometres to be slaughtered. It is a matter of freshness, quality of life of the animals and our ability to consume local products.

A solution may exist my colleague's riding, Timmins—James Bay, specifically in the municipality of Belle Vallée. Is it possible to have an agreement providing that our farmers can have their animals slaughtered three kilometres from the Témiscamingue border instead of having to travel over 600 kilometres? Can Quebec, Ontario and Canada sit down and come up with a solution if an initiative cannot be funded in the region? We have to find a solution to open up the region, including by lowering the cost of transporting livestock for slaughter.

We are also wondering why federal buildings that are no longer in use are not turned over to the community. They could be used for innovative projects such as early childhood centres, housing or community hubs. Government of Canada buildings in the region are not just white elephants, they are also the elephant in the room. These buildings are no longer occupied and the region needs the type of quality services that could be provided there.

The digital desert is another issue. Programs must be adapted for all regions, in particular rural regions. We do not have as large a population as Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal and therefore investments are not as profitable for companies. We must move forward with this plan. There is a cost to ensuring land use just as there is to not doing so. Modernizing the digital network is also important for local agriculture and to help attract young families, among other things.

There is a regional initiative, called GIRAT, that is very exciting. The Mobile A-T project, valued at more than $13 million, is being carried out without any federal funding, even though the federal government is responsible for telecommunications.

Let us go to public transportation. Montreal, Quebec City, Ottawa and Toronto are not the only cities that need public transportation. It would be useful to have programs create infrastructure to help these regions develop. Drummondville, for example, is one of many regions looking to improve service with a train. Cost is obviously an issue, as is the frequency of trips.

Business opportunities become an issue. Access to quality air service is required. A lot of investments are made in airports, but infrastructure is in serious need. The frequency of flights and the impact on costs are also at play. This is all interconnected.

There are other examples. We can look at NAV CANADA, which provides on-site infrastructure to help maintain the quality of service and safety. All of the incubator projects are also useful to economic development stakeholders.

If the federal government cannot take care of its infrastructure in the regions, in Abitibi-Témiscamingue and across Quebec, it should transfer that money to Quebec. This infrastructure is crucial to our development.

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

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. He talked a lot about his region and about the importance of funding infrastructure projects.

The question I wanted to ask him is about the way money is transferred. Like Quebec, Ottawa is growing increasingly infatuated with the idea that funding public-private partnership projects serves the public interest. However, that is not the case. We know that these public-private partnerships waste money.

Here is the question I want to ask my colleague. With regard to funding infrastructure projects, whether in Quebec, Ottawa or the municipalities, would he agree that the investment should be primarily public, to ensure that the interests of the general public are represented?

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

11:35 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his question.

The Bloc Québécois and I agree that there should be public funding. However, we are also reaching the stage where funding is urgently needed, especially in resource regions. The reality is that projects are no longer happening. There is an infrastructure deficit, and these programs will have to be rethought in order to meet our needs and the needs of the regions.

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

11:35 a.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue for his excellent speech.

He raised a list of concerns about infrastructure. There is a long list of needs. Unfortunately, we are always seeing delays, and Quebec has to scramble to get its fair share. That is basically what he said in his speech.

There is a great need to bring high-speed Internet to the regions. This is true in Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Joliette and most other regions of Quebec. It is taking longer for Quebec to implement its connectivity program because of spending delays, criteria that must be met and the fact that the province has to negotiate with Ottawa and elbow its way to the table.

Does my colleague believe that the simplest and most effective solution would be to transfer a lump sum to reduce delays, yes or no?

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

11:35 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member for Joliette's excellent question.

The situation in Abitibi-Témiscamingue is dire. The Government of Quebec contributed $10 million to the GIRAT connectivity project I mentioned earlier. People in the regions got fed up with waiting for money from a federal program that is not well suited to regional realities.

In Canada, 80% of the population lives in urban centres. According to Canada's connectivity strategy, 95% of Quebeckers and Canadians should have mobile wireless coverage and Internet access. Sooner or later, programs will have to be adapted to the needs of resource regions. We pay half our taxes to Ottawa, so a fair share of that money should be spent where people are.

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

11:35 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is highlighting one of the challenges we have in working with municipalities and provincial governments.

Previous questions talked about big business somehow being involved. However, these funds are administered with our partner agencies, through the provinces and municipalities, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Employment and Social Development Canada. We have several channels that we as parliamentarians use to connect to our communities.

Could the member comment on the work he does to connect his communities to these types of programs?

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

11:35 a.m.

Bloc

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Guelph for his question.

I do that work every day. During my campaign, connectivity was my top priority. It is important to staying connected to people in every rural municipality.

I live in Rouyn-Noranda, and I cannot even get to the airport without losing cell coverage. This is a real problem that makes it hard to attract young families to our communities. It has a serious impact on our businesses' economic development.

In this day and age, connectivity is a must. I would note that the minister responsible for rural development has also made regional connectivity and access to high-speed Internet and cell coverage a priority. I will do everything I can to help her get real results and Internet access for all.

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

11:35 a.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the excellent new member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

This is not a debate that is abstract at all. When we talk about infrastructure and infrastructure funding in this country, the lack of coordination and the shortchanging we have seen over the last few decades from Ottawa are causing real hardship right across the country. In this regard, I would criticize as openly the Harper Conservatives as I do the current government for their refusal to adequately fund what is becoming a chronic problem in this country. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities and many other groups have identified the shortfall. We are talking about an infrastructure deficit of over $170 billion in this country and that does not include first nations communities.

What does that mean? That means the infrastructure that was put in place largely after the Second World War, in the 1950s and 1960s when there was adequate government funding for this, to ensure that we have water treatment and sewage facilities, roads and bridges has not been renewed.

The Liberal government will say that it has funded some of the infrastructure that is needed. Today as we go through the discussion and debate in the House of Commons, we will find that the Liberals will mention particular projects that have been funded. Certainly, those projects are welcome. The reality is we are talking about a massive infrastructure deficit of over $170 billion in this country. That some infrastructure funding is being forwarded does mean that it is doing some good and making some progress, but what that means is that while the house may still have a leaky roof, while the toilets do not work, while there is no heat, yes, we have windows being replaced and a new front door.

What I am saying is that we are far from the degree of investment that is required in this country to bring the quality of life right across the country up to speed. This is a profound problem. That is why we welcome and support the motion that was brought forward today.

The difference between the rhetoric and the reality is that the government has said that it is financing all of these infrastructure projects, and yet tens of billions of dollars remain unallocated to this day. That is something only the Auditor General can look into with the expertise that he has to offer, to make sure that parliamentarians of course, but more importantly Canadians as a whole can get a real handle on the massive debt between the rhetoric and the reality.

The reality is that we are in an infrastructure crisis in this country. The rhetoric is that somehow the government is addressing this. However, the few projects the government is financing are far from what is needed across the country.

I am proud to represent the cities of New Westminster and Burnaby, both led by very progressive city councils that are endeavouring to do things with the small amount of taxpayers' dollars that the municipalities actually get, around 10% of the taxpayer pie. The tax dollars that are actually allocated across the country come from municipalities. We have good infrastructure that has been put into place because the cities and the recent new B.C. government have been providing supports for some of the infrastructure that is needed. We are still a far way from having in place an infrastructure program that addresses the $170 billion and growing deficit that we have in this country.

That has to change. It is obvious when one looks at the state of our highways, bridges and waste water treatment centres. There is a difference between rhetoric and reality. La Presse even reported a few months ago that the state of our roads is deteriorating, not just in Quebec but across Canada. This is because the funding that should be going to infrastructure is not being allocated. That is why we are experiencing a crisis.

The government will say it has allocated money in each budget. The Auditor General will be able to tell us to what extent that is the reality. The Auditor General will be able to tell us that the funding announced by the government has actually led to infrastructure projects being started and to what extent municipalities in rural and urban regions across the country have been able to access that money. In New Westminster we are looking for a renewal of the Canada Games Pool, which was built over 40 years ago and needs to be renewed. New Westminster would like to see some of that funding coming from the federal government. At the moment, that has not happened.

Burnaby has identified a number of sites for housing. Both Mayor Jonathan Coté in New Westminster and Mayor Mike Hurley in Burnaby are endeavouring to ensure that all aspects of quality of life are increased in those two cities by getting the needed infrastructure funding.

What has been the government's approach? First off, when we talk about the overall allocation of funding, the Auditor General will be able to determine in a way that only his department can determine the extent to which the funding has actually been allocated. More importantly, when we talk about the funding itself, the question is how that money is being allocated.

Under the previous government we had public-private partnerships. In public-private partnerships it costs the taxpayer significantly more to ensure private profit for what is essentially public funding. I can point to the debacle of the Ottawa LRT, a public-private partnership where billions of dollars from the public were allocated to put in place a transit system that has become notoriously unreliable. I travel each day to work. I have tried to travel on the LRT. However, in recent days, as with so many other people in the national capital region, I have been unable to take the train because the number of trains and their frequency has been reduced through this public-private partnership. As a result of that, the ability of citizens to access this service has been circumscribed. This is just one example of many.

Similar concerns have been raised about the government's approach with the Canada Infrastructure Bank. A previous member of Parliament, Guy Caron, who was finance critic for the NDP, repeatedly raised concerns, as have other NDP members, around the idea that public money would go to further private profit. In the executive suite of the Canada Infrastructure Bank we have seen what can only be described as chaos, a turnover of those people that had been appointed to head up the bank. Very little progress has been made. Arguably, the most significant projects that have come through the Canada Infrastructure Bank were already online for public investment. The federal government played a shell game around that to try to give some credit to the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

It is so essential that these aspects of the use of the public dollar be examined by the Auditor General. The Auditor General has the confidence of Canadians. The Auditor General can look at these projects and within one year can bring forward recommendations about how infrastructure funding should be treated in this country. It should not serve for friends of the government to make a profit out of this. It should not simply be a piggy bank for election campaigns.

What we need is a sustained ongoing source of public funding that municipalities across the length and breadth of this country can depend on. That is why the NDP is supporting the motion.

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

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I am curious to know how the member can support this motion based on the fact that the preamble to it, basically everything before “that” in the motion, is misleading at best.

The truth of the matter is that although the PBO did make these comments at one point, after it was given updated information the PBO went on to state that the Government of Canada was delivering on its commitment and providing the right information.

I understand the motion, and I think that the motion in terms of involving the PBO is important and very well justified, but the problem is that the information that follows the “that” part in this motion does not paint the full picture. It is actually suggesting that the government never ended up following up on what the PBO was after, when the government did and the PBO acknowledged that.

Why would the member support the motion knowing that there is misleading information at the beginning of it?