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

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Sylvie Bérubé Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Yes, arts and culture are very important. They are two similar but distinct things, and we must work toward this. I support what my colleague said.

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

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her excellent speech.

She pointed out that she is the Bloc Québécois critic for first nations. She also said that it is the same story for first nations infrastructure: money is voted but not released.

In her opinion, what should the government do to release the funds for first nations, which have so many needs?

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

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Sylvie Bérubé Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As far as indigenous affairs are concerned, the key issues are social housing, homelessness and infrastructure in northern Quebec. The melting snow is also important for them because it changes their culture. When it comes to the environment, we have to work with first nations.

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

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with our fantastic member for Langley—Aldergrove. I certainly look forward to his comments.

I wish I was starting this speech on a better note. It is a very sad time in the world. Of course, this week we lost a great in the sports industry, Kobe Bryant, and his daughter, and the world mourns this.

Upon reflection of this, I got to thinking about the sports world and this speech ahead of me in the House of Commons. I began to reflect on one of my favourite sports movies, indeed, one of my favourite movies. It is a movie from my earlier times called Jerry Maguire.

I like this movie very much. It is about an individual who is a sports agent. He makes the decision to leave his big firm to start his own firm because he is concerned about the ethics at the big firm. Unfortunately, he only gets one client, and members may know this client. It is the character played by Cuba Gooding Jr., a very gregarious and bold character. There is one line that he is known for, and this comes to mind as we discuss this opposition day motion, “Show me the money.”

Certainly, Canadians have given their money in record deficits. The federal debt as of 2017-18 budget was $671.3 billion, not a small amount. I wish I could say that it stopped there, but unfortunately in 2018-19 it went up to $696.5 billion.

The federal deficit in the 2019-20 budget is expected to be $19.8 billion, as noted not by the Fraser Institute but by Maclean's Those are huge numbers. As a result of that, what do we expect of the government from taking all of these taxes? We expect it to show us the money.

Let us first give some consideration to where the money is not. I think that is pretty evident by the PBO in its findings.

In 2017, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that the Liberals had spent only half of the promised infrastructure money. In 2018, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer requested the Liberals' infrastructure plan, it found that in fact the plan did not exist. In 2019, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer requested a list of all specific project commitments under the investing in Canada plan, the Liberal government was unable to provide the data. It is a $186.7 billion plan and the government cannot show us the money. I think Canadians are asking for that. They want the government to show us the money.

The PBO has shown that the Liberals have failed even to get their own infrastructure money out the door and that infrastructure money lapses at 60% per year for the first two years, which is terrible. When the former minister of infrastructure was asked in the House of Commons how he was spending $187 billion on infrastructure, he said that he had bought a few buses.

The Liberals claim that their infrastructure spending would increase GDP by an average of 0.3% per year. In fact, at best, the PBO estimated that it fell short by 67%.

The truth is that nobody even knows how much the government spends on infrastructure. The Prime Minister does not even know. The Parliamentary Budget Officer does not know. The Department of Finance does not know. Even the Department of Infrastructure does not know.

Our offices asked the PBO to reach out to the Department of Infrastructure and ask how much the government spent on infrastructure. Even the department could not answer the question.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the government's infrastructure plan did not exist, thus proving that the investing in Canada plan is hopelessly mismanaged and improvised and, therefore, the reason and the need for this motion today.

The PBO analysis shows that despite all of the Prime Minister's spending, there was no incremental increase in infrastructure in Canada. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 40% of the Prime Minister's infrastructure spending lapsed both in 2017 and 2018. This is promised money that never flowed out the door. The PBO estimated that 40% of the funding allocated for infrastructure from 2016-17 to 2018-19 will lapse unused. That is why I am asking today, on behalf of Canadians, for the government to show us the money.

Statistics Canada's infrastructure economic account shows almost no increase in infrastructure spending. However, between 2015 and 2018, the most recent years available, annual inflation-adjusted infrastructure investment went from $70.7 billion to $71.5 billion. There was only a tiny $0.8-billion annual increase in infrastructure, despite a staggering $35 billion in infrastructure spending allocated by the Prime Minister over all these years. Again I ask the government to show me the money.

I thought that perhaps, if we are not seeing it in these grand offices of Parliament and the Government of Canada, I could look closer, in my own backyard, to see some evidence of spending. Unfortunately, I cannot see the money there either. I looked, for example, at a $4.4-billion pipeline, which my province is desperately in need of at this time. I understand there were some shovels in the ground as of December, but if we look ahead to the future, far into the future frankly, Q2 or Q3 of 2022 is the best-case scenario completion date. That is three years. That is another three years lost in Alberta. Again I ask the government to show me the money.

Let me look harder in my backyard. Let me look to a project that is very dear to all Calgarians: the Green Line. After many years of humming and hawing and toing and froing, we finally get a commitment from the federal government. However, when is this implementation expected to be completed? It will be in 2026. I will be over 50. Hopefully my son will have a learner's permit by then. Again I ask the government to show me the money.

I can say there are two places where we can see the money. The first is in the cost of the administration of the infrastructure bank. There is nothing built, but there is some money there. In 2019, there was $11.376 million, which includes staff compensation, professional fees and travel, but not a single infrastructure project. Someone please call the member for New Brunswick Southwest and get the waste report going again, because we see the money is there, but there is no infrastructure.

There is one place we are seeing the money, but unfortunately it is not in Canada. It is in Asia with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. With a $256-million contribution over five years, we are actually 1% shareholders, which is pretty impressive. There are three pipelines there. There are none here, but three there. Also, as my colleague from the lovely riding of Calgary Shepard indicated today, this money is moving from gift to investment, so we are not even being transparent about how we are recording it, much less how we are spending. I do not even want to talk about the belt and road initiative around the world that we are contributing to as a result of these investments.

The government has continued to be a tax and spend—oh, I cannot even say “spend”, because we have not spent the money. I wish it were at least a tax-and-spend government, but it is just a taxing government. It continues to take our money through taxes, debt and deficits, as I indicated at the beginning of my speech.

In the end, on behalf of Calgarians, Albertans, the good people of Calgary Midnapore and Canadians, I would ask the government to show me the money.

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

5:30 p.m.

Spadina—Fort York Ontario

Liberal

Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Madam Speaker, I am happy to show the member the money, but I would need her to explain why the provincial government in Alberta just cut the Calgary transit budget by 86%.

The green line project, which we approved and were prepared to spend money on, has suddenly disappeared as a project because of a cut from $550 million by the province to $75 million. Without the provincial contribution, matching federal dollars will not flow.

I could also show the member opposite a $200-million investment that the previous government made before Kenney came to office. He has cut $200 million, and now the LRTs will not be rebuilt. Federal dollars were going to match the provincial dollars there, but because Kenney has spent the infrastructure budget, now the federal dollars will not flow.

The hard part about our infrastructure program is that we do not spend the money unless there is a real project. We do not send money to Alberta hoping that it may someday decide to build transit projects. When they start to be constructed, the federal government will cash out the receipts as they are submitted. That is part of the reason why the money remains in Ottawa until such time as a city spends it.

Fundamentally, if the Conservatives in Alberta are worried about unemployment and worried about construction trade workers getting jobs, they destroyed the green line project by cutting 86% of the provincial funding, which eliminated the federal contribution to a project we had already approved and were ready to build. It is pretty hard to show the Conservatives the money because they do not want to spend it.

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

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

Madam Speaker, first of all I will say that I actually think the member was right, that was not Kenney's announcement originally. It was actually an announcement by the member for Calgary Nose Hill. I thank her very much, in her portfolio of western diversification, for doing that.

It is very rich that the parliamentary secretary is standing there lecturing me on that when he was actually just in my city, two or three weeks ago, announcing 200 spaces for housing. Do members know why we need those 200 spaces for housing? It is because the parliamentary secretary's government has destroyed the economy there. It has destroyed the economy.

Thanks for the 200 spaces, but why does the government not do something significant to bring back the economy in Alberta?

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

5:30 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. With respect to transparency and efficiency, my Bloc Québécois colleagues have clearly demonstrated that the provinces, especially Quebec, are best equipped to know their people's needs.

The Conservatives have already had a chance to vote against a Bloc Québécois motion. That motion called for the government to respect provincial jurisdiction, in particular by not authorizing any project that does not comply with provincial and Quebec laws relating to environmental protection and land use planning. It is a question of efficiency and knowledge.

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

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

Madam Speaker, Alberta and Quebec naturally have different policies and priorities. I can say that we agree that provinces should have more responsibility. We are prepared to accept more responsibility to better manage issues and projects. I imagine that is why the Bloc will support this motion. I hope so.

I will think about how we can work together. I think that includes the idea that both Alberta and Quebec want more responsibility over things that affect our money and our projects. I think that is why we are here having this conversation. I hope we will have the support of the Bloc for this motion.

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

5:30 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I was hoping, as the member for Calgary Midnapore began, that I could open by saying that she had me at hello. However, I am afraid the “show me the money” piece lost me on the pipeline question.

The member mentioned that $4.5 billion had been spent on a pipeline that was not built. Just to clarify, for all members, the government spent $4.5 billion on an existing 65-year-old pipeline. It did not create a single additional job. The members opposite, including the member for Calgary Midnapore, obviously want us to proceed with the completely irresponsible notion that we would spend $10 billion to $13 billion more of public money to build something that has no market, which is why Kinder Morgan left.

I would urge the member to reconsider. There are many more ways we could spend that money, including restoring the abandoned oil wells, converting them to geothermal, and doing things that would really help the economy of Alberta.

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

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

Madam Speaker, I continue to believe that Alberta and Canada have the most ethical, clean processes for providing the nation and the world with the energy we so need.

With that, I appreciate having the member's hello, but I will leave her a goodbye.

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

5:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of the motion.

In 2015 the Liberal Party ran on a platform of increasing infrastructure spending, and together with that there was going to be a series of small to medium-sized deficits. The objective was to implement infrastructure spending and projects that would improve efficiency and economic productivity and ultimately strengthen Canada's economy and create well-paying jobs. There were going to be three years of small to medium-sized deficits, and in year four, 2019, the Liberals were going to balance the budget. It seemed like a plausible story, and the Liberal Party won a majority government.

However, fast-forward to 2020. Rather than looking in the mirror that Canadian voters have given them to perhaps examine their presuppositions, the Liberals are saying they do not care about balanced budgets anymore. In fact, they are saying yes, we did not meet our objective of balancing the budget in year four, 2019; we have just moved the goal posts. They say they do not measure deficits in real dollars anymore; they now measure deficits as a ratio to gross domestic product. Under that new measure, they say they are looking way better.

As a matter of fact, the truth to the story is they are not looking better. They just do not look as bad as some of our trading partners.

I wonder what would happen today if there were a global financial crisis of the kind we had in 2008. Canada, unfortunately, is not in the good, safe, sound position that it was in at that time under the then-Conservative government. Canada weathered the global financial crisis very well because of the sound economic policy that was the core of the Conservative government. If the government cannot balance its budget in times of full employment with many people paying taxes in an environment of good tax revenue and low interest rates, then it is no wonder that many Canadians are concerned and worried about the future of this country.

If this debt financing actually went for the stated purpose of increasing and improving infrastructure spending, it would not be so bad, but the government has mishandled the infrastructure file and there is a lack of transparency, so we are looking for more transparency. That is why I speak in favour of the motion:

That...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....

I am convinced that the Auditor General, when he reports, will say that the government has not.

I have heard members from the other side say that they are having trouble spending the money because of lack of co-operation from provincial governments and municipal mayors. I can say that there are a couple of projects in the Fraser Valley for which people there would love to have a commitment from the federal government.

I have spoken with the mayors in my riding in Langley, but my riding also extends into west Abbotsford, so I have spoken to the mayor of Abbotsford as well. They are fully in support of expanding Highway 1. I thank my neighbouring member of Parliament for speaking in favour of that great project. Many people are tied up in traffic every day and every morning there is a long lineup of people going into metro Vancouver, so it is high time for Highway 1 to be expanded.

It was pointed out by the member for Surrey—Newton that Conservative and Liberal governments have supported the expansion of Highway 1 as far as exit 264, but that only tells half the answer. That is now where the bottleneck is going to be. Highway 1, the Trans-Canada Highway, was built in the mid-1960s, and beyond exit 264 there has never been any expansion. It is still a two-way highway, a core transit corridor, and it is high time for it to be expanded.

I also want to talk about the SkyTrain expansion. The western part of my riding is in metro Vancouver, and all 21 mayors there are fully in support of the SkyTrain expansion. There is a funding commitment from three levels of government to bring the SkyTrain to the Fleetwood area in Surrey, but we are looking for another $1.6 billion to complete the project and bring it all the way to Langley. I would point out that $1.6 billion is less than 1% of the total $186.7 billion that has been committed to infrastructure spending. This is one project with full support from all the mayors of metro Vancouver and the members of the legislative assembly as well, both Liberal and NDP.

There are a couple of projects that have full support from my constituents, the mayors and the members of the legislative assembly. Those are shovel-ready. We are looking for the federal government to come forward and support those two projects.

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

5:40 p.m.

Spadina—Fort York Ontario

Liberal

Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families

Madam Speaker, Langley is a beautiful city, and I will read a headline from its wonderful news service, the Langley Advance Times, from October 16, 2016, on the result of our infrastructure program. The headline is very clear about exactly where dollars have been lent: “Langley City among first B.C. municipalities to benefit from federal infrastructure grant.” In fact, it was the largest grant in B.C. in 15 years. The difference between B.C. and Alberta is that B.C. has a provincial government that wants to partner with municipalities and the federal government to deliver real results. In Alberta the provincial government wants to cut, cut.

Could the member opposite explain to me the Conservative proposition that we can build SkyTrains, highways or water sewage plants with tax cuts? I was a municipal councillor for 10 years and never saw a single piece of infrastructure built with a tax cut. It is built with investment.

I know I am not going to get thanks for the investment in Langley, although we heard that from the previous MP, but I will say that the largest investment ever made in Langley by a federal infrastructure program was made by this government under this program.

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

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Madam Speaker, I will take this opportunity to thank the Liberal government for that investment. It was very much appreciated, and I will give credit where credit is due.

However, we are looking for an expansion of the SkyTrain and we are ready for it. I understand the mayors are going to be in Ottawa next week talking to the government. It has my support and the support of the MLAs as well, both NDP and Liberal. Make it happen.

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

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC

Madam Speaker, it is important to speak to the Government of Canada's commitment to building strong, vibrant communities that will benefit Canadians for generations. Our government understands the need to build sustainable communities that bring Canadians together and ensure they have access to services, programs and cultural and social opportunities where they live and work. That is what we heard from Canadians across the country. We heard it from indigenous partners, as well as from municipal, provincial and territorial leaders.

They told us that they needed strong, safe, livable and prosperous communities in order to be successful. That is why our historic, long-term investing in Canada plan is based on three key objectives: creating long-term economic growth for communities across Canada, supporting a low carbon, green economy and building inclusive communities for all Canadians.

To do this, we are investing more than $180 billion over 12 years in five main infrastructure priorities: public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation infrastructure, and rural and northern communities infrastructure.

Madam Speaker, I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

These priorities are broader than one department alone. The plan is being delivered by 14 different federal departments and agencies, including Infrastructure Canada. Infrastructure Canada manages the investing in Canada infrastructure program, which is providing funding through bilateral agreements between the department and each of the provinces and territories.

This federal investment includes four funding streams: $20.1 billion for public transit; $9.2 billion for green infrastructure; $1.3 billion for community, culture and recreational infrastructure; and $2.4 billion for wide-ranging infrastructure needs in rural and northern communities.

Today, I would like to talk about the importance of and investments being made in Canada's community, culture and recreational infrastructure. Building infrastructure to meet Canadians' needs where they live, work, play and raise their families takes the collaboration of provinces, territories, municipalities and partners such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

Canada is made up of communities of all sizes, and our government recognizes that the success of our country as a whole depends on building safe, attractive and inclusive places that Canadians can call home. All of these investments have economic benefits.

However, the social benefits cannot be understated. When we build inclusive community centres, we encourage Canadians of all ages and abilities to come together, learn about each other, engage with each other, and get involved in physical activities that will help them increase their quality of life.

There are investments such as the $6 million for the new Ben Calf Robe School in Alberta, which will enhance the ability of indigenous communities to teach, promote and preserve their cultural heritage within Canada without having to leave their home communities; or the $16.1 million investment in six new cultural and recreation facilities for members of the Tsawwassen First Nation and surrounding communities in British Columbia. These funds will go to renovations and retrofit for an arena in Colwood, an indigenous cultural centre in Lake Country, a new field house for the sportsplex in north Cowichan, a new community building in Williams Lake and a new culturally specialized multi-purpose community and recreation facility for residents and visitors to the Sumas First Nation to enjoy.

These facilities help bring people together to take advantage of a wide variety of community services and programs. However, more than that, for many first nation communities, they help to foster cultural awareness, protect traditions, break isolation and allow more families to stay and grow in their communities.

When we work together with provinces, territories, municipalities and communities to build safe, new affordable housing and new sports facilities, what we are really doing is building the Canada of the future, one community at a time.

The investing in Canada plan was designed to be flexible and responsive to the needs of Canadians. I am pleased to report that through the plan our government has invested over $57.5 billion in more than 52,000 projects in municipalities of all sizes. Almost all of these projects are currently under way or completed.

Nowadays, the problems our communities are facing are not the same as they were 50 or even 20 years ago. Programs like the smart cities challenge aim to get behind big ideas that solve community problems. By using data and connected technologies, we can solve the issues communities are currently facing as well as the challenges of the future, and that is in addition to the reliable, predictable funding provided by the federal gas tax fund.

The gas tax fund provides more than $2 billion per year and benefits all municipalities across the country. This federal funding, which supports approximately 4,000 projects each year, flows from the provinces and territories directly to the municipalities, which are responsible for planning, identifying and implementing projects under the 18 categories of eligible funding.

Budget 2019 also included a one-time increase of $2.2 billion to the federal gas tax fund, which doubled the government's commitment to municipalities in 2018-19, enabling municipalities to invest more in the infrastructure projects that are necessary to their communities and the well-being of their residents. What this means is that more communities across the country will be able to make infrastructure investment decisions that are right for them.

They will be able to put funds toward the much needed sports arenas, cultural centres and natural green spaces their residents need, want and deserve.

In turn, these investments will strengthen communities, support their social and economic growth, and build a stronger future for all Canadians. They will also help strengthen communities during times of climate crisis.

The costs and impacts of climate change are significant and increasing. We also know that the social and economic costs of building resilient infrastructure that will protect communities from disaster are less than disaster recovery costs.

Catastrophic events are becoming more frequent here at home and around the world, so we have to start thinking about how we can use our resources more effectively to protect our communities. By focusing on infrastructure that is cleaner, more efficient, and better able to withstand the effects of time and climate change, we are building a healthy, prosperous and sustainable country for our children and grandchildren.

To achieve this, we are working closely with our partners, including the provinces, territories and municipalities that own approximately 98% of all core public infrastructure.

By working with partners at all levels of government, with indigenous leaders and with stakeholders, we are building communities that Canadians are proud to live in. We can achieve this by showing respect for taxpayer money and by protecting our environment now, so that it can be enjoyed by future generations.

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

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Madam Speaker, the hon. member certainly told us about some great projects. In my riding, it has not been as positive. There is an arena in Orono, Ontario, that desperately needs repair. There is a waste treatment facility in Brighton that also needs help. There are lots of projects that need help. I would love to have the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle come to my community so I can show her some of the projects that need her help.

When I think of having the Auditor General in town to do a review, I do not see any negatives coming from it. At best, they may have some ideas to help the government get the money out quicker. The Auditor General may come back and say everything is great. We really have not lost anything and we could benefit tremendously from it.

I ask the member this: Will the Liberals vote for our motion?

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

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South for sharing a little about his riding.

We are committed to transparency, so if the Auditor General would like to conduct an audit concerning this matter, he is welcome to do so. That is why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure proposed an amendment that simply replaced the misleading preamble of this motion and left the main body intact.

It is open to the Auditor General to come in, if he wishes to do so, and perform an audit to verify whether everything is in order.

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

5:55 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her fine words.

She made a number of interesting points, and the list of the various projects was very informative. However, some points did not go over as well, especially with respect to the 18 categories of eligible funding and the work with municipalities.

I agree that everything needs to be structured. However, infrastructure remains a Quebec jurisdiction. We are calling on the federal government to provide the money without conditions. To me, “eligible category” sounds like “condition”. When she talked about working with municipalities, I took it to mean that she was bypassing the Government of Quebec.

Could my colleague explain and give us some reassurance?

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

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Our government is working closely with our partners, including the provinces. The territories and municipalities are responsible for roughly 98% of public infrastructure. I will give an example. Funding for public transit takes into account the population to be served and ridership. This has already been established between the federal government and the provincial governments, including Quebec. We will continue to work with the provinces and that is what will happen.

I hope our colleagues understand that it is very important to have infrastructure and for all of us to work together.

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

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, with respect to the infrastructure issue and the motion before us today, it is important to have accountability, so the NDP will support the motion.

With respect to infrastructure programming, it is very difficult for smaller communities and municipalities to come up with that one-third funding. To that end, I wonder whether the government has contemplated adjustments to that infrastructure requirement.

In terms of soft infrastructure, one of the key issues for my community in Vancouver East, of which I am very proud, is that we have the largest number of artists per capita in the country. We are in need of great infrastructure in the cultural and artistic community. We are losing studios at such a rapid rate that many of the independents—

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

6 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

We need to get to the answer please from the hon. member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle.

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

6 p.m.

Liberal

Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC

Madam Speaker, cultural centres and community centres are important so that people can get together and bond and share and be there for each other in times of need.

I mentioned, in a very detailed way, very concretely, what projects are in place. If Canadians want further information, they can go on the Infrastructure website and see what projects have already taken place and the ones that are going to come along in the future.

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

6 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

Madam Speaker, I would like to put things into perspective. The City of Winnipeg recently released an infrastructure program that has established priorities, and I believe somewhere in the neighbourhood of 45 priorities were established. When we take a look at the cost of those 45 projects, it is well over $5.5 billion. That is just 45 projects. If one reads through the projects, one would see that they do not include many of the community streets and neighbourhoods that I represent, or that other members of Parliament represent throughout the city of Winnipeg. It is virtually an endless pit when it comes to just how much money we could be spending on fixing roads, back lanes, community structures and so forth.

If one wants to get a sense of it, one can take a look at this. The city of Winnipeg is not the only community that publishes documents that illustrate how the spending of infrastructure dollars is prioritized. Winnipeg is one of many cities in Canada, with a population of 700,000. One can only imagine the demands for infrastructure in all regions of our country, whether urban or rural.

When I was in opposition a number of years ago, I challenged the Harper government to seriously look at investing nationally in infrastructure. I pointed out the types of deficits of infrastructure in the city of Winnipeg. I believe that back then I even underestimated it. This is nothing new. It has been happening now for many years. The difference is that back in 2015 there was one political party that was campaigning saying that it wanted to invest in Canada. Liberals wanted to invest in Canada's infrastructure. This is something that urban and rural municipalities and many different stakeholders wanted to hear. For so many years, the Harper government was starving the investments in infrastructure and adding to the infrastructure deficit.

When Liberals took the reins of government back in 2015, no one in Canada was surprised that we came out with a record number of commitments toward building Canada's infrastructure. This was virtually universally applied in all the different regions of our country. Back then, there were Conservatives and New Democrats who were more focused on balancing the budget, not realizing that investing in infrastructure builds the economy, and that building the economy helps the larger picture, including revenue coming back to the government. We are the only party that was committed to really investing in infrastructure.

The motion brought forward by the official opposition makes reference to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I have often made reference to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In the Liberal caucus, we have a deep respect for the office, and we have consistently had that respect, contrary to the official opposition.

On March 15, the PBO posted, “Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the Government’s $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan.” That was part of the concern. Let us take a look at the motion. What opposition members are doing is trying to mislead Canadians through motions like this one. They do not make reference to the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer met with the different departments after it was explained to the departments that we needed to be able to provide additional information. In August, another report was released, which opposition members do not make reference to.

The report stated that the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the original report showed we were delivering exactly what we said we would. The Parliamentary Budget Office was doing its job, as it should, and we were doing our job, as we should. When we told Canadians that we were prepared to commit to infrastructure dollars, we did that.

I listened to the debate, and it has been relatively interesting. Many members on the opposition benches have been saying that more money should be spent on infrastructure. They cite projects. The opposition has come a long way. Now it seems that the members, if not directly are indirectly supporting what we promised to do in 2015. We are now delivering on that. Now they are on side with the fact that we should be investing in Canada's infrastructure.

The members talk a lot about the process. I would like to go over the process a little.

I pointed out the City of Winnipeg plan. It is in a great position, from a local perspective. When people complain about potholes, or streets or community facilities, they contact the city. The city has a limited tax base, through property tax and a few other sources, to generate revenue. If it were left up to the city or the municipal governments, that overall infrastructure deficit would continue to grow. Provincial governments of all political stripes have recognized that, and so has the national government.

In the last four or five years, we have seen a national government that truly cares about the infrastructure. We have actually done two things. Not only have we allocated record amounts of money for infrastructure, but looking at the last budget we presented, we doubled down on the gas tax for that budget year. That meant tens of millions of more dollars for the City of Winnipeg to do some of the more common things, such as fixing potholes or identifying some streets in Winnipeg North and other ridings that needed a little more attention. We have been dependent on the local levels of government to establish those priorities, to work with the provincial entities and to see if we can get the different levels of government participating.

That is the essence of what has been taking place. Would we have liked to see some additional projects? Personally I would have loved to see the Chief Peguis extension. The member for Kildonan—St. Paul talked about the Chief Peguis extension. I agree that it is important. However, like me, she and other MPs who feel this is a priority should emphasize that to the City of Winnipeg. It is in a better position to prioritize the areas in our communities where those rare dollars will be invested. It is a limited amount of money at the end of the day, and we could spend a whole lot more than required.

I am very proud of the fact that we have a national government that is committed to investing in infrastructure. I would challenge any member of the opposition to demonstrate where in the last 50 years we have seen the type of commitment this government has made to building Canada's infrastructure from coast to coast to coast.

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

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague from Winnipeg North, and I want to bring three things to his attention.

The first is that the previous Conservative government governed in a recession. The current Liberal government has never been in a recession. It may cause one, but it has not governed in one yet.

Second, the previous government invested $150 billion in infrastructure, during a recession, to save jobs and corporations, including the auto industry and others. It was very successful at that and it got the money out the door. The Liberal government has said that it has an investment plan in infrastructure, but it has not gotten the money out the door.

The third thing is that the previous Conservative government, while it got the money out the door in a recession, had a plan to balance the budget in seven years and did it in six. The Liberal government, not in a recession, has not spent the money and still has a huge deficit on top of it all.

Does my colleague across the way agree with me?

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

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I do not agree because that is factually incorrect. If we look at when Stephen Harper assumed power, he inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. The recession did not occur until two years after he was in that majority situation and in those first two years he had two years of deficits. If we add up the total deficits over the Stephen Harper era, it is well over $150 billion. Therefore, the facts of reality or history will clearly demonstrate that maybe the question could have been phrased a bit better.

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

6:10 p.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech, but he is not focusing on the problem.

For the Bloc Québécois, the problem is not the investment in infrastructure, since that is where money should be invested. The problem is that the federal government is imposing its criteria on Quebec and the provinces. For example, with regard to airports, why can it decide to build an airport in the middle of a corn field? It can do so because it is the federal level that imposes its criteria. That is just one example, but we could give several more.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary why it is so difficult to agree to the Bloc's request that the government provide a lump-sum transfer and let Quebec allocate the money.