Debates of Jan. 28th, 2020

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

[James Cumming, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I have had an opportunity to speak to them. The balance that they are struggling with, particularly in Alberta, is large-scale deficits, mostly because of the issues that we have in trying to get our resources to market. The government's program of bills has not allowed us to get our resources to market.

What I hear from the government is that certainly it would like to invest more into infrastructure. However, there is a problem doing it when we have a government that is completely against trying to get Alberta resources to market.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Fisheries and Oceans; the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, Privacy; the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, Agriculture.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Edmonton Centre for sharing his time with me today.

All of us in the House, irrespective of party, share probably two key things in common: We collect big paycheques from the taxpayer, and our constituents speak to us about infrastructure probably every single week. How are these two facts related? Canadians pay a lot of taxes and expect their government to work for them. They expect all of us in the House, irrespective of party, to work for them as well.

Unfortunately, we all know that government does not always work for the people who pay for it. The same goes for the House. Therefore, today I am here to push. I am here to urge our ministers to demand their departments and the public service move forward and get infrastructure built, to provide the services we as Canadians collectively need and to do so in a transparent manner.

As my colleague, the MP for Mégantic—L'Érable, stated in his motion, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has reported 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.

Will budget 2020 contain a new and transparent plan? I can say that members on this side of the House are not holding our breath. However, I am not losing hope. That is why we are calling on the Auditor General to immediately audit the Liberal government's investing in Canada plan including, but not limited to, verifying whether the plan lives up to its stated goals and promises, and that the Auditor General report his findings to the House within one year.

In my riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, the District of Mission has been working tirelessly to replace its aging sanitary sewer pipe that crosses beneath the Fraser River to a treatment plant in Abbotsford.

Close to 50,000 people rely on this critical piece of infrastructure. However, the existing pressurized pipe is over 30 years old. It is at capacity and at risk of failure. According to the district's engineers and staff, it is not a question of if but when this pipe fails.

The environmental impact of raw sewage lining the banks of the Fraser River would be unprecedented. It would affect millions of British Columbians, not to mention the devastation that would be done to our five iconic Pacific salmon species.

In 2017, the District of Mission was allocated $6.9 million from senior levels of government through the clean water and waste water fund. However, as has been the case for infrastructure projects across the country, only a small portion of that funding was actually transferred to the district.

As a result of years of Liberal dithering, construction costs have skyrocketed. Government reviews at the federal and provincial levels have bogged down the process with red tape, and people are really frustrated.

Therefore, right now I am asking, and have thanked the hon. parliamentary secretary earlier today, for an immediate cash injection and intervention by the federal government to see the Mission sanitary sewer crossing project through to completion.

Sanitary sewers are an essential service for growing communities everywhere and ensure our environment is protected for future generations. I cannot stress enough the importance of moving quickly on this infrastructure issue.

Another big issue in my riding in the community of Abbotsford is the expansion of Highway No. 1. It connects the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley to the rest of the province and our country, and has required expansion for decades. This two-lane stretch of highway sees over 40,000 users per day and motor vehicle accidents have soared to over 1,000 per year. According to ICBC, between the years 2015 and 2017, the number of motor vehicle accidents from Langley to Chilliwack doubled, to 1,100.

With traffic volumes already exceeding peak capacity, Highway No. 1 poses an alarming risk to travellers, especially in a disaster scenario where the Abbotsford International Airport would have to support the entire region as the alternate to the Vancouver International Airport.

As a result of the positive growth and increase in capacity at our ports, truck traffic volume has also increased, commuter numbers have risen and people are bogged down in traffic every day. I hear more about highway congestion than any other issue in my riding.

Speed, incidentally, is what the Liberal government promised and announced in budget 2016. In phase one of the government's new infrastructure plan, it was supposed to focus on short-term economic stimulus. Well, we are in 2020 now and nothing has happened. In fact, my colleagues and I met with the Parliamentary Budget Officer's staff yesterday, who shockingly indicated that not only had the government's key objectives not been achieved, but the Liberals have no way of tracking their current progress on infrastructure spending.

Communities across my riding in British Columbia have applied for infrastructure funding, many under the community, culture and recreation infrastructure program, the last deadline of which was January 23, 2019, over a year ago.

How can infrastructure programs supposedly designed to provide immediate economic stimulus take over a year to process? Just what exactly are the federal and provincial ministries doing? How many times are applications being shuffled from a desk in Victoria to a desk in Ottawa and back again?

The District of Lillooet asked me to support the needed improvements to their hockey rink. They need to replace the ammonia refrigeration ice plant at their rec centre with a safer carbon dioxide refrigeration plant. Cache Creek is still recovering from devastating floods in 2017. Harrison Hot Springs needs its Miami River lift station upgraded, another sewage sanitary project. Agassiz needs support for an indoor pool. Their only pool is outdoors and 40 years old. The Village of Lytton and, in fact, all of the rural communities that I represent in Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon need infrastructure for broadband Internet. The list of infrastructure projects requiring federal support goes on and on, and I am not unaware that this is the case in every other riding as well.

Sadly, the mishmash of programs, red tape and bureaucratic hoops is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, for small and rural municipalities to navigate. The PBO reports that the investing in Canada plan consists of over 50 individual government funding programs administered by 32 government departments and agencies and that, using public documents, it is literally impossible to reconcile the taxpayer money that has been allocated with the money that has been spent. Asked to describe the situation, as I mentioned in the House earlier today, the PBO said it is an octopus across government with serious information gaps. To boot, many of the Liberals' priorities for this funding defy logic.

Take the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, for instance, where the Liberal government signed over $256 million to this Beijing-controlled entity. Somewhat closer to home, consider the Canada Infrastructure Bank, where finance minister Morneau has confirmed that small municipalities, the municipalities I represent, will not benefit since global investors will only invest in large transformational projects that produce a revenue stream from which they can earn a high rate of return on their investment. Small and medium-sized municipalities in rural Canada are nonetheless out of $15 billion in infrastructure funding to pay for it.

In conclusion, the Trudeau Liberals' so-called infrastructure plan has been a failure today, and the PBO predicts continued failure. Deficits have risen to staggering levels, yet Statistics Canada's infrastructure economic account shows almost no increase in infrastructure spending in Canada. Between 2015 and 2018, the most recent years available, annual inflation-adjusted infrastructure investment went from $70.7 billion to $71.5 billion. That is only $0.8 billion annual increase in infrastructure, despite a staggering $35 billion in infrastructure spending allocated over a three-year period. Canadians deserve better. Canadians deserve to know where their money is being used and how it is being used to effectively to serve them and that it is not being lost in a bureaucratic maze.

Let us let the Auditor General do his work, audit the infrastructure program and increase transparency over how taxpayer dollars are spent to improve our communities.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

A brief reminder to hon. members to avoid the use of names of other hon. members. It does happen from time to time. I know that in the last two speeches there was not any disorder arising from that, but nevertheless it is a good habit to get into.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Surrey—Newton.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon said, Canadians have to be reminded where the government has invested, but under the Harper government there was not a single dollar invested in Highway 1. I want to remind the member, and also his constituents, that it is the Liberal government that put $100 million to widen Highway 1 to 264th Street out. That is where the dollars are flowing. They are helping not only the people of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, but Canadians in general.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his intervention today, but I will note that portions of Highway 1, both under Conservative and Liberal governments, have received significant investments. However, Highway 1 actually extends into Abbotsford, and and the same people that the member and I represent are stuck in their trucks in traffic every day, because the investments have not gone far enough out of Vancouver to help the very people who need those investments today.

Let us work together and bring our MPs from Surrey and Abbotsford together and demand that the federal and provincial governments support Highway 1 to serve all Canadians in Surrey, Langley and Abbotsford. Let us work together.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of infrastructure, I think we all recognize that there is a climate emergency before us. I sure hope that the government will invest in major infrastructure to address the climate emergency; for example, to retrofit private and public institutions and buildings to ensure that we tackle the climate emergency together. I wonder whether this is something that the Conservative members would support.

Also, Liberal members who spoke earlier said that they would be happy to support this motion if it were amended. I am curious to know whether or not any of the Liberal members, the cabinet minister, parliamentary secretary or anybody at all has approached the Conservative members about an amendment to this motion so that we can move forward to ensure that accountability measures are in place, and to make sure that infrastructure programs and the spending of the money meets the targets and does what Canadians hope for us to do.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will say, as the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, that there is a need for climate-related infrastructure improvements both within new builds and in the natural infrastructure projects that the federal government should be supporting, such as flood mitigation programs along the Fraser River, which touch close to the member's riding and mine as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give the new member a break on this, and perhaps he could talk to one of the long-serving members in his caucus, because the infrastructure program and the accords we signed with the provinces were effectively rolled over from the Harper years, which were effectively rolled over from the Chrétien-Martin years, when the one-third, one-third, one-third formula was put in place. The one difference we made was that we give cities much more priority in setting the projects than provinces.

However, on the stretch of highway that the member referred to, if the provincial government nominates a city's request, we do not stand in the way of funding it. Therefore, the question he was asking would be better put in the B.C. legislature or perhaps in the city council chambers where his constituents will find their representation locally.

We do not set the priorities. We do not choose from the list. We do not edit the list. Cities nominate, provincial governments agree and we fund. When the provincial governments do not participate, the money stays in Ottawa, and that is not our fault, that is the provincial government's fault.

The good news in B.C. is that the Government of B.C. is actually one of the more aggressive provinces in spending infrastructure dollars, especially on climate change adaptation. I suggest the member write the minister a letter.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate the frustration that mayors and councils in rural communities across my riding have with both the provincial and federal governments in getting the infrastructure dollars they need. I would refer to my earlier comments to the member for Surrey—Newton about working together. Members of Surrey, Abbotsford and Langley in this Parliament all want to see this highway constructed, and I understand that it is going to require the intervention from both the federal and provincial level of government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would love to congratulate the hon. member for his recent election except for the fact that my husband was running against him. Despite that, I want to welcome the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

I fully support the issue the member raised in the House today of the sewer pipe under the Fraser River. It is old, it could leak, it could break, and it is worse than how he depicted it here today, although he did a great job.

I spoke with Mayor Pam Alexis of Mission about this project. They actually got $11 million of funding, which was federal, provincial and municipal, but then they found out that it was going to be $22 million, at which point all levels of government said, “Oh, too bad, so sad”, and then the feds said, “Give us the money back”.

I am sorry that I needed to take a little more time, but I urge all members in this place to work to ensure infrastructure funding for Mission to get the sewer pipe replaced.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the sanitary pipeline project in Mission is unique in that there is a failure on the part of multiple levels of government to see this project through. We need to get this done. It is a project of national interest, because if this sewage pipeline fails, salmon are going to die and then everyone in the province is going to be upset. There is a serious environmental risk here that needs to be addressed and I want to work with all members of the House of Commons because this is a project of national interest.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, please note that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with this motion for three reasons. The first is the delays in spending. Since 2016, only a small portion of the announced infrastructure spending has actually materialized.

The second reason is the transparency of economic data. The lack of specific figures distorts the calculations of the impact on GDP and employment.

Finally, the third reason is Quebec's share. Quebec wants its share, and the municipalities are waiting for their share in order to begin their projects.

In phase 1 of the Liberals' plan, from 2016 to 2018, Quebec got a raw deal, having received only 12% of the total investment, although its population represents 23%. By comparison, Ontario received more than 30%. That is outrageous.

As we know, federal participation in provincial or municipal infrastructure takes place through various programs and transfers. It is very complicated. The projects do not appear in the federal budget because they are not federal projects; all we see is the transfer program, with its criteria and allocated amounts. The projects themselves are instead under the capital initiatives of the Government of Quebec or of the municipalities. We do not have a clear picture of the projects being supported.

With respect to the proliferation of infrastructure transfers, there are rules and conditions attached to each of them. This ties Quebec's hands because it loses its ability to allocate funds according to its own priorities.

For that reason, the Bloc has been asking for years that the specific transfers be replaced by a lump-sum transfer: a single transfer with no federal conditions that Quebec can use according to its own priorities. The money must be freed up at some point.

Following the tabling of Minister Girard's budget on March 21, 2019, several mayors, including the mayor of Quebec City, Régis Labaume, and the mayor of Gatineau, Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin, roundly condemned the fact that Quebec's commitments will not let them move forward with their public transit projects—the Quebec City tramway project and the Gatineau light rail project—even though the government said it supported them.

In reality, both have been taken hostage by the discussions between Quebec City and Ottawa, between two governments with different priorities.

As Ottawa increases the number of specific programs, each with strict eligibility criteria, federal requirements trigger a tug-of-war, which paralyses the process no matter the government in power. In the end, this prevents Quebec priorities from being aligned with the priorities of municipalities.

What we want is a lump sum transfer. Simply put, projects will happen if Quebec wants them to and will not happen if Quebec does not. Why should that be up to Quebec rather than Ottawa?

I have a question: What proportion of Canada's public infrastructure is under federal jurisdiction? People might be surprised to learn that it is barely 2%. The provinces and municipalities are responsible for 98% of public infrastructure. The share of the funding amounts to just 5%. Ottawa is no expert on the subject, but it uses that tiny percentage to block everything and cause ridiculous delays.

In 2016, the Liberal government launched phase 1 of its infrastructure program. The Prime Minister planned to spend $14.4 billion over two years but ended up spending just half that. The other half was never spent.

In 2018, the Liberal government decided to update its new infrastructure plan because the money was not flowing. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said it was incomplete and did not address the questions and concerns he had raised. There is no clear indication of where the money is going now or in the future.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer reminds us that the government is talking about $21 billion out of a total of $91 billion over the years. That is not very much, and it means that three-quarters of the spending announced has not been explained or justified. Some may think I am joking, but that is the truth. It says so in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report. Just because people are laughing does not mean this is funny.

Also according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, nearly one-quarter of the funding allocated for infrastructure since 2016 will lapse. That is no joke. That is money that we voted on that will never be spent.

How can Ottawa claim to understand and be able to prioritize the specific needs of Quebec's 1,400 municipalities and the 5,000 municipalities across Canada? That would be a lot to expect.

We must not forget the government's criterion for a rural community, namely that there must be 100,000 people in a municipality. In my riding, there are 23 municipalities, including an indigenous community, and not one has a population of 100,000. This shows just how out of touch Ottawa is. I have said it before and will say it again, the only way to address this is to have an automatic single payment. That is what the Bloc is asking for. It would let Quebec and the municipalities decide for themselves which project best meets their needs. They are accountable to the people closest to them. Otherwise, the paralysis will continue.

I will illustrate my point with the example of access to high-speed Internet in the regions. We know that it is extremely important. There was a program to that effect. However, the targets were poor and the program did not meet its objectives. The first phase of the connect to innovate program had several setbacks, including the slow pace of the federal analyses that had to be completed before the funding to actually connect people could be released. The announcements made in 2017 for some regions have yet to get people an Internet connection. This is not a joke. What is the federal government doing? It developed a program that does not meet Quebec's needs and takes forever to release funding for the projects, with no guarantee that the projects will actually reduce the cost of Internet services in the regions. The federal government should encourage development, not be an obstacle to it. That is not what is happening, as we can see here in the House this afternoon.

I will use my riding to give a concrete example. In the north of my riding is the RCM of Matawinie, which is also represented in part by my esteemed colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. This RCM decided to take matters into its own hands and launched a $55-million project. The federal government was so slow that Quebec had to release the money. There is still hope that the federal government will cover part of the funding. After all, half of the taxes we pay go to the federal government. To date, the feds have not paid a single cent for Internet in Matawinie. That is unacceptable. This must change, and a block transfer is what we need.

Ottawa needs to stop holding taxpayers' money hostage. Sometimes it seems that all the government wants is the biggest flag and top billing on the infrastructure billboard, instead of true development. Ottawa needs to respect the expertise of local decision-makers and forward the funding, without conditions, to those who will know how to use it. This is why the Bloc Québécois supports this motion.

In closing, I would like to point out one very important thing that Ottawa must respect: municipal bylaws. Constitutionally, Quebec's territory belongs to Quebeckers. The way in which it is occupied, used, developed and protected is essentially governed by Quebec laws and municipal bylaws. There are, however, a number of activities that are not covered by our laws. These involve wharves, ports, airports, telecommunications infrastructure, and all federal property and interprovincial pipelines. Essentially, when a project is considered to be under federal jurisdiction, it is above the laws that we pass in our municipalities and in Quebec City. Harmonious land use can only be achieved at the local level, by the people who live there. That is why we are going to introduce a bill to fix this aberration, in the same spirit as the bill proposed by my colleague from Repentigny in the previous Parliament.

Let me give an example that will perfectly illustrate this. Most municipalities have had problems with cell towers being put up just about anywhere. I am thinking of Rogers' current plans to put up a tower in Saint-Charles-Borromée, near Joliette. In this area, telecommunications companies are above our laws, above the will of the people. Some cities have tried to pass by-laws to straighten things out, but the courts have struck them down one after the other. Orders are coming down from the top, from the feds, although the opposite would be much more effective. It has to change, and as I said, we will come back to that.

[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, I can comment specifically on the province of Manitoba, but I think we could apply it universally to the different provinces and territories. We often see an unbelievable listing of potential capital investment infrastructure projects that cities or municipalities will develop. They are very much aware of the streets that need to be repaired, potholes and so forth, and they will spend a great deal of money fixing them. At times, provinces will say they will provide additional money for specific projects and will try to establish priorities for particular municipalities. Then at times, a national government with a national perspective will say what it is prepared to do, particularly in terms of matching funds, to provide incentives for not just one area of the country but every region.

Would the member not agree that at times there is a need for the national government to provide those incentives for Canadian priorities?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons for his comments.

I strongly encourage him to convince his government to do just that. As he said himself, it is people in the municipalities, on the ground, who know where the needs are.

I disagreed with one part of his comments, specifically when he talked about the national government. For us, the national government is in Quebec City, since the House has recognized Quebec as a nation. Here, we talk about the federal government.

The federal government must contribute. Money must be transferred in a lump sum. Think of the gas tax model. Before so many conditions were added, the money was transferred on a per capita basis. That allowed local authorities to work with known amounts, to know what to expect and spend the money quickly on the ground, and not only in large urban centres.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his support for today's motion.

He recognizes the importance of the motion, or the importance of transparency, as it were. To invest in the provinces and municipalities, it is important to know what the plan is and where the money is coming from.

Since we agree on the motion, I want to talk about something else that bothers me quite a bit. When I was a mayor, there was many a time when I had to wait for the federal government's final approval on projects.

Let me explain because people need to understand how this works. Indeed, the provincial government negotiates an agreement with the federal government. Then, the provincial government comes to an agreement with the municipalities and negotiates a joint approval of the projects. Then the list of projects is sent to the federal government. However, if a project does not align with the federal government's priorities it may be that its approval takes longer. That is the reality on the ground, and the municipalities and provinces are not happy about it. Final approval can be somewhat political.

That is why we are asking the Auditor General to get involved. Does the hon. member agree with how I see things?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree. Ottawa must stop creating obstacles, free up the money and do it fast.

That is not what we are seeing here. During the first phase, just half of the money approved was spent for the reason mentioned. Under the Conservatives, it took two and a half years to develop a framework agreement, and then nearly a year and a half before each project was approved.

This money needs to be made available. The government needs to transfer the money holus-bolus, on a per capita basis, similar to how the gas tax is transferred, but without the conditions. This would help the smaller communities, like the ones that my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable and I represent.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Official Languages)]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to what my two colleagues were saying, and I completely disagree, especially with the comments made by my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable who claims to have been a mayor. All of the mayors in my riding and all of the mayors listening this evening would say the exact opposite of what he said. All he needs to do is ask them.

Bilateral agreements were signed with the provinces. Our province, like all of the others, submits its priorities to the federal government, which has not happened. The municipalities are well aware of how infrastructure spending works. More specifically, what is happening is that some provinces do not submit any projects. That is the problem. All of the municipalities in my riding know this, contrary to what my colleagues claim.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government owns 2% of infrastructure in Canada and funds only 5%.

It sees itself as being at a higher level and feels it must take its time to approve everything and to put its big signs everywhere. All we are saying is that this causes delays. The consensus among the mayors of my riding and everywhere else in Quebec is that they want a lump-sum transfer, and they want it fast. They want projects to get off the ground.

We have the numbers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer showed that half the money has not been spent. That is unacceptable and it must change. I do not know what the mayors in the riding of my esteemed colleague, and great musician, believe, but what we want is for the money to flow.

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

Mr. Speaker, since I have not yet had the chance to do so, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for the trust they placed in me and the honour they bestowed upon me by electing me to represent them. I would like to assure them that I am here for them, to meet their expectations and contribute to their well-being. I will fight for the issues affecting the riding tooth and nail.

I would like to thank my family, my husband, my four grown children, whose homes stretch from Val-d'Or to Edmonton, my grandson and the other grandchild who will be born in March, as well as my friends who support me in this new chapter of my life.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the exceptional work of the volunteers who supported me during the election campaign.

The motion we are debating today is very important. In a 2018 report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated that the budget provides an incomplete account of the changes to the government's $186.7-billion infrastructure spending plan. The Parliamentary Budget Officer requested the new plan, but it does not exist, and that is a problem.

We really need to shed some light on this and find out what is really happening. I completely agree that the House should adopt this motion and call on the Auditor General of Canada to immediately conduct an audit of the government's investing in Canada plan, including, but not limited to, verifying whether the plan lives up to its stated goals and promises.

I look forward to reading the Auditor General's report a year from now. We already know that there has been a delay in spending. Of the $14.4 billion set out in phase 1 of the new infrastructure plan, only half has been allocated to projects for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 fiscal years.

In his report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that the manna promised by the Liberals is slow to leave the coffers and get to the work sites. The Liberal government promised to invest $186.7 billion in infrastructure over 12 years, but about one-quarter of the amounts allocated for 2016 to 2019 were carried over to future years.

Quebec wants its share, and the municipalities are waiting to develop their projects, despite their many pressing infrastructure needs. In my region, for example, in Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, we need more roads, more rail lines, infrastructure, telecommunications and airport improvements, just to name a few. Improving both freight and passenger rail travel will be crucial. Shipping freight by truck is ruining our roads.

We also need to make the transportation of dangerous goods safer, especially oil. During the campaign, I met the mayors of Val-d'Or, Senneterre, Chapais, Chibougamau, Lebel-sur-Quévillon and Matagami. They all mentioned the importance of rail transportation, which has been ignored by the federal government for the past 25 years.

We have another problem back home: housing. The large-scale mining sector in the riding is causing a housing shortage. The vacancy rate is becoming quite low, which is causing housing prices to go up. Property owners are taking advantage of the situation to raise the rent. Some students have even decided to study elsewhere because it is too hard to find housing and it is too expensive. The regions are emptying out. The solution would be to build new housing, but for that we need the necessary infrastructure. Municipalities would need to build and improve the water and sewer system to support such development. That takes money.

What is more, telecommunications are a boon on an economic, cultural and social level. Access to the Internet is essential. For example, a nurse died before the holidays in the Matagami area. He was heading to work in northern Quebec when he got into a car accident. He had to walk and was found frozen to death. If his cell phone had gotten a signal, he would still be alive today.

According to the Auditor General's report, there is also a problem of transparency with some of the economic data. The lack of exact figures skews the calculation of the impact on GDP and employment.

Large-scale infrastructure programs are used to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

If the numbers provided reflect reality only partially or not at all, it is difficult to assess the impact.

Mining companies that fly their skilled workers back and forth every day during the winter and at night are not happy about putting fathers and mothers at risk. I would sure like Nav Canada to ask the Crees of Quebec who use the Abitibi and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean airports if they are okay with Nav Canada cutting a service that is essential to their safety.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer condemned the lack of information relating to transparency and good governance, but he went even further by pointing out that delays in planned infrastructure spending can have important implications for the budgetary balance and the strength of the economy.

Quebec wants its fair share, and municipalities are waiting to get their projects off the ground. Interestingly, Quebec is one of the provinces that gets the least per capita funding, with an average of just $143 per person. The national average is $703 per person. That is unacceptable. What is behind this injustice?

With so many different infrastructure transfers, each with its own rules and conditions, Quebec is powerless to allocate funding based on its own priorities.

That is why the Bloc has been asking for years that the specific transfer be replaced with a lump sum transfer. As we often say, there must be a lump sum transfer, a single transfer with no federal conditions so Quebec can allocate it based on its own priorities. The provinces know their priorities better than the federal government. That makes sense. How can Canada claim to know and prioritize the specific needs of 1,400 Quebec municipalities?

I am the Bloc Québécois critic for indigenous affairs. I would like to mention that it is important that we work with all first nations and listen to them, nation to nation.

In closing, I will say that I support the motion we are debating today and that I will be voting in favour of it. We must determine whether the plan lives up to its stated goals and promises.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges we had in the first term was that when we put infrastructure dollars on the table, when we put infrastructure dollars at the front door of provincial parliaments, out the back door provincial cuts undermined the program. In particular, in Alberta, we had a significant problem with this, where we did not bind the government into spending levels with conditions. What we had was a government that simply used federal money to fund provincial programs and did not add to the mix. We are trying to increase infrastructure spending, not simply change who is funding it.

If the Auditor General comes back with a report saying that we have to bind provincial spending levels in order to have impact, would the member not agree that is a reasonable request, without setting priorities from the province of Quebec, to ensure we do not lose provincial dollars while we put federal dollars on the table so municipalities get the benefit of both programs instead of just one or the other?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are aware of everything that our colleague mentioned. The clock is ticking, but unfortunately, nothing is happening. When I talk about working together, I am referring to working with indigenous groups, but we could also talk about the parties working together. That is the solution.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think two things are clear: We support the motion, and we are calling for a lump sum transfer.

We could point out the problems with such a program using many examples from each of our ridings. Thérèse-De Blainville has a funding request that goes way back, as I saw first-hand during the recent election campaign. The federal government announced amounts on its own, without the participation of the provincial government, even though the province is responsible for infrastructure. We cannot operate like this anymore. Things need to be done differently when it comes to the amounts allocated, priorities and projects. Infrastructure falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and municipalities. The federal government needs to transfer the money. We would be much more efficient.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks, which I support. We are proud of the work that we are doing for Quebec, the municipalities and all the issues that concern us.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou on her election to the House.

Quebec is admired for its cultural expertise and historical value. One of the issues in my community is infrastructure in the cultural sector. We would love for the federal government to invest in the cultural sector to feed our souls and support our communities in that effort.

Could the member comment on the federal government's infrastructure vis-à-vis the importance of cultural components and whether that should be supported as well?