Hélène LeBlanc

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her astute comments and her question. Over the years, for several decades, the federal government has shirked many of its responsibilities, such as being an active partner on infrastructure issues. Over the years, the government has passed off these responsibilities and has not provided for any long-term strategic planning or predictable funding.

The motion addresses this issue and calls on the government to think seriously about reducing the infrastructure deficit in a meaningful way and in partnership with the provinces and communities.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, all we are asking for is predictable, long-term funding. We want a strategic plan that will make it possible to eliminate Canada's infrastructure deficit. This is a very positive thing.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this motion calls for predictable funding. If we look at what the federal government has accomplished, we see that the funding is still the same. We need predictable funding to resolve the serious problem of Canada's current infrastructure deficit.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Chambly—Borduas.

I am pleased to rise in the House to support the motion seeking a long-term, predictable and accountable federal infrastructure plan in partnership with the provincial and municipal governments as well as first nations communities.

I moved a similar motion in the fall of 2011. I urged the government to act in a strategic and thoughtful manner to address the pressing needs of Canadian municipalities and communities.

To begin, I would like to focus on my riding, LaSalle—Émard, which is part of greater Montreal. Montreal was booming in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Highways, government buildings and water filtration and treatment plants were being built. Unfortunately, over the years, this infrastructure has been neglected either because no money has been invested in sporadic maintenance or because of increased use. Our cities are based on outdated models, which unfortunately means that people need cars, even today. We still build our cities that way. People living in the suburbs are further and further away from their workplace and from services that should be close by.

That is why it is absolutely crucial that we have a long-term federal infrastructure plan. This plan must be innovative and make our cities and towns places where active transportation is possible and safe. It must also ensure efficient, affordable and environmentally friendly public transit to maximize the number of trips and minimize the number of vehicles. Incidentally, I would like to know what the government's plan is for public transit infrastructure. How will this be coordinated with transit in the greater Montreal area? I think this illustrates why we need a national public transit strategy, as proposed by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

In its most recent report on the top 10 barriers to competitiveness, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce laments inadequate public infrastructure planning and criticizes the fact that government commitments to infrastructure have been intermittent and the criteria changeable. In a speech given on February 12, 2013, the hon. Perrin Beatty, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, had this to say:

One essential element for Canada’s long-term economic growth and prosperity is high-quality, modern public infrastructure....How Canada renews and invests in its aging infrastructure will help determine our quality of life. But it will also directly serve the competitiveness of our businesses.

Leadership entails pursuing a vision through innovative and forward thinking in order to achieve progress and ultimately success. Making some tough but necessary choices along the way is not easy but it is necessary. Governing requires the same attributes and we cannot focus exclusively on short term temporary solutions for the sake of pointing to progress and claiming victory at glitzy public announcements.

For instance, we saw this last week, when we were working in our constituencies. That is why we need a predictable, accountable and long-term infrastructure strategy.

Traffic congestion in the greater Montreal area is very costly in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and time. According to a report published in La Presse last fall, Montreal ranks fourth out of the 26 major cities in North America with the worst traffic congestion . Also according to that report, trips in the Montreal area now take 40 minutes longer by car than they should during peak periods.

According to the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, the overall annual cost of congestion in the metropolitan area alone was over $1.4 billion, or 1% of GDP, in 2008. The report added that a 3% increase in the public transit mode share would cut these costs by $63.8 million per year.

The report continues:

The development of efficient means of transportation generates economic benefits that contribute significantly to productivity and wealth creation.

We are talking about public transit.

Again quoting the report:

Public transit benefits include more purchasing power for households, easy mobility, reduced congestion costs and increased property values in the area.

During visits to businesses and institutions in my riding, LaSalle—Émard, I have met business leaders who have lost employees who were having difficulties getting to work because of the congested roads. Some employees have to spend up to three hours a day on public transit to get to work in my riding. The many construction projects that are under way and will resume in the spring will not help matters in the short term. For example, the Mercier Bridge, which spans the river from LaSalle to the south shore, was closed in the southbound direction all weekend and will be closed again this coming weekend.

This is an urgent situation. If ever there was a time for all three levels of government to show that they can work actively together for the well-being of Canada's communities, it is now. We need a strategic, long-term plan to truly ensure that the infrastructure that we are building or rejuvenating today meets 21st century requirements with regard to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and will be there for future generations.

Just as the economic boom of the golden years from 1945 to 1975 was made possible by the infrastructure built at that time, with a great deal of support from the federal public works department, Canada was built in this way. Hence, we need to leave a legacy of infrastructure that will enable sustainable development in the economy that future generations will build. This is a golden opportunity for Canada to show its know-how and its ability to face challenges through innovation.

The motion calls for a predictable infrastructure plan to enable well-defined, strategic planning to address communities' priorities. We absolutely must ensure that there is predictable, long-term funding.

With the building Canada fund set to expire in 2014, Canadian municipalities need financial help today in order not to miss this opportunity. Canada's job growth and economic productivity depend on federal funding, since 11,000 jobs are created for every $1 billion invested in infrastructure. Canada cannot afford to ignore this opportunity for growth.

In closing, need I remind hon. members that our current infrastructure contributed to Canada's economic growth?

The federal infrastructure plan proposed today has to be a predictable, accountable and long-term plan. This is an investment in the future, which will help build greener, more prosperous communities where no one is left behind.

[Business of Supply, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's speech and noted a lot of different projects here and there. It is little a bit of what Jeffrey Simpson called, in The Globe and Mail, slice-and-dice Conservative style, meaning that we give money here and here and there.

We are asking whether the government has a long-term strategic plan for infrastructure, not a slice-and-dice approach. Does it have a long-term infrastructure plan that would address the infrastructure deficit we have in Canada? I do not mean a short-term plan until 2015 and the next election. I mean beyond that, for the next 10 to 20 years. That is what the municipalities are asking for. They are asking for strong financing, predictable financing and a long-term strategy. That is what I would like to ask the member.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

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

She emphasized the fact that, while the bill before us today is not like Bill C-30, it must still be studied in committee so it can be amended and improved.

Does she think that this bill can benefit from the recommendations that will be made in committee?

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, and especially for giving a very important perspective.

He is the official opposition science and technology critic, and has followed this issue very closely. When we talk about science, we are talking about facts and information, which enable us to make informed decisions here in Parliament.

In his conclusion, he wondered whether the bills that are currently before the House of Commons are balanced, or whether the government is still trying to introduce bills that are based on sensational reporting.

Does this bill strike a balance between public safety and the protection of privacy?

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for raising some important points.

In introducing a bill, we always look to achieve some kind of balance. Here, we are looking to balance the surveillance and public safety objectives in response to a case that was before the Supreme Court. We must also balance human rights, fundamental rights, our Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether he thinks this bill achieves that balance. If not, then I would like him to tell me what would help the bill to achieve that balance.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

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

Indeed, this bill is the result of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling, which means that this bill is a reaction rather than being proactive. Yet a bill should be proactive concerning issues that have been a problem for several years and continue to be a problem. So I think some work remains to be done in that regard. Unfortunately, because there is little time, because the government did not introduce this bill sooner, we do not have long to examine it.

We hope that at committee meetings, the government will listen to any clarifications that are given in order to ensure that we do not end up with a bill that is unconstitutional and contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as someone mentioned earlier.

Many experts can help ensure that this bill meets the needs of Canadians when it comes to security.

[Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Tse Act, February 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question, which is right on the mark.

A huge amount of background work must be done before a bill can be introduced, in order to avoid long, arduous legal action. It is easy enough to check if the legislation is constitutional. His question and comments are completely appropriate.