Jamie Nicholls

[Infrastructure, November 22nd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly glad that perhaps the government has learned lessons from the Auditor General's report, when it said that it should have engineers and architects right at the beginning, rather than involving them somewhere in the middle.

However, the government took leadership and action five years after the fact when it knew this bridge was probably in need of replacement. This process has been talked about since 2006. Minister Cannon mentioned it. Leadership is taking action when action is called for, so this is too little too late.

We have long recognized the economic importance of the bridge and the economic importance of infrastructure in general across the country. When other governments were cutting their infrastructure spending, NDP governments in the 1990s maintained their infrastructure spending and actually weathered the storm at that time.

The government knew this bridge needed to be replaced. When it hides a diamond in a pile of manure, presents the manure to us and then says that it does not like diamonds, it is disingenuous.

[Infrastructure, November 22nd, 2011]

Madam Speaker, we are gathered here to talk about infrastructure. When we think about infrastructure, we think about the bridge that we cross every day, the road network, public facilities or sometimes the water system and waste water treatment facilities. It is something close to home. That is what most people think about when the word infrastructure is mentioned.

But here, in the government, we are supposed to think differently. Infrastructure is a network and that network has economic spinoffs, not only in terms of employment but also in terms of the growth of the GNP.

We have to think strategically and have a broad vision for the future. This government has not shown any proof that it has developed a long-term vision and strategy. It therefore does not come as a big surprise to see the Auditor General criticize the government's accountability.

Clearly, there is no way to measure the effect that the billions and billions of dollars have had on the infrastructure deficit, which is currently estimated at $123 billion. The minister responsible is not the only one to blame. There are many guilty parties—both Liberals and Conservatives—who have neglected our infrastructure network. We hope to at least see an improvement in the government's planning and strategy.

However, the facts do not inspire confidence. Take the Champlain Bridge for example. Yesterday in the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, we heard from witness Michel Labrecque. He asked the government to carefully plan public transit on the new Champlain Bridge. We could also call it “the bridge that must not be named”, a little like Voldemort in the Harry Potter series. Perhaps the Conservative members find this bridge particularly frightening. I do not know why, but they cannot call it the new Champlain Bridge.

The Conservatives announced a new bridge without any details about how public transit would be incorporated. This is a problem. The government had at least five months to plan something—a vision, a strategy. I am not just blaming the minister. The Department of Transport has been a revolving door: there were five ministers in five years. That is not a very good recipe for success. It does not inspire confidence.

One must assume that these ministers did not hand off the baton but rather dropped it. Therefore, I do not fault the present Minister of Transport. He did not know how much his predecessors hid from him. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. He seems like an honest man.

The problem with the federal infrastructure in Montreal, the Champlain Bridge in particular, dates from the time of Lawrence Cannon in 2006, followed by the present Minister of Foreign Affairs, followed by Reform member, Chuck Strahl, each successively dropping the baton. What kind of record is that?

The former member for Fraser Valley, Chuck Strahl, who is now speaking against the government's position on asbestos, needs to explain to Canadians why he kept a report secret that showed that the bridge had the possibility of falling apart and left the present minister out in the cold.

Questions were asked in the previous ministry but a question remains? Why did the government hide the engineer's report from January to March of this year and what will it do to advance a true strategy for infrastructure in the coming days?

[Canada Post, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Minister of State for Transport is stuck in the past. He always wants to discuss matters that occurred in June. I am talking about the cuts that are happening now and that are going to happen in the future.

The minister demonstrated on a number of occasions that he is not familiar with his own portfolio. He would rather talk in ideological terms than really get to know his portfolio and give real reasons for the cuts. The facts remain that the hours have been reduced and that Canada Post is making a profit.

Of course there are declines in service. When hours are cut and post offices are inaccessible, of course people will not be able to use the services that are inside the post offices. It is a bit rich for the government to argue that people are using the postal services less when Canada Post is making it harder and harder to use these postal services.

The post office in rural communities is an institution. It is something that links the community together. We can talk about modernization schemes, but the fact remains that people in rural communities love their post offices. The government is menacing them in trying to get rid of post offices by using strategies such as cutting hours and making services difficult to acquire.

I would like to end on the note that I have not really heard any real responses from the government side and I hope that the Minister of State will study his dossiers better.

[Canada Post, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, since it came to office, the Conservative government has considerably weakened the federal government's ability to ensure that Canadians receive quality public services by making draconian cuts in its budget. In October, the government continued along the same path by irresponsibly cutting the working hours of the country's rural post offices. Not content with interfering in the postal workers' fundamental right to free collective bargaining by ordering them back to work last June, the government is now cutting their hours of work. This policy of fiscal restraint will have a significant impact on the quality of rural postal services across the country and on the quality of life of postal workers.

But the effects will be felt in Quebec, which has clearly been targeted by the government. According to figures obtained by the Canadian Postmasters and Assistants Association, as of October 2011 approximately 165,000 hours of work had been cut in all rural post offices in Canada. Of this, more than 95,000 hours were cut in Quebec alone. Even though Quebec has approximately 24% of the Canadian population, the cuts in Quebec represent nearly 60% of the hours cut in Canada. And that is just the beginning. Other waves of cuts are expected in the coming months.

In recent weeks I have asked for explanations about the cuts targeting Quebec. The answers I was given were evasive. The government tells us that postal services are important and that it cares about protecting rural communities. It even had the audacity to tell us that postal services are guaranteed in all regions, without discrimination. These vague answers show at least one thing: there is no argument to justify the unfair treatment of Quebec on this issue.

Canada Post's responses are no more satisfying. According to Canada Post, cuts in Quebec are justified by the fact that the province supposedly experienced fewer cuts than the rest of Canada in the past few years. We have tried unsuccessfully to obtain the relevant statistics to verify this statement but they are considered to be confidential information. For now, it is difficult to believe Canada Post's explanations, particularly since, according to the statistics we do have, Quebec also experienced significant cuts in 2008, 2009 and 2010.

I would like to end on an intriguing point. I am talking here about the lack of consistency between what the Conservative government says and what it does. During the last election campaign, the Conservatives played the “power to the regions” card by promising, among other things, to create jobs in the regions. During that election campaign, the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable said that the Conservative Party would ensure that the regions finally had a voice in Ottawa. I do not know what strategy the government intends to use to create jobs but cutting the hours of postal workers in rural areas seems to be a peculiar way of trying to achieve that goal.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable was certainly right about one thing: the regions do have a voice in Ottawa but it is thanks to our party that they do.

[Democracy, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in 1956 the Speaker of the House and hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Louis-René Beaudoin, had to end his political career after shutting down an important debate on the construction of a pipeline. Closure of that debate caused such an uproar that chaos reigned in the House for weeks.

Here we are 55 years later and we see closure invoked on a weekly basis. Preventing debate has become a habit for this government. The Conservatives brag about how wonderful democracy is the world over, but they are having a hard time practising it here in this House.

What are they afraid of? Do they think that shutting down the debates will prevent Canadians from noticing the flaws and nonsense in their answers?

[Champlain Bridge, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government's plan for the new Champlain Bridge may cause more problems than it will solve. Montrealers are seriously considering avoiding the new bridge and using the others. Access to the south shore will be even more congested. Is that the government's solution to traffic problems?

When will the government present a plan that truly meets the needs of Montrealers?

[Champlain Bridge, November 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about families. Yesterday, the minister accused me of using scare tactics, but the fact is that Montreal families are worried that the Champlain Bridge might collapse. Reports tell of crumbling concrete and eroding steel.

Yesterday, I asked the minister if he had a plan for Montrealers if their bridge is shut down while they wait for a new one. He did not have an answer. I will ask again today.

If the Champlain Bridge has to close, what is the government going to do about it?

[Champlain Bridge, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is all very well and good to repair the bridge but, at this rate, it will be entirely rebuilt instead of a new one being built.

The government kept secret a report indicating that there are real risks that the bridge may collapse. Workers and their families who use the bridge every day should not have to worry whether it will collapse right under them.

If we need to close the bridge, will the minister tell Montrealers what they are supposed to do until the new bridge is built?

[Champlain Bridge, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, a confidential inspection report from 2010 shows that a number of sections of the Champlain Bridge are in mediocre condition, are deteriorating rapidly or must be replaced right away. Entire structures need to be rebuilt in 2012-13. The more time goes by, the more urgent the repairs become in order to ensure the safety of motorists.

Can the government tell us if it has an action plan to ensure the safety of the people using the bridge?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to have difficulty distinguishing between spending investment and infrastructure. It often likes to talk about how we in the NDP love taxes or other such rhetoric, but let us look at how much the government is wasting taxpayers' dollars in terms of its spending in its infrastructure program.

The government talks about cutting waste, but let us talk about waste. Some 26 million taxpayers' dollars were spent on advertising for the economic action plan in the three months running up to the 2011 election; $3 million on signs put across the country; and tracking weekly the signs of 18 different departments and agencies.

On this bill, how much is the government planning to spend on advertising, signs and useless, wasteful spending of taxpayers' dollars?