Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newton—North Delta for sharing his time with me today.
I have entitled my part of this debate, “Infrastructure: The Municipal Challenge and Opportunity. What We've Been Promised, What We're Missing, What We're Worried We Won't Get”.
Infrastructure investment needs to be a part of the stimulus package and we have rare all party agreement on that. However, despite significant dollars committed in the new budget for infrastructure, we are seriously concerned, first, that much of the money announced for infrastructure will not flow due to the non-spending track record of the last few years and, more important, because of the way most of the budget's spending is structured, requiring matching funds from municipalities, which, in many cases, are unable to do so.
Second, infrastructure spending should be focused on ensuring future productivity and competitiveness. This does not include cottage decks.
Third, infrastructure spending should be done with an eye to a greener, more energy efficient future. Not surprisingly, the word green does not figure prominently in the new budget.
Despite our concerns, we did understand the need to pass the budget, flawed as it is, to ensure the flow of funds in this time of extraordinary need. We will use our agreed to report cards to monitor this very closely and to keep the government to account.
However, we have reason to be worried. Over two years ago, the Conservative government announced, with much fanfare, the $33 billion infrastructure plan called the building Canada plan for the years 2007-2014. Most of this plan was a restructuring and rebranding of existing Liberal programs and funding arrangements. That is fine. We do not mind people taking our good ideas, although a little credit would be nice. Of the $33 billion, $11.8 billion came from the gas tax funds initiated by the Liberal government and $5.8 billion came from the GST rebate initiated by the Liberal government.
The $8.8 billion rebranded building Canada fund was itself largely a replacement of other infrastructure programs created by Liberal governments, which the Conservative government refused to renew at the time and then brought back. In effect, not much new but with a new Conservative name. The remainder was mostly made up of other Liberal programs carried over, such as the public transit capital trust and the municipal rural infrastructure fund.
However, the details of this $33 billion program indicate that although the regular formula-based funding under the gas tax and GST rebate has flowed, virtually none of the much vaunted $8.8 billion building Canada fund have been spent.
Of the $1.5 billion allocated for the two years 2007-09, information suggests that as little as $80 million have been spent, only 5% of the amount allocated. Not coincidentally, this is the program that relies on projects receiving matching funds from the provinces and/or municipalities.
The above discussion relates to more than numbers. The unfortunate result of the past delays is simple but serious: job losses. In November 2008 alone, out of a devastating 71,000 full time jobs lost, 44,000 of those jobs were lost in the construction industry. So what now?
In my prior role as critic for infrastructure, I engaged in many prebudget consultations on this issue. In those prebudget consultations, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities made it abundantly clear that more of the same building Canada fund process simply would not work. It made it clear that to truly get infrastructure money out the door and the shovels into the ground quickly, a transfer mechanism similar to that used for the gas tax fund should be implemented. The Conservatives ignored this recommendation completely.
All of the infrastructure promises in the budget follow the process of the, to date, failed building Canada fund. For the Conservatives to spend any infrastructure money, they require matching contributions from the provinces and/or municipalities. Few municipalities are in a position to fund projects not otherwise accounted for in the coming year, first, because of their reliance on property taxes alone, unlike the federal government and the provinces that tax on economic growth, they have a decreasing ability to contribute; two, they have already committed to budgets requiring spending over several years; and three, they are subject to legal restrictions on borrowing.
The budget does not help most municipalities. It, therefore, begs the question as to why the Conservatives are requiring matching funds when they already know that most municipalities cannot do so.
Frankly, we are concerned, a concern supported by many municipal representatives that the Conservatives know that the municipalities cannot match these increased funds, that the Conservatives will therefore not flow the funding, and that those same municipalities will be the ones blamed when needed infrastructure does not get built.
I ask all members of the House to support the motion to ensure that infrastructure money really does flow to the municipalities, those that know the infrastructure needs and know how to meet them at this time of extraordinary economic need.
