Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate.
When I was first elected, I sat on the public accounts committee, so I could speak for a long time about gazebos and all the fun we had at that committee with that story. However, irony has rolled in its grave enough for one debate.
It is important to indicate what it is we are debating before getting into the details. We are talking about votes and also about the total operating budget of the Department of Infrastructure, which is $110 million. When the Conservatives talk about the astronomical amount of $825,000, we can understand that there are questions to be asked. That is legitimate. That is what happens when one is in government. We must answer these questions. However, we must nevertheless realize that we are talking about the operating budget of a department with ambitious projects.
Despite the political differences that we in the NDP may have with the government and the Liberal Party, we are very aware of the importance of infrastructure projects and the gaps that must be addressed in the coming years, and we agree with them on that. Therefore, it goes without saying that there must be an appropriate operating budget in order to have a robust department that will be capable of implementing the programs that we will be working on as parliamentarians in the next few years.
Once again, this is worth elaborating on. Even if we move forward with this operating budget, it is no less legitimate for the Conservatives to ask questions. However, the facts are the same, as I joked when talking about the time I spent on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Whether we are talking about gazebos or other things, I would venture to say that the Conservatives' memory is a bit short when we consider the problems we faced and the questions we had to ask in the last Parliament, in which I sat, and the preceding Parliaments.
It is important to make this clear, and with all due respect to our interpreters, I will say this in both official languages. We are talking here about the operating budget of an entire department. While the government does have to answer questions from the opposition about spending and different line items and we do accept that, at the end of the day, New Democrats do recognize how it is important to get our cities moving and how it is important that we bridge the infrastructure gap that has been created unfortunately over the last couple of years. While we do certainly share differences with our colleagues in the Liberal Party and the government, at the end of the day, we do not feel that these issues amount to the kind of issue that requires us to say no to an entire $110-million operating budget of a department.
Once again, I will point out the irony of that coming from my Conservative colleagues. Perhaps there are questions to ask the minister about the $800,000 in spending, but there certainly were questions that were posed to the Conservative government at the time. Therefore, we find ourselves once again in perhaps the “Liberal, Tory, same old story” conundrum.
That said, I would like to take this opportunity to get to the bottom of things and talk about the topic at hand. We are talking about the infrastructure department's operating budget, and I would like to talk about infrastructure.
First, I want to thank the minister. Since I became the NDP's infrastructure critic, we have had a very good working relationship. We have had discussions. That speaks to his passion for infrastructure issues.
As many of my colleagues in all parties can attest, having a municipal background helps you understand the challenges facing municipal officials. After all, they have a lot of responsibilities and, unfortunately, very few fiscal tools, or at least not as many as the federal government has. We recognize this, and I acknowledge the work that the minister has done.
At the same time, I heard my Conservative colleague who preceded me wading into the weeds of the minister's life as a municipal councillor, and all these ideas of what he may or may not have received for his time as a municipal councillor. I do not want to do that. I do not think it is appropriate for this debate.
I was at the FCM, and again, our policy differences aside, I know that the minister is greatly respected among municipal leaders. I know that my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, among others, worked with him when he was in municipal politics.
I do not want to get into that more personal aspect of the debate. I do not think that is entirely appropriate for what we are facing here today, again, notwithstanding any questions that the opposition can legitimately pose. I think it is important to put that on the record.
That said, we still have questions on substance. Although the minister and I have an excellent relationship, I want to take this opportunity to raise some of these questions and perhaps review how we got where we are today when it comes to infrastructure. Fortunately, I have the time to do so.
There have been some problems with the building Canada plan in recent years. This is worth pointing out, since there were some challenges to overcome to get the money to the right place, into the pockets of municipalities, for projects to reduce traffic congestion, develop good public transit systems that meet people's expectations, and have access to water management systems that meet people's expectations. Obviously, some examples are more well known that others.
In my riding, there is the Champlain Bridge. As we know, this example attracted a lot of attention during the 2011 election campaign. We can give the previous government some credit, but not too much, since there was talk about the lack of transparency and the lack of a concrete plan for truly working with the Government of Quebec and municipal officials.
We also need to talk about the toll on the Champlain Bridge, which the NDP opposed. The toll would have been detrimental to the communities on the south shore, communities like mine. I am thinking, for example, of the municipalities along Highway 10. The people who have to travel to Montreal for work would pay the price. I am also thinking of the lack of co-operation with the former minister.
Expectations of the new government are high. It is facing the same challenge of ensuring that the money makes it to the municipalities and the provincial governments so that we get good results.
It has been a challenge for at least the last 10 years and probably before that, I would argue. We have certainly wanted to find ourselves in a situation where the federal government was able to get the money to those who need it, particularly municipalities but also provincial governments. We want these projects and agreements to respect different jurisdictions and different levels of government.
However, we recognize that if we want to get our cities moving and make sure that we have an infrastructure that is meeting the expectations of our constituents that we represent, whether it is in urban communities, suburban communities like mine, or rural communities, there is a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure that we are making the most of those federal dollars.
At the end of the day, the federal government has a very big purse, but very limited expertise on what it means to really succeed in getting these projects off the ground and making sure we are maximizing the impact these projects have. It needs to make sure that our communities have the resources they need, so that we have less traffic on the roads and so that we are not losing that economic productivity that comes when these work crews get stuck in traffic.
It is kind of interesting when we consider that my drive to Ottawa, twice a week, means that I am spending less time in my car than my constituents spend in traffic on a daily basis going to Montreal from the south shore of Montreal. That is a situation, and whether the solution is public transport, which is certainly important if we are looking to tackle greenhouse gas emissions, or making sure that we have the appropriate infrastructure with the Champlain Bridge, to use a local example, that situation is completely unacceptable.
There is a cost on productivity, and a cost on morale, I daresay, if I can put it that way. At the end of the day, when we consider that our constituents who we represent spend so much time traffic, time away from their families, time they are not actually at work, time that their blood pressure is rising as they sit in their cars, trying to cross the bridge, listening to the same radio show they listen to every day, and I say that with all due respect to the talk radio hosts, that is having an impact on our economy. It is certainly something that needs federal dollars.
We know the government has committed a lot in that sense. New Democrats share that commitment, share that priority, but we need to make sure that the results are actually there. On that front, it certainly remains to be seen. We know it is still early, so I will give the benefit of the doubt to the government, but that is why it is important that it certainly at least have the operating budget necessary to achieve these ambitious goals. New Democrats will be there every step of the way to make sure that we can accomplish these goals, because that is certainly what our municipalities and, most important, our constituents need in order to be more productive and have a higher quality of life. It is certainly something that would benefit us all.
The provincial governments have an important role to play in achieving those goals. That is important in the spirit of bilateral agreements. In that regard, we have questions for the government, but I know that it is a very complex process. Canada is a vast country, and I understand very well the importance of the uniqueness of all the provinces. After all, I am from Quebec. If anyone understands the importance of respecting the uniqueness of a province, it is a Quebec MP.
Having said that, we must take action immediately. Since we are talking about Quebec, I would like to mention once again that I attended the annual meeting of the Union des municipalités du Québec a few weeks ago in Quebec City. We had the opportunity to attend several workshops and hear a speech by the Minister of Finance. We also had the opportunity to have discussions with municipal officials.
I was pleased to speak to municipal officials from my riding and also a number of municipal officials from across Quebec. That is important because I represent a suburban riding. We must listen to the officials of major urban centres and rural communities as well.
Their biggest concern had to do with the urgent need to sign a bilateral agreement. I always hesitate to point a finger at previous governments. We need to look forward, and I think the current government is taking responsibility. However, we cannot deny the fact that part of the blame lies with the previous government.
As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, we missed a number of construction seasons in Quebec, and this created a deficit of several billion dollars in terms of infrastructure projects, which are still on hold. Our dynamic and innovative municipalities are waiting for that money.
Under this new government, everyone is still waiting. I know its members are acting in good faith and it is still much too early in their mandate to accuse them of bad faith. However, there is an urgent need for action, and I want to take this opportunity to reiterate that that is what the Union des municipalités du Québec, the members from Quebec, and the people we represent are calling for. We must act now in order to begin these projects before the 2016 construction season is over.
This issue is not just an issue facing Quebec. I had the opportunity to go to Winnipeg for the first time. The member for Winnipeg North will be happy to hear that I certainly enjoyed my first visit to his city. It was an opportunity to go to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' convention and to meet municipal leaders from across Canada. It was a great opportunity because, as I mentioned a bit earlier in my speech in French, Canada is a large country. We are dreaming if we think that we could find a one-size-fits-all solution. There is no way that is ever going to happen, and we accept that. I think the Conservatives, when they were power, accepted that. I certainly know that the Liberals accept that, as well. That is why it is so important that we get it right, and that we get it right quickly. At the end of the day, suburban communities, urban centres, and rural communities all have specific issues that they need taken care of. That is why these bilateral agreements with provinces are so important.
I know the minister is working hard and again, at the risk of repeating myself and with all due respect to our interpreters, I really think it bears repeating and mentioning again in both of our official languages that it is so important that when we are negotiating these bilateral agreements that the government recognize that there is urgency.
I think it is far too early in the Liberals' mandate to accuse them any sort of any sort of bad faith, but we cannot afford to miss the construction seasons. It is a challenge that we face in Canada. Winters are long. We all suffer through the temperatures that we go through in winter. Perhaps my colleagues from B.C. have a different reality, that is fair enough. We need to make sure that we are maximizing the opportunities that we have to get these projects going.
Municipalities are ready. We have very dynamic municipalities that have projects that they want to accomplish. We have provinces that have their priorities as well. It is so important that we get this right and get it right quickly. I cannot emphasize enough that speed and urgency is of the essence here.
In particular, when I look at the budget and the phase one program, that is the essence of what the government has committed to. We are talking about refurbishing infrastructure. We are talking about repairing infrastructure. We are talking about bridging that gap so that they can bring in phase two. If we really want to accomplish those objectives, we need to get these bilateral agreements signed quickly so that we can maximize what we are doing with the phase one program, so that by the time we reach the next phase of the infrastructure program, at least the provinces and municipalities have had the opportunity to bridge that gap. That is so important. That is certainly a priority going forward. As New Democrats, we are going to holding the government's feet to the fire and make sure that it keeps the negotiation of these agreements as a priority.
We talked about the short term, but we also have to think about the long term. What does the future hold for us when it comes to infrastructure? There are a number of aspects to that, and the Conservatives raised a very important point.
I dare say that I am asking the government a question by way of my speech, and it is about the way the different types of infrastructure are defined. There has been a lot of talk about social infrastructure, and I have to admit that we find that problematic.
At the end of the day, we agree with the government's priorities, indeed all of them. I am thinking about affordable housing, public transit, and infrastructure for early child care, even though I also wonder what exactly this means.
Our concern when it comes to social infrastructure is that we must not lose sight of the different priorities because everything is being put into one big basket.
It is easy for a government member to turn around and say that there is such and such an amount for social housing, such and such an amount for public transit, and such and such an amount for green infrastructure, but the problem at the end of the day is that it is the same money in every case because it all comes out of the same big basket.
It is very important to know that, and we should pay close attention because the government has promises to keep when it comes to the different aspects of infrastructure. It is very important that the government keep those promises and that it understand that the situation is urgent. I am repeating myself, but urgent action needs to be taken given the importance of the various files.
Much to my colleagues' chagrin, I could probably talk about this issue for a long time yet, but my time is running out.
As the leader of the NDP, the member for Outremont, said at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities conference, we appreciate the government's change of tone.
We certainly appreciate a renewed relationship between municipalities and provinces, but at the end of the day, it does not substitute for results. For New Democrats it will certainly not be enough to keep us off our feet, standing in the House and making sure that the government is living up to the very large expectations that have been set on the infrastructure file.
An example of a sector in which expectations are very high is green infrastructure. I know that is also one of the government's objectives. There are high expectations, and the municipalities are on the front lines working to combat climate change.
Municipalities are certainly key partners in fighting climate change and New Democrats recognize that. We like to hope and I have certainly heard that the government agrees on that point, but now the devil will be in the details. The results we have yet to see will be something that we will be waiting for.
I would like to close by saying that we respect the commitments that the government has made and we share its priorities. I appreciate the work that I have been able to do with the minister and the working relationship that we have established.
However, as an opposition party, we are now going to stand up and ensure that the Liberals fulfill their mandate and live up to the high expectations that municipalities have of them.
Municipalities, provinces, and our constituents depend on our delivering these results. While we appreciate what the government is doing, we are going to be standing up to make sure the government lives up to these very high expectations that have been set on the infrastructure file.
