:
Thank you, and good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting number 14.
Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), we are considering the main estimates for 2009-2010, votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 under Transport, referred to the committee on Thursday, February 26, 2009.
Joining us today we have the Honourable John Baird, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities; and the Honourable Rob Merrifield, Minister of State for Transport. Also joining us at the table, from the Department of Transport, are Mr. Marc Grégoire, assistant deputy minister of safety and security; Mr. André Morency, assistant deputy minister of corporate services; and Mr. Louis Ranger, deputy minister. Also joining us, from Infrastructure Canada, are Mr. David Cluff, assistant deputy minister in the corporate services branch and chief financial officer; and Mr. John Forster, assistant deputy minister of the policy and communications branch.
As I stated, we're here to talk about the estimates, so I will open the floor.
Mr.Volpé, you have a point of order.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Committee members, I'm very pleased to be here today with my cabinet colleague, Rob Merrifield. You've already done me the pleasure of introducing our officials from both Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada.
I also want to tell you that we're looking into the Brandon airport project, which I know you've been working hard on.
I want to begin by thanking the committee for its work over the past several months. A number of important pieces of legislation, such as Bill , the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, and Bill , the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, have progressed through this committee since February of this year. I appreciate the time and effort each of you has put into this achievement.
We're here to facilitate discussion and to help answer any questions you may have regarding the main estimates for both Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada.
The actions taken by our government through the spending outlined in the estimates are contributing to cleaner air and water, to safer roads, and to more prosperous and livable communities. We are focusing our efforts on key actions and key infrastructure investments that will stimulate the economy, create jobs, and support Canadian families.
The 2009-2010 main estimates show significant investments through Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada in the upcoming year, when our economy will need them the most. And we are working collaboratively with provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to help ensure there is three times more money flowing into the economy for more projects and more jobs.
We have accomplished a great deal since the meeting of first ministers in January. At that meeting, we agreed to a five-point action plan to accelerate infrastructure investments.
In keeping with this plan, we have amended the Navigable Waters Protection Act, reduced duplication of federal and provincial environmental assessments, and streamlined our own federal approval processes.
Our government, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is also delivering on our economic action plan to stimulate economic growth, create jobs, and support Canadian families.
Within weeks of the budget being tabled, we approved more than 500 projects, valued at $1.5 billion, in small communities in various parts of Canada. We announced major projects, with a total federal contribution of almost $1 billion—$980 million to be exact—including the Evergreen Transit Line in the great city of Vancouver; the Edmonton southwest ring road; GO Transit improvements in the province of Ontario; and the expansion of a drinking water facility in Lévis, Quebec. And we have flowed over $307 million to provinces and territories under the provincial-territorial base initiative.
I would also note that when this new fiscal year began, we accelerated the first payments to cities of the federal gas revenue transfer. The first payment was issued within days of the start of the fiscal year. We will flow another $1 billion to municipalities later this year, because, I am proud to say, this fund has now doubled to $2 billion per year. It will remain at that level beyond 2014, when it becomes a permanent measure. Municipalities across the country will benefit from this additional funding now and for years to come.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities recently noted that “The Government of Canada and all parliamentarians deserve recognition and thanks for their ongoing support...and the working partnership they have forged with Canada's municipalities.”
Our economic action plan made available nearly $12 billion in federal money for new infrastructure stimulus funding over two years. This includes infrastructure funds for which I am responsible: the $4 billion infrastructure stimulus fund and the $1 billion green infrastructure fund, and accelerated payments under the provincial-territorial base fund.
I have to tell you that we are working incredibly well with our provincial partners to help maximize those investments; I cannot put too fine a point on this. Premier McGuinty of Ontario, Premier Gordon Campbell of British Columbia, Premier Gary Doer of Manitoba, and Premier Charest are among those who are showing leadership in Canada's collective response to the global economic crisis. They are responding to the call for governments to put aside partisanship and political games and to work collectively for the benefit of Canadians and job creation in our economy.
There are several examples I would like to cite. Recently, my Ontario counterpart, Minister George Smitherman, and I sent a joint letter to Ontario municipalities, outlining our non-partisan approach to infrastructure development and the importance of these significant investments as a stimulus to our economy. We are working in lockstep to fully allocate funding for the communities component under the Building Canada fund. Strong provincial partnerships also allow us to put the infrastructure stimulus fund into action. We're providing more than $100 million from this fund to British Columbia's community infrastructure projects.
[Translation]
In the province of Quebec, we invested $700 million in a program to address water quality and repair sewers.
[English]
Mayors across Ontario are quickly preparing their stimulus fund applications, which are due by the end of this week.
Under our Building Canada plan, the provincial-territorial base fund was established to provide predictable funding of $25 million over seven years, with a total of $175 million per jurisdiction by 2014. We will be accelerating this funding where provinces and territories can match it by working to provide $175 million over the next two years. We have great pickup from that around the country. I'm also happy to say that several are taking advantage of this and investing more money in the economy as a whole.
Another major priority of this portfolio is to ensure that our transportation system is safe and secure. I'm pleased to report to the committee that, following the most recent Auditor General's report and the chapter on national security, an agreement was signed between Transport Canada and the RCMP. This will expand criminal background checks for transportation and security clearance applicants to include more intelligence data from more sources. This will allow us to better beat back criminals who may attempt to infiltrate our airports and will allow us to keep Canadian travellers secure.
Canada is a trading nation, and the importance of ensuring that Canada has an economically effective and efficient transportation system cannot be understated. We're focused on ensuring that this is the case while we work to ensure that the stimulus projects can be implemented quickly to get shovels in the ground and jobs created. These strategic and targeted investments will provide a much-needed shot in the arm for the Canadian economy.
The main estimates before us are directly linked to addressing the economic challenges that confront our nation and indeed all nations.
I look forward to chatting with you today. I'll turn it over to Minister Merrifield.
:
I'll keep my comments very short because you are indeed looking forward to questions. I have spent a considerable amount of time on committees and I know full well what work you do and how important it is to Canadians and on behalf of Parliament.
I just want to reinforce with you my part of the responsibility in the transportation portfolio. We have the 15 crown corporations, including everything from Canada Post to VIA Rail, Marine Atlantic, and many others. I'm not going to name all 15 corporations. I think you're familiar with them.
Within the portfolio, I also assist Minister Baird more directly on the infrastructure file, in charge of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and work very closely with the provinces to get the money going, get Canadians working, and make sure that we get shovel-ready projects that are indeed going to contribute to our long-term infrastructure for the country.
We're here to talk about the estimates today and I also want to make note of our action plan and some of the significant numbers of dollars that you'll see in the fall estimates. It's important for you to consider this as we discuss some of the issues this afternoon.
For CATSA, there is $282 million in our action plan over two years to improve air traffic and air safety. On the safety of travel in Canada, we're looking forward to implementing this initiative by the government very, very quickly.
VIA Rail is at $407 million. I believe that the last time we were here we talked about that a little with regard to making sure that we keep our rolling stock safe but also contribute to the speedy and efficient use of the VIA system across this country. I also want to highlight rail safety. Significantly, the number of dollars is at $72 million for rail safety and grade-crossing improvements, as well as enhanced regulatory oversight and enforcement. We are looking forward to implementing that $72 million as well.
On Marine Atlantic, I was able to be in Atlantic Canada to officially launch a new vessel, the Atlantic Vision, and you might want to take note of how that will improve service there in the long term.
So we're really about keeping Canadians safe, whether it's air, rail or bridges, stimulating our economy, and working on behalf of Canadians. We're looking forward to any questions you might have.
:
As I am sure you know, the previous government privatized NAV CANADA. It is not a government agency, but a private corporation responsible for its own operations. I must, however, point out that the Government of Canada has allocated $25 million to NAV CANADA in light of the Vancouver Olympic Games and the numerous security issues surrounding the event.
Sometimes, these proposals give rise to concerns, as in northern New Brunswick and in Quebec. I am always willing to work with communities and their respective members, and to listen to their concerns, even when that member is a Liberal, as in the case of New Brunswick. I am also willing to talk about policies with NAV CANADA's people. Of course, sometimes, with a private corporation, economic concerns have to be balanced with the public interest. It is my job to work with communities and my colleagues, no matter what their political stripe, on issues that concern them.
I am always willing to work with people and communities. I did so in northern New Brunswick. There will still be concerns, whether economic or safety-related, as with the air ambulances, where the public interest is at stake. But it is not just NAV CANADA's responsibility. Sometimes, it is the government's responsibility when the public interest is concerned. Ultimately, we are responsible for addressing all of these concerns.
Welcome to Minister Baird and Secretary of State Merrifield. I'm pleased that you could join us today. Over the years I've noted, Minister Baird, that you're readily available in committees, and I think that's an admirable trait.
Concerning the Building Canada and infrastructure stimulation funds, many questions are still out there about their proposed way of working. Municipal leaders across the country are very concerned as well about some of the conditions attached to them.
In your letter to the mayor of Toronto, you said that “proponents will be required to attest that the projects would not have been built over the next two construction seasons without the federal and provincial funding.”
Their concerns lie with projects identified in these capital plans not being eligible for funding. That's certainly going to put an extra burden on municipalities in bringing forward projects. As well, projects need to be completely finished by 2011, under your proposed rules. This will present difficulties to municipalities in coming forward with plans and projects of a type that is going to be acceptable and will not, as your finance minister..., be clawed back from municipalities through the gas tax in years to come, if they don't follow the regulations.
Perhaps you could give us a bit of an understanding of how the stimulus money for these new projects is being handled.
I'll just underline very quickly the gas tax rebate, the GST rebate, and under Building Canada the base funding. Under Building Canada, there is great flexibility as far as timing is concerned.
In the design of the approximately $12 billion worth of stimulus funds, we wanted to basically stimulate economic growth, stimulate job creation in the short term. We have three fundamental principles. They're not complicated. Some object; some are not in agreement. I would be dishonest if I didn't say that.
One is that we want it to be a new project. We don't want to say, if city X was already going to do something this year or next, that they simply take out some of their money and put in other money, because then we wouldn't be creating any new jobs. We want to create new jobs, so we want it to be a new project, something that otherwise wouldn't be going ahead anyway.
Two, we want to create jobs over the next 24 months with this program. We know from the past 25 years that there can be great...particularly with big projects. Even in building a subway it can take two years from the time you get the yes on the money to when you get the shovel in the ground. We don't want to simply say to the unemployed that they have to wait two years, so we're looking for projects that would start this year and be completed by the end of next fiscal year, which is March 2011, 23 or 24 months away.
The third fundamental point is that we get matching funds whenever possible. We won't get them in every case, but if we can take $12 million and turn it into $24 million or into as much as $36 million by going one third, one third, one third with the provinces and municipalities, we can create up to three times as many jobs and up to three times as much economic spinoff.
Many municipalities that are having concerns.... I'll give you an example. As of noon today in Ontario, we've received 474 project proposals from 69 municipalities, totalling about half a billion dollars. That shows that a lot of municipalities are ready to go, have funds matched, and can meet the criteria.
Building Canada is also on the table for those projects that would be longer-term, that would go beyond March 2011.
:
Thank you to the minister for being here today.
First, before I start with some questions, as the member for Okanagan--Shuswap, hearing this from my staff, I just want to ask the minister to pass on to his staff the great cooperation and communication they've had with my riding. It's been very successful and informative. We've had timely response and we've had some great results, so thank you very much for the work that's being done.
One of the challenges of getting infrastructure money out, of course, is partnership, cooperation, and not only from the local governments, but also the provincial and federal governments. I don't know if it's just because of the pending election in British Columbia, but I'm happy to say the Province of British Columbia has really stepped up to the plate and moved forward quickly to get these announcements out.
I just want to tell you a little bit about the ground successes of what's happened in our community. Highway 97 and 220 kilometres of the Trans-Canada Highway run right through my constituency. We have signs up all over, projects have started, people are at work. In what I call the triangle of Kamloops, Revelstoke, and Kelowna, we have about $200 million worth of highway construction, which is something we've been waiting for for some time, and this is very timely. It's going to have some great benefits in the future for my constituency, so thank you very much for that.
One of the things the Province of British Columbia has done is worked with the ministry and also with their local communities. They've split out the towns of populations of 100,000 or less or 15,000 or less and they've set up what they call Towns for Tomorrow and Locomotion. What they're trying to do is just what my colleague, Mr. Bevington, mentioned about the one third, one third, one third. Some of the smaller communities have challenges bringing up that one third, so the Province of British Columbia, in cooperation with the federal government, has allowed for 80% funding for communities under 100,000, and then 100% funding for communities under 15,000. You can appreciate if a small town as I have in Lumby, with a population of about 2,000 people, raises the taxes 1%, they only get $10,000, and that doesn't buy a lot of infrastructure. So they are now building an $800,000 bridge because of the work we're doing as the federal government and the province of British Columbia.
Those are great success stories on the ground that are happening in my constituency, so I think it is working.
In that respect, are any of the other provinces moving forward with innovative ideas on how we can get this money out and helping local government, especially the smaller communities, not the larger communities?
:
They are. Some of the smaller communities do have challenges. They can use the gas tax money or their GST rebates, among other initiatives.
Some provinces have been incredibly quick. I have to say, British Columbia, Gordon Campbell's government, is a pleasure to work with. They move very quickly, and I think that serves people in British Columbia well. Gary Doer's government and his Minister Ron Lemieux work incredibly well with the federal government. I can say that we've had a great relationship with Minister Normandeau in the province of Quebec. We're moving quickly.
We've managed to put aside politics in Ontario, where I was the critic of the infrastructure minister only three and a half years ago. In the Ontario legislature, we're getting things done. We have seen a significant number of examples where people really are responding to the challenge and moving quickly.
Shawn Graham's government in New Brunswick came out with an infrastructure stimulus plan in December and are great partners with us.
So I think this economiclally challenging time is certainly bringing the best out in people.
We do have programs for municipalities as well, with respect to some very low-interest loans, which Minister Finley announced.
Obviously we don't have much money federally either. We're borrowing money. So are most provinces. Maybe not socialist Manitoba, where they are running a surplus, but most provinces are running deficits. We do have a program that can provide some low-interest loans to municipalities, which provides another measure of help, which is, I think, good news.
:
Mr. Chair, I'm not appealing to the member opposite as chair. I respect that the chair's job is to mediate this meeting, not the parliamentary secretary.
I'm asking for an answer, and I ask it respectfully. With all respect, Mr. Chair, if through some power of understanding you discern an answer there, I'd be happy to go with that. I haven't got the answer. The only reason for my repeating the question is to ascertain an answer.
I think it's a fair question. I don't ask it disrespectfully. I'm using my job as a parliamentarian for my constituents. And this is the role I have for Parliament, as an opposition critic, to fulfill. This is the only place I get to fulfill it.
With the greatest of respect to Mr. Jean, I have the minister for a very few minutes, and this has been the only time since the program started. I think it's an appropriate question asked in an appropriate manner, and I rely on the chair to uphold my ability to do that.
:
Mr. Chair, it's a simple question, and I guess there is no simple answer.
I'll forgo the community components fund, as I anticipate it will be the same answer.
Parliament has every right to seek due diligence on dollars, and part of the due diligence, Mr. Chair, is having the minister at the committee.
Mr. Minister, I'd also like to ask if you can tell us where you are in terms of the recreation fund. We understood you were to profile it and then put that out, with guidelines and applications and so on, and then get that out to your regional development agencies.
I am wondering if you could table today the criteria for the recreation fund and any documents that support its progress. It's also a fairly sizeable fund that has been put out there. I understood your department told us in briefing that they were going to profile it and then when the rules were established put it out to the regional development agencies. Can you table any documents today to show us where that's at?
:
We are getting additional resources with respect to staff at Infrastructure Canada. We have come forward with our five-point action plan with respect to reducing red tape, which can be an awfully heavy paper burden, a heavy administrative burden on my department.
I think one of the approaches we take--and I don't apologize for in some respects being a provincialist--whether it comes to our friends in the Bloc Québécois, or whether it comes to, for example, the province in which I represent a riding in the House of Commons, is that it is not the federal government's job to micromanage the provinces.
Premier McGuinty brought forward to the first ministers conference a binder of some five or six inches of a business case they were required to do with respect to Infrastructure Canada and the federal rules and red tape. The Province of Ontario does not work for me. They do not work for Infrastructure Canada. Our job is to be a funding partner.
I think we can have a fair balance between the gas tax, of which I know you were a big advocate, where you just give the money as a blank cheque, versus having two years' worth of paperwork and administration where we try to micromanage things that are not our responsibility. So I think we're coming up with a reasonable balance.
What we want to do is identify projects in concert with municipalities and provinces. We want to ensure that they eligible and we want to respect jurisdiction.
I have no intention of trying to micromanage George Smitherman and Infrastructure Ontario, because I think they're quite capable of doing it themselves, and they are responsible and accountable to their provincial legislature, to their provincial auditor general. They're not responsible to this Parliament. They're not responsible to me. They're not responsible to the Auditor General of Canada.
:
I have to tell you that the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is a Quebecker from the same riding as the premier of Quebec. We kept in mind Quebec law and the fact that municipalities are under provincial jurisdiction. I already mentioned that during the question period and during a previous appearance before this committee.
In my opinion, it is absolutely essential to work with Quebec's Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, who was in charge of the infrastructure file, and the Prime Minister's Office. We work well with all of them, and we respect provincial jurisdiction. Of course, Quebec's municipalities say that we have money and programs in the budget for them, but I am certain that they kept Quebec law very much in mind in that respect.
I am not someone who likes to spend a lot of time and energy on administrative agreements. We worked very hard with Quebec, we signed an agreement, and we have an agreement that we can use for each of the projects. The new one was almost exactly the same as the last, so we were able to cut through some red tape. With these new initiatives, we can move much more quickly, but I must say that I am pleased with the commitment that Quebec and Canada have shown in terms of moving things along. We have also seen that we can invest in federally regulated infrastructure, without Quebec's support, even if just in a harbour. We will probably only do so in the case of harbours.
My goal, my top priority, is to do as much as we can with Quebec and its municipalities, because that is how we will create the most jobs. A few Bloc Québécois members have told me about projects in their municipalities. So, occasionally, they are happy to share their priorities with me, and that is a good thing; it is their job. I know, however, that I must work with the provincial government because it has to support the project; otherwise, we cannot get things done.
I'd like to thank both of you for being here today. As you know, this is National Rail Safety Week, so my question eventually will be for the Minister of State for Transport. I've had the opportunity this week to have some meetings with representatives of our railways, and quite frankly, I don't think I had been aware quite how comprehensive the cobweb of rail system is in Canada.
Being a GTA member of Parliament, I have the advantage of being able to use our railway system regularly in my transport back and forth between here and Toronto and consider myself very fortunate to have that opportunity. It is a wonderful service we have.
I'm very pleased with the investment that is being made in the rehabilitation of the Go Transit bridge at the south end of Aurora. I live in a community that is dependent on service to Toronto, and Go Transit provides the service between Newmarket and Union Station for my constituents. So the rehabilitation of that bridge is going to really improve the ability of Go Transit to provide service to my constituency and, really, to the constituencies of all of York region. I've also had the opportunity to speak with our regional chair, Bill Fish, who is very pleased with that investment in particular and with other investments in transportation that are coming into York region.
I wonder, though, if you could speak specifically to other investments that are being made—and this is to our Minister of State—to improve safety on our railways. So like this rehabilitation that is going into the Go Transit bridge, there must be other projects that are going on across Canada to improve rail safety, and I wonder if you could speak to that for us.
:
Sure. I would agree with you that the amount of money in infrastructure on the VIA side of our railway system is very significant, and that will enhance not only service, but certainly new railway lines being put in place, new locomotives, and more efficient operation. Actually, I think the goal is to close the time between Montreal and Toronto by a half hour.
But your question is more on the safety side, where we are doing something very significant. On the safety, $72 million was put into this action plan budget to deal with the safety of our rail system and make sure we have a five-year plan, regulations oversight, and enforcement to make sure those cars, the freight, and the people who are being transported across this country are very safe. Some of this money is going to be for grade-crossing improvements as well as the regulatory oversight. This is significant. We'll be laying out the plan this government has over this next year. We'll be aggressively pursuing this and making sure we put those dollars to very good use and we can be assured we have safety as we travel on the rail, either by passenger or by freight.
One of the reasons I have a personal interest in this is what has happened in Wabamun, in my area. Wabamun Lake was polluted. It wasn't passenger, but it was freight, and it certainly caused a tremendous amount of disruption. It's an issue I think all Canadians are very concerned about. Environmental concerns are there, and we need to do whatever we can to make sure these kinds of incidents don't repeat themselves.
Thank you, ministers, for appearing today. I want to assure you that in my meetings with mayors and reeves and provincial ministers throughout the country, they are telling me exactly what you have said here today, that this government is getting results, and getting results quickly, positive results.
I want to thank you, Minister Merrifield, in relation to one particular announcement. I see that this government is moving forward, not just in investing for today's jobs but for tomorrow's jobs. Really, I believe what we are doing as a government is creating productivity for our future. Among those investments that we're making, key investments, are the Windsor corridor, for instance, where a huge portion of Canada's trade is taken to the United States, and the many jobs there, not just for today but tomorrow.
There's also my own area of Fort McMurray, which produces somewhere in the neighbourhood of 6% of the gross domestic product of this country. There was a recent announcement of some $53 million for two overpasses and a widening of a road where, on a daily basis, there's a four-hour delay in traffic that should only take somewhere under an hour to get back and forth from plant sites.
People seem to think I'm pushing my own agenda here, for my own constituents, but the reality is that 35,000 to 50,000 people who work in that area are from other parts of the country, and actually return that money home to other parts, including Newfoundland, most of Atlantic Canada, and Ontario. Some 85,000 jobs two years ago were directly or indirectly from Ontario, and 30,000 were from the province of Quebec. This money goes back directly to the provinces, and to the communities and the homes, in all parts of Canada.
So I think those investments were absolutely critical, and I'd like to compliment whoever made that decision. Those two overpasses were a safety concern. They were causing deaths and they were causing tremendous delays. So my compliments in relation to that.
I'm not sure if you'd like to add anything further in relation to that particular investment.
:
I think way too much is made of whether infrastructure projects happen in specific ridings or not. What I'm consumed with is making sure that the infrastructure projects announced are ones that are needed, that are bought into by municipalities, if possible, and provinces for sure, so that they're not politically interfered with.
The project you've described is a significant amount of money in a riding. But it's a riding where, as you've described, people come to work from all across this country. It's very important that infrastructure is kept up for the benefit of the country. I believe Fort McMurray is around 5% of GDP, or a little over. That's a pretty significant amount of GDP from one little area.
Not only that, you talked about the Windsor area and the Windsor corridor. You're talking potentially $1 billion of trade a day going across that border at peak times. That's significant. Minister Baird and I were able to talk to Secretary LaHood with regard to making sure that we do what we can to be able to move traffic along cross-border as well.
This has nothing to do with politics, right, left, or anywhere in between. This is about building Canada to be able to compete in the 21st century. Nobody likes to go into debt, but if we do it right, we will be able to come out of this, when the economy turns around, much stronger, much better, more able to compete internationally. In my view, that's the way to succeed into the 21st century.
:
I understand, but I'm saying that money was spent and you're looking for more. We're supposed to concur here, or not, on the estimates. We're looking for outcomes here. We know you underspent. That's one outcome. But of the money you did spend, surely you have a handle on what it did generate. Could we get the jobs? Also, would it be possible to table the stages?
We've had a number of projects announced, but there is a stage where there is an actual contract--or as you call it, an agreement--with the entity, whether it's a province, municipality, and so on. Then there's a stage in which they actually start construction and then there's the stage in which they invoice you and money actually flows.
I think everyone knows that only 5% of the money from your new programs flowed last year. I think it's fairly essential on a due diligence part—not to interfere with the operations—if you can generate a list for us. Your staff referenced in committee that such a thing was possible to tell us where the projects are at, where they've been announced politically or in a news release, and when the actual agreements were signed and can therefore go ahead. Then they could tell us when the actual project is in progress and when you're starting to pay on that project. This would be a standard for all funds.
Obviously you've underspent quite a bit in the last few years, and it would be helpful for the public to see the stages Infrastructure Canada projects are at, both for proposed extensions of the existing programs and the new programs that are here for the stimulus. Is that possible?
Hello, gentlemen.
Minister, during a previous appearance before this committee, you mentioned that each of the three levels of government has to contribute one third. Since small communities have less money than larger ones, I had asked you whether the federal government could contribute 50%, the province, 35%, and the municipality, 15%.
I then talked to an economist, who told me that of the 35%, the federal government received 18% in taxes and the province,17%. Could you change your distribution method? Instead of each level of government contributing a third, how about 40-40-20 or 50-35-15, in order to help smaller communities. Remember that it is always the same people who pay. Whether it is a loan to the federal, provincial or municipal government, it always comes out of the same pockets.
:
I'm pleased to report to you many provinces--for example, Newfoundland, Ontario, British Columbia--are paying more than their third, because it's a provincial jurisdiction, and we respect provincial jurisdiction.
[Translation]
I am sure that we received requests for more money than we had to give and that municipalities had the money to pay their third of the cost and were willing to take action. If the provinces want to pay more than a third, it is up to them. It is within their jurisdiction to do so, and we respect that.
My goal is to create as many jobs as possible. We all know that the federal government has no money. It had to run a deficit to achieve that goal, just like Quebec. We set up a funding program to help municipalities fund their projects. That is another example of how we are trying to work with municipalities.
Many small and large municipalities across Canada are willing to contribute their third. For those that cannot, the gas rebate, the GST rebate and the loans granted by a federal government agency are designed to help. It is under the province's jurisdiction. In British Columbia, the provincial government was willing to do more for municipalities with less than 15,000 inhabitants, which was good for them.