ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, April 21, 2004

¹

1530

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of State (Infrastructure))

¹

1535

¹

1540

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

Hon. Andy Scott

¹

1550

Mr. Roy Bailey

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

¹

1555

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Hon. Andy Scott

º

1600

Le président

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, CPC)

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. John Herron

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. John Herron

Hon. Andy Scott

º

1605

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Hon. Andy Scott

Ms. Anita Neville

Hon. Andy Scott

Ms. Anita Neville

The Chair

Hon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)

º

1610

Hon. Andy Scott

Hon. John Godfrey

Hon. Andy Scott

º

1615

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Hon. Andy Scott

Ms. Karen Kinsley (President, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation)

Mr. Paul Szabo

º

1620

Ms. Karen Kinsley

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC)

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

º

1625

Mr. Bob Mills

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

Hon. Andy Scott

º

1630

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

Mrs. Cécile Cléroux (Assistant Deputy Minister, Program Operations, Infrastructure Canada)

The Chair

Mrs. Cécile Cléroux

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mrs. Cécile Cléroux

The Chair

Mrs. Cécile Cléroux

º

1635

The Chair

Mrs. Cécile Cléroux

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

º

1640

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Roy Bailey

Hon. Andy Scott

º

1645

Mr. Roy Bailey

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Roy Bailey

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Roy Bailey

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Roy Bailey

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Roy Bailey

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville

Le président

Hon. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.)

Hon. Andy Scott

Hon. Serge Marcil

º

1650

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, CPC)

º

1655

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Guy Bujold (Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications, Infrastructure Canada)

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Guy Bujold

»

1700

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Bob Mills

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

»

1705

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Hon. Andy Scott

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)

Hon. Andy Scott

Hon. Diane Marleau

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Guy Bujold

Mr. Charles Hubbard

»

1710

Mr. Guy Bujold

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Guy Bujold

Hon. Andy Scott

»

1715

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

Mr. Guy Bujold

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Guy Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Guy Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Guy Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Guy Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Guy Bujold

The Chair

Mr. Guy Bujold

The Chair

Mrs. Cécile Cléroux

»

1720

The Chair

Mrs. Cécile Cléroux

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mrs. Cécile Cléroux

»

1725

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Hon. Andy Scott

»

1730

The Chair

Hon. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Hon. Andy Scott

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 012

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 21, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon, colleagues.

    We welcome today the Honourable Andy Scott, who was quoted in a piece written by Infrastructure Canada and reproduced by The Hill Times as saying “We will help ensure environmentally friendly, energy efficient, innovative and economically stimulating development.” It certainly is a fantastic statement that sounds like music to the ears of the members of this committee.

    We are delighted to have you and we invite you to take the floor. We look forward to your presentation. Then, of course, we'll have a good round of questions.

    Welcome, Mr. Scott.

    Hon. Andy Scott (Minister of State (Infrastructure)): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to members of the committee.

[English]

    First of all, I'd like to introduce my folks who have come with me: from Canada Lands, Kathy Milsom; my deputy, André Juneau; and from CMHC, Canada Mortgage and Housing, Karen Kinsley.

    I should say, Mr. Chair, as someone who has occupied that position for some time myself, I appreciate the work of the chair of standing committees and the work of committees themselves. I see this as a first opportunity to begin a process of working together in this exciting new development.

    On December 12, the Prime Minister announced the position of Canada's first dedicated Minister of State for Infrastructure. I was very honoured to accept that appointment. At the same time, the Prime Minister placed the Government of Canada's infrastructure program and responsibility for certain community-related crown corporations within the environment portfolio, which is a gesture not lost to me in terms of its intent.

[Translation]

    That is why I am pleased to be here to speak to you about infrastructure and its relationship to sustainable development and the environment. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss with you the challenges we face in terms of renewing Canada's public infrastructure and the Government of Canada's commitment to make a contribution in order to reach that objective.

[English]

    Mr. Chair and members, the prospects are very exciting. My responsibilities as Minister of State for Infrastructure, as part of the larger environment portfolio, emphasizes a partnership approach among federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments, as well as the private sector. Measures are in place, or are being negotiated, to improve the coordination of infrastructure policies. These build on investments that we've already made, which I firmly believe will enhance the quality of life in our communities and demonstrate our determination to ensure that every Canadian has a healthy, safe, and rewarding environment in which to live.

    The Prime Minister has said a great place to live starts with a neighbourhood with clean water, unspoiled land, and air we can safely breathe. Neighbourhoods are where we develop our personal values and come to understand our larger responsibilities to the world. What we are working toward are more sustainable communities.

    Within my portfolio, we're working together to support the environmental, economic, and social goals of the government relating to climate change, clean water and air, healthy housing, and urban transit. We believe we can achieve these goals through a strong federal presence in communities; for example, through CMHC's affordable housing and housing rehabilitation programs; through redevelopment of urban brownfields, and through continued partnerships with the provinces, territories, and municipalities where infrastructure project funding priorities are set, not in Ottawa but at the local level.

    I'd like to now turn to some remarks on some of the key activities at Infrastructure Canada and two of the crown corporations for which I am responsible.

    At present, Infrastructure Canada administers four general funds: the $2-billion infrastructure Canada program; the $1-billion municipal rural infrastructure fund; the $4-billion Canada strategic infrastructure fund; and the $600-million border infrastructurefund. The key investments we are making across Canada through these funds include important projects such as water, roads, sewage treatment, broadband, and border crossings.

    I'd like to give you a brief overview of the guiding principles of the two funds announced in budget 2003, the Canada strategic infrastructure fund, and the municipal rural infrastructure fund.

    In budget 2003, the Canada strategic infrastructure fund received a $2-billion top-up, and the $1-billion municipal rural infrastructure fund was established.

    The Canada strategic infrastructure fund targets large-scale projects and encourages tripartite federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal government involvement. Large-scale is defined according to a province's or territory's population, which gives us flexibility to fund large-scale projects that fit local needs. Since this fund is designed to deal with the largest strategic pressures in each province or territory, bundling of projects will be allowed with discretion. This permits two or more smaller projects in the same category within a province to be considered in order to meet the threshold funding for that province.

    The municipal rural infrastructure fund deals with the other end of the infrastructure spectrum and will benefit primarily smaller communities with populations under 250,000. Under the $2-billion infrastructure Canada program, which preceded MRIF, some 3,500 projects have been funded. Nationally, 60% of the federal municipal rural infrastructure fund will be applied to green projects, an increase from 50% in the former infrastructure Canada program. Projects that are considered green include water or waste water projects, solid waste management projects, public transit, and energy efficiency improvements.

    We are now negotiating the details of this program with each province and territory, and while there will be some national baselines, such as the 60% green target, we also want to accommodate local needs and realities. It is my hope that within four to six months after each agreement is signed, we will have approved the first projects under the program.

¹  (1535)  

    Our experience also allows us to leverage greater public benefits through our programs. For instance, project selection takes into account sustainable policy goals of the Government of Canada. Where possible, projects need to be complemented by supportive policies such as climate change, environmental plans, and best practices. An example of situations we want to encourage through our leveraging policy would be for a municipality to set up water management policies—metering, for example—in conjunction with receiving infrastructure dollars for a water treatment plant.

    Infrastructure Canada will also assess projects within the context of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act before releasing funds. All projects are subject to this act if they receive federal funding.

    We will work with communities to ensure that projects meet federal standards. Through the environmental assessment process, local residents will be involved in discussions and decisions about the projects that will affect quality of life in their communities.

    I'd like to recognize at this time the input from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which has played a big role in shaping Infrastructure Canada's perspective on the role of municipalities in achieving strategic priorities in climate protection. We are grateful for their assistance in that regard.

    Progress to date has been positive in realizing cooperation between the Government of Canada and the municipalities, which is essential if we are to meet climate change targets.

    I'd like to also turn my attention to the roles of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Canada Lands Company in sustainable development and the environment. Since its inception almost 60 years ago, CMHC has contributed in great measure to improved housing and living conditions for Canadians. As Canada's national housing agency, CMHC is an integral part of building healthy, vibrant, and sustainable communities in all parts of Canada. Appropriate housing strategies support broader urban issues and environmental sustainability. We need to pay special attention to urban sprawl in order to avoid congestion and gridlock in our major urban areas.

    The Government of Canada has made a clear commitment to create more affordable housing and provide renovation assistance to low-income Canadians. Since 2001 we've provided a total of $1 billion to create more affordable housing in Canada.

    Agreements have been signed with all provinces and territories for the initial allocation of $680 million, and over 12,000 new affordable housing units have already been announced, with more expected. I have initiated discussions with provinces and territories on the additional $320 million, which will be targeted to areas and communities of greatest need, focusing on persons with disabilities, aboriginal Canadians, and recent immigrants.

    As an effective and environmentally sound approach to housing, CMHC is working to create new affordable housing units and is helping Canadians preserve and make better use of the existing housing stock. CMHC's residential rehabilitation assistance program, RRAP, has been in existence for 30 years as a cornerstone of Canada's national housing policy.

    Improving housing in existing neighbourhoods contributes to healthy and safe communities as an alternative to urban sprawl. CMHC is carrying out research and sharing knowledge about sustainable housing and community planning with consumers, industry, and other governments. CMHC is also doing research into residential intensification and has published case studies of successful municipal initiatives that have resulted in new residential units within existing developed areas. CMHC has developed expertise in healthy housing, including residential energy efficiency and standards for residential greywater re-use.

    As a bit of an aside in this topic, I'd like to mention that Fredericton is home to Canada's only R-2000 certified EnviroHome apartment complex, Carrington House. R-2000 homes are the most energy efficient and environmentally responsible new homes available today.

    Canada Lands Company is responsible for optimizing both the financial and community value of surplus government properties. CLC creates additional financial value for the government and the people of Canada through pre-sale activities such as rezoning, site servicing, and development. The company also carries out the environmental remediation of contaminated properties and consults extensively with municipalities and local communities to create urban green spaces and developments that address specific local needs.

    This commercially oriented company is entirely self-financing, operates at arm's length, and always adheres to all relevant environmental legislation. It also has a close working relationship with all levels of government.

    Often Canada Lands exceeds sustainable development requirements in its projects. In fact, since its reactivation in 1995, the company has already made an investment of $36.6 million in environmental remediation. Part of this was spent on an innovative risk management approach to clean up and then redevelop the former Moncton CN shops property in New Brunswick. This brownfield redevelopment was the largest environmental remediation in the history of Canada and was the first-ever international recipient of the international category of the Phoenix Award from the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

¹  (1540)  

    While building and renewing Canada's public infrastructure may not share the high profile of some other government activities, the provision and maintenance of public infrastructure are among the highest responsibilities of government. The provision and management of drinking water treatment plants, waste treatment facilities, highways, roads and bridges, transit systems, and cultural and recreational facilities, and the availability of broadband communications to communities are examples of infrastructure projects that improve our quality of life and economic development.

    Infrastructure investments by the Government of Canada since 1993 have launched thousands of projects that will have positive benefits to our communities. In the immediate future we're aiming for rapid completion of negotiations with our provincial and territorial partners to get funds moving from the municipal rural infrastructure fund.

    We also want to quickly commit the remaining Canadian strategic infrastructure funds to meet sustainable development and environmental objectives. These actions will deliver on the budget commitment to speed up the flow of these infrastructure funds. We are also eager to move forward quickly on our affordable housing commitments in partnership with the provinces and territories.

    I look forward to continuing to work closely with all members of Parliament to implement high-priority infrastructure policies and develop programs that respond to community needs. Clearly, you all have an important role in conveying to me your sense of local infrastructure and priorities, and working in your communities to develop project proposals.

    Looking down the road, we will have to address even more carefully how future infrastructure investments are financed. Estimates of the infrastructure deficit vary, but we can all agree that no one level of government can do it on its own. A concerted response continues to be necessary, and this response is taking different forms.

    The government has already moved to provide municipalities with reliable revenue sources by exempting them totally from the GST effective February 2004. Additional fiscal measures are being examined to ensure that municipalities have the ability to participate as full partners in strengthening their community infrastructure.

    Success depends on the setting of local priorities. As members of Parliament, we have a key role in helping to define those local priorities. We also need to examine programs to ensure that local and national priorities are in tune with one another.

    An important journey is underway to ensure that Canada's infrastructure is the world's best. These goals can be achieved if partnerships are formed that are lasting and mutually beneficial and that most of all enrich the quality of life of each and every Canadian.

    This committee is an active player in this process, and I look forward to working closely with you. I welcome your input. You are essential in providing advice, promoting sound environmental investments, suggesting policy options, and informing me and my officials of local infrastructure issues.

¹  (1545)  

[Translation]

    I am particularly interested in what you think about how the federal funds should be spent, although they are not limitless, to rebuild our essential infrastructure and to build a new one which meets the needs of a growing economy and of our expanding communities.

    Thank you once again for providing me with this opportunity. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have with regard to current and future infrastructure policy.

[English]

    Let me just say, on my first occasion to appear before the environment committee, how thrilled I am with the fact that, first of all, the government took the decision to take a large program like the infrastructure program, which previously resided within the Department of Industry, created a stand-alone department such as we have, and then assigned or placed that department inside the environment portfolio. I think it speaks volumes for the importance of the environment to this government, and I intend to move forward with that particular perspective in mind.

    So thank you. As, let's say, an activist member of a committee for many years myself, I would very seriously invite your active participation in this exercise as we develop the department and the crown corporations associated, particularly as they relate to the environment. I believe in this process and have been an active participant in it and look forward to our working together.

    Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister. It is our turn to thank you for your presentation.

    We will, as usual, begin with questions from the official opposition.

    You have the floor, Mr. Bailey.

[English]

    Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Minister, thank you for coming.

    I read with interest some of the material last night, when I had some time. I need some explanation, however, of matters under your portfolio concerning the border infrastructure fund. To me, with the border infrastructure fund, we're talking about security at border points along the way, and I have nine of them in my constituency; I think that's more border points of interest than for any other MP. I'm not quarrelling about the $600 million you plan to spend, but I have difficulty seeing where this particular phase of building the roads, building the control measures, building the houses, the stations, and so on has anything to do with infrastructure. It seems to me that it belongs to customs or other departments, rather than infrastructure. I just want your comment on that, then I'll have a question a little later.

    Hon. Andy Scott: The border infrastructure fund is typical of the other infrastructure programs and our view of how these issues will have to be dealt with. It is not intended to replace anything, it is intended to be a program complementary to others that exist. For myself, I'm quite familiar with the border infrastructure fund projects in both Woodstock and St. Stephen, New Brunswick. There were various sources of funding for those projects, both provincial and federal, and even within the federal context, different federal departments. I believe this kind of collaboration and horizontal approach to problem-solving is the future of good public policy. That's what the border infrastructure fund is intended to do. I think we're headed in the right direction, frankly.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Roy Bailey: I spent at least three days of the break we had dealing with matters that were more provincial than federal, because the provincial House was sitting. That comes to the point you brought up on federal, provincial, and municipal and the control of safe drinking water. This has been before our committee before. We don't seem to have any particular standards. Even within each province, I find that there are no standards. You'd go to this village, to the next village, and a different standard had been given to the people to comply with. We don't seem to have a national standard. I find from the work over the last week that we don't have a provincial standard. So of course, each municipality gets jogged into being told what their standard is.

    Can you enlighten me on the water standards as far as potable water for Canadians is concerned?

    Hon. Andy Scott: First, I would want to explain the way the former Infrastructure Canada program operated. Probably the best comparable program going forward would be the municipal rural infrastructure fund. As I mentioned, the program has as a national baseline whereby 60% of the projects under the municipal rural infrastructure fund would be green, including water. The municipalities identify their priorities, and we generally are respectful of the municipalities. The projects they put forward, I think, as a rule, would be approved, although there's usually a joint federal-provincial approval process, because we're looking at funding from municipalities that is then matched by the provincial and federal governments.

    As to the standards that would be applied, that wouldn't be an Infrastructure Canada decision or responsibility. As we go forward--and I say this in regard to the policy development process we're engaged in--planning, best practices, a kind of public policy value-added are exactly what I would like to bring to this department. I think the gesture of moving it from Industry to Environment means something, and I believe we can develop this in a way that is consistent with our jurisdiction. We are investing a significant amount of money in Canada on water and other environmental areas of responsibility, and I think, in conjunction with that investment, we should be heavily involved in the policy piece, and that's what I intend to bring to this.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bigras, you have the floor.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    As you already did on February 12, you stated that you wanted to increase to 60 per cent the minimum amount allocated to green infrastructure within the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund.

    However, the mayors of several municipalities located around Montreal have told us that their aqueducts and sewers were in a lamentable state and that they absolutely needed to be renewed. It is often the case that for large urban areas like Montreal, which have crying needs, this type of project cannot be carried out within the framework of the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund.

    Can you tell us whether the requirements established in terms of green infrastructure under the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund will also apply to other funds, such as the Canadian Strategic Infrastructure Fund or the Canadian Infrastructure Fund?

    In other words, we have to avoid situations where funding is allocated to road construction, for instance, which basically has nothing to do with sustainable development. We would like to have the guarantee that these funds will go directly to aqueduct and sewer projects which will ensure that citizens have clean drinking water. But as it now stands, we don't have that guarantee.

¹  (1555)  

[English]

    Hon. Andy Scott: I think there was a question about the Infrastructure Canada program and its environmental mandate, the proportion that was green. Under the former Infrastructure Canada program the national baseline was 50%, and we've increased it to 60% for municipal-rural infrastructure.

    The strategic infrastructure fund, which preceded me, I think was designed for the large projects. If the City of Montreal, the municipalities you speak of, the larger municipalities, want to undertake green projects with the strategic infrastructure fund, they're certainly encouraged to do so. I'm thinking of Halifax. We recently increased the contribution to the Halifax harbour cleanup by $30 million, on top of the $30 million we had already invested. There's St. John's. There are many projects, some of them green as relating to water, sewage treatment, some of them green as relating to public transit, for instance. I'd say we have a pretty good record if you look at that.

    I think there were also some looming large infrastructure requirements. I think in my own province of the completion of the four-lane highway. Once those projects are completed, as we move forward, I think you'll see even more green projects. Many of the applications that have been made to me, I would say, satisfy your interest.

    But fundamentally, it's for the municipalities and the provincial governments we're dealing with to chose those priorities. In the case of the province of Quebec, it is very much driven by the priorities of the local municipalities, in collaboration with the provincial government, whose recommendations we generally have supported.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: While the minister responsible for CMHC is here, I would like to ask him a question on an issue he raised in his statement.

    In the 2003 budget, money was earmarked for affordable housing. However, it seems the program is not very flexible. Let me give you an example. Quebec spent all the money set aside in the first phase of the program and would like to use the second phase to build more affordable housing. However, Quebec has not been able to do so because certain provinces have not yet spent all the money contained in the phase 1 envelope.

    In the second phase, $320 million have been set aside for the provinces, and I want to know whether you intend to make that money available. Will you send Quebec a cheque in the second phase so that we can build more affordable housing? Is it also your intention to make this program more flexible, especially for provinces which have partnerships with organizations and municipalities?

[English]

    Hon. Andy Scott: Actually, the negotiations for the second round, the $320 million, are being undertaken even as we speak. The letters went out maybe three weeks ago. We've had conversations with our provincial counterparts. I would commend the Province of Quebec for their take-up on the first round, and I look forward to a significant interest in take-up in the second round. The relationship, in my mind, has been exemplary.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Has the money been sent? Has Quebec received its share under the second phase?

[English]

    Hon. Andy Scott: No, we're negotiating with the province right now.

º  (1600)  

[Translation]

    Le président: Thank you, Mr. Bigras.

[English]

    Mr. Herron, followed by Madam Neville, Mr. Godfrey, and the chair.

    Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I have a couple of questions. Overall, with respect to the infrastructure programs, do you see the role of Infrastructure Canada as a facilitator and partner for provinces and municipalities to obtain objectives that fit the criteria of your program, as opposed to the other way around, where the federal government would have their eye on a project and seek partners?

    Hon. Andy Scott: There may be exceptions that don't come immediately to my mind, but it's our interest to pursue what I would consider to be national objectives on the environment and sustainability, objectives we would all share. That's where I think we are. I would like to develop it, I'd like to refine it. I'd like to engage this committee in helping us bring more clarity to those objectives. However, I'm respectful of communities and provincial governments that are close to the ground and can be very helpful. In fact, I would suggest that 99.9% of what we've done has been suggested to us by local and provincial governments, and we measure projects against our national objectives. I think the $30 billion that has been spent since 1993 in this area has been, generally speaking, very well spent.

    Mr. John Herron: Let's say a given municipality clearly defines what its objective is, a city-size project. When they make it very clear in their own house that this is a project they want to go forward with, what are the next steps they need to take in order to obtain those types of funds? Do they need to have the province cheek and jowl with them?

    Hon. Andy Scott: Clearly, it is our preference to have as many orders of government involved as possible. However, it is not essential, not imperative under the strategic infrastructure fund that the province be a partner in the project. There's another position that we would seek from the province, to be supportive of the project. I think of the most recent investment in Halifax harbour. The partnership there was between the Government of Canada and the municipal government of Halifax. If we really have in mind that we can accomplish good things on sustainability with this money, it only makes sense that the more levels and orders of government you have involved, the better off you will be. So that would be our intention, but neither do we want not to do something we have a willing partner to participate in, either provincial or federal, simply because there's not a third partner. That's on the strategic infrastructure fund, to make the point.

    With the municipal rural infrastructure fund, the anticipated partnership involves one-third each, with projects being identified by municipalities.

    Mr. John Herron: With SIF, when a municipality that's large in nature has its act together on where it wants to go, how do they “apply” for that type of funding? Where are the appropriate forms? How do they notify your department when it's seriously time for them to engage?

    Hon. Andy Scott: The strategic infrastructure fund is administered by Infrastructure Canada, which would distinguish it from the municipal rural infrastructure fund or the Infrastructure Canada program, both of which have been administered by outside agencies. For strategic infrastructure you're dealing directly with Infrastructure Canada. We have very dedicated and competent personnel, who have now a great history in making these projects work. So I would invite you to get in touch with our department. I don't want to start my first meeting with the committee not acknowledging that I'm aware you already did. So I think you have a strong sense of how the program works in any case.

    I think it's important, though, because the project Mr. Herron refers to also speaks to the importance of making sure the community rallies around the project. A lot of what we have to accomplish requires very broad, experienced behavioural change, a grasp of the objectives we're trying to pursue. I think it's not enough just to pick and undertake a project, even if it's a wonderful project. If we can get more out of that in awareness, public participation, behavioural change, I think we're obliged to do that. That's one of the things I'd like to bring to this. So I would encourage the folks you've ably represented from Saint John, New Brunswick, to make sure the entire community is supportive of the project.

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Herron.

    Ms. Neville.

    Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you, Minister Scott, for coming.

    I have two questions, one related to the strategic infrastructure fund, the other to your housing portfolio.

    On the strategic infrastructure fund, what is left to be allocated? In asking about that, I want to comment on the importance to Manitoba of the Manitoba floodway, which was funded out of the strategic infrastructure fund. It allowed us to undertake a number of other projects out of other infrastructure funds. So that was really important.

    Second, the $320 million you announced in the second housing tranche you directed specifically to go to disability groups, aboriginal, whatever. Have you established criteria for that, or will it be done in negotiations with the provinces? One of the areas I'm particularly concerned about emanating from Manitoba, and maybe elsewhere, is urban aboriginal housing requests.

    Hon. Andy Scott: Contained in the letter that was sent to the provinces with regard to the $320-million second part of the affordable housing initiative coming from the 2003 budget was a recommendation to the provinces that they consider Canadians with disabilities, aboriginal Canadians, and new Canadians. I want to make it very clear that this wasn't a condition. Simply, from our perspective as a national government, we identified those areas of particular concern. That's the way we intended that be understood when we wrote to the provinces.

    As to the remaining money available under the strategic infrastructure fund, the remaining fund for the province of Manitoba is about $55 million. That is subject to the discussions that are going on between the Government of Canada, the City of Winnipeg, and the Province of Manitoba, but at this point the $55 million has not been committed specifically.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

    Finally, does urban aboriginal housing come under that $320 million, or is that separate?

    Hon. Andy Scott: That would come under the affordable housing program.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Okay. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Neville.

    Mr. Godfrey, please.

    Hon. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Welcome, Minister. It seems that the government really has a number of interesting files coming together. One is, as you say, bringing these three agencies under the general rubric of the environment and sustainability, and the other is the government's new interest in cities and communities, in which I have some interest myself.

    I guess what I'm interested in is that as the activities of the three agencies are seen more clearly through the lens of environmental sustainability, particularly if that's going to work out over the long haul for our cities and communities, I'm wondering what it means for each of them. It seems to me that, for example, in the case of Canada Lands, there is sometimes a potential conflict in the messages we've sent to Canada Lands in terms of maximizing value rather than using Canada Lands as an opportunity to advance sustainability, even if it means we don't get as high a return on the investment, so to speak.

    In the case of CMHC, I think even in the past there was a time when CMHC was more attentive to planning, insisting that municipalities had good plans that they would be part of. That was sort of the quid pro quo historically, and I get the sense that we've backed off a bit.

    Clearly, CMHC could in the urban world, for example, favour giving favourable mortgage insurance to those with houses that perhaps met R-2000 or that were more efficiently located from an environmental point of view, such as near a bus route or public transit so that they didn't need a car, which frees up more cash to pay off the mortgage. Infrastructure itself, it seems to me, is becoming progressively greener. Now, obviously we can't retrofit conditions on existing programs--that's not going to be fair--but I'm just wondering if there's a kind of global strategy that covers off all three agencies so that there's much greater rigour from an environmental point of view in measuring the sustainability of projects. Even if it goes against the local grain, for instance, we will use our agencies to advance the cause of sustainability, or implementing the Kyoto accord, or whatever else.

    What do you see as the policy implications for the three agencies under your portfolio as they move toward more sustainable communities?

º  (1610)  

    Hon. Andy Scott: As I said when I started, I think just the fact that the ministry's been created, and that the ministry's been created to include the infrastructure department and the crowns that we've mentioned....

    When you talk about municipal planning, and the role of the municipal plan in terms of decisions that would be taken by CMHC, clearly it works to our mutual advantage that the Infrastructure Canada program has a very active relationship with municipalities across the country, and I'd say an incredibly positive relationship with municipal organizations, national and otherwise. That puts us in a position where we can in fact pursue those kinds of objectives.

    In terms of the activity of both Canada Lands and CMHC in terms of the past, in the context of the environment committee--and frankly, I think they have good records in any case, independent of that--I think this is the first occasion we've had as a portfolio to in fact talk about the future. I think the kinds of values you speak of are ones that we're pursuing and that we'll be able to pursue now with even greater cohesion because of this combination of agencies with our department.

    Hon. John Godfrey: When future applications come in, I'm just curious to know whether you'll be tough in terms of adjudicating between projects that have a greater sustainability component versus, for example, infrastructure programs that might lead to more sprawl or greater spreading out and less density. Can you see a more aggressive future for sustainability through adjusted policies for the three agencies?

    Hon. Andy Scott: Absolutely, and I say that unequivocally. The reality is that this is the reason why, in my view, we've been brought together. So that will be top of mind for us going forward.

    I have no hesitation in saying that we've had this conversation with all the members of our team, and I'm quite excited about the prospects. In fact, we're looking at new ways, on top of ones that have worked in the past, to advance that cause.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

    Mr. Szabo, Mr. Mills, and the chair.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): In your comments, Mr. Minister, the subject matter of urban sprawl came up. This is a significant problem for communities like Toronto, the largest city in the country. It already has gridlock and congestion. It also has enormous projected growth.

    I'm wondering whether or not, since most of the municipal leaders in the GTA have already admitted that we didn't design and plan our cities very well, the lessons learned there are being applied by CMHC and others in terms of developing communities--for instance, rather than residential intensification and infill, etc., to deal with urban sprawl, in those newer communities in fact the lessons of urban sprawl have been learned and are now being applied. How does CMHC or related groups participate in addressing the problems of urban sprawl, at least in terms of prevention?

    Hon. Andy Scott: I'm going to give Karen an opportunity to think about this, but first I'll say that I believe one of the significant things we can add of value to this exercise, going forward, is to seek the kind of planning that I believe most communities would want to adhere to anyway, frankly, although I don't want to preach about this. I think we should be looking at calling upon municipalities to in fact provide their plans. I mentioned, for instance, that if we're going to invest in public transit, then we want to see other supportive policies taken in municipalities that will enhance the application. Those are the kinds of things we would pursue.

    In the context of the research component, I think this is something that we're going to really have to take significant advantage of, in terms of the new ministry, to take a leadership role in Canada. Frankly, CMHC has been quite stellar already--that's the reason I'm going to turn it over to Karen--in terms of showing leadership in housing in Canada. Now we can do it in a way that adds, I think, something more by virtue of the marriage of the agencies and the department I represent.

    Karen.

    Ms. Karen Kinsley (President, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation): Thank you.

    To follow up on the minister's point, we have of course been providing incentives through either our research program or, as has been mentioned, our mortgage insurance program to try to prevent urban sprawl through intensification and location-deficient housing. That's to try to deal with that within the core of the city. But where there are urban developments, we have also invested a great deal on the research side in developing best practices on sustainable community planning. We have guides that we've put out to the municipalities on the process to go through, and that type of activity. We have alternatives that we've researched that can be practically applied when they're looking at developing new communities outside of the urban area. And we could do things like design charettes and so on to try to influence municipal leaders and others on how those communities that are very supportive of sustainable objectives get planned.

    To build on the minister's point around the connection between the portfolio, an example we're working on is in fact looking at infrastructure cost as it relates to housing, and looking at the cost of doing it in conventional ways as distinct from perhaps some more sustainable ways, and trying to, again, publish that material and influence decision-makers to look at the alternatives, including the relative cost advantage.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I have just a quick supplementary, Mr. Chair.

    The argument for the need to develop more affordable housing units always seems to be supported by waiting lists from housing authorities. But the waiting lists from housing authorities are made up of people who are looking for social housing. There's a difference between affordable housing and social housing. What is CMHC's role in terms of alleviating the requirement for dignified housing for those who can't afford affordable housing?

º  (1620)  

    Ms. Karen Kinsley: Affordable housing and social housing we would see as being on a continuum. Social housing is housing for those people of lower income--i.e., they would need more or deeper assistance. Affordable housing would still be for those who cannot afford adequate decent housing--for instance, the working poor, where there is an element of income. So it's really a question of continuum of need, social housing being deeper than affordable housing.

    With regard to our current billion-dollar investment in affordable housing, the first tranche, $680 million, was largely targeted at the affordable housing component, or those people who would need a shallow form of subsidy. However, the second tranche, $320 million, is targeted at people who'd be on waiting lists. In fact, they must be on waiting lists for social housing.

    So we're trying to provide, within the broad notion of assisted housing, a continuum of solutions that deals with the levels of need.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Mills, the chair, and then we'll have a very good second round, as good as the first, I'm sure.

    Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, CPC): Thank you.

    I guess there are two areas I'd like to explore. The first one is a general one in terms of infrastructure.

    Now, if you meet with truckers, they'll tell you that they're using units that are twice as heavy as they used to be, and there are that many more of them. And they're passing over bridges that have this little stamp on the side saying “1954”, or “1965”, etc. That infrastructure is now almost critical; it's deteriorated to the point where it's becoming almost unsafe. As well, look at water treatment plants. Things like North Battleford brought this to...you know, 1956 construction, and the municipalities, for various reasons, have not kept them up to date. I wonder what the overall plan is to solve Canada's huge infrastructure problem in areas like that.

    Along with that is rapid transit. That's fine in Toronto and so on, with subways and so on, but for a lot of smaller cities it's a huge budget drain on them. There are buses with very few people on them, and yet they have to have them, because seniors need them and so on. They really are underutilized. To me, then, it would be education.

    So there are two questions, really, the infrastructure one and then the rapid transit one, how we're going to get people to get on those buses, particularly in a city like the one I come from, of 80,000, where the buses are so underutilized and a huge drain on the city's budget.

    The Chair: All that within five minutes.

    Hon. Andy Scott: There are a lot of answers, Mr. Chair, to the member's question.

    On how we are going to respond to this huge infrastructure dilemma we're facing as a country, let me just say that in the last 10 years we've spent $30 billion in Canada, $12 billion of that federal money. We have introduced the GST rebate in response to municipalities telling the national government that they need revenue sources. The Prime Minister has pledged to invest an additional amount of money. Discussions are under way right now as to how to do that. Generally, that discussion has been about gas tax. There'll be some mechanism that will see an investment in infrastructure beyond the programs that are significantly richer today than they were when they caused us to spend $30 billion in the last 10 years. The new programs are richer than was the case when we originally started. So I think there's a significant interest and a national preoccupation with this. Certainly, I feel it. As I said before, this has been identified in the department and given a pretty ambitious mandate.

    On the question of behaviour and so on, that speaks to the need to see these investments as opportunities to engage Canadians in sustainability, in the questions about the future of our country and our planet. These are issues where we cannot miss an opportunity when we have people's attention, and right now on these files we have people's attention. We cannot miss an opportunity to use good planning, to do good research, to engage Canadians, so they make the kinds of decisions that I think, if we gave them half a chance, they'd probably make. We need to make sure they understand the impact of all these things. That's why I think planning and research is so important. That's why where you live in relation to where the transit systems are and how we arrange our communities are critically important.

    So we're there, we're aware, and we're investing.

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Szabo said cities were built around the automobile. Psychologically, we're not much different from, say, Los Angeles, in that we don't think about not using an automobile. It seems to me that you start at grade one, at kindergarten. That's where the emphasis should be, that's what we should be targeting. I would like to see whatever department, yours or any other, start way back there, to get people thinking about that sort of thing. Condensing the cities, I guess, is what we're really talking about.

    Hon. Andy Scott: We do a significant amount of work with municipalities and with people who are interested in questions of sustainability. If I reflect on the conferences and engagements I've had since last December, in many cases I've, in fact, dealt with school teachers and people who are committed to this, and I haven't missed an opportunity to talk about this. I believe that's part of the value-added that the combination of these agencies and this department will bring. I really intend to act on the opportunities that are available to us.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Hubbard.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

    One can't help but be enthusiastic listening to the minister and the many different programs that might be, could be, and are available.

    To follow up on Mr. Herron's intervention about the rural infrastructure, he talked about where you apply, who makes the decisions, where we come from with it. You say you are negotiating with the various provinces to try to put this in place. Will the applications be made to the federal government or to the provincial government regarding the rural infrastructure program?

    Hon. Andy Scott: I want to make sure it's clearly understood. Mr. Herron was referring to a strategic infrastructure fund application. I'm aware of the application, so I happen to know that. If you were listening to it and thinking he was talking about the municipal rural infrastructure fund, I probably confused the subject, because I talked about making an application specifically to the ministry. Let me make it very clear. The strategic infrastructure fund is administered by Infrastructure Canada. The municipal rural infrastructure fund, the one most members of Parliament would have a history with, is the one-third each program. The processes are not exactly the same. The agencies that are administering the program depend on the province or the part of Canada. In the case of the Atlantic provinces it's the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. They represent the federal government in this process.

    Basically, municipalities make application, in the province of New Brunswick in the case of Mr. Hubbard, and those applications are forwarded to a co-management committee of the federal and provincial governments. The reason it is organized that way is that everybody has an investment in the project. So the decision has been taken, in the case of our province, that will allow the municipalities to make the applications and identify their priorities. The province and the federal government receive it at the same time and decide which projects will go forward based on the criteria. In our case, I've mentioned what the criteria are. The province may have different priorities. Generally, we hope they are as committed to the environment as we are.

    In some provinces--I mention this because I think it's important for members--the municipalities are actually involved in the decision-making process at a level that, in my experience and in Mr. Hubbard's experience, wouldn't be the case. The municipal organizations in the provinces have asked to be more involved. In some cases the provinces are receptive to that request, in some cases they are not. Basically, the project comes out of the community of Minto, it goes from the community of Minto to a joint management committee, which is federal-provincial, and decisions are taken as to which projects are approved based on the quality of those projects.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: To be clear, then, Mr. Minister, with application under the new program, the Province of New Brunswick will receive the applications and bring them to a desk where both provincial and federal people are working towards--

    Hon. Andy Scott: No. To make it clearer, the Municipality of Minto will make an application to a joint management committee--that is a part of the contribution agreement--and that committee will jointly decide. Both levels of government are making that decision.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: I would like, Mr. Minister, to put on the table that a very significant problem we have in the province of New Brunswick is that the applications go first to the provincial desk, and they decide what is brought to the federal and provincial table. A great number of municipalities do have serious concerns. I hope you will address that when you're making your agreement with the Province of New Brunswick this time.

    Hon. Andy Scott: I think you'll find, if you read the contribution agreement that is in the hands of the province today, that change has been made. It happened before that the application went from the municipality to the province, and we were brought in later. This time the application is made to a joint committee, which is, I would agree, as a member of Parliament for New Brunswick, a significant improvement in the program.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: I would like to thank you and your officials for that.

    Hon. Andy Scott: I very much appreciate the thanks, but perhaps my predecessor and Mr. Mitchell had more to do with that than I did.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: In any case, thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Do I understand correctly that the chart you are distributing on Infrastructure Canada program covers a period since the inception of the ICP in the year 2000? Is this the total allocation for the last three and a half years? If not, what period does it cover? The chart has no date.

    Hon. Andy Scott: What's the title?

    The Chair: “Infrastructure Canada Program, 'Green' Projects”, in dollars, for which the federal contribution is $929 million. Which period does this cover?

    Hon. Andy Scott: This would cover the period since 1993?

    Mrs. Cécile Cléroux (Assistant Deputy Minister, Program Operations, Infrastructure Canada): No, only 2000 to 2006.

    The Chair: Since 2000, until the year 2004 ?

    Mrs. Cécile Cléroux: Until 2006.

    The Chair: Would you mind coming to the table?

    Hon. Andy Scott: Yes, please.

    The Chair: Please give us your name for the record. Welcome to the committee.

    Mrs. Cécile Cléroux: I'm Cécile Cléroux, assistant deputy minister at Infrastructure Canada, program operations.

    The table you have in front of you indicates the green projects that have been selected to date under the Infrastructure Canada program. Some of those projects have started construction and some will be starting construction. They have to be completed by 2006.

    The Chair: What will be the total allocation by 2006 at the federal level, $929 million?

    Mrs. Cécile Cléroux: For those projects the total is $2 billion, but for the green projects, as they are selected at this time, it is the number that you have in front of you, $900 million. We're almost at the end of the selection of projects, but there is still selection of projects going on across the country, so the number will continue to increase for green projects.

º  (1635)  

    The Chair: Is it correct, then, to conclude that over a span of six years, under the heading “green projects”, the federal contribution is $929 million?

    Mrs. Cécile Cléroux: These are the projects we have selected to date, but we still have to select more. So it will be a bit higher at the end of the six years.

    Hon. Andy Scott: If I understand the chair's question, this is only the Infrastructure Canada program. If you recall, the objective of that program was to have 50% green. In addition to that, I can see us moving forward. In fact, as I said in my opening remarks, we would like to see approvals on municipal rural infrastructure programs this fall. That would be in addition to this, as would anything we've done under the strategic infrastructure fund. Much of that has also been green.

    The Chair: What then would be the total? Can you give us the overall picture of green projects? This is the environment committee, so it is of particular interest to us.

    Hon. Andy Scott: If it is organized in that fashion, I will give it to you right now. The timing of the Infrastructure Canada program projects is such that we can give you this kind of information on that program. The numbers are probably somewhat higher. With the municipal rural infrastructure fund projects, we have established 60% of a $1-billion program as green. That would be our share. Under the strategic infrastructure fund, which is worth $4 billion, many of the projects you would refer to as green, TTC, RAV, large harbour cleanups, and so on.

    I will guarantee to you that we will be able to give you the best assessment, but most of the projects with the other two programs, the municipal rural infrastructure fund and the strategic infrastructure fund, are in the future, so it's difficult to say exactly what the numbers would be.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Let's move now to the strategic fund. When I read the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre, I wonder how that made its way and soaked up $222 million, or a twinning of Route 175 soaking up $262 million. Then you find the Red River Floodway, which is good, Nunavut water and sewer, $40 million, and P.E.I. sewage and water, $15 million. How is it that these projects of twinning of routes and the Vancouver Convention Centre come in as strategic? What makes them so strategic?

    Hon. Andy Scott: Probably the best way to explain it would be to say that if I were the infrastructure minister a year ago, I'd be appearing before the industry committee. As a result, the industry committee's view of strategic would be different from the environment committee's view of strategic. And I'm here to say that a change has taken place, moving forward.

    The Chair: But do the people in the Department of Industry believe it is a federal responsibility to twin routes or to complete highways? Are you saying that they have redefined the Constitution and the federal powers?

    Hon. Andy Scott: The strategic infrastructure fund, when it was established, identified a number of areas of investment. It was designed to deal with large strategic projects. A good example is the Trans-Canada Highway in the province of New Brunswick. The capacity of the province to undertake that project would be questionable, and as a result--

    The Chair: Is Highway 30 part of the Trans-Canada route? Forgive my ignorance.

    Hon. Andy Scott: It's part of the national highway system.

    The Chair: No, no, not the national highway. Is it part of the Trans-Canada route?

    Hon. Andy Scott: No. I'm sorry, I was using it as my example--

    The Chair: And is Route 175 part of the Trans-Canada route?

    Hon. Andy Scott: No.

    The Chair: Well, then, why were they approved?

    Hon. Andy Scott: Because they're part of the national highway system, which makes them eligible, and the decision was taken.... The Government of Canada, in collaboration with the provinces, identified those as their strategic infrastructure priorities.

º  (1640)  

    The Chair: How do you qualify to become part of the national highway system?

    Hon. Andy Scott: There's a process by which the ministers of transportation with the various provinces and the federal government meet and then decide what is the national highway system.

    The Chair: Why isn't VIA Rail, for instance, included as a strategic item? Is VIA Rail perhaps not part of the national railway system?

    Hon. Andy Scott: As I said, in terms of where to invest the money, the decisions are taken collaboratively between the Government of Canada and either municipal partners, in some cases, or provincial partners. That's essentially the way in which the department has operated--

    The Chair: So in the case of VIA Rail, does it therefore mean, following your explanation--which I accept, as it's very clear--that VIA Rail is relegated to the category of orphans? Where does VIA Rail go for strategic funding?

    Hon. Andy Scott: I think Transport Canada would be one possibility.

    The Chair: Mr. Minister, in your opening remarks you made reference to water several times. I wonder whether by any chance your department has calculated how large the budget should be to meet the drinking water requirements for Canada. In other words, what would be the ideal budget to meet that requirement?

    Hon. Andy Scott: I appreciate, Mr. Chair, your supporting my commitment to the department in the context of the planning that needs to be done in order to make the kinds of strategic decisions that need to be made. Quite frankly, the kind of information that would be necessary in order for us to make the decisions we need to make currently exists in a variety of municipalities. I'm guessing that a variety of provincial governments have pieces of the information. I don't think it's brought together nearly as well as it should be, and I think that has to be part of this process going forward, particularly now that we are seized with an environmental mandate.

    The Chair: Would you have a ballpark figure?

    Hon. Andy Scott: Not that I could provide. No, I would say it would be not responsible of me to put one forward. However, I do want to say that since this department was formed, this has been a major preoccupation, not just as it relates specifically to water but to all of these infrastructure decisions. We need to--

    The Chair: Are you likely to have this figure a year from now, for instance?

    Hon. Andy Scott: I mean, I would be guessing, Mr. Chair. As a ministry, what we want to do is gather the information from the sources of that information across the country.

    The Chair: Finally, to complete the first round of questions, the Government of Canada has allocated $3.5 billion to the Kyoto implementation. Of this amount, how much can you claim, or do you plan to claim, in order to implement Canada's commitment under the infrastructure program?

    Hon. Andy Scott: The money you speak of is available to Environment Canada, not to Infrastructure Canada. So the money I'm speaking of is in addition to that, I think you'll be pleased to know. As a result of the kind of collaborations that I spoke of when I talked about the fact that we have to be creative in terms of how we invest our money, I can see us collaborating with our friends in Environment Canada on those kinds of projects.

    The Chair: So $3.5 billion is the allocation by the Government of Canada as a whole, but you don't have any claims from that fund--

    Hon. Andy Scott: No.

    The Chair: --that you expect to receive. Is that correct?

    Hon. Andy Scott: As I say, Mr. Chair, the money we're investing in those issues is on top of that.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Second round, starting with Mr. Bailey.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I want to follow along somewhat the same lines. On page 2, under “Federal Involvement”, there are different headings: “Program”, “Federal Funding”, “Funding Period”, “Department”, and in the last column, “Amount levered”. Could you explain what that last column means?

    Hon. Andy Scott: I think I have the right page. I know what the concept is, in any event.

    When the Government of Canada seeks, let's say, partners for the municipal rural fund, or in this case...or whatever the program. When we seek partners on, say, a one-third, one-third, one-third basis, if we put up $3 million and we draw $6 million, we've levered $6 million--or the total becomes $9 million.

º  (1645)  

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Okay. I'd like you to look at that same page, where it says “Prairie Grain Roads”. Now, if you're going to have prairie grain roads, you're going to involve the municipal government and you're obviously going to involve the provincial government and the federal government.

    Under “Federal Funding”, it says $175 million, correct?

    Hon. Andy Scott: Correct.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: That's over a period of five years, as I see it, and it's under Agriculture Canada.

    Now, who gets the credit for these roads, Agriculture Canada or Infrastructure Canada, and who's funding them?

    Hon. Andy Scott: It predates my being here, but it's a federal infrastructure program delivered by Agriculture Canada.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Finally, in the last column here it says “$159 million”. There are three governments involved with this. I still haven't got a clear understanding, as I read these various forms I have here, Mr. Minister, of what the $159 million refers to.

    Hon. Andy Scott: That means the other partners in the project, what they contributed.

    I'd have to seek explanation as to who they are.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: Well, that would be $175 million, sir, plus the $159 million we've put in.

    Hon. Andy Scott: That's correct.

    Mr. Roy Bailey: All right. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bailey.

    Monsieur Bigras has gone, and Mr. Herron.

    Madam Neville.

    Ms. Anita Neville: Not right now, thank you.

[Translation]

    Le président: Mr. Marcil, you have the floor.

    Hon. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Thank you.

    Mr. Minister, under the current infrastructure program, for cities with a population of 250,000 or less... Municipalities, at least those in Quebec—I don't really know what the situation is like in other provinces—want to spend more money on waterworks. This was used as a basis for establishing that 60 per cent of program funds would be allocated to water treatment projects, clean drinking water and similar things. As for the remaining 40 per cent, is the government willing, in its ongoing negotiations with Quebec and other provinces, to create a third round to finance projects which have nothing to do with water treatment plants or clean drinking water? I'm thinking, for instance, of the construction of drop-in centres, arenas and so on, as was the case under the former program.

[English]

    Hon. Andy Scott: The baseline for Canada that has been established under the municipal rural infrastructure fund is 60%. We're negotiating with the provinces. The number, under the Canada infrastructure program, is something in the vicinity of 50%, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that we could push this to 60%. However, I don't want to pre-empt any of those negotiations. I know in some cases it will be considerably higher than 60%.

    First of all, I want to clarify that when I say 60%, that's in addition to water, waste treatment, and other kinds of green projects. It could be building remediation in the context of retrofitting, in the context of energy efficiency. So there's a broader definition of green than just water. The projects that would be eligible beyond that include local roads, recreational and cultural buildings, and so on. Those would be the kinds of projects that would be eligible, on balance.

[Translation]

    Hon. Serge Marcil: I have another brief question. The first infrastructure program, which was created when I was a minister in the Quebec government, obviously used the same formula: one third, one third, one third. However, every municipality had a share based on its borrowing ability. An amount was determined for a small village of 1,000 or 2,000 people, and so on. Other infrastructure programs were created, but they did not take borrowing ability into account. In fact, some municipalities or regions were penalized because the governments of Quebec, Ontario or Alberta may have favoured only large urban areas. As a result, the smaller municipalities often did not get their share of funding for the construction of roads, sidewalks and other things. I was told that the reason why the original formula was not used anymore was because the Auditor General thought it was flawed. But was the formula flawed because it was more difficult for her to audit the system or because it could not be implemented? Mr. Minister, I am not criticizing you, quite the opposite, I think you are doing an excellent job in this area, but I thought that the formula, which enabled each municipality to access infrastructure funds, be it in the amount of $100,000 of $200,000 or a million dollars, gave those municipalities the opportunity to move ahead on certain projects if they were in a position to do so. As it now stands, if the Government of Quebec, for instance, does not make a certain municipal or regional projects a priority, that municipality or region is penalized.

º  (1650)  

[English]

    Hon. Andy Scott: To begin with, it works a little differently province by province, but I think we should also reflect back on what happened when the original infrastructure program was announced. As I remember it, generally speaking it was seen as a jobs program. In the first round in infrastructure, when the projects were announced, I remember there was always the consideration of how many jobs were created and how many jobs would be engaged going forward. It was very much a jobs-driven program. When it's a jobs-driven program, then you can measure it against the jobs involved in the project.

    I think what happened over time--and I wasn't involved in making the decisions that changed the way in which the program worked--was that as the unemployment rate came down.... The program was extremely popular, and it did good things in communities, so the government was committed to the program. However, its objectives changed, and as its objectives changed, then I think the observation made by those observing, including the Auditor General, was that if the objective was environmental, then how could you artificially or arbitrarily decide that there were environmental projects everywhere across...or that you needed to bring an environmental lens to the program?

    I'm overstating it, because I don't think it was put in that strong a language, but I think it evolved in that direction. As a result, I think, you saw needs driving this more than geography.

    For my part, I believe we have needs relatively generally applied across the country, and I think you can speak to those needs and still see investment in communities across the country. I think we all have them. But I think that's the reason why it changed somewhat. I experienced the same changes myself, in my own community.

    At the end of the day, I think we have a national objective in this case, and we need to state it clearly. We need to collaborate with municipalities and provincial governments to seek partnerships that will allow us to pursue those objectives, and fundamentally those that lean in favour of environmental projects. That should drive our decision-making.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marcil.

    Mr. Barnes, Mr. Mills, Mr. Hubbard, and then the chair.

    Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, CPC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    When I went down through the list of CSIF projects, I saw “Newfoundland and Labrador Broadband”, for $5 million. The date of the announcement was June 20, 2003. Of course, that was part of the announcement in Grand Falls-Windsor, when the committee was so pleased to hear that there was going to be broadband brought into the area.

    Just recently, the former ACOA minister announced a broadband project for our northern peninsula, but to my understanding the $5 million was already allotted. Other areas are now calling, wondering if there has been a change, or if there has been an increase in money for broadband within the project, because of the latest announcement made a couple of weeks ago by the former ACOA minister on broadband.

    I'm just wondering, was the $5 million used, is there new money coming out, or was some of the $5 million not used?

º  (1655)  

    Hon. Andy Scott: Guy is probably going to answer this in detail, but I'm going to offer a bit of an explanation generally so you can understand the process. I know this question of announcing, reannouncing, and so on comes up as part of the political debate that goes on in the country.

    The reality is that because we are working with partners, there's a whole series of decisions that are made to get from the point where you decide what your priorities are, to the point where you decide on the project around that priority, to the point where you agree on a funding arrangement. All of those decisions are critical to the project.

    I don't know whether that applies to the project you're referring to specifically--I know that Mr. Bujold is going to tell me in a minute--but I do want to make that point, because I get inquiries about this all the time. It is very legitimate to say that the three levels of government can decide that their priorities are going to be these objectives, these broad principles, and later decide that the manifestation of that decision is this; and later again, it's completely legitimate to say we found funding from other sources. We're announcing very different things in a very important process.

    Does that explanation cover Mr. Barnes' example, or do we have new money?

    The Chair: How can we say no?

    Mr. Bujold, can you introduce yourself?

[Translation]

    Mr. Guy Bujold (Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications, Infrastructure Canada): Good afternoon, my name is Guy Bujold and I am the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister for Infrastructure Canada.

[English]

    I must admit I'm not familiar with the details of the project that you refer to, but let me add to the minister's comments.

    There is now a series of federal programs that can be brought to bear on infrastructure programs. First of all, at Industry Canada there's the brand program, which I'm sure you're probably aware of. It funded business cases that have now gone through a first round of assessment. From that, successful candidates have been identified where projects might be funded.

    Minister Scott and our department are responsible for the second tranche of broadband-related money, and that is the strategic infrastructure fund. There you will find the northern satellite initiative, which was announced back in October. Together with moneys from the Space Agency and Industry Canada, it totals roughly $180 million. It's a huge project, intended to connect remote and rural communities all over the north, in the northern provinces and territories.

    In addition to that, the former infrastructure Canada program and its successor program, the municipal rural infrastructure program, have broadband as an eligible investment category. What's interesting, particularly for small communities, is that we have the flexibility under the broadband category to actually increase the federal contribution well beyond one-third, one-third, one-third, to go as high as 75%. So this is a significant area of investment for the federal government. We're trying to bring together those various streams of programming so we can move that priority ahead.

    Mr. Rex Barnes: There's always confusion about that. The announcements were all made, and then all of a sudden one popped out of the air two weeks ago. People were saying, is there new money, or did someone not fulfill their obligations? Of course, it was taken away from them.

    So are you saying there are two funds: one from Industry Canada for broadband, and one under your department for broadband? Are they doing the same work or the same job, or is it a different criterion for broadband?

    Mr. Guy Bujold: I think those three programs are working in a complementary fashion to each other. The strategic infrastructure fund was to pay for the birds in the sky, as we say, so we would be able to connect. The other programs are intended to cover the costs on land to receive the signal and move the signal out from the ground stations into the homes, businesses, and public institutions in the various communities across the country.

    We're trying very hard to avoid duplication. We are working on the broadband initiatives under the municipal rural infrastructure and infrastructure Canada programs. We're using Industry Canada as our delivery arm.

»  (1700)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Barnes.

    Mr. Mills, Mr. Hubbard, and then the chair.

    Hon. Andy Scott: If I may, Mr. Chair, I think this point also speaks to a question we were asked earlier about who leads this.

    I think the fact that we have some part of the investment in connectivity in Industry Canada would speak to the fact that the Government of Canada has some ideas as to what should be done in that regard, and the fact that we have some of it in the municipal rural infrastructure fund simply says that local communities also would have ideas in that regard, and this way they could both be supported.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Scott.

    Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Bob Mills: When I see this kind of money and I look at some of the projects, of course, I can't help but wonder about accountability of spending. The kinds of things that make you suspicious are from the old infrastructure program, when people built skyboxes and golf courses. Obviously, someone made those decisions--and you know the examples I'm referring to.

    Then I hear in the last couple of weeks that there's close to $1 billion--now, I don't know whether it's from your department or where it's from--for infrastructure things. It's too bad Mr. Herron wasn't here; I believe it's in his riding that there was $500,000 for library shelving. When we see that sort of infrastructure and the kind of politics that's happening there, you do have to start wondering about or questioning the accountability of that money, the spending of that money.

    There are many other examples--I won't belabour them. But how are you going to keep track of all of this and be sure that it is, in fact, for water and sewers, roads and bridges, and things like that, and not golf courses and skyboxes?

    Hon. Andy Scott: Generally there's a series of criteria that have to be met. There is a very complicated process of contribution agreements with our other partners. Generally speaking, as I said before, under the municipal rural infrastructure fund the projects are identified by municipalities, and the municipalities are accountable at their level of government. They push the project up, and then the province and the federal government have to agree on the projects. We're each accountable at our level of government in the context of the criteria that define this.

    Reference was made to the fact that in the second round there were questions asked about whether or not you could reconcile a geographic application of money with a needs-based program. We responded, and the program has changed as a result of that.

    So we have very clear guidelines in terms of what it is that qualifies under our various investment categories, and we have three different levels of government committed to most of these projects, all of which are accountable to their constituents.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Hubbard, please.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

    Going back to some of the follow-up on some of those, on page 2 you have this program called cultural spaces Canada for $80 million. The funding period is 2001 to 2004. Does that program have any money left in it? I've heard that some groups were looking for additional moneys for this year, and most of it was committed or spent. Is that program totally...?

    Hon. Andy Scott: If I go back to the agriculture example, I presume that program was delivered by Canadian Heritage. It's included in Infrastructure's inventory, but it was delivered by Canadian Heritage. But for the spending of $80 million, we got $480 million of additional money spent on cultural initiatives. That's a significant leverage.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Is there any money left in that fund?

    Hon. Andy Scott: I don't believe so. It's administered by Heritage, so that's the reason why--

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Now it's administered by you, but it has no money? Is that what we're saying in this?

    Hon. Andy Scott: We have never administered the cultural spaces program.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: No, but if that program were to continue, would it be administered by your department? Is that what you're saying on page 2?

»  (1705)  

    Hon. Andy Scott: Mr. Hubbard, what I would suggest is that because cultural infrastructure is eligible under the municipal rural infrastructure fund and under the strategic infrastructure fund, then ultimately we've replaced that activity, for all intents and purposes.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: So groups, then, that might be thinking in terms of that program now would go to the other program to look for assistance. That's what we're saying here.

    Hon. Andy Scott: Generally, that would be municipal rural infrastructure.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Yes, and that's rather disappointing, because that was really not the way that program worked under the Department of Heritage.

    But in any case, when we go to the other ones, like the strategic infrastructure fund—I know our chair was getting to where and how and so forth, in terms of these--when you think of the money that we're talking about on these sheets, how much is left? Is it all committed? We don't want to get groups all excited about something and suddenly find there's no money left. It might be good, if you want this committee to have some concern with and input on it, to express to us what sort of money is on the table in these programs. I know some of them are completely filled, but others....

    Hon. Andy Scott: Under the strategic infrastructure fund, which is one you spoke to, there's $1 billion uncommitted. The other reason--

    Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): For what region? Is that across Canada?

    Hon. Andy Scott: There is $1 billion left of the $4 billion that was available in total.

    Hon. Diane Marleau: There is a lot of money in Ontario, I think. Or has it been committed?

    Hon. Andy Scott: There is $250 million left in Ontario.

    I don't want to lose sight of the fact that in addition to this, as a matter of public policy, what I'm hoping to do is engage the committee in helping to add your incredible advice to what we do as we go forward. Having been a member for 10 years, the infrastructure Canada program...and I'm going to have them challenge me, because I call it the infrastructure Canada program, and every time I do that they tell me that's not what it's called. But we all know that with the infrastructure program that existed from 1993, 1997, and 2000, even as it was almost exhausted, the municipalities, in anticipation of another round, were beginning to work up their proposals. So what I'm saying is that in that spirit, I would hope to engage the committee in helping us bring more definition to this kind of investment in Canada.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Finally, Mr. Chair, in terms of the municipal infrastructure program, which is really administered by FCM, if I'm right, has there been good take-up on that program, or has there been a problem—I know it's beyond you, in a sense--in terms of money being available to municipalities? For our own definition, has it been adequately taken up by the various municipal groups across the country? Some think there is too much red tape, too much bureaucracy, with trying to access those funds.

    Hon. Andy Scott: I'm going to defer to Guy on this one.

    Mr. Guy Bujold: Thank you.

    Through you, Mr. Chair, the FCM green fund, as you were saying, is money that was given by the federal government in two tranches to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to support innovation around projects. It's not essentially the projects themselves, it's the innovation component of the project that is intended to be supported by those moneys.

    I think it's fair to say it's taken some time to get that project going, but municipal governments are becoming more and more aware of it. The publication of the “InfraGuide”, the guide on sustainable development of infrastructure that was also supported by moneys outside of this, has given municipal governments more tools so that they can access this type of funding. So we expect that we're on the sharply ascending part of the curve essentially in terms of take-up for those moneys.

    But given that it's an endowment, the notion is that it's not the capital that they want to invest, but rather the fruit of the capital, so that this fund will continue for some time.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: With it there is money available. Are they requesting more money, or are they satisfied with what they have? You're quite satisfied that it is being taken up and being utilized?

»  (1710)  

    Mr. Guy Bujold: I think as far as innovation money is concerned, I would hardly want to put myself in the position of speaking for municipal governments in saying there is enough money. I think the real request would be if you were to put more investment into the infrastructure itself--the roads, the bridges, the highways, the broadband, the things that you were referring to awhile ago--that's what they would be coming to the government for.

    Hon. Andy Scott: Very specifically, in the course of the last few months, I've had a number of meetings with the FCM, big city mayors, a number of regional mayors, such as the Atlantic mayors, the northern New Brunswick mayors, the southern British Columbia mayors, and so on. Generally speaking, when they make a request of me in the context of what the infrastructure program would look like going forward, they're a little afraid. I'll say this about the one-third and some of the very small communities having access to the program because of the one-third. I think that's one of the challenges we need to attend to.

    They are very committed, in fact, to the environmental thrust being taken by this program and the Government of Canada. I think there's a tendency to want to reserve a certain percent that wouldn't necessarily be green, for no other reason than that there are municipalities in Canada that have been very, very strong in the area of green investment themselves, and that may have some project they would like to do and participate in with this program, and that shouldn't be penalized, if you like, for the fact that they have been so strong historically. So that's perhaps a small area of exception.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

    I have a few questions to clarify our thinking a little bit, Mr. Minister.

    On page two, the allocation to CSIF is $4 billion, but on page six, the CSIF fund allocations by sector add to maybe $2.6 billion. Can you explain why there is this gap between the $4 billion on page two and the amounts that would be arrived at on page six, which are less than $4 billion?

    Secondly, could you indicate what the rush is now for qualifying under this year's CSIF? What are the criteria for acceptance?

    Hon. Andy Scott: To speak to the dollar amounts first—

    The Chair: In other words, the two don't correspond, but there's nothing wrong with that. I only want to understand, following up on a question by Mr. Hubbard, what is left. It would appear that there is more left on the table than $1 billion, if you add up the amounts allocated on page six and if you look at page two as to the total allocation of $4 billion. That is one question.

    The other one is, how do you qualify? What are the criteria?

    Hon. Andy Scott: There is a list of....

    Do we have the actual list of criteria under the strategic infrastructure fund that I can refer to?

    Mr. Guy Bujold: We do, and they're also on the departmental website.

    Hon. Andy Scott: They're on the department's website.

    Guy's looking at it now.

»  (1715)  

    The Chair: Yes, but we don't read the department's website before we turn off the light at night and go to sleep.

    Hon. Andy Scott: No, I understand.

    Mr. Guy Bujold: We do that, Mr. Chair.

    Hon. Andy Scott: Mr. Chair, I think that going forward, we want to give more definition to the strategic infrastructure fund.

    Mr. Chair, given the nature of this committee, I think the committee will welcome the direction we want to give it. In the past, I think that the definition of “strategic” was perhaps more general, because in the case of the province of New Brunswick, strategic infrastructure was a four-lane highway; but in the case of Nova Scotia, it was investment in cleaning up the harbour in Halifax.

    What I want to seize on is the opportunity that is suggested by the fact that this ministry is now a stand-alone ministry and has been specifically identified to be a part of the environment portfolio. That is the reason why we would give the strategic infrastructure fund that environmental direction going forward.

    The Chair: That's very helpful.

    “Strategic” has many dimensions, as we all know. It has a military dimension, and an economic, social, and environmental one. We're trying desperately to understand what dimension you accept in determining what is strategic in the implementation of your assignment.

    Hon. Andy Scott: In the past it could have been economic development, it could have been transportation, it could have been environmental, it could have been many of the things that you've listed. I'm here meeting with you to give definition to this program going forward. That is what I'm here to say. I think we would want to bring more clarity to the environmental mandate I believe we've been given.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Can we hear your comments? I have a couple more questions.

    Mr. Guy Bujold: On your question with regard to the clarification of the two displays of moneys, one total is what the government has said it wishes to spend in those programs in the two budgets, $4 billion. The pie chart you have in front of you simply displays those projects we've funded to date.

    The Chair: So it's roughly $2.6 billion?

    Mr. Guy Bujold: Yes. There is $1 billion unallocated. The chart does not yet contain some very recent announcements that have been made. For instance, I don't believe the Toronto transit announcement is there. Also, it does not include, because this is a department that is not--

    The Chair: What is the date of this chart on page 6?

    Mr. Guy Bujold: I believe it's as of a month or two weeks ago. We can give you a reconciliation--

    The Chair: So there's no account of the allocation to the TTC.

    Mr. Guy Bujold: Mr. Chair, if it's acceptable, we will send you a full reconciliation between the tables and the pie chart, but I wish to make a point. Given that this is a department that does not have an A base, its administrative costs also come out of the $4 billion that have been allocated, and the research dollars the minister spoke about in his presentation are also taken out of the--

    The Chair: The public transit percentage would be larger than the 39% shown on this chart?

    Mr. Guy Bujold: If I'm correct, yes, it would be higher.

    The Chair: It came as good news to read that you have an allocation of 4% to broadband. I thought the broadband initiative was dead. Evidently, it is still alive. Is this percentage likely to expand, remain the same, or be reduced, considering its tremendous potential in educational terms?

    Mr. Guy Bujold: It will depend, Mr. Chair, on whether, with the remaining $1 billion, roughly, we have not allocated, the provinces come forward and state that broadband projects are their priorities.

    The Chair: The next question has to do with the national guide to sustainable municipal infrastructure, and it goes back to a question on urban sprawl from Mr. Szabo, a brilliant question. I would like to know, since almost $1.9 million has been allocated to it, when this guide will be completed and what effect it will have on your thinking.

    Mrs. Cécile Cléroux: Phase one is completed. We have 26 guidelines that have been produced by phase one. Phase two is on its way. It will be completed in 18 months. We'll have another, if I remember correctly, 16 booklets prepared. We are right now working with the NRC and the FCM looking at the sustainability of the national guide in the future. As of now we are contributing 80% of the cost; the remaining 20% is being incurred mostly in kind and a little bit by NRC. We have to look at the sustainability and see how we will be able to finance it in the future and by what means we will be able to continue the work that is being done right now with a network of groups across the Canada from different municipalities, and the provincial governments in some cases. We are hopeful that in about a year from now we will have a project to see how we will be able to sustain such an initiative. It's comparable to what was started as the building code 50 or 60 years ago. It's really to provide more guidance to--

»  (1720)  

    The Chair: The building code was mandatory; this is only a guide. So there is a big difference between the two.

    Mrs. Cécile Cléroux: You are absolutely right. The building code is now mandatory, but when it started, it was not. It was the same thing. It's really the first generation of being able to provide guidance to the practice for infrastructure construction in this municipal organization. We have to look exactly at the issue of whether we should implement or enforce something that would really be more of a requirement instead of something that is recommended.

    The Chair: To what extent will the office of infrastructure use the guide, and to what extent will the office of infrastructure expect the municipalities to use the guide?

    Hon. Andy Scott: If I may, Mr. Chair, that was part of my opening comments about my desire to see our ministry in fact use the investments that we're making and use the relationship that we have with municipalities and the provinces to do exactly that.

    But I would want to do this in collaboration with you, as a committee and as parliamentarians, and the other very invested partners--the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, for one--that have come forward with ideas as to how this might be done. I'd like to see this done collaboratively, but I'd like to see it done, I think, in the spirit in which you asked the question.

    The Chair: In the spirit in which I asked the question? I don't really know in what spirit I asked it, but to what extent will the municipalities be expected to be guided by the guide?

    Hon. Andy Scott: The extent to which we would cause that to happen has yet to be determined. It's the best way that I can say this, since we have had a clearly environmental mandate only since December. We're working on the impact of our new mandate in terms of these programs.

    As I said in my opening comments, I'm exploring the various possibilities that could exist to cause municipalities to provide plans to actually demonstrate that they are in fact doing the things that these investments are intended to cause them to do. The extent to which we would demand it has not been determined.

    The Chair: To pursue further the question by Mr. Szabo, to what extent will the guide be capable of being used to prevent further urban sprawl?

    Mrs. Cécile Cléroux: Right now, in the guide, urban sprawl is not one of the topics that have been selected. The basic selection of topics was really in the basic municipal core, so we're going with water; the way to refurbish municipal buildings in a sustainable fashion; how to change the energy consumption right now of municipal buildings to make them more sustainable; how to retrofit the underground infrastructure. So it's really the basic elements that are part of the municipalities. There was nothing existing of best practices. They have really started with the basic ones.

    At this time, I'm pleased with the negotiations that are under way for the municipal rural areas. I didn't have a chance to brief the minister about that. Already we have provinces that are ready to work with the results of the guide because they've been active in producing the guide. They're ready to be able to work with the municipal association because it's really working well right now with the negotiations that are coming to the table.

    We're really progressing and making sure that the guide will be the base of some of the improvements that will be part of the new municipal rural infrastructure fund. We are really seeing that the investments that have been done are now being included in the next generation of programs. It's not yet a requirement, but we're going in the direction of uptake.

    There are really a lot of municipalities that have done it on their own, and now provinces are ready to take it. It won't be across the board, but we really have a good direction right now at this time.

»  (1725)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Minister, in the spirit of consultations that you have so generously launched this afternoon, are you in a position to indicate whether the guide, given the interest shown by Mr. Szabo, me, and I'm sure many other members, will then include the control or the prevention of urban sprawl, in view of the fact that it is not included in the items mentioned?

    Hon. Andy Scott: Yes, and beyond that, the policy framework within which Infrastructure Canada works is just being developed. It was a department inside Industry Canada six months ago, and we're now putting a framework in place so that we can respond to the very issues you are speaking of. We're taking those things we had been doing without being part of the environment portfolio and building on them even as we speak, particularly in our relationship with municipalities. You and others have mentioned that this is a behavioural change challenge, and I think to have the attention of municipal governments across Canada that we have because of this program speaks well for the future. But the policy framework is just now being designed.

    The Chair: Mr. Marcil makes a very crucial and central observation, that urban sprawl is a provincial matter, but since you are so well equipped for exerting a certain leverage, obviously, the infrastructure programs can go a long way in bypassing the limitation of federal powers.

    Hon. Andy Scott: Leveraging in its own right is a noble objective. If by spending $10 million we can see $50 million spent on something that is important to the Government of Canada, I think that's a noble objective. If we can add value to that--and the people in my ministry will say they've heard me say this before--beyond the value of leveraging, I think that's something we should set out to do. The reason I'm cautious is that I want to do this in a collaborative way, and we aren't there. We haven't had that kind of conversation yet, we're simply at this moment trying to determine the things we would ask for. That's why I'm here with you, so that you can help us do that.

    The Chair: Mr. Szabo, final question.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: This concept of leveraging has always been a question in what projects are done. If leveraging is to be used for its intended purpose, we should disqualify all those projects that a municipality should normally take care of itself and create new infrastructure, expansion in infrastructure, that will lead to some synergies, etc. It's a good line, but we've been leveraging stuff that has to be done.

    Hon. Andy Scott: Incrementalism is an objective of the program. Having said that, I'm certain that did we not exist, some of the things we count in our leveraging column would have happened. However, I think there still remains value in our contribution. It gives us an opportunity to have a relationship with the order of government that is very close to Canadians. As a result of that, I think it does serve the purpose of getting into the places where the behavioural change comes from. I think it was Mr. Mills who talked about the education system and causing people to think differently, and this allows us to be there on the ground in Canada; I think that's very important, in addition to the value that is in the investment itself.

    I'm a resident of a province that sometimes isn't able to come up with matching funds--and Mr. Barnes would know the same thing--and we have to be flexible in this as well. Not only do we have to worry about the fact that we're only paying for things that otherwise might have happened, we also have to be conscious of the fact that sometimes, in seeking partners, we request a level of participation that some small communities in Canada, even some provinces, can't afford. We've got to keep that in mind too.

»  (1730)  

    The Chair: Monsieur Marcil.

[Translation]

    Hon. Serge Marcil: Of course, we can disagree on the infrastructure program. Nevertheless, the Government of Canada decided to create this program precisely in order to help provinces and municipalities move ahead with projects which they could not finance on their own.

    I believe it is fundamental to respect the respective areas of jurisdiction. However, that is no obstacle to getting things done. There are a lot of problems regarding the federal bridges, the Champlain Bridge, the Jacques-Cartier Bridge and so on. There is going to be a huge problem because the Champlain Bridge will not be able to absorb all the traffic headed its way. Something will have to be done to alleviate the traffic volume going through the greater Montreal area.

    The Government of Quebec wanted to build an alternative highway. We could say that we want to save our bridges and that we are willing to do our part to build this alternative highway. It would help the Société des ponts to better manage the Champlain Bridge, which has to accommodate twice as much traffic as it was designed for. Twenty-five per cent of the trucks which go through Montreal take the bridge when going from east to west. But if there was an alternative highway, the infrastructure on the Island of Montreal belonging to the Government of Canada would be saved.

    This idea could be a starting point. By saying that it wants to invest, in Quebec or in Ontario, only in certain projects, there is a risk that the government is becoming too involved in provincial affairs.

    There was talk of urban sprawl, which is indeed a problem. Toronto and Montreal solved that problem by merging all of their suburbs.

[English]

    The Chair: Minister, you have the last word.

    Hon. Andy Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'm excited about the decision that was taken to establish the department. I'm excited about the decision that was taken to place it inside an environment portfolio. I would invite all colleagues, this committee in particular, to help me take advantage of that opportunity in the interest of sustainable communities in Canada.

[Translation]

    Thank you very much.

[English]

    The Chair: Minister, this was a very interesting and stimulating session. We thank you for your opening statement and for the invitation. We look forward to working with you. We also thank your officials, of course.

    This meeting is adjourned.