Evidence of meeting #35 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was municipalities.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Hans Cunningham  First Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Brock Carlton  Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Jean Perras  Mayor of Chelsea, Union of Quebec Municipalities
Bernard Généreux  President, Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités
Michael Buda  Director, Policy and Research, Federation of Canadian Municipalities

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Committee members, can we settle down?

To discuss the economic stimulus package and its impact on municipalities and stakeholders, today we have witnesses from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Hans Cunningham, Brock Carlton, and Michael Buda. On videoconference, for the Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités, we have Bernard Généreux and Erika Dufresne-Desjardins; and from the Union of Quebec Municipalities, we have Jean Perras and Joël Bélanger.

I understand that Mr. Carlton and Mr. Cunningham have a five-minute presentation and they will be splitting it. Monsieur Perras and Monsieur Généreux also have opening remarks.

We will start with Mr. Carlton and then go to Mr. Perras and Mr. Généreux.

You may commence.

3:30 p.m.

Hans Cunningham First Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Carlton will start the first part of our opening statement and I'll continue with the second part, if that meets with your pleasure.

3:30 p.m.

Brock Carlton Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities

Thank you.

It's a privilege for us to be here today to share our thoughts on Canada's economic stimulus plan.

FCM has been the national voice of municipal government since 1901. We represent 90% of the Canadian population—more than 1,800 municipal governments. Members include Canada's largest cities, small urban and rural communities, and 18 provincial and territorial municipal associations.

It was a little more than a year ago that the bottom fell out of global markets, plunging the world into a severe economic downturn. Along with most other countries, Canada needed an immediate strategy to create jobs and fight the recession. As it was then, infrastructure spending is now one of the most effective stimulus tools available.

As you likely know, spending on infrastructure delivers twice the economic boost—and twice the number of jobs—as an equivalent tax cut. This spending is used to build quality roads and bridges, enhance public transit and renew water and sewer systems, as well as to initiate projects which protect our environment and improve our quality of life. Infrastructure spending can strengthen the foundations of our economy.

3:30 p.m.

First Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities

Hans Cunningham

Thank you, Brock.

In the 2009 budget, Parliament set aside $5 billion in new federal stimulus funding for provincial, territorial, and municipal infrastructure projects. Today municipalities are matching federal investments in their communities. We manage stimulus projects from design right through to construction and completion. We're working flat out to put stimulus dollars to work, creating jobs and meeting local needs. Working together we have made progress, but the job is not done and there are lessons to learn from the work done in the past year. If we make the right decisions now, we can continue to strengthen our economy, deliver greater value to taxpayers, improve infrastructure programs, and respond more effectively to future economic crises.

To that end, on behalf of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I would like to underscore a few key points.

First, while governments implement the stimulus plan they must also begin to look beyond the immediate economic crisis. We must position Canada to succeed in a tough, competitive post-recession world. As we come out of the recession and budget deficits reappear, we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the 1990s. That was when the federal, provincial, and territorial governments pushed deficits off their balance sheets and into local streets. They cut programs and offloaded responsibilities, leaving the municipalities to pick up the pieces. Those decisions added to the burden on property taxpayers and fuelled growth in what is today's $123 billion municipal infrastructure deficit.

The federal stimulus plan, along with the 100% GST rebate, the federal gas tax fund, the Building Canada fund, and the public transit capital trust are helping municipalities repair their aging foundations. They are also helping to provide the modern infrastructure and transportation networks that Canada needs to compete in the post-recession world. While stimulus spending is inherently short term, if Canada is going to thrive in the post-recession world, the federal government must protect and build on these other investment programs. Therefore, secondly, all governments must commit to keeping the stimulus plan on track and to make sure to put every single dollar to work in communities across the country.

Canada's economic recovery is fragile and new jobs will be scarce for years to come. As many Canadians struggle to find work and make ends meet, they need to know their governments won't be letting stimulus dollars collect dust in Ottawa or in their provincial capitals. Therefore, thirdly, as municipalities co-fund and manage thousands of stimulus projects across the country, federal and provincial governments must be supportive and flexible to ensure cities and communities have the time and resources to put stimulus dollars to work.

As you know, the infrastructure stimulus plan was rolled out faster than any previous cost-shared infrastructure program, but the time required to get it up and running still meant that many municipalities lost much of the 2009 construction season. Cities and communities waited, although not always patiently, for federal, provincial, and territorial governments to negotiate funding agreements, to design programs, and to approve individual projects. Today, no order of government has more at stake in the stimulus plan than municipalities. Communities have been hard hit by the recession and are looking to their mayors and their councillors for answers. Municipalities across the country have re-opened their capital budgets to find the money to match federal stimulus dollars, often taking on additional debt or shifting dollars from other priorities.

In addition to matching federal investments in their communities dollar for dollar, municipalities are the front-line project managers for most of Canada's stimulus projects. To successfully finish these projects and to turn every stimulus dollar into a new job, municipalities will need the same support and flexibility, the same patience they showed the federal, provincial, and territorial counterparts during the start-up of the stimulus plan.

Municipalities must not be held responsible for project delays beyond their control. Where federal, provincial, and territorial governments are responsible for delays--and this is key--they must also be prepared to extend the March 2011 construction deadline for municipal projects, where necessary.

Another key point, and one of particular note, is that we should not wait for a crisis to hit before building better infrastructure programs. When the economic crisis hit, the federal government not only faced the challenge of getting new programs up and running across the country, but it also had to fix programs that had been a drag on cost-shared, application-based programs for more than 15 years.

Minister Baird and his officials worked hard to clear the funding backlog in the Building Canada fund, to deal with excessive red tape, cumbersome application forms, and drawn-out approval processes. But none of these problems were new, and they've been an ongoing source of delay, inefficiency, and cost overruns for almost a generation. A serious effort to fix these problems before the economic crisis would have saved time and resources when the crisis hit.

Finally, all orders of government need to work together to build better infrastructure programs. A lot has been said recently about how stimulus projects are being selected, how spending announcements are being made, and how the government is tracking the number of jobs that its plan is creating. These are fair questions that deserve good answers. But they are questions about the way government works, not the value of infrastructure spending.

Governments must always decide on how to set policy objectives, allocate resources, communicate decisions, and evaluate results. How they do it will go a long way in determining the success of a program, whether we're talking about infrastructure spending, health care, tax policy, or unemployment insurance. The case for investing in infrastructure is strong. The question is how the federal government should design its spending programs. As a first step, it should sit down with provinces, territories, and municipalities to establish national objectives for federal infrastructure spending and work with them to design programs that achieve those objectives.

During the past year, Canada was tested by a severe global economic crisis. Federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal orders of government responded to that crisis by working together. There is still a great deal of work to get the country back on to solid ground, but we have made a good start. Crisis management is never perfect.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Mr. Cunningham, you have one minute. Could you wrap up? Thank you.

3:40 p.m.

First Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities

Hans Cunningham

Two pages? Thank you.

Crisis management is never perfect, and there are important lessons we must learn from this experience, lessons that we need to act on. The country must put every single stimulus dollar to work creating jobs in cities and communities. Federal, provincial, and territorial governments must be supportive of municipalities as they carry out thousands of stimulus projects across the country in the next two years. Most importantly, we must make cooperation, communication, and program reforms an ongoing feature of Canada's infrastructure strategy.

We have long-term infrastructure challenges that can only be met by funding commitments made over decades, not years. We know that we can't build strong communities and a strong economy with a single spending package. It takes vision, coordination, and sustained funding. By working in partnership, all orders of government can achieve lasting results that include safe, healthy, and economically viable cities and communities.

Thank you for your time and attention, and of course we'd be pleased to respond to any questions.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Thank you.

Next we will have M. Jean Perras.

I forgot to mention that you are the mayor of Chelsea and that you're not seeking re-election. Welcome, Mayor. We would like to hear some things from you.

3:40 p.m.

Jean Perras Mayor of Chelsea, Union of Quebec Municipalities

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of the committee, the Union of Quebec Municipalities was eager to accept the invitation to take part in your deliberations regarding the implementation of economic stimulus measures, because this is a question of crucial importance to its members.

The President of the Union, and Mayor of Maniwaki, Robert Coulombe, has asked me to represent him, as he was unable to be here today. He asks that I convey his greetings.

The UMQ represents municipalities of every size and in every region of Quebec. Its mission is to promote the fundamental role of municipalities in the social and economic progress of Quebec as a whole and to support its members in building democratic, innovative and competitive communities. More than 5 million Quebeckers are represented by the Union of Municipalities.

For several years, the Union has been calling for massing spending by governments to make up the deficit in municipal infrastructure.

At the request of the UMQ, the Conference Board of Canada did a study on municipalities' fiscal situation and the hidden infrastructure deficit. The findings were clear: the deplorable state of municipal infrastructure in Quebec is the result of underfunding since the 1970s; the infrastructure deficit in 2003 was estimated at $18 billion, or $1 billion per year for the next 15 years.

Since then, the UMQ's voice has been heard, and major efforts have been made by all levels of government to rehabilitate municipal infrastructure. The federal government's economic action plan has been implemented to rapidly stimulate the economy in the global financial crisis and the economic recession. It has added to existing programs by targeting projects that can be carried out between now and March 31, 2011.

Our reading of the current situation as it relates to implementing economic stimulus measures for municipal infrastructure has resulted in the following observations and recommendations.

In Quebec there are hundreds of projects underway, illustrating the positive effect of the plan. However, there are many projects still waiting for approval before they can start up.

Some delays can be explained by the discrepancies between the priorities of the various levels of government. It is sometimes difficult for a project to reflect both federal and provincial intentions.

Greater consistency between provincial and federal considerations is needed for each program. It would be preferable to agree on common priorities that projects will have to meet in order to facilitate approval, and ultimately implementation.

For example, the agreement between the federal and provincial governments on the Green Infrastructure Fund has not yet been signed. In the meantime, projects have to continue to fit into the requirements of each government and start-up is delayed.

The Union believes that the gas tax transfer program is an example that should be followed. It enables municipalities to do long-term revenue planning and offers them the flexibility they need in order to adapt better to their circumstances.

The UMQ would also like to see greater flexibility in the program criteria to enable municipalities to meet the needs of their own communities.

For example, socioeconomic infrastructure projects could be made eligible.

In addition, infrastructure projects require municipalities to invest a significant minimum amount, up to one third of total spending. But the fact is that municipalities do not have new sources of revenue to fund that contribution.

Property taxes are still the main source of revenue for Quebec municipalities. In addition, for every dollar invested in infrastructure, and funded equally by the three levels of government, Quebec City and Ottawa share $0.35 in direct tax refunds, while municipalities receive zero.

At present, for a $100 million investment, Ottawa gets a refund of $18 million, Quebec City gets $17 million, and the municipalities get zero.

That is why the Union would like to see a little more flexibility in the programs, to recognize municipalities' ability to pay.

The Union would also like to see investment maintained at a constant level, to allow us to move ahead with rehabilitating our infrastructure. It would therefore be desirable to ensure that programs like Building Canada are permanent.

The UMQ is also concerned about the current status of public finances and believes it is imperative that the budget is not balanced on the backs of municipalities.

On May 15, at the UMQ annual convention in Gatineau, the members of its executive committee had discussions with the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada, and with Michael Ignatieff, the leader of the official opposition, and Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the Bloc Québécois, regarding the importance of maintaining and speeding up investments in municipal infrastructure and working in close cooperation with Quebec to secure economic prosperity for our province and for Canada.

The return of Parliament led to debates about the federal government's plan to balance the budget. This is a major issue, one that is of the utmost concern to municipal leaders. Given this situation, the members of the UMQ board of directors unanimously adopted a resolution on September 18 calling on the leaders of the federal parties to make a formal commitment that any plan to balance the budget would rule out postponing the funding allocated to infrastructure projects and preserve the other gains that have been made, such as the GST refund and a permanent gasoline tax.

They are also calling for a firm commitment from the federal political parties to make infrastructure programs permanent so that we can continue to catch up on the needed rehabilitation of municipal infrastructure. The strategy of balancing government budgets cannot be pursued on the backs of municipalities without directly affecting services to the public and the quality of the infrastructure.

In conclusion, Quebec municipalities are key economic actors and partners. Every year they inject $11.5 billion into the Quebec economy. Investing in infrastructure will mean an environment for the public and business that will support sustainable development. In terms of infrastructure alone, they invest $2.7 billion dollars every year, and they will invest an additional $2.5 billion over five years in contributions to the new programs.

Municipalities want to support economic growth and job creation by investing their share in infrastructure programs. Stable funding, permanent programs and greater flexibility in program terms and conditions will enable them to do their full share as engines of socioeconomic development in their communities.

Thank you for your attention.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Merci beaucoup.

Now we go to Monsieur Bernard Généreux, who is the president of the Federation of Quebec Municipalities. He's also the mayor of Saint-Prime, and he has taken time off from his canvassing to be here. Thank you very much.

You may proceed, Mr. Généreux.

3:45 p.m.

Bernard Généreux President, Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités

Thank you for inviting us to this meeting on infrastructure, Madam Chair.

The Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités is very pleased to be able to present its views on the progress being made under Canada's Economic Action Plan as it relates to infrastructure. However, I would note that the Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités, unlike the Union of Quebec Municipalities, which mainly represents the larger urban centres in Quebec, represents over 1,000 members, municipalities and RMCs, in all regions of Quebec, and this colours the Fédération's views in terms of progress under the action plan.

Certainly, like the FCM and the UMQ, the Fédération's reaction to the injection of $4 billion into infrastructure is very positive. It notes that this measure will create new jobs in economic hard times. We are pleased that the federal government realizes the urgency of the updating of infrastructure that has been called for, for so long.

We have to make sure, starting now, that these programs are permanent and continue beyond the action plan, so that infrastructure continues to be central to the catching up that must be done in any event if we want our municipalities to continue to be competitive.

I will now make a few comments on the program. First, one of the major problems in implementing this action plan was how slow the process of getting the agreements officially signed was. It was hugely delayed, and that means it is even more complicated for municipalities to adhere to the notorious two-year deadline imposed by the federal government for using the money. As well, the two-year deadline already seemed to us to be very short, when the municipalities' applications have to be processed by the governments before work can start, in a relatively short construction season. Our first request is therefore that the period for the work be extended to more than two years.

In terms of the speed for analyzing it, it is currently hard to evaluate the impact of the action plan because the agreements were not officially signed until the spring or even the end of the summer of 2009. Several municipalities are still preparing their requests, while others have been in processing for only a few weeks.

Is the money available quickly? Will it be available? It is up to the government to answer these questions, because it is the only one with the figures for the exact number of projects approved to date.

What are the times between when a municipality submits a project and when it receives approval from the government? It is up to the government to monitor this and evaluate the efficiency of its internal process.

In terms of the low-interest loans program for municipal housing infrastructure, we would note that the municipalities of Quebec still do not have access to the program, while the other Canadian municipalities have had access for several months. Given that money has not been allocated by province, Quebec is clearly being disadvantaged in the case of this program.

To speed up processing of requests and ensure that the money is allocated fairly, the FQM suggests that the money for Quebec municipalities be transferred directly to Quebec City under framework agreements, which would significantly reduce the red tape and allow for criteria to be developed that are more tailored to the situation in Quebec municipalities. We would note that recent statistics tend to show that at present, only 7% of the money is committed in Quebec municipalities, while Ontario is to receive 54% of the funds.

The FQM has also already made the government aware of the possibility of overheating if numerous actions are taken in a relatively short time. We are still concerned about this, and we have to ensure that as broad a spectrum of actions as possible is taken to avoid all the projects starting up in the same sector of the economy in a relatively short time.

The Fédération has noted another concern: modulation. We know it is essential to modulate the criteria to take the situation in rural communities into account. They generally have less capacity to pay than some municipalities. We must ensure that these programs are accessible to municipalities of all sizes, small as well as large. This is achieved by modulating programs.

In addition, their remoteness from major centres means that they have fewer private enterprises, and thus fewer bids. This often raises costs for contracts and subcontracts. Costs are relatively higher in outlying regions. This is another reason why the principle of modulation must be applied to programs that benefit municipalities.

Given that the labour force is smaller and often less skilled, it is more difficult to assess the condition of infrastructure, and this can create problems. The costs of accessing workers are high and comprise a larger share of the expenses in connection with existing infrastructure programs.

The entire question of rural life must also be considered in looking at Quebec's situation. Rural is defined, in Canada, as including communities of with a population of 100,000 or lower. We think it would be wise for the definition to instead cover populations of 25,000 or fewer, to better reflect what rural actually means in many of the municipalities of Quebec represented by the Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités.

As well, we know that government infrastructure programs are mostly based on a funding formula under which each level of government covers one-third of the costs. That requirement does not reflect municipalities' ability to pay. It is unfair, in that municipalities receive no direct tax refund for their investment, while the federal and provincial governments receive $0.18 and $0.17, respectively, for each dollar invested in infrastructure. The FQM wants to see the share that all municipalities are being asked to pay to fund infrastructure projects reviewed, so that it better reflects their financial situation.

In closing, I would like to talk about access to the Internet. We know that $250 million has been proposed to extend Internet access throughout Canada. We would like to know what progress has been made under that program.

Thank you for your attention. We are prepared to answer your questions.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Thank you very much.

I would like to make a suggestion before we go into the first round. There are many witnesses and advisors around, so if you want to get the biggest bang for your dollar, please point to whom you want to answer, or if you want everyone to answer and take up your minutes, that's fine too. We're very strict with our time, to be fair to all members.

Madam Hall Findlay, you have eight minutes.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses who are with us today.

The Chair is correct. Because we really don't have a lot of time, we hope that fairly short questions will produce equally short answers.

On my first question, I would like to get a short answer from each of the representatives.

The first one is the big one. We're hearing from the government that 90% of the economic action plan has been implemented. I want to drill down to the number of projects the municipalities have had approved and how many have actually started. Can you confirm or not whether that percentage of infrastructure projects that involve the municipalities has been started? I don't mean started in the sense of going through the paperwork. How many have actually broken ground?

3:55 p.m.

Michael Buda Director, Policy and Research, Federation of Canadian Municipalities

To get the exact figure, you will have to speak to the federal government. However, it is our understanding, from our analysis of the September stimulus report, updates that Minister Baird has sent to our members, and discussions we've had with officials, that more than 3,000 municipal stimulus projects have been approved.

I know you were asking me about breaking ground. I think these terms are very important. When we say “approved”, it means that municipalities now have authorization to finish any design work necessary, tender the project, and begin construction. Of the 3,000, as of last month about 1,000 of those projects are finalizing design work, going to tender, or already under construction. Those are the numbers we're able to interpret.

Just half an hour ago I got the latest update that since the beginning of the year, 5,000 projects worth $8 billion have been approved. That includes the infrastructure stimulus fund and the various components of the Building Canada fund. That's more than just the pure stimulus fund. It doesn't include the recreation fund or any of the other non-municipal-related funds.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

What has your experience been?

4 p.m.

Mayor of Chelsea, Union of Quebec Municipalities

Jean Perras

We have not done a study like the one by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. We therefore cannot state an opinion on the question. The process is fairly lengthy, however. Given that a number of projects will have to be approved before and over the summer, they will not start up until the end of the fall or even the spring of the following year.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Mr. Généreux?

4 p.m.

President, Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités

Bernard Généreux

We have essentially the same concern regarding technical oversight, the progress made on each project. Certainly a number of announcements have been made by mail, but between the starting gun and when these projects take concrete form, there is still a considerable time. It also has to be noted that for most aspects of this action plan, it took a very long time for administrative agreements to be signed, particularly in Quebec. In fact, in some cases, the agreements have still not been completely finalized.

We are very concerned about the time allowed in the action plan, the notorious two years. At the beginning of the summer, there was what was called the PRECO program. It was announced as a program that could be carried out very quickly. Unfortunately, it has also had its share of problems. We now seem to have got up to cruising speed, so some catching up can be done, but in terms of giving a clear breakdown of how work is progressing, I think only the government could do that.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Thank you.

My next question relates to that notorious two-year deadline.

There is the requirement that projects be finished by March 2011. I understand that some have been started, but there's a big gap between the number you say have been approved and the number that have actually been started. It is now halfway through October. We've clearly missed the 2009 construction season.

I'll focus on the FCM for the moment. What have you been told by the federal government about that continued requirement that the projects be completed by March 2011, now that thanks to the delay we've missed a year of construction?

4 p.m.

First Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities

Hans Cunningham

Thank you for the question. The position at present is that funding will be terminated come the deadline of March 2011. After that municipalities will have to finish the projects by themselves.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

Sorry to interrupt, but that gives me some concern. We all understand what can happen with construction projects. If you're not sure as a municipality that you can finish the project by March 2011, what is that telling you now that a year has been lost? Are municipalities now holding back on projects because they may not be able to pick up the balance of the funding in case they go longer?

4 p.m.

First Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities

Hans Cunningham

Of course that is speculation at this time. I think when municipalities applied, they knew there was a finite window they had to work within.

However, as I mentioned in my speech, things happen in discussions between the federal and provincial governments, or within construction seasons and so forth, that may inexplicably cause delays. Therefore, I think further discussions on the question of termination are important.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON

The Liberal opposition, right from the beginning, has called for federal stimulus money to be transferred to municipalities through a gas-tax-like formula. This is something we repeatedly recommended to the government, because we knew there would be significant delays that would require a matching program.

Had it been done in that fashion, do you think this construction season would have been missed, or would those projects have been undertaken?

4:05 p.m.

First Vice-President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities

Hans Cunningham

I'm afraid I can't answer that question. I don't know.

I do know, however, that FCM has advocated for a gas-tax-like funding program for several reasons, as we explained previously. However, we have also worked with application-based programs before very successfully. I'm afraid that's about the limit of what we can expect.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi

Madame Bourgeois is next for eight minutes, please.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am very pleased to see you today, because your presentations give us a chance to see and understand the problems facing municipalities in Canada and Quebec.

What I notice from your three presentations is that you are talking about the infrastructure needs of cities in Canada and Quebec in terms of support, flexibility and time. You have talked about all three. The recovery plan is a sudden event. I think it was the Union of Quebec Municipalities that pointed out that for many years there has been a hidden deficit of over $18 billion in chronic underfunding that started under numerous federal governments, without naming them. You are also asking for more flexibility in the programs. I think this committee will try to take your requests into consideration and make recommendations in that regard.

I was expecting to see considerable divergence between the views of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the two groups from Quebec. The only difference I see relates to the speed with which infrastructure projects are being approved. Mr. Généreux tells us that the process of signing the agreements was lengthy. In April or May, the Minister told this committee that he was making every effort to speed up the process, particularly in Quebec. We know that there must first be an agreement signed by the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada.

Mr. Généreux, can you tell me what you attribute the slowness with which the agreements are being signed?