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.