Government Operations Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2009

[Bernard Généreux]

We are dealing with the perennial problem of jurisdiction. For infrastructure programs, the municipalities are the project managers. Because of the special relationship between municipalities in Quebec and the Government of Quebec in relation to this program, all of the necessary parameters had to be agreed on with the various levels of government, and unfortunately this caused some excessive delay in signing the agreement.

Some of the components we are dealing with should perhaps be used for agreeing on the approach. I am thinking of the entire "recreation" component, for which the governments in Quebec City and Ottawa have agreed on a framework agreement under which projects will be submitted, rather than always having to bring in various levels, where one party's approval does not always match another party's, so projects are delayed. We will therefore have to sign a framework agreement with the Government of Quebec, under which the municipality could deal directly with one interlocutor, who would give the green light that is needed to start up projects. We have to look for easy solutions.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I have a question for you, Mr. Généreux, and the representative of the Union of Quebec Municipalities. You both seem to be saying that the federal government does not understand certain features of the situation in Quebec. You talked about not understanding the rural situation, and about programs that are not a good fit for Quebec.

Do you think, given that the federal government does not understand the situation in Quebec, it should simply have set aside an amount for Quebec and given it to Quebec and told it to make its own arrangements with the money?

[Bernard Généreux]

It would probably be the ideal world if we could achieve that kind of framework agreement, and give each one responsibility for dealing with the money or programs within the parameters established by the governments and for which they would not be penalized. That clarification regarding responsibility was probably a fairly painful step in implementing all that.

I have to note that for some components of the action plan there has still not been an agreement signed. The money has to be spent in Quebec, in the proportions that Quebec is entitled to. It would be tragic if we were to continue wasting time because of administrative agreements, when there are so many needs to be met. It is entirely unacceptable and unimaginable that the money in question not be spent in full, regardless of the time limits. We will have to come back to the question of time limits.

If the curtain comes down at the end of two years and we have not been able to complete the share of projects we are entitled to, that will be tragic.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

The Union...

[Jean Perras]

Ms. Bourgeois, if you will allow me, I would like to add something. I agree with my colleague Mr. Généreux, but still, an investment of $5 million in Toronto or Calgary is one thing. An investment of $5 million in Saint-Prime or Chelsea or St. Mary's, Newfoundland, is another thing; it is a major project. It takes time for us in small and medium-sized municipalities to get together the resources to do studies, prepare tender documents and make sure everything is working. It takes a little more time in small municipalities than in bigger ones. That is one of the major distinctions between rural Canada and urban Canada.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Do I have any time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You have half a minute.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

I will ask the people of Quebec to get ready to give me answers about social housing an loans to cities. This is extremely important to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor for eight minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the committee today. I would like to say hello to Mr. Généreux and Mr. Perras. I am more familiar with the situation in Quebec because this summer I had the opportunity to make a number of announcements and meet with several of your fellow mayors in several municipalities, both in small municipalities located in the regions and in larger ones. This was a real pleasure for me.

Mr. Généreux, I do not understand why you are saying things are slow. In the February budget, we announced a bold economic recovery plan. Agreements were signed with Quebec in early June, so that was only three months. More announcements were made by the Conservative governments in seven months than I think there were during the last seven Liberal years. I think we have made an unprecedented effort.

Do you acknowledge that in all cases it is Quebec that is administering the submission of new projects? We are a key partner of the Government of Quebec, but it is that government that administers all the files. We are happy to collaborate with it. We have a very good partnership, but it is really Quebec that determines what the projects will be and the speed at which they are to be set up.

[Bernard Généreux]

Is that a comment or a question?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Généreux, is it really Quebec that decides that? At the federal level, we work in partnership with the Government of Quebec. Are you aware of that fact?

[Bernard Généreux]

Completely. In any event, what we have been calling for since this action plan was first put in place is ease of access to the program. It absolutely has to be acknowledged that from the moment the agreements were signed, things speeded up visibly, particularly in the case of PRECO, the Pipeline Renewal Program, where we have seen things obviously speed up in implementation of the program and the ability to get projects in motion quickly.

That program has how reached cruising speed, although after the waiting period, in the weeks or months following the announcement, particularly in Lévis, it took some time to get the machine in gear. Nonetheless, we are seeking project implementation speed up. Not everything is perfect, but ideally, if we could have broken ground and got access to the money earlier, there would probably be even more projects in advanced stages.

Our concern is the two-year time limit, and it will always have to be kept in mind. We will have to ensure that for all components of the action plan, and not just PRECO, we are able to spend funds available. We do not want to leave a penny on the table. We have so much to catch up on, in terms of infrastructure, that I might say, "Fortunately, there is an economic crisis, because that means we can speed up the infrastructure program."

Apart from the economic crisis, the lag to be made up for is so large that we need a permanent infrastructure program. I don't want to play the game of comparing the successes of this government and the former government. We have to get programs up and running, from which we receive our fair share, and renew them in the long term, so we can do our own planning for the development of our communities under programs that are guaranteed permanent. I can assure you that it is not easy to manage development with an ultimatum every two years. These programs have to be unsealed or unlocked and made accessible on a permanent basis, so we can plan accordingly.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Généreux, whatever the reason, rural communities in Quebec have lost vitality. In some infrastructure projects, the federal-provincial government partnership is as high as 90 or 92%. Do you think this is a good initiative?

[Bernard Généreux]

It is certainly a good initiative that must be encouraged and supported in every case. These programs mean that we will be able to abide by our communities' ability to pay, the communities that have to carry out these projects. As Mr. Perras said, being in Chelsea doesn't make a kilometre of pipe cost less than in Toronto. It often costs more because of the availability of workers and shipping costs; you know the situation as well as I do.

If we want to make our communities successful, there has to be fairness in the availability of funds and programs, regardless of community size, because the need to upgrade infrastructure is the same everywhere, in equivalent proportions, obviously.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Out of the $4 billion, Quebec will receive $936 million. Over $750 million has already been committed to projects.

Do you think this is fast enough, or should we commit the rest as quickly as possible? Do you think you have the skilled work force needed for 2010, so you can carry out all these projects?

[Bernard Généreux]

I think you are alluding to a concern expressed earlier.

First, it is often difficult to measure the gap between the commitment to a project, achieving an investment objective proposed to us, and carrying out the project, getting it started on the ground. What we are interested in are concrete projects that are actually in action. In addition, speeding up these projects and the capacity to complete them in the time allowed by the program are constant concerns for us.

We must not compromise the quality of what we are doing for program purposes, that is, the two-year deadline. That concern must be central to what we do. No matter how large or small our communities, the support that is needed for carrying out high-quality programs must be constantly taken into consideration. Certainly that is not equal everywhere.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Merci.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It seems to me, gentlemen, that we're dancing all around the key issue. When there are billions of dollars flying out the door at unprecedented, breakneck speed, people compromise some of the due diligence that used to take place. They also leave the door wide open for hanky-panky, political mischief, and political interference at the highest level. When we had Minister Baird here at this committee in the early days of the stimulus package, he sort of said, “Here are the rules: there are no rules; this is all brand new.” Now we find ourselves with serious allegations that certain municipalities are getting punished because they didn't vote for the ruling party. In the absence of any fair system, like a simple gas tax transfer on a per capita basis, it's like a lottery. It's more like one of those rigged ring tosses on a carnival midway, with the minister acting as the carnival huckster who decides who wins or loses. That's what we are wrestling with, gentlemen.

The leader of my party used to be the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. From day one, Jack Layton was demanding that this money flow on a gas tax per capita basis, so that every municipality could choose its projects for itself and there would be no lottery system or sketchy new application system that gives all the power to the minister.

Would you have preferred a replica of some gas tax transfer model instead of this carnival ring toss that you're being subjected to now?

[Jean Perras]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

First, you know as well as I do that the municipalities have to abide by various provincial statutes and regulations: the Civil Code, the Municipal Code, the Elections Act, and so on.

In itself, the federal excise tax on gasoline is a very good tax. It has allowed most municipalities that receive it to do better long-term planning for infrastructure work. But the negative side of the tax, if it is applied to all infrastructure programs, is that small municipalities in rural Quebec and Canada, the ones with 500 to 1,000 people, would receive very small amounts. That would not make it possible for them to do major infrastructure work such as water and sewer lines, community centres, arenas, and so on. I think we always have to look at it from both angles.

I would also like to note that municipalities...

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I understand that smaller municipalities would get very little gas tax transfer. I'm talking about the structure of a program that is urgently trying to get $4 billion out the door. Do you not agree that the current program they designed leaves an incredible amount of arbitrary discretion to the minister and has created winners and losers in a fashion that can be traced to the voting patterns of the electorate?

[Bernard Généreux]

If I may, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Oui. Do you want to answer the question?

[Bernard Généreux]

I think the member's question is entirely appropriate. Regardless of the terms and conditions, we have to make sure there are permanent infrastructure programs. That is the objective we are all going for. They have to be government programs. How can we get party politics out of access to the money and make sure that fairness is the foundation of the programs, so that regardless of how big a municipality is it will have access to funds at all times, so it can gradually fix things and catch up from the lag that everyone has been talking about for years? How do we make sure that these funds are available? I think there are costs and benefits in both cases, whether it be from the excise tax or infrastructure programs.

The Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités can never argue too much for modulation. Communities that urgently need money have to have speedy access to it. How can we make sure that a program is accessible, regardless of how big or small our municipalities are and, most importantly, regardless of what the allegiance of the riding where we live is? That is a government guarantee, the government has to give us this assurance that a program is in the first place a government program, not a party program. You see the difference? In my opinion, society must be given that guarantee.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I want to thank you, sir, for pointing out that fairness has to be the underpinning. The guiding principle is transparency and fairness, but they've put together a structure that I would argue is neither. It's arbitrary. It's based on either good luck or your connections with the minister or by how your municipality voted, and that's what has to be exposed here. If we do any one meaningful thing here today, that's what we're talking about: a system that hasn't got this room for abuse. It shouldn't be hanky-panky and political mischief; it should be a transfer based on need and equal access of opportunity to this money.

Mr. Cunningham, were you waiting for the floor?