Transport Committee on March 25th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you. Your time has expired.

Mr. Toet, you have seven minutes.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Minister, for being with us today. We appreciate it very much.

I recently met with two municipal councillors in my area. I can tell you that the conversation we had that day was very positive. They were very pleased not only with the previous building Canada fund but also with the new plan, the certainty they have in it, and the understanding that they have this going forward, especially with regard to the gas tax fund, but also with regard to the 10-year plan. They know what they can count on over the next number of years. It is very much appreciated by them.

In line with that, here's what I wanted to talk about. You mentioned a few times that we have to look at the totality of these funds, the complete totality of the various components of the infrastructure building fund. Maybe you could touch a little on the flexibility. One of the things in the conversation I had with them was that understanding of the flexibility under the different components. Maybe you could brief us on how much we've enhanced the flexibility through the new funding.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

It's mainly through the gas tax fund that they ask for more flexibility. As I have said, and I've read all the categories, and that was very important for them. When you have fixed your water and waste water problems and your road problems, you want to continue to invest that money in your municipality. Now they have the opportunity to do that in other categories. That was very important.

With the new building Canada component, the national infrastructure component, we now have, in categories such as highways and major roads, public transit, rail infrastructure, local and regional airports, port infrastructure, intelligent transportation systems, and disaster mitigation infrastructure, a national infrastructure component to create more jobs.

Municipalities know that now they have more flexibility in the gas tax fund. They know too that we have a national infrastructure component to continue to support job creation all across the country. That works well with the provinces and municipalities, for sure. Like us, they always want to have more money to invest in programs; that's the same. They are very proud of the flexibility we gave through the gas tax fund.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

One of the important things to remember, too, is with regard to the flowing of the funds for this coming construction season. There has been some concern brought forward on that, but it is very true that the former program funds are still flowing. I can think of two very major projects happening in the city of Winnipeg right now from the former fund that will still be going through this current construction season before they're completed. These are fairly major projects. There is a continuation of the ability to....

In fact one of the challenges raised in some of our meetings in the last week with some stakeholders was the concern about the construction industry being able to keep up with the pace of this infrastructure project and the jobs that will be required over the next couple of years. That's actually one of the challenges the construction industry was concerned about.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

We understand that. We have to respect the capacity of municipalities too when we're doing projects. They know that normally they have to pay a third, their share, in projects. It's more difficult now for some municipalities to have their local money to support the program. We have to respect that and go at the pace of some municipalities.

They already know, as I've said, that it's still $6 billion of the former program, and that will not be over at the end of the next fiscal year. There are still some projects that will be under way for some years to come. The new plan is effective from April 1. I repeat, there will be $2 billion available for municipalities of the country on April 1, 2014, in the new plan that will continue to do so...and they expect to be ready for development. That's why they asked for more flexibility, to have some tools to create their own development too, and they have them now.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Minister, you and Mr. Lévesque were beginning to explain to us the process on the allocation, especially under the new building Canada fund, and how the payout is done at the end of the project. That's important to remember, because to me, I think we'll see a real reflection in supplemental estimates.

Am I correct that as these projects come forward and are actually applied for we'll start to see some of the adjustments showing up in that component?

[Louis Lévesque]

Yes. As the program elements will be finalized and announcements will be made through the fall, through the normal process, supplementary estimates will be brought to dedicate funding to the components of the $14-billion element of the new plan. The main estimates already include the $20 billion for the gas tax. The GST rebate is already legislated. The main estimates reflect the ongoing disbursements on the $6 billion in remaining funds to be disbursed on projects under the previous building Canada plan.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

There's no concern that we're going to have a construction season with nothing happening all of a sudden. There's still lots ongoing.

The last thing I wanted to touch on was P3 screenings. I'd like some clarity on that. The P3 screenings, from what I understand, are only mandatory on projects of $100 million or more. Is that correct?

[Louis Lévesque]

Yes.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Does that mean any project under $100 million is not eligible for a P3 screening, or can they still be applied for going through the P3?

[Louis Lévesque]

If proponents prefer to look at P3s, they are absolutely eligible to do so. That will be considered. What is mandatory is that if there's a project for over $100 million, it will have to go through a P3 screening.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

That comes back to the timing issue of going through the P3 screening. If it's $100 million or more, it will be a very significant project. There will be a lot of work on engineering and all these things. As it's going through that process, it can also be going through the P3 screening.

Therefore, this concern about delaying a construction project probably is not true at all, because a P3 screening will probably move at a faster pace than the actual engineering work that will happen on a project of that kind of significance.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

That normally happens with this kind of project. You can't deliver a $100-million project without having all these preparations. When you're planning a $100-million project that's because we have been told to do it. P3 is one of them, and often they look at it and say they don't have a mandatory obligation to do it, and now we have it. I think that will be helpful because P3 will be on time and on budget normally, and I think that's a better result.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I can definitely speak to the P3s in Winnipeg when you talk about being on time and on budget. One project was completed almost in half the time. It was scheduled for two years, and it was done in just over a year's time. It speaks to how effective those can be. It was also brought in under budget.

P3s have a proven track record of being very effective ways of getting our infrastructure done.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

We respect the choice of our partners on the $100 million. They can do what they want, but they know we all want to be effective and to have a better result for taxpayers' money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Your time has expired.

Mr. Mai, you have five minutes.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, minister.

As you know, the matter of the Champlain Bridge is extremely important to my constituents. You have frequently been criticized for how long it took the government to announce that the bridge would be replaced. You had the Delcan report, which highlighted the need to replace the bridge, but you waited nearly a year to announce the bridge would be replaced. It took the public, the Quebec government and municipalities putting pressure on the government before any action was taken. It's as though you dropped the ball and now you're trying to play catch-up. A responsible government would have replaced the bridge. We've known about the problems with the bridge for 10 years. The Liberals were in power back then, yes, but the fact remains that your government did nothing to replace the bridge.

And now it's a race to meet timelines. There's no transparency and rules are being bypassed so contracts can be awarded without being put out to public tender. The government is not handling this file properly. We want more transparency, minister.

Earlier you mentioned the issue of tolls. You say in your brief that the bridge will be built with a toll, “no toll, no bridge”. That's blackmail, minister. It's akin to bullying. Just think of the people who use the bridge and know all too well what kind of shape it's in now. It scares a lot of people when they are told that if they don't pay the toll, they won't get a new bridge, so they'll have to keep using the existing one in its rundown state. That simply isn't okay.

Why don't you want to work with the provincial government and the municipalities? Even the business community, chambers of commerce and the NDP are now urging you to give up your plans for a toll bridge. From the outset, you've said “no toll, no bridge”, but now you're not telling us anything about the studies you have addressing the impact on traffic and the economy. You aren't even telling us what the toll will be used for.

In a public-private partnership, isn't the point of a toll simply to pad the pockets of the company in charge of the bridge? Isn't this basically a scheme for companies to turn a profit?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Could you be more specific please?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Are you able, today, to give us the reports showing the costs or at least the rationale for the toll? Where is the research to justify a toll bridge?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would first like to point out that much of what the member said is simply not true, so I am compelled to correct him.

My colleague should know just how long it takes to prepare and publish a document on a project worth between $3 billion and $5 billion.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I appreciate that, but—

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

No, I cannot let you make false claims without addressing them, sir. What you said is completely untrue.

We took the time necessary to prepare the project. We made the announcement on October 5, 2011. Look at the date of the Delcan report. You said we did absolutely nothing to address it, and that is completely false.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Minister, you have not handed over any study showing the need for a toll bridge. The report done by Consortium BCDE says very clearly that a public-private partnership will cost taxpayers more than a public one, in other words, the usual method. And that is straight out of the BCDE report, minister.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

That is not true, sir. The business plan shows that the savings could be as much as 17%. And the plan will be made available to the public once the contract is signed.

As you know, this is the only place in the country where we own bridges in a province. We've had more than 100 meetings with the municipalities and the Government of Quebec. And here you are claiming that we don't consult them. That is absolutely untrue.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

If you ask the Government of Quebec, the CMM or the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec what they think, they will tell you unequivocally that they do not support your plan and that you aren't listening to them.