Government Operations Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2009

[Hans Cunningham]

Yes, I was. Thank you.

Of course, the gas tax has always flowed money to meet local needs with efficiency and accountability, as you've mentioned. That's, of course, why municipalities supported its introduction in 2005 and its extension in 2008 by the present government. And that's why we also applauded Mr. Ignatieff and Mr. Layton when they recently committed to flow more funding through the gas tax fund. It's also why we thought the gas tax fund model would be a good way to get stimulus dollars to quality projects quickly.

Having said that, it should be noted, first of all, that we as FCM were not part of the decision-making process. In the end, the government stimulus plan wasn't based on the gas tax fund, although it's certainly more streamlined and less centralized than other cost-shared, application-based programs. What counts for us is that it's a powerful tool for fighting the global economic crisis.

It should also be mentioned that just because we didn't get to participate in choosing the program, it doesn't mean that we don't believe, like all Canadians, that the program has to be accountable and transparent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Sorry, your time's up.

We're going to the next round. It's the round of five minutes, and we'll start with Ms. Foote.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And thank you to our witnesses today for being here. This is a very interesting conversation we're having.

When I think about the stimulus program and what it was meant to accomplish--to deal with the aging infrastructure in the country and to create badly needed jobs at the same time--I'm always a little nervous about this two-year deadline, because if you're talking about building anything of any significant size.... Having been a minister of education and having built schools in our province, I know it's very difficult to get something built within two years. So it's always been an issue for me that you set a deadline of that timeframe.

I represent a riding in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have 180 communities in my riding alone, and 35 of those communities actually received letters of intent, and in some cases the money is actually flowing. But when I think about Newfoundland and Labrador.... We all know there's going to be a shorter construction season in some parts of the country than in others. I'm not sure if that was ever factored into what governed this particular program and how it was put together.

My concern is that if you start something like an arena or a stadium or whatever, and you're doing it through the use of stimulus money and it's not completed by the end of the deadline, the municipality then has to assume responsibility for it. I can tell you from my perspective that there are going to be a lot of boondoggles throughout the country. I know in my riding you're going to have buildings that are partially constructed that aren't going to go any further than that, because in the communities I know of where they've received funding, they just will not have the money to complete them.

The point I'm raising in all of this is to say to you, as organizations representing municipalities throughout the country, that it's incumbent on you to be more aggressive in making the point to the government that this arbitrary deadline has to go by the wayside. Otherwise, it's going to be a waste of taxpayers' money if we have construction that doesn't get completed, because, as in my case, municipalities of 1,000 people won't be able to complete the initiatives they started.

Where are you in your approach with the government on this? You obviously recognize that there's a problem here. I put this to Mr. Cunningham, and to Mr. Généreux as well.

[Hans Cunningham]

Thank you. You've posed a very interesting question.

I'm sure the government recognizes the problems of the deadline. Speaking--

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Excuse me. Haven't you already said, though, that they said the deadline is the deadline?

[Hans Cunningham]

Yes, that is what they have said. And I believe that if you want to make sure somebody is going to do something, you set a deadline. Having said that, though--talking about my kids--even though I've set deadlines, sometimes when we get near the deadline and we get pushed, things get stretched a little. I would not expect--I would certainly hope--that as we see.... We know the funds need to be rolled out and the projects need to be finished. It's not going to look good for anybody if, as it gets close to 2011, you have half an arena. With that said, I would certainly like to see a little bit of extension, certainly a little bit more flexibility with regard to the line. That's always been our point at FCM.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Is Mr. Généreux still there?

[Bernard Généreux]

My view on that question is that we have to do away with the impression that this is some kind of obstacle course where the game ends at a certain point. In fact, the progress of, or preparation for, projects must not mean that projects stay on the drawing board because the deadline will come on a particular date in 2011. It would be tragic if we were unable, as a society or a country, to adopt a rule or to agree at the outset that the size of the infrastructures that need fixing goes beyond some deadline foolishly set by some program or other. We risk creating a situation in which municipalities will be reluctant to propose projects, thinking they will have to cover a fairly large part of the project if the deadline isn't met.

We have already made this request to the proper authorities and we will have to make it again as long as that assurance is not received. The government has absolutely got to authorize extension of the deadlines so projects started under these programs can take their course, with all the time needed for them to be completed.

It would be dangerous to be completing projects in a rush, with the risk of flawed and slap-dash infrastructure because we had to meet a foolish, ill-advised deadline.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Merci.

We'll go now to Monsieur Dorion for cinq minutes, s'il vous plaît.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Généreux, Madam—I hope you can see and hear—thank you for being here. This is an opportunity for us as well to get away from abstract figures and see how it is actually working on the ground.

My question is for Mr. Généreux. On the question of the costs engendered by the fact that the program was not simply transferred to Quebec, and has been subject to all sorts of complications at various stages, you mentioned figures of which only 7% will be spent in Quebec versus 54% in Ontario. I would like to check something.

Is this all of the money available for infrastructure programs, or money that has been advanced so far? What are those figures referring to?

[Bernard Généreux]

I am referring to an article that was recently published in L'Actualité where we were told that 7% of the budget available in Quebec would be committed. In any event, I don't want to get into a war of statistics and figures. The concern I want to state loud and long is that we have to simplify the project approval process. It seems to us that the best way to achieve that objective in Quebec is, again, to sign framework agreements between the governments in Quebec City and Ottawa so that we, the municipalities, can initiate the discussion needed for carrying out our projects with one interlocutor. That is how we usually do things in Quebec. The more parties there are, the longer it takes, and the greater the risk that the funds available for our projects cannot be put into the projects that are being prepared.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Along another line, the programs provide for the possibility of low-interest loans to the municipalities up to $1 billion. It seems that 38 loans have been made to date. Have any of those loans been made in Quebec, to your knowledge?

[Bernard Généreux]

My colleagues might have to confirm this, but at this stage, my information is that the framework agreement between Quebec and the federal government has not yet been signed, for the low-interest loan program. It has been available for several Canadian provinces since April, but it is still not accessible in Quebec.

So there is an example we should not be following. How are we going to succeed? Time is passing and the clock is ticking, and the more we delay signing our agreements the more we risk ending up when the program is over with things that have to be made up, and this would be inexcusable and unacceptable, given Quebec's needs.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Madam Chair, if I have any time left, my colleague would like to speak.

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

I am going to give Mr. Généreux a little break and address my question to the Union of Quebec Municipalities. It seems that these funds were to be invested in social housing. Have your received these funds in Quebec? Are you familiar with this?

[Jean Perras]

Unfortunately, I can't answer your question, I'm not familiar with it.

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

Mr. Généreux, how about you, are you familiar with whether funds were to be invested in social housing for seniors and people with disabilities? Are you familiar with this?

[Bernard Généreux]

I don't have any up-to-date statistics or data. I only know that a breakdown has been agreed to in how the funds are to be allocated. Unfortunately, I don't have any figures to give you in terms of the current use or commitment of the funds.

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

I would like to take 30 seconds to say that all three of you also agree that infrastructure investment programs have to be continued and we have to stay at the cruising speed we have now achieved. Essentially, I understand that things had bogged down and your municipalities were not able to get out.

What I also understand is that the notorious one-third, one-third, one-third split is bad for you. Would you like it to be 45%, 45% and 10% instead? Give me a number.

[Jean Perras]

We don't have a number. You have to understand that when the federal government and Quebec each invest 33% in projects, the sales tax means that they recover $17 or $18 million, but we recover absolutely nothing.

We thing that is unfair. We have already spoken to our colleagues in the FCM and we are in agreement with them. The FQM and the UMQ are both members of the Federation. They come to our annual meetings. We speak all the time and we support the approach of striking a new balance and making it fairer.

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

Perfect, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Warkentin, for five minutes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to follow up on some of the things that Pat Martin discussed in his rant.

He talked about the political nature of this framework. While he talked specifically about the punishment that voters were receiving as a result of having elected certain members of Parliament, I thought it was important to mention the folks of Halifax, who feel very punished after having received $18.3 million for an initiative in their riding. We have the folks from Skeena--Bulkley Valley, who also elected an NDP member, and they have received $130 million in a single investment in that riding. We also have the folks in Toronto, who have received over $600 million for specific subway extensions. We have another investment in Toronto that actually, Madam Chair, goes through your riding; it's an investment of over $300 million for an extension of a rail line. I think it's important that a million dollars--

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you. I thought you had lost your math.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Well, we certainly don't want to be adding zeros to some of these numbers. It's an exorbitant amount, Madam Chair, and your constituents will be proud of the work you've done to represent their needs with these infrastructure funds.

Anyway, that's not so much for your edification, gentlemen, but because I think it is important to correct the record. We know there are people in the media who are clear about the facts, but we don't want the public who are watching these events to be left with any misunderstanding. I'm sure the honourable member would correct the record, especially since it was an NDP government with which our government negotiated the investments in his riding and province. As a matter of fact, I have three pages of investments for the Manitoba communities that he represents.

Having said that, I'll move on to other discussions, as I do want to talk about a number of things.

We've had a number of comments regarding the timeline. Obviously there is a requirement that this money be spent in a timely way. That is part of the initiative and part of what makes it stimulus. If we continue to drag out the deadline, it's no longer stimulus; the money will get spent when the money gets spent and the jobs will not be created now. Our government has been very focused on ensuring that the jobs are created now, and I know you all appreciate that. That's one of the challenges as we approach this impending deadline.

My understanding--and you can correct me if I'm wrong--is that 75% of the projects planned for this construction year were started as of September 1. That was a month ago, and the report to our government was that 75% of the projects that municipalities committed to starting this year were already under construction or in the process of being under way. Are you familiar with that statistic? That information might be helpful as you undertake your analysis.