Mr. Chair, members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Institut pour le partenariat public-privé is pleased to be taking part in the committee's hearings on public-private partnerships. With your permission, I will briefly present the institute and the role it plays in Quebec.
The Institut pour le partenariat public-privé is an independent non-profit organization that was founded 17 years ago and promotes dialogue on public-private partnerships. The institute's objectives are to increase awareness of and to spread information about public-private partnerships. For example, we strive to monitor the major Canadian and global trends in infrastructure development, the delivery of public services and the emergence of new organizational models.
The institute organizes multisectoral forums for discussion, analysis and comparison of various methods for carrying out projects in all phases: design, implementation process, organization and financing. A few weeks ago, for example, we held a major forum on public-private partnerships. We discussed the construction of the new bridge over the St. Lawrence as a P3 project, particularly from the standpoint of the development and integration of public transit for the greater Montreal area.
The institute has no dogmatic position on P3s. We believe that the option of carrying out a project through a public-private partnership must be subject to a normal project feasibility analysis process based on genuine risk-sharing between public and private partners. In that sense, the privatization of public services is not at all a form of public-private partnership.
In fact, the P3 option should be selected only if it represents genuine added value that can simultaneously enhance the accessibility, quality and continuity of service to citizens, make public services more efficient and ensure maximum transparency and integrity in the process used. In our view, a public-private partnership must be a winning solution for the public and private partners, the public and the users of those services.
Our modern societies, regardless of their level, are dealing with complex issues, the most significant of which is of course guaranteeing their citizens that the supply of high quality public services can be developed and maintained. A public-private partnership is neither a miracle cure nor a panacea. However, it can be a powerful tool in improving and optimizing public services if it is properly used in accordance with strict rules of transparency.
Coming back to the purpose of this committee's proceedings, we hope to draw your attention to the fact that public-private partnerships should be viewed as a collective good, that is to say as a development instrument in the service of national, provincial and local communities that may be advantageous to use, depending on the situation, to carry out infrastructure and service delivery projects, for example.
In Quebec in recent years, many major P3 projects have been, or are about to be, successfully delivered. For example, the Highway A-25 bridge linking east Montreal to the city of Laval was opened in the spring of 2011. There were no cost overruns and the bridge went into service on schedule. The same is true of the Orchestre symphonique de Montréal's new concert hall, which opened for its first concerts one year ago. In a few weeks, Highway 30 and the bridge over the St. Lawrence Seaway will be opened to traffic, in accordance with the project's work schedule, thus helping to relieve traffic congestion around Montreal Island. These are major projects for our community.
Other, smaller public-private partnerships have also been carried out with the same degree of success, including multi-purpose complexes in Lévis, south of Quebec City, rest stops on various highways and a long-term care centre in Saint-Lambert, in Montérégie. These projects are as vitally important for the residents of those communities as the mega-hospitals under construction in the Montreal area, such as McGill University's CUSM, CHUM and the CHUM Research Centre, all of which, with a single exception, are on schedule. That project is being reviewed in response to new demands made by the public partner in accordance with established budgets.
Based on our information, some 40 other projects that could be carried out through P3s are currently being evaluated in Quebec City. Many of them require federal government contributions in order to be implemented. As we told you earlier, every project must be considered on its merits. Some projects clearly will not meet P3 requirements, whereas P3 will be a definite advantage for others. That is also true of the conventional project implementation method.
Public-private partnerships are relatively new in North America. People have been talking about them for about 15 years. Some Canadian provinces go the P3 route more than others. That is the case of Ontario and British Columbia, for example. In Quebec, strong resistance to P3s emerged in the mid-2000s, fuelled essentially by union organizations fearing potential job losses. Those fears have not been realized.
Popular support for public-private partnerships exceeds 60%, even 70%, in certain sectors such as highway infrastructure, for example. Tens of thousands of motorists who take the new Highway 25 bridge, thus cutting 45 minutes to an hour off their driving time, would readily say that, without a P3, there would be no bridge. The arguments against it are well known: higher borrowing costs for the private sector, loss of project control by the public and the idea that P3 processes are much longer, complex and more costly than conventional processes.
However, the evidence allays those fears. In Quebec, as is the case elsewhere in Canada and in many countries around the world, deadlines are very firm: projects are delivered on time and on budget, with no extras; implementation methods are managed jointly by all public and private partners in a completely transparent manner; and guarantees are given that infrastructure will be maintained, service will continue over a long period of time, and infrastructure and service management will revert to the public sector upon expiry of the partnership agreement, and will do so in the best condition possible.
The Institut pour le partenariat public-privé strongly believes that public-private partnerships are one way to ensure process integrity in the design, awarding, implementation and management of infrastructure projects. Across Quebec and Canada, governments and a large number of municipalities must modernize or rebuild their infrastructure. These are major challenges for all communities. Public-private partnerships are a tool with which to meet them.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.