Transport Committee on June 10th, 2010

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

We asked Quebec to provide it, but we are unable to get that information.

Also, in terms of your representations, are you preparing to make the same case to Quebec City, in order to put pressure on the province as well?

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

We are already doing that. In fact, the documents we are producing for the committee will also be produced for the Government of Quebec.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I want to come back to the question of equity. I know that Gatineau, Drummondville, La Pocatière, and several towns and cities in Quebec, both small and large, are members of the UMQ.

What do you say to the mayors of Gatineau or Drummondville who received money and completed their projects within the specified period? What do you say to those mayors who will not bear these costs compared to others, who are making the same arguments? There were elections all across Quebec; everyone was affected by the elections. Yet some people were able to complete their projects within the specified period and under the expected circumstances, whereas others will not be able to. What do you say to them?

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

Thank you for raising that question; it's very important.

In my region, I was able to complete about 90% of the work on time. The only work I will have to pay out of my own budget are the projects under the PRECO because good practice dictates that we lay a first layer of asphalt, that we wait until the freezing and unfreezing process has taken place, and then put the final layer on only in the following season.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Are you aware of the fact that even the Ministry of Transport does not follow that?

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

Pardon?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Are you aware of the fact that even the Department of Transport does not follow that practice itself?

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

The Ministry of Transport may not follow it, but we are conscientious, responsible administrators, and we do.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Are you saying that Quebec is not?

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

Either we do the work wrong, which is certainly not something the government would like to see us do, or you and your party will have to acknowledge that putting the second layer down in the spring is part of the same operation. We are not going to start opening up the asphalt plants in the middle of winter; we can't do that.

This is an obstacle that we simply cannot avoid and, whether you recognize it or not, that is the exact opposite of the equity principle you just referred to. As for the rest, we will be providing you with a complete list presenting an overview of the current situation, which will allow you to see things in the proper perspective.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I don't have much time left, but I would like to address the project in La Pocatière. You stated earlier that some regions were luckier than others because they were aware of the projects. But I did my homework. And there are some PRECO projects that will be announced in the coming weeks—in fact, within the next two weeks—particularly in Rivière-du-Loup and La Pocatière.

The Town of La Pocatière had decided not to use the PRECO program. And it would never have heard about it if I had not made them aware of it. And if La Pocatière decided to apply under the PRECO in particular, it's because the project involves a national road, which is not deemed a priority under the program. It's pretty well impossible to match the PRECO with the Ministry of Transport's plans because priorities have been set. In fact, I was the one that set those priorities with the Ministry of Transport four years ago, and they are valid for the next six years. So, there are obviously deadlines to be met.

Even if we were to extend it for three or six months more, for instance, that would not resolve the problem for La Pocatière, in terms of the PRECO, because it's a national road.

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

That's possible, but my response to that is that the constraints imposed under these different programs constitute an impediment to proper management of the work. If you are interested in looking at the whole issue of the constraints imposed under both federal and provincial government programs, I would be very pleased to give you the benefit of our expertise and demonstrate that, acting in all good faith, and knowing the way municipalities operate—of course, since you were once a mayor yourself, you are aware of this, as are others—this is often the kind of difficulty we encounter.

In Quebec, before any other work can be contemplated, we first have to complete the watermain work. The bridges have to wait. We are not eligible to receive money for bridges until we have completed the water system work. Just try telling the bridges that they will have to hang in there a little longer because it's not their turn yet!

These programs were developed by governments on the basis of so-called “national” priorities. I could show you how governments' good will can turn out, on a day-to-day basis, to be the worst enemy of positive results. There are bridges in my city that need to be replaced. I cannot get any money for my bridges because the watermain work is not completed. So tell me how Parliament can pass legislation forcing my bridge to last longer until its turn comes, once the watermain work is done? The two levels of government are the ones that impose this on us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci.

Go ahead, Mr. Jean, on a point of order.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

It's actually a point of clarification, Mr. Chair.

The witness has stated that he's not allowed to finish this until he's finished that. Is it the Province of Quebec--I just want to make sure--that is imposing that upon him?

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

In Quebec, we can only deal with the provincial government. It's the law. Every municipality has to satisfy the law. I'm only telling you that this agreement was signed between the federal government and the provincial government. But at the end, who's paying for it? Who's living with it? It's not the federal government, and it's not the provincial government; the mayor and the council are living with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Merci.

Go ahead, Ms. Crombie.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the parliamentary secretary is being disingenuous, because at the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer. That's for the record.

I also think the parliamentary secretary is being disingenuous on his commitment, an ongoing commitment, to cities and municipalities. We know for a fact there wouldn't have been an infrastructure stimulus fund if the opposition parties hadn't gotten together and required them after the first prorogation. Let's put that on the record.

The fundamental issue here, as I see it, is the lack of openness and transparency, and we've talked a lot about fairness in the process. Largely, unrealistic timeframes were imposed. Clearly the only municipalities that benefited and that could benefit were those that had projects either under way or almost under way. Certainly those with severe weather issues or union problems were going to be penalized, and many other projects would be ineligible. Certainly projects that were in the vision stage or in the feasibility stage would be ineligible. Legacy projects such as the City of Toronto's subway completion were going to be ineligible. I think the infrastructure stimulus fund was a missed opportunity for a one-time legacy project. Here we have $50 billion being invested. Did it go to a higher-speed rail or an LRT system? No, no, no. The moneys were used for roads, sewers, bridges, maintenance, etc.

You made reference to the City of Mississauga and Hazel McCallion. Of course I'm the member for Mississauga--Streetsville, very proudly, and we have a $1.5 billion infrastructure deficit over the next 20 years, which is $750 million annually. So the money we received, frankly, is a drop in the bucket.

You made reference to our reserve funds. Well, those reserve funds are dwindling. In fact, in 2012 we'll have only $30 million available for infrastructure rehabilitation projects. We know from the FCM that the current needs of municipalities across Canada are $123 billion, and as I said to begin with, there's only one taxpayer. The money has to come from somewhere.

Let me ask you this, Mr. Vaillancourt: how many of your projects were eligible and ineligible? Did you have projects lapse? If the timeframes weren't so punitive, what would you otherwise have used the funds for?

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

First I'll say that I don't consider the timeframe that punitive, but we started with the idea that we should do everything we could to satisfy the timeframe. Then we hoped that we could go to the government and on a fairness basis tell them that we were very good partners in that we submitted projects and realized the projects. At the end we wanted to be treated with fairness, and we didn't want a municipality to have to come up with its own fund in order to support the setback to the economy.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Right. But clearly those were projects that were ongoing, and you had already done the feasibility studies for them and they were under way, and were going to be under way anyway. Otherwise how could you get them moving so quickly?

My objection is that there was no vision here, no legacy opportunity. It was just tinkering and maintenance. And yes, moneys are needed for road maintenance and sewers and bridges, but it was a lost opportunity, as well. And clearly the projects that you were fortunate enough to get completed were those that you would have otherwise begun and completed on your own, and you would have just searched for other venues to finance them.

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

Your assessment of the situation is correct. At the same time, had the stimulus program, under which we submitted our projects, never existed, we would have submitted them under other programs that would not have penalized us when the work was completed. Because we wanted to be part of the stimulus program and increase our investments, we end up with a greater financial burden because of deadlines we are unable to meet.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

If there had been an opportunity for a legacy project.... For instance, the City of Toronto wanted a subway, and in Mississauga we want an LRT—

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

A lot of municipalities would have considered it. There are a lot of needs in public transportation. There are a lot of needs in many other objects, but we had to satisfy what was on the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Watson, you have a couple of minutes. I'm sorry.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much.

And thank you to our witnesses for appearing. We certainly appreciate your presentation today.

Maybe I've misread your testimony here today, but in listening to you, here's what I have actually heard. It sounds to me as though your problem is actually with the Quebec government. A lot of requirements are put on you. They're not going to change the requirements, and you're saying if we move the deadline, you'll be able to comply with their requirements and complete the projects. Is that—

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

If I may correct you, that's in another program. That program did not have the same requirements, although in Quebec it took a little more time to get the details for application than it did in other provinces.