Transport Committee on June 10th, 2010

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

That is the reason why I am here this morning. I say that we are partners. We are all working towards the same goal: economic recovery and improving the quality of life of every resident in every municipality all across the country.

I would just add that one of the partners feels that it has been adversely affected, despite the good faith shown by its willingness to support the economy along with its provincial and, particularly, federal governments. That partner is simply asking that consideration be given to the difficulties it has encountered, that the government accept the fact that it did show good faith in starting these projects and that it not be left to bear the burden alone for part of the effort, since this should be a shared effort by each of the partners.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

Could you make the point, once again, that setting a deadline, without consulting the municipalities, once the infrastructure stimulus program had already begun, showed a lack of respect for the municipalities?

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

I would not say there was a lack of respect for the municipalities. Had I been the minister responsible, I would have launched the stimulus program with a date for completing the work. There obviously had to be one.

That said, I think it's important to consider afterwards who will be delivering the plan and what practical difficulties they may encounter from day to day in delivering it. And the reason I'm here this morning is to let you know that, in terms of the day-to-day delivery of the plan, even though we subscribed to a theoretical deadline for completion of the work, in practice, some of us simply will not be able to manage it. And that is the case even though there has been no bad faith and no laziness on anybody's part. We would basically be penalized for our good faith. I think it would be a cruel blow to the municipalities were they penalized for the good faith they showed, through their desire to support economic recovery and the fundamental goal that all governments must have, which is to provide a better quality of life to all citizens everywhere.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I have a specific question and I would like to ask it in English. It is a little more specific.

In regard to cost factors that you mentioned in the instance of Matane, for example, where $1.7 million was added to the cost to try to get in by the deadline, can you give us an idea, when you go out in the marketplace with the construction industry and you say you must meet the deadline--I think you said 10 months versus 16 months--of what kind of increase in cost is there? I know you deal with these practical matters all the time. Can you perhaps enlighten the committee about what happens when you compress the time the way it has happened, in terms of cost?

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

If you ask any engineer, they will tell you that if you compress the time probably you will have to pay for it. It will increase the price. I gave you one example of one municipality that faced it, but I could send you examples of some other municipalities that faced the same situation concerning that.

Every time you compress the time too much, it results in an increase in the price. Thank God that in British Columbia it did not do that.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I will tell you that we will be hearing from British Columbia later on, and we've done a survey of British Columbia.

Despite the many Conservative MPs from that province, there is a problem there as well. Unfortunately, that is not a solution to these problems.

I'm very interested in hearing from your members on that idea of it costing more. I think value for Canadians is what we're trying to get. The government had originally promised it would get this money out in time to help last year. That didn't quite happen in most cases, so we want to at least get good value for this project. We're very interested, because we know that you, the municipalities, are the ones who know how to get the best value for a project.

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

It's the federal government's responsibility to stimulate the economy. And I want to thank it for doing that. Now that the program and the projects are underway, it must ensure that part of that responsibility is not transferred to the municipalities and, consequently, to municipal taxpayers.

In that respect, I think it would be very unfair for a national stimulus program to end up being subsidized in large part by the property taxes paid to municipalities all across the country. I don't think that is the goal. Indeed, I'd say that is the opposite of what the goal was.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Jean.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your attendance today.

You've mentioned “penalized” many times, and I have to say that the federal government, the provincial government of Quebec, and all the provinces made an agreement to finish by the end of March 2011. And every municipality actually signed an agreement as well to finish by March 31, 2011. I represent approximately geographically 30% of Alberta, but all my small municipalities told me bluntly they're not applying for some projects because they knew they couldn't finish. So it's not a penalty to fulfill the terms of an agreement. It's fulfilling the terms of an agreement that was well known, well documented, and agreed upon. So I just want to make sure that's on the record.

Now, there is another question I have for you, sir, and it will come after I talk about some things.

As part of this Conservative government's agenda, we have put forward $936 million from the infrastructure stimulus fund for 875 projects in Quebec.

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

Yes.

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

We have, in the green infrastructure fund, put forward over $170 million for six projects across Quebec, and 106 projects for $210 million through the economic action plan—a top-up, in fact, because we wanted to make sure we kept it going. We're watching the economy very closely. Through the Building Canada fund, another $175 million in base funding to Quebec. Through the major projects component of the Building Canada plan, another $1.5 billion to Quebec for 18 projects, and $210 million for projects in communities with fewer than 100,000 people to make sure we got the large cities and the smaller populations. There's $200 million for communities with fewer than 100,000 people, for seven more projects.

In fact, if I may, this is the government that actually doubled the gas tax funding, and currently $2.7 billion will be going to Quebec between the years 2007 and 2014. And this is the government that made that permanent, so that communities such as the ones you represent will have that continuous funding, and in fact we've doubled that funding.

So I just want to make that clear on the record, because I think it's very important to see that we have actually transformed as a government and as a country the funding mechanism for municipalities.

My question to you, sir, is have you ever seen so much money coming to municipalities and the provinces from the federal government for infrastructure funding? Have you ever seen this in the history? Because you've been here a long time, sir.

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

Thank you very much for your question. As president of the coalition, every time the government brought down a budget, I had an opportunity, through interviews or press releases, to express my considerable satisfaction at the fact that the federal government was taking steps to better respond to what municipalities across the country had been asking for. The funding you referred to is extremely important. It represents Quebec's share in relation to its population. So, I want to thank you. That extra effort that has been made by your government is remarkable.

Having said that, we are partners. Don't let a deadline taint--

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

I understand that, and that's what I want to talk about. I only have five minutes, sir, I apologize.

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

Excuse me.

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

Pardon me. I only have a few minutes, and the chair will cut me off just like that, so I want to make sure I get my questions in, if you don't mind.

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

Maybe the chair will cut off the program too, so let's make sure.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

Well, I have to tell you, sir, I had an opportunity to read the speech of the Prime Minister at the FCM conference, because of course he attended with Minister Baird. To be clear, I don't think there's going to be any extension. I'll tell you why I don't think there's going to be any extension. It's not an issue of the money, sir. You've never seen more money come to Quebec, or the provinces, or the municipalities by any government in the history of this country. You've never seen that.

But clearly this is not about the money, not about the amount of money. It's about timing. It's about fairness. I hope the government is fair to the communities I represent, just as I hope they're fair and treat Quebec communities exactly the same. I think what we've seen with this stimulus funding is exactly what we wanted to see. We've seen an economy bounce back. We've seen 300,000 jobs created in the last eight months. We've seen the strongest economy in the world being Canada. So I think the infrastructure stimulus fund is working, and that's what it's there for. It's there to make sure that we don't have rapid depletion of the economy, which means jobs.

I do want to say this, sir. I have seen in my municipalities the funding of these projects come in 30% under what they expected it to be. So the actual reality is that even though I have the lowest unemployment rate in the country, being from Fort McMurray, the municipalities in my area are able to complete the projects on time because those are the ones they applied for. They applied for ones they could do. So I think that's very important to be fair to all the communities and to make sure that this infrastructure stimulus package, the funding itself for the stimulus money, which is a small portion of the economic plan, is actually spent to do exactly what it's there for, and that is to create stimulus, to create jobs, but only do so for a certain period of time.

Now, you remember over-inflation, don't you, in the 1980s, 18%, 24%?

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

Let me tell you, sir, I think I should get the same kind of five minutes as you're getting now.

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

You remember 18% to 24% interest payments at the bank in the 1980s. Do you remember that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm going to give you a chance to answer that. I have to move on.

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

Yes. I remember I had a certificate at 18.54% in 1981. I never got that back. I remember I paid my mortgage on a commercial building at 21%, and it was quite hurting.

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

Exactly, and that's what we want to avoid.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you. I have to—

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

Mr. Chair, may I answer?