Transport Committee on June 10th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, you may, and then we'll move to another round.

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

Merci.

You said it's about time and fairness, and I totally agree with you. Everybody wanted to make sure we would satisfy the time limit the government was imposing on us, but I believe it would be fair to reconsider the fact that our municipalities started projects in good faith. Most of them, a large number of them, could satisfy the time. A number of them cannot satisfy the time. It should be fair that they would not have to support the difference from their own money; it should be subsidized the same way.

That's all I have to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Before I go to the next round, if I may, to take it one step further, what do we as members of Parliament tell our communities that didn't apply because they couldn't meet the deadlines? Do we ask the government to open up the application process again to let those people in? That's the challenge we have as people making decisions.

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

That would be one solution. We're always confronted with difficulties. Some municipalities were asking us, if we start the project now, could we have the guarantee from the government that we'll get the grants? You could say you could give a 30-day extension to the ones who want to submit projects and then qualify it. It won't change the envelope you have. As a matter of fact, it will simply use it more.

You could also say that the ones that have already started their projects could finish them and still get the grants. Otherwise, at the end, no matter how the contract was signed, good faith between partners should recognize the difficulties of one partner with the other partner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Without being too aggressive, I'd love to have you as my banker.

Mr. Kennedy, five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for the neutrality you have shown.

It is important that the members of your association be fully aware of the fact that Mr. Flaherty, the Minister of Finance, promised that all the stimulus projects would begin at the end of May of last year. The municipalities' efficiency is not the only problem. There are a lot of problems here in Ottawa. I am still asking that this government apply the same standards to itself that it does to its partners. Speechmaking is not enough.

Personally, I have never been the mayor of a city, but my father was. I appreciate that contribution. It is very important not to accept the idea that there is more expertise here in Ottawa. During the 1960s, half of this country's infrastructure was the responsibility of the federal government. Today, it is 11%. The municipalities are the ones with the expertise, and it is very important to put to good use the billions of dollars that the government has requested from Parliament which may have to be paid back by our grandchildren and future generations. These days, there is another problem in Parliament with respect to a small lake in Toronto. There is already a great lake next to Toronto, but the government decided to create another one for the media. That's a fundamental issue. How do we benefit from that?

In terms of this situation, I hope the government has a clear understanding of the issues. I attended the meeting with the Canadian municipalities. I heard the Prime Minister say that there would be no extension. But the real issue is not the extension; rather, it is the fact that the deadline is inflexible and arbitrary. For me, that is an important point. For the Prime Minister, the Minister and committee members, it's a matter of determining which arrangement would benefit the country. This money does not belong either to the government currently in office or to our party. This is money that must be used effectively all across the country, now and in the future.

I do hope it will be possible to secure a recommendation from all committee members on this very practical issue. How can we ensure that the programs are a success? I have the feeling we will need more information in order to convince committee members. Maybe it would be possible to do a survey to have a precise idea of the consequences as a whole, in all the different communities across Quebec. We have a choice: to ensure that, between now and the end of March, 2011, these projects will be beneficial and achieve their objectives, or suffer one failure after the other. Why? Because this committee is afraid to take its responsibilities? I hope not.

Does someone have further comments that could guide this committee's deliberations? As I see it, this is not about a confrontation. It is about finding a way to work together to achieve the best possible outcome.

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

Am I allowed to conclude? Je vous remercie, monsieur le président.

One member of Parliament stated that it's about time and fairness. I agree about time and fairness. We, with very good faith, subscribed to the possibility of time. When we could match it, we were very happy, because we were strong supporters of our government in making the economy run better again, but I think it would be about fairness to recognize that with all the efforts we have done, we are not penalized at the end by time. I understand that it's a matter of time and fairness, but fairness, and to be treated with fairness, is as important as time.

Merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

It's not over yet.

Thank you.

I know that my Conservative colleagues are well-intentioned. I have been following up with the committee and all of that. However, I would like you to realize that, for Quebec municipalities which are carrying 84% of municipal debt in Canada, participating in an economic stimulus plan requires a very significant effort.

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

And considerable risk.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

And considerable risk.

If the cities mentioned by Mr. Vaillancourt earlier—Longueuil, Gatineau, Saint-Hyacinthe, Matane and so on—do not participate, your stimulus plan will be a monumental failure. You are creating a dangerous precedent. In all the other programs, you have considered the cities to be your partners, both Liberal and Conservatives. But now, for the first time, you see them as suppliers who will ultimately be the ones to pay, and that is exactly what is going to happen. These projects will be completed, but in terms of the investments you mentioned earlier, Mr. Jean, some funding will not have been provided by the federal government. It will have been provided by the cities alone, because they will have to bear the burden of any costs incurred after the deadline. They joined the program.

Next time, you had better be careful, because this is serious. I know that your Prime Minister made a statement. However, the situation is not the same all across Canada. Cities in British Columbia and Ontario have reserve funds, but that is not the case for municipalities in the province of Quebec. You must be aware of the municipalities' financial circumstances. It is clear that you have made your choice, and they will be the ones to pay. You are going to punish them this time. But be careful, because the next time, it may be the Canadian government that ends up being punished. I must say that would benefit me greatly. We have always felt that there are two solitudes. And in this case, it seems to me you are missing a great opportunity to work with your partners.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am struck by the government's argument here that somehow fairness is what's guiding the path right now and that somehow municipalities are in adversarial roles here, as between one municipality and another, to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean, on a point of order.

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

Just to be clear, Mr. Chair, it's about fairness to all municipalities and treating them all equally. It is not about having one compete against the other. We don't do that. We have partnerships with municipalities, the same as we have with provinces and territories. But it's about treating all of them the same. I want to make sure that point is made.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

It's a good point, but it's not a point of order.

Mr. Bevington.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Was that part of my time, Mr. Chair?

I'll get back to my comments.

Because municipalities had to apply for these dollars—and certainly some of them would have to take into consideration that they may not have had capital programs identified in the regular stream they could put forward—there were municipalities that couldn't participate. But I think that within municipalities there is an understanding of the nature of the issues you have brought up here, and if the government were to poll the municipalities to see how they would handle this, I think they would be very supportive of an understanding or explanation by the various municipalities that are not able to complete their projects on time. With an explanation of the nature of the situation those municipalities were under, I think other municipalities would understand that type of behaviour and that type of solution to this particular issue, because municipalities are all the same across the country. They have to deal with these variables in programs. I think there would be a lot of understanding from other municipalities across the country.

You represent the association of municipalities in Quebec, so you're speaking on behalf of all of the municipalities of Quebec in asking for some understanding for the particular municipalities that have had problems. You wouldn't say what you're saying here today if you didn't have the support of all the municipalities of Quebec. Is that not correct?

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

You are right.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

So the government's argument about fairness only works so far. It only works in that other municipalities want to be fair to their fellow municipalities in doing the work that's before them. That's quite clear as well. So I think that argument is not as strong as the government wants to present it. It's an ethical argument that really doesn't have the boundaries they consider it has.

I'll leave that with you.

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

I come back to fairness. I believe that fairness is recognizing that the municipalities that did subscribe to the national plan for revamping the economy should not be penalized at the end and have to pay more than they would have had to pay if the time limit had been different. It's putting the responsibility for the time limit on the shoulders of municipalities alone. So many different factors are considered when you're going through a project, and the only factor now with a priority is the time limit.

I can understand that to launch a program you need a time limit, but I don't believe it is fair to make it so that municipalities have to cover the difference, because they did subscribe in very good faith to a program and did everything they could and didn't lose one minute, but at the end, they now have to pay more because they were good partners. We should have been bad partners, not done anything, and let the country go the way it was going.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Généreux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Vaillancourt, I would like to ask you to do some homework for me. Would it be possible for you to consult your members, possibly through the FQM—the Quebec Federation of Municipalities—to see which projects in Quebec that are currently underway will not be completed or might go past the deadline, whatever the reason—

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

And the amounts of money that are at stake.

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

Yes, and the amounts of money that are at stake. This is something the committee would probably—

[Gilles Vaillancourt]

It would be possible for us to do that, Mr. Généreux. We will provide it electronically. If you can give us two weeks, we will provide you with an overview for Quebec as a whole.