Evidence of meeting #24 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was projects.
A recording is available from Parliament.
President, Union of British Columbia Municipalities
Yes, we did.
Executive Director, Union of British Columbia Municipalities
Mr. Chair, the UBCM executive raised this issue with the minister responsible for local government about six months ago at an executive meeting.
Executive Director, Union of British Columbia Municipalities
I don't believe there was a formal request. The issue was raised verbally at an executive meeting.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
I come from Quebec. I was a mayor for 12 years before becoming a member of Parliament. You know what an election year looks like: all projects languish and no one wants to spend too much. There was an election in Quebec in November 2009. December 31, 2010 and March 31, 2011 are tight deadlines. If the government doesn't show some flexibility with regard to some projects, it's a foregone conclusion that some projects won't see the light of day.
Earlier, Mr. Buda was talking about fairness. I would be happy to see everyone finish at the same time, but everyone would have to start at the same time as well. I understand what you are saying. Earlier on, you clearly stated that as an issue of fairness, everyone should finish at the same time. But everyone would also have to start at the time.
I understand that this does not depend on the government, but at the some point in time, some circumstances will dictate that some people will not be able to start at the time as the others, for whatever reason.
I would like you to speak again to the issue of fairness. Earlier on, that bothered me somewhat.
Director of Policy, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
The notion is that all municipalities knew the deadline was March 31, 2011. In most cases they selected their shovel-ready projects for completion by March 31, 2011, in early winter of 2009, so it was a year and a half ago.
In fact it was even before the budget announced the stimulus funds because they knew they would have to move as quickly as possible to get their projects into the application process. They knew there would be some time for the provincial and federal governments to review those applications and make their decisions.
So people started planning these projects...actually December 2008 is when we first made a call to our members to identify shovel-ready projects. When the budget was announced, they knew roughly how much money was available. The province, working with the federal government, started to work on programs they could apply for, so people began to adjust their lists.
I think your point is that in some cases municipalities that had identified these projects as early as January or February of last year may have had to wait six or eight months before they heard whether their projects had been approved.
So the projects were originally identified. They anticipated having one and a half or two full construction seasons. They may have only had one construction season. But in all cases, those projects were identified. They had planned to be able to get them done by March 31, assuming they had two years.
The idea of a global extension would be challenging. If the municipality had known they'd have more time, they probably would have taken more time or chosen a different project. The challenge is that they had, as you said, different starting points.
I think that's what we're trying to get at here. Some municipalities in some provinces had starting points as late as eight months later than others. It's difficult to meet the same deadline when you're starting eight months later. In those cases we're suggesting there should be some flexibility required. It may not actually require more time. There are other administrative solutions that could allow a municipality to finish part of the project but still ensure that the federal share is contributed.
Bloc
Roger Gaudet Bloc Montcalm, QC
I agree with you on that point. One must not forget that with the three-way-split formula, everyone is paying. Whether it comes from Quebec, from the provinces, the territories, the federal government or the municipalities, everyone is paying one third. In my opinion, fairness means that everyone participates.
It is like the economic stimulus: some provinces got more than others. There were good reasons, I agree, but that does not mean that the other provinces should be left out. Sometimes, it is the opposite: one province should perhaps get more than another, to a certain extent. We cannot be fair on one single issue whereas, on the next, the issue of fairness is not taken into account.
Fairness, to my mind, means that everyone is entitled to what is coming to them, at the end of the day. I do not know what you think, but sometimes we can't spend on some days, whereas we can the following day. Some people received more funding thanks to the economic recovery, whereas others received less. Under those circumstances, how can we be fair? That is why I want fairness to be included in all government programs.
I do not recall if it was Mr. Cunningham or Mr. Nyce, but earlier on you spoke of the future. In your opinion, what will the future look like after March 31, 2011?
President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities; and Director for the Regional District Central Kootenay, British Columbia
Very good, yes. We did speak about the future, because one of the things that has worked out is that the economic action plan has been successful for most communities, and we're quite happy with the way things are turning out, generally speaking, and that in fact we're looking for more partnerships between the different orders of government. We think that by working together we can avoid duplication, we can work more efficiently, and of course we can, in our case, end up with a much better result for our communities. And that's what I was speaking to, at looking to the future, because I think that's an important thing.
Also it was mentioned about flexibility, the flexibility we're talking about. The government has shown flexibility before by withdrawing that 100% clawback that said if you didn't finish by the deadline date, you're not getting any of the federal money and you have to pay back what you got. So that is a definite showing of flexibility and one that most communities were very happy with. The kind of flexibility we're showing now could basically be taken care of, in many cases, by some administrative work.
Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Can I add to that, Mr. Chair?
Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
I think, in addition to what President Cunningham said, in the future there will continue to be difficulties or challenges with the infrastructure deficit at the municipal level, so we will be looking for ways to continue to work with the government to support the ongoing work to rebuild the infrastructure at a municipal level across the country.
We certainly appreciate the initiation of the gas tax, and making the gas tax permanent is critical; it must continue into the future. At some point in time, when the economic situation is better, that gas tax will need to start to grow with the economy because it will lose value over time.
Certainly one of the clear examples of the infrastructure challenges at the municipal level across the country is the current waste water regulations discussion we're having. But we feel that if we can take the stimulus package as an illustration of how the three orders of government can attack a national challenge, if we take that model, we think there's a way that we can come to a resolution of the waste water regulation problem in the country through the cooperation of the three orders of government.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the witnesses making the time to be here today.
I couldn't help but note a comment that was made by the Liberal member, Mr. Kennedy, in his remarks. I'm paraphrasing here, but basically what he said was that there's a difference between making an announcement and delivering on a project. I certainly couldn't agree more with that. That's why I'm so proud of the unprecedented, very quick action that's been taken by our government on this municipal funding for the infrastructure projects.
I look over a list of projects and I know there are a number from B.C. in it. Just to highlight a couple of areas that I really enjoy holidaying in, I see that one of them is Tofino, with some highway work that is 100% completed. Another area I enjoy going to, to hit the links, is the Radium–Fairmont area. I notice a project in Radium: some trails, which are 100% completed. There are dozens and dozens of examples.
I look to my own province of Alberta and to projects in my riding. There are Highway 1A improvements near Cochrane. I look at work on Highway 1 near Banff and on Highway 27 near the Olds area. I have a number of other projects: roadworks in Airdrie and rinks in places such as Olds and Airdrie, and waste water infrastructure in places such as Crossfield and Didsbury. In my riding, and everywhere else, I hear that people are very impressed with how quickly these projects are rolling out and how quickly they're being completed.
Obviously, that's to the credit not only of our government but of the provinces and the municipalities as well. We can all take great pride in the work we've done together to make this happen as quickly as we have.
I contrast that with other times when you would see programs drag on for years and years with very little progress. We've certainly seen that in the past. A great example of it was the Liberals' infrastructure program, called the municipal–rural infrastructure fund. That was a program, a billion-dollar fund, that they announced in their budget in 2003. It took them three years just to negotiate and sign agreements with all the provinces. It took until 2006 to do it. The amount of money spent on the first year of their program was zero dollars; the money spent in the second year of the program was zero dollars again; and the amount spent in the third year of the program was very insignificant—we're talking about less than one-tenth of one per cent of the announced funds.
When you look at examples like that, I guess I would ask the panel today, is there anyone who thinks that is the kind of example they would want to see us follow on infrastructure funding?
I note a complete lack of support for the Liberal approach to infrastructure funding among the panel.
Maybe we'll just look at another question that I have for you. I'll ask you. In terms of our infrastructure stimulus program, obviously we had a number of unique features that ensured quick rollout of some of the funding. For example, there were very short—in some cases one-page—applications, streamlined environmental assessment processes, and of course reliance on attestations from the project proponents.
I'd ask anyone who'd be interested in answering: overall, do you feel that these new features we've included have been helpful in advancing the funding? If so, why?
Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
It's a fairly long question. I was going to say something to the first part of your question.
I think it's important to recognize that the history is what it is. Part of the fact is that negotiating federal–provincial agreements is pretty challenging. Now we're at a point at which there have been some precedents. There are some models that have been developed, and those are being followed.
I can't speak to the history that you outlined, other than to say that it must have been very complicated to make those negotiations.
I would say that the recent developments in the way the stimulus package was rolled out have, from an administrative perspective, been an improvement. We have a plan to sit down with the department and with the minister's staff to talk about what went well, what didn't go well, what the lessons learned are, and how we can improve, so that the next time round we're building a model that, as we go into the future, just gets better and better.
Conservative
President, Union of British Columbia Municipalities
Our members at UBCM are feeling quite satisfied, and this funding is working quite well, considering.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Well, that's great. Again, I think it's a great indictment for all governments—our federal government, the provincial, and the municipal—that we've been able to work so well together in great partnership. I certainly expect that will continue.
I look at things such as the gas tax funding. Last year we announced the doubling of it. It's an ongoing program. I would be curious about your comments on whether you support the doubling of the gas tax funding and the ongoing nature of it. It's certainly another example of great cooperation between the levels of government.
President, Federation of Canadian Municipalities; and Director for the Regional District Central Kootenay, British Columbia
I certainly agree with you there. The gas tax has done a great deal for us in communities in helping us rebuild our infrastructure.
Of course, as was mentioned by Brock, what we'd like to see down the road is something in the way that would make sure it continues to hold its value as inflation takes hold, so some kind of inflation type of compensation.
But yes, the gas tax was and is an excellent program. It's the kind of thing, a general program, that FCM has always advocated and is part of our policy.
Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
And what's particularly important about the gas tax is that it's a predictable, sustainable revenue for the municipalities. So instead of going through project application and approval, etc., the gas tax allows for predictability, long-term planning, long-term management of your affairs in a way that project-based programs don't.
Liberal
Bonnie Crombie Liberal Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
We have heard that not all the municipalities are going to be able to meet the March deadline. We know that. In fact, there is a myriad of reasons that you've talked about and some other municipalities—last week, we heard from the City of Laval—have talked about: seasonality; labour issues; weather, of course; inability to mobilize quickly; and we've heard it's because the deadlines are too punitive, too rigid, and thus unfair.
We've heard 50% of projects will be over time and hence over budget, and then you're going to experience the clawback. Is this fair, and should this be changed? Should the government be willing to be more flexible?
Ms. Steele, we heard from you that you will have projects that will be over time and over budget, and of course we've heard that will add additional costs to your taxpayer because of this inflexible deadline. Am I correct?
First Vice-President, Union of British Columbia Municipalities
Yes, there is certainly some indication that there will be some added expense. I don't know that it's been said that it's an absolutely inflexible deadline. I think we're here to try to work out some plan. I don't think that any of us, and certainly not UBCM, has any plan to globally extend the deadline at any time.
