Transport Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

How did the administrators plan? Why were you, again, having basically the toughest situation...? You don't have your own staff, you're in a very competitive environment for workers, you had the worst weather in the country, essentially, and yet you were getting the projects done.

What has been the key to getting them done? What things can we do—maybe it's a little too late to help get the other projects done—that you guys have found for your success?

[Dale Harvey]

I think that in our case a lot of it is the type of infrastructure. Also, our municipalities have a working relationship with the contractors in the province and work very well with them. Those contractors will take on the work they can do for the season, because it is a limited season, and they will expand.... If they know they're bidding on projects in May and they know that they have this amount of work to do, they'll find the people and the equipment to do that work. But they plan for the season, and when the season is a lot shorter than they expected, they just can't get it done.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

This is a more generalized question that I'll throw out to all the members of the panel. I represent some 33 or 34 municipal governments in my constituency. Two-thirds of my population is in Saskatoon. I have 16 or 17 RMs and roughly the same number of towns and most of them were doing infrastructure projects.

I've heard from a couple of them that are a little concerned, but appear to be getting it done. They're the most vocal. But I've also heard the fairness question from some of my other RM administrators and mayors: they've said that if they'd known that there was going to be an extension of six months or whatever, they would have put in for more projects. Some of them missed deadlines, because in Saskatchewan only a handful of engineers handle the small ones, so they were unable to compete.

How do I deal with the fairness question from RMs—towns and small cities—who say, “Look, if we'd known there was going to be more flexibility and an extension, we would have put in for more projects?” They say they would have gotten the projects these guys can't finish and could have gotten them done in the same time. How do I go back to them and say that we've moved the rules a little bit?

I know that you guys are just asking for some fairly reasonable flexibility. How does one deal with the fairness question in dealing with municipal governments with those questions?

[Brock Carlton]

We've had that discussion with our board of directors and with some of our members, and the feeling is very strong that we have not been calling for a blanket extension. We have been calling for fairness and reasonableness where required.

We believe--and our members have told us--that if some guys down the road are struggling on some issues that are beyond their control, fairness and reasonableness in giving them the chance to finish a project is a reasonable thing to do.

If in my municipality I have the good fortune of not having some of those constraints and I'm finished, well, then, good on us for having that opportunity to make sure the projects we put forward will be completed and the jobs will be there to the fullest extent that the stimulus package anticipated.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Are there any comments from the other gentlemen?

[Gabriel Miller]

I think it's a good question.

Frankly, a question we hear more frequently from municipalities on the issue of fairness is the fairness of a system in which they propose stimulus projects and the federal and provincial governments choose and then tell them which projects are going to be eligible for funding. I think there's a fairness question about the way priorities are set.

I would say that you're right: the issue of the fairness of an extension was raised both before and during the stimulus program. A far more common concern about fairness is how municipalities are part of the priority-setting process and how decisions on what projects are funded are explained to municipalities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you, Mr. Trost.

Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thanks, Chair.

My question again goes to Mr. Carlton. This economic plan update that we see in Parliament says that one third of the projects will not be done in this calendar year.

I listened to our friend from Saskatchewan. There are going to be weather conditions between January and March. Bad weather is going to affect us everywhere, including in British Columbia.

Based on your knowledge, you are saying that 97% of the projects will be completed. To me, those numbers don't work. Based on your knowledge, not based on the government political statement, if we take that one third of the projects that will not be completed by December, can you tell me that they will be completed by the March deadline?

[Gabriel Miller]

Frankly, one of the difficult things in talking about the stimulus plan is the different ways in which progress is measured. I'm not exactly sure of the source of that particular figure, but I can tell you one thing that is important to know, which is that many of the projects were never scheduled to be finished in this calendar year. They were always scheduled to be finished sometime early in the new year.

It is true that there is some substantial infrastructure work you can't do in much of the country when there is snow on the ground, but you could be looking at recreational facilities, where you're doing work inside. You could be looking at British Columbia, where you have a much longer construction season. So there always were projects that were scheduled to finish sometime in the new year, and those end dates were part of the initial proposal for doing those projects.

From our point of view, the question that is important to ask our members is whether the projects they are on the hook to finish are on track now. For the most part, the answer has been yes, in most parts of the country. There are definitely parts of the country where projects are not on track and where we need flexibility right away. Also, frankly, there are other projects that are probably barely on track and people are having to work very hard to keep them there. If things go wrong in the next few months, they'll be in trouble.

That is what we're hearing from our members.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Again, Mr. Chair, can I follow up?

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

The question is this, then. Right now, the government has made a political statement, the “fair and reasonable” statement, that they will consider those projects. But at the same time, because of unavoidable circumstances, there is a sword hanging over the neck of the municipalities. How soon would you like to see the government make a firm decision about this fair and reasonable political statement they have made?

[Brock Carlton]

That's why I said in my comments that we think the government should immediately move to that and that the government should instruct the bureaucracy to start the practical application of that political position.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Is that the most important decision you would like to see the government make on the stimulus funding right now?

[Brock Carlton]

I'm just mulling over “the most important”. It's certainly important; I think it probably is the most important decision. The statement has been made at a political level: action it. Then, as I said before, our ultimate concern is what happens beyond stimulus.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Delaying this decision that you want made right now on the policy to be put in place or the action to be taken now—that uncertainty—is also creating undue pressure on municipalities. Is it creating pressure in a dollar sense as well?

[Brock Carlton]

It would be speculation if I were to say yes to the question about the dollar sense. It certainly is keeping pressure on municipalities. That would be energy better spent if the announcements were made and the energy were going into the planning for the rolling out of the ending phase of the stimulus program.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

One of the statements you made was a great statement: you want to see the vision after the stimulus funding is over. Even when the decision for the stimulus funding was made, it was made on projects that were shovel-ready. Basically, the municipalities were going to go ahead with those projects anyways, right? But when we look at this comment on making that decision, on spending $50 billion, the whole of the money was spent without any vision or legacy...?

[Brock Carlton]

I'm sorry. What was the last part of your question? Without...?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

The $50 billion that the government spent did not have any vision or legacy.

[Brock Carlton]

A vision or legacy...?

Okay. There are a couple of points. One is that earlier in your commentary you were asking about the projects that have come forward. These projects had been planned, so they were brought forward in time to be done in the immediate urgency of the situation. A lot of the work was focused on rehabilitation of existing infrastructure.

To your question about vision and legacy, we have to remember that the intention of this program was urgent job creation. So yes, in terms of the broad vision of where we're going in infrastructure in this country, that wasn't the intention of this program.

Is it needed? Absolutely it is. That's why we're saying that we really need to get to the conversation about what the long-term plan is for infrastructure in this country, so that the infrastructure can be sustained in a way that will allow us to develop a new and competitive economy in our country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Monsieur Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to go back to what my friend Brad opposite was saying. He said that, in his municipality, bigger projects could have been accomplished. The money was actually given to each province separately; in other words, Quebec had one amount, Saskatchewan had another and Ontario had another. I would simply like to point out that, even if you had more time, you would not have had more money to carry out more projects.

I would like to talk about the difference between Quebec and Ontario. Ontario is currently getting ready for elections. Since the deadline for the projects is December 31, most projects will be finished in November or very soon. In Quebec, elections took place in 2009. The government program was announced in the budget of March 2009. You must know what a municipal election year looks like; not much spending goes on. Until the November 2009 elections in Quebec, all projects were put on hold since, if a new government does not want to have anything to do with a project, that's the end of that project.

The Quebec municipal elections of November 2009 have contributed to the lack of materials since the projects started after the others. For all these reasons, the deadline should be pushed back six or seven months. As you know, municipal elections are different from provincial and federal elections. During elections, the federal government is able to dole out stuff whereas the municipal level has to be very careful.

In Ontario, the projects are complete. The elections are coming up. We see the little signs on the side of the road when we go home. In Ontario, it was possible to finish the projects whereas Quebec was not able to do the same because of the elections.

What do you think about that?

[Brock Carlton]

The local elections certainly played a role, but we must also take into account that municipal officials have their own plans for infrastructure, for...

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

The officials are not the leaders; the people elected in the municipality are the leaders.

[Brock Carlton]

I know, I know...