Evidence of meeting #28 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.
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
So that would suggest... We know there are two parties at work here: the federal government and the provincial government. Both bear some responsibility for the failure to move this forward in a decent fashion--
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
It's common information that the government signed a PRECO agreement with the Government of Quebec. The Government of Canada signed it in March of 2009 and signed all of the agreements by July of 2009, so the agreements were in place by that time. That's common knowledge.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
NDP
12:35 p.m.
Member of the Executive Committee, President of the Commission on Fiscality and Local Finances and Mayor of the City of Laval, Union of Quebec Municipalities
I don't know if I can make a point of order--
12:35 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
12:35 p.m.
Member of the Executive Committee, President of the Commission on Fiscality and Local Finances and Mayor of the City of Laval, Union of Quebec Municipalities
--but at least two of the agreements were signed just in January. Some were signed before that, but the two last ones were signed only in January.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
12:35 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
Now, this is the relationship between the federal government and the Province of Quebec. We've also had some evidence from my colleague, Mr. Trost, who talked about the fact he had received comments from other municipalities in Saskatchewan, which have an agreement that is quite separate from the one with Quebec. They were concerned about the fairness of allowing an extension. Is there any thought in Quebec, with any of the municipalities, that there is any problem with the fairness of allowing the municipalities to have an extension?
12:40 p.m.
Member of the Executive Committee, President of the Commission on Fiscality and Local Finances and Mayor of the City of Laval, Union of Quebec Municipalities
I don't think so, because all municipalities could apply. Certain municipalities decided not to, probably because they were afraid they would enter into expenses that they would have to support more by themselves—that we will never know—but there was no fairness argument developed against the fact that there will be a prolongation of the program for the ones who have already decided to apply and to subscribe to the program.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
The Manitoba association indicated to me that they had actually approved projects in Manitoba that had prior engineering work; they were obviously slated into their capital programs. Is it the same situation in Quebec, where the Province of Quebec allowed the municipality to use projects that were already in the chute for engineering and development?
12:40 p.m.
Member of the Executive Committee, President of the Commission on Fiscality and Local Finances and Mayor of the City of Laval, Union of Quebec Municipalities
Some projects could be completed because they were already included in the municipalities' investment programs. New programs were also set up, like PRECO, and called for a different analysis and different priorities to be set by municipalities. The good faith on the part of municipalities, in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, seems obvious to me.
We have had problems, and we are here to tell you that the problems we have experienced are going to cost taxpayers more money. What would be unfair is precisely for the municipalities of Quebec to have to bear a larger share of the Government of Canada's economic recovery plan, through their property taxes.
12:40 p.m.
Bernard Généreux President, Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités
If I may, I would like to say that, once again, I am wondering how it would change the government's budget not to honour the commitment signed in the agreements for projects agreed to, which were analyzed by the government and confirmed to the municipalities.
We don't want to be penalized for delays caused by the negotiations between Quebec City and Ottawa about implementation of these infrastructure programs. It's a fact that the negotiations took longer in Quebec than elsewhere. Nonetheless, projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars were submitted, analyzed and recognized. What would it change, for the federal government, if the funds committed were allocated after the deadline set, to allow these projects to be completed?
According to the figures I have, there are currently 152 projects at risk. That doesn't mean they will all be in danger. According to the figures from the ministère des Affaires municipales, des Régions et de l'Occupation du territoire, there are 152 projects at risk, worth $31 million in federal money that is also at risk. Because funding for these programs is split three ways, we can imagine that what is actually at stake is $120 million.
The main reasons cited for the projects that are at risk is the question of the time needed for completing most of the projects, the issue of paving, because of the fact that asphalt plants are going to shut down in a few days, and the issue of bids that were too high and caused the overheating we spoke about earlier. There are also several other reasons. And in addition there is the constraint of a deadline that is creating both overheating and a real inability to complete the work, because weather conditions don't allow it.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
I appreciate all of that. Quite clearly as well, I think, what we're going to have here if this kind of situation is allowed to continue, if we don't provide the flexibility to Quebec, is that we're going to have a loss of faith in the ability of federal-provincial agreements to be worked out in good faith between jurisdictions in order to accomplish the work of Canada.
To me, this is a point in time when we should really wake up and say, “Look, we want this to be a success in all areas”. Yes, we have to be flexible. We can't afford to have the cost of....
12:45 p.m.
Bernard Généreux President, Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités
Yes, you are entirely correct.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Dennis Bevington NDP Western Arctic, NT
The loss of good faith is going to be more than the dollars that are going to be lost to the federal government.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Vaillancourt and Mr. Généreux.
I am very happy to be speaking to the real Mr. Généreux—I wasn't aware I was a fake. Pleased to meet you at last.
I will not comment on Mr. Guimond's silly remarks. It isn't even worth the trouble.
The federal government has invested in $1 billion worth of projects in Quebec. To our knowledge, and Mr. Généreux was just speaking about this, in terms of the amounts at risk, we are nowhere near the $200 million figure the Bloc Québécois put forward two months ago. We're talking about $120 million and there are still almost five and a half months until the deadline set.
Mr. Généreux or Mr. Vaillancourt, can you estimate what the actual amounts at risk will be when the program ends? This is October; it isn't January or February.
12:45 p.m.
Bernard Généreux President, Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités
Listen, I think we can...
Mr. Vaillancourt, go ahead.
12:45 p.m.
Member of the Executive Committee, President of the Commission on Fiscality and Local Finances and Mayor of the City of Laval, Union of Quebec Municipalities
The $100 million figure you were given, about $30 million of which is coming from the federal government, represents the value of the work not completed by the deadline. It isn't work that remains to be done in the next five months. It is really what would be at risk of not being refunded. It represents about $30 million in money from the federal government.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Généreux, you don't seem to necessarily have the same figures.
12:45 p.m.
Member of the Executive Committee, President of the Commission on Fiscality and Local Finances and Mayor of the City of Laval, Union of Quebec Municipalities
You will recall that I said we had done a survey of our member municipalities. We have a lot of members and we probably represent the ones with the greatest volume of work, because they are large cities. We came in with a figure of about $100 million in work.
That doesn't mean there isn't a little as well in the small towns and that it wouldn't come to $120 or $130 million. In any event, whether it's $100 or $120 million, we're talking about $30 to $40 million coming from the federal economic recovery plan. We aren't talking about $300 or $400 million from the federal government.
But you have to understand that this $30 to $40 million represents an extra municipal tax burden for the same Canadian taxpayers who want to support the recovery plan.
