Good afternoon, gentlemen, Mr. Vaillancourt.
While I won't reiterate what Mr. Vaillancourt has said, I will say it is apparent that the fears expressed by the Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités at its last appearance unfortunately seem to have materialized.
With only a few weeks left until winter, when infrastructure work will be forced to stop, the municipalities are again, and still, having to deal with this famous deadline, which is becoming increasingly worrisome in terms of actual capacity to complete the projects announced.
I don't want to reiterate the figures given by Mr. Vaillancourt, but we note that fewer than 40% of the projects undertaken by the municipalities by September 16 had been completed. You will understand that concerns are obviously growing as time passes.
Circumstances are mounting up to hinder the capacity of the thousand members of the FQM to complete their projects. It almost amounts to subjecting the municipalities to mental cruelty, given that projects have been recognized and funding for them confirmed by agreements. We are increasingly facing the anxiety of the period imposed by the program ending, which will probably mean that hundreds of projects all across Quebec will not be completed, for all sorts of reasons. It may be a question of delays associated with completing these various projects, or authorizations that are needed from various departments, for example the ministère de l'Environnement, or from the Commission de la protection du territoire agricole, in the case of projects that affect those areas.
In the present overheated situation, where bids are often considerably higher than initial estimates, there are all sorts of situations that mean that in many cases municipalities are unfortunately having to conclude that it is impossible to complete these projects. That observation is also shared by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which has reached the same conclusions itself.
At present, municipalities are still calling for tenders. It is easy to understand how some bidders, given this inexplicable and unjustifiable deadline, are not risking bidding, given the risk of a major penalty that some of them are facing. This means that the number of bids being submitted is low.
There is also the problem with materials, which is becoming a matter of growing concern. The overheating observed last spring has now hit head-on. Delivery delays, which have become common because materials are increasingly rare, are causing major stress and interfering with the capacity to complete projects.
In the circumstances, you will understand that the resolution passed by the Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités asking that this deadline be pushed back, which was adopted at the annual general meeting held at the end of December, is entirely appropriate.
We seem to be hearing that the economic crisis is behind us. When we see the difficulties in many of the regions and places in Quebec, we understand that the economic recovery has not always been on time. We still need this infrastructure program to stimulate the economy. The federal governments wants to make us believe the recession has ended. That is what it sees when it puts on its rose-coloured glasses, but we have to step back a bit.
Denis Lebel was also present for the opening presentation by the Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités. He took good note of the unanimous request by the members at the convention to postpone the deadline. Mr. Lebel also committed himself at the end of September to conveying the message stated very clearly by the Fédération Québécoise des Municipalités to his government, to lift the constraints associated with this program.
What we are asking, in fact, is that for all the projects that have been announced, 100% of the money announced be allowed to be spent beyond this famous deadline. Objectively, there is no justification for the deadline. When an agreement is submitted to a municipality and signed by the government, that money itself is set aside for the project. What would be the problem if the project were completed within a reasonable and acceptable time, rather than rushing projects through and having the quality risk being jeopardized? Impose requirements for completing these projects as soon as possible after the deadline, certainly. Look, we have a winter to get through here at the end of this program, and that winter is a major obstacle to being able to complete these projects.
More specifically, in my own municipality, I recently received an agreement signed for a recreation centre. It is a $1.5 million project. You may say that's not much, but it's important to my community. I received the agreement on October 5, 2010, with the requirement that the project be completed by March 31. In objective terms, how do you expect me to start the process for borrowing and for the plans and specifications, to do the work in the winter, and have it all completed by March 31? What we're asking is that the money committed under the agreements be disbursed in full. It is unacceptable to leave amounts like that on the table. Several hundred million dollars could expire because of this obstinate insistence on a deadline.
The list of municipalities facing problems completing these projects might go on at quite some length. The 40% of projects authorized to date alone illustrates the gap we still have to close between projects undertaken and March 31. This burden absolutely has to be lifted as soon as possible.
Thank you for your attention.
