Transport Committee on April 23rd, 2013

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you for being with us today. We appreciate it very much.

I'm unfortunately going to speak in English.

I'm not surprised that your study shows that unionized work forces or Quebec construction is 2% cheaper, because my experience has been that good contractors with good work forces can work faster, can work more efficiently, and can compete better than others.

My questions, though, have to do with the nature of our study, which is whether or not—I'll use the term—public-private partnerships are something that should be a natural part of every infrastructure spend by municipalities if it includes federal money. The rules, as I read them in the budget, are that any time a municipality wants to spend federal money on a project of a certain size or over, it has to do what is called a P3 screening.

So even if everybody understands there is no way that a project is going to be a P3 project, you are forced to do the red tape that the government provides—a P3 screening—and you're forced to spend that money. The government says they'll give you half of the money for that screening, but that's money that is wasted. That's money that is spent with no benefit to the taxpayer because there is no likelihood that this would ever be a P3 project.

Is that a good use of taxpayers' money, to force every municipality that is asking for federal money to go through a P3 screen?

[Robert Coulombe]

From what we understand, the current program is oriented toward public-private partnerships, but that is in the case of bigger projects. As you said, there is a minimum value. Our opinion is that it is high enough that very few projects are going to have to be carried out under the P3 format.

Joël, what is the average in the case of infrastructure projects?

[Joël Bélanger]

We do not really have that figure.

[Robert Coulombe]

I will throw out a figure, but don't rely on it, given that I am unable to confirm it today. For most projects, it is about $2 million. In many cases, it is difficult to do these projects under the P3 format, regardless of how big the municipality is. Whether it is Toronto or Montreal or somewhere else, these are not always $40 or $50 million projects.

Some structuring projects, to use Mr. Coderre's term, may cost $200 or $300 or $400 million, but those are specific kinds of projects. The fact is that overall, the funds allocated under the existing program are meant for smaller projects. The total for all projects is what amounts to the billions of dollars we are talking about.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

The other piece of the budget is the notion that when federal infrastructure money goes to projects in Canada, the federal government is now looking—and this is something we discussed in the human resources committee—at the notion that these projects should be used to create skills training, that they should be used to create apprenticeships in the skilled trades where we have shortages in Canada. We see this as a very good move. We've urged the government to do this for some time.

The notion that there would be a job creation element to an infrastructure spend is something municipalities, as I understand them, already look at. You already want to do the best for your community and if that means creating some jobs in your community it's something you would like to do. You want that to happen.

Is this a good move and is it in keeping with what you already do?

[Robert Coulombe]

Yes, we support worker training. In fact, there are fewer and fewer resources for doing the work, but we also have to be careful. We will not be asking the government to dedicate a portion of the infrastructure programs to training. As I said, there are not enough funds. The program is not sufficient.

I am not saying we are not happy with the programs; we are. We are very happy that the federal government is investing money in these programs, but we would not want the envelope to be diversified to the point that part of the money is being taken for labour force training. We want to see diversification in the investments, in various types of infrastructure. That is what we think needs to be specified.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

We'll now move to Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I have an opportunity to ask a couple more questions and I'm grateful.

Monsieur Coulombe, I heard a couple of things. I'm happy that you're happy. I'm happy that you're happy the federal government is investing in these programs and that there's very positive news from the indexing of the gas tax fund. I'm quite pleased about what you said about how you're all for competition. I know you meant that in the most honest, positive sense.

The nature of our study is on how competition can make infrastructure dollars go further. Perhaps as an extension of Mr. Sullivan's question, how do you define infrastructure?

[Robert Coulombe]

I am going to try to answer your question precisely.

When you talk about type of infrastructure, that means all types of infrastructure, be it underground infrastructure, road infrastructure, cultural facilities, recreational facilities, community facilities, and so on. These various types of infrastructure are part of the responsibilities of the municipalities. Those responsibilities are increasingly diverse. There was, quite correctly, the fact that work had to be done for drinking water, and a majority of the investments were made in that.

However, I would like to mention one of our concerns, which is the new wastewater regulations. We are talking about billions of dollars for the next 30 years. So the municipalities have to have support for that. We are in favour of regulation, but we would like to have the tools to go with it.

Mr. Bélanger, what is the total amount for 30 years?

[Joël Bélanger]

We are talking about $9 billion.

[Robert Coulombe]

The figure is $9 billion. At present, only part of that is identified in the program, but it is so minimal, compared to the investment.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

We might have a chance to ask a question along the line of the P3 questioning, but it brings up the question as it relates to infrastructure. During this struggle with our fragile economic times, we tried to avoid a depression by making some significant investments in infrastructure. One of the things we did during that time was a regulatory change from the standpoint of environmental assessments. We said in terms of doing an environmental assessment that rather than having two, in cases where the regulation said you needed to have two assessments—federal and provincial—because of the jurisdictional issues, we would have enough confidence in the provinces to be able to do their own and we would accept that.

Did you take a position on that? Did you agree? I'm trying to get a sense of your position on that. Or do you feel that the two assessments versus one was the better approach? Did you have a preference for an approach?

[Robert Coulombe]

Are you talking about the wastewater regulations?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

It could relate to that, but anything, again, within your jurisdiction where it required originally a federal or provincial environmental assessment. It could include water, but there could be other things as well.

We heard some negatives from different groups who said that, in fact, we should keep both—a federal and a provincial environmental assessment—and on that basis, move the projects along, because that can take a fair amount of time. That would give confidence in what the.... This may have some bearing on how we all go forward as well.

Did your union take a position with regard to supporting that one provincial environmental assessment was sufficient? Did you take a position on this or accept it?

[Robert Coulombe]

We support having government assessments done when it comes to the environment because it is important and the environment is not confined to a municipally defined geographic area. It extends beyond the municipalities, regions and provinces. That is important. However, in terms of jurisdiction, whether it is federal or provincial, we will not take a position. We will not say whether we prefer the federal or provincial government. There needs to be an agreement. In fact, when it comes to this responsibility, the most important thing, for us, is the financial impact. We think that if there are regulations in place, regardless of what kind, when the regulations are made, there has to be money to go with them.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Excuse me, but on that very point, when you have a provincial assessment and we then come in with the federal assessment, then, by virtue of that, it must take more time. The financial implications are greater because it takes that much longer again, before workers are able to go in and do the rest of the work that they need to do.

This is not a trick question. I'm trying to get a sense of whether you had sufficient confidence in the Province of Quebec to be able to do an environmental assessment without the feds doing it. It may not be in absolute terms, I appreciate that, but I think it's a fairly clear question. I was just hoping to get some clarity in terms of your perspective and perhaps even your opinion if you didn't take a formal union position on it.

[Robert Coulombe]

My answer will be very brief.

We have said we do not want too much red tape. Let us find a way to move forward. There may be a federal position that is inconsistent with the government of Quebec's position in some situations. We would like to find the best approach. We have talked about competition and avoiding costs. We do not want there to be additional costs. We want there to be less red tape and for it to be as efficient as possible.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

You dance a bit like a politician, but it's an interesting dance.

[Robert Coulombe]

We all are.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Toet, you have five minutes.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I'm just going to pick up a little bit on Mr. Holder's line there, because I think we can simplify the question as easy as this. Would the Union of Quebec Municipalities prefer one or two environmental assessments on any given project?

[Robert Coulombe]

I am going to answer that it has to be done as quickly as possible and with attention to the environment. I do not want to state an opinion as to whether it should be under federal or provincial jurisdiction. I can simply tell you that we have to find a way of putting people to work as quickly as possible and not having to wait 24 or 36 or 48 months. As you know, in the case of some projects, we do not agree. It goes against the wishes of the public, who want the work to get done.

Some people will be opposed to a project because of one environmental factor or another, but we have to respect that. Putting more regulations in place sometimes complicates things.

I am going to inject a little levity. Some people ask a lot of questions and want to have all the answers. When I want a photocopy, I put my paper in the photocopier, I press a button and I get my copy. Others are going to ask me, "Do you want to tell me which way the paper went? Did it change sides?" We don't want to know. We want as little red tape as possible so the projects can get done.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

He sounds like a Conservative.

[Lawrence Toet, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Absolutely, and I would agree.

Coming back to our question, that efficiency comes back to actually bringing that dollar further, right? I mean, the faster we can get to a project, the less delays we have in getting to the project.... Everybody would agree with you also that the assessment and the protection of the environment on the project is paramount. There should be no shortcuts on that. However, the question becomes, is one process enough, or do we have to go through two or three processes in order to see that there is protection? That's really the crux of the matter.

I just wanted to go to P3 projects. There have been some questions about the P3 projects.

I've seen some extremely successful projects, actually, through the P3 process that have worked very well. I can speak of one in the city of Winnipeg, where a roadway was done. It was done under budget and it was done nine months ahead of schedule, and the quality of the work.... Everybody praises this roadway in Winnipeg. It's probably the best built roadway we have in the city, and it's been there for about two years now. Because the P3 proponent is actually also responsible for the maintenance, they have built this road to standards that probably are above and beyond what we would have, say, as our conventional normal standard.

Can you share any projects through the Union of Quebec Municipalities that have been done in the same way, where a project has come in on time, or ahead of time, and on budget, and with the ability to also have the costing of that maintenance actually lowered over the course of time?

[Robert Coulombe]

We do not want to give you the impression that we are opposed to P3 projects. We are not; we support them. However, in order for them to happen, as the term suggests, there has to be a partnership. There has to be some interest, and often, you are right, it is possible. There would still have to be an assessment of whether that was more efficient in terms of the investment, the times, the construction costs, and so on. As I said earlier, it has not been a success in Quebec. There have been some with the Quebec ministère des Transports, but there have been no P3 projects with the municipalities.

However, we are open to it and I think it is an avenue worth considering. But I would not say it is going to solve all the cost problems, because an assessment would have to be done.

For example, I would not want to see a public-private partnership for drinking water because, in my opinion, drinking water is a matter of people's health. I am not saying that when it comes to drinking water, businesses would not be careful, but some projects, in my opinion, have to remain the responsibility of the municipalities. We support P3s, but we do not have any projects we can present to you today in that regard. We could perhaps initiate a discussion concerning projects that we would like to do as P3s. That remains to be seen.