Evidence of meeting #67 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was municipalities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
President ex officio, Union of Quebec Municipalities
...and we have to be careful about proposing things.
4:05 p.m.
President ex officio, Union of Quebec Municipalities
I will speak as the mayor. If we have dedicated funds, taking the size of the envelope into account, someone, somewhere, will...
4:05 p.m.
President ex officio, Union of Quebec Municipalities
They will not necessarily have more. Rather, I would say that some will have less because of the content of the envelope. I should perhaps answer your question by saying we should look at specific cases rather than having dedicated funds. That is why I say we are on thin ice.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
So that is what you would prefer. A plan like the Building Canada Fund could handle basic infrastructure and one envelope could be used to fund structuring projects either for a big city like Montreal or for a group of municipalities or regions, like an RCM.
4:05 p.m.
President ex officio, Union of Quebec Municipalities
We held discussions about what we asked for from the federal government. We also met with both the government party and the opposition parties to sell our project. It was really more a question of basic infrastructure and expanding the program. As you said, Canada-wide structuring projects could be advantageous for all communities.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
As well, there is the Charbonneau Commission being held in Quebec. If there were the equivalent of that commission in other provinces, we would probably see the same thing. This is not an issue unique to Quebec. However, I would like to go beyond that. I do not want to talk about individuals or contracts here. Earlier, the contracting process was mentioned. Tell me a bit about how your municipal price evaluation board would work.
When I was my party's national defence critic, one of the things I proposed was that we create an agency. Three departments deal with procurement policy, but it comes down to more or less the same thing. There are a lot of contracts that relate to the military. Industry, Public Works and Government Services and National Defence are all involved.
At the time, there was talk of an inspector general. You are talking about an evaluation board, so it would be an independent entity. To whom would the board report, and what would be its relationship with Ottawa, for example?
That is my last question.
4:10 p.m.
President ex officio, Union of Quebec Municipalities
What we initially asked for applied to Quebec, but it could also be used at the federal level. With respect to the board, it can be very simple, but it can also be complicated. I will try to keep to the simple aspect.
In the case of various infrastructure projects, we have no reference point, for example for the price of water lines in Montreal, Quebec or Maniwaki. There is no real reference point. It is important that there be access to that information.
The case of asphalt, in eastern Quebec, is the best example I can give you. There has been some discussion about it. Some control was being exercised in that location. The municipalities did not have the reference points they needed in order to determine what the cost of asphalt was in Maniwaki as compared to the price charged in their locations. The same might be true for cement, or machinery, or for infrastructure as a whole. It is important to have reference points for all of that.
4:10 p.m.
President ex officio, Union of Quebec Municipalities
When there is a problem with collusion, it gives the municipalities an index. Alarm bells will go off to say...
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
President ex officio, Union of Quebec Municipalities
That might happen, but on that point, I do have a comment.
Previously, that was really a sore point. Today, however, with things being tightened up both administratively and politically, submitting the lowest bid and planning for extras on the project is no longer seen as an open book. In other words, people are more cautious in that respect.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Poilievre, you have seven minutes.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Coulombe and Mr. Bélanger, thank you for being here with us.
You talked about the money shortage that affects municipalities. I have had an opportunity, myself, to look into how municipalities' revenues have grown over the last decade. I have determined that they rose by 71% between 2001 and 2011. Taking both population and inflation into account, we are talking about a 30% increase. That means that in ten years, revenue has risen twice as fast as needs. That trend began well before 2001. Even in the 1990s, revenue rose faster than inflation and population growth combined. That is why I have trouble understanding why the municipalities can still have shortages. Perhaps you can explain it for me.
4:10 p.m.
President ex officio, Union of Quebec Municipalities
Sir, the reason is that there has really not been any increase in revenues. In fact, when it comes to the municipalities' balance sheets, this is actually additional taxation that has been transferred directly to residents.
The other factor relates to budget growth. When you talk about revenue, that is because it comes from taxes. We collect property taxes from ratepayers. There has also been an increase in responsibilities that the municipalities did not previously have.
If I may draw a parallel: barely 20 years ago, for municipalities, there were services directed at properties, and very few services for people. Today, the pendulum has swung, which means that nearly 60% of our revenue is devoted to people services and 40% to property services.
The other factor relates to what you call revenue: the public's capacity to absorb another tax. To give an example, at present, in programs, for any project carried out by a municipality, 76% of the budget, or the investment, is paid by the residents of the municipality. Even if we are talking about programs funded on a one-third, one-third, one-third basis, we still have to be careful about that, because the the federal government and the government of Quebec get money back in taxes. For the municipalities, the equation is very simple: they get nothing back. That means the real cost to the residents of each of the municipalities is 76%. That is why there has been an increase in what you are calling revenue.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes, but it is not 76%. It is 100% that is paid by the taxpayers. The federal, provincial and municipal taxpayer is the same person. There is only one taxpayer, whether the money comes from Ottawa, from Montreal or anywhere else. These are taxes. People pay them.
You know, there is a rumour going around that here in Parliament we have a river of money that is available to everybody. I can assure you, that rumour is false. That money comes from the same place as the money that all the other governments have.
That is why, when you say the municipalities cannot raise funds locally, my answer is that the federal government receives that money from the same taxpayers. Do you think it would be different if we asked the public for more through their federal income taxes, as compared to local taxes?
4:15 p.m.
President ex officio, Union of Quebec Municipalities
You are entirely correct. It is 100% the public who provide the revenue, regardless of the type of government.
However, I would like to say something about a statement you made when you said people think there is a river of money. When I gave my presentation, I do not think I ignored the reality. We are aware that there are specific issues and there are difficulties, whether it be at the federal, provincial or even municipal level. There are no rivers of money. Today, what we have explained to you is the situation as it relates to the programs that have been set up. However, I would also not want to present a different picture of the situation.
When you ask me why the ratepayers in a municipality do not pay for all of the services, the best example I can give you, since we are in the national capital, is the one of Ottawa or Gatineau. Municipal responsibility cannot be transferred solely to the ratepayers of the city of Ottawa when it comes to infrastructure. There are many aspects to be considered. Some people live on the outskirts and use the public services in the big city. Those services are often intended for a larger community than a single municipality. That is why my answer is yes, when you tell me they are the same people. However, should the residents of Ottawa be the only ones paying for infrastructure for all of the people, whether they be visitors, or workers, and so on?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes, I understand. At the same time, the federal government is providing an unprecedented amount. Twenty years ago, the federal government gave no money to the municipalities. It was zero. So the increase since then is astounding.
In terms of Gatineau and Ottawa, it seems to me that the City of Gatineau is at a disadvantage when it comes to selecting service suppliers and construction firms. The City of Ottawa can retain firms from Quebec for projects in Ottawa. However, because of provincial policies in Quebec forbidding the use of non-unionized or out-of-province firms, the City of Gatineau cannot do the same thing. The number of firms competing for a single project is smaller. Does that situation not result in pointless inflation of the costs?
4:20 p.m.
President ex officio, Union of Quebec Municipalities
I could not really answer your question, because I am not familiar with that particular situation. We have not done any comparatives studies between Ontario and Quebec.
However, I have to say that your questions really go beyond the subject of our presentation. In this case, we are talking more about negotiating with the provincial government. You are talking about unions and so on. On that point, the municipalities are not the decision-makers.
Should we be discussing that at this committee? The question has been raised. As I say, I was not really expecting to have that discussion today. I thought we would be discussing the three factors or questions you had put on the table.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Thank you, Mr. Coulombe.
We'll now move to Mr. Toet for seven minutes.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Lawrence Toet Conservative Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses today.
I found a few things interesting in your introductory remarks. One was regarding the infrastructure funding and the prescriptiveness of it.
You indicated that being less prescriptive was going to be very helpful, especially to some of the smaller municipalities that you would be representing. You actually are encouraging this particular infrastructure plan to be even less prescriptive than the Building Canada fund was.
Why would you want to see less prescription? Perhaps you could expand on that and let us know how helpful it would be to the smaller municipalities, and even to the larger municipalities, as far as your organization sees it.