Transport Committee on April 23rd, 2013

[Robert Coulombe]

In fact, expanding the programs would enable all municipalities in Canada to benefit from them. However, it is limited to certain sectors. Take the example of drinking water. Some rural municipalities, both in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, have no water system. At this point, it is more difficult for them to be able to benefit from the programs.

That is why we say it could include cultural, sports or community infrastructure. Ultimately, it should be expanded to cover everything that falls under the municipalities' responsibility in relation to infrastructure. That is why we say a way should be found for it to benefit all Canadians, regardless of the size of the municipality.

However, there are things that are specific to the biggest cities. We were saying just now that there could perhaps be structuring programs, something we would completely support.

Overall, the coverage of the programs has to be expanded so that more Canadians can benefit from the programs set up by the federal government. That said, we are extremely happy that this program has been set up, because it meets our expectations and the public's expectations.

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

I want to touch on the title of our study on competition: how competition can make infrastructure dollars go further. It is an important aspect, obviously, of what we're trying to bring forward. Mr. Poilievre talked a little bit about the aspect of opening up competition as wide as possible.

I don't want to get into specific areas of competition, but just as a general rule, would you not say that the wider the competition, the more opportunity there is to stretch those infrastructure dollars as far as possible?

[Robert Coulombe]

You are entirely correct. And that is what we are hoping for. In fact, there has to be competition.

I will give you an example. Earlier, we spoke about a municipal price evaluation board. We want to know the actual situation as it relates to costs in all municipalities. Developers, entrepreneurs and innovators are going to identify gaps in certain sectors and certain regions, because no two regions are identical.

I am going to talk mainly about Quebec. When gaps are identified in terms of the services provided by businesses, businesses are going to be created, and that is what we want. Our aim is not to pay the highest price, it is to pay the best price for the best quality work. That is what we want. We want there to be competition and we are not going to put limits on it. No municipality in Quebec has said it did not want to hurt a local firm so it would pay more for work. So much the better, if one of our local firm can do the work at a price that is competitive with other firms, but there absolutely has to be competition because that is how taxpayer dollars are best spent.

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

Right. So what we'd have is a situation where, due to the competitive nature of having more people involved, the broader the spectrum is, the better.

You also talked a little bit about the ability of the municipalities to even be able to work together. You touched on that a little bit in your remarks to Mr. Coderre.

Having an understanding and a knowledge of what one municipality is paying for a certain product or for a certain type of maintenance, and being able to share that knowledge, is that something your municipality group, your union, would actually be doing? Would you be helping to share that knowledge and acting as a catch point for that, and then dispersing it out so that there is a sense of knowledge as to what the cost for certain things should be?

You touched on the fact that there are differences in regions, and things like that, but there also has to be a reasonableness within that context. Is that something you would work towards sharing with all your counterparts and all the members of your union, so that they would actually be able to see if they're getting the best value for their dollar?

[Robert Coulombe]

We are actually very active in that regard. In fact, we have commissioned a study to find out how that kind of board could be administered. At least seven or eight years ago, we noticed that the cost of work in some places was really above the average. It was costing too much. So we started to explore that avenue. We asked a specialized firm to give us a report on this subject. At the Union of Quebec Municipalities, we are going to advocate this and we want it to be set up. As I was saying earlier, we want to spend public funds better and do it as efficiently as possible, and get a better return on the capital invested.

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

You said you started this process about seven years ago.

[Robert Coulombe]

No.

I did not say we started the process seven or eight years ago. We noticed the excessive cost of work and we proposed that the government of Quebec create a board of this kind. That idea is still in the works and nothing has been decided by the government. We have taken a further step and dug into our pockets, the Union of Quebec Municipalities' pockets, from the dues paid by members. We have retained a firm that is to provide us with a report, which we will in turn submit to the government of Quebec. We will be happy to send it to the federal government as well, because we consider it to be a key partner. We will submit the study, which is to be done by the firm we have retained.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Ms. Morin.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I would like to come back to the question of public funds. At the beginning of your speech, you said you had eagerly accepted the invitation to appear before this committee.

Do you have the impression that the federal government is sufficiently receptive when it comes to the problems you are facing? Do you think there is enough transparency when it comes to public funds and information that relates to taxpayers?

I will explain. If the federal government were to demonstrate greater transparency, would that facilitate your work? The question arises as well in relation to the municipal price evaluation board.

Could the federal government do something to assist you in that regard?

[Robert Coulombe]

I would like you to clarify your question. You are talking about federal government transparency.

What do you mean by that?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Are there areas in which you would like the federal government to be more transparent?

[Robert Coulombe]

On what subject?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

On the subject of the prices we pay and the public funds you might need.

[Robert Coulombe]

I have to say it is hard for me to answer your question. I am trying to grasp the meaning. In terms of the public funds you refer to, our goal is to get the most out of the investment. We are talking about the board and the desire to make sure there is competition. That is how we want to use public funds, whether they be federal, provincial or municipal. We want to get the maximum impact from them.

In terms of transparency, I do not see how it applies in the case of the program that has been set up. The question is more one of whether we would like to see diversification in terms of infrastructure. We answered that earlier, and the answer was yes. We would like to see expanded coverage, so that all types of municipalities could benefit from it.

The Union of Quebec Municipalities was said earlier to represent mainly the bigger cities. I can tell you that we represent a community with a population of 50 people. On the other hand, we also represent Montreal, which has a larger population, and all of the municipalities of Quebec. Given the structure of our organization, those are the interests we want to represent.

We have specific groups within our organization. There are groups of local municipalities, central cities, regional towns and large cities. There is also the metropolis. This means that no one is left out.

As a union, our interest is in making sure that members are able to benefit to the fullest extent from the programs offered by governments.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Right. I am going to ask you another question.

Given that public-private partnerships are in fact the subject of the study, I would like to know whether you can give me any examples of cases, in Quebec, where municipalities have found that a public-private partnership was not to their advantage.

[Robert Coulombe]

I do not have any statistics at hand, but as I said earlier, from memory, I think there have been two projects like that. I am going to ask Joël Bélanger, who is with me, to answer that question.

[Joël Bélanger, Policy Advisor, Union of Quebec Municipalities]

At the municipal level, we find that the kind of infrastructure or projects we have to carry out is perhaps not the most suitable business model. Each of the projects does not really involve any innovation. In the case of water lines, roads or other things of that nature, innovation may be impossible. These are projects that are not really of interest to the private sector.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

In your presentation, you talked about getting more competitive bids.

What do you mean by that? How can we make sure that projects are more competitive?

[Robert Coulombe]

As I said earlier, the board would offer reference points for municipalities. Some municipalities have a number of projects, and others have fewer projects. It depends on their size. If they have fewer projects, they do not necessarily have the staff they need, to carry them out. However, if we are talking about a board, there would be a reference point from an external entity. It would not be handled by the municipality itself.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

What are these prices based on? As my colleague said, with the Charbonneau Commission, there are so many examples of unrealistic projects and costs.

[Robert Coulombe]

In fact, the board would be a reference source. Take the example I gave earlier, about water lines. What is the price for the same size lines in Châteauguay, Trois-Rivières, Maniwaki, Montreal and Quebec City? You do not find these kinds of suppliers on every street corner. There are only a few manufacturers that make them. What is the price paid by municipalities?

For example, in Maniwaki, where I am, when we have work done, it is first valued by an engineering firm. Then the engineering firm makes recommendations. However, we do not have any reference points by which to assess those recommendations. We have nothing that tells us that a particular pipe costs, for example, $125 per linear metre, when we were paying $160 for it. That is the kind of information the board would provide. We would be able to find out what prices are paid in the industry everywhere in Quebec, since the board we are talking about is for Quebec. However, that idea could be applied throughout Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Holder, you have five minutes.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and my thanks to our guests for being here today.

I found this testimony very interesting. As we go through this process, your perspective on what we are looking to do nationally, provincially, and municipally in terms of infrastructure is very helpful, because you work with the people who make things work.

We look to leadership around our country and our various provinces. Certainly, part of that leadership is the Union of Quebec Municipalities, as far as our approach to infrastructure is concerned. One of the comments that we received from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was that we initiated a gas tax at 1%, then we doubled it, and then we made it permanent. In the most recent budget, we've indexed it, which has great bearing. I come from the 10th largest city in Canada, and even for a population of not quite 400,000, people, that's worth some $21 million to my city. I would imagine it's much greater in the province of Quebec. We had a very unequivocal statement from the FCM, from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, that they thought that it was a very positive step.

Did you take a formal position on the gas tax in the budget and the indexing of it? Could you comment on that, please?

[Robert Coulombe]

First, that is a program that we can see as being permanent. That is important. Perhaps to answer some questions, in Quebec, there is an allocation by municipality, with a minimum amount. If my figures are wrong, Mr. Bélanger will be able to correct me.

In Quebec, it is done in two ways. There is a minimum amount given to each municipality. That is $226,000, taken from the envelope received. Then, there is an additional amount based on the number of residents. That is a tax that is very welcome. Earlier, we were talking about dedicated programs, but for us in Quebec, this is a dedicated program that allows municipalities to do longer-term planning. For example, if a municipality wants to undertake a large-scale project, it is not required to complete it in the first year, because the funds continue to be dedicated to that municipality, which can plan a project. That is what the gas tax does.

We are extremely happy and pleased to see that this tax is being increased.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I appreciate that, so I'll take that as a yes. The gas tax being made permanent, indexed, is a positive thing, obviously, for the Union of Quebec Municipalities, because of the guarantees. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I got a sense that you felt positive about it.

Let's go at this a different way. One of the questions you've touched on, which I think is important, is that you said the funds from the gas tax should be for dedicated programming. I think you said long term, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

I asked that very question in my own city, whether the funds that are received through the gas tax should go for things like streets and gutters, things that I would call normal maintenance, or whether they should be put aside for larger infrastructure projects. I have my own opinion on it and I'll tell you what my own constituents said. But I would like your view in terms of the moneys for the gas tax, on the presumption that a municipality would get whatever number of millions a year—some smaller, some larger. If someone had a $100-million project, and in my case, in my city, they were getting $21 million a year, they could actually fund that over five years.

Do you think the funds out of the gas tax should be dedicated toward, as you've said, long-term programming—in other words the larger infrastructure projects—versus the streets and gutters type of maintenance?