Transport Committee on April 23rd, 2013

[Robert Coulombe]

The answer is yes. However, there is a limited amount in terms of the gas tax rebate.

I will give you an example. In the gas tax program, in Quebec, there is one portion, I do not know what percentage, that goes to public transit. How much is that?

[A voice]

It is 25%.

[Robert Coulombe]

I am told it is 25% that goes to public transit, and a majority of that type of transit is provided in the bigger cities. I do not know what the share is elsewhere in that regard. I cannot speak for the other provinces, but in Quebec, I agree with what you are saying. However, at some point, if infrastructure projects are concentrated in certain cities, there are some communities that will not benefit from them. That is why I said earlier that in Quebec, the program is very much appreciated, because all communities are guaranteed a gas tax rebate.

If you want to clarify your question further, I will be pleased to answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You're out of time. But if you want a little more detail on that same question, I will allow that.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

That would be the only thing, to provide that for us. I want to ensure in my own mind, Chair, and perhaps we all want to satisfy ourselves that the way the gas tax fund works in la belle province de Québec is the same as it would work in any other municipality in any other city across Canada. I believe that to be the case, but if you have some detail, that might be useful for this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Maybe what we can do here, since you're out of time, we'll move on. If we run out of time at the end, Mr. Coulombe can supply that to us, and we'd still get it.

With that, I'll move to Ms. Chow for five minutes.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Will you be attending the FCM meeting in Vancouver? It's coming up in June. It's the annual general meeting.

[Robert Coulombe]

Yes.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

As you know, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been looking for every level of government—federal, provincial, and municipal governments—to work together. They have been asking for predictable long-term funding, some of which should be designated, so it's not application-based, so it is predictable. All of that is clear. FCM has also asked that it not be mandatory that municipalities have to go through the P3—public-private partnership—screens in order to get the funding if the project is a bigger size.

So really there are three questions. First, what is the best way for the federal government to work with your organization and the municipalities that you represent? Second, if small municipalities have to go through the P3 screening, what kind of hardship would that create? Because smaller municipalities may not have the money to go and find a private partner. Is that a problem? Third, when we all end up at FCM at the end of May, is there a committee that really should examine these issues? Would it be the infrastructure committee, the standing committee, or maybe the municipal financing committee, so we can work together with other municipal leaders across the country to achieve the goal that FCM is pushing for?

Sorry for the long questions. It's three questions in one.

[Robert Coulombe]

I will try to answer as simply as possible.

In fact, we would like to be able to work with the federal government. However, in the present circumstances, as you know, we have to deal with the government of Quebec. That is the partner identified as being between the federal government and the municipalities. In other provinces, for some programs, the federal funds are transferred directly. I do not think I am mistaken, but in Ontario, the transfer is directly to the municipal association, which then arranges to work with the municipalities. However, on this first question, I cannot go any further than to tell you that the federal government has to deal with Quebec at present.

Concerning P3s for small municipalities, two or three people have asked me about this. In fact, to be able to carry out a P3 project, you have to understand that, essentially, the partner that is going to participate in this kind of project is wanting to make a profit. Often, these really have to be major projects. In small municipalities, and even in bigger municipalities, that is not an easy matter. There are not often $40 or $50 million dollar projects in the municipalities, no matter how big they are, to get them to participate in that kind of project. It is worth considering, however. We have to see a public-private partnership happen and assess the type of partnership we might have in that regard. I think it is something to think about and we can consider these questions.

On the third point, there is an infrastructure committee at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I am the vice-chair of that committee. So perhaps, Ms. Chow, we can discuss this at the convention in Vancouver, because it is an extremely active committee. It was the FCM's advisory committee in the talks between the federal government and the opposition parties on the position to take on the budget. I think we can move forward on this issue and make improvements.

I appreciate your bringing this issue up so that, once again, we can make sure that public funds are being allocated and spent in the best way possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You're out of time.

Mr. Poilievre, you have five minutes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

You said you wanted more competition, to improve quality and lower prices. It seems to me that the laws forbidding non-unionized firms and firms from other provinces from offering their services reduce competition.

Would you support eliminating rules like that?

[Robert Coulombe]

I could express an opinion on that, but there is a very broad context to be considered. For example, there is the involvement of the unions. There is also the entire question of the ministère du Travail, which is closely involved with this, in Quebec.

You are right, this is specific to Quebec. On the other hand, we cannot object to the progress that more competition and flexibility in terms of the firms that could come and do business in Quebec represents. I cannot say no. We support it, but the problem goes beyond the position of the Union of Quebec Municipalities on that point.

It would be desirable for there to be discussions between the federal government and the government of Quebec. As well, you spoke earlier about Gatineau, where specific agreements concerning the construction industry in Quebec have been signed.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

However, you support eliminating...

[Robert Coulombe]

No, I did not say that. I said that to ensure competition, we could arrange for firms coming from outside to be able to do business in Quebec. However, the entire question of collective agreements, unions and the ministère du Travail would still have to be decided. That would have to be decided within Quebec's legislative framework.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I understand, but you can still have an opinion. It affects your members, who have to purchase services and are subject to constraints relating to the suppliers of the services. We already know this causes prices to go up. Otherwise, the unionized firms would be able to win an invitation to bid over the others.

[Robert Coulombe]

We should perhaps clarify something. I was the president of the Union of Quebec Municipalities from 2008 to 2010. At the time, there was this idea of collusion and everything that was going on in Quebec relating to various infrastructure projects. I think it would be useful to point out that to our great surprise, taking into account all the parameters relating to construction costs, it was 2% cheaper in Quebec than in Canada as a whole.

As I said, we are not opposed to there being competition, but we should not suggest that it is more expensive in Quebec than elsewhere. In fact, we could give you a study showing that it cost 2% less in Quebec than everywhere else in Canada.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I have seen different figures that have been presented to the committee. I find it hard to understand how it could be that firms that are required to be unionized cost less. They cannot compete with the others.

[Robert Coulombe]

This is statistical, mathematical information that we have.

The unions are indeed present in various construction trades in Quebec. I repeat: it cost 2% less. In fact, at one point, the newspapers had suggested that costs in Quebec were 30 or 35 or even 40% higher. I repeat: it was 2% cheaper in Quebec, considering all the parameters of the data.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Right, but I have never heard of that.

[Robert Coulombe]

We can provide you with the study. In fact, you can obtain it from Transport Canada.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Very well. I have never seen it and I would like to have a look at it. The figures presented to the public are different from what you have described.

[Robert Coulombe]

I understand what you mean. When I was shown the study, I asked myself the same questions. I was sitting with Mr. Bélanger, who is a tax expert, and some other professionals. I asked them to explain it properly because I was having trouble understanding all the data.

The fact is that these figures come from Transport Canada and the result shows that it is 2% cheaper in Quebec.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

We will take a look at it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, you're out of time.

Yes, Mr. Coulombe, I think it would be important for all of the committee to see that information, so would you please pass that on? Like Mr. Poilievre, I have never heard of that before either. It's actually the contrary, so it would be enlightening for all of us to see that. Please provide that.

We have Mr. Sullivan now.