Evidence of meeting #25 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funding.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Graydon Smith  President, Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Paul Kariya  Senior Policy Advisor, Coastal First Nations Great Bear Initiative
Jacques Demers  President, Fédération québécoise des municipalités
David Boulet  Economic Advisor, Fédération québécoise des municipalités
Walter Sendzik  Mayor of St. Catharines and Vice-Chair, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative
Jim Bradley  Regional Chair, Regional Municipality of Niagara
Rob Foster  Regional Councillor, Town of Lincoln, Regional Municipality of Niagara
Christine Smith-Martin  Executive Director, Coastal First Nations Great Bear Initiative
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Jean-François Pagé

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Thank you, Mr. Kariya.

We will now go to our first round of questions. Starting us off for the Conservatives will be Mr. Scheer.

You have the floor for six minutes.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to all our presenters today. I really enjoyed listening to all the different perspectives on some of the issues affecting the various stakeholders.

I would invite any of the representatives of the municipalities here today to take a crack at this. In the last little bit, we've heard a lot from the Auditor General about the lack of this government's ability to keep track of projects and to track whether or not the program is even hitting its own targets. We've also heard a lot about delays and the backlog in the approvals process. I would invite any of the representatives to speak to why, in their experience, they think it's taking so long to get approvals through the current government's infrastructure plan.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Mr. Bradley.

4:10 p.m.

Regional Chair, Regional Municipality of Niagara

Jim Bradley

Mr. Chair, we've not found that to be a great problem. It's a dilemma for the government, of course. Mr. Scheer mentioned, first of all, the fact that you want accountability and that the Auditor General is looking at that, yet the more accountable we must be, the more information we must provide, which really means that we probably delay having a project approved. By and large, though, we have found the system to be acceptable.

The challenge we have is with the specific criteria. When there's not flexibility in the criteria, it's often difficult to fit it. For instance, an overall allocation of funding without—I hate to use the term, because you won't want to hear this—“strings attached” is much more viable than those with established criteria that are difficult to meet. Those are the very competitive ones that are based on various municipalities competing for them, of course. It's much better for us if we can have that flexibility. Then we can apply the funds to the areas that we feel are best.

Again, there's a contradiction there. On the one hand, you want to please the Auditor General. On the other, if you please the Auditor General too much, there's not flexibility in the program.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Perhaps I could take a crack at that. I think you're absolutely right in terms of the flexibility piece. The accountability piece, though, is important. That's the follow-through to make sure that if the government says they're going to spend this amount of money, and they're hoping to achieve these targets.... That type of mechanism, if done properly, shouldn't delay the project approvals. It's more about tracking to make sure the money was spent properly after the fact.

Perhaps we can dive down on the flexibility piece. This is one where I absolutely agree with you. We see the government announcements for big envelopes of money, all with various lenses and criteria. We have had some witnesses at this committee point to the various criteria that are preventing good projects, ones that are ready to go, from being initiated. They spend a lot of time trying to fit municipal projects into the various criteria the government has put forward in the programs.

I'm wondering if your stakeholders, your municipalities, would like to see a system where we say, Canada's a big country with lots of different needs. Some communities need help with public transit. Some don't. Certainly, for some projects, such as bike lanes in cities—it's not as easy to move around by bicycle in Regina as it is in Toronto—those types of decisions can be left to the municipalities themselves. Mayors and councils can inform their voters on what types of projects they believe they need. The federal government doesn't need to get into dictating to the level that it currently is.

Is that something you would generally agree with, or would you have a reaction to that?

4:15 p.m.

Regional Chair, Regional Municipality of Niagara

Jim Bradley

I think flexibility is necessary. Let me give the example of the green stream program. We have a waste-water treatment plant that will be new. The eligibility requirement is for “upgrade” or “rehabilitation”. To get our interpretation so that we can get the funding, we would have to say that the new waste-water treatment plant was indeed an upgrade to the whole system of treating waste water as opposed to a specific plant. Just allowing that little bit of flexibility would allow us to be eligible for the kind of funding that we would need, whereas now, if we're looking at the specific definition, it would say upgrade or rehabilitation.

Mind you, when we have discussions on this with public officials, with the civil service, we can often overcome those problems. I think allowing the public service to have a little flexibility in this regard would be beneficial to municipalities.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Mr. Chair, with the time I have left, maybe I could invite Mr. Smith to comment.

You represent the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and one of the things that always strikes me when I drive from Ottawa to Regina is how big Ontario is. It takes a good couple of days to get out of the province of Ontario. You have such a wide variety of different types of municipalities of all different sizes and in very different regions.

Would you like to make a comment on the flexibility aspect of the current infrastructure programs and what your members are telling you?

4:15 p.m.

President, Association of Municipalities of Ontario

Graydon Smith

I can think of a couple of points.

To your first point in your question about whether the money is flowing, I think we have some members who would say that specifically under ICIP it's been a slow flow at best and maybe a trickle. Applications for some projects were put in a long time ago and in some cases they still haven't been formally announced. I know there are bilaterals between the province and the federal government, so I'm not going to speculate on where the logjam is, but municipalities need those dollars and need to be spending them in the appropriate places.

In terms of flexibility in appropriate places, in Ontario we all have asset management plans and we're all working to improve those plans on a regular basis. We have identified the priority projects within the community and we adhere to a set of principles and plans to identify them. If we can have programs that allow us the flexibility to spend where we have identified our most urgent needs, then so much the better. Having predictable, sustained funding that allows us to target investments in all 444 municipalities is the goal.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Thank you, Mr. Smith, Mr. Scheer and Chair Bradley. That was a great way to start off the dialogue today. Great job to all of you.

We're now going over to the Liberals.

Mr. Rogers, you have the floor for six minutes.

April 15th, 2021 / 4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's a pleasure to welcome so many witnesses from the municipal side. As a former mayor of two different towns, and having served as the president of Municipalities Newfoundland and Labrador and as an FCM board member, I recall many of the debates around infrastructure funding and the gas tax fund and others. I want to ask my questions about those two particular issues.

Our government knows that during the pandemic, municipalities big and small have been on the front lines of the fight against COVID-19. To acknowledge this, our government front-ended last year's gas tax fund payment and will be doubling the payment for this year.

Mr. Smith, and maybe Mr. Demers, can you speak to the importance of this funding for municipalities in terms of providing flexibility to address the needs of your communities? Perhaps Mr. Smith can go first and then Mr. Demers.

4:20 p.m.

President, Association of Municipalities of Ontario

Graydon Smith

The gas tax fund and the doubling of it, first of all, are certainly appreciated, as I noted in my comments. It is very much the type of funding that municipalities can use and put to work right away. It allows certain flexibility for different types of projects under the terms and conditions of the funding. I believe that has expanded a bit over the years.

Again, stable, predictable and flexible are three key priorities, and that type of funding does fit the bill.

4:20 p.m.

President, Fédération québécoise des municipalités

Jacques Demers

I quite like what Mr. Smith just said.

We, of course, need flexibility, so the terms and conditions of the funding need to be examined to ensure the money can be used, especially when more funding is available. Greater flexibility is key. Too often, we are forced to carry out very specific projects.

It's normal for the government to set standards and priorities, but when those priorities are addressed, municipalities need to be able to invest where it's needed. It might be a fire station or a garage. In many cases, projects have to adhere to too many standards, so we end up giving money back to the government. Meanwhile, we are taxing residents because we aren't allowed to use that money. The gas tax is a good example. Before that, we had a lot more flexibility, but now, we have less and less. We were at least able to put the provincial portion towards something else, but that is no longer allowed. The legislation did not change. It was considered acceptable, and people thought they could use that portion. Now, the rules are being tightened and the funding is going up. The problem, however, is that municipalities won't have a chance to use the funding. The program was designed first and foremost for municipalities, so give them some flexibility. A wide range of investments are needed at the municipal level, so the federal government really needs to look at how it can help with that.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL

Thank you, gentlemen.

I recall that the program was very restricted in terms of what you could use that gas tax money for. It's a much wider shop these days.

Gentlemen, in our last study we were working on the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and many of the folks on our benches, including the chair of the committee, have vast experience working at the municipal level of government and know how important P3s are.

Can you discuss the benefits of P3s and how they can be a helpful tool in getting projects built in your regions? Also, do you have any examples that you might be able to point to?

Thank you.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Mr. Sendzik, you haven't had the floor yet. Why don't you jump into that question?

4:25 p.m.

Mayor of St. Catharines and Vice-Chair, Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative

Walter Sendzik

Thank you, Chair Badawey. That's an important question.

I'm going to pivot away from the environmental side for a second. When we look at P3s, what we found successful in our community right now is building affordable housing. I know that's not an area we're talking about right now, and it's outside the jurisdiction of what I'm talking about through the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Cities Initiative. However, in our community of St. Catharines, we have examples of the private sector—private developers—working with our social agencies and the federal and provincial governments to create the right funding envelopes to allow for the build-out of affordable and social housing.

If we're really going to tackle that issue, we need to bring the private sector to the table and create the framework that allows them to be effectively there and participating in what should be a significant investment into housing and community.

I'm just going to leave it there, but from our perspective P3s do work, especially around the housing models, as long as you have the right parameters in place from the federal government.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Thank you, Mr. Sendzik.

Mr. Demers.

4:25 p.m.

President, Fédération québécoise des municipalités

Jacques Demers

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We just heard that the program had been expanded and that it could be used for more purposes. An explanation would be important, because that is not the answer we got, quite the contrary.

Municipalities regardless of size, but especially the smaller ones, need predictability of funding the most. They need to know in advance whether they will be able to count on these funds. That's why this is one of the best programs. The federal gas tax fund is predictable, and that's fine. We thank the government for that, but there is a lack of flexibility and openness.

Under the first program, municipalities used the funds to plan the construction of a fire station, for example, and now that they are about to build it, they are no longer allowed to use that money. I could give you a number of examples. There was no opening, but there was a closing, and it is easy to demonstrate.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if there's any time remaining.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

No, that's it. Thank you, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Demers.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL

Thank you.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Also, thank you, Mr. Sendzik.

We're now going to move on to the Bloc Québécois. Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor for six minutes.

4:25 p.m.

Bloc

Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm looking forward to asking questions, but I will introduce a motion first, since I didn't have time to do so at our last meeting. It reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee undertake a study of one meeting on the issues arising from aeronautical circular AC 700-048 on the use of Twin Otter-type aircraft on short runways; that the Committee invite witnesses including Transport Canada, the Canadian Federation of Outfitter Associations and Air Inuit to appear at this meeting; and that this meeting be held no later than April 30.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

I apologize to the witnesses. We're going to pivot to a motion. Mr. Barsalou-Duval, your time has been stopped.

Members of the committee, are there any questions or comments? Please use your raise hand function.

Mr. Rogers, you have the floor, followed by Mr. Fillmore.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure we should be getting into any other studies of any kind. As we referenced last day, we seem to be going all over the place and are not focused on the studies we've already agreed to.

I certainly have no real issue with this, other than I think that if it's going to be something we decide we're going to do, we should remove the April 30 date and at least say to get to it as soon as possible following some of the other studies we prioritized.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

Go ahead, Mr. Fillmore.