Transport committee  If you take those numbers from Quebec and project them across the country, it's the same story. I think that perhaps the professor from the University of Ottawa, with whom I get a sense that you don't really agree, which is probably a good thing.... One of the comments I would make is that the country has so underinvested in infrastructure for many years that we're catching up, if nothing else.

Transport committee  No, I don't think we do share that. We certainly are paying attention and watching for any lag that may happen, but the bilateral agreements have been negotiated in fairly short order. The minister had said that we would have these done by the end of March-early April, and he has seven of them agreed to now, so it's in a time frame that's quite reasonable, given the complexity of the task in hand.

Transport committee  There's no question. We've been saying for many, many years that the preference is the allocation-based formula. There's long-term, predictable funding, municipalities see the money coming, they can bank it, they can borrow against it, they can do bigger projects, and there isn't the uncertainty of the application-based process where—as some of our members call it—it's like a lottery: you put in your application, and then you don't know if you win or not.

Transport committee  Yes, for sure. Fifty million dollars was allocated to FCM to develop a national program on asset management capacity building. We have been working very closely with associations like our colleagues here at the table, and other provincial and territorial associations across the country, to ensure that there's training and capacity building that is national in its program nature, but is delivered in a way that is relevant to municipalities in their specific regions and relevant to their specific political and program context.

Transport committee  As I said in my comments, the priorities are the following: cost-sharing; a fair balance of municipal and provincial projects; and a focus and an understanding of the unique needs and nature of rural communities and their lack of capacity, as compared to the larger cities. Those were the three priorities that we brought from phase one into the discussions around phase two.

Transport committee  Oh, that second question is quite something. On the first part, we, as a country, have taken very good steps in taking time to be very thoughtful about learning from phase one and developing lessons learned and then applying those lessons in the bilateral agreements that are coming out to govern phase two.

Transport committee  I said that it would be preferable that the infrastructure program be similar to the gas tax program. The gas tax program model is preferable to those that depend on presenting a request. In a sense, the government prefers to have programs that are based on submitting requests, as the decision then belongs to it, but the fact remains that it's important to reduce the administrative burden as much as possible, especially for small towns.

Transport committee  We were very clear in response to the budget that we were very happy to see a national housing strategy. It's such an important milestone for our country to have a housing strategy. We were very disappointed that the money for social housing repairs would not come sooner in the time frame.

Transport committee  It is a normal confusion. I mean, you're right: the federal dollars follow the work. What's important is that the agreements get signed and that the ability to commit to projects happens quickly enough so that the work can be done, the jobs can be created, and the economic activity can take place quickly.

Transport committee  Obviously one way to avoid the bottleneck is to have an allocation-based approach, but we're not talking about that in this particular case. With respect to bottlenecks, there are the administrative requirements in this country of federal-provincial agreements, and that takes time.

Transport committee  We have been encouraged by what we've seen, largely for the three reasons I outlined. We had talked about the need for a clearer cost-share, which the federal government has negotiated with the provinces in the agreements that we've seen so far. We've talked about clearer statements around the expected balance of municipal and provincial projects, which is important.

Transport committee  The challenges, as you've identified, of the one-third cost-share did create some limitations on the opportunities for small communities. This is why, as Pat alluded to a few minutes ago and we've said a great many times, our preference has always been an allocation-based formula so that instead of a cost-sharing arrangement, there's an allocation that municipalities can see coming, it's predictable, it's long term.

Transport committee  Thank you very much. Thank you very much for having us here today. I am very pleased to be here to discuss progress regarding the Investing in Canada infrastructure plan. It's important to have this conversation with this committee. We have had a few conversations with this committee over the years around important questions of infrastructure.

Finance committee  The relationship between the federal government and municipalities is very engaged. As I said in my comments, the engagement around budget 2017 was exceptional. The conversations are deep and getting deeper. So the idea that municipal government has a role to play in nation building is an idea that is understood, I think, by this government.

Finance committee  Sure, just very quickly.... We are always looking to simplify the process, so those conversations are ongoing. The government and the department have been very receptive to the discussions. I should just caution that there are times when.... There is an assumption that the timing when federal dollars get spent is an indication of inefficiency or slowness, when in fact we should never lose sight of the fact that the federal government reimburses expenses.