TRAN Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Transport

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, February 24, 2003

1540

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, CA))

Mr. Denis Barbeau (Treasurer, Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Châteauguay)

1545

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Denis Barbeau

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté (President, Comité d'actions régional pour l'autoroute 30)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté

1550

1555

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Sergio Pavone (Mayor, City of Chateauguay, "vice-préfet", Municipalité régionale de Comté de Roussillon)

1600

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté

Mr. Sergio Pavone

1605

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Gilles Blier (First Vice-President, Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de la Rive-Sud)

1610

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Sergio Pavone

1615

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Le vice-président (M. James Moore)

1620

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1625

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

1630

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Sergio Pavone

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

1635

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Serge Marcil

1640

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Sergio Pavone

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Sergio Pavone

1645

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté

1650

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Gilles Blier

1655

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté

Mr. Serge Marcil

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté

Mr. Serge Marcil

1700

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté

Mr. Serge Marcil

1705

Mr. Sergio Pavone

Mr. Serge Marcil

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Transport

NUMBER 012

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, February 24, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1540)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, CA)): We are going to start now. Pursuant to Standing Order 108, we will now examine the issue of highway infrastructures. Today we welcome a number of witnesses representing various groups.

[English]

We are going to be discussing a motion put forward by

[Translation]

Mario Laframboise, Member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel.

[English]

It is that the Standing Committee on Transport examine the issue of highway infrastructure across Canada in order to provide the Minister of Transport with information for his negotiations with the Minister of Industry, responsible for the infrastructure program, and with the Minister of Finance in preparation of his budget, and therefore the disbursement thereof.

We have a group of witnesses on the panel with us today. We're going to ask each of the witnesses to deliver a seven-minute statement. We will go from Mr. Barbeau through to Mr. Blier. After your statements members of the committee will have 10-minute rounds of questions and answers.

Monsieur Barbeau,

[Translation]

you have seven minutes.

Mr. Denis Barbeau (Treasurer, Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Châteauguay): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'm here to read a request in response to the invitation we received to take part in your committee's work. The Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Châteauguay is obviously very much interested in that work in view of the fact that historic mobility restrictions considerably impede the development of our regional economy and every day undermine our population's quality of life.

The Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Châteauguay was founded more than 20 years ago and now has nearly 450 members who have a particular interest in the region's development. Since the Chamber was founded, transportation and mobility have been identified as regional development problems. Already at the time, a solution had been considered, analyzed and confirmed. A ring road around Montreal Island would relieve one of the weak links in the road system, the river crossing. It was suggested at the time that that bypass route would make it possible to avoid crossing the river needlessly. That proposal is still strongly defended by many local, regional and national stakeholders.

As you will understand, I'm talking about Highway 30, which must still be extended between Châteauguay and Vaudreuil. That segment, together with the Candiac-Sainte-Catherine section, would complete Highway 30, thus linking Sorel to Vaudreuil-Dorion. This strategically positioned highway link would open the Ontario, Quebec and Maritime markets to each other. Ultimately, all of eastern Canada would benefit from this infrastructure.

The Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Châteauguay is particularly involved in the completion of Highway 30 between Châteauguay and Vaudreuil and contributes to the work of the Comité d'action régional pour l'autoroute 30. Work on this segment is already well advanced. Environmental authorizations have been issued and BAPE has approved the selected alignment. The construction authorization certificate for that segment was also issued on May 5, 1999. Completion of Highway 30 also appears in the Quebec government's management plan for road travel in the Montreal metropolitan area.

In October 2000, the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Châteauguay, through its president of that time, supported the National Assembly's passage of a motion confirming Quebeckers' wish to include completion of Highway 30 among their highway infrastructure priorities. The provision of an adequately developed road and highway system obviously paves the way to efficiency. All concerned stakeholders have viewed the absence of a rapid Montreal ring road as a weakness in the Quebec highway system. All concerned stakeholders have requested completion of Highway 30 as a remedy.

The City of Montreal also demands that Highway 30 be completed and estimates that millions of vehicles would be diverted from Montreal and the nearby river bridges. The ring road is thus also identified as a solution to congestion on Montreal Island.

Highway 30 is thus a solution to three major problems slowing economic development in eastern Canada and, as a result, would facilitate river crossings between the south shore and Montreal, open the eastern Canadian markets to one another and relieve congestion in the city of Montreal.

It therefore seems clear to the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Châteauguay that it is high time that Highway 30 was completed and that the committee must include this infrastructure among national priorities.

Lastly, I would inform you that, on October 17, 2002, the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Châteauguay appeared once again before the National Assembly and, through the provincial member for Châteauguay, Mr. Jean-Marc Fournier, tabled two petitions signed by 12,536 persons. Those persons demanded that the governments of Quebec and Canada agree on the necessary funding to undertake construction work. That petition, like all previous petitions, attested to the community mobilization on the Highway 30 issue. The message we are delivering to you today is the message from our community: build the 30, as soon as possible, please.

¹ (1545)

I am submitting the petition that I handed over to Mr. Lanctôt in Québec.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Thank you very much.

You still have three minutes, if you wish to add anything, but only if you wish; you are not obliged to do so.

Mr. Denis Barbeau: No, that's fine. I could take them, but I'll leave them for Mr. Côté instead.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Mr. Côté, the floor is yours; you have seven minutes.

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté (President, Comité d'actions régional pour l'autoroute 30): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Jean-Noël Côté, and I am the Chairman of the Comité d'action régional pour le prolongement de l'autoroute 30.

I have prepared a short brief, but, since I only worked on it last Thursday and Friday, I have not had the time to translate it. I would like to submit it to you because it contains a few maps which may help you get a better idea of the alignment.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): We can have it translated. You may continue.

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté: Mr. Chairman, Highway 30 has been an ongoing issue in our region for more than 40 years. It is an issue on which there has been a consensus for the past 12 years. It is the highest priority in the minds of all stakeholders and all decision-makers in our region, Montérégie.

The entire technical side of this matter, that is to say the impact studies and authorization certificates, is already complete. The final certificate, for Sainte-Catherine, was issued three weeks or a month ago and confirms that the governments may proceed in this matter. There is nothing technical or environmental preventing construction of Highway 30. The only thing missing is a consensus and a decision to go ahead.

On page 2 of the brief I have prepared, there is a table showing all the progress that has been made over the past 10 years. This is an issue that has been advancing by small steps for 10 years, but we have now reached the final stage: completion of the work, plans, specifications and construction.

In the brief I have submitted to you, I listed a few of the reasons why this issue was a priority for our region and should also be a national and provincial priority.

With respect to the shipping of manufactured goods, in terms of value, 90% of Quebec manufacturing shipments to the United States transit via the roadways of Montérégie. Montérégie is the second most populous region of Quebec, with more than 1.25 million inhabitants. It is also the second region in terms of manufacturing production, with production of more than $16.3 billion a year. Lastly, it is the number one region for shipments of manufactured goods to the United States. The American market is thus a dominant market for Montérégie. Everything that goes to Ontario and the United States, particularly to Ontario and the American Midwest, transits via Montérégie's existing roads.

Highway 30 is the natural extension of Highway 20. It is a Montreal Island ring road. If you look at the maps I have included in Appendix 3 to our brief, you will that all the highways around Montreal, the 40, the 15, the 20 and the 35, converge on a doughnut hole called Montreal. All the autoroutes go there. The 30 will take all the traffic from those highways and make it possible to divert traffic that does not need to go onto Montreal Island. In addition, Montreal is virtually the only city in North American that doesn't have a ring road.

As regards access to Montreal Island, the Federal Bridge Corporation had a study conducted by Roche-Deluc in 2000 to identify the source of congestion problems on the Champlain and Jacques-Cartier bridges. According to the Roche-Deluc study findings, by 2010, there will be major problems of access to Montreal Island. In 1996, revenue losses attributable to congestion problems were estimated at $400 million a year. Roche-Deluc proposed two solutions to the problem of access routes to Montreal Island, one of which was construction of Highway 30.

That study is all the more revealing since it was conducted by an organization that plays no part in the Highway 30 issue. The findings of that study are thus of great significance. They were not reached by people concerned to have Highway 30 built. They were people from the outside.

As for hazardous materials, people may not know that the Beauharnois-Salaberry RCM, together with the Ministère des Transports, commissioned a study on hazardous materials in 1999. I have included a copy of the findings of that study in Appendix 2 of my report. According to that study, 75% of hazardous materials entering Quebec are shipped on the superior road system of western Montérégie.

¹ (1550)

Every year, more than 27,000 trucks carrying 475,000 tonnes of hazardous materials travel on Highway 132. Highway 132, is the road between Valleyfield and Châteauguay. It's a minor road. More than 67% of that road is located in urban areas. Hazardous materials circulate in the middle of towns such as Valleyfield, Saint-Timothée and Beauharnois.

Now let's talk about maritime transport. Maritime transport is naturally everywhere in our region, where ports have developed over the years. There are the ports of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Contrecoeur, Sainte-Catherine and Sorel-Tracy. All these ports are located near Highway 30. It goes without saying that these port infrastructures need the structure of Highway 30 for the transit of materials transported by boat.

Those who have had the luck or the misfortune to travel on one of our roads, the 132, have seen that it was not necessarily easy to engage in economic development in our region. A brief study that we conducted on traffic between Valleyfield and Châteauguay shows that the average speed at which you can travel on that road system while staying within the limits is 41.5 km/hr, the normal speed of a cyclist or six times the speed of a person on foot. In our region, we're being asked to develop our economy at the speed of a cyclist. That's the road we have for our economic development.

In conclusion, I will say that, over the past 40 years, the Highway 30 issue has shifted from a regional project to a national project. In addition to having unanimous support in the region, this project has been approved at the provincial and federal levels. The Government of Quebec confirmed it in its transportation plan for the greater Montreal area produced in early 2000, then in the notices issued by its Ministère des Transports. Successive remarks by ministers Guy Chevrette and Serge Ménard, as well as those of Pauline Marois, Minister of Finance, have confirmed the importance and priority given to this issue.

This has also been true at the federal level over the past two years in announcements by Paul Martin, former Minister of Finance, and ministers David Collenette and Allan Rock, and several others. It was said that the Highway 30 project was a national priority. Ottawa thus confirmed the strategic importance of this project at the national level and guaranteed that it would be included in the new infrastructure funding program. In addition, Minister Allan Rock announced in Montreal last December that the federal government would be taking part in the project's construction and authorized an initial amount of $150 million.

All local, regional, provincial and national stakeholders agree that the Highway 30 is a priority of structural importance for the economy. In addition, the governments have all the necessary authorizations to complete the project as soon as possible.

All that remains is to enter into a memorandum of understanding between the federal and provincial governments for the project's realization. We have been waiting for that agreement for more than two years. Thank you.

¹ (1555)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Thank you, Mr. Côté. You took exactly 10 minutes.

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté: Thank you for giving me three more minutes.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Mr. Pavone, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Sergio Pavone (Mayor, City of Chateauguay, "vice-préfet", Municipalité régionale de Comté de Roussillon): Thank you for this opportunity to state our views. I of course know Mr. Lanctôt, who is the member for the federal riding of Châteauguay, as well as Mr. Proulx, a former colleague. As for you, sir, I don't know you, and I am pleased to meet you.

[English]

The first question that comes to mind is, what the hell am I doing here again? I'm sorry, but I'm royally fed up.

[Translation]

I'm overwhelmed by events. We've prepared a lot of briefs.

[English]

I don't know the correct term in English, reports or whatever, but we've done a good number of them.

[Translation]

I'm speaking on behalf of the Roussillon RCM.

I should tell you that it's become tiresome for us to constantly answer the same questions from journalists, whereas Ottawa and Quebec City are tossing the ball back and forth. Today, I beg you:

[English]

get on with business. Let's do the right thing, let's do it now. It's about time.

[Translation]

But since we still have to talk about it, I'm going to cite a few short briefs that you undoubtedly already have in hand. I'll cite the example of a passage from a news release from the organization responsible for the Jacques-Cartier and Champlain bridges.

º (1600)

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté: The Federal Bridge Corporation.

Mr. Sergio Pavone: Yes. The text is obviously clear:

...Mr. Fournier, painting an alarming picture...”

“Alarming” is not a word...

[English]

Alarming is not a word that says there's no problem, we can still wait another 15, 20, 30 years.

[Translation]

“Alarming” means that there's a fire. An alarm is usually used to get people out because there's an emergency.

[English]

It's an urgent matter.

[Translation]

...of the transportation situation in the greater Montreal area. The situation regarding the transportation of goods is so dramatic...”

“Dramatic” is also a fairly important big word.

...that, if nothing is done soon, the greater Montreal region's economy could be choked off within 10 years.

[English]

I don't know if you're familiar with the term strangling, but sometimes in criminal cases the word comes up.

[Translation]

Within five years, the Champlain, Jacques-Cartier and Mercier bridges will be completely saturated.

The Mercier bridge directly touches the Roussillon RCM.

[English]

That's not saturated with fats,

[Translation]

but will nevertheless be saturated.

We can't constantly rewrite the same things to show you how important this is. The idea isn't just to repeat over and over

[English]

the same things that come up in our minds and on written documents.

[Translation]

The first study advocated the construction of two bridges on the Highway A-30 alignment, but, for that, the Highway A-30 alignment had to be useful. For it to be useful, it had to be connected at both ends. It really has to be a road, but we don't have one.

I'm obviously referring here to the work by the Roche-Deluc group, which submitted studies and which is also mentioned in Mr. Côté's brief. You need only consult it. I won't repeat all the figures, but I will cite you one: while the population has grown 31%, the number of vehicles has increased 77%. So we have 77% more vehicles on the road driving at cyclists' speeds. Talk about a convoy, and everyone is amused. We wonder why the bridges are congested. Well, we know now. We talk about population growth. We talk about preventing urban sprawl. One of the priorities of the Ministère des Affaires municipales and the Montreal Urban Community, of which the Roussillon RCM is a part, is to consolidate existing urban areas and to limit urbanization on the edges of those areas to sectors that already have infrastructures and services such as drinking water supplies, waste water treatment, electricity, schools, roads, public transit infrastructures and so on. That's us. If we want to do what the province asks us to do, if we want to do what the greater metropolitan area asks us, Highway 30 will help us keep citizens, who want to live in a place where they can move around in a pleasant setting.

The Highway 30 issue is a disease that people in Montérégie are living with. In Montérégie, we are the Third World of Quebec. Perhaps there are others in Canada, but I invite MPs and government officials

[English]

to come down and see the zone where we're living, where we have been left to ourselves for too many long years, through too many long promises, too many non-resolved problems. La Montérégie is basically 1.3 million or 1.4 million people who do not get what they deserve, no matter what government, no matter what party, no matter what time. We get just the basic elements that keep us alive, and that is frustrating for us, because we have seen in the past so many positive issues come about.

[Translation]

There have been positive minor developments on the issue of Highway 30. We're currently experiencing them in Quebec: we're being promised Highway 30, but there doesn't appear to be unanimous support. Things operate with an ear to certain organizations. Mandates are given to provincial government organizations, then they are flouted. People don't even do what they promised to do. There are always federal-provincial and even provincial-municipal disputes. We have to put the emphasis on citizens, on those we serve, because we do serve those people.

It should not be forgotten that seeing is believing. So I hope that you will ask Mr. Collenette and the entire team of decision-makers to go visit Châteauguay, in Roussillon, on the south shore, to see what's going on there. We very much need this bypass road. We are virtually the only city in North America that is this congested and does not have a ring road.

In closing, I will say that I wanted to see something a little more familiar.

º (1605)

[English]

We have St. Laurent Street in Montreal also, and I wanted to feel a little more at home, so I went down St. Laurent Street here in Ottawa and I crossed Montreal Road. Do you know what I said to myself, because there was an accident there and there were police officers, firemen, and the ambulance? My God, how the hell am I going to get around Montreal? Well, it's easier in Ottawa to get around Montreal than it is to get around Montreal in Montreal. So give us a break and give us a hand.

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Thank you, Sergio.

[Translation]

You said at the start that you didn't know who I was. I'm a member from the Canadian Alliance and I represent a constituency east of Vancouver. You know Mr. Lanctôt well. Ms. Yelich comes from a constituency just outside Saskatoon, while Mr. Jackson is from Owen Sound, Ontario. You are well aware that Mr. Marcel Proulx is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport. I would also like to tell you that Mr. Collenette will appear before this committee next Wednesday.

Mr. Blier, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Gilles Blier (First Vice-President, Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de la Rive-Sud): Good afternoon, and thank you all for your invitation.

I'm speaking to you as the first vice-present of the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de la Rive-Sud. I'm going to state a few important facts to give you some background.

Economic development necessarily depends on adequate road infrastructures. The south shore region has a large number of exporting and distribution businesses. Completion of Highway 30, including the bridges linking the two river banks, is considered the best and most urgent solution to ensure transportation of goods and exports and, consequently, the economic development of Montérégie while generating direct and indirect jobs.

The south shore region occupies a strategic position in three respects. It is a major component of the greater Montreal area and, in that capacity, is part of the development of the metropolitan area. It is placed at an advantage by its location near the main highways to the United States and Ontario and its proximity to the airports and the port of Montreal. Within the metropolitan area, it is the nearest point of access to the northeastern United States. Exports represent 39% of total employment in the manufacturing sector in Montérégie.

There is currently no road around Montreal, the result of which is intolerable traffic congestion on the south shore and Montreal Island.

Like my colleagues, I will cite a few points from the Roche-Deluc study, which concerned the transportation of persons and goods. In 10 years, the population of the south shore has increased 31%, as Mr. Pavone mentioned. Since 1992, there has been an annual 11% increase in the number of heavy vehicles travelling on the Champlain bridge. Quebec exports to the United States have increased from $13.7 billion to $32.5 billion in recent years. It is estimated that 30% of heavy vehicle traffic would be diverted onto Highway 30 if it were extended, which represents at least two million fewer trucks and millions fewer automobiles on the bridges. It must also be understood that trucks cross Montreal Island because they are forced to cross two bridges: one to enter Montreal and the other to leave it. So the damage is twofold.

Highway 30 is destined to play an interprovincial role. Ontario businesses delivering their goods to Quebec are also hard hit by this problem and should perceive a distinct improvement once Highway 30 is complete. The same situation applies to the Maritimes, the northeastern United States and businesses in the east which distribute to the western Canadian and U.S. Midwest markets.

Trade with Ontario and the United States is particularly significant. Some 51.7% of Quebec exports shipped by truck to the United States in 1996 were destined for the Midwest market, 48% for the Northeast. So more goods are headed west than south.

The Montreal region is a major entry point for the transportation of goods between Europe and the North American market. It is the main hub for container traffic from the North Atlantic destined for regions in central and eastern Canada.

The south shore region occupies an advantageous strategic position for becoming a logistical and distribution centre for the entire North American market.

The Quebec government recently announced that it was authorizing construction of the Highway 30 segment linking Sainte-Catherine to Highway 15 on the Highway 132 axis. There remains a second segment between Châteauguay and Vaudreuil-Dorion, completion of which now depends on the will of the federal government.

This is not the first time the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de la Rive-Sud has intervened in favour of the completion of Highway 30. For a number of years now, we have been told that the money was available. For a number of years now, we have also been told that Highway 30 is a national priority.

The situation is pressing, and everyone agrees on that point. The funds for the work are in the budget, everyone tells us, and we take that for granted. And yet the matter is stalled.

Unfortunately, two years ago, the Canadian and Quebec governments hit a genuine political impasse. It's time to overcome that inertia and take constructive action.

In hockey, you can pass the puck for a while, but at some point you have to shoot at the goal and score. In the Highway 30 issue, we are on the same team because it's economic development that's in question.

What we're asking is simple: the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de la Rive-Sud, which represents 1,500 members, is demanding that both levels of government produce a construction timetable as soon as possible. I repeat that we take it for granted that the budgetary allocations are available, because it's a project that has been considered a priority for a number of years now. So we ask that a construction timetable be produced so that the public no longer has to wait as it has done for too long. We will continue to demand this until we see the first bulldozer on the site.

º (1610)

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Thank you, Mr. Blier.

Committee members will now ask questions. They will have up to 10 minutes each.

[English]

Members, of course, don't have to take up all their 10 minutes; they may choose not to.

Mrs. Yelich.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I just have a simple question, because I'm new on this committee. Where's the island of Montreal on this proposal? Have they put anything forward encouraging your proposal? Everything goes through Montreal, so I always think, do they want this ring road, and if they do, how come they're not at the table? Or have they been or are they included?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté: Last year, I sat for a year on the intergovernmental council of people from the greater Montreal area and the area around Montreal. A lot of recommendations were made on the subject of highway transport in the City of Montreal. One of the committee's recommendations was to construct Highway 30 in order to divert trucks that did not need to go onto Montreal Island. This is a committee that sat for nearly 15 months and involved all social, political and economic stakeholders in the greater Montreal area. For example, the Mayor of Montreal at the time, Mr. Bourque, sat on the committee, as did Mr. Vaillancourt from Laval and the Mayor of Longueuil. There were 75 individuals on that committee, and one of the recommendations was that Highway 30 had to be built to help alleviate congestion in Montreal.

Have I answered your question?

[English]

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Yes.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Would you like to add any comments, sir?

[English]

Mr. Sergio Pavone: I'm in the greater area of Montreal as the mayor of Châteauguay. Because of the proximity of our city, we're inside the Montreal metropolitan community now. Therefore, we're part of the administrative body of the greater Montreal area, and we also participate in different economic development committees and in larger tables. At every table, whether it be Montreal, the north shore, or the south shore, it's the same opinion: autoroute 30 is a must, it's got to be done. It's not only a priority for the island of Montreal. For a long time they stopped this development, when it wasn't good for them, but right now it's terrible for them, because they have 40% of the traffic going through the northern, more industrial area, truck traffic they don't need that is using up their territory and their infrastructure. They would be more than happy to avoid that type of traffic. We're all in synch right now, everybody agrees on the same thing. Autoroute 30 is a definite priority.

º (1615)

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Marcel Proulx.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, gentlemen, and welcome to the superb city of Ottawa. It must have been a pleasure for you this morning to take a little trip on such a beautiful sunny summer's day to come here once again to convince us that Highway 30 is absolutely necessary. Some of us in the federal government are very sensitive to your cause, and representatives of the House have been doing their work on this issue for a number of years now.

You say, Mr. Mayor, that Montérégie is the Third World of Quebec. We should discuss this question because the Outaouais is also considered the Third World of Quebec when it comes to highways.

However, I hear what you say, and you are undoubtedly familiar with the federal Liberal government's position on the question. Once again last December, the Minister of Transport, David Collenette travelled to your home and announced funding; this entire issue was moving forward. However, as a result of certain factors, the glue didn't hold, as it were. The work was postponed and postponed again. We were told that discussions with the Quebec government were going well, but matters nevertheless did not advance. In fact, they were advancing, but not as quickly as you would like and we would like.

Mr. Côté, I would like to hear your comments on a few points. I would like to know where expropriation proceedings stand and where the Quebec government stands on this point. A traffic study was to be conducted to confirm and link all this together. Theoretically, it was supposed to be submitted last year, if I remember correctly.

In addition, I don't know why Quebec is not moving forward on the letter of understanding with the Government of Canada. Perhaps you are more up on this question than I am, since you are, geographically speaking, closer to Quebec City than I, who am in Ottawa.

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté: We're quite far away as well.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): There is a point of order.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): It's a point of order. I don't mind knowing what Quebec City does right or wrong, but today I would especially like to hear what you can do. These people...

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Chairman, that's not a point of order.

Le vice-président (M. James Moore): You'll have your 10 minutes after Mr. Proulx has finished.

º (1620)

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like you to tell me about the BAPE study and Quebec City's position on this point. I would like to know whether the Government of Quebec really intends to act quickly.

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté: I'll give you my humble opinion on the question. I may be closer to Quebec City, but, on the other hand, you may have more information than we do.

With respect to land acquisition, Quebec is indeed behind schedule. To provide a little background for people who are not very familiar with this issue, I will point out that two segments are not complete, the segment near Montreal, between Sainte-Catherine and Delson, and the west segment, for which we hope to obtain federal support, located between Vaudreuil and Châteauguay. As for the east segment, the impact studies were completed in 1998, four years ago. Land acquisition should have been completed in January 2002. Quebec City is behind schedule in this area. Normally--at least that's what we've been told--the land surveys and environmental studies related to the land acquisition should be completed by June, after which expropriation proceedings will begin. There again, there may be delays. On expropriations, Quebec City is about a year or a year and a half behind schedule.

The second factor you raised was acquisitions and then you spoke about traffic studies.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes.

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté: As far as we know, the federal government issued a call to tender to the private sector to determine what the needs were. It was recommended that a traffic study independent of that of the Ministère des Transports be conducted. From what we know about it, the Ministère des Transports commissioned a firm--I don't remember whether it was from Washington or New York--that was to submit the study report in June 2002. However, we're still waiting for the findings of that study. We on the committee are breathing down the Quebec government's neck and asking it every month when it will be receiving the report. We feel this is an important factor in advancing the issue because we will need it in order to proceed with the calls to tender. So we are watching the provincial government very closely.

As for the environmental studies, the certificate of authorization to construct the final Sainte-Catherine segment, as I said earlier in my presentation, was issued by the Quebec government two weeks ago. So right now, as regards the environmental studies and certificates for completion of the work--both for the west and east segments--everything is complete. This means that, if a memorandum of understanding were signed between the federal and provincial governments tomorrow morning, work could start immediately, assuming, however, that lands are available for that construction.

As for the last element, the memorandum of understanding between the federal and provincial governments, when we're in Quebec City, we're told that the federal people are to blame and that they don't want to negotiate or discuss the matter; however, when we talk with the federal government, we're told that the Quebec government is the guilty party. As Mr. Pavone said earlier, we're beginning to get really fed up with hearing them accuse each other of all the sins of the world. When we talk with Mr. Ménard, we hear that the federal government doesn't want to talk or release the necessary funds, that it doesn't have the money to carry out the project and that the whole thing was only an election promise. However, when we talk with the federal government, we're told that the provincial government doesn't want to move forward.

The provincial as much as the federal government, taken individually, tell us that they have the necessary funds and the desire to move into action. However, for two years now, there have been meetings on the memorandum of understanding, not only among government officials, but also--if we believe what we're told--at the ministerial level. Mr. Collenette, Mr. Ménard, Ms. Marois and other decision-makers have apparently met. And yet the memorandum of understanding is still awaited and nothing is moving forward. In this sense, perhaps you could help us more. It has been suggested to us a number of times that we attend the federal-provincial meeting to see who's telling the truth. We would really like that.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: There definitely wouldn't be any space in the room!

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté: That's probably true.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: An election is scheduled to be held in Quebec. I hope that will help you.

Thank you, Mr. Côté.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Robert Lanctôt.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, thank you for accepting the invitation of the Standing Committee on Transport. It's true that we often seem to say the same things, but we are forced to do so for them to be heard; that's quite clear. I know it's not pleasant. We all come from the same region. I see Serge on the other side, and I get the impression that he also must want things to start moving and his colleague Saada...?

Obviously, not being part of the government, I can't know why the memorandum of understanding has not been signed. They may know more than I do, and that's why I am obliged to speak out and ask questions in the House in order to determine where things stand. But the answer we always get is “very soon”. Except that I want it done immediately, not “very soon”, and you say the same thing, all the stakeholders say the same thing. It's not just the politicians; it's not just the stakeholder groups or the associations people; it's an entire population that is caught in a straightjacket. We're forced to enter Montreal and leave it. So it's not just Montérégie, it's all of greater Montreal and the development of Quebec; it's even national. That's what the government people must understand.

Mr. Proulx, it's obvious that you aren't from the region, but you know that because you're requesting a highway.

So as regards Highway 30, when we talk about priorities, we're tired of hearing “priorities”. Whether in Quebec City or here, it has to be built. We see that a report was submitted to your committee. I'm an assistant on transport, so I'm not always here; I have other committees. A presentation was made to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Highway Infrastructure in Canada, by John Forster, who is the Director General of Surface Programs Divestiture, and Guylaine Roy, Director General, Surface Transport Policy, both from Transport Canada.

I'm willing to believe the government. I'm in Ottawa, not Quebec City. So as far as I'm concerned, for the memorandum of understanding to be signed, I first have to check to see whether it's a priority for the government and, second, whether the funds are there because, if the funds aren't there, even if it's a priority, it won't get done. So what I'm a little afraid of is the report that was tabled on February 17 by Transport Canada.

As you know, there was an amount of $2 billion in the old budget of Mr. Martin, who created the Strategic Infrastructure Foundation. That $2 billion was not only for roads, but also for museums, sewers, tourism, all kinds of things, but also transport. Within all that, it had been roughly estimated what could go to transportation, probably a quarter. Let's say a third or half, if you wish. But logically it would be a quarter.

But let's imagine that it's half. Let's say we invested $1 billion in three years only on roads. I'll take the figures from the Transport Canada report, just so this is clear. That's why you have to come, to exercise pressure and say to release the funds, because there are funds, there are surpluses. That's the work I have to do here.

So if we take, for example, half of the $2 billion over three years, so we should logically get $250 million from the infrastructure foundation. In the $250 million that would go to Quebec, we hope, there is a project by the Ministère des Transports, which tells us that, in New Brunswick, there is a $400 million project, and that there is a $525 million project for Highway 175 from Quebec City to Chicoutimi, and we're in third place. That's where we see we are priority number three; so there are higher priorities than ours, the New Brunswick and the Quebec City and Chicoutimi priorities. Then we come in with the $150 million project you spoke about earlier, the $150 million announced with great fanfare in Montreal. But there is ultimately no agreement because the $150 million was announced at the outset.

I'm quite happy if that's correct. I don't want to make this a matter of figures; I only want it to be done. But we see, in calculating all the amounts that are here, that already in those three years, there's not much money left, and I would say to you that there isn't even enough to make just 262.5...

º (1625)

If, for Quebec City-Chicoutimi, we take half of the $250 million I just spoke about, that we took from the $1 billion, there isn't even enough for the second priority project in Québec. I don't even want to talk about New Brunswick. So perhaps we'll take the surplus $150 million, and that's why I went further, why I went to $1 billion. But it should be $500 million instead from the outset.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Excuse me, do you have a question? Because this isn't a platform for speeches here.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: No, but those are comments so that people will also understand clearly. There are comments and questions. But I can ask questions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Yes, so there is an exchange here.

º (1630)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Yes, precisely.

So you see my problem. You have no doubt done those calculations. Even if this could be a priority, are you sure the funds are available?

Mr. Sergio Pavone: Perhaps I can respond on the subject of the certainty that the funds are available. It's like for all other government matters, whether at the federal, provincial or even municipal level. Many organizations ask me whether they are going to have money for certain programs next year, and I can't give them an immediate answer. It depends on budgets.

After the recent budget was tabled, I believe that, in principle, there should be funds. That doesn't answer the question, of course, and that raises the frustration level. I can understand that.

As to the $2 billion that was talked about at the time Mr. Martin was Minister of Finance and made those announcements, I can understand that, once the $250 million arrives in Québec, if in fact it's $250 million, it must be allocated across the province. It's the same problem with regard to infrastructures; it's the same problem everywhere.

One example is that, at one point, we needed $25,000 for an environmental program to collect waste in the RCM, and we in fact received $25,000 from the federal government, but it took three years for us to get the funds, because it had to go through Quebec City. I don't want to contribute to increased tensions between Quebec City and Ottawa, but I will tell you that my municipal experience has shown me that, if there is no provincial filter, not much happens. I can also understand why the provincial government wants to filter things, because certain federal measures and finances are applied in its territory.

However, with respect to Highway 30, I find it hard to see how Quebec could agree with the federal government, except as regards the specific locations where bridges and the on-ramps to those bridges are placed. The rest is entirely Quebec's jurisdiction, and I'll tell you that, all along the alignment--this is what's wonderful--millions of dollars could be invested right now to build roads where there are no bridges. When you come to the bridges, we can always say that the federal government has done nothing.

On your side, at the federal level, why not build bridges? Once they're finished, you can say that the provincial government has done nothing, instead of one always saying that it is waiting for the other and vice versa. In that way, it might be possible to solve the problem, if each side accepted its responsibilities and acted.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): You have two minutes left.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: To continue, you have put the question very well, Mr. Pavone. You say that the important thing is to see whether there is still money. But the figures that came out in the last budget are frightening because if there is any money left, if there's a little, we can play, and that will be all right. But is there enough? You put the question well: do we have any in the coming budget? In 2003, in the budget that just came out last week, nothing, nothing in 2003-2004 and only $50 million for all of Canada in 2004-2005.

I don't know whether that partly answers your question, but that's why you have to exercise pressure and why our people are exercising pressure. We must not stop, and I hope that Serge, on the other side, and Mr. Saada as well will press everyone so that money is provided in Montérégie.

Imagine that we're no longer even talking about surpluses of $9 billion or $10 billion, but that we're talking about $12 billion. A budget can be prepared so that this highway can be built. That's what I want to tell you, and that's especially what I want to say to my colleagues in our region, in Montérégie. Do what has to be done. That has to be the priority, and perhaps you should even ask our friend Harvey how he managed to have it accepted by the Strategic Infrastructure Foundation. He had it in Chicoutimi and in Quebec City. We have to get it as well. It's a priority, it's the Montreal ring road. I want to work with my colleagues, I want to work with you, of course, but, when you see the figures, it scary.

That's what I mean, and Mr. Rock's answer to my question a moment ago scared me even more because, before that, we were told that it would happen soon. It was as though the agreements between Quebec City and Ottawa had been reached. We said to ourselves: it's happening soon, it will happen shortly. Now we're being told it will be when they're ready. I don't know whether you've ever negotiated in your life. I can tell you that, as a lawyer, when someone says, “only once it's ready”, it's not the same thing as “soon” or “shortly”. Are we starting things over? It's scary to hear that.

º (1635)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Mr. Marcil, 10 minutes.

Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): After that, we can go back to Mr. Lanctôt for five minutes, then that will be it.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to this committee. What is important in this matter, I believe, is to tell the truth. It isn't to play politics because this is an economic, not a political issue. I think we need a little background.

In 2000, a study was conducted by the Federal Bridge Corporation, commissioned by Roche, in which a solution was proposed for relieving congestion on the Champlain Bridge, and that solution was to complete the ring road. Bravo, because, as a former provincial member from 1984 to 1994 and Minister of Employment, we had made Highway 30 the cause of all the members from Montérégie. During that time, two segments were nevertheless completed. I should say in passing that the 109 kilometers that were built out of 151 were constructed while there was a Liberal government in Quebec City. Not a single kilometer of highway asphalt was laid down by a PQ government from 1976 to 1980. That's the truth, and you can always check it.

In April 2000, the Quebec Minister of Transport, Mr. Chevrette, made public his transportation plan for greater Montreal, which only provided for the Candiac-Ville Sainte-Catherine segment, that is seven kilometers scheduled from 2000 to 2010, $40 million from 2000 to 2005 and $60 million or $70 million from 2005 to 2010, and nothing for the Châteauguay-Vaudreuil portion. That's a fact, it's clear and it's true. I'm not making this up.

In response to questions put to him at the time concerning the Châteauguay-Vaudreuil segment, Mr. Chevrette said that they had no money to do it, depending on where they would look for money, and that, if the Canadian government wanted to build bridges, they were going to bring their schedule forward. That's the answer that was given in La Presse, I believe, on January 19, 2000. The Liberal Party of Canada made a commitment in October 2000 or early November to build the two bridges that had been evaluated at the time... To submit a highway project in Quebec, you also have to submit cost estimates because BAPE requests it; you have to justify it. You can't avoid it. So the construction of the two bridges plus 14 kilometers was estimated at $357 million at the time. That wasn't made up by the Liberal Party of Canada; those estimates were prepared by the Quebec Ministère des Transports.

We made the commitment to build two bridges, 14 kilometers, together with the private sector. Except that, after the election, the Quebec Minister of Transport said that it was out of the question, that two toll bridges would not be built because he did not know what he was going to do about the rest of the highway. We were asked to dance the cha-cha, and, when we got onto the dance floor, we were told that no, we were going to do a line dance. So we were switched on to another issue, Highway 30 as a whole, that is to say that that was estimated and the figure was radically inflated by $100 million, from slightly more than $600 million to some $700 million. That's the way it was at the outset.

Where do we stand today? We established a Strategic Infrastructure Program. Contrary to what Mr. Lanctôt said, $500 million have been set aside for Quebec as part of the $2 billion program. That was stated publicly. There is also documentation on the subject. Your colleague from Jonquière even asked the question in the House, and the answer was given at the time. There is $500 million set aside for strategic infrastructure in Quebec. On top of that, the 175 was already committed.

How is it that priority was given to the 175 instead of the 30? There were two reasons. First, highway construction in Quebec is a provincial jurisdiction, and the Quebec Premier decided that the 175 took precedence over the 30. It's as simple as that. We would never have agreed to say on our own that we were going to focus on the 175, if the Quebec Premier had not agreed to it. It was he who said it would be the 175.

In one way or another, the 30 was apparently not ready to go ahead, as a result of the studies and so on. So today it's being said that we're still waiting for the agreement between Quebec City and the Government of Canada. In December, at a press conference with Mr. Collenette and Mr. Rock, that was the first time that the two ministers responsible for transport issues and infrastructure outside Quebec came to state publicly in Quebec that the 30 was the number one priority for the Government of Canada and that we were prepared to cooperate on the Châteauguay-Vaudreuil segment, because we had never mentioned that we would intervene on that segment. So we started with two bridges plus 14 kilometers and we added two bridges plus 35 kilometers, I believe. So we said that we agreed to go half and half and, to show our good faith, that we were immediately ready to commit $150 million to speed up the work.

So my question is for both you, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Côté, Chairman of the Comité d'action régional pour l'autoroute 30.

º (1640)

If an agreement were reached tomorrow morning to commit the necessary money and a contract was signed on a 50-50 basis, subject to the private sector contribution, and $500 million was put on the table, could the work start?

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté: Not tomorrow morning, but it would be a good problem to manage. We would be happy to manage that problem. The expropriation problems would of course still be intact, but the plans could be set in motion. A lot of things could be done. We're undeniably already behind schedule on expropriations.

Mr. Serge Marcil: In that case, I'm going to ask you another question. We know that highway construction is a provincial jurisdiction, and I entirely agree on that. I don't want the Government of Canada to interfere; that's not its business. The Government of Canada has money to distribute, but, if it wants to develop programs to assist the provinces in sectors that are exclusive to them, it has to respect areas of jurisdiction, and I entirely agree on that. I will never fight that, on the contrary. When I was in the Quebec National Assembly, we fought precisely so that Quebec's jurisdictions would be respected by the central government of the time. And I maintain the same position even though I am in Ottawa today.

Except that you asked earlier, Mr. Mayor, why the federal government didn't build bridges. Perhaps we could ask in return why the Government of Quebec is not reacting.

I'll answer you in one way. At a meeting between the Bridge Corporation people and certain consortiums, they were asked whether it was a good project for the private sector. Two conditions had been set at that time for private sector involvement in the construction of a major project such as that. The first was that the project had to be carried out all at the same time. You can't just build a part because the private sector will never invest to build bridges if cars aren't travelling on them. It has to see a return on its money as soon as possible.

The second condition was that an independent study be conducted, as requested by the Government of Quebec in September 2001, I believe. The study report had to be submitted in May, then in September, and we don't have it yet. Why that study? Because the private sector needed to have the opinion of an independent firm in order to cost out its involvement and to determine how far it could invest? So if the project was $700 million, based on the studies conducted, it could say that it could invest a maximum of $300 million. That meant that both levels of government had to find $400 million to invest. That's why the private sector was waiting for the results of the studies.

You therefore answered my questions, so I am going to close on one point, and I would like you to answer with a yes or no. I won't be annoyed either if you say no.

When the agreement is signed between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada--because the two governments will sign together; neither will say it will sign if the other doesn't; I'm convinced that it will also be done in harmony--will you then consider that the commitment made by the government has been honoured?

Mr. Sergio Pavone: In a way, with your permission, Jean-Noël...

Mr. Serge Marcil: Knowing that, following implementation, it will belong to the Government of Quebec.

Mr. Sergio Pavone: From the moment the agreement is indeed signed and we have an agreement and an accord between the two levels...

Mr. Serge Marcil: With a timetable and all that?

Mr. Sergio Pavone: Yes, with the timetable. At that point, we can consider that the two governments have done their work to reach an agreement.

After that, we will see that the goods are delivered, that is to say both financing and the construction itself.

I would like to return briefly to one aspect, expropriation. In 2001, I believe, the National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution stating that it would expropriate as soon as possible. The problem, of course, is that they divided the expropriation into four parts--correct me if I'm wrong--and they issued a call to tender to which only one bidder responded, whereas the amounts involved were quite large. There is a problem in the market or somewhere when only one corporation bids on a contract of that size, particularly since the sector that was open to the expropriation subcontractors was Châteauguay. That opened a very odd door, and will result in another problem, once the agreement is signed. That question also has to be answered.

From the moment a call to tender was issued, they had someone. So that was a wake-up call for certain businesses that owned large lots in Châteauguay, Westcliff, among others, which wanted a particular exit, because an exit had been planned where the hospital is located in Châteauguay, and the department suddenly already had the funds and already knew the cost of an exit. Regardless of the changes that were made, as long as the estimated costs were not exceeded for that exit, they were in agreement. So, in theory, we should be able to start as soon as possible.

Now why did they not issue a call to tender for the other sectors and why was there no response? It's beyond my control, but it has resulted, as Mr. Côté said earlier, in a delay of nearly one year.

º (1645)

Mr. Serge Marcil: I would just like to ask you one final brief question.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): We'll come back to that later, after the five minutes.

Mr. Côté.

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté: I wouldn't want to leave you with the wrong impression, Mr. Marcil.

First, the Government of Quebec definitely had a lot of time to proceed with the expropriations because the impact studies on the west segment were completed in 1998, and there was time. That's why it didn't bother them to say, in the notice of motion that was passed in the National Assembly, that it would be completed in January 2002. They are probably behind schedule because this wasn't treated as a priority and also for reasons of grandfathered contracts that had been granted in the past which they did not want to break. For technical reasons and because they did not make it a priority, they are now behind schedule on expropriations.

However, I wouldn't want that to be used as a reason to delay the matter at the federal level because we are now able to comply with a timetable, but this has to be made a priority. For example, bridges, which are normally on a maximum schedule, do not require expropriations. So work on the bridges will have to start at the same time as it begins on the segment, and expropriations will have to be proceeded with quickly. That's unfortunate because there was enough time to carry out this project. Now we're going to have to move quickly if we want to meet normal deadlines. But I believe we can meet a three-year timetable in this case. That's the time it will take to complete Sainte-Catherine; that's the time it will take to build a bridge and the stretch of highway that remains to be built in order to complete the project.

To answer another question, in my opinion, Serge, the federal government will have met its commitment on the day a memorandum of understanding is signed with a provincial government and that memorandum of understanding states that the money is available and a schedule is determined. At that time, in our opinion, you will have fulfilled your promise, because we weren't expecting the project to be completed tomorrow morning. However, we were expecting the project terms to be on the table.

What we cannot understand is why the memorandum of understanding is late. I may be naive, but, when people promise that they have $150 million to give us, Mr. Lanctôt, I dare hope that it's true. We don't have all the information on which to determine whether it's true or false, but, when two important ministers and a number of members of Parliament go on television, issue a press release and tell us they are prepared to provide $150 million, I dare hope it's true. I can't believe it's not true; I can't imagine that.

In that regard, what I can't understand is why the provincial government doesn't jump on it and say that there is already $150 million. I understand the provincial government perfectly well when, for example, it says that it doesn't just want to take $150 million with one project. I understand that some things must be frozen, but, on the other hand, that's already a large enough amount with which to start discussing and preparing a memorandum of understanding so that you can at least call for bids and get the project. Our problem--and I have the same fears as many people--is that the price of the project varies. We were told $500, $600, $730 million, sometimes less, sometimes more. The day we call for bids, we'll know what we're talking about.

Some in the private sector say they will invest $300 million, others that they will invest little or nothing, $50 million or $100 million. Until a call to tender has been issued, we will be talking in a void and debating a hypothetical memorandum of understanding as it pertains to costs.

In my view, what is urgent is that we go to the private sector. We should put that on the table immediately and then discuss the amounts. Then we'll have the actual amounts. We'll know how much the private sector wants to invest. This is urgent, and I find it hard to understand why this is not being done.

º (1650)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Thank you very much.

Mr. Lanctôt, five minutes, which will bring our sitting to an end.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree, and I moreover told you earlier not to wage a numbers war. If that's really the intention, we should go down and sign the memorandum of understanding immediately.

In fact, what we have been asking for from the outset is to sign the MOU and make a commitment. This means two things: signing the MOU and each party undertaking to pay half of all public amounts that are to be disbursed. In that way, the matter will be settled, regardless of whether the private sector puts up $300 million or only $100 or $200 million. If such an agreement were immediately signed between Quebec City and Ottawa, matters would be settled and we could get things going.

The necessary funds would not have to be available the next morning because this kind of project is not completed overnight. In some areas, expropriations are not necessary, whereas, in others, they've already been done. Even around where Serge lives, there is a road to Valleyfield. So there are places where work can be done.

As regards the $150 million from the Foundation, I don't deny its existence; on the contrary, I'm glad of it. However, that's not enough, given that a minimum of $730 million is required to carry out the project. One may well wonder, as Mr. Pavone did earlier, whether we will need another exit. That will involve other terms and conditions.

For those reasons, I believe it is not necessary to proceed as was done at the time, that is by undertaking to build 14 kilometers and two bridges, for a total of approximately $357 million, for example. That's a large amount of money, but we nevertheless do not know how the private sector will proceed. It's easy for me to say every day that it doesn't amount to $357 million. That's not what I'm doing because I want things to materialize. I especially want to ensure there is a link between the Quebec and Canadian governments.

On what question do they have to make commitments? This is not complicated. As I told you, there are two initiatives: signing the memorandum of understanding and paying half the public costs incurred. In this way, if the private sector does not commit, we will have committed ourselves to paying. It's not a matter here of offering $150 million, when we know perfectly well that there are surpluses and that there will only be the equivalent of $50 million across Canada in 2004-2005. In my opinion, it would be a problem for me to know I have that obligation. That scares me. It's not what I want from the government. Mr. Marcil asked whether, by committing to paying half the public amounts, we would have fulfilled our promise. That's what I'm asking, no more. From that point, we will have committed to paying what the private sector doesn't pay. We pay and we start right away.

We can in fact start right away. That's what you said first off this morning. If expropriations have to be done because Quebec hasn't done them, they have to be done; this is not complicated; it's public, and you have to go and verify. If it's not done, it can be done quickly, particularly when it comes to expropriating a house to build a garage. If we're proceeding with expropriation, checks will probably have to be done to determine whether the necessary funds and cash are available. That's what has to be taken into consideration in my opinion. In short, we have to stop thinking in terms of specific amounts. We have to commit openly and make this question a priority.

I don't know what you think. What are your comments?

Mr. Gilles Blier: I would like to make a comment. There are two factors that committee members should actually remember. Canada is a big, beautiful country that I have had the opportunity to visit from one end to the other. We often compare ourselves to other civilized countries around the world, and we currently hold the enviable position of having the busiest bridges in North America. I believe that, based on the study commissioned by the Ministère des Transports, the Jacques-Cartier, Champlain, Lafontaine, Victoria and Mercier bridges are among the eight busiest bridges in North America.

I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt, and this is not a promise, that we will soon be number one, that is to say that we will have the busiest bridges in North America. What does that mean? That means that there will be an enormous cost, a very large social cost, environmental cost and economic cost.

Another factor I would like you to bear in mind is that the Ministère des Transports, based on its projections--I don't have the exact figures; perhaps Mr. Côté is more up on this-- expects that, in 2012 or 2013, 93,000 vehicles a day will travel on the new Highway 30. So I say to myself that, if 93,000 vehicles have to travel that road, it's time we built it. If it's not built in 2007, 2008, 2010, what will happen? Things will only get worse. The problem will not solve itself.

As Mr. Marcil mentioned, will the federal government have made its commitments, if it in fact signed an agreement? I believe that the day the agreement is signed and the funds released, the pressure will be on everyone and there will be no reason to delay any aspect of the project. The private sector will soon intervene, as well as the public, expropriations. All that will have to kick in at a much faster pace than is currently the case, and I believe these are figures we have to keep in mind. If we're aiming for first place, if we want to have the busiest bridges in North America, we're getting there; we'll be there in the next few years.

º (1655)

Mr. Serge Marcil: If I may, you know, when the government signs memoranda of understanding...

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Serge, just wait a moment.

Mr. Côté, one moment.

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté: Mr. Lanctôt, I entirely agree that it would be ideal if we could have a memorandum of understanding and undertake to pay on a 50-50 basis, regardless of the amount this will cost, and if the federal government followed suit. I may be naive, but, on the other hand, I also manage projects and I know how things work. It's always easier when you reach a decision, have an amount and know what you've committed to.

And the difference is quite simple; it is to determine whether you are committing to a decision involving $50 million or $300 or $400 million. I believe we need more details because it's currently impossible for people to make a commitment. It would require greater mutual trust to say that we're going to sign a blank cheque without knowing whether it will be for $50 million or $350 million. Quite honestly, our committee has always tried to be apolitical, and we found the proposal the federal government put forward in December very promising because it provided $150 million at the outset and stated that it would be prepared to see how much the project would cost and that it was prepared to go ahead with the project. In any case, we found that it was a good proposal.

The problem is that, if the cost is greater than $150 million, and the private sector does not provide more money, we will have to go back and make a final decision. If that ever occurred, we would have to say that there's a problem: a problem of $250 million.

The other point I wanted to raise is that the federal government may be right to be prudent because the Quebec Ministère des Transports has previously shown that it is the greatest promoter of small highway segments in the world. So the federal government is right to be very, very prudent with the provincial government because it can also take the money and start building small parts of highways and, in that case, we will never have Highway 30. Besides, we don't have it; small segments have been built for 40 years now. The first segment, which you referred to, was built in Valleyfield in 1974. In that sense, I understand why the federal government may be prudent with regard to the memorandum of understanding.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Thank you, Mr. Côté.

Mr. Marcil, five minutes.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Briefly, Mr. Chairman.

How many kilometers are left, 45?

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté: There are 35 left.

Mr. Serge Marcil: There are 35 left, including the seven kilometers?

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté: No.

Mr. Serge Marcil: The cost to build the 35 kilometers is estimated at $530 million, if my memory serves me, in the Quebec government transport plan.

I have a question for the engineer because he is specialized in this field. It seems to me that this always costs more in Quebec than elsewhere. I don't know why. I'll give you an example. New Brunswick built a 200-kilometer highway with 60 infrastructures and two bridges, one more than a kilometer long. All that was done in four years and cost $600 million. A Quebec firm, Roche, was responsible for the work. It was done by the private sector, and you can check that.

So they built 200 kilometers of highway, 60 infrastructures and two bridges, one of which was more than a kilometer long, and it cost $600 million Canadian. That wasn't long ago, not even 10 or 20 years. Today, we're talking about 35 kilometers and two bridges at a cost of $530 million. I don't know the terrain, and a good part of it belongs to the Seaway or the Quebec government. So it's not the expropriation that should be expensive, except in two areas. Why does the construction of 35 kilometers of highway and two bridges cost $530 million in Quebec?

The Sainte-Catherine to Candiac segment, which is seven kilometers long, will cost approximately $200 million because today we're talking about $185 million for seven kilometers. In New Brunswick, the province just next door to us, they built a 200-kilometer highway, with as many infrastructures, and it cost $600 million. Explain that to me.

» (1700)

Mr. Jean-Noël Côté: I may be able to explain part of that to you, Serge. This is the engineer speaking, not the representative of the Comité d'actions régional pour l'autoroute 30.

The bridge behind the Beauharnois power station is a bridge that must allow Seaway vessels to pass. So it requires clearance of 165 feet. The problem is that the St. Lawrence Seaway is near the bank of the canal, not in the middle. So we have to build a bridge that has its high point near the bank. At that point, the Beauharnois canal is one kilometer wide. It's as though we were building a one-kilometer bridge, but with its highest point near the bank. In our view, the Ministère des Transports has even underestimated the cost of the bridge behind the power station. The department estimated the cost of its construction at $180 million. In our opinion, if we can build it for $180 million, that will be something.

The reverse is true of the bridge over the river. We feel its construction cost is overestimated. It has been estimated at $70 million. We know the area and the terrain, and we know that that will be easy to do. We're on rock, it's a straight bridge, and, since there's no navigation under it, it will not be high. Hydro-Québec can play around a little with the water in the basins. If we can agree with Hydro-Québec, we'll be able to lower the water level. It's lowered every winter. So we'll be able to work comfortably on the rock.

I don't believe the west segment is as overestimated as you say. So much the better if it is because that means we will have persisted for a long time for not much. In the case of the east segment, there are other reasons. Highway 30 is being built in an urban area, and there are businesses. So the work will have to be done while maintaining existing services. It is harder to say whether it's overestimated in this case. We are also asking ourselves the question. The cost quickly went from $100 million to $180 million. That happened in the space of a year and a half.

Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Mayor, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to provincial member Jean-Marc Fournier for the work he has done in this matter. It was he who tabled the motion in the National Assembly. He obtained the consent of all members, including ministers. I believe that Jean-March Fournier did an extraordinary job in this matter. I tip my hat to him because he has done a great deal of work to move the issue forward.

Not many members in Quebec take a project like this to heart, and I'm talking about the four corners of the house, as it were. The problem in politics, and I say this openly, is that, when people are elected members, they are often concerned with their own issues and forget to look at the overall impact of an issue such as this, which affects all of greater Montreal.

You spoke about economic factors. The 1998 study clearly showed that the businesses of greater Montreal, excluding those in the rest of Quebec, were losing $800 million a year as a result of delivery delays caused by traffic congestion. This has an enormous economic impact, whereas we want Quebec to be competitive with the other major regions of Canada in terms of economic development.

Thank you very much.

» (1705)

Mr. Sergio Pavone: What Gilles pointed out is very important. We have seen how easy it was to start from what Mr. Marcil defined as economic, and not political, and to fall into politics. It's very easy. I dare hope that it's not like that only in Quebec. It's easy to slide into politics.

The essential factor is obviously the urgent need to act immediately with regard to transport. The point is not only to determine who will win the fight. The point is that this is a truly urgent question.

In closing, I will say that it is only between midnight and 3:00 a.m. that there are fewer than 500 vehicles an hour on the Mercier Bridge. At four in the morning, there are already more than 500 an hour. The average is approximately 2,000 vehicles an hour, if I'm not mistaken, and that average is not reached until after eight o'clock. It's a full load during most of the day.

[English]

It's well appreciated that there are only about 4 hours or less in the whole day that the bridge is not congested. It's pathetic to see that we're in this situation. It's easy for us to just slide down the political path, but the important issue is that the citizens be well served. We're not talking about citizens from Timbuktu, we're talking about the greater area of Montreal, we're talking about people who live and work around Montreal. It's an international city.

[Translation]

We're talking about Montreal the international city. We're talking about Montreal as an extraordinary place. We want to sell the city, particularly to our American partners, who want to make money in Quebec, particularly to our partners in the east. Since we live in this great Canada from sea to sea, people in the east want to do business with people in the west. It is essential that we adopt a position and make a decision in this regard.

It is true that economics often leads to politics and that politics very often leads to economics, but I believe we will be able to get through this, provided that what comes out of the meeting today is well respected.

Mr. Serge Marcil: I also congratulate all the chambers of commerce because they have worked hard.

Mr. Chairman, what I have to say is very important. We would like the Premier of Quebec to do what it takes for Highway 50 to be part of the National Highway System so that the Government of Canada can intervene.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): Thank you, Mr. Marcil.

Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I would like to respond to the comment just made. We can act right now through the Foundation because it concerns not only highways that are part of the NHS, but also related highways. We should reread your program, Mr. Marcil.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. James Moore): One moment, Mr. Lanctôt. This isn't the time for speeches and debates. The committee is sitting to gather information from witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Barbeau, Mr. Côté, Mr. Pavone and Mr. Blier.

The meeting is adjourned.