Mobilité Infra Québec will have to evaluate the costs over the lifetime of the projects, according to the Conseil du patronat du Québec

Mobilité Infra Québec (MIQ) will have to quantify the operating and maintenance costs of the projects entrusted to its expertise “so as not to make the situation worse in the long term,” demands the Conseil du patronat du Québec (CPQ). The future agency will also have to free itself from any government influence, argues the Ordre des urbanistes du Québec (OUQ), to avoid “overpoliticizing” transportation issues.

The CPQ applauds the government’s desire to “modernize the management of public infrastructure” and to “accelerate the completion of projects” at a lower cost. The organization does, however, have some reservations: MIQ’s mandate needs to be better defined and, above all, it needs to be ensured that its success does not increase Quebec’s already gaping maintenance and operating deficits.

It is therefore “crucial” that Mobilité Infra Québec calculate the costs of an infrastructure over its entire life cycle, “and not just from the perspective of investment alone,” writes the Employers’ Council in its brief presented to the parliamentary committee examining Bill 61.

“This will notably make it possible to avoid the mistakes of the past, according to the CPQ, and to find ourselves once again in deficit of maintenance of transport infrastructures.”

Stop development blindly, in short, so as not to hit the financial wall designated last November by the Auditor General. In a report, she noted that half of the asphalt roads under the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport were in poor condition and that it would cost $10 billion to renovate them.

“It must be remembered that the asset maintenance deficit in Quebec is increasing from year to year,” recalls the CPQ, “and that the investments made have not yet made it possible to stabilize this deterioration.”

The Employers’ Council also proposes that the government extend the scope of Bill 62 on public contracts and grant cities and transport companies the power to enter into contracts collaboratively. The CPQ also requests that Mobilité Infra Québec be required to work in harmony with “other bodies with responsibilities and skills in the field of transport.”

Cities, transit companies and the Autorité régionale de transport métropolitain all expressed concerns last week about the unilateral powers that Bill 61 proposes to grant to the future agency, including the power to impose a financial contribution on municipalities. “These requirements do not seem particularly conducive to good collaboration and the completion of transportation projects with the right deadlines and costs as desired,” warns the CPQ.

Depoliticizing transport

The Ordre des urbanistes du Québec is concerned that the reform, in its current state, leaves too much room for political arbitrariness in the development of transportation. “The political authorities,” the OUQ deplores in its brief, “will determine which projects will be selected for funding and which will be entrusted to MIQ on the basis of unknown criteria, or even on the basis of political considerations, once again.”

Mobilité Infra Québec will have to free itself from interference to avoid “political procrastination” leading to “years of delay,” according to the order. An “emblematic” issue of this overpoliticization, the organization indicates, is “the saga of the Quebec tramway.”

“It is abnormal that[e les élus] interfere in the development of a street corner or impose 12 route changes along the way, the OUQ maintains. Any reform of the public transit production system must distance projects from electoral considerations; project planning can no longer be done from the minister’s office.”

During question period last Tuesday, Transport Minister Geneviève Guilbault said that her PQ predecessor Sylvain Gaudreault had “tried to do exactly the same thing” as her under Pauline Marois’ government. The former Transport Minister and former Jonquière MNA then set the record straight on X. [F]would like to clarify that I support the idea of ​​a transport agency that depoliticizes the work, not the model that you propose in PL61.

To see in video


source site-44