Collective transport: the CAQ submits its bill to create Mobilité Infra Québec

The Legault government took a further step on Thursday to create the future agency which will be responsible for coordinating the development of various public transport projects in Quebec.

Minister Geneviève Guilbault tabled Bill 61 in the morning, before question period, in the National Assembly. This legislative piece provides for the creation of Mobilité Infra Québec, an agency independent of MTQ.

Much awaited, the bill – which took months to find its way to the Blue Room, notably due to the reluctance of the Treasury Board – will allow the government to take control of the destiny of public transportation across the province, as Minister Guilbault explained on Saturday.

According to her, the projects are being done too slowly and too costly, and the MTQ does not have the expertise to take care of it, as evidenced by the use of CDPQ Infra to carry out projects like the REMin the Montreal region.

His new agency, which should have around 50 employees, aims to correct these problems.

Mobilité Infra Québec’s mission will be to carry out, when the government entrusts it with responsibility, the opportunity analysis, planning and implementation of complex transport projects.summarized Minister Guilbault in the House.

The new agency will also be able to acquire, by expropriation, the buildings that it deems necessary within the framework of its mission for its own account or for that of the government, a municipality, a public transport company, the RTM (exo) orARTMshe clarified.

Build faster and cheaper

The ruling Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) also took the opportunity to table a second piece of legislation related to infrastructure on Thursday morning.

Minister Jonatan Julien’s Bill 62 aims to reduce the costs and construction times of major projects by reforming the process for awarding government contracts.

This simultaneous filing reflects the Legault government’s desire to build faster and cheaper. Ministers Guilbault and Julien also held a joint press conference at the beginning of the afternoon to explain that these legislative changes were intrinsically linked.

When a citizen sends us a dollar via their taxes [et que] we invest it in an infrastructure project, we want it to be delivered at the best cost, as quickly as possible, and as for public transport, with Mobilité Infra Québec, that’s exactly what we will dopromised Ms. Guilbault.

This approach, according to her, will allow the government to regain the capacity to deliverparticularly in Quebec, in the East of Montreal and on the South Shore, where structuring network projects are stalling becausethere [a] no one to make them.

Bill 61 will also have the effect of freeing the government from its addiction towards CDPQ Infra and to stop the proliferation of project offices – governance structures over which we have no direct control, but of which we are the main funderunderlined the minister.

Ms. Guilbault estimates that the operating costs of Mobilité Infra Québec will amount to approximately $6 million for the first year, then at least $9 million thereafter.

In return, the government will no longer finance future project offices. Those dedicated to the extension of the Montreal metro blue line and the Pie-IX SRB will, however, be maintained. The decision concerning the project office of the future structuring network of Quebec, finally, has not yet been made, indicated the minister.

An announcement that arouses perplexity

Already, the SFPQ – which represents a good number of employees at MTQ – demands, however, that Geneviève Guilbault renounces creating Mobilité Infra Québec.

It is another agency outside the public service, which will bring a board of directors, which will bring an additional structure which is not necessarylamented its general president, Christian Daigle, in an interview with Radio-Canada.

The government tells us that we want to cut structures. So why put in even more structures? Why still add salaries? Why add people at this level? We are capable of having the expertise internally, we just need to have the political will to do ithe pleaded on Thursday.

The opposition in the National Assembly is also doubtful about Bill 61. MTQ]that we will necessarily be more efficient”,”text”:”It is not by building a parallel structure [au MTQ] that we will necessarily be more efficient”}}”>It is not by building a parallel structure [au MTQ] that we will necessarily be more efficientargued Thursday the acting head of the PLQMarc Tanguay.

We have seen in recent weeks the absolutely total absence of a vision regarding public transportation, so it is not the tabling of a bill that will change things.also declared Joël Arseneau, of the Parti Québécois (PQ), in reference to the remarks made by the minister during the study of appropriations last month.

Québec solidaire (QS), for its part, sees a risk of privatization in the proposed project, particularly in the composition of the Board of Directors of Mobilité Infra Québec, and believes, like the SFPQthat a team could have been created inside the MTQrather thanan agency nearby.

CAQ: we cannot deliver projects, we cannot resolve problems, we create structures hoping that things will get better”,”text”:”This is a way of doing things that we often see at the CAQ: we cannot deliver projects, we cannot resolve problems, we create structures hoping that things will get better”}}”>This is a way of doing things that we often see in the CAQ : we cannot deliver projects, we cannot resolve problems, we create structures hoping that things will get bettersummarized the spokesperson for QS in terms of transport, MP Étienne Grandmont.

In an official statement sent to the media, the STM was also said very concerned by certain provisions of Bill 61, Thursday. The creation of Mobilité Infra Québec, for example, will cannibalize the expertise already well present in the public and parapublic sectorsaccording to her.

Minister Guilbault’s bill, we still read, STM to promote the real estate development of the sites”,”text”:”does not take into account the requests of the STM to promote the real estate development of the sites”}}”>does not take into account the requests of the STM to promote the real estate development of sites and will add constraints which will limit the ability of transportation companies to generate revenue.

Not to mention that the creation of Mobilité Infra Québec will not resolve the “financing issues” that are making headlines these days, since each new project increases the operating deficitunderlines the Montreal operator.

Without the necessary investments, a new agency, even with the best experts, will not be able to work miraclesagreed CMMTHURSDAY.

While having the appetite and ambition for new public transport projects, it is absolutely necessary to support the existing network and tackle underfundingshe argued in a written statement.

This is not the first time that a government has wanted to depoliticize infrastructure contracts MTQ. In power from 2012 to 2014, the P.Q. by Pauline Marois had also toyed with the idea of ​​creating a Quebec Transport Infrastructure Agency.

Interviewed on the Montreal show All one morning On Thursday, the Minister of Transport at the time, Sylvain Gaudreault, however maintained that Geneviève Guilbault’s project and his own were not comparable.

MTQ]to transform the entirety of [celui-ci] in agency, he explained. What would have remained of the Ministry of Transport was more of a budgetary, legislative order [et] regulatory, while what I understand of the objective of Ms.Guilbault is rather the opposite, I would say.”,”text”:”My objective was to break the organizational culture at the [MTQ] to transform the entire [celui-ci] in agency, he explained. What would have remained of the Ministry of Transport was more of a budgetary, legislative order [et] regulatory, while what I understand of Ms. Guilbault’s objective is rather the opposite, I would say.”}}”>My objective was to break the organizational culture [MTQ] to transform the entire [celui-ci] in agency, he explained. What would have remained of the Ministry of Transport was more of a budgetary, legislative order [et] regulatory, whereas what I understand of Ms. Guilbault’s objective is rather the opposite, I would say.