Okay. What was that figure, again?
Evidence of meeting #49 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #49 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Chairman, Merit Canada
The Building Canada fund, I believe, is $14 billion.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Chairman, Merit Canada
On the conservative side, and this is from studies that have been completed and documented—you can have a copy sent to you—minimum, 20% to 30%.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Chairman, Merit Canada
When you look at $14 billion, you're talking $3 billion-ish.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Okay, which is exactly the amount that Ms. Reynolds is asking for here today. Is that correct?
4:30 p.m.
Director, Community Services, Town of Milton, Past President, Canadian Parks and Recreation Association
That's correct.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
It's common sense, right?
That would result in Ms. Reynolds not having to come forward to ask for her portion of the fiscal dividend, if you will. If there was more competition on the side that you're talking about, then there would be more money to spend on parks and rec, which Ms. Reynolds is here to ask for today.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Johal, you spoke earlier about asset recycling. Would you say that it would be good public policy to use the funds from asset recycling to pay down public deficit and/or debt?
4:35 p.m.
Policy Director, University of Toronto, Mowat Centre
No. I think the intention of asset recycling is you take the funds from the disposition of legacy assets and put them toward new assets. It's explicitly not intended to pay down deficit or debt.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Would you agree that wouldn't be a good idea for a government to do that?
4:35 p.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Okay. I didn't mean to cut you off.
Thank you.
Mr. Leung, you have up to five minutes, please.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
Thank you, witnesses.
My question has to do with urban transit, because it's something I invested a lot of my time in during the eighties.
In the eighties, to build one kilometre of track in Vancouver cost about $25 million. If we build the kilometre of track today, we're looking at about $300 million. The issue is more than just spending money. There are environmental impacts, alignment issues, and technology issues.
For example, in Toronto we have talked about this ever since the Transport 2000 study, which I had a hand in in the 1980s. Should public policy not also focus on the broader issue of land use management, intensification, and perhaps simple governance? Once you have decided that you want to build transit, then leave it alone, let it be built, rather than changing horses in midstream. We all know that every change order costs a tremendous amount of time and money by not completing that project.
Mr. Roschlau, could I hear your comment first. Should public policy involve something broader than just funding alone?
4:35 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Urban Transit Association
That's an excellent question, and a very good point.
Absolutely. I think the key integration between infrastructure and land use is the number one priority in maximizing the return on investment. Linking the selection of the network and the technology to the demand and to the development plans of a community is critical in generating that return, which is why I would say that if we have a policy framework in place, at some point that linkage to urban development is critical from the get-go.