Transport Committee on Oct. 24th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll just say that it's not a point of order, but I was listening, and we need to get to the transit question.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I will get to the question.

Another thing on the strategy and planning of the government for infrastructure spending--and I will bring this to transit shortly--is that the CTF talked about the federal government putting up around 9,000 stimulus signs and said that it was part of the government's plan for taking credit for the orgy of stimulus spending.

This member costed it out and said that it cost, if you multiply it across the country and take into account installation costs, about $3.2 million for signage for taking credit.

Now, what we've been trying to do with this transit strategy bill is depoliticize the process so that we can all get on board and improve the economy of this country by finding ways to improve the productivity of our transit systems.

This is my question to you. I will ask you to tell me which of the following would be more likely to gain the support of the CTF membership, putting aside the fact that the members are mostly against public spending, and accepting that, contrary to your position, funding will be transferred to the provinces and those provinces will use the money for their public transit systems. Which of these two would be more likely to gain the support of your membership? Spending with an eye to political gain on pet projects that have questionable economic impact? Or spending on a strategy that irons out the kinks before any money is spent and aims to improve the accountability and funding mechanisms to, in short, eliminate waste in spending?

What I'm saying is that spending is probably going to happen. Wouldn't it be better to have a strategy ahead of time for that spending instead of doing it on a sort of ad hoc basis?

[Gregory Thomas]

I know that you're making the case for your bill, and it's impossible to argue against having a strategy or a plan, but our point is that the federal government has no useful place in this process. Gathering people in Ottawa to put together a transit strategy.... There are plenty of qualified people on the ground in Montreal, Toronto, Saskatoon, and Vancouver, and they need strategies--

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

But the whole thing about it was what you mentioned: that when you were working with the chartered banks, you looked at the information other banks had. The analysts from those banks provided the best information. So what I'm saying is that this bill might help those experts in each province share the information with each other to find the best way of developing a system in which we eliminate waste, so that we're using best practices. Wouldn't you agree with that aspect of it?

I know the CTF won't agree to spending outside of constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government. I'm aware of that. I got that from your input, but given that spending is going to occur, that transfers are going to be made to the provinces, wouldn't it be best to figure out ahead of time the most efficient way to direct that funding towards transit?

[Gregory Thomas]

There's nothing wrong with exchanging information. A dear friend of mine coordinates a committee of research scientists on technology matters under the auspices of the National Research Council. They have a gang Skype exchange on a regular basis--I think on a monthly basis--in which there are 20 or 30 research scientists from across the country discussing things on Skype. I think they have an annual meeting at which they get together.

I'm not saying “don't meet” or “don't exchange ideas”, but I'm saying that the emergence of a--quote, unquote--national strategy is a fiction. There won't be a national strategy. There will be strategies related to the economies and the transportation systems on the ground that would benefit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to stop it there.

Mr. Butt.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thomas, for being here.

I'm not quite sure if my NDP colleague who just spoke understood how Canada's economic action plan, the infrastructure stimulus program, worked, because it was actually the municipalities that recommended the projects they wanted funded. I know that in Mississauga there was a unanimous vote by the mayor and members of council as to which 122 projects would be funded in the city of Mississauga.

So when they talk about pet political projects, they weren't the federal government's pet political projects at all. It was municipalities, which understand the infrastructure on the street and what they need in their communities, that recommended to the provincial and federal governments what should be funded. Let's get the facts straight on how that program worked.

Do you support a federal role in funding infrastructure for capital costs, for operating costs, for both, or for neither? Where do you folks draw the line? I think you did indicate that some infrastructure should be funded at the federal level of government. Do you believe the federal government should fund ongoing operating costs for transit systems or just contribute toward capital costs?

[Gregory Thomas]

No. We believe that transit and transportation systems should break even or make money, as Greyhound does, for example, and we don't see a federal government role in funding the operations of transportation-operating companies.

With regard to capital and operations, if it's something in a federal area of responsibility, like food inspections or agricultural inspections, we want federal government employees working with the best equipment so they can do their jobs most effectively.

I was reading today that the Department of National Defence owns something like 21,000 buildings, and it wants to cap the size of the army at 68,000 troops, so that pencils out something like one building for every three soldiers or.... It was on the front page of the Citizen today.

That was a long-winded response to your question, but no, we believe in the federal government operating its own infrastructure. We don't believe in the federal government subsidizing municipal or provincial infrastructure.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

There's been some talk about the 2¢ a litre gas tax, how that's being allocated, and what it's being used for. I wasn't a member of Parliament here when it was first devised by the federal government and the agreements were entered into. To the best of my knowledge, it was the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that made the argument for as much flexibility as possible in how they could spend that 2¢. It was not just for public transit and not just for roads. They wanted flexibility.

Then, as I understand it, in the case of the province of Ontario, where I'm from, the provincial Liberal government there actually didn't allow as much flexibility. They made it very clear with their portion that it was to be spent specifically on public transit, on roads and that type of infrastructure, because it's gas tax money.

Do you believe we should be tightening at the federal level what we allow municipalities to spend that 2¢ a litre on? Should it be directly focused on public transit and transportation-related costs so there's some accountability back? Or should we continue along the lines we are now, where there's a lot more flexibility? Maybe it can be used to build or subsidize a community centre or a recreation program or something different.

Should we be tightening that up a little to make sure that the federal contribution is going specifically to public transit and transportation infrastructure?

[Gregory Thomas]

We believe that as long as the feds continue to collect excise tax on motor fuels those revenues should only go to roads and bridges and transportation infrastructure, or else for sure it'll go into CUPE pay raises and half-million dollar salaries for city executives, and the rest of it will get siphoned off into the black hole which is city governance in this country.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I think there are some good examples. Certainly in the city of Mississauga I can use good examples, where the federal government has agreed to partner on a one-third, one-third, and one-third basis with the province and the municipality to do some things that I think all of our municipalities need.

But the good thing about it is that the federal government is not on the hook for all of it. We're a partner in one-third of it. Do you like that model of a third, a third, and a third so there's accountability? Everybody puts something into the pot. It's not just one level of government funding it all. You have three different levels of government, each responsible to see a project...each one getting to put their sign up by the project, so there's some accountability back to the public as to who funded it, how it was done, and if it was done on time.

The three levels of government are, in essence, forced to work together. Is that a good model for how we do public transit infrastructure funding in this country?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

As briefly as you can, please, Mr. Thomas.

[Gregory Thomas]

Well, I think if you put yourself in the shoes of someone who's not an expert in government and is standing outside that community centre, or that facility in Mississauga, you will find they have no idea who built it. They have no idea who's responsible. There's no direct responsibility. I would say that having all three levels of government partnering on projects like that is a very bad idea.

I think the federal government should stick to the things it's constitutionally responsible for. If it's a community centre, let the city build it, run it, and take responsibility for it, and give the city enough room to charge the taxes it needs to deliver on the program its voters want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll give the last minute to Mr. Sullivan.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Gregory. This has been an eye-opening discussion, because I'm hearing a lot of things I like.

I like what you're saying: that sprawl is caused by free roads that then engender a need for public transit. You only have to look at Calgary and see how it has spread north and south dramatically.

We started from the premise that we were stuck with the system we have, that we need something to put some order in the chaos that is public transit systems across the country, systems that are funded, we think, on the basis of too much political manipulation.

But if what you're saying is that we need to move tax points into the municipal system in order for the municipalities to be able to fund public transit, I don't think we disagree. If the funding can be there, if the federal government is willing to take its excise tax--or whatever tax or income tax points--and shift that to the municipalities, do you agree that's an appropriate way to fund it?

[Gregory Thomas]

With this proviso: we don't think the federal government has any business taxing motor fuel.

We also think it's inherently dishonest to levy GST or a harmonized sales tax on motor fuel that includes all these excise taxes. You're taxing a tax and that's kind of a banana republic thing to do. It would be better to be straight up, as they've done in Quebec, where they're actually raising their tax rates and are no longer going to apply.... They're going to have a harmonized system.

We don't necessarily agree that you automatically assume that if the federal government stops levying excise taxes on motor fuels, every municipality and every province will immediately reinstate those taxes. But if the voters in Toronto want to have higher fuel taxes and more transit, and the voters in Red Deer want lower fuel taxes and less transit, those are decisions. Then you can decide to live in Toronto or in Red Deer, as the case may be.

We believe that's a better approach for all Canadians than trying to pretend that the federal government can meddle in transit matters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to stop you there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Thomas.

I'll put in a shameless plug for him. He has some of his recent magazines, if you want to pick one up on your way out.

We thank you for input today.

[Gregory Thomas]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

As you step away from the table, we have a motion to deal with as a committee. I'll read that motion, and then refer to Monsieur Coderre.

It was tabled on October 17 and states:

That, in relation to the illegal strike of the Lester B. Pearson International Airport Security Screening Staff, on October 7, 2011, the Committee invite representatives from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), from Garda and representatives of their union.

Monsieur Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will be quick.

On October 7, there was an illegal strike. The strike created problems for basic services. In terms of the situation at the airport, I think our job is to ask questions and find out what happened. I was told that there might have been something to do with Garda, CATSA and some unions. Given that our job is to guarantee basic services, including at the Toronto International Airport, I think that the committee should set aside a day and ask those people to come and tell us what happened. I don't see why anyone would be opposed to that. It is not just about labour relations. First and foremost, it has to do with the way the airport operates. There were consequences. We are talking about 74 people.

I feel that the issue is definitely more serious. We need to shed some light on the situation. That is our job as parliamentarians. It is about getting the story straight. I know that we really like talking about public transit, but I would like us to talk about air transport and airports as well. I would like us to set a day aside for that issue and to have the people come and explain things openly. Canadians will then be able to understand what happened on October 7, why there was a strike and whether there are other security problems at the airport.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Are there any comments?

Mr. Butt.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I realize I am a guest here, but I serve on the human resources committee, which deals with labour issues. Quite frankly, I think this is a labour relations issue. I do not think it's appropriate for this committee, with its mandate, to be dealing with this matter at this committee.

The Minister of Labour has been involved in this situation on a private basis, working with the parties that are affected. I really think you jeopardize some of the processes if you make the situation too public at the infrastructure and transportation committee. I don't believe this is an appropriate committee to be dealing with this issue, and I will be voting against this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Nicholls.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I think consumers want to know what happened, perhaps. It's people who end up getting affected by this, the consumers that are in airports, and they really want to know what's going on. They can't really figure things out when it's a complex labour situation. So I'm not against the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Coderre.