Transport Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you and good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, meeting 14.

Our orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), are for the study of the national public transit strategy.

Joining us from Infrastructure Canada, as they did at the beginning of this process, are Taki Sarantakis, assistant deputy minister, policy and communications branch; Michael Rutherford, director, economic and community initiatives; and Stephanie Tanton, principal adviser, economic and community initiatives.

Thank you again for making yourselves available today. I understand you have a brief presentation, and then we'll move to questions.

[Taki Sarantakis, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Communications Branch, Infrastructure Canada]

Mr. Chair, I know you have some time pressures, so given that I was here two months ago, if you'd like, I could dispense with the opening remarks and just table them. But that's up to you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'll ask the committee.

What do you have, about a five- or six-minute presentation?

[Taki Sarantakis]

Something like that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

All right.

Should he make the presentation?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Okay.

Please go ahead.

[Taki Sarantakis]

I'd like to thank the committee for having me back to speak with you today. As noted, I have with me Michael Rutherford, who's the director of economic and community initiatives, and Stephanie Tanton, who's the principal adviser on transportation projects in that group.

I'll be brief in my opening remarks, as we were here several months ago.

Infrastructure Canada has been monitoring the witnesses who have appeared before you in the last few weeks on the subject of public transit. It has been an excellent opportunity for us to gather an even better understanding of the ideas and priorities of many of Canada's important stakeholders in this area.

The views of these witnesses and the work this committee is undertaking will be very useful in the context of the Government of Canada's commitment in the last budget to develop a long-term plan for public infrastructure that extends beyond the expiry of the current infrastructure plan.

Yesterday, in a speech in Toronto, Minister Lebel announced that this announcement would be forthcoming next week.

As you have heard, both the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Canadian Urban Transit Association have indicated their support for developing a new infrastructure plan and a willingness to discuss public transit infrastructure in this context as part of this process.

As I mentioned during our last appearance, since 2006 the Government of Canada has made unprecedented commitments toward public transit. Since that time, close to $5 billion has been committed from federal infrastructure programs toward regional and local transit priorities across Canada.

Infrastructure Canada programs have been designed to reflect the fact that communities large and small have unique and specific transit and infrastructure needs. As such, our investments have ranged from rapid transit and subway systems in our largest cities, to bus stop upgrades for increased accessibility and safety, the purchase of low-floor buses, and the construction of bus terminals in our smaller cities and communities.

As I believe you have heard from stakeholders such as Metrolinx, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, and the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, the unique needs of Canadian communities will be an important consideration as we move forward with the development of the new long-term infrastructure plan.

In addition, since the last time we appeared before this committee, the government has tabled Bill C-13 , which will make the gas tax permanent at $2 billion per year, so municipalities can count on this stable funding for their infrastructure needs now and into the future.

With that, thank you once more and we'll be pleased to take your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Nicholls.

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

Thank you for coming before the committee again. We have a few questions we'd like to ask you.

Many studies have shown that when you put more people on public transit, it allows for smoother commercial traffic on our roads and highways. Would a federal strategy for public transit improve the outcomes of existing national strategies such as for gateways and corridors, environmental goals, and innovation, given that if we have good public transit in our cities, it will allow commercial traffic to circulate more freely?

[Taki Sarantakis]

Yes. Anything we can do to encourage the use of public transit is a positive activity from the perspective of trade. As you know, many of our international trade flows go through very large cities, so Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver often suffer the effects of this congestion. To the extent you can get riders out of cars and onto public transit, that would most certainly help the flow of commercial traffic.

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

I was looking over the Auditor General's report yesterday with respect to the economic action plan. I noticed one of the lessons learned was that during the applications process, planning professions, such as engineers, architects, landscape architects, and so on, should be engaged right from the beginning.

Wouldn't it be helpful, in terms of planning our transportation network, to have those planners involved in developing a federal national public transport strategy?

[Taki Sarantakis]

Again, it's almost unheard of for a project to come forward to the federal government without urban planners having been involved in that project, so it's something that happens already. They come to us on a project basis.

For instance, when the cities of Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver apply for public transit projects, those have all gone though their urban professional...and some cities are very good at that. Vancouver, for example, is renowned across the world for the extent to which it integrates public transit in its urban planning network.

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

The other day we had the STM here. One of its recommendations was to index the gas tax fund. We know the gas tax has been made permanent, but what does Infrastructure Canada think about indexing the gas tax fund? Would that be helpful?

[Taki Sarantakis]

The government has announced that the gas tax will be permanent at $2 billion per year. Until and unless that budgetary decision is turned over, it's $2 billion per year.

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

But would Infrastructure Canada also recommend indexing the gas tax fund, given the needs in our communities are not going to decrease, are not going to stay at the same level? Shouldn't we index that to the rate of inflation?

[Taki Sarantakis]

Well, $2 billion is a substantial amount of money for municipal infrastructure. You have to keep in mind that the gas tax fund is not cost-shared. It's essentially a base funding for municipalities. What the proper quantum should be is really a governmental decision, and the department basically implements governmental decisions.

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

We also had a few rural organizations from Alberta and Saskatchewan talking about how intercity bus services serve as public transit for them. What do you think would be the advantages and disadvantages of introducing federal support for that kind of bus transportation?

[Taki Sarantakis]

Intercity bus transit right now is primarily private-sector driven. To the extent that the federal government participates, it participates largely though the subsidization of VIA Rail, which, as you know, is a significant ongoing subsidy. I think there is a role for the Government of Canada in looking at that. I'm not sure there's a role for the Government of Canada picking winners and losers in that area.

As you know, VIA Rail is a crown corporation, which is one of the reasons why the Government of Canada subsidizes its operating losses and its capital expenditures. To the extent that these intercity bus services are offered by private for-profit corporations, I think there would be a significant debate before the Government of Canada would undertake anything in that area.

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

I'll share the rest of my time with Mr. Sullivan.

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

Sticking to that point, one of the concerns raised by these rural municipalities is that reliance on the private sector has proven to be ineffective, because the private sector can cancel a service and then there is nothing. Is there a role, other than monetary, for the federal government in trying to maintain these services in poorly serviced areas?

[Taki Sarantakis]

Again, intercity service really isn't transit, per se. Intercity service is more service by rail or by airlines.

I appreciate that in Saskatchewan and in some other areas the distances between communities are smaller, because they have more communities per square foot or per kilometre, but essentially intercity bus service is outside the domain of public transit. It's generally considered a fundamentally different business line. They're not competitors. They're not entities that would be analyzed or dealt with by the same people.

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

I'm not sure I follow. You're saying it's not something in which Infrastructure Canada or Transport Canada would be involved in any way, or...?

[Taki Sarantakis]

No, I'm saying that public transit is something that is within cities. If you're going from Toronto to Montreal, that's not public transit. That's intercity movement, and intercity movement is more airplanes, buses, trains. It's generally not considered public transit.

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

So if it crosses a municipal boundary, is it public transit?