Transport Committee on Sept. 28th, 2011

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Nicholls.

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

According to the report Ms. Chow mentioned, in 2009, Quebec's transport agencies wanted to increase services by 20% for the period from 2009 to 2012. The Quebec Ministry of Transport (MTQ) projected investments of $3.3 billion for that period.

How much money has the federal government provided and for which specific projects?

[Taki Sarantakis]

I don't have the data on hand, but I am almost certain that the gas fund was involved. If we can find out anything else, I will let you know after the meeting.

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

D'accord.

I have some follow-up questions.

First, big cities need a special framework to decide on their projects. They're not the same as small municipalities. Do you think a framework of all the government players would result in more strategically targeted transit projects rather than...? As you mentioned, the engagement is usually bilateral, federal-provincial. Wouldn't it be useful to have the mayors of big cities along with the federal and the provincial planning together for transit strategies?

[Taki Sarantakis]

To the extent that provinces are comfortable with that, we do obviously engage large-city mayors. In fact a lot of our public transit investments, just by their nature, have gone to big cities. The largest public transit projects on our books are Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton. Those are Canada's five largest cities, and each of those cities has received a very substantial investment in their public transit.

Again, those are projects that originated with those cities. They come forward as local priorities. They don't come as a result of the province and the federal government sitting together and saying, “You have to come up with a transit project for us to fund”.

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

But often the funding that is needed is insufficient for what the city itself wants to realize. Is there any sort of framework we could give such that the federal government could be there to listen directly when the plans are being made and to intervene and say, “Well, the funding is just not there for your vision”?

[Taki Sarantakis]

The funding is pretty public in terms of what the federal government can bring to the table. Our primary funding instrument is the Building Canada fund. The Building Canada fund has a specific allocation per province. Then, as I said, we negotiate on a bilateral basis with those provinces in terms of their specific allocation.

In the context of those discussions, I can tell you that large cities have no difficulty in bringing forward their proposals. So it's not a question of us not being aware of what Calgary would like or what Edmonton would like, or Ottawa. Those mayors tend to be very forceful in bringing forward those priorities. So we know both the priorities and the funding envelope that's available to deal with those priorities.

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

Small municipalities are another consideration. My riding is made up of 23 municipalities, which are mostly small towns. Our most important infrastructure is the highway. I have nonetheless spoken to representatives of local agencies, who said that they thought the demand was there, but that the bus service was not frequent enough.

In addition, they want to implement new technologies, special buses. However, provincial and federal regulations stand in the way of acquiring new innovative technologies, such as the mini-buses used in Europe or shared taxis.

Where do those hindrances to acquiring innovative technologies come from?

Is there a way to develop a shared approach or a common strategy between the provinces, the federal government and the municipalities to promote best practices in public transit?

[Taki Sarantakis]

I am not an expert on bus regulations. Provinces are supposed to regulate the acceptability of certain types of vehicles. Honestly, that matter comes under provincial jurisdiction.

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

Then....

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to stop you there.

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to hear from you today and your being here to take our questions.

I've always kind of favoured the type of model we have under the gas tax fund when it comes to public infrastructure. I think when we're dealing with that it allows municipalities to have that long-term, predictable, stable type of funding they can plan around so they're not trying to find ways to fit in this particular program or that particular program. They know that they have the funding there and that they can rely on that funding. They know about how much it will be each year, and they can make their plans based on the priorities that are important for their particular municipality.

Obviously, as you indicated in your opening comments, that's exactly what has taken place with that gas tax funding. You mentioned, in particular, that when we talk about public transit, which is obviously our focus here today and with the current study, that since 2006 municipalities have used approximately $1.1 billion of their federal gas tax fund allocation towards transit-related investments. You also mentioned that there are several large municipalities—I think you mentioned Vancouver, Edmonton, and Toronto—that have all dedicated their entire gas tax funding allocation to transit investments.

I'm wondering if you can give me a little bit more information about the projects that were funded in those three cities with their large dedication of gas tax funds towards them, and if you can give me some other examples of projects that were funded through the gas tax in various municipalities across the country.

[Taki Sarantakis]

The gas tax funding tends to go towards their core existing systems. So in Toronto, for instance, the vast majority of gas tax funding that went to transit would go to the existing operations of the TTC. Some of that would be split between funding for subway lines and funding for bus purchases. The same thing would be true for Evergreen and the SkyTrain system, etc.

The non-gas-tax funding tends to be much more project-specific. So when you have funding under Building Canada, you would actually see a new project, because Building Canada tends to be for new projects.

The gas tax fund, while it can be used for new projects, tends to be for existing systems that are already in operation. So that $1.1 billion would have gone largely to existing transit networks.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

So you're talking essentially about the bulk of that money being operational.

[Taki Sarantakis]

It's not operational, but it augments the existing services. So, for instance, by buying more buses, you're expanding the scope of your service reach by improving your track network if you're working on a subway, but it's not as delineated a project as a typical Building Canada project would be.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay, understood. So you're talking about adding buses or—

[Taki Sarantakis]

Yes, it tends to be improving existing services.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

—improving a station on a line, or something along—

[Taki Sarantakis]

It's still capital funding.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay, that's great, and that's important, right?

I see Edmonton mentioned as one of the cities in there. I'm from Alberta, and obviously we've seen huge growth over the last decade or so.

Being able to see expansions of existing systems, which sounds exactly like what we're talking about here, is obviously very important when you're dealing with growth. I don't represent any large centres—I represent smaller centres in a rural riding—but the types of funding that have been put there are essentially for the same kind of thing, to meet the demands of growth. So I'm glad to hear that's what has been happening with that funding.

You mentioned the larger capital projects as well. More of those were funded under Building Canada. Obviously some of them would have been funded under the economic action plan as well, I'm sure. I wonder if you can give us some examples. I think you did give us a couple of examples of some of the Building Canada fund projects. You mentioned one in Edmonton and one in Calgary for the expansion of their light rail systems. Maybe you could start with those two just because they're in the province I come from, but I would be interested in hearing from you details on some of those projects that were funded under Building Canada, and maybe you could give me some examples of projects that were funded through the economic action plan as well. I would appreciate that.

[Taki Sarantakis]

Terrific. Specifically in Edmonton and Calgary, both projects have gone towards extensions of rapid rail, so it's the heavy rail in Calgary and Edmonton.

In terms of other keystone projects that have happened across Canada, the largest single one has been Toronto's York subway extension. As I mentioned earlier, it has been under planning of one sort or another for some 20 years. Kitchener-Waterloo is also in the process of doing light-rail transit, and we have Brampton, York Region, and Mississauga.

In terms of the infrastructure stimulus fund, a very good example of the type of thing that was done in transit is actually almost right outside this door. On the transitway downtown, you'll see Slater and Albert Streets. The City of Ottawa applied for and received funding to improve all of its bus stops on the BRT corridors, which has made it not only a lot more efficient but actually a lot safer. If you look at them now, you'll see that there are actually real stations there. There are also barricades so that people are not jumping in front of buses in blind spots and things like that.

That's a very good example of what you do under the economic action plan: something that's relatively small and quick to get going but that provides real benefits to the city and to users.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Sullivan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

One of your responses suggested that the differences between different sizes of communities gives them the opportunity to determine whether or not it's a water infrastructure project they need versus transit infrastructure or some other infrastructure project.

My concern, then, is that if there's a kind of equalized distribution of the money, those communities that need transit infrastructure won't get it. Everybody needs water projects, but not everybody needs transit projects. How do you determine how to allocate the money in such a circumstance?

[Taki Sarantakis]

I'm sorry if that's the implication I left, because that isn't what I was trying to communicate. What I was trying to say is that each municipality, regardless of whether it's large or small, has a basket of infrastructure assets, and some of them are better maintained than others.

Some municipalities have been very diligent in maintaining their water and their waste water, but less so on their recreation centres. In other municipalities, it's the inverse: they have very good roads and good community centres, but they haven't been treating their waste water as responsibly as they could or should.

So it's not so much a question of whether you're big or small: it's a question of what needs you have in your community.