Transport Committee on Sept. 28th, 2011

[Taki Sarantakis]

The broader I think was around.... I hesitate to say.

[Francis Bilodeau]

Obviously there were other programs outside of Infrastructure Canada, but the biggest chunk within Infrastructure Canada would have been through the infrastructure stimulus fund. Then there would have been the CC top-up, which probably was about a few hundred.

[Taki Sarantakis]

Yes, I think it was around 6,000 in total.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

So 6,000 in total.

So we've just funded 6,000 projects that are incremental by definition. These projects are above and beyond what would otherwise have been funded under normal envelopes.

[Taki Sarantakis]

Right.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

So if we had pre-established a shopping list of best to worst infrastructure ideas back in 2009 and checked off the 6,000 best and if I were to implement a one-project stimulus fund and pick the very best project in Canada, it would be the 6,001st best project over the last several years.

Is there a worry about over-saturation when we have compressed so many projects into such a short period of time?

[Taki Sarantakis]

I think there is a challenge on the part of some provinces and some municipalities to bring forward new incremental funding for infrastructure. The need continues to be relatively large. Many provinces today are running deficits, and many municipalities are also challenged. So one of the big challenges going forward will be the continued provision of capital for the infrastructure sector. We know that during the economic action plan a lot of governments, including the federal government, specifically and knowingly went into deficit to address the issues of the economy. And now, coming out of, hopefully, the global recession, it's again a question for governments to what extent they want to continue to dedicate resources to that.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

How much time do I have here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thirty seconds.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I'll spare you all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I'm going to propose, if they so desire, that each party ask one more two-minute question.

Mr. Nicholls.

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

My question is about the infrastructure funding framework and the administration. Mr. Sarantakis mentioned a very intriguing point.

I was looking at the Northern Rockies Recreation Centre, which was a gas tax project in Prince George--Peace River. It was decided by the Northern Rockies Regional Municipality, but it was administered--supposedly, through the communications of Infrastructure Canada--by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Then I discovered that the UBCM administers the federal public transit agreement for 2006-10.

What are the different frameworks for funding public transit in each province? Has there been a follow-up on the effectiveness of different models of different provinces of these agreements? Has there been a benchmarking by Infrastructure Canada or Transport Canada of public value for each of these funding frameworks and administration? And what is the role of the federal government in sharing best practices knowledge among provinces so that maybe we could develop a strategy that would be effective on a national level so we are funding these projects in the most efficient manner?

[Taki Sarantakis]

Public transit, as we mentioned, is eligible under all our infrastructure programs--the gas tax, communities component, the major infrastructure stimulus--and all those programs are subject to both audits and evaluations. All the audits and evaluations that have come forward have generally been positive. They don't necessarily speak specifically to transit, but they speak to the programs as a whole. But as I mentioned, a lot of the programs are dominated by transit. So to the extent that a program that's dominated by transit has a positive evaluation, that means we're doing something right in transit.

In terms of best practices, it's something the federal government is going to be exploring in the context of the forthcoming consultations. What better role can the federal government play as a broker of knowledge among municipalities?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Monsieur Coderre.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Since the question has to do with federal-provincial relations, I would like to know when the last federal, provincial and territorial conference on public transit was held. The gas tax was created, and I think it has an important place. It serves as a significant source of funding. I assume we should also consider the public-private relationship, as well as other redundant funding sources. You said earlier, and rightly so, that we should certainly look at the possibility of creating a dedicated fund. Of course, that has advantages as well as drawbacks, but we should at least study the possibility.

When was the last federal, provincial and territorial conference on this issue?

[Taki Sarantakis]

Exclusively on public transit? There wasn't one. We have meetings that are broader in scope, that deal with infrastructure. Obviously, those discussions include public transit, but as for a special conference....

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

There wasn't one. Do you think that would be an important avenue to pursue? I get the feeling—and I see this as a problem—that we are doing a whole lot of catching up. So we have a problem both in terms of having to catch up and in terms of finding funding. We are dealing with an economic reality. The words used to describe it may differ, but we're talking about a recession. So we have a situation on the economic front. Therefore, we will have to either invest in infrastructure or find a way to change people's consumption patterns. There must be something relevant that can be done in that respect.

Have you measured the ratio between the catching up that needs to happen and what needs to be done in the long term? This can't be a one-time consideration; we need a dedicated fund in my view. For three simple..., there has to be a vision for the future. When you carry out assessments, do you look at that as well?

[Taki Sarantakis]

Yes, absolutely. We will have another opportunity to examine that issue as part of the consultations that will be held soon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Poilievre, the final two minutes to you.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Back to the questions of costing per unit of transportation, do we have models for comparing the relative per-passenger-kilometre cost of public transit versus cars or motorized personal transportation?

[Taki Sarantakis]

Yes, absolutely. Obviously per kilometre per passenger, public transit is far more efficient than the private automobile is by a factor of many times. But again, that assumes that you have the density. In Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, it is far more efficient per passenger per kilometre to use public transit. As you get into the smaller areas, that tends to be harder because you don't have a natural catchment area to get those passengers. So yes, it's far more efficient.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

When you look at the cost of personal vehicles, what are you including in that cost? Are you including just the cost to government, or are you including the cost to the person driving? How do you cost that out?

[Taki Sarantakis]

According to CAA's latest figures, to operate a private vehicle, I believe, it costs anywhere from $7,000 to $9,000 per year when you look at maintenance, your operating costs, your insurance, etc. Obviously a bus pass doesn't cost anywhere near that much.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

You're looking at the cost to the passenger. I'm looking at the cost to the government.

[Taki Sarantakis]

Again, it depends on which government. Some governments invest very heavily in highways. For instance, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick per capita invest very highly in highways. Ontario would be less so per capita. So it depends on the part of the country.