Evidence of meeting #4 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was municipalities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate the presentation today. I was a former municipal councillor in Penticton, British Columbia, so I certainly can understand some of the pressure cities are under. At the same time, I know that usually it's political decisions that put them under those pressures.
Getting on to your presentation today, the FCM has said that Canada is the only G-8 country without a national public transit strategy. Do other G-8 countries have a legislated strategy, as proposed by the NDP? If so, do those federations have similar constitutional divisions of powers, as Canada does?
Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
I'm sorry, what was the last part of the question?
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
If so, if those strategies are legislated ones, as proposed by the NDP, are they in federations that have a similar constitutional structure, with divisions of power, as we have here in Canada?
Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Whether they're legislated or not, I couldn't go through each country and say yes or no. What's important for us is that there is a need for a long-term view on the transit question and the broader question of infrastructure. There is a need for the kinds of principles I laid out earlier as part of a strategy and a long-term plan for infrastructure planning and investment. These things, if put in place, over time will bring Canada to the standards of the OECD, whether there's a legislated strategy or not. What's more important for us is the long-term view, the kinds of principles we talked about, and really, a national effort to focus on these issues.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC
You're not aware of any other countries in the G-8 that actually have a legislated strategy, correct?
Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
I don't have a list of them with me, no.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Figures were thrown out a little while ago of the dollars per capita municipalities spend. I just did a little bit of Internet research, and I apologize, because I don't have any actual numbers, but it would appear that the per capita amounts taken by municipalities are actually less than inflation over the 25-year period that was being talked about. It's only a little bit less, but it's less than inflation. At the same time, at least in Ontario--I'm not certain about other municipalities--the province was strapped, and it downloaded a whole lot of responsibilities onto municipalities and has not taken them back. So I can well understand how municipalities are crying uncle, because they can't actually continue to provide all the services they provided before.
We're now entering a period in which the rest of the world has moved dramatically forward with public transit. We have very, very little real public transit in this country, from my perspective. In terms of rail-based public transit, in particular, there is very, very little in this country.
Other countries are leaping ahead of us. In China, the building program for subways and for rapid rail and for inter-urban rail is moving at an astonishing pace. Spain has built in its major cities. France and England, we know, have had better public transit systems than most of Canada for a long time, partly because they were building post-war.
What I'm wrestling with is the notion that there is a federal responsibility here. That's really what we're debating. It's not just whether there is a strategy but whether there is a responsibility. We on this side of the table believe that there should be responsibility for a portion of it. I don't think the funding mechanisms that have happened so far are too far wrong. It's been about a third, a third, and a third. It has just not been regular. We get funding in Toronto for a subway, but not for light rail. We get some funding for some rail infrastructure for heavy rail, but not a lot of it.
I guess I'm asking if a national strategy would help, even if the amount of money isn't tremendous, in making it at least appear that we're moving forward into better public transit in the bigger municipalities.
Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Absolutely. What's important for us and our members is the understanding of the critical nature of infrastructure in this country, the importance of urban transit within that broader question in the larger and medium-sized communities, and the negative economic impacts of the lack of effective urban transit, or transport en commun.
It is really important to have leadership from the federal government that focuses on the infrastructure question and the transit within it, focuses on the principles of a national approach to these questions, and then puts some resources on the table that leverage other resources. The federal government plays a hugely important role in this country in bringing leadership to a question, and then bringing the nation to focus on how to advance our country with respect to that question.
As in cases like the economic action plan--or go all the way back to the railway that was built across the prairies by Sir John A. Macdonald's gang--we're saying that with infrastructure and the subset question of urban transit, the focus of federal leadership brings attention to the issue that allows us to overcome national challenges.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Is it another benefit of a national strategy that once there's an agreement among the provinces, the municipalities, and the federal government on a system by which public transit will be implemented--maybe not agreement on the funding, but at least on what will be implemented--it takes away the tendency to make transit infrastructure decisions for political purposes?
I think back to the early nineties, when we had a big hole on Eglinton Avenue in Toronto that somebody decided to fill in at a cost of $100 million. Now we're digging the hole again.
So we have what was clearly, to the public anyway, a very political decision to stop a transit project and start a different one that was in a riding more friendly to the government at that time. It baffles people to understand how that happens. But would a national strategy at least curb some of that, or at least make it less likely to be so obvious?
Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
Part of the question is what are the principles that are going to guide the national effort? I named a couple of principles earlier, but one of them is accountability at all orders of government so Canadians understand that what's going on is transparent, and the folks who are making the decisions are accountable for those decisions.
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Brock, I would like you to share with us, starting from about 1970 to the present--if we look at all the urban transit properties, such as in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, and Montreal, where capital infrastructure was put in for urban transportation that is rail-based--what the federal component was in contributions, versus provincial and municipal.
That leads to my next question. I believe the federal government has substantial investment in these properties. Certainly in my past working experience I was involved in building some of these properties.
Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
I can't give you the figure you asked for in the first part of your question. We don't have that kind of data, and we don't have that historical analysis.
I would certainly say that there has been significant federal investment in specific projects and specific locations over time, up to the recent public transit capital trust of $400 million a year, which expired in 2010. So there's no question the federal government has played a role, and there's no question it has been beneficial.
What we're putting on the table is that these are individual incidents that have happened in specific places for specific reasons at a certain time. We believe what's really important here is that we step above the one-off projects, look at the national picture, and develop the principles and approaches. Then we can go forward in this question with a sense of national purpose applied locally in its respective relevance, depending on the specificities of the place.
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
In a way I share some of that thought, but we need to be a little more focused.
There is urban transit within a city, there is inter-city transport, and then there is a national transport strategy. We've been talking about a Windsor to Quebec City high-speed corridor for as long as I've been involved in urban transportation.
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
And there have been wonderful studies, but all talk.
You mentioned that the federal government should take some leadership. Urban transportation is germane to each municipality. I would submit to you that it is the municipalities' responsibility to give us a proposal on an urban transit strategy because from the federal point of view it doesn't make sense for us to have a national strategy that fits every community across Canada.
I even bring this fact.... And I understand you've lived in China--
Conservative
Chungsen Leung Conservative Willowdale, ON
And I've assisted with some of the initial feasibility planning for transportation in China. We discovered we could not have a national strategy. If you look at Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Chongqing, they each have their own urban transit strategy. And it's all pertinent to the locality.
And even if one looks at Hong Kong, Taipei, Singapore, and Kuala Lumpur, they're all very different.
So I think the Federation of Canadian Municipalities should be taking the lead in this area.
Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
In some ways we have been, in that we worked very closely with the government on the economic action plan. I think we played a leadership role in helping to shape that with Minister Baird and his office and with your government.
As we talk about fulfilling the commitment in the federal budget about a long-term infrastructure plan, we expect to play a significant role as a partner with the federal government in thinking this through. And certainly we're not suggesting that we lie here prone, waiting for the plan to guide us all to some nirvana. We certainly have a role to play with this in terms of the thinking and in terms of the resources. And certainly, as you've indicated, each place has its local particularities that require certain leadership and certain specificity about responding to local challenges. So I don't disagree with all of that.
All we're saying is that in the context of a national challenge that we have as a country around economic competitiveness and the role of infrastructure and urban transit, within that challenge we think the federal government has a role. And it's indicated in its budget it's planning to play that role. And we're going to come to the table ready to play our role in the leadership of a dialogue around how to make this country more effective with respect to infrastructure and within that with respect to urban transit.
Conservative
NDP
Isabelle Morin NDP Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you for your presentation.
In answering one of my questions last week, Minister Lebel told me that the people in the cities and provinces are much more knowledgeable about their people's needs. In his opinion, it is not up to Ottawa to tell Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto and Vancouver what is good for the municipalities.
I would like to understand how you see the role of the federal government with respect to this potential public transit initiative.
Chief Executive Officer, Federation of Canadian Municipalities
I would agree that it is not the role of the federal government to tell municipalities to do something. That is why we feel it is important that the federal government play a leadership role at the national level and establish, further to consultation, certain principles to guide everything that's being done in terms of the programs and resources earmarked for infrastructure and public transit.
Against that background, the principles can enable us to respond appropriately at the local level. We do not think that it is the role of the federal government to tell the municipalities what to do, but with this national perspective, we need to develop principles, play a leadership role and establish a Canada-wide vision in order to achieve what needs to be done locally.
