Transport Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2011

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

What do they think of an urban transit strategy? Are they supportive of additional moneys being put toward large municipalities? Have you asked your membership of the smaller communities how they feel about that?

[Brock Carlton]

Absolutely. They're represented around the board table just as the big cities are, and they're understanding a couple of things. One is that the conversation is about a perspective on infrastructure that is global in nature, so their issues would be in that long-term infrastructure planning and acknowledging that the big cities have certain needs, as do the small municipalities, so within the context of a broad infrastructure plan and an infrastructure program of some nature.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Very good. I have nothing further.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

With that, I'm going to suspend this portion of the meeting, and we'll bring our next guests to the table.

Thank you again. As always, the input that you give us I think helps us make better decisions into the future, so we appreciate your time.

[Brock Carlton]

Thank you for your time. There are a few questions that were asked. We'll be providing some follow-up information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, if you would, through the chair or through the clerk, and we'll distribute.

[Brock Carlton]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We're going to suspend for three minutes and bring our next guests to the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome back.

Joining us now at the table are the Canadian Urban Transit Association, CUTA: Patrick Leclerc, director of public affairs, and Christopher Norris, director of technical services.

Welcome.

You've seen how the show runs, so please make your presentation and then we'll move to questions.

[Patrick Leclerc, Director of Public Affairs, Canadian Urban Transit Association]

Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Patrick Leclerc and I am the Director of Public Affairs at the Canadian Urban Transit Association. Today I am accompanied by my colleague, Christopher Norris, who is the Director of Technical Services.

First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for inviting us to testify before your committee about a possible national policy on public transit. We would like to congratulate you for undertaking a study on public transit and on the role that the federal government plays in a key sector of the economy and community development.

The Canadian Urban Transit Association, or CUTA, represents the public transit sector in Canada. Our mission is to promote the contribution of public transit to the quality of life, the environment, health, mobility and, as well, the economic development of our Canadian communities.

The public transit sector in Canada is doing well. For example, just last year, ridership increased by 4.1% nationally compared to the previous year, which represents an unprecedented peak of 1.9 billion trips.

Public transport is also an important economic driver of our communities. Strategic investment in public transit boosts Canada's productivity and economic growth. Indeed, the economic impact of transit investment in Canada is worth over $11.5 billion annually, making the cost-benefit ratio of transit investment well in excess of two to one.

The transit industry directly employs nearly 50,000 Canadians and indirectly creates an additional 25,000 jobs. Investing in public transit also reduces vehicle upgrading costs for Canadian households by about $5 billion every year.

On the other hand, lack of investment in sustainable mobility options, such as public transit, also has an impact on the economy. With nearly 80% of the population living in urban centres, commute times and traffic congestion represent a real burden for Canadian workers and businesses.

Every year, gridlock costs Canada billions in lost productivity. At a time when employment growth is increasingly concentrated in knowledge-based sectors, creating dynamic urban environments is a central part of Canada's competitive advantage. This is why an increasing number of investors and boards of trade are urging governments to work together in developing a strong and comprehensive approach to public transit.

The challenges related to mobility affect communities as a whole. In smaller municipalities, public transit plays a significant socio-economic role by allowing people to travel cheaply and to have access to jobs, educational institutions and social services. In these smaller communities, public transit uses buses, bus taxis or organized carpooling more extensively.

It is important to note the progress that has been achieved over the past decade. Thanks to contributions by all levels of government and the hard work of decision-makers and parliamentarians from all political parties, investments in public transit have significantly increased since the turn of the millennium. We want to take this opportunity to note the exceptional contribution by the federal government over the past decade. Whereas the Government of Canada's participation in public transit was non-existent approximately 10 years ago, that participation is now approximately $1 billion annually.

If we are here today, it is thanks to you. All the parties represented in the House have helped to push public transit forward and we are very grateful for this. Now, the question we must ask ourselves is the following one: what does the future hold, what should we do today to meet the challenges of tomorrow? That is the question we have attempted to answer in developing Vision 2040, a vision that takes into consideration the contribution of public transit to quality of life, predictable changes in our communities between now and 2040, the impact those changes will have on urban transportation, and the strategic goals that can ensure maximum impact of public transit on quality of life.

Among the major and predictable changes that will affect our society and our economy, we can note, among others, economic growth, the aging of the population, increasing concentration of the population in urban centres. To meet those challenges, we must propose ambitious plans and policies to ensure the smooth movement of goods and individuals and provide quality public transit services.

[Christopher Norris, Director of Technical Services, Canadian Urban Transit Association]

One of the core elements of Transit Vision 2040, which is the very first strategic direction of the vision, is the development of an overarching and comprehensive Canadian transit policy framework. All orders of government should work together in developing a framework of national transit policies that are integrated and mutually supportive. Such a framework should clarify jurisdictional roles, responsibilities, and priorities. It should highlight goals for transit and identify synergies among the objectives of different stakeholders. It is essential to establish a collaborative process, with each involved jurisdiction taking responsibility for developing, approving, and implementing its own policies.

Some of you may wonder what the impact of such a framework would be. After all, the federal government already contributes nearly $1 billion in transit every year without any national strategy or policy framework. It may even look like the ideal situation: money with no guidelines, no directions, no goals, and no strings attached. Such an analysis would not reflect the nature of the transit industry and the complexity and necessity of long-term planning.

Let's take a look at a recent study by Statistics Canada entitled “Commuting to Work: Results of the 2010 General Social Survey” to try to better understand why a clear, ambitious, and long-term approach to public transit is needed. The report showed that the daily commute to work was on average longer by public transit than by car. Without going into the details of the study, the report points out, and I quote, that “many buses use the same road lanes as private cars”. The report goes on to say, “the use of bus lanes and underground rail lines can speed up public transit commutes and even make them shorter than automobile commutes”.

Without realizing it, the authors of the report touched on something that is well understood in our industry. The future of the sector lies in rapid transit and in better integration of public transit and urban design. Rapid transit, whether it is light-rail transit or bus rapid transit using dedicated corridors, takes years to plan and build. These modes of transportation are highly efficient, but they require major investment and close collaboration among all orders of government. In order to get the approval to launch rapid transit projects, local authorities need to have the assurance that all orders of government will be present and will be partners from the beginning until the end of the project.

For some, the question of developing such a policy framework is essentially tied to areas of jurisdiction. Is it the role of the federal government to undertake that initiative? On this point, we must consider the contribution of public transit in its entirety and not just as a conventional means of transportation.

For example, by reducing the number of cars on the roads in urban centres, we are reducing the number of problems related to road congestion and we are promoting the smoother flow of goods and services, which will have a positive impact on productivity and economic growth. Consequently, our communities will be more competitive within North America, which will attract greater investments and benefit the economy of the country as whole.

This is also part of the federal government's desire to make economic growth a priority. Furthermore, the goal of the Government of Canada to improve the gateways to promote international trade goes hand in hand with an urban transportation strategy. What is the point of improving gateways if goods remain stuck in traffic and cannot reach the nerve centres efficiently?

Public transit also has an impact on air quality and greenhouse gas emission. It goes without saying that air pollution crosses provincial borders. Reducing air pollution would improve air quality and have a beneficial effect on health, thereby cutting health care costs related to respiratory diseases.

Improving quality of life is not the responsibility of just one specific jurisdiction, but rather, it must be a central consideration for all levels of government.

For us, there is no doubt that the federal government should work with all provinces, territories, and municipalities to develop a comprehensive Canadian transit policy framework.

We will be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Nicholls.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is quite a simple one on public safety. We've seen that the Montreal Metro is now planning to offer wireless service. Given that we live in an information economy, is it safer for people to use information technologies in an automobile, or in a bus or subway? I'm looking for a simple answer on what your opinion would be.

[Patrick Leclerc]

I'll take this one. Obviously that's what we're saying, and that's what was demonstrated by the report from StatsCan. While you're driving, even if it takes you less time to go to work, you're basically stuck behind a wheel and drive. When you're on public transit you can work, take a nap, or do other things.

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

Thank you.

We know that public transit systems often have difficulty making ends meet solely from user contributions. Could you talk about the economic benefits of public transit that could compensate for such losses?

[Christopher Norris]

At present, the proportion of revenues coming from fare boxes is approximately 60% in Canada. This percentage is one of the highest among the OECD countries; in some cases, that percentage goes as high as 80%.

Public transit networks use a number of initiatives to generate revenues. It can be advertising within subway cars and buses or through the participation of the private sector in the network operating plan. We see this in particular in the north and south lines in the Montreal region, and in Toronto in the York region. At present, there are a number of initiatives allowing for the implementation of an increase in user and municipality-paid costs.

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

How can public transit facilitate road trade? What role does it play in economic productivity?

[Patrick Leclerc]

It plays a major role. It is no coincidence if we see increasing numbers of chambers of commerce say that an integrated approach by all levels of government in the area of public transit is essential. This is the case of the Toronto Board of Trade and the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal.

In short, according to the chambers of commerce, the Montreal region lost $1.4 billion per year in 2009 and previously. Now, I imagine that things are different. In Toronto, we are talking about approximately $6 billion. According to the chambers of commerce, their members are losing money. People need to use the roads for trade, be it business representatives or for the transportation of goods. People who don't need to use their car—what we call solo driving—should be able to use efficient public transit systems, which would clearly stimulate national productivity.

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

Could you provide more details about the ways in which public transit is creating jobs?

[Patrick Leclerc]

That is a fairly interesting point. There are different ways. We know—we have already talked about the future of public transit and rapid transit systems—it takes years to develop and implement a rapid bus service or light rail service. A number of high quality jobs are then created.

As I was saying, the public transit sector represents approximately 50,000 direct jobs or 25,000 indirect jobs. There are also many in the area of network construction.

There is another aspect that is extremely important to consider. We see what is happening in the United States with the Buy America Act. This is one example. Jobs in the public transit manufacturing sector are very good jobs. At present, in the United States, there is a problem with job creation. There is already a minimum standard of 60% American content for public transit equipment, and there are discussions underway proposing to increase that to 100%.

We see the growth in the public transit sector. Last year, we talked about approximately 4.1% growth. Growth is occurring throughout Canada, the United States and the world. It is generating many jobs, and it is an industry of the future.

Manufacturing jobs are therefore extremely good jobs, and we know that this will continue to grow in the future.

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

I have one final question to ask, if I have the time.

Do you think a national transit strategy would help promote the economic elements we've mentioned? Do you think the strategy would play a role in helping Canada's economy?

[Patrick Leclerc]

It will surely help to make sure that with all the plans we're putting in place in the economy, like the gateways, we can really integrate transit and make it part of that. What we're really talking about is a policy framework, and not really a strategy.

We've just conducted a study, and we were looking at about 30 elements of what could be a framework. Obviously you need to make sure it fits with the local, provincial, and national priorities. For instance, we know that the federal government has a plan on the economy. They have a plan on the gateways. They will be looking at innovation in the next few years, with the Jenkins report being one of the core elements.

When considering all of that we need to make sure we have all the partners around the table to look at how public transit will fit into this broad spectrum. To do that you need to know where you're going and why you're investing $1 billion a year in transit.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Coderre, you have the floor.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to say that it would be important for committee members to have a copy of the document entitled Vision 2040 that they prepared. This document is somewhat similar to a strategy. There were a number of consultations, particularly with the Canadian Federation of Municipalities. We spoke to experts, we met with people from all regions.

This could give us an idea of what a strategic plan could look like, at the very least. In your document, you say that this vision is intended to strengthen public transit, revolutionize services, give priority to clients, guarantee a greener public transit system and ensure financial health. We are starting to see a strategic framework. This could therefore be a good way to help us develop a strategy. I think that it could be useful, in practice.

However, I must play devil's advocate. The problem is that we want a national strategy and our country is extremely vast. There is a rural reality and an urban reality. There is also an issue of flexibility that comes into play, if someone works at three in the morning, if they are self-employed or if they have to think about going to pick up their kids at the day care. There is a reality in this regard and an issue of accessibility.

First of all, how can we have a national strategy given what I would almost describe as the geographic nature of the country in which we live? Then, how can you tie that to a constitutional reality? There is no way out. Minister Lebel said on August 22 that all three levels of government would need to work together. I agree with him.

How can we do that in concrete terms? Do you believe that we should hold a federal-provincial-territorial conference—involving the three levels of government? Since we have already spent $1 billion per year and we currently have no strategy, it is possible to wonder if we really need a strategy. Should we rethink the tax incentive and finally say that, perhaps, a targeted fund and incentive could be sufficient, and we will let the municipalities reach agreement amongst themselves? What is your opinion about all this?

Then, I will come back with other questions.