Evidence of meeting #5 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 federal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
--suggesting that whether it be inflation or whatever it might be, the price of fuel is going to continue to rise. That was your comment.
5:05 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, City Planning, University of Toronto and Ryerson University, and Former Chief Planner, City of Toronto, As an Individual
I think that's a safe prediction.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
We've talked about public policy and public participation. Is there a role for the private sector in any of your equations?
5:05 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, City Planning, University of Toronto and Ryerson University, and Former Chief Planner, City of Toronto, As an Individual
Sure. In fact there is a role in terms of the build, the construction, and the manufacturing of the vehicles. There are financing alternatives that I'm sure you're all aware of. This is a national problem, and this is an issue that really needs everyone at the table.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
The reason I ask that question is that in your comments you suggested that the city of Toronto was prepared to look at these increased costs to themselves personally, in the sense of a higher fee or whatever. Does that give an incentive to the private sector to actually look at doing something like this with some financial help from public agencies, and to spearhead it, as opposed to the government setting the policy?
5:05 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, City Planning, University of Toronto and Ryerson University, and Former Chief Planner, City of Toronto, As an Individual
It might, but I want to be clear, in terms of the chart I had of those different tools, that it wasn't just the city of Toronto. That's for the entire greater Toronto-Hamilton region. That's what everybody has said out there: we're willing to pay more; we want more transit. People are going crazy stuck on that 401 in that gridlock situation that is getting worse every year. Just sitting there is $6 billion lost in just the greater Toronto area economy each year.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Merv Tweed
Again, the only reason I ask is that my experience has been that if you ask the public what they want and what they're prepared to pay for, they always say they're prepared to pay for it until you actually put the price on it for them.
5:05 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, City Planning, University of Toronto and Ryerson University, and Former Chief Planner, City of Toronto, As an Individual
In fact, I'll go even further. I'm not being facetious at all. Almost everybody wants all this stuff, but when it comes down to how you're going to pay for it, you have a difference of opinion. That's the discussion we have to have, because the rest of the world has already done it. We are so far behind it's pathetic. We cannot just keep our heads in the sand.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're on the same page in terms of the fact that we're so far behind the rest of the world. I've done a lot of research into where some of the rest of the world is with regard to the provision of transit. Most of the transit systems in Europe and a lot in Asia are already electric transit systems. They've already decided that fossil fuels are not the way to go. But we in Canada are still way behind.
In addition to improving productivity, there's an opportunity here, with electric vehicles, to change the nature of how we transport ourselves. Right now, generally speaking, people get in cars and turn them on, and they're consuming fossil fuels, or they get on a train and they're consuming fossil fuels. I think there's a role for the federal government to be shaping an electrification strategy for the entire public transit system, including long-distance rail. What do you think?
5:10 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, City Planning, University of Toronto and Ryerson University, and Former Chief Planner, City of Toronto, As an Individual
Again, with respect to electrification, a lot of people are familiar with what has gone on in the rest of the world. As you well know, the Metrolinx board voted in favour of electrifying the entire GO system. It should have happened a long time ago. It should happen much sooner than later. The fact is I totally support that. That's the kind of direction I think we need. There are opportunities for intercity rail as well as rail within the metropolitan area.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
Is that kind of thing on a big, Canada-wide scale going to happen without the involvement of a strategy at the federal level? Are we ever going to be able to say we've done the right thing about electrifying our systems without some kind of support, whether it's financial or otherwise? It starts out being financial, for sure, but I also mean in terms of a national public strategy.
5:10 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, City Planning, University of Toronto and Ryerson University, and Former Chief Planner, City of Toronto, As an Individual
There is great potential for the federal government through this committee work to seriously explore that and to perhaps be a leading advocate for electrification. That is the future. That's what the rest of the world has already done.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
I have a question about the nature of the strategy. You are suggesting we first go and have a dialogue with the tripartite forum. That's one idea. It's a good idea. I'm not saying it's bad. Essentially, that's what our bill suggests. It suggests we start by building a dialogue with a view to building the structures later.
Without stepping on municipal or provincial toes, I had a conversation with the federal Minister of Transportation a couple of years ago, and he said what they get at the federal level is a demand for money. Somebody will decide they want to do a project, and then hand the federal government a bill saying, “You will owe us a third”. I got the sense that minister would rather be at the table earlier, in the sense of designing a strategy.
The federal gas tax, for example, does not come with a “made in Canada” sticker. When the federal gas tax is being used, no credit is given to the federal government for paying for a chunk of the operating of the TTC, for example. We could build a strategy that recognized the federal infrastructure.
5:10 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, City Planning, University of Toronto and Ryerson University, and Former Chief Planner, City of Toronto, As an Individual
Of course, you could, and I hope you do.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
The big city mayors' caucus of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Urban Transit Association both called for a national transit strategy in 2007. Has anything changed since then that would mean we shouldn't have that?
5:10 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, City Planning, University of Toronto and Ryerson University, and Former Chief Planner, City of Toronto, As an Individual
Well, the only thing that has changed is that the problems have gotten a lot worse, to be very honest. The fact is we are adding 100,000 people a year to the greater Toronto area. Vancouver is going to add a million people over the next 15 years. In different proportions across the country, this problem is not going away. There have obviously been changes in the part of certain administrations, as we all know, across the country, and that goes with the territory. The problem isn't going away. To me, there is a greater need now for this national transit strategy than there ever has been.
October 5th, 2011 / 5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to our witness for appearing here, as well as for his presentation.
I'm feeling a little provocative here at the moment. I'm going to phrase a question, because I would be interested in gauging your response to it.
Is the federal government, on the question of urban public transit, being asked in some respects to maybe bail out municipalities for cumulative decisions when they have failed to properly densify their municipalities, or are we being asked to pick up the slack or address the budgetary pressures of municipalities because provinces have downloaded? Is it fair to say we're now being asked to sort of come in and pick up the slack for these governments?
5:15 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, City Planning, University of Toronto and Ryerson University, and Former Chief Planner, City of Toronto, As an Individual
It's a great question.
I don't think so, because the municipalities, as you know, have to balance budgets by law. They cannot run deficits, so they have to deal with their own bed they lie in. Some municipalities are more courageous than others in terms of the financial approaches they follow.
With respect to the provinces, I think that varies across the country in terms of how they have responded and/or funded in support of transit. But I see this in terms of the economy of the whole country, because as I said, 80% of the people of the country live in city regions. It's probably going to hit 85% or 90% in the next 20 years.
The reality is that is where the wealth is created, by and large. Jane Jacobs--I had a slide of her up there at the beginning, that last book--once told me, “If Canada did not have strong and prosperous city regions, it would be a Third World country”, because that's where the wealth is created, that's where the money comes from. In fact, I think the senior governments retain about 92¢ of every dollar that is created in tax revenue, so 8¢ goes to the municipalities.
So I think you have a role to play, and I would say you're not there to bail anybody out. If they made their own mistakes, they have to live with them and fix them, but I'm looking at the future and the future health of the country.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
I appreciate your response.
With respect to some of the core questions, if you will, around a national public transit strategy, the federal government's approach typically has been.... We have an omnibus program; the Building Canada plan has several components to it. It's about seven years long—2007 to 2014—and public transit capital funding is a component. You can use the gas tax funding. Within the Building Canada fund, the major infrastructure component, I think about 40% went to public transit capital projects.
I wasn't sure of your answer with respect to Mr. Coderre's earlier question. Is that type of an approach the right approach for the federal government to take? There's an omnibus program for every community-sized infrastructure need, but we need an additional specific fund that's related to transit.
5:15 p.m.
Adjunct Professor, City Planning, University of Toronto and Ryerson University, and Former Chief Planner, City of Toronto, As an Individual
I think the best way I can answer that is to say that frankly what's needed is a dedicated, dependable, ongoing source of funding.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
How long a timeframe? Building Canada is seven years. A typical mandate might be four years. We've stretched on health care to 10 years. How far out can we legitimately go in terms of committing down the road as a federal government?