Transport Committee on Oct. 26th, 2011

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

One of the issues when creating that strategy is that we have to define a national need. In Quebec, where I'm from, they have their own jurisdiction regarding public transport. There is all the red tape, which we have to take a look at. We will also eventually need a smart regulation process. But at the same time, municipalities are provincial creatures.

We're talking about the funding. The FCM is telling us that they cannot use the actual gas tax. We need some other funding. Let's talk about that a little bit.

Do you believe that we should have a dedicated fund, a Canada one-two punch, combining infrastructure and public transport? I ask this because we cannot have public transport without having the proper infrastructure. Or do you believe that we should have a specific national strategy on public transport, and then we can address the infrastructure issue at the same time, but differently?

[Harry Redstone]

I think there's one point with regard to philosophy. The point is this: Can we afford it, and can we afford not to do it? In many cases, that “not” situation is something we have to consider. Can we allow these cities to grow without helping the people move around them? That's philosophy.

That's the first step with regard to understanding the problem. Then, as you were saying, we get into the situation of the municipalities. Invariably they have no money. So how do they get money? A gas tax may be one solution. It all depends on the kind of system we're talking about too, and how big the actual urban city is.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

You spoke a little bit about the P3, the public-private partnership. How do you perceive it? I don't have any problem having those kinds of things. We have some examples that have been working in my province in some other areas. I'm frankly concerned about the safety issue. Do you see a problem with that P3 and safety, so that the government would also be a regulator of sorts? How would it work in your book? I ask because they are there for profit, of course.

[Harry Redstone]

No, no. It depends on the partnership I'm talking about. The actual stations, for example, would be designed by the authority to incorporate the required safety for the passengers, including to allow people to move out of a station as quickly as possible, all designed so that you have access in case of a fire or some catastrophic event. These issues have to be addressed. This should be a federal regulation anyway. Regardless of that, these are the important things.

Now, the development that I'm talking about does not necessarily have anything to do with the station, as an example. It's what they do above the station, because the issue is that joint venture above the station. This is what they do in Hong Kong to quite a degree. They first get together and figure out what they can do with regard to building whatever they build on top, whether apartments, condos, offices, or shopping centres.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Thank you.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

Thank you for being with us today.

I'd like to ask you about the economics of public transit. I'd like you to give us, if you can, an idea of how a government determines the worthiness of a public transit project.

I gather the bells are ringing. I'm setting off alarm bells here with my question. It wouldn't be the first time.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I have to interrupt here. I'm sorry about this, but there's been a vote called back in the chamber, and we have to be there. Tradition is that we suspend the meeting immediately upon the bells ringing. I'm advised that it will be a half-hour vote or maybe a little bit longer. I'm looking to the committee for some direction. We have another guest here, but I understand the timeframes are tight for everybody.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

I would suggest that he can have his own little round, but are we going to be able to come back?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Albas.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In case we can't return, I really would think it would be good of us to at least accept written submissions by our guests, either now or another time, just out of courtesy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Yes, and I think that would be possible.

I have spoken to our second guest and suggested that the committee would entertain having him back here next Wednesday for an hour, if that would work for him, too.

I apologize, but I didn't call the vote.

With that, I'm going to end this meeting. I regret that I have to do this, but we do have written submissions and we do have your presentation, Mr. Redstone, so I appreciate your time.

To our other guest, Mr. Carter, I apologize, but the door is open to welcome you back, should you be able to find the time.

I'll ask Mr. Albas to table the report from the greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce. We have a written submission that will be circulated to all the members. Is that suitable?

Okay.

Mr. Redstone.

[Harry Redstone]

If there are some questions that you would like me to address, if they could be sent to me, I could then put something in writing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I will ask the committee to direct them through me to the clerk, and we will see that the questions get put out.

Thank you. I appreciate your time.

The meeting is adjourned.