Transport Committee on May 5th, 2015

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It is somewhat of an objective way of saying, “What's the state of your inventory at a given point in time?”

[Jeff Moore]

Yes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

So we know from what has happened on the infrastructure side that we've actually been making some good progress, at least on that metric.

[Jeff Moore]

Yes, particularly in certain asset classes, as I said. In terms of road, transit, water, waste water, bridge, culture, and recreation, those are all asset classes where the average age has seemed to decrease.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I suppose that brings me to the core assets and infrastructure, mostly assets dealt with at the municipal level. You need to be directing funding at that level if you want to decrease the age of the asset or make progress on that line. When you look at the gas tax fund, for instance, would you agree with me that's a direct way to address whatever the deficit might be in infrastructure because it's going to all communities based on population for a wide range of core assets that you've indicated?

[Jeff Moore]

It is a tool in our tool box that we can use to address some of those situations, and hopefully, potentially, reduce the age of infrastructure.

Again—

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

In effect, when I looked at municipalities, every municipality has issues with waste water, water treatment plants, water pipelines, sewer lines, and their streets. Every community knows issues. One community may, on its own accord, build a water treatment plant at a million dollars. Then a program comes out and the sister community applies and gets one-third share from the federal government and one-third from the provincial government to build that same water treatment plant, or whatever it is.

You're addressing one municipality's problem but not the other's. The beauty of the gas tax fund is that you're giving the communities the opportunity to decide what needs to be done, but eventually you'll address the water treatment plant, the road, the sewer, the water line, and so on.

Wouldn't you agree that making the gas tax permanent and servicing a whole range of core services is a very direct and very positive way in addressing the infrastructure deficit, whatever it might be?

[Jeff Moore]

It's direct, it's positive, and it also provides a predictable source of funding for the municipalities as well, so they know what's coming.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

When you look at the $1-billion small community component of the Building Canada fund, you now have the application process in which a community has to apply. Then I gather from what you were saying, the province ultimately makes a decision about who succeeds and who doesn't.

Of 15 applicants you have one that succeeds. You have 14 who have to deal with the issue somehow, who may not be able to deal with it and defer it. So wouldn't even that fund, the $1-billion small communities fund, be something the communities would want to get across the board per capita, as they do with the gas tax fund?

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

That's your question, so the answer please.

[Jeff Moore]

Yes, that would most definitely be another tool they could most definitely use as well. I would also add they could potentially use the provincial-territorial infrastructure component's national and regional component, the $9 billion, if they can demonstrate that the project is regionally significant.

A good example of that might be three small communities getting together to construct a new drinking water system.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

The important thing is that you're gaining ground.

I want to thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Mr. Kellway, you have five minutes. We're starting into the next round and I'm keeping everybody to five minutes so we can get everybody in.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Sure. Understood, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Perhaps I could try to summarize a bit of what we've heard today, that the objective of the new building Canada fund is the economic competitiveness of Canada, but the determination of how to meet that objective, the projects put forward as priorities for meeting that objective, are done by provinces and territories.

[Jeff Moore]

With the exception of the national infrastructure component, which we administer directly through Infrastructure Canada, yes. In terms of the PTIC, national and regional, the small communities fund, those elements are really driven by provinces and territories providing us with their priority projects.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

So remind me, is the national infrastructure one completely determined by Infrastructure Canada?

[Jeff Moore]

Absolutely. It's a merit-based program. Projects come in, we assess them on their merits, and make decisions.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Projects from...?

[Jeff Moore]

It could be from the private sector, from a Canada port authority, from a public sector body such as a province, territory, or municipality, as well as first nations—

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

But still it's application based; it's other people suggesting to you.

Do you have an in-house policy that determines your own sense of priorities for investment in infrastructure in Canada and how to meet the objective of economic competitiveness?

[Jeff Moore]

Some of the filters we use, obviously, are in and around the type of project we're going to support. Under the national infrastructure component we're very much interested in highways and major roads, as well as rail, local and regional airports, and ports. Those can be fairly significant in terms of contributing to the economy. So can disaster mitigation, because a good disaster mitigation project can prevent economic losses and economic injury.

We also have public transit as an eligible category, which can also contribute to relieving congestion in communities, and so on. What we look at in terms of that fund, again, goes back to how this project is going to increase economic activity. Does the project cross provincial-territorial boundaries in terms of its impacts? Is it going to increase economic productivity as well?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

What I take from that list is that it's largely transportation and transit-related projects that you've identified as a national priority for improving the economic competitiveness of Canada.

[Jeff Moore]

Yes. For example, we provided funding to the Port of Montreal for some expansion activities.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

On that basis, then, from a policy perspective what determines the level of funding that goes into these funds? For example, I'm a Toronto MP and we throw this number around all the time, because it stuns most of us who come from Toronto. It has been estimated that loss of productivity from gridlock in Toronto is somewhere between $6 billion and $11 billion annually. That, it would seem, would call for significant investment in public transit in Toronto.

From your perspective, a policy perspective, what says that this is how much you think ought to go into this infrastructure fund in order to meet the objectives of that fund? On level of funding, do you have any policy on that, ?

[Jeff Moore]

At a macro level in terms of the actual programs themselves, that's the decision of the government, and as good bureaucrats we will implement those decisions in terms of the level of funding that's provided to us.