Transport Committee on May 28th, 2015

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

I'll now move to Mr. Braid for five minutes.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Toderian, if the objective of the new building Canada plan and projects supported under the plan is to promote economic growth, job creation, and productivity, would you support that?

[Brent Toderian]

I think that should be one of the objectives. I think the economic sustainability piece of the puzzle is very important and everything I've been talking about is very much in keeping with economic success, return on investment. But I think that that economic analysis—

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

That's exactly what the objective of projects supported under the new building Canada plan is.

If public transit were an eligible category under every component of the new building Canada plan, would you support that?

[Brent Toderian]

I'm suggesting that if you establish criteria in the way that I'm talking about, I think public transit will rise to the top of the analysis.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Because public transit is an eligible category.

[Brent Toderian]

Certainly I support anything that prioritizes public transit because of its return on investment and success.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

That's excellent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

You have point of order, Mr. Kellway.

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

We're here, Mr. Chair, doing a study in the spirit of learning from the people whom we call to be witnesses. Rather than treating them with the kind of hostility that we've seen from the other side, it would be useful for all of us—I'm interested in the answers to Mr. Braid's and Mr. Watson's questions—if we allowed the witnesses to answer the questions.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I'm just concerned about the limited time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I get your point. Short questions are good.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Yes, exactly.

Professor Siemiatycki, one of your points I heard you make as well is that you'd like to see the mandate of PPP Canada expanded, if you will, to perhaps consider other alternative funding and financing mechanisms. Is that correct?

[Prof. Matti Siemiatycki]

Yes.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

That's great.

The new public transit fund, which our government has established under our recent budget, will do just that. The new public transit fund will explore the supportive projects, not only P3 projects for public transit but also projects that may utilize alternative funding or financing mechanisms. Is that the sort of thing that you're looking for in expanding the mandate of PPP Canada, and if so, what types of alternative funding and financing mechanisms might there be that you would suggest be considered?

[Prof. Matti Siemiatycki]

I would first ask, who's evaluating the successful applications, and on what basis? I think when organizations are specifically focused on P3s, their lens is to look for projects that suit the P3 model. That can also encourage those who are doing the applications to try to tailor their projects to P3s. I think the group that's evaluating has to be independent from having a mandate to promote P3s.

In terms of other models, there are a variety of different approaches to delivering infrastructure. As I mentioned, construction management at risk is one that's gaining in popularity. That's more of an alliance type of contracting that starts early on in the process. That would be one. There are alliance types of contracting. There is design-build, which doesn't technically fall under private-public partnership but encourages the private sector to collaborate earlier on in terms of construction and design. That comes together much earlier on.

The key is to pick the right model for the right project. Then I think it's to have a group to evaluate these projects that's independent of one approach, whether it be traditional or public-private partnerships, to make both the studies and the adjudication on which one we should go with.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Toderian, under the new building Canada plan, it's the municipalities who identify their infrastructure projects. It's a bottom-up approach, not a top-down approach. Do you agree with that approach? Is it the municipalities, and in turn the provinces, who should be identifying their local infrastructure priorities?

[Brent Toderian]

I think there's nothing wrong with the federal level of government saying what types of priorities and definitions of success they'd like to see at the federal level, but in the conversation between the federal government, the provinces, and the cities, I do believe the cities should probably have the most powerful voice.

Again, I would point out that establishing criteria, such as shovel ready or P3s are required, is having a significant effect on the flexibility of the types of projects that municipalities can move forward on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Toderian, just on that last comment, you mentioned that cities should have a higher order of preference, or more say, than the provinces. Do you mean cities and rural municipalities, or just cities?

[Brent Toderian]

Forgive me, I should say municipalities. The “local level” is the best way to put it.

I'm not even sure I prefer the word “cities”. I like “city regions”, which often includes rural areas, of course.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay. That's good. I thought that's what you meant, but I thought it was worth clarifying.

To all our witnesses, thank you for being here. Thank you very much for your participation.

Members, we'll now suspend for a couple minutes while we go in camera for some committee business.

[Proceedings continue in camera]