Transport Committee on April 23rd, 2018

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mayor Iveson, I have a question for you now. The parliamentary budget office was concerned, and some critics have also spoken up about the lack of specificity in the federal infrastructure plan.

From your end of these transactions, how specific would you like federal planning to be, or how non-specific would you like federal planning to be?

[Don Iveson]

That's a great question. I think the challenge for us has been that we haven't always seen assurances that there would be a fair balance of municipal priorities reflected in the dollars that flow through provinces. Since the majority of dollars here have to flow through the bilateral agreements, the uncertainty really comes province by province and territory by territory.

We appreciate that the federal government has included language in the bilateral agreements we've seen that requires this fair balance of municipal priorities, so that provinces don't just gobble up all of the infrastructure money for their own issues. Without enumerating exactly how that would look, the principle is the really important thing. We haven't seen that in previous bilateral agreements. Assuming that this puts a functional onus on provinces to liaise with their cities and municipalities to determine what those priorities are, and then work those out in consultation, and then flow federal dollars, stacked with provincial and municipal dollars, to build things, then that gives us clarity again that we're not going to be left out of the race for prioritization.

Knowing that there are the five buckets of investment and understanding how those will.... We have the most certainty around, for example, the transit dollars where it's allocation-based. We have more uncertainty around the green dollars still, where we think there's a huge opportunity for municipalities to play a role in helping the country achieve both its environmental and economic goals around the pan-Canadian framework addressing climate change. It varies from bucket to bucket, but transit that is using the allocation-based model with the most certainty over the longest period of time is the model we continue to advocate for, and that we think would work for all infrastructure priorities.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mayor Iveson.

Mr. Cross, this is not exactly along the lines of what we've been talking about, but I'm fully aware that TransLink has had a lot of experience with P3s. I wondered if you could comment particularly on how the Canada Line project worked out, in terms of integration, control over fares, delivery of a project on time and on budget, and that sort of thing.

[Geoff Cross]

We've learned a lot through the Canada Line initiative and this project. It was probably the first of its kind in that generation. The project itself has been an incredible success from the ridership perspective. It's above what we anticipated. It's about 140,000 boardings a day. If you've been to Vancouver and seen the development that's happening around the line, it's reaching those outcomes. We've been working very closely with the operator to try and understand how we evolve that agreement over time to better meet some of the flexibility needs. Sometimes you don't have the resiliency and flexibility in the plans, so we were not necessarily able to anticipate some of the outcomes that we've had. I'd say that it's operating very well and if we go forward with P3s in the future, we'll know what those should look like and the lessons from that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Now, we have Madam Sansoucy.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

My first question is for the mayor of Edmonton, Mr. Iveson.

As you know, the committee has been charged with making recommendations to the government to prevent delays in the allocation of funding to municipalities, an issue the Parliamentary Budget Officer raised in his report on phase 1 of the new infrastructure plan. His report came out in March.

In the report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicates that half of the total $14.4-billion budget for phase 1 of the new infrastructure plan has yet to be attributed to projects. In his view, the 2018 budget provides an incomplete account of the changes to the government's $186.7-billion infrastructure spending plan. As I see it, that's a very worrisome finding and the reason why I asked that the committee undertake an emergency study on the subject.

Could you, as chair of the Big City Mayors' Caucus, explain the process for allocating phase 1 funding? More specifically, because phase 1 funding has not been fully allocated yet, how do we make sure municipalities receive the money they need for phase 2? As we all know, your needs are extensive. What mechanisms should be put in place to reassure the country's big cities and make sure phase 2 is not plagued by the same problems as phase 1?

[Don Iveson]

Thank you for the question.

I think what we'll benefit from the most is long-term certainty. Having a 12-year outlook cumulatively is very helpful for us. As I mentioned earlier, in the case of the transit dollars, we have a pretty good idea of what that's going to amount to over the next 10 years. Therefore, using dollars from phase one, we're doing about $40 million worth of detailed planning right now. That will prepare us to move into procurement for a 14-kilometre, $2-billion light rail project using the phase two dollars. Long-term certainty is helpful. Ideally, this 10-year commitment that we're looking at now for phase two would roll over and become permanent, so that we can plan the projects that are 12, 14, and 16 years out and do the engineering work on the front end, by using dollars to come in phase two for what would ideally become a phase three or a permanent build on these projects.

The allocation-based mechanism for transit provides us with the most certainty to plan and we can then make assumptions and proceed with expenditures with certainty of recovery. We would advocate across the board that would be an allocation-based mechanism for all of the infrastructure categories.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for the City of Surrey officials.

In July of last year, the federal government sent every province and territory a letter regarding the bilateral agreements. Those agreements were supposed to be signed by March 31. According to our information, just 6 of the 14 provinces and territories have signed the agreement. British Columbia has signed, but not Alberta or Quebec.

That will inevitably affect the implementation of infrastructure projects. I find it troubling that, a year or two down the road, we could end up in the same boat as with phase 1. The minister can say that everything is fine, but I am worried.

Witnesses have told the committee—and the mayor of Edmonton just told us so, himself—that sustained funding, such as what the gas tax provides, would be more effective than the piecemeal or project-based funding currently being used. Municipal officials told the committee that sustained funding would help them better anticipate their needs and plan, and we've just heard it again.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. Do you think a gas tax-like funding model would be more effective than a project-based approach?

[Vincent Lalonde]

For us, the fact that there was support for a multi-year plan was really critical, given the size of the infrastructure this funding will provide for. Although it is very important to have the bilateral agreements—and in some cases, as you state, it may delay it a bit in some provinces—it was a critical part for us to also anchor in the support from the provincial government for our project. We clearly needed the support from both federal and provincial governments in order to proceed.

Furthermore, I think the long-term support for the mayor's vision also anchored in local support for the local share of the program. In my opinion, if it had been done piecemeal, by project, we wouldn't have had the same benefits.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to all the folks today—those representing Surrey; those from Edmonton; and of course, Mr. Cross. It's great to have you out here today.

I'm going to go in a different direction here and state first of all that we know how well the programs are going right now, but this government always feels that we can do better. That said, collecting input, just as much as opinion, on different things that we're working on is very valuable for us to help move forward in a more responsive manner, with better outcomes for you folks.

With the idea of economic incentivization and looking at strategic planning, asset management, and the capital needs, both operationally as well as in a capital manner, as well as the need to bundle—and I spoke with earlier witnesses about bundling applications—to enhance clusters and ultimately bring back more sustainable returns for economic, social, and environmental....

I'm going to open it up to all four of you and give you the opportunity in my time to let us know how we can do better to enable you folks to do more and bring back more to your clients, customers, residents, and businesses in your communities.

Mr. Iveson, we'll start off with you.

[Don Iveson]

I appreciate the principle of the question. Being asked for our priorities is one of the reasons we have an infrastructure plan that looks like it does. This government has listened closely to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities when it comes to our long-standing message around the need to invest in infrastructure and for Ottawa to play a leadership role in articulating national priorities, to work with provinces that understand regional priorities, and then to value local governments as implementation partners really at the table from the start, rather than as the last people you talk to in the chain of national decision-making. So even asking us in the first instance is the right instinct.

Then I think the other point would be, just to reinforce what I was saying earlier, long-term certainty, rolling programs particularly for megaprojects. Transit projects, in particular, tend to play out over even decades at a certain scale. Having a longer-term outlook for transit would be very helpful, just to give one example. Then I think that the key thing is to never forget the need to put pressure on provinces to ensure that their own long list of infrastructure priorities isn't automatically placed ahead of local government needs.

Perhaps the one place where we could talk some more about further opportunities for collaboration would be about the state of good repair. I know that that doesn't necessarily create the same economic bang for the buck. But recognizing that we have two-thirds of the country's infrastructure in the form of buildings, bridges, and roadways, and yet we have—give or take—eight cents of the tax dollar, every bit of assistance we can get from senior orders of government with state of good repair means that we're not having to use scarce dollars locally exclusively to deal with that. We'll have more opportunities to invest strategically in initiatives that will support economic growth and improve social and environmental outcomes.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Gentlemen.

[Vincent Lalonde]

I'm Vincent Lalonde from the City of Surrey.

I think for us, similar to the comments from the honourable mayor of Edmonton, the fact that this was a long-term commitment was really good. I think in our example with Early Works projects, we're able to build things that will definitely help us out on the longer term to go faster. For example, our LRT needed to use a bridge. That bridge was a timber structure that needed replacing, so it made more sense to put early funding towards the bridge in order to then be able to do the LRT on a brand new bridge. For us that's something that we feel the federal government really put effort into: buying into the overall vision without meddling with every little detail of each project.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Sikand.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mayor Iveson, as you mentioned, you are the chair of the Big Cities Mayors' Caucus, of which our mayor is also a part. I represent the riding of Mississauga-Streetsville, so that's Mayor Bonnie Crombie. You also mentioned you had worked with Minister Sohi. You may have heard that Minister Sohi, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, announced major investments in public transit in Mississauga. I was wondering if you could share with the committee what Edmonton is receiving through our government's initiative?

[Don Iveson]

Certainly. I had the opportunity to attend two announcements with Minister Sohi. One was the signing of the bilateral agreement with the Government of Alberta, at which it was confirmed that the City of Edmonton in phase two would receive approximately $870 million. We will be able to apply it to our next light rail project, the Valley Line LRT, which is phase two of the light rail extension from downtown Edmonton out to the West Edmonton Mall and beyond in the western part of Edmonton. Then a week later, we were able to announce the contribution of provincial and federal dollars from phase one to the purchase of 40 electric buses, which we're finalizing the procurement for right now. As part of both our transit fleet requirements and our energy and climate transition initiatives, we're looking to lower the emissions profile of our transit fleet. That's one tangible investment from phase one. Again, there are procurement lag times, but having the commitment there allowed us to go ahead with the electric bus procurement. Some of the other initiatives I mentioned earlier were around design investments and some state of good repair investments in our transit infrastructure from the first phase.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

In your opinion, how important are these investments in public transit?

[Don Iveson]

Edmonton has been one of the fastest-growing cities in the country. As well, it's one of the youngest cities in the country. In my lifetime—the last 38 years—it's more or less doubled in size.

As it has grown, we are starting to experience the traffic congestion of most cities approaching one million residents, and our metro population is now 1.4 million. The only way to get out ahead of that is not to widen roads, which just induces more traffic congestion, but to strategically get out ahead with rapid transit investment, and so—

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you.

I apologize for cutting you off. I'm sharing my time with my colleague, so I think I'm going to pass it over to her now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Please ask a short question.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I guess I'll mix the two of mine together for either the mayor or Vincent Lalonde.

My question pertains to the Infrastructure Bank. I'm sure you were already consulted, but I'd like to know what strategies they can implement in order to make sure the greatest number of Canadians are benefiting from the projects that are being funded from this bank, and vulnerable communities included, not just people in big cities. I'd like to know in what ways you think we can protect the Canadian population investing in this bank.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mayor, would you like to go first with a short answer?

[Don Iveson]

That's challenging for me, but I'll do my best.

We [Technical difficulty--Editor] opportunities, particularly around energy projects, district energy projects, and utility projects that we're interested in exploring further. If they can not only—through the innovative use of technology—reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also stabilize prices and reduce exposure to variable commodity prices to ratepayers over time, we think those are worth exploring. We have district energy projects here that might fit that bill.

One of the other areas where we think there might be value in talking would be around favourable financing for mixed-market housing projects that achieve multiple bottom-line returns in energy, affordability of housing, and redevelopment of challenging sites in our city. I think we're open to a variety of different conversations about how the Infrastructure Bank could provide favourable financing to accelerate those kinds of things.