Evidence of meeting #103 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was projects.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Yvon Lapierre Mayor, City of Dieppe, New Brunswick
Good evening.
First of all, I would like to thank you for inviting me to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to discuss infrastructure projects and the Investing in Canada plan.
The small city of Dieppe is located in southeastern New Brunswick, and has a population of approximately 26,000. It relies on about 170 employees to respond to the needs of the community. In the space of 15 years, our population has practically doubled. This creates additional demand on our existing infrastructure, which needs to be upgraded, but also creates a demand for new infrastructure.
To help us with these new challenges, we have received funding from a number of Infrastructure Canada programs, which among other things, have allowed us to improve our road infrastructure, upgrade our sanitary and storm sewers, and develop our industrial park. As such, we are very happy with the significant financial contribution that we have received as part of these programs.
That being said, we would like to make some suggestions to make the programs more accessible for everyone and to foster long-term economic growth in all communities, regardless of size.
I would also like to take the opportunity to support my colleagues, Mr. Dion and Mr. Desjardins, from the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick, who gave a similar presentation just two weeks ago.
The lack of internal employees in the engineering sector in some villages and small municipalities can create a lot of pressure. The documents that need to be filled out often become a huge task for the smaller municipalities that do not have the organizational capacities to do so. This is a definite example of inequity between large and small communities. In addition, the lack of experience of some municipalities means that they sometimes forget to identify ineligible fees at the beginning of the project, which can clearly create a financial burden for these communities when they proceed with the projects.
Another challenge is that Infrastructure Canada employees change regularly. This means that our staff often have to explain the files again. We realize that this is a difficult situation to manage, but we still want to draw your attention to it.
The obligation to provide one third of the funding can also be an obstacle for a number of small communities, and can even prevent them from submitting other projects.
On a more positive note, based on our experience, we can testify that the funding is quickly reimbursed after the work begins.
In our opinion, it would be desirable to establish a stable funding program, similar to the gas tax fund, to finance improvements to existing infrastructure. The advantages of this fund are that it is a permanent source of funding for municipalities, and it gives greater financial latitude.
Other funding could be used for new infrastructure, whereas the fund similar to the gas tax fund would allow for better long-term planning for existing infrastructure.
We also suggest simplifying the application process or extending the deadlines to apply, due to the complexity of the forms that need to be filled out.
Our last suggestion is that it would be very useful to be able to visit a website in order to get information faster, instead of having to call the staff, who, I am sure, have many other things to do with their time.
Finally, I would like to say that I support the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' suggestion to share the costs in the following way: 40% from the federal government, 40% from the provincial government and 20% from the municipalities. I think that the fact that the federal government has already agreed to the principle of paying 40% of the costs shows how important federal infrastructure programs are.
This is how I'll end my presentation.
Liberal
Mike Savage Mayor, Halifax Regional Municipality
Madam Chair and committee members, it's a great pleasure to be here to share a little bit about Halifax and talk about what infrastructure funding means to our municipality.
Halifax is well known as the urban centre of Atlantic Canada. What people sometimes forget is that we're the largest rural municipality in Nova Scotia. In fact, if you look at a map, at the physical size of HRM, you could fit Montreal, London, St. John's, Quebec City, Winnipeg, Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, and Hamilton inside the physical boundary of the region. Nobody knows that better than Sean Fraser, whose riding of Central Nova covers a lot of that area.
We're the centre of economic growth in Nova Scotia. We account for 10% of the land size, 46% of the population, but almost 60% of the GDP. That's important, because we have the complex needs of a growing urban centre but also the challenges and opportunities that come with a large rural community.
You've all heard the statistic that 60% of the infrastructure is the responsibility of municipalities, but we collect less than 10% of the taxes, so we have to be creative in order to reach our goals, and we need strong partnerships.
Halifax has been one of the fastest-growing cities in the country in the last number of years. You can see from the changing skyline the difference from 2014 to 2017 in how the city looks. We have ambitious goals. We have an economic growth strategy, which we started a couple of years ago, that sees us wanting to raise our population from 418,000 to 550,000 by 2031. We're making progress. We've grown by 8,000 and 7,000 in the last two years.
The most exciting statistic is that we're keeping and attracting young people here, sort of going against the trend of Atlantic Canada. Throughout the first nine years of the 2000s, we were losing people in that key demographic of 25 to 39, and now, dramatically, we're keeping them. We're rewriting the narrative of kids going down the road for opportunity.
We continue to open our doors to people from around the world, and the face of our city is changing dramatically. International immigration accounts for over half of our growth. I'm excited, pleased, and proud to say that our city welcomed over 1,000 Syrian refugees. That's my mayoral boasting.
On infrastructure specifically, public infrastructure is the foundation on which our communities are built, and infrastructure investment publicly spurs private investment. Building and maintaining local infrastructure—the roads, the bridges, the water systems—provides a clear and measurable return on investment. Predictable federal funding, as outlined in these bilateral agreements, will ensure that we and other communities, like that of my colleague from Dieppe, continue to achieve real, sustainable growth.
The most dynamic cities in the world have effective public transit systems. Modern and efficient public transit increases productivity, cuts gridlock, connects people, services, and businesses to one another, and improves the health of citizens. Public transit infrastructure allows us to better move people in and out and strengthens our transit options. For us, a big deal is commuter rail. It's an option being looked at by our regional council. If we can establish a commuter rail that's efficient and cost-effective, it will be an incredibly valuable asset for us and for the future of our city, working with partners like VIA and CN. We're also looking at bus rapid transit.
I also want to highlight water. Investment in water, waste water, and stormwater infrastructure is a national issue. These are systems that many of us take for granted. Upgrades to waste water are some of the most pressing and expensive needs for our municipality. We have some of the oldest pipes in Canada. We have a $2.6-billion integrated resource plan on water alone within HRM that we need to fulfill. Some of the pipes we've recently dug up in the city go back to 1856 and 1862.
Halifax is a coastal city. It's particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, especially sea level and storm surge. Those are absolutely critical investments. We're looking at innovative ways to combat climate change, including plans to incorporate district energy into major new projects in the city.
Private sector development comes after public sector investment. It's because of sound urban planning and big public investments that we have things in Halifax that are making a big difference.
Successful cities are built through strong partnerships between all orders of government and the private sector, and I look forward to continuing to work with you and my colleagues across the country as we build the cities of tomorrow.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much, Mayor Savage.
We'll go to Alex Boston for five minutes, please.
Alex Boston Executive Director and Fellow, Renewable Cities, SFU Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee.
I have prepared a presentation.
Do you have the presentation?
Executive Director and Fellow, Renewable Cities, SFU Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue
There we go. If I do not see it advancing, I will just communicate to the clerk that we'll be going to the next stop in the spirit of the investing in Canada plan.
I have a slightly different perspective from my colleagues here, not because I don't believe in the incredible importance of investing in our infrastructure, but because I believe we have to think about shovel-worthy, not just shovel-ready, projects. What I want to do is provide a little bit of context in the first transit exchange that we go through, look at some of the barriers to the investing in Canada plan, and then outline a few solutions.
Here we are at the first transit exchange: objectives and outcomes. I strongly concur with the laudable and achievable objectives that have been laid out around long-term economic growth, a low-carbon green economy, and inclusivity in our communities. The other critical objective that the country holds is a 33% emission reduction target by 2030 from 2005, a commitment that's shared on all sides of the House, as a bare minimum.
Transportation produces a quarter of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. The largest share of those transportation emissions is personal transportation emissions, and they come from our driving around. If we look at jurisdictions around the world that are making progress, there are four pillars upon which they build their agendas: vehicle efficiency, renewable fuels—both of which are largely senior government responsibilities supported by local governments—reducing commuting distances, and shifting modes. The latter two are local government lead areas, and they have to be supported through initiatives like the investing in Canada plan.
As it stands, it is not certain at all. In fact, there are high risks that the objectives of the investing in Canada plan won't be achieved.
This is some work I did for the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change that shows the GHGs per household, transportation, and building by location and neighbourhood type across the greater Golden Horseshoe. The most important thing is your proximity to the employment hub. The next most important thing is your housing type and your neighbourhood type. The third most important thing is your proximity to good transit. Proximity to employment is four times more important than the type of transit you invest in.
It's not only carbon that matters. High-carbon neighbourhoods are neighbourhoods that have a lot of other costs associated with them. Low-density, auto-oriented neighbourhoods have double the infrastructure burden on a per household basis. You have double the transportation costs and double the driving distances. The majority of people are overweight in these communities. We're losing 3% of our agricultural land every 10 years in Canada, and that is as a result of our auto-oriented approach. We are becoming more auto-oriented, and this infrastructure agenda under the investing in Canada plan won't solve this.
Greater Vancouver has one of the most sustainable land use regimes in Canada, not because of its political leadership exclusively—that would be part of it—but because they're hemmed in by mountains and oceans. What you see on the top line is GHG activity since 2007. The bottom line is the GHG reduction target. That's the GHG trajectory when you take a look at the $7.5-billion transit investment plan, the biggest transit investment agenda ever in British Columbia. We're not going to achieve our targets with this type of investment.
Should we invest in transit infrastructure? Yes, but we can't be.... This slide looks at the biggest transit spends in the country—Edmonton, Calgary, Montreal, greater Ottawa, and greater Toronto and Hamilton. Each one of those stations pictured is in a green field. It's a farmer's field. We need that on a long-term basis to be resilient to climate change. Half of the food in our larders is imported from Florida and California, unstable production areas globally. Agriculture is one of the biggest opportunities in Canada. Those transit routes and those transit lines won't take us to Paris. What we really risk is ultimately increasing our financial deficit, our social deficit, and our environmental deficit. The only surplus we're going to have is a carbon surplus.
Our final stop is the investing in Canada plan: some solutions. We can require some really well-accepted resident and job density benchmarks that exist and that transit planning authorities use all around the world. They are used by most of the transit planning authorities involved in these projects. However, these projects won't meet these density benchmarks.
I have no expectation for the federal government to dictate land use planning to local governments, but you can lay down the type of density thresholds that are appropriate for the type of transit infrastructure spend. It's going to make us healthier, make us more prosperous, and it's going to reduce our GHG emissions.
I've outlined a number of indicators that are appropriate for projects that are in the pipeline. This can be done. There are other jurisdictions in the world that are driving down emissions in transportation sectors. California is one of them. They have the best land use plans in the country because the state stepped up to the plate and required certain thresholds to be achieved.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Mr. Boston, I'm sorry, but I have to cut you off there. If you can get your remaining comments in while you're answering some questions, it would be helpful.
We will go to Mr. Chong for five minutes, please.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to our witnesses for appearing, in particular a former colleague, Mayor Savage. It's great to see you again.
We're here because the Parliamentary Budget Officer has issued several reports that are quite critical of the government's infrastructure spending. In particular, the government is not meeting the growth or job creation targets that it set out in budget 2016. It said it would create some $46 billion in new economic growth as a result of infrastructure spending. It also said it would create tens of thousands of new jobs. The PBO has indicated that, based on its assessment, only 11,000 jobs have been created in the last year, and instead of some $46 billion in economic growth, only $4 billion, less than a tenth of what was originally projected, has been created.
One of the reasons the PBO has given for this lacklustre growth and lacklustre job creation is the fact that the government is not getting the money out the door enough.
Some witnesses have indicated they're not overly concerned about the cash-flow issues and the fact that the government is not meeting its own spending commitments. In fact, we had one witness here, a professor, who referenced a McKinsey Global Institute report that said Canada is spending too much money on infrastructure, and that report suggested we should reduce spending on infrastructure.
On the other hand, we have hard data from Statistics Canada that demonstrates things are getting worse. Last November, StatsCan issued a report indicating commuting times are getting worse. The average daily commute for Canadians is up 4% despite the fact that commuting distances are down in the census metropolitan area of greater Toronto. For the five-year period they were analyzing, StatsCan said people are driving shorter distances but the amount of time they are spending in their cars is actually up, so the average commuting time now in the GTA, the country's largest metropolitan region, is now over one hour a day.
I guess I'm looking for comments—critical in a constructive sense—about the government's infrastructure plans and what we can do to arrest this disturbing trend whereby Canadians are commuting shorter distances but spending much more time doing it. We want to come out of this with a report, with some constructive recommendations for the government on how it can improve its infrastructure spending.
Mayor, Halifax Regional Municipality
Thank you.
Mr. Chong, it is nice to see you again. I enjoyed being on committee with you before.
First of all, on commuting times, I think there's a simple answer. People from Toronto should move to Halifax. I think that would be good for everybody.
There are some major projects we think will get people out of cars, make them healthier, protect the environment, and do a whole lot of things. For us, I mentioned the commuter rail, which I think is very important. I think it's good in every sense.
I can only speak from our own point of view. We haven't been very aggrieved by slowness in funding. There are other elements in this as well, of course, including the fact that the provinces have to sign the bilateral agreements. In some cases, they can determine how the cash flows, which can slow it down for us. In phase one, we got a lot of work done, and we anticipate the same in phase two.
In terms of your comment about people spending more time getting to work, one of our key points is that we want housing options that allow people to live closer to where they work. This means building in the downtown core, where they are on a bus line, where they don't have to get in a car, where a family that can barely afford one car has to have two cars. Overall, for us we've been well served. We haven't had a huge problem with the money flow, and we anticipate in phase two that we will be able to use the money in the schedule as it comes out to us.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Madam Chair, perhaps we could also hear from Mr. Boston.
Executive Director and Fellow, Renewable Cities, SFU Morris J. Wosk Centre for Dialogue
It's a very astute question. We've had 60% growth in vehicle kilometres travelled since 2005 and 30% growth in our vehicle stock. On a per household basis, vehicle kilometre travel, VKT, is dropping, but the net VKT is growing and growing. We need infrastructure investments that will reverse that trend, and it can be done. We also need infrastructure spending that will reduce our long-term civic infrastructure deficit. Most municipalities don't generate enough revenue to operate, maintain, and replace their infrastructure, and the public transit infrastructure spend has a serious risk of exacerbating this situation because it's not connected to land use.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a question for Mr. Savage. Now that you've taken on the job as mayor, I'm sure you recognize the need for municipal strategy. Ministers Garneau and Sohi are both working extremely hard to align our nation's strengths with strategic economic infrastructure investments. Trade and transportation corridors are our nation's strength.
Halifax, as you and many people around this table know, is an integral component of our network of trade and transportation corridors. Where do you see, within the strategies you're establishing in your municipality, in your region, our investing in Canada plan contributing to Halifax's future economic infrastructure strategy?
Mayor, Halifax Regional Municipality
Madam Chair, I see committees haven't changed much since I was in Ottawa, which is good. I think it's very important.
You mentioned the port of Halifax. The port of Halifax has been on a growth trajectory the last few years. Investing in the port is important to us so that we can handle the ultra ships. The ultra-class vessels are a very important piece of maintaining Halifax, but so is trying to make sure that the trucks that come out of the port are not clogging up the downtown, tearing up the roads, and creating all kinds of carbon that doesn't need to be taken up there. In short, it's a very important part of it for us.
As a municipality, we're in a position financially that we can invest. We're a little unusual in that we're a municipality with a debt of less than $250 million—this in a province with a debt of $15 billion or $16 billion. So we need help from the other two orders of government. We also can do some of this on our own with our partners, like our port and airport, which are both very important.
Thank you.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
To be more specific, I had a good discussion yesterday with Mrs. Oldfield from your port authority. She mentioned to me that, although Halifax is obviously known as a port, when it comes to water, it's becoming more evident today that there's also a need for more rail infrastructure. What are you looking at in terms of those specific investments?
Mayor, Halifax Regional Municipality
For us, a large part of it is to find a way to get the traffic that comes into the port to the rails without having to go on trucks. An inland terminal, for example, is a possibility we're looking at, which I think is good for a whole bunch of different areas: environmentally, from a road network point of view, as well as economically. I don't think these specific infrastructure pieces would be part of that, but other parts of an infrastructure program would be and are, and they are very useful.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
I'll open up this question to all the individuals.
There was mention of a sustainable funding envelope. Would you agree that those sustainable funding envelopes should be based on a period of 10, 15, or 20 years and that the funding envelopes should be attached to one strategic plan as opposed to a strategic plan that includes your economic side as well as your municipal needs? Would you agree that each envelope should have attached to it a disciplined asset management plan?
Mayor, City of Dieppe, New Brunswick
Yes, certainly.
As I pointed out in my presentation, we would really like to see something similar to the gas tax fund that could help us plan ahead. Municipalities have reached a stage of maturity, and they are fully capable of managing their future. However, to manage the future, we absolutely need stable revenue for infrastructure. We all face the challenge of replacing our aging infrastructure, so, I believe that a special fund should be created.
The second fund I mentioned during my presentation would rather be used for improving the economic aspect of our infrastructure, as my colleague from Halifax, Mayor Savage, pointed out. We would need to improve the economic aspect of the transportation infrastructure, for instance, ports and airports. We have a relatively major airport in Dieppe that has a good air freight capacity. These are the kinds of investments we would really like to receive.