ENVI Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

¹

1535

The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.))

Mr. Gordon Diamond (Director, Transit Services for OC Transpo, Canadian Urban Transit Association)

¹

1540

Mr. Marco D'Angelo (Manager of Public Affairs, Canadian Urban Transit Association)

¹

1545

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Marco D'Angelo

¹

1555

Mr. Gordon Diamond

The Chair

Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, CPC)

Mr. Gordon Diamond

Mr. Rex Barnes

Mr. Gordon Diamond

º

1600

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ)

Mr. Gordon Diamond

Mr. Bernard Bigras

Mr. Marco D'Angelo

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

º

1605

Mr. Gordon Diamond

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Gordon Diamond

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.)

º

1610

The Chair

The Hon. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.)

º

1615

Mr. Gordon Diamond

Mr. Marco D'Angelo

The Hon. Serge Marcil

º

1620

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Diamond

The Chair

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)

Mr. Gordon Diamond

º

1625

Hon. Diane Marleau

Mr. Gordon Diamond

Hon. Diane Marleau

Mr. Gordon Diamond

Mr. Marco D'Angelo

Hon. Diane Marleau

Mr. Marco D'Angelo

Hon. Diane Marleau

Mr. Gordon Diamond

The Chair

Mr. Julian Reed

º

1630

Mr. Gordon Diamond

The Chair

The Hon. Serge Marcil

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Diamond

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Bigras

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Diamond

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Diamond

Mr. Marco D'Angelo

The Chair

Mr. Gordon Diamond

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

º

1640

The Hon. Serge Marcil

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development

---

NUMBER 002

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.)): Good afternoon.

    We are starting our meeting today with the witnesses. Other colleagues are joining us a little bit later. The reason for my delay, and I apologize for it, was a small emergency on another front, and therefore I was not able to be here on time.

    We have today the Urban Transit Association, which has, over the years, produced some interesting input and policies for governments. Today we are glad to welcome two representatives, Mr. Diamond and Mr. D'Angelo. We are very glad you were able to come, and we understand you have a text you would like to speak about. I suppose it deals with transit in urban Canada and its potential for Kyoto and for energy saving and the improvement of air quality.

    We are also very happy to welcome new members of the committee: the parliamentary secretary in charge of cities, Mr. Godfrey; Madam Anita Neville, who is here for the first time, and we welcome her wholeheartedly--she is from Winnipeg; and Mr. Barnes, from Newfoundland. The others are all veterans, more or less. Mr. Hubbard, it's already your second meeting.

    We met yesterday as a steering committee, and the report of the steering committee will be discussed later on so that we don't keep our witnesses waiting.

    So without any further delay, Mr. Diamond, Mr. D'Angelo, you have the floor. As soon as you have completed your presentation there will be, of course, questions from the floor.

    Again, welcome.

    Mr. Gordon Diamond (Director, Transit Services for OC Transpo, Canadian Urban Transit Association): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

    As you all might know, the Canadian Urban Transit Association was here on the Hill yesterday. We had members from all across Canada visiting parliamentary members, and we were encouraged by the understanding of transit and the support for transit as it applies to the issues we're going to talk about to you today. I might also say, as a transit manager, I was impressed by the number of members I met who use public transit on a regular basis. Mr. Godfrey in particular mentioned, when we first met him early in the morning, he had just got off the number 7 bus, and uses it regularly. So thank you, sir, for your patronage, and for your support.

    The Canadian Urban Transit Association would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present our views on this important role that public transit can play in helping Canada meet its commitment to the Kyoto Accord on Climate Change.

    As was stated, I'm Gordon Diamond. I am the director of transit services for OC Transpo here in Ottawa, and I'm also a vice-chair of the Canadian Urban Transit Association board of directors. And with me is Marco D'Angelo, who is the manager of public affairs for CUTA.

    As you know, CUTA is the voice of Canada's public transit industry. We represent 100 transit systems across the country, from St. John's to Victoria. We also represent 200 businesses that are engaged in the manufacture of transit equipment and services, including three major bus manufacturers.

    In the Speech from the Throne that was delivered earlier this month, the government renewed its commitment to Kyoto, and it declared that Canadians, as stewards of vast geography and abundant resources, feel a keen sense of responsibility to help the world meet the environmental challenge. The speech went on to say, and I quote:

This challenge can be turned to advantage through leadership in green technologies; through more energy-efficient transportation, and housing; and through non-polluting industrial processes. All of which will stimulate innovation, new market opportunities, and cleaner communities.

    And finally the speech threw out a challenge to Canadians individually, and let me quote again:

Our One Tonne Challenge aims to raise awareness and provide Canadians with the information on how their individual consumption choices contribute to the emissions that drive climate change. The objective--the challenge--is to reduce emissions by 1,000 kilograms per person, per year, because environmental stewardship must be everybody's responsibility.

    CUTA would like to show you today how public transit can make a major contribution on both a collective and an individual level towards meeting the challenges outlined in the Speech from the Throne. And on a personal note, I'm excited about this opportunity, as I know all the other members of the transit industry are.

    I will now ask Marco to continue with our presentation.

¹  (1540)  

    Mr. Marco D'Angelo (Manager of Public Affairs, Canadian Urban Transit Association): Thank you very much, Gordon.

    My name is Marco D'Angelo. I'm the manager of public affairs for the Canadian Urban Transit Association. I want to thank the chair and members of the committee for inviting us here today. It's certainly an honour to be presenting in front of you, not only as a CUTA staff person, but also as the son of a bus driver. For the last 30 years or so, he's been there, and I'm very happy to be here today to talk to you about the Kyoto Protocol.

    The Kyoto Protocol commits several dozen countries to slowing global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Under Kyoto, Canada must meet greenhouse gas emission targets every year between 2008 and 2012. The vast majority of Canadians support ratifying Kyoto. They understand that Kyoto is a first step in responding to a global problem that has been linked to extreme weather events, as well as to other serious health and environmental issues.

    Already, many Canadians are making choices that will help Canada to show global leadership on Kyoto. For example, the last five years have shown an upswing in transit use and have seen national ridership grow by more than 10%. When people choose transit instead of a car, they produce a much smaller amount of greenhouse gas emissions and bring us closer to meeting our goals under Kyoto.

    Canada's transportation sector emitted 27% of greenhouse gas emissions in 1997, and 30% of those emissions, or 8% of total emissions, were from urban passenger travel. But public transit, despite taking millions of Canadians to and from work every day, to stores, and to wherever they might go, caused less than 0.3% of those greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, public transit is an excellent alternative to the car and helps Canadians to meet their Kyoto targets.

    If current trends continue, however, greenhouse gas emissions from urban passenger travel will be 30% greater in 2010 than they were in 1990. Clearly, we must reverse this rapid growth, if Canada's transportation sector is to help meet the national Kyoto target. Transit can play an important role in meeting that target.

    People who travel by public transit create two-thirds fewer greenhouse gas emissions than if they travel by car. Even if someone opts for transit just two days out of five, or just on Monday and Friday, for example, their greenhouse gas emissions would be cut by 25%. If you add walking or biking to the mix, the reductions are even more significant. The bottom line is that when millions of people make the decision to get out of their cars and to take transit, it leads to a sizable net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

    The federal government has proposed four policy options as part of its greenhouse gas emission reduction strategy, ranging from market-based solutions to targeted measures. Market-based solutions would involve permits and prices for greenhouse gas emissions, which could have a significant impact on energy-intensive industries. Targeted measures, on the other hand, include a broad range of incentives, regulations, and fiscal measures that could be applied to ensure equity among our regions and our industrial sectors.

    Canada's transit industry believes that targeted measures are the best way to fight climate change. Through such measures, the government can direct resources to sectors like public transit, which offer important social benefits as well as the potential for greenhouse gas reductions at the same time.

    According to the “National Vision for Urban Transit to 2020”, commissioned by Transport Canada, public transit has numerous benefits other than greenhouse gas emissions. These include the reduced need for new road construction, and improved air quality in our cities. As many members from southern Ontario and Quebec will know, the number of smog days has been increasing each and every year. We would also have healthier downtowns, and improved social mobility. Another benefit of increased funding of transit would be a positive impact on economic sectors, such as tourism and export development.

    Targeted measures, as opposed to the market-based measures, can also be used to directly encourage important advances in emission-reducing fuel and vehicle technologies. These advances, however, should only be seen as complementary to measures that were outlined earlier and that would provide a more meaningful and enduring change in individual behaviour, because the key is that we need to change the way Canadians think about how they get from one place to another, and to see how we can work that into providing solutions for Canadians to help meet our Kyoto targets by 2012.

    Canada can also meet its Kyoto commitment by fostering technological change. The federal government has already made meaningful advances in the field of transportation technology. We can look at environment minister David Anderson, for example, and his announcement of more stringent regulations governing the fuel efficiency of on-road vehicles sold in Canada.

¹  (1545)  

    One of our business members is a global leader in fuel cell technology that could power the next generation of zero-emission vehicles. Right now it's delivering heavy-duty fuel cell engines to one of the big three auto manufacturers for 20 buses to be operated in 10 major European cities. This is only one example of how Kyoto is helping Canadian businesses to change how they think and do business and to see how best they can grow and create more jobs for Canadians within the framework of meeting our Kyoto targets.

    Transit can fight climate change by carrying more passengers than it already does. But many of Canada's transit companies don't have the extra capacity they need to carry these new riders. For the last decade they've faced downsizing and downloading, while at the same time ridership has grown substantially. Our cities have grown substantially, and this means that our transit systems are stretched to their limits in terms of infrastructure needs.

    Yesterday we released a report outlining infrastructure needs. But before I get into that, it's important to recognize that there are two distinct infrastructure priorities. The first one is renewal. That would be replacing our aging fleet and refurbishing rail cars and subways to make sure the infrastructure is in a state of good repair. For people to want to ride transit, they need to know that the transit is safe and reliable and that they're going to have a comfortable ride as well--hopefully, as comfortable as riding in their own car.

    It also means playing catch-up with the underinvestment of the past decade. Only once that's assured can we seriously talk about the second priority, which is equally important, and that's the expansion of transit systems. Expansion means more vehicles with frequent and faster service, new bus rapid transit systems, light rail, and expanding our subways in our major cities. Also, it includes park-and-rides with more parking and better integration in the system. It means we need to provide a more competitive alternative to the car to actually move more people more efficiently than we are today.

    Having said that, the projects for renewal or replacement represent one-third of the total amount of infrastructure needed over the next five years. Those for expansion or ridership growth represent the other two-thirds. In dollar terms, the renewal portion to keep transit systems operating in a state of good repair amounts to $7 billion over the next five years, while the need for expansion to keep up with ridership demand, which is already there, and with growth in cities, which has already taken place, faces a projected investment need of $14 billion over the next five years. This amounts to a total of $21 billion over the next five years, which would be for all Canadian transit systems. We came to that number by surveying our 100 transit systems and asking them what they need in terms of infrastructure over the next five years.

    Transit systems are now running at capacity and risk turning away riders if they don't invest significantly in expansion and growth right away. The importance of transit has shifted from an afterthought and now must be at the core of our planning going forward in terms of urban land use and how we meet our Kyoto targets. But as the results of our survey show, the present situation is not meeting current needs. We need reliable and sustainable investment in urban transit.

    This discussion couldn't be more timely. Never before have we had a situation where the current government has been as committed to addressing the emerging urban agenda. We're very heartened by it. We look forward to seeing some tangible results, some more defined criteria, so that we can work with the government to ensure we can move public transit forward over the next years.

    Recognizing that 80% of Canadians live in cities and that, if anything, travelling around our cities is getting worse and not better--and I don't have to tell anyone who has been to any of Canada's major cities, Ottawa included, but also Montreal, Toronto--

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: Mr. D'Angelo, all these are well-known facts to the members of this committee. Perhaps you may want to wind up so as to permit members to ask questions.

    Mr. Marco D'Angelo: Sure. I can move forward.

    I would like to cover where we believe this funding could come from, the $21 billion over five years that we've mentioned here today. I see some shaking of heads. Let me explain to you where we think this $21 billion could come from. Consider this: $1.5 billion in annual funding can come from the dedication of 3¢ of the existing federal fuel tax. If that were dedicated to public transit, that would generate $1.5 billion each and every year. Over the five years the study covers, that would be $7.5 billion. If that is matched by provincial and municipal governments, we're at that $21 billion mark. So it's something that is doable, we believe. If that money is dedicated to transit, Canadians will know where their fuel tax is going. It's going toward improving public transit, relieving traffic congestion, improving air quality, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, thereby helping to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments.

[Translation]

    In Canada today, the provinces pay approximately 5 per cent of the operating costs of public transit and 10 per cent of its capital costs. In the United States, public administrations pay 24%  of the operating costs and two-thirds of the capital costs, while in the G-7 European countries, these figures vary from 15%  to 30% and from 30%  to 100%  respectively. That means that in Canada, over 90%  of all government investment comes directly from local property taxes. Clearly, this is not a viable situation.

    Because Canadian public transit systems depend less on government funding than those of other countries, they have one of the highest revenue-cost ratios. In Canada, on average, 63%  of the operating costs of public transit networks come directly from the fares paid by passengers. We are proud of this level of efficiency, but this fact is a two-edged sword. Limiting funding prevents the systems from expanding to increase their capacity and to remain a competitive alternative to cars with only one person in them.

¹  (1555)  

[English]

    Smog days are also commonplace, as I mentioned earlier, and are increasing every year. The average number of people in each car at rush hour sits at just above one person per car. In a car that has four or five seats, we're talking about 20% or 25% efficiency, and I can tell you our transit systems are far more efficient than that. Our seats are far more full than that. Cities where people and goods move freely with affordable housing, clean water and air, and reliable community services, including public transit...and we've also seen public transit become the number one issue in cities.

[Translation]

    In a recent public survey, respondents strongly supported the idea that senior levels of government should invest in public transit. Nine respondents out of ten thought that provincial governments should earmark a budget for this, and over eight respondents out of ten thought the federal government should do its part. This strengthens the opinion that the public does not expect municipalities to carry the financial burden of public transit alone. All governments have a responsibility to ensure high-quality public transit services in our cities.

[English]

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: Thank you, Marco.

    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, CUTA has tried to outline for you today a practical way of meeting the Kyoto commitments and we've given you our views on the investment needs and ways of financing them. Public transit can make a major contribution to cleaner air.

    Thank you all for your attention. The most important part of our being here is to answer any questions you have. We'd also appreciate any advice you might give us on how we can move this agenda forward together.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Diamond and Mr. D'Angelo.

    We have four names so far on the list. We'll start with Mr. Barnes, followed by Mr. Bigras, Mr. Hubbard, and Mr. Godfrey--for five minutes each.

    Mr. Barnes.

    Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, CPC): Thank you very much.

    This is the first time I'm on this committee, so I have to say it's great to be here.

    Of course I think Kyoto is very much on the minds of Canadians, to see the role that government will play, that the private sector will play, as well as what all sectors expect out of the taxpayers of Canada. It was interesting that you mentioned the three-cent fuel tax as a way to assist the public transit system come up with some of the money.

    People's lives are very busy, and I'm sure everyone at this table will know that it's probably impossible for us to take a bus from time to time because of our schedules and everything, so we must have a car.

    How do you think we can convince Canadians that the transit system is the way to go for Kyoto?

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: Mr. Chair, I think the answer, as we've all found in our own systems across the country, is if you provide reliable, dependable, efficient, timely, and pleasant transit experience, people will take it and they will pay for that privilege. Where the systems are running well, they have huge volumes.

    If I can just refer to our own experience here in Ottawa, we have a world-class rapid transit system, and our ridership in Ottawa has gone up 15 million trips in the last five years. So we're not winning the battle with cars, but we are getting people out of cars. And I refer to Mr. Godfrey--I'm a living example. I moved in from the suburbs. We sold my wife's car and now have only one car, and I take the bus all the time.

    Mr. Rex Barnes: If that's the case, I'm sure there's going to be a large number of people. But right now, say if only 1% of the people in the Ottawa region decided they were going to do that, that's going to be an enormous workload for your company to deliver the service. How do you anticipate you're going to pay for this, either on short notice or in the long term, besides the gas tax?

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: Well, Mr. Chair, it is a problem we'd like to have.

    We are at that level right now, so we need the assistance of other funding mechanisms. We proposed the gas tax, but it may be that there are other mechanisms the government may choose. And of course it's a partnership among all three levels of government.

    In the case of Ottawa, and in Ontario, the municipal government has been funding this whole transit operation since 1998. The province was not doing that. They're back at the table. They're helping us to fund.... I think I've answered your question.

    We have some way to go, but the system, as we said in our presentation, is bulging at the seams. The complaint I heard when I first got into this business was “I couldn't get a seat”. The complaint I'm getting today is “I can't even get on the bus, because it's too full”.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Barnes. I think your time is up.

    Monsieur Bigras.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would like to say first of all that you do not have to convince us that greater use of public transit could be beneficial as part of a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. I also think that there should be increased funding for public transit. Now, it remains to be determined how this should be done.

    We all know that the new Prime Minister intends to increase his funding or to begin providing funding for municipalities, and even, if possible, to involve them in negotiations, just as the government does with the provinces. I imagine you hope public transit will benefit from this financial support that the municipalities may obtain.

    If the upcoming budget announces that the federal government intends to provide funding for municipalities, do you think that it should be conditional on a commitment by the municipalities to earmark part of the funding for public transit infrastructure or transit companies? If your answer is yes, what percentage of the funding to municipalities should go to public transit infrastructure? I do not know whether you understand my question properly.

[English]

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: Mr. Chair, I think I did. The numbers that are being discussed in current forums are one-third, one-third, and one-third from the federal, provincial, and municipal governments. Of course, it will vary from province to province, depending on how those negotiations go, and also from municipality to municipality. But that would be a good start.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: But I'm not talking to you about a specific infrastructure program, of the type we've seen in the past. I think there is the firm intention on the part of the government to say that rather than transferring money from Ottawa to the provinces, there could be transfers from Ottawa to the municipalities. There is an intention to involve municipalities in negotiations, as is done with the provinces, even though there is no provision for this in the Constitution. The Constitution will probably have to be amended.

    So, if the government were to announce that there will be funding for municipalities... I'm not talking about transfers that the provinces can spend as they wish, but if there were direct funding to municipalities, do you think the municipalities should be required to earmark some of that funding for public transit? Or would you agree to such transfers from Ottawa to the municipalities and leave it up to the municipalities to decide whether they want to invest in public transit or in infrastructure, waterworks or sewers, if they wish? Do you think there should be a commitment by municipalities to earmark part of the funding specifically for public transit infrastructure?

[English]

    Mr. Marco D'Angelo: Thank you for clearing up your question a little bit.

    We're hoping to get guidance from this committee and from the federal government on how they would negotiate with the provinces, and by extension with the cities, on how to best fund that.

    Of course, the Canadian Urban Transit Association would like to see that any negotiation that has the purpose of providing greater funding to municipal transit systems ultimately ends up there. How it gets from the beginning to the end is up to the politicians to decide.

    The 100 transit systems we represent know very clearly that they need greater support from all levels of government. I think it's up to those levels of government to come together to find the best way to ensure we have greater public transit going forward.

    The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Bigras.

    Mr. Hubbard.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    This follows upon some of the previous questioning. I have watched here in Ottawa; you have a very efficient system and a lot of very pleased travellers who use it probably in many cases more than twice a day. I see people with passes and with all the sorts of ways they travel around the city.

    Using your own city as an example concerning ridership, what percentage of the overall cost does the ridership provide to your bank balance?

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: Mr. Chair, there is a chart in one of the handouts we've given you that shows Canada and the recovery on the fare box, which is running just over 60% nationally. That's where we run: just under 60% is covered by fares and advertising. The rest is supported currently by the municipal tax base.

    That is very high. If you look at the U.S. and others on that chart, you'll see that our ridership is more than double, on average, that of the U.S., and recoveries are equally higher.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, I know, having previously been on the transport committee, that our information is that just about every system of land transportation for passengers, whether it be rail or whatever it is in the cities—streetcars or subways or buses, which we have here—looks for heavy subsidization. There's no way that most groups pay for it very much through a user fee.

    We also have some trouble with your presentation because we have, in the national highways discussions, people talking about $14 billion being needed to upgrade the national highways program. They too are looking at gasoline and diesel taxes. I'm not sure, when you present your own arguments concerning people who are using their own vehicles subsidizing somebody else who is getting a benefit from public transportation, if you're really following the right path. It sounds, maybe, like a fur that could be skinned for it, but I'm not sure how well it would be accepted. We have to look at various ways here, and in the light of Kyoto.

    Speaking about Kyoto, I am amazed at how efficient you are, but the diesel locomotives you're using are very big polluters. This week we were talking about people living in urban centres and their high incidence of asthma and bronchial-related medical problems. You wonder, somehow. In terms of what you talked about, Marco, I would refer to Ballard Power Systems, which is one of the groups that is trying to develop a cleaner system. You talk about having 100 different associations. Is there anyone in that group or association moving toward the new type of prototype vehicle that Ballard and Daimler Chrysler are working on? Is there any evidence of cleaner...?

    I probably only have a second or two left, but—

    The Chair: There is not enough time left for the answer to the first question.

    Let's hear the answer.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: You only gave me five minutes, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: That's right. By the time we hear the answer, it will be over five minutes.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: That's what I am afraid of.

    Also, just to put this on the table in a question, you talk about the need for $20 billion or so. What are your projections, from your present working, about how much new moving stock you are going to purchase in the same period of time? Is it part of that $20 billion?

    Mr. Chair, I've probably used all my time, but those are the kinds of concerns I would have.

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: Very quickly, Mr. Chair, yes, part of that $20 billion is for replacing older vehicles.

    To answer your other question, Ballard fuel engines are not yet commercially viable. They have been tested in Chicago and Vancouver and in this other test you just noticed there, but the vehicle is far more expensive at the moment. Even the company that manufactures them does not foresee a commercially viable bus for another ten years. There is an interim step of hybrid buses, which are smaller, clean diesels powering electric motors. Those tests are starting to take place, and some properties are buying those as we speak. Toronto will be buying some. New York is testing them. They are available and they are much more efficient.

    In the case of Ottawa, that is what we will be doing in about 2005 and beyond: a hybrid version, with a fuel-celled bus being out another ten years.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

    Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I could add to this that when biodiesel becomes a reality—and it's starting to in Montreal and the city of Brampton, and so on—it will further lower emissions as the volume takes hold.

    But I want to point out that public transit is the cheapest form of transit anybody could ever imagine. It's so cheap that here are my tickets for OC Transpo, which I ride every time I come into Ottawa airport and come up to the office: it's just as fast as a taxi, and it costs me $1.70. Here are the tickets I use on STO Transpo to go to my apartment in Gatineau at $1.85. If I take a taxi, it's $15. Here are the tickets I ride on TTC in Toronto. I get seniors rates, so it's not bad.

    When I leave my farm in Norval and go to Pearson airport to come to Ottawa, I have a 10-minute walk to get a GO Transit bus. It costs me $2.55. If I took a taxi it would be $60 for the same trip. If I take a car and park it at Pearson airport, it costs me about $70 for the week, or perhaps a little more now, plus the fuel and the insurance and whatever.

    I don't know what you do about ridership responsibility, but it seems to me this is far and away so much cheaper than owning your own automobile. I find it really surprising. Maybe it's just because of scheduling, or maybe there aren't enough units on the road to take the traffic, but when I go to my village where I catch the bus, at any time between seven and ten o'clock in the morning the traffic's lined up as far as I can see bumper to bumper, and most of those vehicles have one rider in them, and that's it.

    It seems to me there might be an expanded role for rider participation, even though you say the riders here contribute a higher percentage than in most other areas in North America. I'm an undying supporter of public transit. I'll tell you, I believe a lot of people stay in cars because it's a habit more than anything else. Once you break that habit and learn to do a little planning, it becomes easier to take public transit.

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reed.

    Probably no comments are needed on that declaration of faith.

    Monsieur Marcil.

[Translation]

    The Hon. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The idea of earmarking 3¢ a litre for setting up a fund to encourage public transit is very defendable. However, Canada is huge country, and I can tell you that developing public transit here is not the same as in the United States. There are 40 million people in Boston and New York to provide financing for public transit, but there are only some 6 million of us in Quebec City and Montreal to do the same thing. So there is really no comparison. Consequently, it will take 10¢ or 15¢ a litre to do that, not 3¢. And that would jeopardize virtually the entire industry, production costs, and so on.

    For the time being, Mr. Martin's government has made a commitment to develop a partnership with the provinces and the municipalities. Thus, contrary to what my colleague opposite said, because of the areas of jurisdiction, nothing will be done in cooperation with the municipalities without the agreement of the provinces. In addition, all initiatives will involve the federal government as a partner.

    Since February 1, villages, municipalities and cities have been enjoying a GST refund of about 100 per cent. This may enable the municipalities to develop infrastructures to promote public transit. If we could also work with the provincial governments to find a way of refunding part of the fuel tax to municipalities, they would be able to undertake some development projects.

    The fact is that everyone is in favour of motherhood. I think the ideal situation would be to have electric trams in all Canadian municipalities and villages. The problem is we cannot afford to do that. The major obstacle is that the distances we are talking about are 4,000 or 4,500 kilometres. At the moment, we are having trouble guaranteeing the survival of our trains on the major lines. Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Edmonton are large cities, but Valleyfield, in my region, has only 30,000 residents; Saint-Stanislas-de-Kostka, 2,500; Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague, 1,800 and Huntingdon, 2,600. Even if we were to establish a fund from the 3¢ a litre charge, these communities could not afford to pay for public transit. Hence, such a fund would benefit the large centres.

    Of course, I am more in favour of decentralization myself. I would like us to promise each community that a way of proceeding will be found, and then to help them out. In any case, I would like to ask you the following question.

    Would it not be more logical or important for the Canadian government—as it does with truck manufacturers—to impose more stringent pollution control standards? This might involve using ethanol rather than gasoline. There is now a product called bio-diesel, which pollutes less than diesel fuel. Do you not think that the Government of Canada should place greater requirements on automobile manufacturers to make significant efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

º  (1615)  

[English]

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: Mr. Chair, I would submit that the two activities go hand in hand. As technology improves, and more environmentally friendly automobiles, trucks, and other vehicles are introduced, that's a big plus, but we also have to maximize the use of transit.

    As Mr. Reed mentioned, OC Transpo, among others, is experimenting now with biodiesel. At Saskatoon Transit, they're mixing canola with diesel. We're reducing emissions already, and I think that will grow.

    All of those kinds of things, I think, are going to work together.

    Mr. Marco D'Angelo: In small communities, transit is also very important because of the groups that it serves. It helps to bring young people oftentimes to school or to after-school events. As well, there's the disabled community. Of course, especially in smaller towns in rural Canada, the populations are aging and there is more of a need for urban transit, even in smaller urban centres. It has had a big impact there.

    Of course, we all know that one bus can take 40 to 50 cars off the road. Even with cars that have less pollution, they're still on the road creating congestion.

    We've done a survey in the lower mainland of B.C., for example, where 4% of the cost of a good can be traced back to traffic congestion, a truck waiting because there are cars on the road, because there's not enough transit, especially in the small suburban cities that don't have enough transit either.

[Translation]

    The Hon. Serge Marcil: You are right and I do not think anyone doubts what you are saying. You are right when you say that public transit can contribute to less road traffic, especially on the way in to big cities, etc. That is indisputable, the studies prove it.

    Take Montreal, for example. In 1998, businesses in Greater Montreal lost nearly $700 million because of delays in delivery due to traffic jams. You are constantly caught in traffic. Montreal is an island. So you have to take bridges or tunnels to get away. The same thing happens in Windsor. You have a lot of trucks lined up on the bridge, and it is an established fact that a tractor-trailer that is stationary for an hour on a bridge or access ramp with its engine idling constantly emits, I believe, 10 or 15 times more carbon dioxide than if it had not stopped and was travelling at 100 kilometres per hour. So there are any number of ways of dealing with the problem of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, there is no getting around the fact that the solutions require investments paid for by taxpayers. I would be more inclined to use standards.

    Provincial governments can legislate. Ontario did for diesel. New standards will come into force on April 1, 2004, I believe. So provincial governments can legislate. The federal government can also legislate nationally by setting lower pollution standards and so on. Do you not think that is the case? I might agree to an increase in the gasoline tax, but you also have to ask yourself...

    The main reason why President Bush decided not to sign the Kyoto Protocol is that he was told by representatives of American business that if the United States ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it would cost them more to produce and sell, and consequently, the country would no longer be competitive globally, and that would destroy American industry. In Canada, people say that it may cost us less to produce in the end. It is a philosophical issue.

    I listened to you carefully and found that what you were proposing was quite good. I do not question what you said, but I feel that the government should act through legislation and force car makers to produce engines that pollute less. I believe that each province has to do the same.

    I live in St-Anicet, sir, and it takes me an hour and a half to get to Montreal. So I cannot use public transit. I could take the train to Coteau-Landing, which is the closest place to my home, but it only stops there once a week. So I have to take my car. Even if it cost me three cents more per litre of gas, that would not solve the problem in our area.

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marcil.

    We are now going to start the second round. Mr. Bigras, you have the floor.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to understand what the parliamentary secretary is attempting to tell us. I can understand. In theory, I am fully in favour of passing tough, clear, strict legislation like some states, such as California, have done, so that our vehicles pollute less. However, do you really think that this is going to solve the public transit funding problem in Canada? The documents you have presented to us today are clear. Just to meet the forecast infrastructure requirements, Canadian public transit carriers already have a shortfall of $6.8 billion for the next four years.

    I am not opposed to what the parliamentary secretary is saying, but I do not think that is going to solve the chronic problem of public transit and transit operators. I think it is an excellent way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we want sustainable transportation in Canada, and the funding plan proposed last August provided nothing for clean and sustainable transportation. Do you think that we can actually adopt the parliamentary secretary's legislative approach while at the same time increasing funding for public transit infrastructure?

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Diamond.

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: I think that's our whole message, Mr. Chair, that we want sustainable funding for capital, not for operating. Through partnerships with the federal government and the provinces, we think it's very practical and we can do it. We're looking at the funding mechanisms, and we would certainly appreciate your advice on how best to do that so that we can get funding to municipalities through the GST.

    You should know that in the case of Ottawa, which I know best, we're very happy to see the GST rebate to 100%, and Ottawa has already declared that this will go solely for transit capital and nothing else. Although it came with no strings--and I think Toronto might be looking at what, $70 million or something of that nature?--I hope everybody sees the wisdom of doing that.

    The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Bigras.

    Mr. Hubbard, a second round?

    Madame Marleau, followed by Mr. Reed.

    Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): I believe transit is an important factor in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But you're coming to us here. In essence, are you coming to us because the provinces--and I know they've done this in Ontario--have gotten out of funding public transit?

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: The answer is no. Some provinces have led the way. British Columbia provides almost 12¢ per litre for sales for Coast Mountain Bus, which is basically the bus and train system for the greater Vancouver area--12¢ a litre.

    Alberta gives dedicated fuel tax to both Calgary and Edmonton. Quebec has done the same. So we're asking for the rest of the provinces to see the wisdom of that.

º  (1625)  

    Hon. Diane Marleau: You're asking them to do the same thing. Ontario doesn't do that.

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: Ontario does not, at the moment, but we understand they're talking about it.

    Hon. Diane Marleau: I'm questioning, because I worry that when the provinces leave a field, we're expected then to take over.

    You said that in Ottawa your ridership was extremely high and your buses were too full. What would happen if a municipality decided, like they do in Europe, to have off days? If you have an odd-numbered licence plate, you can't drive that day, and so on. I don't know if anyone has tried that in North America, and I don't know whether the public transit system could stand that kind of pressure. I know in South America all they do is get two cars; they have different licence plates, and they just switch cars--which doesn't help in regard to pollution. But I'm asking just because it might be one thing to consider.

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: I think Marco wants to answer that.

    Mr. Marco D'Angelo: Certainly it's not key to policy to advocate for that. However, we do have a number of different programs that we work on with our transit systems to help increase ridership, to raise awareness.

    We're very interested in trying to change the behaviour of individual Canadians to make transit more appealing, rather than using more of a forceful way that you mentioned.

    As well, the provinces are also coming onside in a way they haven't in a very long time. We're hearing from almost every province now that they are interested. They're either already funding transit or they're willing to sit at the table.

    As to the federal government, Canada is the only G-7 country that does not provide direct federal funding for transit. So it's not that we're asking the federal government to make up for the provinces; we're asking the federal government to come to the table and fund transit.

    The United States puts in a lot of money for urban transit. For example, when a bus turns 12 years of age, there's a cheque from the U.S government to replace it. I believe our fleet average age is over 15 years. There are subway cars in Montreal that are 40 years old. There's a bus that was retired in Windsor--I was talking to someone from Windsor--that was 32 years old.

    That's why we're here today. We believe the federal government needs to come to the table and help provide a sustainable investment in public transit.

    Hon. Diane Marleau: But how would that ensure equity across the country?

    I represent the riding of Sudbury. We live away from Toronto. We already pay more for gas; we already pay more for goods, for transportation. How would you ensure that there was some equity in Sudbury, which is close enough to Toronto? Imagine if you live in P.E.I. or some other part of the country that is very far away.

    You have to ensure that there's some equity here.

    Mr. Marco D'Angelo: The survey that we put out on Monday covered 100 transit systems across Canada. So that included the transit system in Sudbury and it identified its needs. So that part of how to get the money from A to B is something that I believe would come out of the federal-provincial negotiations that we hope would take place, and they're the best ones to decide how that's distributed.

    Our job is to ensure that we speak up for systems such as Sudbury's, which has identified several needs. They gave that to us, and we've incorporated it into the report that you have today.

    So it does include Sudbury. It includes all the systems in Canada.

    Hon. Diane Marleau: Has anybody considered that urban sprawl is also a problem?

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: I might speak to that in the case of Ottawa. The major mission of the development department in Ottawa is to curtail urban sprawl. It's not giving authorization for masses of boxes to be spread out all over the countryside. Densification is our major objective, and maximum use of transit is a key figure in that. So if you look at the Ottawa 2020 smart growth plan, it's all about that.

    I might also just add, to put it in perspective, that the U.S. Senate just passed last Wednesday the authorization for $57 billion for transit for the next six years. It has to get through the House, I appreciate, but that's the kind of number that comes from the U.S. federal government out of $310 billion for transportation, highways, and other things. So it's a lot of money.

    The Chair: Merci, Madame Marleau.

    Mr. Reed.

    Mr. Julian Reed: Thank you very much.

    I wish your people would come to Toronto and knock a few heads together about urban sprawl, because the Ontario Municipal Board has just screwed up what is otherwise not bad planning.

    I live just west of Toronto, and I'm in the midst of the fastest growth area in Canada right at the moment. I can tell you, if anything was ever anti-public-transit, it's the kind of growth that's taking place there at the present time. I was going to ask whether you interact with the Ontario Municipal Board when developers want to change official plans to suit themselves.

    How do you feel about the success of the designated lanes that you have? I know your transitways work. You must be satisfied with the way they work, but I just wonder how well the designated lanes are working.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: On your first question, our city government's having equal challenges with the Ontario Municipal Board on that same subject. Hopefully we will be successful. I don't know what it's like in other provinces.

    The dedicated transit lanes are very effective. If you go to Orleans on the 174 on that transit lane, or out to Kanata, if there's a hockey game on at the Corel Centre, you're very lucky if you're in a transit lane; you'd otherewise be there for an hour. But it's not optimum. A dedicated, grade-separated transitway for the buses themselves would be optimum, but the dedicated lanes are the next best thing.

    The Chair: Ms. Neville, would you like to ask a question? No?

    Monsieur Marcil.

[Translation]

    The Hon. Serge Marcil: If I understand correctly, it is a matter of 3¢ per litre. All of that money could be reinvested in public transit, which is greener, that is, cleaner. I would like to point out that the Government of Canada has already given the provinces over $12 billion for infrastructure. The provinces decide how to use that money. We have just announced a full GST rebate for municipalities, and we expect to negotiate a partial gas tax rebate with the provincial governments. Each province is going to have to choose how to invest what it gets back. Otherwise, instead of a 3¢ per litre increase, the Government of Canada could choose to reduce the tax by 3¢ per litre in order to allow the provinces to increase their tax by 3¢ per litre and to use that for public transit.

    All of that is in fact at issue. You know, when it comes to the Government of Canada's surpluses, people often say to give part of that back to the provinces. As a matter of fact, the Government of Canada should lower its taxes, withdraw from almost all joint programs and allow the provinces a broader tax base by allowing them to tax.

    What I like is the idea of giving back 3¢ per litre to the provinces or municipalities; that could help. There would have to be a guarantee that this money would be reinvested in public transit. We agree on that, but I remind you that the provinces have the power to choose what steps to take for public transit and that the municipalities also have the power to choose what kind of public transit they can afford. The government and provincial governments are currently assisting major urban centres through transfers of money for public transit. Obviously, there is never enough money, but I think that we are all speaking the same language and that we all share the same goal: to achieve the greatest possible reduction in greenhouse gases by investing in public transit so as to take as many vehicles as possible off the roads.

    We could also do more to promote or even require car pooling. We could install toll booths, and anyone with two or three passengers in their car would not pay, nor would buses. Single passenger cars would be required to pay. All kinds of steps or rules could be implemented. All recommendations will be considered. In the context of the Canadian movement in favour of reaching the Kyoto goals, surely there are similar steps that will be promoted by our partners.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Diamond, would you like to comment?

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: Thank you.

    I might just comment that in the case of Ottawa--and maybe in other cities as well, but certainly it's Ottawa I know best--again, the mayor and council's number-one priority is transit. It's number one, so that's good.

º  (1635)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Bigras, it is your turn.

    Mr. Bernard Bigras: The purpose of my intervention is to find solutions to reach the goal of 3¢ per litre. We know that currently, the federal government collects 10¢ of excise tax per litre of gasoline sold. We know that in 1995, a tax of 1.5¢ per litre was added to fight the deficit.

    Given that the goal of eliminating the deficit has already been reached, would you be in favour of transferring the 1.5¢ per litre and using it to improve public transit? I know that we are not yet at 3¢ per litre, but that still represents half. Do you think that would be part of the solution and that we could come up with other ways of reaching your goals?

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Diamond, you asked committee members for advice. You've now received a suggestion. What is your comment?

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: Sir, we're open to any suggestions at all, and I would leave that decision to the government.

    The Chair: In all fairness to Mr. Bigras, would you like to comment to his political analysis of what could be done?

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: I'll defer to my colleague here. I don't know whether he has anything to say.

    Mr. Marco D'Angelo: Well, we are talking about 3¢ a litre. You know that 1.5¢ was added with the specific purpose, at the time, to fight the deficit.

    It's a fact that the federal government, I think for five or six years now, has been into a surplus. Certainly if that was one of the funding mechanisms where they would look at rededicating that, of course, we're more than happy to talk about it.

    We're really open to any suggestion that will get more dollars into public transit, which so desperately needs it right now.

    The Chair: This concludes the round of questions. I hope you are reasonably satisfied with the direct or indirect way that suggestions were made.

    As far as this chair is concerned, I wouldn't have any difficulty in supporting a 10¢ tax on gasoline, because we live in a fool's paradise as far as the price of gasoline on this continent is concerned. It is badly underpriced. Therefore, any form of taxation that will improve a green behaviour on the part of citizens, even if it means a greater expenditure when it comes to gasoline, I'm sure would then ensure that the one-person-driven vehicles to which Mr. D'Angelo made a reference in his presentation–which are probably nine out of ten vehicles in rush hours, if not more–would be cut perhaps in half. Who knows what would be the economic effect of such a measure?

    I think, however, that some rural representatives in the House of Commons would take an opposite position. Therefore, there is no unanimity on taxation. This is something that, as Mr. Marcil already indicated, will have to be decided by the members of cabinet and by the government at large.

    We will certainly convey your presentation to our colleagues. We thank you for the opportunity of listening to you.

    Mr. Gordon Diamond: Thank you for listening to us, sir.

    The Chair: Could I very briefly bring the members who are still here in this room a quick telegraphic report of the meeting of the steering committee yesterday?

    In essence, what was agreed upon was a number-one priority to deal with Kyoto by calling the Minister of Finance and possibly the Minister of Agriculture. There was an indication or a desire to know what is the composition of cabinet, who is the minister in charge, and who is the chair of the Kyoto cabinet committee.

    The Clerk of the Committee: There isn't one right now.

    The Chair: There isn't. Well, that would make it easier to invite them then.

    The committee is reporting its desire to proceed with Kyoto by calling witnesses, namely the agriculture minister and the finance minister, and in dealing with the one-tonne program and its advertising program. That's number one.

    Number two, the committee, by way of intervention by Mr. Bigras and Mr. Mills, saw the necessity of giving priority to the enlargement of the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, and to the issue of Sumas, by way of ensuring that there is an adequate and comprehensive environmental impact assessment, and that measures be taken to hear the officials on that topic.

    Then, there is number three. Your chair still would like, if you agree, of course, to proceed with a sustainable development strategy, namely, in tandem and in coordination with the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development work, so this committee fulfils that particular mandate to ensure that the 29 departments do comply with the sustainable development policy of the government. To that effect, we were given a suggestion to begin hearings with HRDC, Finance, Environment Canada, and Public Works.

    These are the three items that I would like to submit for your consideration as a full committee. Is there agreement?

º  (1640)  

[Translation]

    The Hon. Serge Marcil: I agree. There were more of us on the steering committee!

[English]

    The Chair: We will endeavour to implement that particular report as well as we can within the possibilities and the speed the clerk has at his disposal.

    Next Monday, in order to fill our gap, we have a witness lined up. I will give the floor to the clerk to inform us about this.

    The Clerk: It's a witness from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, who requested appearing before us on invasive species. We had a spot open. They've agreed to come.

    I think on Wednesday we'll be hearing from the Department of Natural Resources on the retrofit, and maybe also on the one-time challenge. They might come together, depending.... We're shoring that up.

    HRDC have agreed to come on March 8. They were postponed, but they've agreed to come.

    That's as far as I've gotten. I've got calls out to the ministers who have just been mentioned by the chair.

[Translation]

    Our meetings are still on Mondays and Wednesdays at 3:30 p.m.

[English]

    The Chair: I hope this meets with your approval and that you will rest assured that we'll do our best to implement this first steering committee report.

    Thank you for your support. That's it.

    The meeting is adjourned.