:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to meet with your committee to discuss public transit issues. The Canadian Automobile Association is very pleased to meet with your committee early in its mandate. My colleague Jeff Walker, our vice-president of public affairs, and I would be pleased to take your questions after these remarks.
I am reasonably sure that many, if not most, of the honourable members who serve on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities are among the 5.6 million members of the Canadian Automobile Association. However, let me take a few minutes to explain our organization and the unique perspective we are able to bring to bear on transportation issues.
Across the country, and in every region, the CAA brand is one of Canada's most recognized and trusted. Our roots go back a century to the early days of the automobile, when motoring enthusiasts would gather together to urge governments to build better roads, install proper signs, and establish reasonable speed limits. Our clubs and our national association were in fact founded by groups of concerned motorists to lobby for safer, better roads. The emergency roadside service and other services CAA is known for today came later. Public policy advocacy on behalf of our members is in our DNA.
[Translation]
Today, we are an affiliation of nine automobile clubs whose members rely upon those individual clubs to deliver exemplary roadside assistance, travel, insurance and member rewards. They also rely on us to deliver honest, reliable information on topics that matter to them, and to make sure decision-makers hear their voices.
[English]
The nine member clubs operate some 130 community offices across Canada and these offices are the delivery points for the visionary, community-focused work that has become CAA's hallmark in every region. By working together with a national organization, the strength of the whole becomes greater than the sum of the nine individual parts.
Here in Ottawa, CAA National works with member clubs to support and protect the CAA brand, including standards that apply to all member clubs, and the accreditation of these member clubs. Where needed, we lend our help to programs and services provided by the clubs. We maintain relations with national and international organizations outside of Canada, such as the American Automobile Association. The national office also provides public education, unbiased information, and a voice in Ottawa to our members on the issues they tell us they care about, from texting while driving to ways to economize on fuel that benefit the pocketbook and the environment to explaining new vehicle technologies such as hybrids and electrics.
The issue of texting while driving illustrates how we work. Our member surveys have identified this as the number one road safety concern of members and the general public alike, surpassing even impaired driving as of last year. As a result of what our members tell us, we have made it a priority to work on this issue. We have launched a youth video contest called Practise Safe Text; we will be convening major experts to discuss the issue next March; and we have done dozens of media interviews to publicize the issue. In doing so we are working with our partners, including Transport Canada, to reach as many people as possible.
We don't just consult our members on road safety issues. In partnership with Harris Decima, we conduct extensive member research surveys twice a year to measure issue awareness, identify topics, gather insight, and as a reality check for where we are directing our programs and activities. We survey 4,000 Canadians each time, both CAA members and the general population. The sample size is designed to be large enough so that we feel we can speak with some confidence on the Canadian public opinion in general.
Equipped with the results of our research, the national office also plays a strong advocacy role at the federal level. Past efforts have included highlighting the importance of road infrastructure, for example, and we were very encouraged when the stimulus package introduced as part of the economic action plan put such a priority on roads.
In all we do, we are informed by the opinions of our members. We are committed to building safe communities that provide mobility to all, not just to better roads, but to a better transportation system for all users. We are committed to mobility.
Our starting point here—and this will be no surprise—is our membership. The average CAA member isn't just a driver, but also takes transit, and even rides a bicycle from time to time. This should not be surprising. Many Canadians, especially those in large urban areas, use transit at least part of the time to get to work. They hop in their vehicle to run errands and ferry the kids to activities at night. And on the weekend when the weather is nice, they haul the bicycles out of the back shed and go for a ride.
[Translation]
That is why we like to talk about mobility. It is a recognition of where modern CAA members—and Canadians—are in their lives today.
[English]
This brings us to the issue of public transit. Mobility is about much more than cars and trucks, roads and bridges. It requires an integrated approach to transportation that includes public transit, passenger rail, and even bike paths.
Our goal at CAA is neither to put more drivers on the highways and roadways nor to tell them that they are misguided if they do not take transit or bikes to work. Our goal is choice and overall mobility for the Canadian population. Efficient, available public transit and bike paths, where they make sense, take vehicles off the road. It is a win-win situation for motorists, shippers, and transit users alike.
According to our most recent research data, 15% of Canadians use public transit as their primary mode of transportation, compared to 76% for the car or truck. The numbers for our members are lower: 90% are primarily drivers, and only 5% rely on transit as their primary means of getting around. But 31% of the general population takes transit at least some of the time, and 23% of our members do the same. Among those who cite transit as their primary mode of transportation, our members take it, on average, 2.8 days per week. The comparable figure for the general public is 3.5 days per week.
Leaving aside these statistics, the plain fact is that the majority of transit in this country runs on roads. How well it functions has a direct bearing on all road users, whether they're on the bus, so to speak, or not.
An improved system of public transit, especially in our major cities, would be welcomed by CAA members. Public transit is an important part of reaching our goal of improving the mobility of our members. They want to spend less time stuck in commuter gridlock. They want driving to be a safer, more efficient, more enjoyable mode of transportation. Public transit helps take cars and trucks off the highways and roadways to the greater advantage of both those who use their personal vehicles and those who use public modes.
We noted with pleasure recent statements that he is committed to working with stakeholders on a future plan to deliver transportation infrastructure funding to Canada's provinces and municipalities.
Based on our experience as a federation, we believe that determining the exact mix of funding, between transit, roads, and other municipal infrastructure for each community, is best left to the provincial and municipal levels.
[Translation]
What is clear however is that stable, long-term funding will allow for proper planning. At CAA, we always try to focus on pragmatic solutions.
[English]
In that spirit, we are agnostic on how the federal government should deliver its share of transit funding. What is important is to achieve the goal of stable, multi-year funding so that funds can be best spent.
We would also ask the government to ensure that its criteria for funding give the provinces and municipalities leeway to invest in longer-term projects. For instance, at CAA we are working with researchers at the University of Calgary and the University of Toronto on so-called intelligent transportation systems that marry roadway video, transit information, GPS, and sophisticated modelling to plan the best possible traffic flow for all users. This allows government to squeeze more volume per kilometre of road, an efficiency that is good for the economy and for individual users.
In closing, I have one more reference to our members' data. Fewer than half our members rate the state of public transit infrastructure in Canada as adequate or better. The actual number is 46%, compared to a barely better 52% among the general population. Surely as a country we can do better.
As a federation of nine clubs, we understand very well that one size does not always fit all.
We know that transportation infrastructure is an area of shared responsibility. We note again commitment to hold up the federal government's end of the bargain, and we stand ready to assist this committee in any way we can in its deliberations.
Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity to speak, and we welcome the committee's questions.
:
Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here today.
Unlike Mr. Nicholls, I have not used my CAA membership card very often, as I never forgot my keys in my car. However, I certainly recognize the importance of your services. You publish splendid, very interesting atlases and they make very nice Christmas gifts.
But seriously, with all of our witnesses—and I am pleased that you are here—we talk a lot about public transit and having a national strategy. But I always get the impression that people are saying that the car and the bus are mutually exclusive. That is one perspective we hear about.
I am happy to hear your comments today, because basically you are saying that one can benefit from public transit while owning a car. Practical reality is important in a national strategy. That is the relationship between the individuals and the services they access. This is the approach I'd like to explore with you today.
Everyone needs money. Currently, there are issues of governance, mobility and the sustainability of infrastructure. For instance, bridges in Montreal are attracting interest because they are falling down. We don't have a choice. Since we don't want them to deteriorate any further, we have to deal with them.
Since you also have to deal with the federation—we put up with it as well, and someone from Quebec could write books on the constitutional aspect of things—what do you think should be the first rung of a strategy? Should we come up with a governance structure involving the various jurisdictions, or should we begin first of all rather by trying to understand each other? I am talking about drivers and public transit users.
[English]
Can we chew gum and walk at the same time?
:
I just want to continue that line of thought about partnerships.
Right now in Whitehorse and St. John's—not big urban centres—they have some buses. Municipalities are saying they can't afford to run all of these buses. There are areas in Whitehorse, for example, that need more bus services, but the municipality does not have enough money to circle the neighbourhoods.
The neighbourhood of Mount Pearl said they too need buses but they can't afford them, so they would love to partner with both the provincial and federal governments—especially the federal government, because the federal government right now is not at the table—to work with them. They are doing the planning. They want the federal government to provide some seed money to help them plan, because they don't have the funds to plan. They would like the federal government to be involved so that after the planning they can say, “Hey, this is what we need. Which part should you folks pay for? Is it buying the buses, fixing the buses, or whatever? What part should the province pay for, and what part should the municipalities pay for?” They want to have that kind of dialogue. Right now there is no table, desk, or forum for that dialogue to take place.
You can call this strategy a plan or policy, it doesn't matter, but there has to be some way for this dialogue to occur. Right now there's a huge vacuum, which is probably why 52% of the public said in your survey that the state of public transit should be better. Fewer than half of your members rate the state of public transit infrastructure as adequate or better because of this vacuum.
Is there anything wrong? Do you not think it's time for the federal government to be involved in that way?
I also have a follow-up question on funding.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
As you can probably tell from the discussion, we probably have the same goals but a different idea of how we should get there. As you correctly surmised, a lot of it revolves around how the federal government contributes to the building of public transit in the country, and from our perspective we're not always happy with choices not necessarily based on a common framework, common ground rules, in terms of funding. I think that's what we're trying to say.
We're not trying to suggest that the government be prescriptive about thou shalt only have this particular type of bus or thou shalt only have.... But we're concerned that different communities get different responses from federal funding or different parts of communities get different responses from federal funding, depending on political decisions, perhaps, or political interference with the decision-making process. That's part of the reason we're proposing that there be a national strategy, that it becomes “agnostic”, is your word--I like it--that it becomes apolitical, that the decision-making in terms of investments in public transit have none of the colour we've seen over the years, particularly in Toronto, where we dig a hole, fill it in, dig it again for the Eglinton subway. Here we go with a lot of money being spent on infrastructure that finally gets built, but 20 years late.
I've heard you agree that there currently isn't enough money in the system. I won't ask you to describe how much money there should be, but ought there to be more and ought it to be as part of a strategy rather than just ad hoc?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Members of the committee, with me is Kelti Cameron. Kelti is a senior research officer for the municipal sector. Also with us is Toby Sanger, our senior economist. If there are any questions arising out of what we say, Toby will assist as well.
We're very privileged to be here, and we'll stick to your timeframes.
CUPE represents over 600,000 Canadians who work mainly in public services. They include about 6,000 urban transit workers who work all across the country.
We're pleased to talk today about public transportation as a pretty fundamental element of an equitable society. It's only through a national strategy, in our view, that we could realize the full benefit of that equity. There are necessary investments required for a truly pan-Canadian public transit system.
Interestingly, it's the number one priority for the Toronto Board of Trade. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has also called for a national strategy. And I read, Mr. Chairman, your encounter last week with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Urban Transit Association. We also want to place Canada in the context of the developed world, the G-8. Significantly more investment in national transit initiatives is happening in other countries than currently exists in Canada.
We recently polled Canadians through the Canadian Labour Congress. Seventy-three percent would support more federal government support for local transit, 92% feel that public transit makes their community a better place to live, and 66% feel that all three levels of government are not working together to implement long-term transit priorities.
Why do we need more investment? I think it's self-evident. Other delegations have spoken to it, but I'll quickly run through a couple of examples.
First, it would reduce the cost of congestion. Estimates for Toronto alone, from an OECD study, suggest that $3.3 billion in savings could be realized by simply reducing congestion.
There are health costs. In Ontario alone, air pollution carries a price tag of $1 billion.
Traffic collision costs and annual vehicle operating expenditures for households could come down with expanded or improved public transit.
We think there are savings for government in the long haul. We think it could be less expensive than our current system, when the social costs of parking are taken into account. Transit is actually one-third to one-half as expensive as automobile use for moving people around from home to work.
I know that all parliamentarians share the collective goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Private automobiles account for 27% of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.
With regard to quality of life and equity issues, I put on the record that lower-income people and recent immigrants rely much more on public transit as part of their regular routine of working, moving their children to child care, and so on.
Under the heading of job creation and stimulus, public transit currently employs over 50,000 Canadians, and indirectly another 24,000 Canadians. The job creation potential of major public transit, such as inner-city rail projects, could be between 9,000 and 14,000 jobs for every billion dollars invested. A recent study concluded that investment in public transportation could potentially create 18% more jobs per dollar invested than road construction or road maintenance. There are long-term economic benefits from investment in something the public needs.
Why do we need a national strategy, as opposed to a local strategy? The economic, social, and environmental impacts, costs, and benefits aren't just local; they are national in scope. National funding is needed, not exclusively but as part of the mix to improve public transit. And there are huge equity and access issues for all Canadians. It truly is a pan-Canadian issue.
What would the goals of a national public transit strategy be, beyond those in the draft legislation, ?
Number one would be adequate long-term funding. We agree with the Canadian Urban Transit Association's submission.
Number two would be increased access and affordability. Individual Canadians currently pay higher public transit costs than most other G-8 nations. It is 62%, compared to 39% in the United States.
Collaboration among all levels of government is desirable and needed on this pan-Canadian issue, and the added benefits of integrated transportation and land use planning we think should be a principle of a national public strategy. We also propose, at the federal level, research in information sharing. What one community learns from a project can and should be shared as part of a national strategy, and there should be accountability to ensure funding meets these objectives.
Wrapping up very quickly, we think an additional public priority that was not stated or not clearly stated in the proposed legislation is that public transit must be public in financing and public in operation. There is a significant role for the private sector in the capitalization of needed public transit expansion, but there are plenty of examples from around the globe of private financing not being an option, especially now when we're living in historically low-interest-rate borrowing times for the public sector. We've seen some big mistakes where the public sector gets left with the bill—the London Underground and Metronet so-called public-private partnership, for example. The City of Ottawa here just settled a lawsuit—almost $37 million—after a previous light rail P3 project was cancelled. I notice that the current mayor of Toronto has ditched the city transit proposal from the former administration. He says his new subway line is going to be funded with private financing, and he's having a hard time finding that private financing.
So we live in precarious economic times. There has never been a more efficient period of time for the public sector collectively—not just the federal government but all levels of government—to invest in our society through public transit at very economical rates.
Public transit that exists in Canada is a good deal for many Canadians. There's a huge demand for increased public transit, especially in the growing part of Canada, the 20 urban centres that now house over 80% of the population. And that percentage is rising. Ninety percent of the immigrants coming to our country are in those 20 major urban centres. I agree with Brock Carlton, who was here just recently. All of those communities have huge infrastructure needs. Today we're focused on public transit, but we need a shared experience in Canada to make effective progress on the funding of infrastructure—in this case public transit. The entire infrastructure challenge can't be funded through property taxes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you very much for the question.
First of all, as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has said, about a quarter of CUPE's membership, about 150,000 to 160,000 members, are municipal employees. For the eight years I have been in this job, I have attended all of the conventions and events held by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Mayors and councillors from across Canada cannot meet their infrastructure and public transit needs off the property tax base. Many communities have had responsibilities put onto the property tax base for which it was never intended. They respectfully speak—and the meetings are always respectful—to all political parties. The four major parties, including the Green Party of Canada, are invited every year to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities meeting, and public transit has been a big part of their overall infrastructure submissions. They said here a week ago, in your presence, that the gas tax has been welcomed and it has been embedded by the current government as an ongoing fix of revenue, but there is no escalator clause built into it, and that's needed.
With regard to the space created by the cuts in the GST, it has been said notionally by some federal spokesmen that that's available for junior levels of government. Well, municipalities do not have the authority.... As the chairperson notes--he and I come from the same province--65% of the population in Manitoba lives in one community, Winnipeg. Well, the mayor of Winnipeg wants a 1% increase in the sales tax but he has no authority to make that happen.
Nothing really happens in Canada without the federal, provincial, and, I would argue strongly, the municipal governments having a seat at the table to talk about stabilizing funding. I could live with the Canadian Urban Transit Association's submission that one cent of the two cents the current government has cut off the GST be dedicated to public transit. That is one of the options.
:
Thank you very much. I didn't answer that the first time you asked it.
We have an incredible responsibility on behalf of the people who work in public transit to make the most efficient system possible, to embrace change if communities are going to move from traditional busing to light rail or other systems. We have pretty sound relationships. We have 3,900 relationships across Canada in the form of collective agreements with towns, municipalities, everything from the cities of Montreal and Toronto to small communities. All of them want to work with us to varying degrees when it comes to making changes to the system. We are quite open to doing that. Some relationships are better than others.
When we lobby federally, we talk about infrastructure funding not from the point of view of CUPE. CUPE members don't do capital works. That's not our point. Our point is that we work with maintaining systems that are falling apart. Canada is a big producer of conventional buses. My own hometown produces some of the best products in the world. We need to align all levels of government, but not to trample on the jurisdiction of provinces or get into a constitutional debate. That's a waste of everybody's time.
The municipalities are preachers of their provinces, legislatively. As somebody who represents workers at the municipal level, fixing rail lines and buses, we are fixing things in some cities that should have been replaced a long time ago. We see changes in government like we've seen in Toronto and we are not sure what the future holds.
Beyond negotiating for wages and benefits for folks, CUPE has a responsibility to be part of the solution and to broaden sources of revenue beyond property taxes. We won't have a national public transit system if the solution lies with property taxes, and there will be a revolt in the country. That is not the solution. There are more progressive ways for us to collaborate. I think the country is screaming for all three levels of government to collaborate on many issues, from health care to the environment, including public transit.