Government Operations Committee on July 29th, 2026

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Absolutely, Mr. Chair.

I certainly hope I'm not getting under anyone's skin when I bring up the idea that this looks like an appeasement. We have an obligation as opposition members to get to the bottom of how this negotiation happened. What is in the deal? If we have, on one hand, the Prime Minister telling us something that was clearly not true, and now on the other hand, he is telling us something else, how do we know which of those things we can move forward on? I think this is a very reasonable motion through which to ask for clarity.

What I would ask my Liberal colleagues is this: If you are so proud of this deal, and if you are so proud of the work that the Prime Minister and our ministers have done in negotiating this deal, then why would you not want an opportunity for the ministers to share that information with Canadians through this committee and through this motion? It seems to me that is a reasonable thing.

If you believe this is such a good-news story, as I've heard you say, I would think you would like the idea of bringing forward ministers so they can share your good-news story. It seems to me that when we have Liberal members of Parliament—members of this committee—not even trying to amend the motion but simply disagreeing with the motion in its entirety, that means you don't want to be held accountable for this agreement.

That's a problem, because Canadians want to know the details. They deserve to know the details. The confusion that was sowed by the Prime Minister already needs to be clarified. In fact, I'm curious why my colleague Mr. Albas didn't include the Prime Minister among the witnesses for this testimony. It would be nice to hear from him at a time when he doesn't have a cowboy hat on.

This is a pattern with the government. This is a pattern we have seen with the lack of transparency and clarity and the misinformation or disinformation coming from different ministers and the Prime Minister. The idea that an issue as big as this and as important as this to our economy.... We need the ability to ask ministers questions about it, to get to the bottom of it and to get some clarity on how this deal was struck, what Canadians are benefiting from and what Canadians are paying.

This is the motion, so for my part, New Democrats support this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Ms. McPherson.

We'll now go to Ms. Lantsman, and after Ms. Lantsman, we'll go back to Mr. Danko.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to speak to the motion. I'm going to suggest that the reason you hear filibustering about the bridge—we all agree, of course, that the opening is a good thing—is that they don't want to actually talk about the motion. Let's get right back into the motion, because it's a good motion about governance and about what Canadians deserve to know. In it, we ask a few questions, and I'll go through them.

What's included in the agreement refers to “all incurred operating costs of the bridge”. The problem is that the agreement never defines this. Whether it's public or not, it is deliberately left vague. That's what we're asking about. Reporters pushed officials on this. The closest thing to a definition we got was the Prime Minister's Office describing things like toll booths, maintenance or snow removal, but we don't actually know. That's exactly why we've brought this committee meeting forward.

Most notably, the text of the agreement doesn't define operating costs. It doesn't mention Canada's debt, which is the crux of all the outstanding questions that Canadians want answers to. He's implied that debt repayment comes off the top before any split, but the text doesn't say that either. That's why the question about governance is the first question we have in the motion.

I know that members opposite have referred to this being a public document. I hope they've read it so they can follow along.

Let's go to a question about clause 2, on what “objects” means for the Canada-U.S. economic development fund. There is nothing specific in it. It is a placeholder. The clause just says that Canada and the U.S. will “reasonably agree” on the fund's objects later. It's only that they must benefit the United States and Canada-U.S. trade. That's as clear as mud, which is exactly why we want to use Parliament and this committee to get to the bottom of this with officials.

We'll go to the third piece, clause 3. As per clause 3(a), what “comparable regional crossings” will be used to determine whether toll rates are above the average of such crossings? The agreement doesn't name them. That's the problem. That's what we want to hear from officials—from ministers and from those who were responsible for negotiating this agreement. It's just a phrase in the agreement, “average comparable regional crossings”, and a benchmark without listing the crossings count.

The obvious competitors for crossings in my colleague's neighbourhood of Windsor-Detroit are the Ambassador Bridge and the Detroit Windsor Tunnel. Since the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority has set the toll rates for cars and commercial vehicles, and since those are below the privately owned competitor, which is the Ambassador Bridge—we now know they're friends of President Trump—they're charging eight dollars for personal vehicles versus $14 on the Ambassador Bridge. However, “comparable” isn't fully defined. That's a built-in point for future disagreement. That's exactly what we want officials to answer. None of this has been answered by any of the government members on this committee.

We'll go to another question on governance. How will dispute resolution proceed if there is a disagreement about these toll charges? There isn't really any dispute resolution in this process. It's a consent and clock mechanism that's worked in.

When Canada proposes a toll increase of over 10%, that pushes it above the regional average, or a decrease pushes it below it. If the U.S. gets a 30-day window to consent or object and Washington says nothing, then the consent is automatically given. However, the text of the agreement, which we want officials to speak to, doesn't actually talk about what happens if the U.S. objects. There's no arbitrator. There's no path to dispute resolution. Despite that agreement all being public, none of this is on the record.

These are all questions that have been asked of departments and the government. There are no answers to these questions, so we're using our parliamentary committee to get to the bottom of this.

Finally, as per clause 5, notwithstanding the details that remain to be finalized, what specifics have been agreed to regarding the repayments, the timing, the calculation methods, the auditing, the reporting, the enforcement and the dispute settlement? Those are all questions that Canadians have about this deal.

This is the most revealing clause, actually. Clause 5 says, “Officials will develop and finalize the legal, financial and administrative arrangements necessary to implement this Agreement”. We want to hear from those officials about what that implementation—“as expeditiously as possible”—looks like.

That's the entire clause. Payments, timing, calculations and methods are not specified in the agreement yet, despite the agreement being public, as you have said so many times in your talking points. Only the fifty-fifty, 15-year headline split is set. The mechanisms are all TBD, so that's what Canadians have questions about. What are these mechanisms? Auditing and reporting are not addressed at all in the agreement. Enforcement is not addressed at all in the agreement. Dispute settlement is not addressed beyond the toll consent clause that I just spoke about, clause 3. All of these questions still remain.

This reads like a term sheet, and the Prime Minister would understand the difference. It's not a finished contract. What Canadians deserve to know, with a $6.4-billion investment of their tax money that hasn't been accounted for in the fiscal framework at all, is what all of this means. When does it happen?

When the Prime Minister is asked about it and repeatedly misleads the Canadian public.... That's why this committee is important. That's why it's important to hear from officials. Perhaps they are not officials on the other side who were part of the negotiating team. In fact, I'm certain they are not. Perhaps they are not officials on the other side who understand the intricacies of this agreement. Perhaps Canadians will have a whole lot more questions after their interjections in this committee than when they started.

We all know the bridge is good for the economy. I will give you that. I'm going to amend the motion to give the Liberals everything they wanted and everything they've asked for here in this committee. I want to amend the motion so that it adds, after “Bridge Authority”, point e. If you want to talk about the economy and fully understand it, I'm going to amend it to read, “e. Additional witnesses that will help the committee fully understand the economic impact of the deal, including from impacted businesses and workers”.

I think that should take care of all the talking points you've put forward on the table, and we can answer the last five questions that I've asked, which haven't been answered by anybody on this committee representing the government. They are questions that I think Canadians want to know the answers to, and they are questions that are still outstanding after continued misleading statements by the Prime Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks. Do you have that amendment in writing? You can send it to the clerk or read it back slowly for the analysts, unless they caught it.

Let's hear the amendment first, and then we can suspend for a couple of seconds. We're adding point e.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I'm moving that the motion be amended, after the words “Bridge Authority”, with the following: “e. Additional witnesses that will help the committee fully understand the economic impact of the deal, including from impacted businesses and workers”. I think with that, you can probably support the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're going to be on the amendment. I'll start a speaking list on the amendment. I have Ms. Gaudreau first for the amendment, and then it's Mr. Danko, Mr. Albas, Ms. Desrochers and Mr. Lewis.

Do we still need to suspend? It's one simple line.

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Can we make it one minute?

We're suspended quickly, for one minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you for your patience. We are back in session.

We are on the amendment. The speaking order is Madame Gaudreau and then Mr. Danko.

Madame Gaudreau, the floor is yours.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the beginning of my remarks, which was an hour and a half ago already, I was really talking about the principle. I still agree with that principle.

I obviously learned that the agreement in principle was public, although I had read it on July 22. So I've had an hour, and I must admit that I didn't listen to all the speeches, but I can tell you that I've been working very hard to unpack the agreement.

It is perfectly normal to want to get to the bottom of this. I also have some questions that I'm sure my colleagues won't be able to answer.

For example, article 1 provides for payments equal to 50% of net revenues—that's correct, we know that—for the first 15 fiscal years with no conditions on debt repayment. Yes, that contradicted what had previously been indicated. That's one point. What information do we have today? It's not enough. Yes, article 1, if you read it, is specific. It really focuses on the first 15 years, but it doesn't define net revenues without reference to capital. In addition, it puts those payments outside the 2012 framework, even though we're being told that the 2012 agreement remains intact. I'll continue for a bit. I don't understand. That's not what I see. So, on reading it, it's clear that these payments will go on for 15 years. That's fine. We understand that.

There is another interpretation that is legally possible, but it has to be confirmed by implementation arrangements. When it comes to risk management and the management of public funds, audit information is needed. For example, what is the exact date of the first payment to the U.S. fund? When is it due? We don't know. Does the repayment of Canadian contributions constitute a deduction when calculating net revenues? We don't know. Why does article 1 not mention the condition publicly announced by the Prime Minister regarding the full repayment of the debt? Will the payments be made by the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority or directly by the federal treasury? I have so many questions. For example, if the U.S. refuses to adjust tariffs, will that have to be justified and reasonable?

I see four major problems with the agreement. I did a cursory analysis in the last hour. There is a possible discrepancy between the Prime Minister's statements and the published text. We want to know more. That is perfectly legitimate. The priority given to Canadian taxpayers' repayments, as planned in 2022, could have a negative economic impact. The United States has been granted the power to approve certain toll decisions. I think it is very much in our interest to find out more about that. My final point is that we want to know what legal and financial instruments need to be defined to measure enforceability and real costs. My colleague spoke about this earlier.

In view of all that, we really need to meet to discuss the matter. Now, as far as this motion is concerned, there was an amendment, which is what we're talking about now. However, I would go even further. If we can reach an agreement to shed light on the situation for our constituents, I think we can achieve this by the middle of summer. I spent many hours working here in Parliament throughout July 2020. I have no problem sitting through the summer, but I'm very aware that we can plan and we can give the government time to do its homework and be accountable. In addition, the Parliamentary Budget Officer will be able to provide us with information, and the ministers concerned will also be able to attend. This is a proposal. I think it could be a win-win for everyone.

Otherwise, we'll be packing up and heading home three minutes from now. The opposition members won't get any answers, and the government will go into hiding, precisely because it doesn't have all the answers. Negotiations often happen very quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you very much, Madame Gaudreau. We have resources until about 4 p.m., so we won't disappear quite so fast.

I have Mr. Danko, and then we'll go over to Mr. Albas.

Mr. Danko, go ahead on the amendment, please.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I note that you made the trip from Edmonton for this meeting in Ottawa. It's very appreciated that you did that.

I appreciate the discussion this afternoon. I'll note that the sitting members of the government operations and estimates committee from the opposition are present, and there are alternatives filling in today. We had the former member for Carleton grace us with his presence. I guess there's nothing important going on in Battle River—Crowfoot during the summer when we're spending time in our constituencies. It's interesting that he was here for this meeting.

A lot of this is politics, and I understand that, but if we're talking about the amendment on the table—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I apologize for interrupting.

Colleagues, Mr. Danko has the floor.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

If we're talking about the amendment on the table and the impacts of the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge on businesses and workers, I'm going to go back to the comments from Premier Doug Ford in Ontario, who understands this issue very clearly and obviously had a much clearer understanding than the Leader of the Opposition. He said that this agreement will allow approximately 300 billion dollars' worth of goods to move across the border, creating opportunities and jobs, and that the Prime Minister “did an excellent job getting this deal done”.

If we talk specifically about what that means for Canada, for Ontario, for the United States and for Michigan, it means faster and more reliable trade, more predictable delivery schedules, reduced shipping delays, reduced fuel costs, a lower risk of supply chain disruptions for just-in-time deliveries and greater resilience if there is a problem with another crossing.

That was one of the imperatives that led to the construction of the Gordie Howe bridge in the first place. Following 9/11, there was a realization that Canada's most important border crossing with our most important trade partner was at risk of redundancy if there was a problem at the Ambassador Bridge.

It also means stronger manufacturing and supply chains, as I said, to keep factories supplied with parts. There are highly integrated manufacturing sectors on both sides of the border, and it will reduce production interruptions and support manufacturers throughout Ontario and Michigan.

On increasing opportunities for Canadian workers, I talked in my initial comments about the impact that the value of the construction of this project had, but moving forward there will be improvements in trucking and logistics, expanded warehousing and distribution, and state-of-the-art customs facilities for streamlining the goods being transferred on both sides of the border and for making sure that inspections are up to date and that contraband, guns and drugs are seized at the border.

We have a number of members from the Windsor area here today, and I thank them for joining us at committee this afternoon. Specifically for businesses in Windsor and the surrounding areas benefiting from the increased economic opportunity, there will be more customers for hotels, restaurants and retailers, increased demand for transportation and logistics, and an overall greater investment in industrial and commercial development in those specific geographic areas on both sides of the border.

We already talked about lower transportation costs. When this bridge was originally proposed, the Province of Ontario made over $1 billion in highway improvements to ensure that there were seamless connections to the province of Ontario and the Canadian highway network. The same was done on the U.S. side, so you have a seamless connection between I-75 going south and the 400-series highways in Ontario, which is of critical importance for the quality of life in Windsor and Detroit, as it takes transport truck traffic off city streets and puts it onto the 400-series highways and the interstate highways, where it should be.

Finally, there is the increase in investment confidence that this certainty brings to businesses and workers on both sides of the border. That is probably the number one thing we are dealing with right now as a country and as Canadians—the ongoing uncertainty with the United States. We should all be very proud that getting this bridge open and finalizing this deal has created certainty in this critical trade corridor so that businesses on both sides of the border can now have certainty when it comes to cross-border trade.

I'll leave my comments there. I'm sure my colleagues will have some additional things to say on the amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll go to Mr. Albas and then to Ms. Desrochers.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm certainly happy to hear that there is one federal Liberal who still talks positively about Doug Ford and what he feels about transportation. I'm sure he'll go to bed feeling better about that.

This is simply it. The motion and the amendment were obviously tabled so that the government could have some comfort. The motion and the amendment were written to give members of the Liberal Party a bit of comfort. It may be cold comfort, but it still is comfort that they could have something where they could talk about.... They are obviously opposed to any scrutiny whatsoever when it comes to this deal. To me, that says right away that there's something wrong here. They've known it from the beginning. The fact that they wouldn't mention or speak to the motion and rarely spoke to the amendment shows that they are opposed.

I would encourage all members to vote for it, but let's just get to a vote. Let's let democracy happen here. Let's let our constituents know whether we are with them in transparency and doing our jobs or whether you'll just be cynical about it and vote against it because you want to cover for the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Ms. Desrochers, the floor is yours.

Thanks, Mr. Albas.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak again.

Out of respect for the members who have travelled to be here, but who should be in their ridings right now and speaking with their constituents, I would just like to make one point. Some members have suggested that we are filibustering, but that's not at all what we're doing. I thank my colleagues for proposing the amendment in question, because that's what we've been talking about from the beginning.

However, I would just like to point out, as did my colleague, that the leader of the official opposition was here for about 20 minutes, which took up some of the committee's time. Unfortunately, that time could have been used to discuss this motion.

In light of that, I move that the meeting be adjourned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

There is a motion to adjourn. We'll take a vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That has carried. We are adjourned.