Public Accounts Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[Stephanie Hébert]

In terms of eligible applicants, we work really closely with provinces and territories. We work really closely with the private sector. We also work closely with indigenous organizations and not-for-profit groups. There are many entities that are able to participate in and benefit from the program.

It's a program in which we've been funding all different modes, be it marine, rail, road or air. Oftentimes, we also will have multimodal projects, which really speaks to the interconnectedness. Part of it, too, is about the movement of goods and the movement of people.

Just to give a tangible, concrete example, through the national trade corridors fund, we are funding a road project with the Province of Nova Scotia. This is the Trans-Canada Highway, Highway 104. It's really about tackling a bottleneck that we were seeing on the highway. We know that this was an area where we had 15,000 vehicles, including 5,000 trucks. When you have that trade alongside the vehicle traffic, that can become a safety issue, so it was really important that we tackle that.

We knew that in tackling that jointly with the Province of Nova Scotia, we were actually facilitating trade and the movement of goods in the Atlantic region. This was an area where we saw 50% of the trade going up to Newfoundland. We were able to see how these strategic investments led to a safer transportation system, but also helped move and enable the movement of goods and the safe movement of people.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

How has the fund helped attract private sector investment to transportation infrastructure in Canada?

[Stephanie Hébert]

One of the characteristics embedded in the program is that the federal government is not the sole funder for projects. We provide a percentage of funding and our funding has been able to leverage funding from other sources, be it public sources or private sources.

Through the $4 billion that the federal government has invested, we have been able to leverage over $10 billion overall. I think that really has made these investments go much farther, but it also just makes sure that we're working very closely and collaboratively with our partners in the transportation system.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

That is the time, unfortunately.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné now has the floor for six minutes.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General and the Department of Transport for being here.

This report is very nuanced because it shows both the positive and negative sides of the national trade corridors fund. However, it does not show, as that is obviously not its role, that Canada is woefully behind in transportation. It does not show that Canada is light years behind the modern world when it comes to rail transportation compared with other parts of the world.

Ms. Hébert, you mentioned transportation safety several times, whether it be the safety of goods or the safety of individuals. This committee has considered that issue a number of times in rail transportation, as well as Transport Canada's work in that area. It is clear that this committee has received only incomplete, if any, answers to its questions on rail safety.

A lot of money has been invested in the national trade corridors fund, although only a tiny portion of what was budgeted has actually been invested. Why have you not invested that money in rail safety? Why not take the time to answer this committee when it asks you questions as crucial as those that could help prevent spills and explosions, like the one in Lac-Mégantic, which unfortunately cost human lives just a few years ago?

Please answer our questions.

[Stephanie Hébert]

To answer your question, I will give you some figures and details about the national trade corridors fund program. I can also ask my colleagues to talk a bit about other programs that Transport Canada is implementing to improve rail safety in collaboration with the communities.

Projects that help improve the fluidity of trade by rail is one area that we have focused on. We have over 43 rail projects that we are doing. We have invested about $475 million.

Some of these will include additional capacity—the additional ability to move goods—but oftentimes it's also about grade crossings. It's also about how these trade corridors intersect with communities and how to make sure that is safe. Through these investments, we are helping to support that through the national trade corridors fund.

As I mentioned earlier, we also deliver other programs. We would be happy to provide the committee with the information on the projects that have been funded through these other programs to increase rail safety. These are projects that we are carrying out jointly with the communities.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you for the answer.

In many cases, it is not really a question of new investments, but rather of enforcing the rules in place.

We have repeatedly asked questions about the compliance rates of various modes of transportation that have not been verified. The committee did not receive the 2022-23 compliance rates. We have received no response despite the various calls we have made to Transport Canada. I am all for hearing about new investments—all the better if there are any—but the problem is that we don't even have answers about the enforcement of existing legislation to be able to guarantee safety.

Once again, it is good to hear about new programs and other programs that will surely, perhaps or eventually help the Quebec economy and the Canadian economy, but what about safety? It should take precedence.

[Stephanie Hébert]

Mr. Chair, what I would say is that in my role as ADM of programs, I am responsible for working with different organizations and communities, including railway operators, to look at projects to increase the fluidity of the supply chain, as well as the safety of our rail operations.

With regard to the question—

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Can you give me some concrete examples? For example, when you say you're working on rail safety, do you have any concrete examples for me?

[Stephanie Hébert]

Mr. Chair, I want to be very careful about not stepping out of my mandate in responding to the question. In my mandate, I'm responsible for program delivery. I don't do the safety and security oversight.

What I can tell you, though, is that rail safety is a priority for Transport Canada. It is something we are committed to. There are a number of measures that the department has put in place, like lowering train speeds in metropolitan areas. In terms of strengthening train security and uncontrolled movements, there are a number of different requirements that are put in place.

However, I am not the ADM of safety and security. If I spoke to these different elements, I would really be stepping out of my authority.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

That will be all, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay, thank you very much.

Up next is Mr. Desjarlais.

You have six minutes.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the auditors and their team for producing this audit. It's not often, to the government's credit, that a program has received such a, let's call it, positive review.

There are some recommendations present here, and we've heard from the transport officials that they accept those recommendations. I hope those recommendations, particularly with regard to transparency, are actually met.

I want to turn my attention to the principle of collective bargaining, something that Transport Canada is likely well aware of. It's a constitutional right for Canadians. Everyone in the transport ministry is likely aware that the greatest risk to our supply chains isn't just the crumbling infrastructure that this program, I'm happy to note, deals with but the actual treatment of who operates that infrastructure, who operates those trains and who works on the rails.

You're likely aware that there's an existing strike. It's a strike that's put the good workers, the Teamsters, in a position where they're being forced to get to a new collective agreement. My understanding is that the collective agreement is being delayed. Just in the past few hours, for example, there's been a concern that the government, through Transport Canada, may recommend back-to-work legislation. This is an area in which we often see Liberals and Conservatives join forces. They love to legislate workers back to work. They love to make sure that workers never have a chance to actually make powerful paycheques.

The Conservatives like to talk about powerful paycheques—don't get me wrong. They say that Canadians need powerful paycheques, but they never speak about how you get powerful paycheques. I'll inform Conservative members that you get powerful paycheques by making sure we have powerful unions. Powerful unions get powerful paycheques.

The Premier of Alberta is looking to the Prime Minister to be an ally. She wrote a letter to him on May 6. The premier wrote:

The Government of Canada must do everything in its power to support the parties in reaching negotiated settlements. In the event of a work stoppage, your government must be prepared to use all the tools at its disposal to terminate it rapidly, including, if necessary, back-to-work legislation.

This is an example of the corporate coalition that has existed in Ottawa and that has put workers into the ground for generations. As a member of our country's labour party, I am deeply concerned by this issue. While Canadians are faced with the cost of living crisis, we see the potential of a massive disruption to our supply chains because companies, like the mega-profitable CN Rail, which just generated in the last 12 months over $9 billion in profit, do not want to give their fair share of money.

I know it's likely that the representatives here will suggest this is outside their mandates, but before they comment on that, I would suggest that the Constitution, which all of us here are sworn to protect, is a mandate that all of us must uphold.

In any of your conversations with the deputy minister you report to, have you ever, in particular with respect to your mandate of creating resiliency in our supply chains to prevent disruption, in any way, shape or form contemplated recommendations that would protect workers' rights to collective bargaining?

[Stephanie Hébert]

Mr. Chair, what I can say in terms of where I am involved and how I support is that, first of all, we do monitor and track when there is potential for a labour disruption and the impact that can have on a supply chain. What I can say to the committee is that we do work very closely with Labour Canada in these particular situations.

Second, we also work with partners in the federal family to look at how we can make sure that Canadians have access to quality jobs, where there are labour shortages and how we can provide opportunities to fill those labour shortages within the transportation sector. That is another area we support.

The third and last point is that we have a newly stood-up supply chain office, which is working very closely with all partners within the supply chain continuum.

Just to be—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Ms. Hébert, I have to stop you just because of the time. Don't get me wrong; I do appreciate your answer. I appreciate your commitment to making certain that in the instance, for example, of a supply chain disruption by way of a labour dispute, that.... My question, more particular to that issue, is whether you have recommended in that review that there be no instance in which constitutional rights for workers be suspended or whether you have, in fact, recommended that the constitutional rights of workers be suspended.

[Stephanie Hébert]

Mr. Chair, my job, my role and my focus are about the management of the national trade corridors fund. In this particular instance, my recommendations would specifically pertain to funding and different projects that we would recommend funding.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Do you support the constitutional right of workers to collectively bargain?

[Stephanie Hébert]

I think, Mr. Chair, what I've said previously is that Transport Canada will work very closely with our colleagues in Labour Canada as we navigate this and any potential labour disruption, and we will balance that with other considerations. We will work closely through our colleagues at Labour Canada.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

It massively disrupts workers' ability to properly collectively bargain when they know, like Premier Danielle Smith is recommending, that the government can just pull out a card that says they're going back to work, that they're not getting the safety they're asking for, that they're not going to get the wages they're asking for, that they're not going to get the work-life balance they're asking for.

The crux of the issue here is that we need to have a whole-of-government approach to upholding our constitutional rights for Canadians. It's not that I'm disappointed with your answer. I just hope that in your review of disruption to the supply chain.... In my view, it is not just the infrastructure that is important to look at; it's also the people who operate that infrastructure. The most important investment a government can make is in ensuring that they have safety on the rail, that they can get good wages, and that they can go home with powerful paycheques because they have powerful unions.

That's common sense. That's the real power we can give workers in this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Desjarlais.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I hope that we can find ways in my next round to speak to how we can make this better.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

We are beginning our second round.

Mr. Viersen, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today and the Auditor General's office for its report on this. I do appreciate the work they've done on this.

I'm excited to have the Department of Transport here today so that I can ask them some questions. My questions around the report last time were more about policy, and the Auditor General assured me that they do not wade into areas of policy. However, I'm sure that the department does, so I'm happy to have them here.

The report talks about monitoring the fluidity of our transport trade corridors, and I thought it was very interesting, given the words “fluid” and “fluidity”, that pipelines don't really show up in the report at all. We have ports, airplanes and highways, but no pipelines. It seems to me that the government policy to oppose pipelines carte blanche across the country would have dramatic impacts on our ability to get Canadian products to market.

When I was elected in 2015, there were 14 major pipeline projects under review. One of those pipeline projects has actually been built—after the government bought the project from the company that was trying to build the project. We've seen the dramatic impacts of pipelines not being built affecting other areas of the transportation system. As oil didn't run through pipelines, it was then ending up on the railway. We heard about Lac-Mégantic as one of the results of that. However, we've also seen repeatedly where lumber or grain is unable to get out of northern Alberta because oil is consuming all of the rail traffic.

I guess we have Bill C-69, which has affected the ability to build pipelines, and we have Bill C-48, which, even if we could build the pipelines, we may not be able to ship the product out because of Bill C-48.

Have you noticed that some of the projects that have been approved to receive the funding haven't been able to go ahead because of Bill C-69 and Bill C-48?

[Stephanie Hébert]

No, that has not been our experience.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

How would you assess that this hasn't been the experience?