Transport Committee on Nov. 18th, 2013

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Public transportation comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec. Consequently, the province will be responsible for any delays in the light rail project. I am not saying there will be any delays, but we will see. This is Quebec's file. The province is responsible for carrying out the project.

To us, it is clear that, without a toll, there will be no bridge.

It's important to remember that that's the only place in the province where the country owns the bridge.

We own interprovincial bridges in other parts of the country.

Between Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island and between Gatineau and Ottawa, between two provinces—those are the only places in the country.

We own 100% of the Jacques Cartier and Champlain bridges, and we own 50% of the Mercier Bridge, with the other half belonging to the Government of Quebec.

At the same time, we are carrying out another project—the Windsor-Detroit bridge. That bridge will also have a toll. As in the greater Montreal region, the users will have to pay to use the new bridge. We think that is necessary. We also have to work on reducing the costs for Canadian taxpayers, who will pay for part of the bridge through the application of the user-pay principle. The Prime Minister reiterated this on Friday.

As for the ARUP firm, I must first point out that the contract was awarded to it by Public Works and Government Services Canada because the firm was already working on the business plan of the project for the new bridge on the St. Lawrence. You talked about studies on tolls. I am talking about ARUP because I want to discuss the business plan. The next important stage for us in the new bridge on the St. Lawrence file is receiving the business plan, which will lay out various toll scenarios. That means that 13 different architecture scenarios for the bridge will have been analyzed. Once we receive the business plan, the studies on tolls will be analyzed, and we will be able to decide how to work going forward.

The ARUP firm, which has been hired, is a partner of PricewaterhouseCoopers, which is developing the business plan. The firm has been working on this file with PricewaterhouseCoopers from the beginning. It was also involved in Quebec's Highway 30 project, which was a success and cost over $1 billion. People are claiming that ARUP was hired without any experience. However, the firm did work on a road project worth over $1 billion. This is a company with a strong international reputation for its work on bridges around the world. It is incorrect to say that the firm is not familiar with bridges.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

We'll now move to Mr. Braid for seven minutes.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister, and your officials here at committee today. We certainly appreciate you devoting some of your time and providing us with an update from your department.

Minister, in your presentation you spoke a little bit about the various federal government programs to support infrastructure. In 2007, of course, our government established the original Building Canada fund. That fund is in its final number of months at this point, as we speak. In the meantime, in our most recent budget economic action plan of 2013, we renewed the Building Canada fund, now the longest and largest infrastructure fund in Canadian history, with over $50 billion.

In developing that renewed Building Canada fund, Mr. Minister, I presume that significant consultations must have taken place, consultations with important stakeholders, with provinces, with municipalities. Could you update us on the various consultations that did take place and how they contributed to the development of our renewed Building Canada fund.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

Since the beginning of the process to renew the Building Canada plan, we have held 13 round tables all across the country. More than 700 partners, stakeholders, have been involved in the process for renewal. In any region we have visited, at all of these meetings, la Fédération canadienne des municipalités has been present, and they were very happy with what we had announced for the new Building Canada plan.

We held meetings with the private sector because it was important for us to hear their ideas, or their point of view, on the new Building Canada plan. These consultations have been very successful, and since the announcement of the new Building Canada plan in the last budget, all of these stakeholders have been happy and proud of what we have done together. We will continue to work with them. They are still involved with us. We don't think that in Ottawa we have all the solutions for what is good for the citizens of a city or a region of this country. We respect the jurisdictions, and that's the way we want to continue to work.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

The important issue of public transit has come up today. We hear from provinces and municipalities that public transit is a priority for them, but there are many opportunities for the federal government, through our infrastructure programs, to help provinces and municipalities meet that public transit priority.

Could you speak to that, Minister?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Yes. This government has invested over $5 billion in public transit, while totally respecting regional and local authorities. As I said before, it's very important for us to respect the fact that a city council somewhere in the country is the best place to find solutions for a city. Here in Ottawa, we have no solutions for Vancouver, Toronto, or any other city that has a public transit system.

We want to continue to work on that. Often we hear national transit programs or.... What they want is more money, and now they will have more money to do that.

Public transit is eligible in all four categories of the Building Canada fund. If a city decides to do that...some municipalities and, I have to be honest, most of the big cities in this country have invested all of their money from the gas tax fund in public transit. That's their decision, and we have supported that. We know public transit is very important for traffic and for the economy of the country.

We have been a great partner. We will continue to be, but we will never make decisions on behalf of the people who were elected by the population of a city—their city council.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

That's wonderful. Thank you.

To clarify an earlier point, the federal government, through the Building Canada plan, for example, or the gas tax fund, will only support a public transit project if both the municipality and the province have also identified it as a priority, whether it's a subway extension in Toronto, light rapid transit in the Waterloo region, or another transit system in another part of the country. The federal government will be there as a full partner if the province and the municipality deem it a priority. Is that correct?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Absolutely. You're right. That's what we have done in the past, and we want to continue the parameters of the Building Canada plan. We're working on the second part before the gas tax fund. We will continue to work on that. First of all, that's the choice of the municipality and the province.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

That's great.

Mr. Minister, I know you have been very busy with the Champlain Bridge in Montreal, including last week.

I would like to ask you a question in French about the Champlain Bridge.

You clearly indicated that the goal was to deliver the new bridge as quickly as possible. Since then, a number of actions have been taken to accelerate the building of the new bridge. Could you elaborate on what has been done to accelerate the construction?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you for the question. This is related to the answer I gave earlier to our Liberal Party colleague.

When Public Works and Government Services Canada had to award the $15-million contract, it chose efficiency by selecting the ARUP firm in order to accelerate the process. That firm was already very familiar with the file of the new bridge. When we announced, on October 2, the building of the Nuns' Island causeway, we also published an engineering report. We regularly request engineering reports to get an idea of how things are going.

As for the state of the bridge, the Buckland & Taylor report asked for even more commitments, both for preserving the current bridge and for reviewing the time frames for the new bridge. Over the next few weeks, we will publish a new schedule. We are working very hard to be ready as soon as possible and, of course, to preserve the current bridge. However, public safety is of the utmost importance for our government and for the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated corporation.

That 2 mm crack was found at 3 a.m. during one of the nightly inspections, before the morning traffic on the bridge. The fact that the work is being done is reassuring for people. Clearly, a crack is not reassuring, but we are doing what needs to be done. That shows how serious we are about maintaining the Champlain Bridge. We have 100 to 200 people working on the current bridge daily. We are making sure that the bridge is safe when it is open, of course, and we will build the new bridge with great diligence, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you. Your time has expired, Mr. Braid.

We'll now move to Mr. Komarnicki for seven minutes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister, to this committee.

I know you mentioned the numerous infrastructure programs that have taken place across the country, and I can say to you that in my riding of Souris—Moose Mountain a number of projects have been well received by municipalities. Of course, there is always great need in the infrastructure area, and we've had two major projects in my city with respect to the gas tax fund. In talking to the city manager and the mayor, I know their particular issue was one of flexibility with respect to how they might apply the fund and where they might apply it. Generally, I can say the municipalities throughout the constituency received what we've done with respect to the gas tax very well, not only the doubling of it, the indexing of it, but the extension of it.

One of the factors they've talked to me about is the flexibility they may have to do what they need to do to grow their communities. Infrastructure is always a significant part of that.

In talking to the stakeholders—and you said you've talked to many of them—what were their views with respect to the options that might be available to them concerning the gas tax refund?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

That's why we have added new categories to the gas tax fund, but we will still continue to think that they have to face.... Before the grand opening of an arena, we have to face a water problem. That's part of what we are, but we have added new categories. That's why, in addition to the current eligible categories, which are public transit, waste water, water and solid waste, infrastructure, community energy systems, local roads and bridges, and capacity building, we have added highways, local and regional airports, short-line rail, short-sea shipping, disaster mitigation, broadband connectivity, brownfield redevelopment, culture, tourism, and sports and recreation. That's because municipalities and stakeholders have asked for it, and we will continue to follow that very carefully.

But we are working with the provinces. When this plan started in 2006-07, I was involved in municipal politics. When they asked us if we had a plan for our infrastructure, this was okay for my city, but some others didn't know where their pipes were. Now we are a lot better than we were. It's not only the age of the infrastructure, but the knowledge of our infrastructure is a lot better. With the addition of these categories, I'm sure municipalities and stakeholders will be very happy.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

There's no doubt that this extension will be well received. I noticed in my riding we have short-line rails that are looking for funding, regional airports, local airports, and highways. They're all big ticket items.

I recently met with the Town of Midale and a number of municipalities, and they were looking at putting together a regional package, potentially for application, to provide water from one source for each of these individual municipalities. They thought if they could get together and make an application to deal with each of the communities, it would be cost-efficient, and it would certainly provide something the city needs to grow. I take it that I can safely tell them that it's a category that would be under consideration with respect to the gas tax fund, and I would suspect there would be categories along that line in the other infrastructure programs you have in mind, particularly for smaller communities.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

It's something we're seeing more and more, but as I said at the beginning, we have to respect the jurisdiction. I've answered this before—during the entire process we met many stakeholders—but it depends on the province. In certain provinces, to build this new plan we have to discuss it with the municipal affairs minister, the transport minister, the infrastructure minister, and the intergovernmental affairs minister.

That said, we have worked with many ministers in many provinces. We work with provinces to respect their jurisdiction, but municipalities first have to answer, independent of provinces and territories. When we see some municipalities working together for a waste water plan, that's mainly under the original provincial jurisdiction, but we are good partners and we want to continue to be.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I understand you are awaiting the execution of an agreement with the provinces and territories to put into effect some of the things we've talked about, but I also understand that in the course of time, the communities can expect the program will be defined and applications will be put in place so they can deal with the broader applications outside the gas tax fund with respect to the other components of the infrastructure program. Is that correct?

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

As I said, all of the gas tax program agreements were sent to the provinces November 5. We hope to have some signatures very soon.

For the parameters of the rest of the Building Canada plan, we have said that we will work to ensure that the municipalities and provinces don't miss the construction season. We will finalize these parameters soon, and after that we will have to sign these agreements with provinces and territories. We hope that will be done in the same way, because they want to have their money, and we want to give them their money, for projects for the Canadian population.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Minister.

I see there was mention of the construction of a truck bypass on highway 39 in Estevan, Saskatchewan, which is my community. I know they're anxiously awaiting that construction. I'm happy to see that those funds are reprofiled for future construction, which I am assured will commence next year.

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

There's one minute left.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

May I make a comment?

We have not cut moneys. It's the provinces and the territories that send us the invoices, the bills, and we pay them. Sometimes if they have a delay in a project...we have not cancelled any project because of the date; we have delayed it. That is the only thing we have done. We have a cash management process to respect in the budget. That's why we have moneys that have been reprofiled, but we have not cancelled any projects because of that.

That's why we have to pay. If a province does not send us the bill, we can't pay it. That's the way it works. When we receive a bill, we pay it.

Mr. Lévesque, did you want to add anything?

[Louis Lévesque, Deputy Minister, Department of Transport]

The issue that continually comes up with the appropriations for infrastructure is exactly as the minister has described. We have to have enough appropriations in a given year. Should the claims come from the recipients...very often, because of either delays in work or claims that do not come in, these appropriations lapse. But the amounts are not lost. Basically that's what we do in the supplementary estimates. We ask for them to be reinstated, and now that we expect the claims to be coming, we have the authorities to make the payments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you. We're out of time. Sorry.

We now move to Mr. Mai,

Because we're running out of time here, I'm going to go to one question for Mr. Mai and then one more question over here.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

You said I had five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

In a normal situation, Mr. Mai, with a two-hour meeting.... This is broken into two segments. You're going to get one question. It's the way it's always done.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you for joining us today, Minister.

My question covers a number of aspects.

You are talking about the September 26, 2013 Buckland & Taylor report, which unfortunately did not find any issues with the girder. However, I will quote the following passage from the report:

Buckland & Taylor Ltd. (B&T) did not perform on-site inspection or detailed review of components other than the approach span edge girders [...] Detailed structural analysis and conclusions were developed based on the documents provided by PJCCI representing the condition of the structure.

Will you publish all the documents provided by the Jacques Cartier and Champlain Bridges Incorporated corporation?

We do have a concern when it comes to the ARUP firm you mentioned. A first $15-million contract was awarded without a call for tenders. You said that this was an emergency. Will you use the emergency excuse again, even though you have been dragging your feet in this file?