Evidence of meeting #101 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was municipalities.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Minister, thank you for being here.
I will be concentrating my thoughts and questions on the returns on the investments that we are making, the outcomes, as well as the manner in which we can deliver results based on those investments.
You mentioned earlier that we have the highest economic growth in over 40 years, the lowest unemployment rate, and offsetting costs of local property taxpayers and waste-water rate fares through investments.
What I also see is a theme with respect to the economic, environmental, and social programs through our infrastructure programs, infrastructure strategy, that you have put forward. We have a trade corridor strategy, we have the affordable housing strategy, and the oceans protection plan We have lakes renewal, ports modernization, navigable waters, smart cities, superclusters, and the overall $180-billion infrastructure program that you announced two years ago. This offers equality, safety, security, environmental stewardship, and economic stability.
Mr. Minister, you also mentioned the sustainable funding envelope and the partnerships that you have created. I say “you” because, since 2005 the last Liberal government put in the gas tax as well as—correct me if I'm wrong, Madam Chair—the new deal for cities, and now you've expanded from that by including our partners, the provinces as well as the municipalities, through the strategic plans and their incorporation of community improvement plans.
Going back to my initial comments, in terms of returns and outcomes, what are your thoughts with all that being brought into perspective with all the different ministries working together to achieve those outcomes? What are your thoughts on overall outcomes that you're expecting, not only this year and next year, but 10 years down the road, as these investments are brought into place?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Amarjeet Sohi Liberal Edmonton Mill Woods, AB
As I said earlier on, the objective of our government is to make sure that we are helping grow the economy in a way that works for everyone, that more Canadians have access to middle-class, well-paying jobs, and that those Canadians who work hard each and every day to be part of the middle class are given the opportunity to be part of the middle class. Investment into affordable housing, for example, will allow Canadians to succeed to be part of the economy. That's the kind of outcome that we are looking for, one that builds people's capacity to take on opportunities.
Investing in trade corridors will make our economy more efficient by reducing gridlock and improving of the flow of goods and services in an efficient way. That's the kind of outcome we are looking for, such as access to public transportation so people have more sustainable choices to move around. That's the outcome.
The overall, broader plan is working really well, but also acknowledges that our country is very diverse, not just culturally, but also geographically. We need to be mindful of the needs of every community, not just big cities or mid-sized cities. We need to be paying attention to small communities and to rural and northern communities, so the creation of the $2-billion dedicated funding for those communities is going to help them prioritize what they need and help them meet their needs through federal dollars.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Vance Badawey Liberal Niagara Centre, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Minister, this committee in particular is very much working with infrastructure, communities, and transport. How critical do you think it is for us to look a little bit more outside the box when it comes to our domestic market, to include our partners' markets as well? What I mean by that is, when we begin to make bigger infrastructure investments, especially with respect to trade corridors, do you feel it's very important for us to integrate those investments with our American neighbours? We look at rail, we look at highways, we look at bridges, and we look at overall trade corridors. We look at the St. Lawrence, the Great Lakes, and infrastructure investments that would align with those strategies. How important do you feel it is for us to begin proactively integrating our infrastructure investments with our American partners?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Amarjeet Sohi Liberal Edmonton Mill Woods, AB
Infrastructure Canada is responsible for the delivery of the Gordie Howe International Bridge. As the committee understands, this is a very important crossing to grow the trade between the U.S. and Canada, and expand the capacity of the crossing, so we're working on that particular project. Whoever's going to build it will be selected by the end of June, and we foresee construction starting this fall.
Also, through trade and transportation, I talked about a number of projects that have been approved or are under review under that plan, and we will be moving forward on them.
Trade and transportation are very important as part of our efforts to grow the economy and create jobs.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Minister.
I recall being in the room when Paul Martin started talking about transferring gas tax through the provinces to municipalities. Back then I was with Greater Vancouver's transportation authority, and boy, our eyes were gleaming because we knew we could make very good use of a constant and reliable source of funding.
The question with respect to this very large amount of infrastructure funding is to what extent it is reliable. To what extent can an individual municipality rely on seeing the project through with the plans it has in mind?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Amarjeet Sohi Liberal Edmonton Mill Woods, AB
The introduction of gas tax funding has been transformational, because it allowed municipalities to have sustainable, long-term funding. Municipalities appreciate that, and that's why it's very good to have that program continue and be indexed. We're building on that by having bilateral agreements that look at the four funding areas, and we have one agreement that streamlines the approval process.
That's $33 billion over the next decade invested in public transportation systems so every municipality that has public transit will know how much money they're going to get from the federal government over the next 10 years, and the same with the cultural, recreational infrastructure; $9.2 billion will be invested in green infrastructure to improve water quality, to make our infrastructure more resilient to the impacts of climate change, as well as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So that predictability is very important for the municipal sector, and that's why this agreement gives them that certainty.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
The government has been criticized for not having a plan for all that money that's going to be spent on infrastructure, but what you just indicated sounded like a plan to me.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Amarjeet Sohi Liberal Edmonton Mill Woods, AB
When we rolled out the infrastructure in budget 2016, we were very deliberate about doing it in two stages.
Stage one in budget 2016, $14.4 billion, which you are studying, focused on repairs, rehabilitation, and also allowed municipalities to undertake planning for large infrastructure projects such as Surrey's LRT, for example, or the Broadway subway line in Vancouver.
That allowed us to have very comprehensive discussions with our partners to understand how we design this infrastructure plan to be flexible, to be nimble, and to meet the needs of various communities. The last thing you want to have is a federal government selecting projects or telling local governments what their priorities should be. We should focus on the outcomes we want to achieve, but allow local communities to select the projects and advance their priorities. That's why we have taken our time to design the long-term plan, and now we are negotiating those agreements.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Ken Hardie Liberal Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC
One of the first things we've heard is a criticism that the money is not flowing out the door. We have heard from witnesses who've told us that traditionally, the federal funding comes almost at the end of a project.
But we've also heard some musings about an adjustment to periodic payments from the federal government that could perhaps be more of a catalyst in getting these projects moving along.
Is that one of the things you've heard as well? Are there any other things you've learned in the process of rolling this out that you'd look at in the future as improvements to our plan?
4 p.m.
Liberal
Amarjeet Sohi Liberal Edmonton Mill Woods, AB
It is very important for all of us to understand, and to have our partners understand, that once the project is approved, the construction can start, procurement can start, or the ordering of buses or whatever the project is can proceed, without any delay. That approval is the first step in procurement.
You have identified a challenge, which is that we cannot pay out the federal share of other contributions until we get the invoices from our partners. Once municipalities or provinces send us the invoices, we pay our share within 30 days. They know it's working.
Can we approve upon it? We are having discussions with them to see if there are ways to improve it. The reality is that it has no negative consequences on the building of the infrastructure or the projects proceeding. Those projects are already proceeding based on our partners' timelines.
April 30th, 2018 / 4:05 p.m.
Bev Shipley Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC
Thank you, Minister, for being here.
I am curious. I'm not on the committee, so I may have read this wrong, but how did you come up with 10,000 projects that were approved in 19 days?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Amarjeet Sohi Liberal Edmonton Mill Woods, AB
I don't know the specifics, but I can tell you that we get the intake from our partners. Once they give us the projects, we look at them, assess them, and we approve them. We have also made some changes in our phase one approval process. Instead of looking at specific projects on a project-by-project basis, we approve them in the agreement. Once we approve the agreement, large numbers of projects get approved, because these are small projects.
4:05 p.m.
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC
It seemed that it was a large number to all of a sudden come across your desk—somebody's desk—to approve in a very short period of time.
I have another other question. In your presentation, you said “ In New Brunswick, federal investments through Natural Resources Canada [created] the province's first electric vehicle charging network” with 35 charging stations, in order to drive worry free and then reduce our carbon footprint.
I don't know what happens in New Brunswick; that's why I'm asking the question. What I see in Ontario is that they drive up and plug them in, no charge. The person who owns the electric car just pulls in and plugs it in, and they don't pay anything for it.
I'm wondering in terms of this project whether the federal government puts any type of condition on the funding. What happens in Ontario is that they plug in, so all the rest of us are subsidizing. Ontario has the highest rates in North America, and now they're plugging their cars in for free and we're subsidizing them again.
I was involved for a number of years in municipal government, and it's sort of an interesting subsidization. I don't know if this is a double carbon tax that they're approving, or that you see as the federal government, but there's something wrong with that.
Is there anything you should be considering when you're applying those grants to a municipality, in this case to a province, that they shouldn't be giving those projects for free in terms of people who use the hydro? What happens is that those people who are plugging their cars in are not paying any tax for the roads or bridges, or any of the infrastructure that they drive on. There's a huge subsidy, going beyond what the ratepayers pay.
Are there any thoughts of how that would work?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Amarjeet Sohi Liberal Edmonton Mill Woods, AB
When we design our programs, there are certain terms and conditions that attach to those programs, and our partners abide by those terms and conditions. As far as charging for the use of the infrastructure, that is not a decision that we make as the federal government. That is a decision made by the project proponents.
In the case of public transportation systems, for example—
4:05 p.m.
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC
But do you ask the question? Do you ask the question in the application as to whether this is going to be free for use by all the users or whether there would be some sort of compensation that comes back? Actually, it all goes back to my next question in terms of the gas tax.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Amarjeet Sohi Liberal Edmonton Mill Woods, AB
When we review, we review the terms and conditions, and we also review the project that is given to us. We look at the project proposal. That project proposal identifies how the project will be funded for the balance of what goes beyond what the federal government contributes.
4:10 p.m.
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC
I'm running out of time, apparently, but I have one other question on the gas tax that was brought in.
It's a great program, by the way, and—
4:10 p.m.
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC
—when we saw that, we made it permanent, doubled it, and indexed it.
My municipalities are all rural and small. They rely a lot on this. Because this is actually the way you give municipalities the right to make the decisions for their capital costs, I would encourage you to think about how you could make that a better and bigger program so that we don't pick winners and losers in terms of projects that municipalities get.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Amarjeet Sohi Liberal Edmonton Mill Woods, AB
Thank you.
When we look at supporting our municipal sector, we look at various options. One option is gas tax funding, which is working. We also look at funding based on partnerships, where provinces need to contribute. Through our bilateral agreements, we're asking provinces to contribute up to one third of the funding.
What happens in the case of the gas tax is that 100% of the funding comes from the federal government, but in the case of bilateral agreements, we provide support up to 40% and in some cases 50%, and then the provinces and the municipalities need to contribute. What happens is that you do leverage federal investments to build more infrastructure.
