Transport Committee on April 30th, 2018

[Yazmine Laroche]

I am not an economist, but anything that improves the flow of goods within a country to get it to market is good news for anybody who is going to be making those investments. In principle, yes, it would be a good thing.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Madame Sansoucy.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I'm going to pick up on my earlier discussion with the minister.

In terms of ensuring sound and sustainable infrastructure, I want to say that, when I was on city council, we had a strong plan for managing our assets. As I see it, though, that isn't enough when it comes to the bid process, particularly for projects carried out in partnership with provincial transportation ministries.

I recently had the opportunity to talk to people from Engineers Canada, the national organization that represents the country's engineering regulators. I asked them the same question I asked the minister earlier about the longevity of the pyramids and Roman roads. In response, they told me about the protocol of the Public Infrastructure Engineering Vulnerability Committee. Basically, the underlying principle is that funding for infrastructure should depend on the merits of the project. Therefore, the approval of funding applications, the acceptance of environmental impact assessments, and the approval of infrastructure project studies should be tied to a tool like the engineering protocol.

What that means, in a nutshell, is that the design, operation, and maintenance of infrastructure projects must take into account the risks associated with extreme weather events and climate change. The protocol has already been used 48 times in Canada and three times abroad. It is available free of charge, which is great. Internationally, the protocol has been presented to the United Nations, the World Bank, and the World Engineering Convention, or WEC for short. Here, at home, it has been presented at conferences of the Canadian Water Resources Association, Canadian Water and Wastewater Association, Canadian Dam Association, Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Transportation Association of Canada, and the Canadian Public Works Association.

First, do you agree that tools are needed to make sure the public infrastructure being built will last for many decades?

Second, should sustainability and climate resilience criteria be applied to all federally funded infrastructure projects?

[Yazmine Laroche]

Those are terrific questions.

Canada's long-term infrastructure plan does, of course, include a strong focus on viable infrastructure that is sustainable and responsive to climate change challenges. That's one of the reasons why we developed a climate-focused perspective—to assess the effects and potential impact of investments as regards climate change and community resilience. It's a new layer of scrutiny that was discussed and negotiated with the provinces and territories. As a result, we will be able to measure the potential impact and viability of projects for investments of $10 million or more.

Mr. Fortin, did you have anything to add?

[Marc Fortin]

I will round out my colleague's answer, if I may, Madam Chair.

There is no doubt we are working very closely on this component. We are currently working with other departments and examining the engineering standards you referred to, especially as they relate to more remote regions such as the north. We want to make sure that both existing and new standards respond appropriately to climate change issues, so we are in the midst of updating those.

As far as engineering standards and work is concerned, Infrastructure Canada spends the bulk of its time working with various stakeholders to ensure all high-priority projects meet our program criteria and requirements. However, once the project is approved, an oversight committee is set up to ensure it is carried out in accordance with the requirements set out in the agreement. The committee is co-chaired by the territory or province and, in some cases, by municipal bodies such as public transit authorities.

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

When all is said and done, what really matters is making sure municipalities have the tools they need to require all bidders to adhere to those standards. That way, when they choose the lowest qualified bid, they can rest assured that the infrastructure will be sound and sustainable.

You mentioned data earlier. It is clear that municipalities are paying increasing attention to geomatics. In my municipality, we were able to produce layered maps. I had all the photographic data by layer for the infrastructure in my ward. That meant we were able to make decisions using those geomatics tools. They were also used in the agricultural sector, where geomatics plays a big role.

Earlier, though, when you were talking about the infrastructure plan, you mentioned the lack of specific data on the state and performance of existing infrastructure. I'd like to know what initiatives have been implemented under the investing in Canada plan to improve data collection regarding the state and performance of municipality infrastructure, because the data exist.

I ask because I would like to see federal, provincial, and municipal governments talking and sharing information. The data exist, so how can the information be made available to decision-makers at all levels?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Madame Sansoucy, I'm sorry, but you're over your time.

Would it be possible for you to give her a short answer, and then possibly add it to the end of the meeting?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Could the witnesses get back to us with a written response?

[Yazmine Laroche]

I can answer quickly, but I can forward you any additional information you'd like.

Is that okay? I'll lead off, and I know Sean is keen to jump in.

We are currently partnering with Statistics Canada on a survey to collect information country-wide for a database on our public infrastructure assets. Statistics Canada is in the final stages of collecting that data, and we hope to have an update in the fall.

That is something I'm very proud of because I know just how much the information is needed. How can we measure results if we don't have a baseline?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Hardie.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I believe Mr. Keenan has in his title “horizontal policy”. That begs a question. What is horizontal policy?

[Sean Keenan, Director General, Strategic and Horizontal Policy, Office of Infrastructure of Canada]

One of the responsibilities that Minister Sohi talked about is the reporting on the investing in Canada plan. One of my groups is responsible for collecting the data. As the minister noted, there are 14 departments that are out delivering this plan. We're collecting the data that applies to all aspects of the plan.

We have a geospatial map that you can visit on our website that allows Canadians to find out some information about the infrastructure projects that are going on in their communities. That requires us to compile data on a monthly basis from our partner departments in order to populate that map to ensure, as we did on April 19, we're providing an update on the status of the spending that is going on. That requires a certain amount of horizontality within the government. Our department is the focal point.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

In a review of the trade corridor in metro Vancouver, I've become a little concerned that the component pieces aren't speaking to each other very much, that ports are trying to expand and railways may not be able to keep up. The use of land is becoming a question there.

Along comes the federal government with a whole bunch of money to improve trade corridors. How can we be assured the investments we're making are actually going to be put to optimal use on a local and regional basis?

[Yazmine Laroche]

Madam Chair, if I may, this would be better answered by our colleagues in Transport Canada since that's their particular file. What I would say is that based on past experience of the previous gateways, borders, and corridors program, the whole point of the federal government coming in was, in fact, to try to create partnerships, to avoid that competitive approach you're describing. It was to actually bring people together. There were some very successful partnerships that grew out of that.

I'm sure our colleagues at Transport would be happy to provide more details on that, but my assumption is that their new program is designed to achieve those outcomes as well, bringing people together to solve the major problems in those major gateways.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

That will certainly be a focus of a study this committee will also undertake, probably in the fall.

Another difficulty that I can see on the horizon, particularly with the delays in getting the bilaterals signed and getting the big new projects under way, is that obviously we have to wait for the partners to be ready to go. What can we do to avoid all of a sudden having a whole burst of really large projects happening at once, such that we end up spending a lot of money competing with ourselves for supplies, labour, etc.?

[Yazmine Laroche]

That's an excellent question.

I think the way the new program has been designed, these integrated bilateral agreements that are being signed with provinces and territories are based on long-term plans. By September we expect to have three-year plans from every provincial and territorial jurisdiction, which will actually map out what their projects are for the next three years. That starts to help you deal with some of that coordination and managing so that you're avoiding unintended outcomes like inflationary pressures because you have too many projects happening in the same place.

That's one big difference with the new plan, this focus on longer-term planning that actually helps everybody to look at their infrastructure investments over the longer term and plan them in a more measured way.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Is it possible that we would ask one municipality to hold off because another one not so far away was ready to go?

[Yazmine Laroche]

Obviously that would be a decision of each province or territory in terms of how they're pooling together their plans. That will certainly be the subject of discussion as those plans are being developed. How do we roll this out? Which go first? Which ones are most ready? Which ones can come a little bit later? That is our expectation of the plans that will be developed by the provinces and territories.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Those plans that we see from the provinces and territories would have to, obviously, include what's going on right at the municipal level. Again, will we have some sense of comfort that the municipalities, over and above an asset plan, also have land use plans, development plans, so that, say, a big investment in public transit will actually attract riders because it's built in the right place?

[Yazmine Laroche]

Again, the plans are intended to address how these projects are going to help achieve the outcomes that were agreed to by the federal government and the provinces and territories. Those outcomes do include indicators along those lines. How is this project going to help reduce GHG emissions? How is this project going to help move more people more efficiently through your communities? The projects that are being presented are really focused on the outcomes that they're going to achieve, so the expectation is that they will address exactly those questions.

I think my colleague has something to add.

[Glenn Campbell]

Just briefly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We have to move to Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Campbell, we'll see if Mr. Rogers can share some time.

Go ahead, Mr. Rogers. It's your six minutes.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

I just have to ask this question. I was involved in municipalities, with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and a provincial body. One of the gripes I always had with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was about the administration of the gas tax fund. I think gas tax is great for small municipalities. It's money they can use for really good, practical things.

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador decided to withhold somewhere in the area of 25% of the funds, I think, and used that money to help build major waste disposal sites management. At this point—and I said this to them for a number of years—it's time for them to relinquish that money and let it go where it should go, directly to municipalities. As a mayor, if I needed to purchase a $10,000 pump for a lift station or a piece of equipment for a water facility, I would need to request, in writing, permission to spend that money. There we were, duly elected members of the municipal council, having to go with our hands out, like a child to a parent, asking, “Can we please spend that money to buy that pump?” For so long I argued with some of the politicians and provincial ministers about that. I think that the funding is great, but I detest the province having that kind of control over the funding.

Is that the norm across the country?

[Yazmine Laroche]

What I would say is that it varies across the country because of the relationship between provincial and municipal governments. In some provinces and territories, the amounts are set out. It's really clear what each municipality is going to get, and that's how the funds are flowed. In others—as you described in Newfoundland and Labrador—municipalities actually have to get authorization to invest their funds. It's not consistent, but I will add one thing. Your question is very well timed because 2018 is the year in which we are doing an assessment, an evaluation, of the gas tax program. This is exactly the kind of feedback that we need to get so that we can engage with our colleagues in the provinces and territories, so I thank you for raising it.