Transport Committee on April 11th, 2019

[A voice]

On the amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

No, it's a recorded vote on the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Jeneroux, you still have three and a half minutes left.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Just to be clear, we paused the time, correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Yes, we did.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Okay, wonderful.

Minister, in 2015, the now Prime Minister campaigned on running modest short-term deficits of less than $10 billion in each of the first three years, and then a balanced budget by 2019—this year, which I think we can all agree isn't happening, as we've just seen the budget. However, beyond the Prime Minister breaking his promise to balance the budget by 2019, these modest deficits were indeed, according to the Liberal Party, to double spending on infrastructure to stimulate economic growth.

The PBO reported that your government is well behind what you had promised to spend in the investing in Canada plan. It hasn't grown the economy as predicted or created the jobs it was set out to do. This is concerning, because according to public accounts, as of January 2019, only 13% of that $188 billion had been spent, while your government's deficits have in fact been almost double what was promised every year since you've formed government.

If the government has only spent 13% in three years on infrastructure, yet the deficit is well over double the $10 billion campaigned on, what is the money being spent on if not on infrastructure?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I'll address the member's question now, but if ever you want to come back to the previous question, I have some numbers for you on the gas tax and other things.

Investing in infrastructure is investing in the future of Canadians. As I was saying in my testimony, I am pretty proud to see that we've done a lot.

One of the first things to do when I became minister was to discuss with federal, provincial and territorial colleagues. Two things came to mind, which I've tried to work with the deputy minister to put in place. First, we would adapt our processes to the construction season; and second, we would introduce progress billing.

I appreciate greatly the work of the PBO. It's helpful for us in government to make sure we can do things better. However, what the PBO is focusing on is project accounting. What I'm focusing on is impact.

I'll just give an example to the member to illustrate this concept.

Recently I went with the Prime Minister to the Côte-Vertu construction site in Montreal, a huge construction site where actually the tram cars will be hosted in tunnels very close to the location they're needed in for the morning rush hour.

I am not an engineer, but if you go to the site—

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Minister, maybe we can talk a little more about that offline. It sounds interesting. I just want to get the last question in before my time is up, if that's okay with you.

There was a request for $14.6 million for the deconstruction of the Champlain Bridge in Quebec. From my understanding, the total costs will be approximately $400 million. Is that correct, yes or no?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

The estimated cost we have at this time from JCCBI, the professionals who are managing the bridge and will be responsible for the deconstruction, is $400 million.

You would appreciate today that you don't deconstruct as you used to do in the early days. There are a lot of issues about the environment and about making sure it's safe, because it's over the St. Lawrence Seaway. Therefore, we're going to do it in a responsible fashion, and in a way that is, first, healthy and safe for the workers. That implies a lot of work very high off the ground, and obviously over the St. Lawrence Seaway.

That's the current estimate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have 60 seconds left.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Chair, I think in the spirit that infrastructure isn't partisan, as the minister just recently stated in a Hill Times article, I will cede my time to my colleagues on the other side.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you, Mr. Jeneroux.

We are at five minutes to the vote time, so I'm going to suspend the meeting. We look forward to everyone returning promptly following the vote so we can continue our meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Aubin, I'm going to go to you for your six minutes.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Forgive me, I'm going to steal a minute from our guest because I'd like to table the motion I sent.

Given the fact that our agenda is quite disrupted this morning and that there may be other changes, I will read it again. I spoke about it before at the last meeting of the committee.

That, given the significant amount of work accomplished by the committee in advance of what will soon become the Canadian air passenger bill of rights, the committee undertake a study consisting of no more than two meetings to give feedback to the minister on the draft regulations that he is preparing to table concerning this bill of rights.

We also need a certain leeway with the calendar to attempt to find room for that topic as well.

Perhaps we could sit during the summer, that would solve all of our problems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

All right, thank you, Mr. Aubin. You've moved it and it was rightfully before us. We can discuss further just how we're going to do all this when we get into committee business a little bit later on.

Is there any debate on the motion by Mr. Aubin to undertake a study consisting of no more than two meetings to give the minister feedback on draft regulations concerning his bill of rights? Is there any comment or discussion?

Mr. Jeneroux.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Madam Chair, I'll make a friendly amendment—I believe you said it with the last motion that was passed—to just make sure that we put a time on this for before we rise. If Mr. Aubin wants to go in the summer, I'd be happy to go in the summer too, so long as the committee does its work on this particular motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

If we adopt it for the two meetings, are you also suggesting that we do this before the House rises?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

That would be my friendly suggestion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

As long as the committee is interested in working through the summer, it's just fine with me.

Mr. Hardie.

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

The proposed regulations were published in part I of the Canada Gazette. That calls for a 60-day comment period that actually ended on February 20, 2019. The CTA probably has quite a wealth of background input from Canadians across the country. They're in the process of reviewing that right now, and I don't know that this would add much to what they've already received.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

About the date, I want to remind you that the implementation of this new passenger bill of rights is planned for July 1. If the committee wanted to hold this study—and I think it's still relevant to do so—we have to be able to provide feedback to the Minister of Transport since after all, we are in a way his advisory committee. We've experienced that on several occasions—this should be done before July 1.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

All right, we'll vote on Mr. Aubin's motion.

(Motion negatived)

Mr. Aubin, this is your six minutes. Please go ahead.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here with us. It's always a pleasure to have you, all the more so since we often don't share the same ideas. However, the conversation is always interesting, and as is often said, truth emerges when ideas collide. Let's hope that this is what happens.

First, I'd like to have your opinion or your comments on the Infrastructure Bank and its many studies. Between you and your colleague from Transport, I am now used to buckling under the weight of studies that don't often lead to big decisions.

I keep track of all the studies ordered by Infrastructure Bank of Canada or that concern it. $2,960,000 was spent for 10 consultants whose names remain confidential; $1,750,000 for 6 consultants to verify leasehold improvements and construction costs; $876,000 for 3 consultants for external legal advice; $425,000 for consultants on public relations and media who also provide translation.

It seems to me that we have translation services on Parliament Hill. You could use them, they are very efficient.

That adds up to almost $8 million in studies, and the least we can say is that there is no transparency—we don't know who is taking part in these studies, nor anything about their topic—in this Infrastructure Bank that has existed for three years and which to date does not seem to have demonstrated the benefits you expected.

Could you explain why you are investing so much money that could be allocated to infrastructure?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

First, I want to thank my colleague for his question. Since he represents the riding of Trois-Rivières, we share the City of Trois-Rivières and we do many things together.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank is another tool in our toolbox. It allows us to think long term and ensure that we can build more infrastructure faster for Canadians.

With regard to what my colleague raised, everyone will understand that when we build an institution for the future, there are always inherent costs. We are trying to attract the best talent and the best professionals so that they join a group of professionals we can call on for advice, as well as for projects that will eventually be funded by the bank.

I think the bank is a tool that allows us to see the far horizon and the broader perspective. We have already invested in the REM. I can reassure my colleague by telling him that the directors of the bank—among them CEO Pierre Lavallée and all of his team—have already held more than a hundred meetings with various public and private sector stakeholders. There have been about 60 discussions on projects. About a dozen of them are now being actively considered and they concern green infrastructure, public transit...

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

If I may, Mr. Champagne, I'll pick up on that comment. Let's talk about innovation and projects.

In your presentation, you referred to $28.7 billion in infrastructure for public transit. That's a nice envelop to finance an HST or HFT. You spoke about $26.9 billion in green infrastructure. Imagine if that train were electric. I think it is precisely what we need. You spoke of $25.3 billion in social infrastructure. If we're talking about transporting workers, students and seniors, that is the situation. You also spoke about $10.1 billion in trade and transport infrastructure. I think everything is there for this to work.

Let's remember that the bank was supposed to fund—or will fund—only projects of $100 million or more. If memory serves, one of the biggest projects in Trois-Rivières was the construction of the amphitheatre. That was about $63 million. However, we don't qualify at all for those projects. Nevertheless, when it comes to a $4-billion HFT project, now we're talking.

Are you delaying the announcement of the HFT because you want a public infrastructure to be funded by the Infrastructure Bank?

Do you think there will be a direct impact on the cost of a ticket at the end of the process?