Transport Committee on April 11th, 2019

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

I'm sure we would be happy to come back to the member with the full details because I certainly believe, as the government does, in openness and transparency. There are things that, as the member knows because he's been in business, I cannot go into commercial negotiations or discussions—

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Of course.

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

—because that would prejudice our own—

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Minister, I have one more question I'm hoping to get in here.

I want to ask you a question regarding the development of the bank, since we're talking about the $100 million in transfer. I realize this was before you were Minister of Infrastructure, but in March 2016, the government, specifically Infrastructure Canada, brought in an investment banker from the Bank of America Merrill Lynch to assist with the development of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We'd like to know who that person was and whether their name has been disclosed. If you're unable to provide it now, I'm hoping that you will in the follow-up after committee.

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

I'm happy to come back to the member.

What I can say is that we have a number of professionals. Just to go back to this thread of the bank, the chair of the bank, as you know, is the former CFO of the Royal Bank of Canada. The CEO has been there for more than a decade. We're really building the talent. One thing I just want say—I know the member wants to go quickly—is that we're going to be investing public money and the member was there when we had P3 Canada. This is one step further to making sure that we can do that.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Right.

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

We're trying to assemble the best team of professionals and I would not be surprised that we've consulted widely.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

I appreciate that, Minister.

On that, Madam Chair, I would just like to move:

That the Committee immediately invite Pierre Lavallée, the newly appointed President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, to provide an update on the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

This was something I put on notice back in October 2018, so there perhaps may be a friendly amendment. Again, we'd like a recorded vote on this particular one, especially since the minister himself has said this is someone we should have at committee. We have yet to have him here at committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Liepert.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As my colleague mentioned, due to the fact that it's been almost a year since this was put on notice, I think it's only appropriate that we propose a couple of short amendments.

I would ask that the two words “newly appointed” be removed. I'd also ask that a timeline be imposed so we can ensure these meetings take place before the House adjourns, and also that it be a televised meeting as many Canadians have questions about the status and the work the bank is doing.

Those would be the amendments—removing the two words “newly appointed” and adding a timeline—and we can either put a specific time or say prior to the adjournment of the House. We would propose that the amended motion would read:

That the committee invite Pierre Lavallée, the president and CEO of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, to provide an update on the Canada Infrastructure Bank, no later than May 3, 2019, and that the meeting be televised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Okay.

Monsieur Aubin.

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

I'm not sure I followed that. First my colleague moved that this be done before the House adjourns. However, in the final version of the motion, it says “no later than May 3”. Which of these two dates are we keeping?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

The version that we would propose is no later than May 3, 2019, but we could certainly be flexible on that because of all the other motions we've been considering.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Is there any further discussion on the motion moved by Mr. Jeneroux?

Mr. Aubin.

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

I would simply like to move the following amendment:

That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “no later than Friday, May 3, 2019” with the words “before the summer adjournment of the House”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

We'll vote on the subamendment.

Would you like a recorded vote?

Okay.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Now we'll vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Now we're voting on the main motion, as it is before us.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 3)

We'll move to Mr. Sikand.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I have only one question, so I'll gladly share my time.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

Because we're dealing with such exorbitant amounts of taxpayers' dollars, I want to reiterate for the constituents back home how the funding model works. I represent a riding in Ontario, and we need all levels of government to participate to get the vital infrastructure we need, especially in the GTA.

Given that we have the Ford government and perhaps they will not co-operate, how will our government ensure that the tax dollars will get to the municipalities where they're supposed to be? I know one of the avenues is the gas tax.

Could you summarize how the funding model works? Thank you.

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

Obviously, I can sense the frustration, because when there's money on the table, it needs to be put to use. I have been restating that. As I said, one of my first comments when I hosted the federal, provincial and territorial meeting was to really stress the fact that we, all orders of government, need to work towards construction season. For me that's just common sense. Workers are expecting, unions are expecting, Canadians are expecting that we would get along to make sure that we are providing timely feedback, timely intake, timely review, timely prioritization and timely approval. We and the deputy and the whole team at Infrastructure Canada have been working extremely hard to deliver within these timelines.

Now, in some cases and some provinces—you mentioned the case of Ontario—I have been stressing to my colleagues, in the most respectful manner, let's open up, let's make sure people get to work, let's make sure that we use that money. We have had close to $12 billion on the table for almost a year, and the only stream that has been fully open so far is the rural and northern one, which is $250 million out of $12 billion. Obviously there's a lot we can do.

I appreciate that yesterday there was an announcement made with some transit, and there are a lot of questions around that. But my main point is that—and I think colleagues have said it—we need to leave politics aside on infrastructure. Infrastructure's too important for Canadians to bring any political considerations. Like I said, I have a lot of ambitions to make sure we deliver for our cities and our regions.

For Canadians who are watching us, what they need to understand is that when we negotiate the bilateral agreements with the provinces, because we respect the provinces, because we want them to have the ability to identify the projects and prioritize them, we want them to get going, because clearly there's no use to Canadians for money to be on the table. Certainly, we'll be working with all provincial and territorial governments to make sure that this is happening quickly. We're working with the unions. We're working with the entrepreneurs and businesses who want to get going, because they see the construction season is at our doorstep, and we really want to make sure we deliver for people. When you have a deinvestment in infrastructure, like we've seen in the previous 10 years, we know that the costs become exponential after. Anyone who has a house knows that if you start maintaining after 10 years, you have a lot of catch-up to do. That's what we're doing now. We're catching up. That's why we just need to put in the money, the resources, and the effort to get things done.

[Gagan Sikand, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Minister.

I'll be sharing the rest of my time with Mr. Hardie.

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

Thank you.

In the spirit of all of the motions going back and forth—motions and emotions—I would like to move the following:

That, given the importance of Canada’s trade corridors to the national economy and to add value to this Committee’s study of our major trade corridors, the Committee allocate up to two meetings to receive an update on the government’s National Trade Corridors Fund initiative.

This is important at this stage because among the questions that we raised when we were looking at the trade corridors was whether or not the investments themselves were strategic and whether or not all the people who should be contributing to the overall health, effectiveness and efficiency of our trade corridors were actually making coordinated strategic investments not just in money and building things but also in the planning side. An issue that I recognized out on the west coast, where one part of our study took place, is that we have many component parts. We have the rail. We have the ports. We have seaport, airport, land crossing, road network. They all act as component parts but not necessarily as complementary parts, especially when it comes to the planning and the implementation of some very expensive improvements.

Part of the necessity for this motion is to actually do the reality check and just see how strategic our investments have been and basically what problems we've been trying to solve and what the outlook is for solving them. That's the reason why I would like to move this motion and have some time allocated to this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Liepert.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Chair, we would be prepared to support this motion. One of the things that a study like this would show is that, as the minister has rightly stated, we're behind in infrastructure. One of the reasons we're behind in infrastructure is we are slowly getting rid of almost 10 Liberal governments at the provincial level, who have spent nothing on infrastructure. Other than in Alberta, prior to the NDP government, where infrastructure was a high priority....

The federal government didn't have to come in to Alberta and spend money, because the provincial Conservative government was spending money in Alberta on infrastructure. Our infrastructure in Alberta is well in advance of Ontario's, which has had 13 years of mismanaged provincial government, and therefore, now the federal government is being forced with Canadian dollars to come into Ontario and spend money that should have been spent at the provincial level under the Kathleen Wynne government. We'd be very happy to see whether or not that has been the case over the past 10 years, and we support this motion, Madam Speaker.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Aubin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also support the motion on the substance. However, I wonder if my colleagues would be open to a friendly amendment so that when we organize these meetings, we can take what is already on our agenda into account. When I look at the agenda you sent us, I see there are about five potential time slots, without making any assumptions about the date the House will decide to adjourn its work for the summer.

The study on trade corridors will not conclude before the end of the session, and that study should be continued after the election of the next government, no matter which one it is. I think the study has inherent value. We should be able to accept this motion and respect the studies that are already on our calendar. There is one on seatbelts that is not complete. We also have some time reserved for trade corridors on our calendar. There are the various motions that we voted on this morning. It seems to me that that is a lot for the four or five potential time slots we have left.