Transport Committee on March 7th, 2016

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Thank you for that question.

Through you, Madam Chair, as you may recall, part of the mandate letter from the Prime Minister aims to refocus the existing building Canada fund toward more trade-oriented infrastructure. In consultation with my colleague Minister Garneau, we are looking at how we can align some of the infrastructure funding that is available to us toward the outcome of the Canada Transportation Act review that is under way. Minister Garneau will be able to fill you in on the details of the review, at what stage it is, and how much time it will take.

You're absolutely right. In order to grow the economy, we need to make sure we have efficient transportation corridors to move our goods and services. We will enhance our international trade with the work we're doing on the Gordie Howe bridge and the new Champlain Bridge, as well as support additional investments in the trade corridors. These are some of the requirements. The expectation of the Prime Minister is that my department work with Minister Garneau's department, and we're doing that.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Minister. I'm excited for that, and hopefully it will be an expeditious process.

That deals with moving trade, but let's move on to moving people and reflecting the government's commitment to invest an additional $60 billion in infrastructure. The mandate letter identifies public transit, social infrastructure, and green infrastructure as key priorities for infrastructure investment.

How will these priorities be reflected within the new infrastructure investment plan? Will this focus have an impact on the amount of federal funding available for other types of infrastructure?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

In response to your first question, through you, Madam Chair, there will not be any impact on the existing funding. This is additional money on top of what is available for communities now. Public transit is a critical aspect of making our economy more productive and efficient. Anyone who lives in an urban centre knows the gridlock that is faced by people in major cities. We want to deal with that. That is why we have decided to invest $20 billion in public transit.

We also will support other communities with their transit needs through the building Canada fund, as well as the additional money that is available. Under social infrastructure our focus is going to be on housing—affordable housing, social housing, seniors housing, and shelter for women fleeing domestic violence—as well as early learning facilities and cultural and recreational facilities. Under green infrastructure we want to build communities that are more resilient to climate change and effects, such as floods. We want to provide support for green technologies. We want to make sure our indigenous communities have safe drinking water. We want to end boil-water advisories on indigenous communities.

That will be the focus of the three new buckets on top of what we already support through existing funding.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's nice to see you here, Mr. Minister. I extend my condolences to you on the loss of your father.

I appreciate how dedicated you are. You are continuing to do good work. I congratulate you.

Some of my questions were asked, but I'd like a little more detail. I concur with your former colleagues, such as Edmonton's Mayor Iveson, and I know that the city council in Edmonton and other jurisdictions are happy to see the backside of P3s unless they decide that's the route to go. One of the questions that's being raised by my mayor and other mayors has to do with those who were essentially forced to go P3 on projects, such as LRT extensions. They only received a quarter of the money from the federal government instead of a third as they were promised. Are you going to be adjusting that so we equalize the transfer of funds for those who were forced to go with the P3?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Thank you for that question, and through you, Madam Chair, you're absolutely right. One of the reasons we removed the condition of P3 screening was to allow municipalities to make their own decisions. The other thing you have identified is that it limited the funding for municipalities to 25% of the total eligible project costs. Under the traditional model, municipalities would receive up to one-third, and in some cases up to 50%, depending on the project. Under the P3 approach, there was a limit of 25%.

As we move forward on removing the condition of P3, we will be adjusting that cost-sharing formula for major projects that fall under that big project category.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm sure various mayors would like to hear it's going to be adjusted for existing approved projects as well, but so be it.

One of the recommendations of the Emerson report, the report under the Canada Transportation Act, was for the federal government to give assistance to municipalities wanting to relocate rail or deal with rail that is interfering with the safety of cities.

I know of the three priorities the City of Edmonton has identified, and probably a number of prairie jurisdictions have identified, is federal money for that purpose. I'm wondering if you are giving consideration to a separate pot of money, potentially in co-operation with the Department of Transport and in co-operation with some joint funding from the rail companies, to address the safety issues, to address the backup of traffic and so forth, to relocate these rails, or to provide overpasses and underpasses.

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Through you, Madam Chair, one of the things I mentioned earlier is the refocusing of the existing building Canada fund. There are three components to the building Canada fund. One is for small communities; one is for provincial-territorial infrastructure, and one is for national infrastructure. What we are looking at is having those discussions with Minister Garneau's department as to where the alignments happen on that with the focus on the Canada Transportation Act review.

In terms of the projects you are mentioning, I'm well aware of those projects. I'm from Edmonton. One of the things I should mention is that I have wonderful people who are working with me in this department. We are constantly in touch with all mayors throughout the country, as well as our provincial and territorial counterparts who understand what their needs are and how those needs fit into our priorities. We are working together with the provinces and municipalities to ensure we are there to support them to build the necessary infrastructure that they need to build, whether it's rail separations, grade separations, or any other sort of infrastructure.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm not sure that I got a clear yes or no, but I'll pursue it later with you.

The third quick question I have is on northern infrastructure. Of course, in Alberta we often think that we're in partnership with Northwest Territories. There's a lot of toing and froing. I'm interested to hear that of the $20-billion green infrastructure, a lot of that is for northern or isolated communities.

I'm aware that the Northwest Territories has decided they're going to try to shift from having dirty, expensive diesel to renewable power. I'm wondering if you could tell me what exactly you think will be included in the green infrastructure, how much of that is under you, and how much is under the Department of Natural Resources. Also, are these the kinds of projects that you might be financing?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Through you, Madam Chair, green infrastructure, as I said earlier, will focus on water and waste water, and on clean technologies as well as flood mitigation.

I have met with the northern caucus. I'm open to meeting with any MPs who want to reach out to my department to share their concerns, whether they're from the north or not. We have heard those concerns related to how they transition from diesel to more electrical systems for their infrastructure there.

I can't give you the exact answer at this time, because we are still developing the criteria for the new money, for the $10 billion over the next two years, but as we progress on that, I hope to be able to come back and give you an update.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Mr. Hardie.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Is it true that you used to drive a bus?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Yes, I did.

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

Then there is a friend in transit in the room, that's for sure. That's great to see.

By the way, it was also great to see you attend a news conference in Surrey a few weeks ago now, to announce some 53 projects across British Columbia, all in the interest of state of good repair. They're not exactly spectacular ribbon-cutting opportunities when done, but they certainly are foundational initiatives that will definitely help those communities.

I know that state of good repair will be the focus for the first couple of years, but my community in Surrey is absolutely eager, as is all of metro Vancouver, in fact, to see rapid transit expand. I guess the simple question is, where is that on the horizon?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Through you, Madam Chair, as I stated in my remarks, one-third of municipal infrastructure is basically, I would say, in poor condition. We need to invest in refurbishment, in modernized existing infrastructure, and also in optimizing existing infrastructure in order to get better use out of it.

But that does not mean we will not support new projects. I have been very clear in my conversations with the provinces and the municipalities that our focus will be on repairs for the first two years, yes, but if a municipality has done a good job of investing in and maintaining their existing set of infrastructure, they should be able to use that money for new projects. This is not about doing one at the cost of the other. It all depends on the local municipality's priorities.

In the case of your community, if they want to focus on building new infrastructure, we will work with them. If they want to focus on designing or doing preliminary work for the building of new infrastructure, we will work with them. If they want to put their money towards repairing the existing infrastructure, we will work with them. We believe that local communities know better what the needs are, and we are here to work with them to support those needs.

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

Through the chair, Mr. Minister, how do you balance respecting the direction in which municipalities wish to go and leaving the decision-making to them, in terms of the projects that go forward, with your need as a minister to produce infrastructure projects that contribute to the economic foundation of the country and that will help us improve our economy, not only internally, but in terms of international trade as well?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

What I have learned, so far, in my conversations with various partners, is that there is so much in common with what local governments think, what the provinces think, and what we, as a federal government, would like to achieve. It's about tapping into that common interest and common outcomes, and working toward those.

In the three categories where we have new funding that will become available, our outcomes are very clear. We want to focus on public transit to reduce gridlock. We want to focus on social infrastructure to build sustainable, inclusive communities. On the green infrastructure, it's about climate change and building resilient communities. Any project that ties into those three broadly defined outcomes will be supported, as well as under the existing building Canada fund for the projects as well as trade corridors.

I hope that answers your question.

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

Do I still have time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You have two minutes.

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

Oh, excellent. Then I have another two-minute question.

The Emerson report that was referenced by my colleague earlier talked about moving rail lines away from existing built-up areas. We have one specifically in South Surrey through White Rock, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe, which follows the coastline, which is subject to impacts of climate change more and more these days: erosion, rock fault, and everything else. Would the green infrastructure funding which is available to help communities be more resilient to climate change possibly be a source of funding, along with others, that could get that rail line relocated?

[Amarjeet Sohi, Liberal, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

I am going to ask my DM to talk about the interconnection and collaboration between my department and Transport, because we also shared the DMs until a few days ago. We haven't defined the criteria on green infrastructure yet.

[Jean-François Tremblay, Deputy Minister, Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Department of Transport]

The CTA review report includes 60 recommendations, as you know. It is also a report that includes a lot of big talk; the breadth of this report is quite exceptional. It is too early to know exactly what the response to the report would be. Minister Garneau would be consulting and working on what would be the government's response to the report over the next month. Those issues of what to do with this recommendation, as well as the 59 other recommendations, would be considered in that context. I think it's too early to know, to be honest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fraser, go ahead.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Minister, for being here. I really do appreciate that you've taken the time.

I am from a place that consists of small towns and rural communities. When we think infrastructure at the federal level, the tendency is to focus on big cities. I know through the meetings with the big city mayors that has been a focus.

Are there any plans that you or the department has to ensure that small towns and rural communities aren't left behind and that their infrastructure needs are met?