Transport Committee on April 16th, 2018

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much, Mr. Nault.

Mr. Bartlett, maybe you can answer after the meeting is over.

[Randall Bartlett]

I'd be happy to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Mr. Liepert.

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

Thank you, gentlemen.

I want to go back to the questioning around policy. This is not just critical of the current government, but I served in the provincial government from 2006 to 2012. We were always struggling as a provincial government when we had our five-year provincial plan, or maybe even longer than that, for infrastructure, and then the federal government would come in and lay a new program over it, but it had to include new projects. It had to be funded one-third, one-third, one-third.

Do you have any thoughts on whether this infrastructure funding program, the policy that it has to be new is right, or whether these funds should be available for projects that have already been identified, either at the municipal or provincial level, and could this money help those projects actually be realized?

[Prof. Bev Dahlby]

I think, again, it addresses program design and the total issue around financing the federation, in some way. I think there is a case for matching grants from the federal government in order to shift maybe some of the municipal and provincial government spending in directions that provide national benefits or benefits that often spill beyond provincial or municipal boundaries, because otherwise politicians will naturally favour those projects that are very local. That's their responsibility.

In terms of other projects and maybe, as I mentioned, for smaller jurisdictions, it might be better to have block funding through the gas tax fund or other mechanisms. This also really raises the question of the total package of transfers from the federal government to the provincial sector, that is, the Canada health transfer, the Canada social transfer, and equalization. I think there is a case for increasing total transfers to the provinces given the fiscal pressures that have emerged at that level.

In terms of whether they should fund a new or an existing project that can't get off the ground for, let's say, fiscal reasons, then I think it should potentially be entirely funded if it meets the criterion that it provides significant national or provincial spillovers of benefits.

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

Are there any quick comments? I want to ask another question around this.

[Randall Bartlett]

Absolutely, as we've discussed, it really comes down to working with municipalities and provinces to make sure that you're funding plans and well-thought-out plans so that those municipalities and subnational jurisdictions overall can get the best bang for their buck, including indigenous communities.

I think when it comes to greenfield versus brownfield infrastructure, I think no matter what infrastructure plan, there's often been a significant focus by the federal government on greenfield infrastructure, but ultimately most of us drive every day on brownfield infrastructure that needs maintenance, needs to be refreshed, and potentially needs to be expanded. We need to focus on, I think, deriving as much value as we can for taxpayers by making sure that that's where the investment is made as well.

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

I have to cut you off because I want to talk about P3s. There were comments made earlier about the P3 model, and I think there have been political views on P3s that have been expressed at this table on which I want to take the opposite view. I know that in Alberta we've had very successful P3 projects. I think there are some real issues with the infrastructure bank using taxpayer dollars to backstop some of these issues.

On the P3 side of the equation, you didn't talk at all about the third phase of it, which is the maintenance phase. Whether it's roads or schools that are built through the P3 model, it's been proven that the long-term maintenance contract for those facilities 30 years down the road will be better at the end than it would have been if they were turned over to the municipalities or the school board. They'll be done at a lower cost than would have been the case with a government entity maintaining that facility for 30 years.

I'd like a quick comment from both of you relative to looking at a P3 project from a 30-year perspective rather than at just the cost of building the project.

[Prof. Bev Dahlby]

I think that is right. The P3 may create a greater incentive for quality and maintenance of infrastructure than has been the case for much government-funded and supervised construction, so I think that is one area of strength of the P3 mechanism.

[Randall Bartlett]

l would also argue, though, that we don't have a long history of these contracts, and of these contracts being taken to completion. While there are examples of ones that have been shown to be quite successful, there are also other examples of ones that have not been successful, not just in Canada but internationally. I think a lot of it comes down to the contract construction on P3s, and getting the contract right really matters a lot. Often there are examples of governments just not getting these right, so they end up on the losing end of the stick.

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

I couldn't disagree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, gentlemen, for the very valuable information you've provided as we go forward with our meetings on this study.

There are a couple of things for the committee to do now. We need to adopt a budget for this particular study. The clerk is circulating it now.

It's really a lot of money, a total of $22,200. That is a lot of money.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I move the budget.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

You move the budget? You haven't seen it. We have to make sure that we're doing it all right here.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I need your approval for a small paragraph that's going to go on our website and on Twitter. We're getting sophisticated now with tweets and the website.

Do you all have a copy of it? It's faster if you have it.

Everybody has it. Have you read it?

[A voice]

Mr. Chong is reading it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

It's for the website.

I'm sorry, why doesn't everybody have it?

Madame Sansoucy and Mr. Aubin, do you have it now? Good.

Is it okay?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

Minister Sohi will be with us on Monday, April 30, and we expect to have a draft report on the infrastructure study that we're doing May 28 or June 4.

Yes, Mr. Liepert?

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

Does that mean that the Vancouver-Seattle thing is off?

[The Chair, Liberal, Judy Sgro]

No, we may find out tomorrow. We're still waiting for that.

With regard to ocean war graves, a draft report will be ready for us Monday, May 7.

There is one other thing that I wanted to ask about—Mr. Aubin, in particular. A year ago we had the Transportation Safety Board in to talk about aviation safety, and there were 60 outstanding issues that had been on the books for a very, very long time. It's now a year later, and I suggest that if we can fit it into the schedule, maybe we should invite them back so that we can kind of keep their feet to the fire to make sure that those recommendations, which were quite significant, have been answered. If we can find a slot to do that, if the committee is agreeable, could we do that? Yes? All right.

With regard to the study on automated and connected vehicles, we have to schedule one more meeting. We're looking at possibly Wednesday, May 2, unless we travel, but I'll get back to you on that.

All right, thank you all. We'll see you on Wednesday.

The meeting is adjourned.