Transport Committee on March 11th, 2021

[Robert Ramsay]

The mayor of the town and the manager of the town both stated in media reports that they determined that it made more financial sense for the town to do it on its own.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Shipley, thank you, I appreciate your intervention and your questions.

We're now going to move on Mr. Fillmore—

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, but it was Mr. Soroka.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

I'm sorry. It's because I'm looking at Mr. Shipley.

Thank you, Mr. Soroka.

We're now going to move on to Mr. Fillmore. Mr. Fillmore, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Chair.

As the witnesses and committee members will know, our government has a very ambitious, long-term, well-resourced infrastructure plan, a $180-billion-plus plan, and we're really planning for 50 years out, for our kids and grandkids and for the future here. It's very understandable, and I get it that there can be some frustration in the first couple of years of the CIB, the infrastructure bank, on the pace of projects coming out.

Now, let's just put two examples on the record to provide some context for the question that I'd like to ask. The first is that we have in the first four years invested $13 billion in transit—in just four years. That's approximately 13 times the investment in transit by the previous government in its tenure. The second example is that since last March, since the beginning of the pandemic, in a minority government we have approved over 1,300 infrastructure projects. To put that into perspective, the previous government in its final four years of a majority government approved only 975 projects.

The CIB, despite this criticism by our colleagues, has received great praise. Now, Mr. Scheer may not put much stock in the praise of FCM or Clean Energy Canada or Efficiency Canada, which have said wonderful things about the CIB, but he might put some stock in the things that Premier Kenney, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the Grain Growers of Canada, and the National Cattle Feeders' Association have all said about the CIB, heaping praise upon its potential. It's odd, then again, in the context of the $18-billion cuts to infrastructure that the Conservative opposition ran in 2019.

With that context, I'd like to ask a question of Chief Gale or Mr. Edwards about the need for infrastructure in indigenous communities. I'm very aware that the $1-billion commitment from the CIB falls short. It's not going to close the gap. It is substantial assistance, but I know there's a lot to do here. I'm wondering, based on your experiences and expertise, whether there are specific areas or types of indigenous projects that you think would be most impactful for the CIB to focus on, under those first nations' projects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Chief Gale.

[Chief Sharleen Gale]

Thank you.

Our organization doesn't take a position for or against a particular project, because we're not a political organization. We leave the opportunities and the comments in the hands of the community leaders and their elders and their members to be the best spokespersons on issues relating to what kinds of projects they want to be involved in.

If there's anything Niilo would like to add, I open up the floor to him.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

It's just about what kinds of major projects we're looking for. What's needed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Mr. Edwards.

[Niilo Edwards]

I think there is a tremendous opportunity for our members and other indigenous communities across this country to be leaders in clean energy and net-zero project development. Certainly that falls within the bank's mandate. I know and I've heard from many of our members that they want to focus on the electrification of industrial development in their traditional territories. It's something that we're very focused on, but, by and large, whatever sector of projects, there's still that gap that needs to be filled in making sure there is equity-style capital available at competitive rates for indigenous communities to become equity owners in projects.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you for that.

I'd like to turn to Ms. Skivsky for a moment, if I could. We've been talking a lot about shovel-ready, shovel-appropriate projects that are ready to go to help spur economic activity while trying to close that infrastructure gap that exists across the country. CIB has committed to supporting energy retrofits, for example, through an investment of $2 billion, and we know that retrofitting buildings is one of the best ways to create jobs quickly while at the same time helping to transition to a low-carbon economy.

Would it be possible, Ms. Skivsky, to speak to the importance of these kinds of investments for job creation and emissions reduction in your sector?

[Sandra Skivsky]

Yes, retrofitting is certainly in all of the MESH trades, the mechanical, electrical, sheet metal, heating/refrigeration trades. That's a big item for them. Other trades are involved as well, but maybe not to the same extent.

There has been discussion about bundling a lot of these retrofits, especially if they're federal government ones, to the point where the projects get very big. It becomes cumbersome to bid on that, because you have to bid on the whole thing, and it becomes too big. If you're talking about community levels or specific areas, smaller projects, yes, I agree with you, retrofit is a.... Even green construction is a matter of design. We always say, “You design it, and the construction industry will build it”.

However, I don't want to sound critical, but announcing a program isn't the same to trade contractors as having a project that's active. There is a disconnect somewhere. I have been in this industry for over 30 years, and I have asked this question many times of the federal government, provincial government, municipal government, and somewhere in that lineup there, there's a choke point.

Maybe it changes and it's fluid, but that's why it's hard to pin down. There are many projects that have been approved, and then there are many programs with a lot of money still sitting in them. However, a very small proportion of projects have actually been allocated money. Again, approval is a level above where it hits the world that I operate in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Ms. Skivsky. I appreciate that.

Mr. Fillmore, thank you.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, the floor is yours, for two and a half minutes

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Vick, according to a Columbia Institute study, the Canada Infrastructure Bank isn't subject to the same access‑to‑information rules as federal departments and agencies.

But these are big projects, not small projects. The Canada Infrastructure Bank was established to handle megaprojects.

Do you think this lack of transparency poses a problem?

[Mathieu Vick]

That's absolutely correct.

These are major projects in the transportation sector worth six, seven, eight or 10 billion dollars.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees has made access‑to‑information requests in order to get some information and to understand where this money is going and who is getting the contracts. The documents we received were completely redacted. There were almost 2,000 pages with only a few headers and some titles left. There was absolutely nothing in those documents. It was very difficult to get information.

When you implement these kinds of projects that marry private and public sector interests, the public sector loses out. You lose a little bit in terms of transparency, but also in terms of accountability. It's not a good thing to tell the public that you're going to implement big projects that are in their interest, when the public can't see what's going on behind that screen at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Make it a quick question, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Ms. Skivsky, when we talk about infrastructure, we often talk about jobs. This would be the first sector in order of importance to create jobs.

However, this isn't always the case. I'm thinking in particular of certain projects funded by the Canada Infrastructure Bank or projects delivered through public‑private partnerships, like the Champlain Bridge. The REM cars are built in India, and it was a Spanish consortium that won the Champlain Bridge contract.

Where's the money for people here? Are there ways to fix this?

[Sandra Skivsky]

Regarding procurement issues, it's the same when a government brings in a foreign general contractor or consortium to be part of a P3. Looking to our Canadian industry should be at the forefront of everybody's mind, when you're spending Canadian tax dollars. There have been a number of projects where there have been foreign national firms operating, and then they turn around and leave what is sometimes not a very clean field behind them. They create issues and are not accountable for them, but that's a whole other topic.

I would strongly suggest that when we're looking at spending Canadian taxpayers' dollars, we look at Canadian companies that could perform that work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Ms. Skivsky, and Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

We'll now go to the NDP for our last set of questions.

Mr. Bachrach, you get the floor for two-and-a-half minutes.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a two-part question for you, Mr. Vick, picking up on something that two of the other witnesses said. Mr. Riordan said that the real advantage of getting the private sector involved, and I'm paraphrasing here, is that the private sector is good at identifying projects that are the most promising and productive. We also heard from Ms. Skivsky this idea around the speed at which projects start and the need to get shovels in the ground quickly and to get people working.

Can you comment on both of these aspects in the context of the REM project? How did the role of the private sector steer the design and shape of the project in a way that was productive for some but not necessarily for the public?

[Mathieu Vick]

When you have such a big project of public infrastructure, you would think that the first thing you would do is call the public authority that manages and coordinates the infrastructure in Montreal and say, “Hey, how can we complement and improve and increase transit in the metropolitan area?” Instead of that, we've had a kind of competing transit project created. That's creating a lot of problems with the current public network that is there now.

Also, we've often said about P3s that they're on time, on budget, and things of that nature. I've lived in Montreal for 15 years, and there have been four, five or six major P3s in Montreal in that period. I can think about the McGill “super hospital”. There was tons of corruption. It was late, with millions of dollars in cost overruns. It was the same thing for the CHUM. It was the same thing for the Champlain Bridge. We're expecting the same thing for the REM.

We're always getting into these problems. Sometimes it almost feels like gaslighting to say that P3s are the way of making these things work well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Mr. Bachrach, you have time for a quick question with a quick answer, please.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Picking up from where you left off, Mr. Vick, what in your mind would be the best model for projects like the REM? How would you have preferred to see the federal government invest that time and that money in improving transit in Montreal?

[Mathieu Vick]

Well, there were projects on the table that were already designed. They would have cost way less money, moved four to five times more people, and built 100 stations instead of 12 new stations. The right thing to do, if you want to build transit, is to say, “Here—we have money to build.” Then you ask the public authority, which is supposed to be the expert, about what the next project to move the most people will be. You then pay for that project, which has been on the table sometimes for 10 or 15 years, instead of bringing in a new player, changing all the rules and creating havoc within the system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Vick, and Mr. Bachrach.

To all of the members, thank you for your interventions at this meeting.

As well, equally and if not more importantly, to all of the witnesses, thank you for your time today. I am sure that your responses and testimony will become part of the final report that we'll present to the House. Again, for your time today, we thank you.

Members, before I adjourn this meeting, I want to remind all of you the next study is on targeted infrastructure investments, as put forward by Liberal member Ms. Jaczek. This is going to be the next study that we're going to embark on and all members should start thinking now about witness lists for that study. Perhaps we could have a deadline for preliminary witness lists of Friday, March 26. Our first meeting back after the break is Tuesday, April 13, and the clerk will need time to book these witnesses. If all of you could have those lists in by those times, it would be wonderful and make it a lot easier for the clerk.

With that, as there is no other business, I will take this opportunity to adjourn this meeting.