Transport Committee on April 22nd, 2021

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

That's a really important question, because I've always said that every dollar invested in infrastructure has to have multiple benefits, from creating jobs and growth to tackling climate change to building more resilient communities to increasing inclusivity and equity. If you go to communities in this country and talk to the mayors about any of these projects, they'll explain to you that, say, electric buses in Brampton are going to mean cleaner air, or they're going to mean Canadian jobs because they're built in Canada, or they're going to mean that people get home faster.

Look, I agree that we need to do a better job of explaining outcomes. That's something I'm committed to. I really do hope the member opposite, who I know cares greatly not only about infrastructure but also about achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, will weigh in on Canada's first-ever national infrastructure assessment. The whole point of it is to make sure we use the best evidence and data so that we are able to focus on outcomes and make sure that every investment we make in infrastructure is getting multiple outcomes and that we're able to explain them more clearly to Canadians.

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

Arguably, we shouldn't have to wait for the infrastructure assessment to improve the reporting so that Canadians don't have to go to every single mayor and ask whether the projects in their communities are contributing towards the goals.

I'd like to move on to a slightly different topic.

Minister, you have spoke very highly about the UN sustainable development goals, and they show up in the Auditor General's report. Her finding was that although the department talked about these goals aspirationally and very positively in their visioning and their messaging, they didn't show up. They weren't referenced in the department's reporting.

I note that in the departmental plan there's a reference in the text to the sustainable development goals, but they aren't reflected in the actual indicators that the department tracks. If these sustainable development goals are important and if they should guide our work, why not reflect those goals in the indicators that your department is tracking?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

The sustainable development goals are critically important. My department reports, like all departments, on the sustainable development goals in relation to the projects and the programs under its department, but we do it to ESDC.

I was actually involved in this as Minister of Environment and Climate Change. We had to report on Canada's progress on the sustainable development goals, which included progress at every level of government. It is not just the federal government, but every community. Everyone has to weigh in.

In some ways it is a bit strange to put the onus on us. We actually have a department that is required to report, including to the UN, on how we are tracking progress on the sustainable development goals. However, my department does track its projects and how we're contributing to sustainable development goals.

As to the reporting in the Auditor General's report, I think my deputy can explain how many departments, how many programs and how many projects. That's a separate type of reporting. However, for the reporting on SDGs, we should be clear: Our government is reporting across government, for every department, to the United Nations, which is critically important.

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

I'm not quite clear. Are you arguing that your specific department—Infrastructure Canada—in its plan, contrary to what the Auditor General is saying, shouldn't have to report specifically on the sustainable development goals?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

My department reports on the sustainable development goals for all the projects and programs within Infrastructure Canada. However, we have a broader reporting obligation on infrastructure projects generally. To be clear—and I don't know if I'm making this more confusing—we have to report as a government to the United Nations across government, and that reporting across government is done through ESDC. It has been decided that they are the ministry responsible for doing that reporting. It would be duplicative and very challenging for us to do it when we already have another department doing it.

I'll pass this over to my deputy. She can probably do a better job of explaining.

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

I don't want to spend too much time here, because I only have six minutes, so I'll move on to the topic of indicators.

I read through the departmental plan, and one of the indicators that shows up as an indicator of quality of life for all Canadians is gross domestic product attributable to infrastructure.

Minister, is gross domestic product an accurate indicator of equitable quality of life improvement? It feels like an outdated portrayal of inclusive development. There are so many improved metrics we can be using. Do you feel that GDP should be one of only three indicators that is linked to quality of life improvement for all Canadians?

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Go ahead, Minister.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I was going to say that's a really deep question. To the member opposite, there are certainly merits in GDP generally. We all know how important GDP growth is, but as you say, there are many measures that regular people would feel are more important to their quality of life. It's something that maybe we should take back. Maybe my deputy....

It's a very interesting question, because I think sometimes that the world is changing, and how we value and what we value is critically important, and it's changed. We never talked about net zero by 2050 as something that was critically important, or maybe making sure equity was a main focus was also something we didn't think about as much before, but I think that's an interesting point. I will take that on board.

I don't know if my deputy wants to say something.

[Kelly Gillis]

Sustainable development goal indicator number 8 is good jobs and economic growth. GDP is one facet of looking at that. Certainly infrastructure does contribute to economic growth and good jobs. It's one lens of many that we do need to look at and that we do look at overall regarding our investments, as well as the plan overall.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Ms. Gillis.

Thank you, Minister McKenna, and thank you, Mr. Bachrach. That was a great question at the end. I guess it would be somewhat subjective in terms of measuring the performance of any infrastructure investment, given what people's lifestyles are accustomed to.

With that, we're now going to move on to our second round. Our second round starts off with the Conservatives.

Mr. Scheer, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank was supposed to get private sector funds to build public infrastructure. Last week, this government announced through the CIB that it was giving $655 million of taxpayers' money to a company owned by Fortis Inc., a multi-billion-dollar company, to build a project that was already getting built anyway.

I have a simple question here. Will the minister provide this committee with the details of the special deal they cut to Fortis Inc.?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Look, the Canada Infrastructure Bank is complementary to the Government of Canada's historic $180-billion Investing in Canada Infrastructure Bank plan. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is independent.

I will say that's a very good project that will lower emissions and that will also create good jobs for Canadians and create economic opportunity, and to those who might think that we want to privatize infrastructure assets or sell assets, that's not the goal of the Infrastructure Bank. It's really to make sure that good projects go ahead, and that's really an opportunity that the bank is doing. They're investing in many different projects, and that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Minister.

Go ahead, Mr. Scheer.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

If it's such a good project, why couldn't Fortis Inc. pay for it itself? This is a company that made over $8.9 billion in revenue last year. It paid out over $800 million to their shareholders, yet this government decided to cut a cheque of $655 million for a project that was already getting built anyway. The Lake Erie project has been proposed since 2014.

It's a very simple question. Will the government provide this committee with the details of the special deal they just gave to Fortis Inc.?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I think the member opposite might know the Ontario minister, Greg Rickford. I'll just read out what he said:

The Lake Erie Connector demonstrates the advantage...of public-private partnerships to develop critical infrastructure that delivers great...value to Ontarians. Connecting Ontario's electricity grid to the PJM electricity market will bring significant, tangible benefits—

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Yes or no, Minister?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

—to our province. This new connection will create high-quality jobs, improve system flexibility, and allow Ontario to export more excess electricity to promote cost-savings for Ontario's electricity consumers.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Will you table the details of the deal, yes or no?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

I'm happy.... As you know, we have the CEO of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. He's come to present before, and we're always able to provide information about any project.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

This isn't about whether or not it's a good project. It's about who should pay for it. ITC Holdings is owned by Fortis Inc. Fortis Inc. made almost $9 billion in revenue last year. They paid over $800 million to shareholders in dividends. If this is such a good project, those shareholders, those investors, could pay for it themselves.

We are dealing with a current pandemic and its aftermath. Hundreds of thousands of people have lost everything. They've been told they can't open their doors. They've watched their entire life savings disappear. Their businesses are on the verge of bankruptcy. This government decided to give $655 million to a multi-billion-dollar organization, a multi-billion-dollar operation, a private sector company that pays out over $800 million to their shareholders in dividends.

Why?

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Let's just be clear that our government has supported Canadians through this pandemic, and we're going to continue to support Canadians. Eighty cents out of every dollar is going to support Canadians. Let's also be clear that the minister from Ontario, who happens to be a Conservative, said that this is going to mean jobs for Ontarians, that it means lower prices for consumers, that it's something that is good to tackle climate change.

You talked about this project. I'm not going to second-guess the Canada Infrastructure Bank. It's independent, and I'm sure they can provide you with the justifications. However, there's no evidence that this project was going to go ahead, and it crowded in private sector investments.

We need good projects to go ahead. I know that the member opposite does not believe in the Canadian Infrastructure Bank, which is very surprising for—

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Because it's a failure.

[Catherine McKenna, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

—someone who's a Conservative—

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

It's a failure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Mr. Scheer, that's enough.