Evidence of meeting #29 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Sean McCoshen  Founder and Chairman, Alaska - Alberta Railway Development Corporation
Jean Paul Gladu  President, Canada, Alaska - Alberta Railway Development Corporation
Shoshanna Saxe  Assistant Professor, Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Michael MacPherson
Marco D'Angelo  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Urban Transit Association
Réjean Porlier  Mayor, City of Sept-Îles

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

I share some of the concerns about redaction. In this Parliament we've seen some concerning instances where documents were over-redacted. Perhaps a compromise would be to involve the law clerk in the process of reviewing the documents. That's something I could support. Otherwise I tend to agree with Mr. Scheer that having a cleaner motion makes more sense.

I would remind folks that there was a 2009 report by the public accounts committee that said very clearly that “A committee’s power to call for persons, papers and records is [said to be] absolute”, and that was a committee chaired by a Liberal. I think getting these documents makes a lot of sense. It's going to get answers for Canadians, and it's something I support.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Ms. Jaczek.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to go back to the issue of unredacted documents because Mr. Scheer was implying that somehow the government does the redaction. Clearly, redactions are done by our public servants. They, of course, are non-partisan and neutral people who understand the provision of the legislation they're working with. For sure, they do what they are supposed to do. They are not influenced in any way by the government, by the minister. It is clear that they are simply putting their best efforts into following what they are allowed to do.

I just cannot let that impugning of our wonderful public servants go. I'm fully supportive of Mr. Fillmore's amendment. I think we should take this extremely seriously. I would just like to repeat that this particular deal is not yet closed. To interfere with these sorts of demands at this point in time is just not reasonable. As far as I'm concerned it's completely unreasonable.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Thank you, Ms. Jaczek.

Mr. El-Khoury.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Fayçal El-Khoury Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In my opinion, our witnesses, particularly Mr. Réjean Porlier, who is from a remote area, deserve to be heard and to have the opportunity to answer questions that are of particular interest to members of Parliament who are from the province of Quebec.

Out of respect for the witnesses, I move that we give them a chance to continue. We can then return to the business of the committee.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Thank you, Mr. El-Khoury.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, go ahead.

5 p.m.

Bloc

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I, in turn, support the comments of my Conservative colleague Mr. Scheer, who has concerns with the amendment that is being proposed.

I have had occasion to table motions for the production of documents before, and I have sometimes been very unpleasantly surprised at the outcome. I recently made an access to information request. The committee made the same request, but did not get the same documents. This is surprising, since these requests are supposed to be answered in a comprehensive manner.

We have made other requests, and we have been told that the document requested is confidential. That in itself is not a problem. However, 80% of the content of that document was redacted. So this procedure is a bit difficult to understand. We need more explanation as to why things sometimes happen this way.

I, for one, rely on the members of the committee to protect confidential or sensitive information that should not be made public, if at all. I am quite comfortable with that.

That being said, for the benefit of the public, as much information as possible should be made public. There is a framework that can be followed and trusted. I trust my colleagues around the table. I think that transparency is essential, but unfortunately, we have seen too little transparency from the federal government. In this case, large amounts of money are at stake. I don't see what would prevent us from getting the real information about the money that is being spent and that belongs to the taxpayers, after all.

Mr. Chair, I mentioned this earlier, but I see that time is running out and I wonder if we will have to reinvite some witnesses. One witness in particular was almost unable to speak. Perhaps we will need to invite him to an additional meeting, unless you intend to extend the time for today's meeting.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Because of when we started, extending today's meeting past the 5:35 mark is not possible.

Mr. Fillmore, you wanted to speak at the end of the queue, so I'm going to go to Mr. Scheer.

5 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

I just want to reply to Ms. Jaczek's comments.

With the greatest of respect, I have a completely different perspective on this. Waiting until after a deal is signed, until it's all signed, sealed and delivered and money is flowing, would be too late.

If indeed there's nothing to worry about here and everything makes sense and is defensible for the government, well then the project will proceed. If there's something egregious, some kind of questionable arrangement or some kind of drastically below-market rate or something...as we've seen with other examples.

We saw $12 million go to Loblaws. This government gave a multi-billion dollar grocery company $12 million to replace their fridges. It was too late to do anything about it. The money was already spent. Then, $15 million went to Mastercard to help a credit card company that makes billions of dollars off the backs of working Canadians who can't pay their full balances.

I would respectfully, not just suggest, but insist, that this is the type of thing that needs to be disclosed before it's too late. This committee provides oversight. This committee holds this minister to account. This committee has a right to know what the government is intending to do. Too often, it's too late once these things are already all signed, sealed and set in stone.

5 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Mr. Fillmore.

5 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Fillmore Liberal Halifax, NS

Thanks, Chair.

To be absolutely clear, we have nothing to hide and, of course, that was the point of the original amendment to the motion, to have the CEO join us and answer any questions that you have.

Again, the fact remains that we are asking the committee to break the law. It's politically motivated to encourage the CIB to experience trouble and to make it appear that it's failing, and I want to ask my fellow committee members this. You're proposing to do this now to the Lake Erie Connector group? Is REM in Montreal next? Is the Oneida battery project in Ontario next? Is the southern Manitoba fibre project next? Who next will have to pull their pants down for this committee before we get a project built in Canada under the Canada Infrastructure Bank?

There is a witness on this call who I'm sure would not want to have their competitive financial information or trade secrets revealed to satisfy a political appetite that is not in the least helpful to help Canadians recover from this pandemic economically or to build the infrastructure in Canadian communities that needs to get built. This is a terrible waste of time.

This is a wonderful panel of witnesses and I would love to have a chance to talk to them about a progressive vision of Canada where we shift to active transportation and electrification of bus fleets and the rebuilding of a rail program in the country and shift away from 20th century fuel sources to renewables. I hope that we get a chance to come back and talk to them.

This very project that we're talking about, the Lake Erie Connector, at its heart is about shifting to those greener energy sources and giving a chance for good, clean Canadian power to reach a wider market, help the country reach its emissions reduction targets and put Canadians to work. It's exactly what the CIB was intended to do. There is a law that governs the way the CIB interacts with its proponents, and I think the relevant section needs to go into the record so I'm going to read that now.

This is subsection 28(1) on privileged information:

Subject to subsection (2), all information obtained by the Bank, by any of the Bank’s subsidiaries or by any of the subsidiaries of the Bank’s wholly-owned subsidiaries in relation to the proponents of, or private sector investors or institutional investors in, infrastructure projects is privileged and a director, officer, employee, or agent or mandatary of, or adviser or consultant to, the Bank, any of its subsidiaries, or any of the subsidiaries of its wholly-owned subsidiaries must not knowingly communicate, disclose or make available the information, or permit it to be communicated, disclosed or made available.

This is the law, friends.

Subsection 28(2), on authorized disclosure, reads:

Privileged information may be communicated, disclosed or made available in the following circumstances: (a) it is communicated, disclosed or made available for the purpose of the administration or enforcement of this Act and legal proceedings related to it; (b) it is communicated, disclosed or made available for the purpose of prosecuting an offence under this Act or any other Act of Parliament; (c) it is communicated, disclosed or made available to the Minister of National Revenue solely for the purpose of administering or enforcing the Income Tax Act or the Excise Tax Act; or (d) it is communicated, disclosed or made available with the written consent of the person to whom the information relates.

Nowhere in this unamended motion are we respecting that, and if I'm reading what's happening here.... It's hard to tell from the confusing signals whether there is an appetite for the amendment that the redactions, the production of documents, be consistent with relevant legislation concerning confidentiality or not. I certainly hope we wouldn't pass a motion that would disregard that at the least.

Now I ask for some common sense here and for us to step back and remind ourselves of what the CIB is trying to do, what we're all trying to do, which is to invest in Canadian communities, rebuild community infrastructure for future generations, recover from a pandemic, put people to work, reduce GHGs and increase the ability of equity-seeking groups that Ms. Saxe talked about in her testimony so they can participate in an economic recovery as well.

Please, let's have some common sense.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore.

Next is Ms. Jaczek.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Helena Jaczek Liberal Markham—Stouffville, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to build on something that Mr. Fillmore has alluded to. Obviously, this project, in its agreement in principle, looks extremely promising in what it might be able to achieve.

The Ontario Minister of Energy, the Honourable Greg Rickford, a former colleague of many of our Conservative colleagues here on this committee, said when he heard the announcement of the agreement in principle:

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

Minister Rickford was obviously extremely enthusiastic and I think any possibility of producing unredacted documents relating to this deal could put the whole deal in great jeopardy, and I would think that this would be most unfortunate for all concerned.

I just want to bring that to the attention of our Conservative colleagues.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Thank you, Ms. Jaczek.

We'll now go to Mr. Rogers.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Churence Rogers Liberal Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with some of my colleagues with regard to what this motion is suggesting. It is asking the CIB to violate its own act. When we talk about the commercial confidentiality of this agreement and how we could possibly jeopardize this project—this negotiation apparently is not finished, it's ongoing—and how we as a committee could inject ourselves into that kind of process, I think, quite frankly, it would be irresponsible.

I think Mr. Fillmore has put forward an option that is worth considering by way of the amendment he has proposed. I certainly would speak in favour of the amendment, and certainly not in favour of the original motion as it was presented.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Thank you, Mr. Rogers.

Mr. Scheer.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Andrew Scheer Conservative Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Again, I just have to keep going back to the point that there are dozens and dozens of lending institutions that provide financing without the need to disclose to the public the arrangements. Mr. Rogers, a few rounds ago you said you didn't understand the comparison between the CIBC and the CIB.

The point I was trying to make was that if a company is worried about the public having access to its confidential and privileged information, then it can go to a traditional lender. It can go to any one of the chartered banks. There are all kinds of financing options out there for people.

But, if it goes to government, if it's asking the government to forcefully reach into Canadians' pockets to give them money at either a preferential rate of interest or an extremely long repayment term, or who knows what, we don't know.... We're speculating here because we don't actually have the details. But, the fact that they went to the government, that the government tells us there's some type of advantage to the company....

That's the point I was endeavouring to make with that comparison. For companies that are worried about the secrecy and confidentiality and privileged nature of what their operations are, or what their forecasts are, as I said, there are lots of options for them to go to. But, if they choose to go to government, then I believe it's essential that we apply that level of accountability and transparency that we demand of other departments. We can file access to information requests. We can get this type of information when it's the Government of Quebec or the Government of Alberta through their various access to information laws. That type of disclosure is important.

I want to thank my NDP colleague, Mr. Bachrach, for bringing up the multiple examples of where committees have sent for papers, and specifically mentioned looking for unredacted information. Even in this Parliament there have been some examples of that.

I know the minister used this point, and I heard it again in the last round, talking about the Government of Ontario praising this project. Well, I've asked around. and it turns out that the Government of Ontario has not committed a dollar to this project; so, it's no surprise, if this federal government is coming along and saying they'll pay for this, for what would normally be considered a provincial project.

It's odd to me that if this is such a good project, then why does it need government money? If it's such a good project for Ontario, why hasn't Ontario committed any dollars to it? Minister Rickford has praised the project. Perhaps I might too if I were in his shoes. If the federal government was going to do something that the provincial government has so far refused to do, then it's no surprise there that he appreciates the Government of Canada stepping in and doing something that even it had evaluated was not in the interests of its taxpayers. Those are some of the questions that I struggle with.

I'll just go back to the question about the redaction and providing a loophole. I really do believe it's important for us. Someone suggested—I think Ms. Jaczek or maybe Mr. Fillmore— whether we would be doing this for every project that came through. Well, ideally, the government would not have written the legislation to keep these types of details secret. Ideally, the government would have written the legislation for the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I remind members that it passed this legislation at a time when it had a majority government, so it had the sole pen, the sole right of authorship of the legislation. Ideally, it would have written into the legislation more robust transparency and disclosure regimes, but it chose not to.

This is really the first situation where we have a private sector company involved in a project with the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has dispelled the notion that the Réseau project in Montreal and the Alberta irrigation project have private sector funds. He has dispelled that. He has concluded that the government's own definition of “private sector” and “public sector” means those two projects aren't eligible.

I think this is very timely to set the stage for accountability and disclosure if private sector companies that are going to profit from these projects.... This ITC Holdings, no doubt, has some way of recouping its investment and returning dividends to its shareholders. If they are going to benefit from that, if they are going to be able to win approval of their board members and shareholders by showing them how much money they're making on these types of projects, I believe it's eminently reasonable for them to explain to the Canadian taxpayer what's in it for them, what's in it for the taxpayer.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Thank you, Mr. Scheer.

I'm now going to move to Mr. El-Khoury.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Fayçal El-Khoury Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am concerned. If we are going to interfere with the structure of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, I am concerned that the project will be delayed or not completed.

Let me take the example of the Réseau express métropolitain, or REM, project, a project that is close to our hearts in Quebec. The government has worked hard to convince other interested parties to participate in its funding. If the project is delayed or not completed, what would be the losses for Quebeckers and Canadians?

Let's also take the example of the Lake Erie connector project. I have the same concern about that. I hope the committee takes this seriously, and it is in Canada's best interest during this COVID-19 pandemic. We must look out for the interests of our economy and our citizens.

I'll return to my proposal.

Do committee members agree to give the mayor of Sept-Iles the opportunity to participate in our meeting for a few minutes? It would be worthwhile.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Thank you, Mr. El-Khoury.

I believe the mayor of Sept-Îsles has departed, so I don't think we're going to have that opportunity, unfortunately.

I'm now going to move on to Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I see hand after hand going up. People have had the opportunity to speak on this before. Is there really anything new? I think we've had an opportunity to grasp what is being proposed by our colleague.

So I would suggest that we move to a vote as quickly as possible.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

I'm now going to move on to Mr. Bachrach.

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Chair, I was going to propose an amendment to the amendment, but I agree with Mr. Barsalou-Duval that we should move along with the vote.

I'm in a bit of a quandary here. Perhaps, if I can ask for your forbearance, I will propose an amendment to the amendment.

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Vance Badawey

Taylor, why don't we hold off on that until we vote on this amendment?

I see one more hand up: Mr. Iacono.

My intent is to go to the vote on the amendment, and then if you want to propose another amendment we can do that.

Does that sound good?

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Chair, I'm just looking to seek a bit of a compromise here that might move us along more quickly.