Transport Committee on May 4th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Go ahead, Mr. Iacono.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I want to set the record straight.

Perhaps Mr. Barsalou-Duval misunderstood my comments. I find it outrageous to request so many documents for a fishing expedition.

You and I both know that I speak French very well. I'm a member of Parliament from Quebec and I speak French very well. I'm a proud Quebecker. I completely agree that any document that comes to us should be translated into both languages, since Canada is a bilingual country.

I didn't make my comment to avoid having the documents translated. I wanted to point out that these requests are related to a fishing expedition. In my opinion, we should pay more attention to the need rather than just obtaining documents for a fishing expedition.

My comment was about that issue and not about my opposition to receiving the translation of the documents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Iacono.

Thank you, all.

We will call the vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are back to the main motion.

Mr. Bachrach, go ahead.

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

In the spirit of compromise, I would amend the timeline to 30 days.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Are there questions on that?

Mr. Scheer, you have your hand up on the amendment, I assume. Go ahead.

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

No, I was going to speak to the main motion. I don't have anything to say to this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments on the amendment by Mr. Bachrach?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

We're now going to move on to question of the the main motion as amended now.

I have, first up—your hands both went up at the same time. Flip a coin, guys.

Mr. Fillmore, go ahead.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thanks, Chair. I honestly believe I did have my hand up first there, but thank you for the coin toss.

One of the things my colleagues and I have noted as a reason we don't support this motion is the impact it would have on the Canada Infrastructure Bank's ability to function in the infrastructure investment world. We've heard Dr. Jaczyk talk about this as well, and others.

If infrastructure project partners think their company would be dragged through the mud in this way, for cheap partisan gain, they may think twice about participating in investments with the CIB. It pains me to believe that that is really the intention of this motion: to shake confidence, to push people away, and to try to make the Liberal government, therefore, look bad, by chilling investment through the Canada Infrastructure Bank and by creating an environment in which partners do not want to participate because of such an unreasonable airing of proprietary information.

I know the opposition would be perfectly happy with that. It's clearly what the motion is intended to do. We know that the Conservatives want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank altogether, but we know that Canadian citizens would be the ones who lose out in that scenario. They'd lose out because they'd wind up with fewer critical infrastructure projects being built in our country, less economic growth, fewer jobs and less of a green economy than we are trying very hard to create.

I know that one of our colleagues will always complain. I'll remind him of what he said and what he campaigned on less than two years ago. I think it's important to this debate because it makes clear the motivation behind this motion, and what this motion is actually trying to accomplish, which is to sabotage the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

Let's recall what my honourable colleague put in his Conservative Party election platform in 2019. He promised billions and billions of dollars in delays and cuts to infrastructure spending. I know he will usually chime in to say that's a lie, but let's just take a moment to listen to what some journalists said when he finally got around to releasing the Conservative platform back in 2019.

The National Post headline was, “Delayed infrastructure funds key to Conservatives' balanced budget plan”. The National Post went on to say that the Conservative platform was, “delaying billions of dollars' worth of federal infrastructure investments”.

The Globe and Mail said, “The biggest spending cut proposed by the Conservatives...is an $18-billion reduction in infrastructure spending over five years.”

The Globe also noted disappointment of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. It said that “The [FCM] decried the infrastructure cuts, saying in a statement that local governments across the country have an 'urgent need for increased investment.' The Conservative platform promises 'appear to move in the opposite direction,' [then] FCM president Bill Karsten said.” He is a tremendous public servant from my own riding of Halifax.

Criticism of these promised delays and cuts to infrastructure was widespread at the time, and I think we can all remember it very clearly, and rightly so.

With this motion that we're debating today we can see that nothing has changed—nothing has changed. The Conservatives are out to delay and cut infrastructure spending, and I have to say that it saddens me to see the other opposition parties dutifully following in line behind the Conservatives with their support of this fundamentally flawed motion.

Here is some more reaction to those promised cuts. This is from Emmett Macfarlane at the University of Waterloo. He said, “Well this is incompetent. Infrastructure spending desperately needs to go up, not down.” I would certainly agree with Mr. Macfarlane, and that, of course, is the intention of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

Gary Mason said, “What party releases its platform the Friday of a long weekend? One that doesn't want too much attention focused on it would be my guess.”

Perhaps the ears of our friend, Mr. Bachrach, would perk up a little bit to hear what Hassan Yussuff, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, said. He said, “Over and over again, Conservatives have demonstrated hostility toward Canada's workers. Today, Andrew Scheer is doubling down on that hostility and seeking a mandate to cut. With a platform loaded with job-killing service cuts, it’s clear that Andrew Scheer represents an equal threat to Canadians as Stephen Harper.”

Radio-Canada journalists Philippe-Vincent Foisy and Hugo Prévost wrote the following:

A Conservative government would impose tens of billions of dollars in budget cuts in its first term.

Coming back to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Bill Karsten, the president, said on the eve of the election, “Cities and communities across the country have an urgent need for increased investment in infrastructure. Proposed measures in this platform appear to move in the opposite direction, with fewer infrastructure dollars available year-over-year to create jobs, improve roads and bridges, and maintain the local services Canadians rely on.”

What if anything is the Canada Infrastructure Bank for if not to create those local services that Canadians rely on?

Andrew Coyne, of the National Post, on the eve of the election in 2019, tweeted, “If what you seek is a coherent vision of conservatism in the 21st century, you will have to look elsewhere.”

Alex Boutilier of the Toronto Star, another Haligonian who moved to upper Canada, tweeted, “The largest cuts are in unspecified 'other operating expenses'—$14.4 billion over five years. The Conservatives suggest they can achieve that through reining in travel spending, consulting fees, and cutting down on federal office space.”

Marieke Walsh, of The Globe and Mail, tweeted, “The second largest proposed spending cut in the platform is a plan to save $14-billion over five years on federal government operating expenses, which are not detailed in the platform.” She also tweeted, “The party said shrinking the size of cubicle space for public servants could be one of the ways to save that money”.

David Akin of Global News is quoted as saying, “The single biggest saving measure is putting off some infrastructure spending. That will save $18-billion over five years”. Well, he certainly understood what the Conservatives were intent on doing.

Don Martin of CTV News tweeted, “Now we see why this was released late on a Friday before a long weekend. Some big cuts with few specifics.”

Rachel Gilmore of CTV News is quoted as saying, “The Conservative plan to balance the budget includes some serious cuts, including: – Cutting $1.5 billion a year by reviewing business subsidy programs -' Prioritizing' infrastructure spending, which would eliminate $1.3 billion in 2020-21—Cutting foreign aid by $1.5 billion”.

Emmett Macfarlane, again, from the University of Waterloo, is quoted as saying, “I’ve avoided the Doug Ford-Andrew Scheer comparisons because they’re definitely different people but the details coming out about the CPC fiscal plans, particularly on the cutting side, are eerily Ford-esque.”

Last October, in Le Journal de Montréal, Guillaume St-Pierre wrote that a balanced budget would require cuts. Andrew Scheer plans to cut infrastructure investments by $18 billion over five years. In addition, operating expenses will be cut by $14 billion.

Denise Balkissoon, of the Globe and Mail, tweeted, “The Conservative party says it will cut $18-billion in infrastructure spending days after Mr. Scheer criticized the Liberals for not spending enough on infrastructure.”

Don Martin, again, is quoted as saying, “Friday afternoon release, just ahead of a long weekend, that usually means bad news and the conservative blueprint for governing which came out less than an hour ago shows some startling ways to cut spending that had not been disclosed before.”

I have pages of this because pages exist of it. The Conservative Party has decided that investing in Canadian communities is not something they are supportive of. In fact, as they pursue their philosophy of shrinking the government and government spending, they are clearly attempting to do it on the backs of Canadians and on the infrastructure that Canadians require and depend upon to run their businesses, to get to school, to raise their children, to educate their children, to pipe their services, to create energy, everything.

All the infrastructure that our communities rely upon require and deserve federal investment, not federal cuts. For this motion to try to camouflage that philosophical position, which is anti-community investment under the guise of a fishing expedition seeking thousands and thousands of pages of proprietary business dealing information.... As I mentioned, last week we had proponents of the A2A railroad here. I wish they had left their cameras on because I would liked to have seen their faces when they heard what this motion actually meant, and the chilling effect it would have on investment in major infrastructure in our country.

With the CIB we have renewed that leadership. We have instituted a growth plan. We are approving projects. We have the REM in Montreal. We have the Lake Erie Connector. There are other examples emerging as we speak.

This is what Canada is asking for. These are the projects that are going to steer us out of the economic slump this pandemic has caused and at the same time create jobs, lead us into a greener economy and create a more inclusive economy in which all Canadians can participate. This is the work that we were all sent here to do by our constituents, by the people who hired us to come to this place.

I'm going to leave it there, Mr. Chair. I look forward to hearing what some of my colleagues have to say.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore.

I'm going to move on to Mr. Scheer.

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

Mr. Chair, this is what happens when Liberals are exposed to accountability and transparency. They react very vociferously when they get backed into a corner, and they fear the sunlight that was supposed to be the disinfectant has become the thing that gives them some burns.

Where to begin? It's said that Canadians would lose out if the Infrastructure Bank ceased operations. Lose out on what? The bank has completed nothing. The only two projects this government can point to are projects that were already going to get funding. The government just made a political decision to provide funding through the CIB, and the parliamentary budget officer has revealed that there is no private sector investment in them.

We have here a first-of-its-kind type of arrangement whereby, instead of public dollars leveraging private sector money to get public infrastructure built, the Canada Infrastructure Bank has proposed a model in which private money has leveraged public funds to get private infrastructure built. Instead of having the private sector play a role in designing, operating or maintaining a public asset—something that Canadians own either through municipal, provincial or federal governments—this is now going to be an asset owned by a private sector company.

I could litigate every single point. I know Mr. Fillmore can recite lots of quotes from his ideological soulmates in various institutions who benefit from the Liberal government and support their ideology. If this debate goes on beyond this committee's meeting, I can come to the next meeting with lots and lots of quotes from ethics experts talking about this government's scandalous decision to grant a sole-source contract of almost $1 billion to their friends in the WE Charity; how the Prime Minister and his family personally benefited from the WE organization; how they benefited politically by giving the WE organization a platform.

I could stick to infrastructure and bring in Auditor General and parliamentary budget officer reports and read, not quotes from editorialists or columnists with their own opinion, but cold hard facts, black and white numbers. The reality is that what we offered in the last election was a recognition that this government had cut infrastructure through its lapsing of that funding. In the first few years of this government's existence, it lapsed $8 billion in infrastructure spending. That was commitments to municipalities, towns and rural municipalities and villages. They were going to get help to upgrade their water systems, expand their roads, all kinds of different types of assets that would improve the lives of people in those communities. This government lapsed that funding, effectively cut that funding by $8 billion in the first year, and continues to lapse that money year over year.

This motion has been referred to as a fishing expedition. By that logic if the CRA looks at anybody's tax return, then CRA is on a fishing expedition. We have mechanisms in our government whereby oversight is provided. That's not to say that every time a committee exercises its oversight function that it always uncovers something, but it's the fact that oversight exists to ensure proper behaviour by government departments. If this committee and other committees just decided they would never cast a second look or have another run at the numbers or the proposals, it would be hugely detrimental to the accountability and transparency our Parliament is based on.

We have discovered through all kinds of studies gross examples of missed expenditures. I submitted an Order Paper question asking about infrastructure cost overruns due to delays. I believed we would probably get some projects here and there in the infrastructure department. I was shocked to find out how much extra costs for the taxpayer Parks Canada has caused through project delays. I wasn't expecting to find it, but the very fact that I asked the question forced government agencies and departments to answer the question, and now we can see the millions and millions of dollars that Parks Canada has cost taxpayers by failing to manage its own asset. That's what this motion is all about.

As I mentioned at the last meeting, if private sector companies don't want to have these types of accountability measures imposed upon them, there are a lot of lenders who will provide confidentiality and secrecy to them. I believe it's safe to say that every chartered bank in the country has all kinds of commitments to its clients about maintaining secrecy and confidentiality about their clients' operations. This is different. This is the taxpayer who is funding this.

Mr. Fillmore wants to talk about cuts that the Conservatives promised in the last campaign. Let's talk about the cuts to corporate welfare that we promised, corporate welfare that this government just can't get enough of. Liberals and corporate welfare go hand in hand.

We've seen so many examples of hard-working Canadians struggling to get by during this pandemic. I know so many people in my riding who have lost everything, as I'm sure every member on this committee—regardless of party—does in their communities. These people have been forced to shut their doors because of the pandemic and have lost their life savings. Friends of mine have had to sell their homes to pay off the bills from their small businesses. They've owned restaurants that they're not allowed to open.

It's heart-wrenching and it's heartbreaking. Then, when you see this announcement coming on the heels of this government giving $12 million to Loblaws for fridges—multi-billion dollar companies—as well as $50 million to MasterCard.... A credit card company that makes its living off the backs of working Canadians who can't pay their full balance is getting $50 million in taxpayers' money. Now we have an example where, through its subsidiary, a private sector company worth billions of dollars gets a cheque for $655 million. This whole exercise is to find out why that decision was made and how the agreement is structured. That is what this is all about.

Now, I did mention in our last meeting that I was sympathetic to the argument about some types of information where there would never be an expectation of disclosure on the part of the third party here, ITC Holdings. In the spirit of co-operation, and inspired by Mr. Bachrach's enlightened compromise of 30 days rather than the original 20 days, I would propose a motion that was first put forward by Ms. Kusie. I can assure members that I have consulted with the law clerk's office today to ensure this is worded properly,

In the spirit of compromise and in trying to ensure that the motives of this are clear—that this is about accountability and understanding why this motion is necessary and the information from the committee is being asked for—I would propose the following amendment after the words “within 30 days of the adoption of this order”. We've just amended that with Mr. Bachrach's words. The motion would have the amendment added to it. I would have to amend that whole sentence as follows:

That the documents be provided in an unredacted form to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel within 30 days of the adoption of this order; That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel redact from the documents, except for the agreement itself, its appendices or schedules: (a) any information that constitutes a trade secret, (b) any information the disclosure of which could reasonably result in material financial loss or gain to ITC or a third party or prejudice their competitive position, (c) any information the disclosure of which could reasonably interfere with contractual or other negotiations of ITC or a third party, and (d) any personal private information; That the CIB, in consultation with ITC, may propose redactions to the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel respecting the information that should be redacted pursuant to this order; and That the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel provide the redacted documents to the committee as soon as the redactions are completed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Scheer.

Mr. Scheer, would you have that handy as a document that you could send to the clerk, please?

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

Yes. It might take me a minute or so, but I'll do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

I'll give you that minute.

In the meantime, did you folks want to take a two- or three-minute health break before we move on?

I'm going to suspend for about three minutes for a health break, and then we'll reconvene.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

I am now going to the floor for questions on the amendment.

I have Ms. Jaczyk and Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

I'm not sure if you've taken your hand down, but for any one of you, including you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval, if you have any questions on the amendment, please get your hands up.

Ms. Jaczyk, go ahead.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I move that the committee now adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Ms. Jaczyk.

That is a dilatory motion, and there is no debate on it.

I will ask the clerk to call for the vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Thank you, members.

I am now going back to questions on the amendment.

Ms. Jaczyk, you have your hand back up.

Go ahead with resuming debate on the motion.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

While Mr. Scheer has made it very clear that he does not like the Canada Infrastructure Bank and has has alluded to lapsed funds. He has talked about the bank losing money, which in both cases is an inaccurate description of how the bank, in fact, functions.

I want to address in particular why this specific project, the Lake Erie Connector, a clean power project, is so important, and why it is particularly fitting that the Canada Infrastructure Bank be involved in this project.

Clean power projects are often delayed or not developed because of financing challenges and gaps in the capital structure, so to help deliver clean power projects, the CIB will provide low-cost and long-term capital, often pegged to revenue streams that are not typically sufficient for traditional debt and equity investors. So in working with governments and project developers on delivering clean power projects, the CIB will structure these investments to increase the use of private sector capital, reduce the weighted average cost of capital, provide certainty on long-term debt and equity returns, and transfer more construction and operations risk to the private sector.

Of course, clean power is particularly important and, as we know, the CIB, in its growth plan, has dedicated funds, some $2.5 billion, for clean power. I think we all understand—at least most of us do—that climate change is a serious problem globally and that Canada needs to do its bit, so clean power is a particularly appropriate area for investment by the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

Because I was particularly interested in this project, certainly when I saw that Ontario's minister of Energy, Mines and Northern Development and Minister of Indigenous Affairs, the Honourable Greg Rickford, was so enthusiastic about the project, I decided to do a little bit more reading about this project. I want to make sure that everyone on the committee has a full understanding of what we're talking about in this case. First:

The Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB)and ITC Investment Holdings (ITC) have signed an agreement in principle to invest $1.7 billion in the Lake Erie connector project. Under the terms of the agreement

—this is all publicly known—

the CIB will invest up to $655 million or up to 40% of the project cost. ITC, a subsidiary of Fortis Inc., and private sector lenders will invest up to $1.05 billion, the balance of the project's capital cost.

What exactly is the Lake Erie Connector?

...a proposed 117 kilometre underwater transmission line connecting Ontario with the PJM Interconnection, the largest electricity market in North America.

The 1,000 megawatt, high-voltage direct current connection will help lower electricity costs for customers in Ontario

—I made reference to this being especially important for customers in Ontario—

and improve the reliability and security of Ontario's energy grid. The Lake Erie Connector will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and be a source of low-carbon electricity in the Ontario and U.S. electricity markets.

During construction, the Lake Erie Connector is expected to create 383 jobs per year and drive more than $300 million in economic activity. Over its life, the project will provide 845 permanent jobs and economic benefits by boosting Ontario's GDP by $8.8 billion.

The project will also help Ontario to optimize its current infrastructure, avoid costs associated with existing production curtailments or shutdowns. It can leverage existing generation capacity and transmission lines to support electricity demand.

ITC continues its discussions with First Nations communities and is working towards meaningful participation in the near term and as the project moves forward to financial close.

It's another win-win involving our indigenous communities.

The CIB anticipates financial close late in 2021

—if not disrupted by this particular motion—

pending final project transmission agreements, with construction commencing soon after. ITC will own the transmission line and be responsible for all aspects of design, engineering, construction, operations and maintenance.

This has been an ongoing discussion for many years because ITC actually acquired, or decided to commence, the Lake Erie Connector project in August 2014 and has already received all of the necessary regulatory and permitting approvals, including a U.S. presidential permit and approval from the Canada Energy Regulator.

This is a very important investment and there is a commitment to go ahead. It is extremely important for citizens in Ontario.

It has received a number of endorsements, and the CEO of the Canada Infrastructure Bank at the time, Ehren Cory, said:

This project will allow Ontario to export its clean, non-emitting power to one of the largest power markets in the world and, as a result, benefit Canadians economically while also significantly contributing to greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the PJM market. The project allows Ontario to better manage peak capacity and meet future reliability needs in a more sustainable way.

This is a true win-win for Canada and the U.S., both economically and environmentally.

As I've said many times during the debate on this motion, any move that might cause anxiety to possible investors in this project is something that I think is harmful. That is why I am, at this point in time, not convinced that this motion should move forward, even with the proposed amendment by Mr. Scheer—which, of course, we will be studying very carefully.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Ms. Jaczek. Well stated.

Before I move on to Mr. Fillmore, I do want to inform the committee that I have been informed that management will not have services available past 9 p.m., so there is a hard stop at 9:00 p.m. That's when I'll be suspending the meeting.

With that, Mr. Fillmore, go ahead.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Chair, and Dr. Jaczek.

The potential investment of $2.5 billion in Canadian clean energy on the way toward a $5 billion investment over the mid-term is a remarkable opportunity, absolutely. I would like to get the benefits of this project on the record so that all committee members will be fully aware of them. These are the benefits according to the project proponent, and the benefits that hang in the balance of this ill-conceived motion.

First, what are the real customer savings involved here? The Lake Erie Connector is going to maximize efficiency and increase competition, which creates opportunity for significant customer savings. For Ontario customers, that's going to translate into some very quantifiable benefits: In net benefits $100 billion plus per year; $3 billion in savings over 30 years of the project; savings of $22 per year per residential customer, and $660 per customer over 30 years of the project.

It will enable market access. We heard this in earlier testimony. The Lake Erie Connector will enable direct access between Ontario, a significant energy market with a very different resource mix, and PJM the largest multi-state competitive power market in the world. I believe it's 13 states and the District of Columbia. This is going to enable the buying and selling of energy capacity in renewable energy credits. Harnessing energy trading with the largest electrical market in the world will also allow Ontario to take advantage of low-cost capacity imports on an as-needed basis and find high-value export markets when the province is in surplus, all the while using transmission lines that are currently underutilized. These benefits are going to prove entirely valuable for Ontario's electricity system and help lower costs for residents and businesses, as previously stated, at a time we need it most.

Having access to the Ontario energy market will provide the PJM participants on the other side of the border with increased trading opportunities, with resulting increases in market efficiencies, including the ability of load-serving entities and large electricity customers to obtain energy from non-emitting wind, solar, hydro and nuclear resources during periods of surplus generation in Ontario, with a resulting reduction in PJM's emissions profiles. As we know GHGs don't obey political boundaries; what's good in Canada is good in the U.S., and if we can help reduce emissions there, then this is another checkmark in the win column for the Erie Connector.

It's a shovel-ready project. The Lake Erie Connector is ready to go. It has received all of the necessary regulatory and permitting approvals, including a National Energy Board certificate of public convenience and necessity, a U.S. Department of Energy presidential permit, a Pennsylvania and United States Army Corps of Engineers permit. Route 5A is finalized; it has secured all of the necessary real estate and rights-of-way, positive discussions with indigenous communities and Ontario Ministry of Energy inclusion in the LTEP.

ITC/Fortis has invested over $40 million U.S. to permit the project; it's well invested. It's a very serious credible application. ITC/Fortis is ready to invest up to $1 billion U.S. in this Ontario infrastructure.

Moving forward now with the Lake Erie Connector would ensure that infrastructure would be put in place for both markets to import and export electricity and enjoy a wide array of shared benefits.

One of those is access to clean energy. As the connector project's website states:

The Lake Erie Connector can offer significant support to the goals laid out in the North American Climate, Clean Energy and Environment Partnership between Canada, U.S.A. and Mexico, including the continental goal to achieve 50% clean power generation by 2025.

Are we really sure we want to put this in jeopardy?

Furthermore:

The Lake Erie Connector can help provide a cleaner energy mix by reducing Ontario's GHG emissions in the electricity sector by up to 2-3 million tonnes per year.

It can open access to non-emitting electricity imports to Ontario from PJM during periods of potential capacity shortfalls, such as during Ontario's nuclear refurbishments.

For PJM participants, load-serving entities and large electricity customers will be positioned to obtain energy from non-emitting wind, solar, hydro and nuclear resources during periods of surplus generation in Ontario with a resulting reduction in PJM's emissions profile.

Another one of these shared benefits is “economic development in both regions”, south and north of the border:

The Lake Erie Connector will provide system reliability and security benefits. The project is expected to increase market efficiencies and benefit local economics. When completed, the Lake Erie Connector will make tax payments which will benefit local communities and residents.

Another benefit is “safe technology” with “low environmental impact”. The “[h]igh-voltage direct current cables”, or HVDC, that are considered for this project “have very little impact on their environmental surroundings”. HVDC technology is proven to be safe and reliable: “The solid cables are well insulated.” They contain no gels or liquids. They are made from non-flammable materials. They're essentially inert: “Because the cables are constant direct current”—DC current, in other words—“no fluctuating electromagnetic fields are created.” Also, “[t]he HVDC converter stations that will be located on either end of the cable will utilize the latest technology which has proven robust, flexible and very stable.”

As well, “[m]ost of the HVDC cables for the Lake Erie connector will actually be buried under Lake Erie”. Indeed:

The water jet installation process minimizes disturbance to the lake bed and helps [to] minimize the width of the trench, which is barely larger than the cables themselves and which begins to be filled in by natural forces of water movement once the cables are in place. Transmission lines buried underwater are much less susceptible to damage by inclement weather or natural disasters.

In fact, “[i]f a cable is damaged, automatic protection systems stop the power flow within a fraction of a second...”.

Colleagues, to conclude, I think it's pretty clear that the opposition is trying to derail an investment that will benefit the Ontario economy, will benefit Ontario electricity ratepayers and will benefit our environment, and I think that's very unfortunate. I think it's also very unfortunate that it comes at this time, when we are seeing our largest trading partner, our next door neighbour—with the longest shared border in the world—returning to the Paris climate agreement and establishing their own net-zero emission goals.

This is a time, more than ever before in the history of these two countries, for collaboration and co-operation on our shared efforts to address the climate emergency head-on and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by any means that we can possibly come up with, including transborder transmission opportunities. It is incumbent on us to pursue this, not just because it's an economic imperative that will help us to recover from a pandemic-induced recession, but because it's an environmental imperative that is going to help us to restore the environment and make sure that we leave a habitable world for our children and grandchildren. I'd go further and say that this work toward reducing our GHGs, in collaboration with the United States, is a moral imperative. This is something that we must do.

There are many ways that we can go about reducing GHGs in North America. Putting a price on carbon pollution is high on the list. Changing behaviours among the public to shift modes of transport from single-occupant vehicles to active transportation and to electrified transit is another one. Encouraging our communities to grow and to develop in more dense, more walkable and less car-dependent physical arrangements is another one.

Furthermore, we can encourage young Canadians to pursue fields of study in the sciences, particularly in the environmental sciences, so that they understand the seriousness of the stewardship role they're inheriting as they come of age. They will become the people who sit in the very chairs that we're sitting in now and lead this world into what today is an uncertain future. However, it can be a much brighter future, a much cleaner and greener future, if we allow good green infrastructure projects like the Erie Connector to proceed and if we create the economic and business case conditions that can encourage even more proponents to come forward with similar projects. We can build a critical mass of investment in the green, clean infrastructure of tomorrow that will help us reach our GHG reduction targets, whether they're provincial targets, national targets or shared targets under the Paris climate accord. This is how we're going to change the world, quite frankly, and leave a habitable world for our kids and grandkids.

I think I've made my point, so I'm going to leave it there. I thank my colleagues for their kind attention. I'm sure they will have more to say as time goes on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Vance Badawey]

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore.

Before I adjourn the meeting, I will remind members that witness lists for the study on the government's response to the downing of Ukraine flight 752 should be sent to the clerk as soon as possible. The first meeting will be Tuesday, May 11. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Transport will be making a joint appearance on Thursday, May 13.

Members, with that said, we had a great meeting. With nothing else to say and no questions, we will not move past nine o'clock because of health and safety reasons and strained resources, as I'm sure you well imagine.

I therefore adjourn the meeting.