Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the committee members and all of the staff for being here to assist us in this important work on behalf of Canadians.
I note that six members have signed the letter calling for this meeting because of the comments of Steven Guilbeault, the Minister of the Environment, last week, which have caused an uproar and uncertainty right across the country. His divisive comments and extreme position have set off alarm bells in provincial capitals, cities, remote communities and indigenous communities right across the country.
It is a radical policy that he announced last week in Montreal. He said, “Our government has made the decision to stop investing in new road infrastructure.” Now, if we break down that comment, you'll see quite clearly that this is not an off-the-cuff remark from a radical activist minister—even though he certainly has that background. He said that the Trudeau government “has made the decision to stop investing in new road infrastructure.” He went on to say that, “The analysis we have done is that the network is perfectly adequate to respond to the needs we have.”
Now, this is, again, an alarming point of view to have. It suggests that he hasn't spent much time travelling the country and speaking to Canadians, who have significant concerns with our road network, in terms of both its current state and its capacity. We know there are supply chain issues. We've heard time and time again about how reliant we are on, for instance, the trucking sector to get our goods to market. You see these trucks sitting in traffic, whether around Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal or elsewhere throughout the country or travelling over roads that are quite frankly in a state of disrepair or unsafe. In some cases they are unable to travel except in the winter because there's only an ice road; there is no permanent link between many of the communities in our country. So the idea that the government has made the decision to stop investing in new road infrastructure and that they've done an analysis showing that the network is perfectly adequate to respond to the needs we have is shocking, as the letter said.
We believe this committee needs to discuss this matter on an urgent basis. Just to give you a heads-up, Mr. Chair, I will be moving a motion at the end of my comments. I believe we do need to hear from the minister and to hear from other ministers who are impacted and who were clearly a part of this decision-making process.
Again, these comments were not made by the minister when he was caught on a street corner by a lucky journalist who happened to find him while he was walking or riding his bike. These were comments given to a conference. These were remarks prepared by the Minister of the Environment and designed to send a message to Canadians. I believe he said there would be no more envelopes, meaning there would be no more money for the road network in this country.
We've seen how these divisive comments have actually united Canadians against them. The Northwest Territories infrastructure minister Caroline Wawzonek said the following:
Documents such as the Arctic and Northern Policy Framework are clear that there is a need to address transportation challenges in remote parts of Canada's north and the Arctic.
Premier Scott Moe of Saskatchewan said, “The Trudeau government gets more out of touch with reality every day”.
Doug Ford, a great partner of this Liberal government, said:
I'm gobsmacked. A federal minister said they won't invest in new roads or highways. He doesn't care that you're stuck in bumper to bumper traffic.
Danielle Smith said:
Anyone who thinks that you can stop building roads has obviously not travelled outside of Montreal very much and doesn't understand how big this country is and doesn't understand what it takes to get to some of our resort communities.
Blaine Higgs said:
The Trudeau government is unfairly punishing New Brunswickers for being rural. With our province experiencing historic population growth, this will be a roadblock to building new homes to tackle the housing crisis.
Someone who the minister has tried to quote to justify the carbon tax is The Food Professor on Twitter—that's what he goes by. The Food Professor said:
Minister Guilbeault questioned any future major investment in infrastructure yesterday. Canada's logistics are anemic, at best. Ports are horrible and roads are inefficient. If we want a stronger agri-food sector, logistics is the backbone of the industry.
The Mayor of Calgary said that the policy announced by Minister Guilbeault “would literally be terrible for every municipality in this nation.”
Premier David Eby of British Columbia said that the announcement “made a lot of us very nervous.”
This is a cross-section of Canadians—of everyone from the left to the right—who have been caught unawares and who are, quite frankly, shocked and in disbelief that this is the first government—at any time, anywhere, I believe—that has indicated that it wouldn't be investing in roads.
Then the minister tried to walk it back, which he failed to do. After the government's policy was revealed and he had the opportunity to try to clarify, he said that, no, he didn't mean they wouldn't. Even though he'd said very clearly, “Our government has made the decision to stop investing in new road infrastructure”, he said that what he meant was that they weren't going to invest in any big new road infrastructure—no more big projects. He singled out the Third Link in Quebec City, which I'm sure other colleagues will have something to say about.
I think about projects in my own area. A big project that is going to take multiple years and multiple billions of dollars is the expansion of the Trans-Canada Highway from Langley to Abbotsford to Chilliwack with additional lanes. That's a major road project. It's necessary because every day now there is bumper-to-bumper traffic on that major route, which connects Fraser Valley communities to metro Vancouver communities. It connects workers to their jobs.
As this government's policies have made it less and less affordable to live in cities, people have had to expand out into the suburbs. They've had to live further and further away from where they work in order to afford a home. It used to be the case that Chilliwack was an affordable market, but after eight years of Justin Trudeau, homes here are now over $750,000 on average, with many 40-year-old homes cresting the million-dollar mark. People are still moving out further from the cities because, even at those inflated prices, it's cheaper than living downtown or in closer proximity to Vancouver. Therefore, people need to drive to work. There is one bus that goes from Chilliwack into a bus route. It would take you about three hours to get downtown if you just used the public transit options available.
The Government of British Columbia has, over successive governments, had an expansion program that it has into the future. It's a phased program that will continue to build out from metro Vancouver to the Fraser Valley. That is all at risk now because this Minister of the Environment, speaking for Justin Trudeau and the cabinet, said that no more major road projects will be allowed to go ahead.
He's announcing, basically, that they are cancelling the expansion of lanes for the Trans-Canada Highway. There are many other examples that I'm sure colleagues will wish to speak to as we go forward today and maybe into tonight—we'll see how it goes.
We certainly believe that there is a necessity to hear from the minister himself, so that he can explain this government's decision to stop investing in new road infrastructure—his words—and so that he can explain to Canadians from small communities and large communities alike why this decision by the Trudeau government has been taken.
I found it very interesting to see, in question period on Thursday, members from multiple parties talking about the significant impact that this will have on indigenous and northern communities, and how there are many communities that have been looking for permanent road access to bring down the cost of goods, to increase public safety, to connect their communities with economic opportunities and to connect to their social networks as well.
Right now, many of them are flying in, and many of them have ice roads. Certainly they would disagree with Minister Guilbeault's comments that “The analysis we have done is that the network is perfectly adequate to respond to the needs we have.”
I don't know who is the “we” that he's talking about. Perhaps it's Liberals who live within 500 metres of a subway station. We certainly heard the Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland, make similar comments, to the effect that she didn't need a car. She clearly did need a car; she just needed a taxpayer-funded car with a driver because we found out through public accounts that this was something she used, but she bragged about being able to use the subway to get everywhere.
Minister Guilbeault is an avid cyclist, and that's great for him, but that's not the analysis we have done. He said the network is perfectly adequate to respond to the needs we have. Well, many Canadians have different needs than what the Liberals clearly have. They have a need to get their kids to school. They have a need to get their goods to market on a reliable road network. They have a need to get to work in a place that isn't right beside where they live.
The government has started this war on people who need to drive their cars to live their lives, and this is particularly true when it comes to rural communities that don't have access to the same infrastructure as those who live in the downtown of a city like Minister Guilbeault does.
It's an out-of-touch comment. It's an offensive comment. It's an extreme policy, a ridiculous policy from a radical activist who has decided to...after being appointed by the Prime Minister. If you look at this guy's record, it's almost impossible to believe that he was appointed to cabinet. This is a guy who clambered up the CN Tower, who climbed on to the top of the roof of the home of a sitting premier to protest and terrorize his family. This is the guy who has been put in charge of our environment policies. It's no wonder that we have these radical and extreme policies.
We think that we need to hear from him directly, as well as other members of this cabinet, who came to the decision to stop investing in new road infrastructure.
I will read the motion that I will be moving on the record, and then we will get that to the clerk to distribute to everyone, but the motion is as follows:
The committee undertake a study of no less than 6 meetings on infrastructure in Canada, and invite the following witnesses to appear before the committee: (a) The Minister of Environment and Climate Change, alone, for 3 hours, within seven days of this motion being adopted, (b) The Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, alone, for 3 hours within seven days of this motion being adopted; (c) The Minister of Transport, alone, for 3 hours within fourteen days of this motion being adopted; (d) The Minister of Finance, alone, for 3 hours within fourteen days of this motion being adopted; (e) The CEO of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, Ehren Cory alone for 3 hours within fourteen days of this motion being adopted; (f) And any witnesses deemed relevant by committee members,
And, that the committee seek additional resources as required in order to accommodate these meetings, including by adding additional time to the end of meetings scheduled on Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities, and by scheduling meetings during non-sitting days, and that, with the exception of scheduled meetings on Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities, this study take priority order.
Mr. Chair, I'm happy to speak to why we believe that this motion needs to be adopted by this committee. Obviously, we want to hear from the Minister of Environment, whose comments have created this firestorm across the country. We believe that he deserves to explain to Canadians the decision that was arrived at by the Trudeau government to no longer fund roads.
Obviously, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities probably took a great interest in that, as the Minister of Environment was sent out to make that announcement on his behalf, so we would like to see how that fits into the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities' plan for infrastructure in this country.
We believe we have a direct interest in hearing from the Minister of Transport to discuss the impact that this new policy of the Trudeau government will have on our ports, road infrastructure and supply chains. We believe that is something that Minister Rodriguez should come before this committee to discuss.
The Minister of Finance, I think, should discuss here how this is going to figure into the fiscal framework. How does the decision to abandon the funding of new roads impact the fiscal framework? How will that impact her budgeting process? We know the budget is generally introduced in the spring. We would expect that they are putting the finishing touches on that, and perhaps she can tell us the impact that this new policy will have on the fiscal framework and the budget process.
Obviously, the CEO of the Canada Infrastructure Bank should be asked to discuss how this will impact the decisions of the bank. This committee has recommended previously in a report to the House that the Canada Infrastructure Bank be disbanded, but the government has maintained the bank, despite its many problems. We would like to hear from the Canada Infrastructure Bank to see how this policy of no new major roads will impact their ability to make investment decisions and whether they have hired any high-priced consultants to advise them on this new decision, as they did previously with other failed projects.
There may be other witnesses deemed relevant by committee members. I can think of provincial and territorial and community and indigenous leaders, who probably would like to weigh in on this as well.
We want to make sure that we continue the work that we are doing with the accessible transportation for persons with disabilities study, which is an important study. We don't want to take away from that, but we believe we can do two things at once—we can have concurrent studies going on, and this important issue of road infrastructure can be discussed outside the normal committee times, either by adding hours to those meetings or by adding additional meetings so that we can have these ministers appear and have them answer questions as soon as possible.
I've moved that motion, and I would be happy to have my committee colleagues weigh in on when they would like to hear from the Minister of Environment and how we should structure those hearings.
I appreciate the time, Mr. Chair, and I look forward to the discussion.