Transport Committee on March 21st, 2024

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Look, I'll reassure you where I can, but two things can be true at the same time.

We do want to encourage more people to take public transit and to use active transportation, and we've backed up our desire to do that with multi-billion-dollar investments in public transit and hundreds of millions of dollars towards active transportation.

That doesn't mean that it's somehow false that we also fund roads, because there are other reasons—public safety, economic development, efficiency in transportation corridors—that we have made a decision to fund very specific road projects. They've happened in my own community. I'm not sure whether they've happened in yours, but I expect they very well might have.

From my perspective, we both want to encourage the development and use of public transit for economic, social and environmental reasons, but we also recognize the value of building roads, and I don't think those two statements are inconsistent.

To the extent that you have specific questions about Minister Guilbeault's comments, he's going to be here this morning, and I'd encourage you to place your questions before him.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

If the intent is to encourage the use of public transit in Ontario, in the GO network, more than half of the routes are bus routes on highways and roads. To suggest that the current network is perfectly adequate is inconsistent with the intent of getting people to use public transit.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Most public transit, if you're talking about buses, is developed for roads that already exist today. It's rare that you see a new highway built for the purpose of encouraging public transit. However, we do think that there is significant value in encouraging more people to take public transit on the existing network of infrastructure.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

You referred to the Canada community-building fund, which of course was the gas tax, which is paid for by drivers, and you referenced $3.3 billion. We have half a trillion dollars of Canada's economy rolling down Highway 401 and across the border into the U.S. at Detroit, so $3.3 billion is less than a fraction of a percentage point of that part of our economy. Therefore, we need the 401 to be maintained and enhanced. We can't deliver our goods and support our economy through bike lanes down the 401.

This is what is alarming with this policy that the current road network is perfectly adequate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Muys.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Can I give just a quick response, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I can give you 15 seconds.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Okay, I just have a couple of clarifications.

First, the Canada community-building fund is not linked to revenue from gasoline sales. We're talking about an era gone by, part of the reason the program has changed. However, the road network you're talking about is largely funded, particularly the maintenance, by provincial governments.

To my point, there are a number of different programs, particularly the national trade corridors fund, for those kinds of economically important trade corridors where we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions, on projects, including road networks for the very purpose you've indicated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Muys. Thank you, Minister.

Next we have Ms. Murray. The floor is yours for five minutes, please.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you very much.

Welcome to our committee.

I am interested in the issue of building in a way that's climate-compliant. Climate-compliant infrastructure is something I worked on early in my time as an MP. I'm interested in an update, because what and how we build matters. If the federal government is supporting infrastructure, how are we ensuring that the infrastructure we support is climate-compliant?

If you have a brief response to that, I then have some specifics I'd like to dig into.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

That's excellent. Thank you.

It's refreshing when I find members of Parliament who have a unique focus on issues of great importance. From the day I first met you, climate has been at the front of the radar, and I thank you for that.

There are a number of different things that we do. We have programs that we put in place to help with adaptation and resiliency. We have programs that we've put in place to focus on mitigation. We have a focus on water and wastewater that can actually protect the health of our marine environments.

In addition, there's the work of one of our colleagues, Andy Fillmore, the member of Parliament for Halifax. When we were brand new MPs, he moved a private member's bill that required us to adopt a climate lens on infrastructure investments. It's essential that we continue to assess the impact of the investments in infrastructure on our climate so that we make better decisions to ensure that we're building communities that are sustainable, healthy and prosperous.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

That was a great bill.

I want to talk a bit about mass timber, because UBC in Vancouver Quadra has Brock Commons, an 18-storey mass timber student residence. From the time the hole in the ground was dug to when students were moving in to the residence, it was three months. We know that mass timber can be cost-effective because it is faster to get to a state of occupation. Mass timber is also reducing embedded carbon in materials like steel and concrete.

Are we doing anything to require or specifically incentivize building forms such as mass timber in all federally supported projects?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Absolutely.

We have a number of ways that we support mass timber. Before I get into the ways we support mass timber, I'll say that I'm a huge supporter of the technological advances that are allowing us to build sustainable buildings at the speed you can produce them, along with the safety at the work site. The opportunity to build a factory-type setting creates enormous advantages for the technology. It's going to be a big part of the path forward to help address the climate crisis.

We're looking to include a number of different technologies in the catalogue of pre-approved designs that we've launched, including mass timber specifically. That will create opportunities to create a consistency in demand that will help us ramp up the production of mass timber. We supported a number of projects earlier to help address the housing supply, including a unique program at UBC that focuses on building kits that are designed to produces houses that meet the building code in the province.

We're also looking at additional ways that we can support mass timber projects through investments in the factories that are engaged in mass timber construction. There are a number of different ways we're looking at doing this, and there were a number of projects we supported in the past. The technology, as a solution to the housing crisis, is sustainable, and can also have the potential to drive the economic opportunities in the forestry sector in our country. It has me fully behind it.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Climate compliance infrastructure has to be a core principle in what we fund. That's the structure, but the functioning of buildings is another matter. There are other issues. Do architects, engineers, and so on, have the skill sets to design climate-smart buildings with climate-compliant infrastructure? Do we have a mandate that requires them to be climate smart? That is one part of the functioning.

I also want to ask about licensing and training in the management of buildings. The United States has a climate change professionals program. It's a registered program through which the Association of Climate Change Officers leads climate enterprise readiness through training programs and certification.

Do we have anything like that in Canada, or are we considering anything like that in Canada?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have 10 seconds.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I have a cursory understanding of some of the work that we do, but I do have an expert whispering in my ear next to me. Rather than play broken telephone, I'll pass it to our deputy minister.

If you want to provide a little clarity, that would be helpful.

[Kelly Gillis, Deputy Minister, Office of Infrastructure of Canada]

Thank you, Minister.

We have been trying to augment and support the expertise within municipalities and with proponents by having programs through the FCM or through ourselves. This would give them tools, training and expertise to understand the assets they have, the climate risks they're facing, and how to be better custodians of those particular assets by supporting and working with the NRC on codes and standards and bringing those into place.

For example, if a municipality is looking at flood mitigation, it's not just the asset investment in the capital in the end; it's to be able to understand and protect the environment and the different investments that have to be made. We've been investing in that type of capacity at the municipal level.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Gillis.

As you can see, colleagues, I'm trying to be as tight with time as possible so that we can get through all the rounds.

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.

Minister, we were discussing the Canada community-building fund at the end of our exchange earlier. We criticized your government for wanting to add more fund eligibility conditions and to interfere in a jurisdiction that is not its own. You told us that your priority was to promote housing construction. I'm glad to hear that because I'd like to discuss a very specific housing project with you.

The riding that I represent includes the municipality of Contrecœur. That municipality had a problem with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the CMHC, because CMHC had classified it as a rural municipality, whereas its population has grown to more than 10,000 inhabitants. The problem is that, since CMHC still classifies Contrecœur as a rural municipality, it has become extremely difficult to implement all the funding programs for social and affordable housing creation in that municipality. The funding level is way too low. Furthermore, since the municipality is also located in the metropolitan Montreal area, housing prices are extremely high, which puts considerable pressure on the local market.

We sent you a letter last week asking if we could count on your support in our efforts to have Contrecœur reclassified. That would help make social and affordable housing development projects viable in the coming years. Without that support, the municipality will be stuck in this situation for the next four, five or six years. I have a copy of that letter.

I'd like to discuss this situation with you. How does one go about getting a municipality reclassified when this kind of administrative error occurs or when demographic change makes reclassification necessary?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you for your question.

I think it's very important to understand the reality of small communities. I come from a community of approximately 200 inhabitants. In other words, my family comes from a rural community. I'm now living in a small town.

I've considered potential solutions for small rural community towns in order to meet their needs. The job isn't done, and I'm still looking into ways to resolve the situation.

The situation is similar in the riding I represent. The municipality of Halifax will include small towns of approximately 100 or so inhabitants that are located two hours from the city. I've also looked into that matter.

If you email me the details, my team can look into the situation and give you an answer.

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

Thank you very much, Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Next we have Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Bachrach, you have two and half minutes, please.

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

Minister, a few months ago I expressed to you my concern that the way you structured the housing accelerator fund pitted very small cities against very large cities. The cut-off for the urban stream is a population of 10,000 people. The community I had in mind at the time was the City of Terrace, which has a population of about 12,000. The mayor has expressed this concern to me directly.

In your response, you indicated that you were also a rural MP and that you were going to ensure that those small communities had a fighting chance in the fund. The City of Terrace's application to the housing accelerator was turned down by your government, and now the city is wondering where your government stands when it comes to supporting their housing priorities.

Just for context, the City of Terrace has been significantly affected by industrial development in northwest B.C. It's a regional service centre. It lacks lots of the revenue opportunities that other communities are able to tap into through those industries.

They have a housing crisis. They want to build housing, and the city wants to partner with your government to make that happen. What's your message to community leaders in Terrace? Are you willing to sit down with me as soon as possible and discuss their priorities so that we can find a way to ensure that federal dollars make their way to that community?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

First, to your direct question, we can discuss this. We see each other in the halls of Parliament. I would gladly take time with you. More than that, if someone from my office wanted to get in touch with a specific municipality, we could arrange something so that we can walk through specifics of the application. Forgive me, but having received 540 applications across the country, I don't have the details of the individual application front of mind.

We did make significant efforts to ensure small communities were represented fairly within the fund. We had a carve-out for small communities and had some flexibility for some of those communities that may have been just beyond the population threshold. We looked at the need, the growth rate and the accordance with the measures they were willing to adopt as compared with the best practices that we published online.

I'm eating up most of your time, but we can follow up after the fact, because I don't want to ruin your chance at another question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have 30 seconds.