Evidence of meeting #108 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was project.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Matt Pawlowski  Vice-President, NextEra Energy Transmission
Chuck Farmer  Chief Energy Transition Officer and Vice-President, Planning, Conservation and Resource Adequacy, Independent Electricity System Operator
Lisa Raitt  As an Individual

12:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Lisa Raitt

It's extremely important, Mr. Strahl. The reality is that investors are waiting to hear from the budget on a number of items. When you see a continuous stream of announcements from the government indicating all the spending that's going to be happening, you wonder what is going to happen to the deficit and, second, whether there will be a tax increase. What I'm hearing—very much so—is that there is a concern about an increase of the corporate tax. There's a concern about levelling even more taxes on individuals here in the country, because the reality is that, on the other side of the ledger, if you continue to put out these massive deficits, it will catch the attention of the ratings agencies. Having that kind of interaction with a federal government's creditworthiness is extremely detrimental to the ability of the country to borrow at a low cost.

As you know from looking at the numbers, when we have interest costs that.... I say “we”, but I'm no longer in the government. I'm sorry. However, when there are interest costs that exceed the line items of individual departments in the federal budget, you want to be very concerned, especially if it goes beyond what we spend, for example, on national defence. So, yes, bankers look at this. Investors look at this. Investors are also concerned with respect to whether or not there's any kind of certainty, I would say, from the government in terms of what is coming next with regard to the promises made about the deficit level.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC

You mentioned the B.C. NDP government getting a downgrade and a warning. What is the impact on the rates that they have to pay? Does it impact taxpayers in any way when those kinds of warnings go out from ratings agencies or when warnings are continuing to go out from the banking sector about our economic environment?

12:15 p.m.

As an Individual

Lisa Raitt

It certainly could. I don't know how much time there would be between the actual rating depression and what happens in terms of the cost of capital, the cost of the borrowing for the deficits of the B.C. government. However, at the end of the day, we all know that it's the taxpayers who end up paying. The interest payments that are made every year on the debt that a government accumulates are part of the overall budget of a province or of a federal government, and that budget is covered by taxpayers and taxpayers' payments into revenue.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you very much, Ms. Raitt.

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Next we have Ms. Koutrakis.

The floor is yours for five minutes, please.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to all of our witnesses. Thank you for being here with us.

Ms. Raitt, I'm really happy to hear that you are now connected.... I'm sorry that I don't know what your role is with CIBC, but I am a CIBC retiree, so thank you for your continued service to that great organization.

In your past experience as a minister, and now your work in the private sector, how important is it, in your view, for due diligence to be done on projects?

12:20 p.m.

As an Individual

Lisa Raitt

That is the key. Due diligence has to be done on projects. It has to be done at the pace of the project, and not necessarily at the pace of bureaucracy, which can be a difficult thing, to slow down a project. It has to be done. There's no question about it.

I guess the government has made a choice that it is going to do its due diligence outside of the federal departments, and it is going to do it in a different way. That comes with the costs that you see, which have been illuminated through the process that you're currently studying. It's up to you, and it's up to taxpayers, to determine if that is an appropriate use of the taxpayers' dollars.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC

Ms. Raitt, when you were in government, did P3 Canada use outside consultants to complete any of that due diligence before projects were approved and moved forward?

12:20 p.m.

As an Individual

Lisa Raitt

My understanding is that there was always due diligence. What I can't tell you is whether or not there were outside contracts. I do know that, in the case of the federal government, because we were actually working with the provinces and municipalities and not specifically with individual companies, I think the due diligence—and I stand to be corrected—would have been of a much less intense measure than the due diligence that may be happening when you're giving money to private companies.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC

Ms. Raitt, do you recall any projects that went through the due diligence phase and were cancelled? Do you recall if that ever happened during your time in government, or even in your experience now in the private sector?

12:20 p.m.

As an Individual

Lisa Raitt

In the private sector, obviously, deals will fall through if the due diligence doesn't allow for the financing of the project to go ahead, for example, or if the project proponent doesn't want to continue. That's very normal in the private sector.

I'm so sorry, but I can't recall about the P3, because it was actually administered by Minister Flaherty. I didn't have that.... I can't speak knowledgeably to it.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC

Thank you.

Mr. Farmer, can you talk about the environmental benefits that you found in your report on the Lake Erie connector project?

12:20 p.m.

Chief Energy Transition Officer and Vice-President, Planning, Conservation and Resource Adequacy, Independent Electricity System Operator

Chuck Farmer

We found in our assessment of the project that, as has been discussed quite a bit today, having a connection with the PJM footprint would provide economic and environmental benefit, particularly around emissions. That comes from Ontario being able to export, at times, emissions-free electricity and being able to import emissions-free electricity from PJM, which also has a fairly large renewable energy presence.

Also, and this may not be as appreciated, we have gas generation in Ontario. It is an economic transaction between us. As gas generators get less efficient, they become more expensive, so a gas generator in Ontario that is dispatching and then exporting energy would be displacing higher-emitting energy in PJM.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Annie Koutrakis Liberal Vimy, QC

Mr. Farmer, would you say that you continue to support this project going forward, and if so, why?

12:20 p.m.

Chief Energy Transition Officer and Vice-President, Planning, Conservation and Resource Adequacy, Independent Electricity System Operator

Chuck Farmer

I want to be clear that we support continuing to explore this project. We did support the project when it was put forward by ITC. We did a lot of analysis and saw a benefit for ratepayers. We did enter into negotiations, and when we negotiate, we negotiate on behalf of Ontario's ratepayers, to get the best deal that we can.

Conditions have changed. We very much value interties, and we look forward to working with the proponent to understand how changing conditions will affect the value of the line going forward. We have much more economic growth in Ontario than, perhaps, we would have anticipated in the past. We are committed to building nuclear and renewable energy in Ontario, which will enable us to export clean energy.

I see the argument, but I think we have to get into assessing the details to fully understand what the benefits would be for ratepayers.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you, Ms. Koutrakis.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

April 11th, 2024 / 12:20 p.m.

Bloc

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the last meeting, I put forward a motion and I'd have preferred to have had the chance to discuss it, but the debate was adjourned. I was told that today there would be different circumstances under which it could perhaps be moved.

I move the following: Whereas on December 13 of this year, the House of Commons adopted the following motion, No. M-96:That: a) the House recognize that an assessment by the International Association of Fire Fighters concluded significant regulatory shortfalls concerning emergency responses at Canada's major airports are needlessly putting the safety of the flying public at risk, by(i) failing to specify rescue as a required function of airport fire fighters,(ii) requiring only that fire fighters must reach the mid-point of the furthest runway in three minutes rather than all points on operational runways within that time period; andb) in the opinion of the House, the government should, without delay, ensure that the Canadian Aviation Regulations reflect airport rescue and firefighting standards published by the International Civil Aviation Organization, specifically by(i) giving fire fighters at Canada's major airports the mandate and resources necessary to reach the site of a fire or mishap anywhere on an operational runway in three minutes or less,(ii) specifying that a required function of fire fighters be the rescue of passengers.The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities calls on the Government of Canada, specifically the Minister of Transport, to inform the Committee on how his department intends to respond to the motion adopted by the House.

It should go without saying that we agree that the government should respond to a motion passed in the House of Commons. However, I would still like the committee to make the request and for us to vote on the motion quickly so that we can finish the business we have scheduled for today.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Mr. Strahl, you have the floor.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I said at the last meeting, and as we kind of agreed at the beginning of this meeting, we also have a motion on the record to deal with airport firefighting. Perhaps we can find a way at our business meeting that is occurring on Tuesday to merge the two. We can deal with it at that time.

I would move a motion to adjourn this debate.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

We have a motion on the floor to adjourn debate.

(Motion negatived)

The discussion continues on the resolution put forward by Monsieur Barsalou-Duval.

Is there anybody else on the speakers list who would like to address this?

Monsieur Barsalou-Duval.

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

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

I don't understand Mr. Strahl's opposition, because his motion aims to have us study the issue, if I'm not mistaken.

The motion I introduced simply asks for a response to a motion passed by the House. So I don't see any conflict between the two. We can very well pass this motion and give due consideration to Mr. Strahl's motion.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Mr. Bachrach, the floor is yours.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support this motion. This is really about process and better understanding how the government received the voice of the House.

I have a question about the substantive parts of the motion. Specifically, I have a question about the reference to “major airports”. If I recall, when this was debated in the House, there were a lot of concerns raised about the ability of smaller airports to meet these requirements, given their budget constraints. Certainly, the communities I represent would be concerned about that.

The word “major” suggests that this would apply only to certain airports. I wonder if Mr. Barsalou-Duval, or someone else, could share with the committee which airports would be included in that list.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

12:25 p.m.

Bloc

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

I thank my colleague for his question.

In fact, I didn't move motion M‑96, which was passed in the House on December 13. However, it specifies that we're talking about large Canadian airports. In theory, small airports wouldn't therefore be covered by this.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Mr. Strahl, you have the floor.