Transport Committee on May 30th, 2022

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister, for being here with us today.

I'm going to start off, Minister, by expressing my appreciation for your file. You have infrastructure, you have intergovernmental affairs and you have communities, which are paramount with respect to the direction that we're taking as a government to ensure that ongoing communication gets strengthened. I say this because we do recognize that lots of the files and the issues that we're dealing with are cross-ministerial. I congratulate you for doing that very successfully.

With that said, you've been dealing with different departments, different orders of government and indigenous communities to ensure that strength in communications, as I said earlier. In particular, to get to my question, between Transport, for example, Finance, the provincial government, the municipal government and the private sector.... We were down in Washington this past week, and one thing we all agreed upon, binationally, was the need to strengthen our supply chains, our trade corridors, to be more strategic in those investments that we make not just locally or domestically, but between both countries. By integrating the binational strategic trade corridors, including integrating binational capital investments, we ensure, once again, binational fluidity within our supply chains.

We look at the Great Lakes, for example. Can you elaborate on the proposed new funding of $79.1 million to protect our coastlines and waterways? What will this money pay for and why is it so important?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Badawey, thank you for your comments.

I'll offer a couple of opening comments, and perhaps the deputy can offer some specific information with respect to the waterways you mentioned.

You're right that our department works very closely with Transport Canada on precisely that supply chain resilience. You're absolutely right to say that Canadians are concerned, and properly so, with the security of supply chains and their resilience. The binational aspect of infrastructure is critical. We saw what happened to the Canadian economy when the Ambassador Bridge was blocked some months ago, and what that meant for the thousands and thousands of workers who were on layoff in your province. I think that reminded Canadians of those very real choke points. That's why obviously the Gordie Howe bridge is a key part of our department's effort to build some resilience in a critical supply chain piece.

I have conversations with the Minister of Transport often about where the infrastructure department can complement some of the trade corridors funding. We don't want to displace their ability to properly identify, as they did last week in Saint John, New Brunswick, infrastructure upgrades to the Port of Saint John to make it easier for container rail service, for example. They're properly focused on that, but there are things that our department can do that will be complementary, that will support those investments and make sure we're getting the very best benefit for the money that that department, or our department, is trying to put in.

With respect to the waterways, I don't know, Kelly, if you want to add to that.

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

I don't have the details of that particular investment. Perhaps we can follow up afterwards to find out which program and which department that particular investment is made through for waterways.

Certainly one really important investment that we are making between our two countries is the investment we are doing through the building of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, which will be a really important trade corridor between our two countries. It is advancing. You can see, now that you're there, the progress in the construction that's being made.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Gillis. Thank you, Minister.

To dig a bit deeper, we look at what Transport's doing with the ports modernization review, the St. Lawrence Seaway review, and many other reviews that we're doing with respect to the Great Lakes and the blue economy strategy.

Minister, how do you see infrastructure, as you mentioned earlier, aligning, for example, with the NTCF to ensure that we have that fluidity? How do we ensure, again binationally, not only with respect to policy legislation but equally, if not more importantly, with respect to integrating those capital investments in roads, rail, air, water, that our distribution systems are being integrated with when it comes to distributional logistics, and ultimately to meet the demands of fluidity?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I entirely share your view that we need to look across the Government of Canada to see how different federal departments making investments.... I think of the high-frequency rail investments, for example, that Transport Canada is working on. Our department has a modest role in support of that effort. If you look, as the deputy said, at the Gordie Howe Bridge—and I'm thinking here too of the Champlain Bridge in Quebec—these are critical supply routes for the safe movement of goods and people. The ones that obviously have the highest focus across the government will be these binational infrastructure investments, as you properly noted, Mr. Badawey.

To go back to the previous question about the Infrastructure Bank, I think that one of the things we can do is to ensure that the Infrastructure Bank, which can bring to the conversation different expertise, different financing instruments.... We think that that's part of working, for example, with other partners in the government, but also private sector partners or other orders of government as we try to find the best way.... At a time when fiscal resources are necessarily limited, we want to make sure that we're not tripping over one another or that if the Government of Canada is doing something that's complementary to something that the Government of Ontario or Quebec or New Brunswick is doing, it in fact makes those dollars go further and achieves the objectives that we have in a more efficient way.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, both.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Mr. Leblanc. It is so long since the committee has met in person. Obviously, we are pleased to see you.

My questions for you pertain to the 2022 budget. After reading a passage on page 79, I have some questions you may be able to answer. It says: “Budget 2022 signals the government's intention to accelerate the deadline for provinces to fully commit their remaining funding under the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program, to priority projects to March 31, 2023. As a measure of fiscal prudence, any uncommited funds after this date will be reallocated to other priorities.”

If I understand correctly, provinces will now have until 2023, and not 2025, to spend the funding provided under the investing in Canada infrastructure program.

What about the amounts that are not spent?

Does that mean that those amounts will no longer go to that program? Will they be reallocated to various other projects?

The provinces will not necessarily keep the unused money because it is not theirs.

Is that correct?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

It should be noted that the Minister of Finance has already decided that the provinces that received funding through programs created under federal-provincial agreements, such as a Canada-Quebec or Canada-New Brunswick agreement, must commit the funds to projects by March 31. The funds do not necessarily have to be spent, but the federal government, and in your case, the Quebec government must agree on a list of projects to receive federal funding.

The projects can be spread out over a number of years, and the funds can be disbursed over a period of ten years after the deadline. If the federal government cannot agree with the Quebec government or New Brunswick government on the list of projects, however, the funds will be recovered by the receiver general of Canada.

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

Thank you.

From what I understand, the money could still be spent at a later date, as long as a decision has been made or the project has been submitted by March 31, 2023.

Let me explain why I asked this question.

Under the Canada-Quebec integrated bilateral agreement for the investing in Canada infrastructure program, which your government signed in 2018, Quebec has until March 31, 2025 to submit projects.

Am I to understand that this agreement is no longer valid?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

No, that is not the case. By the way, that agreement is working very well.

Last week, Ms. Sonia LeBel and I had a very constructive and positive discussion about the infrastructure projects we would like to conduct in partnership with the Quebec government. I am optimistic about is happening with the Quebec government and decisions about committing these funds.

Our problem relates to the provinces using up the funding. In British Columbia, for instance—where I was last week—there is essentially no money left. That is also the case in Manitoba and Ontario. These provinces have submitted requests to us. Prince Edward Island has maybe 15% or 30% of the funding that has not yet been committed. Manitoba has essentially no residual funding that has not been committed. That is the case in a number of provinces.

In a way, Quebec is not the worst off. The worst off is Newfoundland and Labrador, followed by my province, New Brunswick.

The Minister of Finance is anxious to see these funds allocated to projects. Some premiers, however, including the Ontario premier, are asking me for a 2.0 version of these programs.

My job is to work with all the provinces to determine what a second version of these programs might be. I told Ms. LeBel that last week. Moreover, we agreed to meet to determine more specifically how this second version can offer a solution that is in the interests of both Quebec and the federal government.

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

So if I follow you, Mr. Leblanc, money that is not allocated to projects by March 31, 2023 will be returned to the general fund and you will find other ways of using it. In other words, the deadline of March 31, 2025, set out in the Canada-Quebec bilateral agreement of 2018 is no longer valid. So you unilaterally amended the agreement concluded with Quebec, without negotiation or discussion.

Do you not think that is unusual?

Generally speaking, when an agreement is concluded and papers have been signed, both parties have to honour it.

Is that not the case?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Exactly, but we have the same agreement with 10 provincial governments and three territorial governments. A number of them have chosen projects and allocated funding more quickly than Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and New Brunswick.

The Minister of Finance decided—and I agree with her—that it would be in the interest of Canada's economy and environment to allocate those funds to projects as quickly as possible. As I said, that does not mean that the projects will be completed, but a choice has to be made. The list of potential projects is so long that there will never be enough money to complete them all.

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

Mr. Leblanc, when I sign a contract with someone, I expect it to be honoured.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much.

Unfortunately, your time is up, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Thank you, Minister.

Next we have Ms. Ashton, who is joining us by video conference.

Ms. Ashton, the floor is yours. You have six minutes.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello, Mr. Minister.

In the last while, Canadians across the country have lived first-hand the extreme weather events that are increasingly common as a result of climate change. Last summer, Lytton, B.C., was burned to the ground following horrifying wildfires that ravaged the west coast. Last fall, a month's worth of rain fell onto the south coast of B.C. over two days, forcing over 15,000 people to leave their homes. Lives were lost, and communities were destroyed.

Ottawa, where this committee is taking place, is still dealing with the fallout of a storm so extreme that 350,000 people lost power. The Northwest Territories and northern Ontario have been dealing with unprecedented flooding in recent weeks. In my riding, Peguis First Nation had to evacuate over 1,800 people, and more than 700 homes were impacted. This is a community that has dealt with flooding five times in the last 16 years.

Every year we see more and more of these extreme weather events. It's only getting worse, yet it seems the federal government is always reacting to these events and not making the type of long-term, sustainable investments to help communities keep themselves safe in the face of climate change.

Peguis, for example, has asked for flood mitigation investments to stay safe for over a decade, but the government has largely refused to deliver them. I have put forward Bill C-245 to reform the Canada Infrastructure Bank to support communities in the fight against climate change. The word is that the government will vote against this bill.

On what grounds is your government willing to say no to supporting communities to survive in the face of climate change and to finally put the Canada Infrastructure Bank to good use?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chair, through you to Ms. Ashton, thank you for the questions. I say questions—plural—because our colleague touched on probably half a dozen different elements in her question.

It won't surprise you, Mr. Chair, that I don't share her view that the government hasn't done anything to get ahead of these extreme weather events and the challenges they represent for infrastructure across the country. She properly identified some of the devastating circumstances in British Columbia, like the atmospheric river event and the fires in Lytton. I was in her province of Manitoba a few weeks ago. I saw the flooding and the circumstances of the flooding in some parts of southern Manitoba.

All across the country we have examples, like the highways that are cut off in Mr. Rogers' province of Newfoundland and Labrador because of washouts on the Trans-Canada Highway. Right across the country, very expensive and very dangerous events are taking place that cause considerable damage to infrastructure and obviously represent a considerable risk to human safety as well.

I don't think that the Infrastructure Bank should be the first and only place that we would go to do this important work with provinces and territories. As our colleague will know, in 2018 the government committed $3.4 billion to a disaster mitigation and adaptation fund. This isn't an Infrastructure Bank program, which is a loan. This is actual federal money made available to help communities remain resilient in the face of natural disasters. To date, $2.1 billion of funding has been put out to 70 projects across the country to mitigate the threats of natural disasters, floods, wildfires and droughts.

I think the Canada Infrastructure Bank should and can play a supporting role in some of these projects. For example, in some of the irrigation projects on the Prairies, perhaps some water management projects—

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

I'm just mindful of the time here. I appreciate the feedback in terms of what government is doing.

I do want to bring it back to the Infrastructure Bank to find out exactly what they are doing.

Let's be frank. I imagine that five years ago, what your government envisioned when it comes to the Infrastructure Bank was quite different than what we have today. In conversations with a number of your MPs, it's clear that the CIB is not seen to be doing the work that it should be doing.

I want to focus in particularly on one subset of communities that faces the greatest infrastructure challenges. Those are indigenous communities. We know for first nations, the infrastructure gap is $25 billion to $30 billion. When you look at the Infrastructure Bank, we know that they have rejected historic numbers of projects relating to indigenous communities because those projects were seen as being too small.

Do you think that the Infrastructure Bank should prioritize projects for indigenous communities and be better represented by including indigenous representation on its board?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chair, to our colleague, Ms. Ashton, thank you for the question.

I certainly believe, as I know all members do, that the Infrastructure Bank, like every other agency or department of our government, should focus on closing the infrastructure gap that exists for indigenous communities.

The short answer to her question of whether I think the Infrastructure Bank should play a role in supporting indigenous-led infrastructure across the country is of course they should. I've had those discussions with the board chair. I've had those discussions with the CEO. We're looking at renewing the board of the Infrastructure Bank. We're always looking for qualified indigenous persons who could serve on important boards like this. There's one indigenous person who currently serves on the board of the Infrastructure Bank, but there's a vacancy. Some directors will be replaced over the coming months.

If colleagues have suggestions.... Ms. Ashton represents a part of the great province of Manitoba, which has some of Canada's best indigenous leadership. If there are people who colleagues might suggest for indigenous directors of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, we'd be all ears and look forward to including them, if we can, in a way going forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ashton, and thank you, Minister.

Colleagues, if there are no objections—the bells are ringing—I propose that we continue our discussions and questioning until 12:55 p.m. That would give you 16 minutes to make your way to the House should you choose to do so.

Seeing no objections—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Are we reconvening afterwards?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I don't believe we're going to have time to do that. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Clerk.

With that in mind, we'll turn the floor over now to Ms. Lantsman.

You have five minutes. The floor is yours.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Minister, for returning to this committee and to the officials for taking the time.

I want to continue from where my colleague started. I know that you see this as more complicated, but the number of projects that the CIB has started six years into its existence was 33 and zero were completed.

I get that there is a lot of work, but are we still at 33 in terms of projects started?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Chair and Ms. Lantsman, thank you.

In order to provide the most precise information possible to a very reasonable question, perhaps Mr. Campbell can offer the exact number.

[Glenn Campbell, Assistant Deputy Minister, Investment, Partnerships and Innovation, Office of Infrastructure of Canada]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I'll just remind you that the CIB's engaged in advising investing as well as providing research and analysis to many communities, provinces, municipalities and indigenous groups about their projects and bringing in structuring at a very early stage.

There are currently 34 projects to which the CIB has made a formal investment commitment. Those are outlined on its website. Many more are active or under consideration either in advising or structuring due diligence consideration.

As many of these projects are of the more complicated variety involving the private sector, often they start earlier and are engaged. Some of them, because of their complexity, will take longer to complete.

The CIB also is not a procurement entity, so it, in itself, is not delivering the projects. It is actually making the commitment to enable them.