Transport Committee on Nov. 8th, 2023

[Vincent Robitaille]

We don't have specific estimates at this stage.

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

We would be grateful if you could at least send us the data on high frequency rail. It would help us a little.

How much time do I have left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

You have a minute and a half left.

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

Perfect.

I have another question for you.

This may have come up in previous meetings, but I was a little surprised to hear you say earlier that the chosen consortium would be responsible for the entire section between Quebec City and Windsor. So it's not just the new section that would be built, but the entire existing network.

I'm trying to understand why it will be that way. What impact will it have on employees and the operation of existing lines?

[Vincent Robitaille]

The goal is to create an integrated system. For the new HFR lines, we will not only create new express services between major cities through new connections to Laval, Trois‑Rivières or Peterborough, which are not currently connected, but we will also improve the system as a whole, such as the tracks that serve the Great Lakes and run along the south shore of the St. Lawrence.

We didn't want to make the new service compete with the old one. We want to create the best possible network. We will be achieving a number of economies of scale in terms of rolling stock management and the cycle of trains that can move along the network.

The goal is therefore to find the best possible overall solution for all communities.

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

However, surely you understand that it creates a great deal of uncertainty for people who work on the south shore and for everyone who uses that service.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Unfortunately, your time is up, but you will have another turn soon to ask questions.

Mr. Bachrach, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here to answer our questions.

I'm aware that the range of questions you can answer is fairly circumscribed, and a lot of the questions that the committee has are really questions for the minister and for the government, so I'll try to keep my questions within the bounds of your responsibilities.

I noticed, Mr. Robitaille, that in your presentation there was no mention of labour, no mention of the people who currently work for Via Rail on the corridor. I know that the previous minister made some vague commitments about the role of working people in the HFR project. I looked through the call for expressions of interest and saw one little vague line in there that said something about how the proponents will be asked to detail their strategy for labour, or something along those lines—I don't have it in front of me. It did not reflect a commitment to ensure that the unionized labour who currently work on the train will be working on the train when the HFR is built.

Could you lay out, in some detail, what your discussions with labour have been and what the current commitment of HFR is to working folks who belong to unions like Unifor and currently play really important roles in getting people up and down the corridor?

[Vincent Robitaille]

The requirement of the procurement process is very clear. The employees of Via Rail working in the corridor must all have a job in the new service, so there will be no job losses.

Also, there is a requirement to work with the existing unions and to maintain the collective agreement and the existing benefits for the employees. This is built into the procurement process to provide that confidence for employees about their roles in the future.

The project will create thousands of jobs. There will be great opportunities for the existing employees and for a lot more people working in the rail sector.

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

Because there are more employees who will be working in the rail sector on HFR once it's built, is there a commitment by this government or by HFR to ensure that those are unionized jobs and that the unions you currently work with are able to expand to cover the new roles that are part of this new rail line?

[Vincent Robitaille]

This is a requirement of the request for proposals.

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

We heard from Unifor at our last meeting. You may be familiar with their testimony. It didn't seem like there was very strong alignment between the vision of the government for HFR and Unifor's vision for public rail along the corridor. How does that affect the project?

I'm trying to ask this question in a way that gets a productive answer. It just feels like having alignment between the people who work on the trains and the government entity that is creating this new rail line, rail service, would be really good and would help ensure the success of the project. How do you see building that alignment in the coming years?

[Vincent Robitaille]

I will speak to the requirements that exist in the procurement, if you'll allow me.

You made reference to a plan. The ultimate partner that is selected will need to demonstrate how they will work with the existing union. Obviously, right now, we need to select a partner, and there's going to be that dance with three partners—the government, the private partner and, in this case, the existing union.

The goal is to get to an outcome that works well for everybody.

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

We put in an Order Paper question to ask about the process that led to the decision to utilize a public-private partnership model for the procurement. Are you familiar with the assessment process that led to the selection of that procurement model?

[Vincent Robitaille]

Do you mean the value-for-money assessment that was done at the time?

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

Yes, the information we received from the government was that there was an assessment of different procurement models. The government looked at 20 different transportation infrastructure projects around the world, I believe, and on the list of 20, they were all P3 projects. There weren't any public procurement examples in that list.

There was also a line in that response from the government that said that they compared the procurement model against a more traditional public procurement model, but there were no examples of projects that were procured that way.

I'm curious why no specific public projects were listed in the comparatives.

[Vincent Robitaille]

Maybe I can bring in a nuance in the analysis that was done. There are different types of public-private partnerships. You have those that include solely the design, construction and maintenance of the new infrastructure, for which there's a strong consensus that it's a good way to do a project like this.

Then there's the addition of the operation. In the model that we studied, we had a variety of models that included a public operator versus a private operator. That was part of the consideration.

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

I guess it's really the distinction...which I will bring up with you in the next round, because I see the chair making very insistent gestures towards me.

Thank you for your answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach and Mr. Robitaille.

Next we have Dr. Lewis.

Dr. Lewis, you have five minutes, please.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming today.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to start off my time by bringing a motion for which I have provided the required notice. I believe it's important for this committee to consider this motion at this time, given the oversight role this committee has on the government's infrastructure policies, which takes on a greater urgency given the precarious state of the national infrastructure and our finances.

The motion, which has been distributed to all committee members in both official languages, is as follows:

Given that, after 6 1/2 years in operation, the Canada Infrastructure Bank:

(a) fails to get important infrastructure built, having only two projects “in use” to date;

(b) fails to leverage private sector dollars at even a 1:1 ratio;

(c) is ineffective, unproductive and can no longer be supported by $35 billion taxpayer dollars during a housing supply crisis and when basic infrastructure in communities across Canada is either absent or in very poor condition;

the committee recognize that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has failed to meet its core mandate and promised value, is not delivering the infrastructure Canadians need, and that the committee report this opinion to the House.

If I may comment, Mr. Chair, I believe this motion speaks largely for itself, but I want to make a couple of comments.

I believe it's important for this committee to express to Parliament and to the government that we remain very dissatisfied with the government's flagship infrastructure policy, the Canada Infrastructure Bank. After six and a half years—since this bank was formed—it has completely failed to deliver. After eight years of this Prime Minister, Canadians are now paying double the mortgage payments that they were eight years ago, double the rent and double the price of homes. Canadians can't afford to keep subsidizing this $35-billion failure.

While the government likes to point out a number of the investments that the bank has made, the reality is that investment announcements aren't the same as shovels in the ground and aren't the same as completed infrastructure projects that communities need and can use in this time of need.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank has failed to meet its core mandate as a bank that leverages private sector investment. When this bank was announced, the Liberals promised a return on investment of up to four times from private sectors. They even anticipated, with investments from the municipalities and the provinces, that it would yield a multiplier of 11 to one. Today, private investment is not even at a 1:1 ratio. Taxpayers are not getting the deal they were promised.

I would like to request this committee's support for expressing to the House that, in the opinion of the committee, the bank has not met its core mandate and promised value.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Dr. Lewis.

We'll turn the floor over to Mr. Badawey, who will be followed by Mr. Strahl.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the one part I have concern with is reporting it back to the House. Concurrence debates in the House are time-consuming and are something that a lot of us are bothered with, to some extent. I'd like to move an amendment that we take that part out of the motion with respect to reporting to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Is there any discussion or any comments on Mr. Badawey's amendment?

I'll turn the floor over to you, Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

I think the House should be made aware of our opinion on this matter. I think that's fairly fundamental to the motion.

I would also note that even today, in testimony on the high-frequency rail project, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which this committee has recommended the government disband, is now an integral part of this going forward. The longer the bank remains in place, the more intertwined it will get in these types of projects.

The committee has done extensive studies on the Infrastructure Bank and has recommended that the $35 billion go back into other infrastructure programs so that it can be better distributed to Canadians—as opposed to, as Dr. Lewis has said, two projects. Even today, we're hearing more evidence that this bank continues to be involved, even though this committee has made its recommendation, and I think it doesn't hurt to let the government know again our opinion on that end and on their ignoring our previous recommendation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Is there other debate or questions, comments, concerns?

Mr. Bachrach, I'll turn the floor over to you.