Transport Committee on Nov. 20th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 89 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 26, 2023, the committee is meeting to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, an act to amend the Customs Act, the Railway Safety Act, the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, the Marine Transportation Security Act, the Canada Transportation Act and the Canada Marine Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

Colleagues, to help us today with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-33, the first piece of legislation sent to our committee in this session, I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

From the Canada Border Services Agency, we have Cathy Toxopeus, director general, transformation, planning and projects, and Shawn Zinck, manager, traveller, commercial and trade policy directorate, by video conference. From the Department of Transport, we have Sonya Read, director general, marine policy; Stephen Scott, director general, rail safety; Heather Moriarty, director, port policy; Aiden Ryan, director, marine security operations; Rachel Heft, manager and senior counsel, transport and infrastructure legal services; and Amy Kaufman, counsel.

Welcome to you all.

We also have legislative clerks Philippe Méla and Jean-François Pagé joining us.

Welcome to you both.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75, colleagues, consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed. Therefore, I call clause 2—

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

Mr. Chair....

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I see your hand is up, Mr. Strahl.

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

Yes. I'm sorry.

Before we get started on clause-by-clause, I want to move the motion I submitted during the break week, which I can read into the record.

It says:

That, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, November 9, 2023, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities appear before the committee for no fewer than two hours each to consider the supplementary estimates (B) before Friday, December 1, 2023.

We obviously always invite the ministers to appear when estimates are tabled. We would like them to come and defend those estimates before the committee here.

I move that motion and ask that we have a discussion about that right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Strahl. It is so moved.

Mr. Badawey, go ahead.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support the intent of the motion with respect to having the ministers here, but I would respect their schedules and simply ask that they be here. I wouldn't necessarily refer to December 1 but rather request that both ministers be here in their time frame, hopefully before the holiday break, which would be appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

It's back to you, Mr. Strahl.

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

I think we would simply like them to come before the matters are automatically deemed reported to the House, which, I understand, is why that date is in place. I don't think there's any harm in asking them to come before that, but we certainly welcome them to come on the estimates even after they have been deemed reported. That is why the date is when it is. It's an attempt to have us consider and vote on the estimates before they are simply deemed reported to the House.

That's the reason for that date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Go ahead, Mr. Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I suggest we amend the motion to remove December 1 as a deadline, and to have the ministers attend for one hour each.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Is there discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor.

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

I'd like Mr. Badawey to clarify the second part of his amendment.

If I understood correctly, he wants to remove the dates from the motion in order to give the committee some flexibility. In any case, we're already studying a bill at the moment. However, I don't understand why he wants to remove from the motion that each minister be invited to appear for one hour.

Perhaps he could enlighten me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Mr. Badawey, you have the floor.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

That's simply because of our schedule. We're busy and we have work to do. Having been around here for the last eight years, I'm sure we can deal with this with an hour apiece for each minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Badawey.

Are there any questions or comments on the amendment put forward by Mr. Badawey?

Seeing none, we'll go to a vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll now go back to the motion put forward by Mr. Strahl.

Are there any other comments or questions?

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you, all.

Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

We'll now go back to—

Yes, go ahead, Dr. Lewis.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move a motion that was put on notice on Friday, November 17. The motion was distributed to all of the committee members in both official languages.

It is as follows:

Given that the Canada Infrastructure Bank

(a) has spent more and, in some years, double on consultants, CEO payouts, executive bonuses and salaries than on actual infrastructure projects;

(b) paid out bonuses to each of its executives for fiscal years 2020-21 and 2021-22 totalling $14.6 million, despite no completed infrastructure projects;

(c) the gap between spending on salaries and spending on projects continues to widen year over year;

the committee recognize that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has not met expectations for the responsible use of taxpayer dollars in light of increasing overhead, salaries and bonuses without proportionate spending on infrastructure projects and without visible results for Canadians, and that the committee report this opinion to the House.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to comment on the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Please do.

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

I'm raising this motion today because I believe it's incumbent on this committee to continue to hold the government's $35-billion infrastructure bank accountable for its performance, especially considering the billions it's already responsible for. This is despite this committee's review of the bank back in 2022, which made one single recommendation. That recommendation was to abolish this failed infrastructure bank. The government has still not acted on this committee's recommendation, nor has it even acknowledged our concerns.

The bank has been in operation for almost six and a half years. The numbers are clear. The bank seems to prioritize rewarding well-paid executives with bonuses over getting important infrastructure built for Canadians. It's not just one or two executives getting these bonuses. The bank has given bonuses to each of its executives for the last two fiscal years. We have the data to prove this.

Also, with each year, we are seeing the amount paid on salaries and bonuses go up. The amount spent on infrastructure is actually going down. It's clear that this Liberal infrastructure bank is not worth the cost to the taxpayers.

It is not appropriate that well-paid executives are each getting bonuses for not getting results at a time when most Canadians are being asked to tighten their budgets because of this government's inflationary deficits, when we're seeing the highest number of visits to food banks, and when we're seeing Canadians afraid of not having enough money to pay their mortgages and feed their families.

This is a very important issue to take into consideration now. I hope this committee will agree that it's important to convey this opinion to the House.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Dr. Lewis.

Are there any comments or questions, colleagues?

Yes, go ahead, Mr. Bachrach.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I stated at a previous meeting when a previous iteration of this motion came forward, the NDP shares deep concerns about the Canada Infrastructure Bank and its fixation on delivering private profits when building public infrastructure. We also share the concerns about the track record of the bank so far and its inability to get projects built.

However, I would say two things.

First of all, I'm a little concerned that this is part of the ongoing Conservative project to obstruct other subjects in the House. Because we've already, as a committee, clearly articulated through the recommendation in our report our desire that the CIB be abolished, I would just offer that I'm not sure this is going to advance that effort in any meaningful way.

The other concern I have is that point (c) says that “the gap between spending on salaries and spending on projects continues to widen”. Now, if spending on salaries is going up and spending on projects is either stagnant or going down, then the gap would actually be narrowing.

I'm just a bit unclear on what's being said here. Clearly we don't want the spending on salaries to catch up with the spending on projects. I think it's pretty clear that the bank is spending less on salaries than it's spending on projects. If the intention is that the bank should be spending less on salaries and more on projects, my concern is that the wording of the motion actually suggests the opposite. It's expressing the concern that the gap between spending on salaries and spending on projects continues to widen. If the bank were successful and were building all kinds of infrastructure projects across the country and spending more and more of its endowment, then the gap would widen, one would hope. One would hope that the spending on salaries wasn't going to keep up with the pace of spending on infrastructure projects.

I'm just a little worried that we're sending an unclear message and muddying the waters when the concern is really that the executives of the bank are being compensated fairly richly and the bank's performance to date hasn't been anything to scream about.

I don't think I can support the motion as written. I'm concerned it sends an unclear message on behalf of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Unless people around the table have amendments to propose, I think we should decide quickly on this motion. I agree with its substance. The government did not follow the committee's recommendation. The wording of the motion is clear, but we have work to do today. We have a government bill to consider. I think that if we can reach a decision as quickly as possible, it could speed things up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Are there further comments or questions?

Mr. Bachrach.

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

I'll offer an amendment, Mr. Chair. It's that item (c) be struck from the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Are there questions or comments on Mr. Bachrach's amendment?

Seeing none, we'll go to a vote on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion negatived)

Thank you very much, Dr. Lewis.

Yes, Mr. Bachrach.