Transport Committee on July 7th, 2025

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

The previous amendment would have led indirectly to a report from the committee, whereas my amendment gives members the chance to discuss what they would like to do after hearing the testimony. We can't assume that we'll have any recommendations to make or any report to submit to the House. This doesn't mean that we won't have any either.

The wording of the current motion also assumes that the study would be mostly completed after one meeting, whereas our amendment would give us the option of holding further meetings if we deem it necessary, either this fall or at another time. This gives the committee more flexibility to decide what it wants to do after hearing the testimony, while providing the same options as the Conservative motion to make recommendations and report back to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

I'll now turn the floor over to Dr. Lewis.

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

Thank you.

The Liberal infrastructure bank gave out their largest investment to date, $1 billion of taxpayer-funded loans, not to build Canadian ships to power our Canadian economy but to build up the Chinese economy and Chinese workers and power their economy. A number of questions come to mind for Canadians. First, Canadians want to know why the taxpayer-funded Liberal bank has not ensured that its loans are not being used to fund industries in foreign nations. The other question that arises is this: How did the Minister of Infrastructure and the Liberal government allow this to happen?

This is not what Canadians expected when the Liberal government said that the bank would catalyze investments and that they would leverage private sector dollars. The Trudeau, now Carney-backed, Canada Infrastructure Bank is funded with $35 billion of taxpayer money. Those taxpayer funds are being used to ship jobs essentially overseas and are selling out the Canadian shipbuilding industry, all at the expense of Canadian workers.

This motion is about a very serious matter to Canadians and to our Canadian economy. The Liberal government and the Canada Infrastructure Bank are actually complicit in offshoring Canadian jobs. This is a very serious issue. This is especially outrageous at a time when our steelworkers and industry are under attack from unjustified U.S. tariffs. The CIB is complicit in undermining Canadian competitiveness. It must be held to account for how it has allowed this to happen.

There is actually no excuse for the fact that the Minister of Transport, who has been in cabinet for at least 10 years, omitted the fact that this $1-billion financing is from the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Her strongly worded letter to her provincial counterpart actually made it sound as if her government had nothing to do with financing the Chinese ships. How could this government feign outrage at the investment yet not know that they were bankrolling it at a subsidized rate and sending Canadian jobs abroad? How many Canadians get a loan from the government at a 1.8% interest rate? Canadians would love this treatment from their government that we are handing out to foreign nations.

This $1-billion funding to China is Liberal incompetence at best and deliberately misleading to Canadians at worst. This is exactly why Canadians have long opposed the Liberal failed infrastructure bank. Where is the transparency? Why are they funding projects that are taking jobs from Canadians and giving them to countries with much lower labour standards, much lower environmental standards and much lower ethical standards?

The bank has also struggled to attract private sector investment, barely 1:1, even though it promised a 6:1 ratio. The bank has not only failed to attract any private sector investments; they have gained taxpayer dollars and have channelled them away from Canadians to a Chinese state-funded shipyard.

The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities several years ago also determined that this infrastructure bank was not fixable. They made one—only one—recommendation in their report, and that was to abolish the bank. Once again, we see why Canadians, Conservatives and opposition members were correct in the assessment to abolish the bank. This is yet another example of why Conservatives do not have any confidence in this bank.

The bank's decisions are suspect and were made behind closed doors, the ramifications of which are that the decisions come at a pivotal time to Canada and strike a very hard blow to the Canadian employment sector and workers. The CEO and the Minister of Infrastructure must answer for this. Liberal ministers have often denied having responsibility for the bank's investments or spending, saying that it is arm's-length, but that is no excuse when the stakes are so high. Canadians need answers about how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent.

The CIB characterized this investment as supporting essential “service upgrades” and “green infrastructure”, but it does not reflect the original promise of public-private partnership, a model that was supposed to—

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, the member doesn't seem to be speaking to the amendment that's been tabled. We're jumping ahead and, seemingly, speaking to the substance of the agreement that's been struck in British Columbia. Could we perhaps focus on the amendment as tabled?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Greaves.

I'll just ask the member to make a link or reference to the amendment, which was proposed by Mr. Barsalou-Duval, in the remainder of her remarks.

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

The amendment is to have additional time for the hour. I'm substantiating why Mr. Barsalou-Duval's amendment is in line and why we will need that extra time. This is what I'm speaking to. Thank you.

The CIB characterized the investment as supporting essential service upgrades, but it does not reflect the original promise of a public-private partnership model, where private investors share financial risks—this is a taxpayer-subsidized loan to another nation—nor do we have any evidence to suggest that building these ferries in China, which largely fuels its economy with coal, will provide any net benefit to the environment. In fact, the additional hour, which Mr. Barsalou-Duval spoke of, is important because the investment will likely cancel out any emissions reductions they hope to achieve because of how poor the environmental standards are in China.

Lastly, the CIB just celebrated its 100th investment to build a strong, more resilient Canada. This celebration came out the same week they announced this $1-billion deal with BC Ferries to purchase new Chinese Communist state-made vessels. The question remains, what other investments are being touted as Canadian investments when they are actually being outsourced to foreign nations and are not benefiting the Canadian economy and job market?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Dr. Lewis.

Next, I'll go to Mr. Greaves, followed by Mr. Lawrence.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, let me say that I support this committee in undertaking a study into this decision and into the shipbuilding agreement that's been struck by BC Ferries, but I think it is disappointing to see our colleagues opposite making very familiar political points and using as a whipping post what is, in fact, a critical piece of infrastructure in our province of British Columbia. While, perhaps, some of the colleagues—particularly those, I note, who are from the province of Ontario—may be less familiar with the critical role that BC Ferries plays in supporting B.C.'s coastal communities, this is a service that is, very unfortunately, being played politics with currently and being made to feel the brunt of long-standing concerns and talking points that our Conservative colleagues have made before.

In this instance, they're also, seemingly, prejudging the outcome of the witness testimony, which we look forward to hearing in our next meeting. It really is premature for many of the conclusions the members opposite are drawing to be raised in this fashion rather than waiting, in good faith, for the expert testimony and for the leadership of BC Ferries and the ministers in question to actually have an opportunity to speak to this committee and to the concerns that have been raised, and to explain very clearly for us why it is that Canadian shipyards are currently at capacity. Based on the national shipbuilding strategy, they were unable to offer cost-competitive bids to provide these ferries.

I look forward to my Conservative colleagues' defending why they think it is that the electrification of British Columbia's ferry fleet and the expansion of this vital service for coastal communities is something for which the Conservatives would seemingly endorse spending billions of dollars more and waiting decades longer to receive those replacement ferries.

We need to hear this witness testimony and have the opportunity to reflect on the questions that have been raised, but I encourage my colleagues to stop using BC Ferries and B.C. coastal communities as punching bags and making points we have heard before, which, frankly, do not serve Canadians or the public taxpayer properly in this instance. Let's let the evidence be raised and the witnesses speak, and then let's pass our conclusions about how to proceed and what the federal government can or should perhaps do in future situations of this kind. We support this study but, please, let's have a little less foghorning from the members opposite.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Greaves.

Next, we'll go to Mr. Lawrence.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Thank you.

Given the geopolitical context, I found it quite odd that no Quebec shipbuilder was contracted to build these vessels.

How could the federal Liberals give a $1 billion loan to the British Columbia government and exclude Quebec shipbuilders?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.

I have no speakers left, so I'll turn it over to the clerk to go to a recorded vote on the amendment put forward by Monsieur Barsalou-Duval.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)

Now we will go back to the motion as amended by Monsieur Barsalou-Duval.

Mr. Albas, I see your hand is up. The floor is once again yours.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

Part of the motion charges you, as the committee chair, to find the most efficient way possible of bringing in these ministers and these CEOs, but again, it does give some specificity that we expect the ministers to appear separately, for one hour. We want to focus in with specific questions for each one so that we can consider their responses.

I wish you the best in that, Mr. Chair. I'm sure the Liberal members who have spoken, saying that they also want answers, would support my call to you to try to make this happen as soon as possible.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

I see no other members who wish to speak....

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I assume that we'll be voting on the motion, so I'll take this opportunity to make another comment.

It's surprising to see the federal government allocate $1 billion in public funding to a project that will be carried out in China. Not that long ago, ministers from this government were touring the country promising that major infrastructure projects would be built with Canadian steel. These ferries will be built with steel at a time when American tariffs are affecting our industry. My constituency has a steel mill with thousands of workers. I'm sure that they would like to secure contracts and public funding, rather than see these things sent to countries such as China.

As elected representatives, I think that we should all reflect on these matters and show sensitivity when it comes to future decisions. After all, people are at risk of losing their jobs. They're concerned about the situation and they want to see their elected officials handle it responsibly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Is that a legacy hand, Mr. Albas?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

This will be quick, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank my colleague from the Bloc for making that reference. I actually was at Seaspan the other day, talking about their capabilities and capacity. One thing they mentioned to me was that they use Algoma Steel as much as possible. When we talk about shipbuilding here in Canada, I just want to reiterate that there is a supply chain, and that gets used. These are really real consequences.

I do hope that all members can vote in favour of this motion and that we can get those ministers in as soon as possible, because I'd like to hear from them on this. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

Seeing no other members who wish to speak, we'll go to a vote on the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you very much, colleagues.

With no other business, before I adjourn, I want to give a shout-out to Austyn and Logan, two interns here on the Hill who are joining us for this meeting and learning a little more about our democracy. It's always great to have the next generation here to learn how it all works.

With that, this meeting is adjourned.

Have a great summer, everyone. We'll see you in the next 30 days.