Transport Committee on July 7th, 2025

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, committee members.

I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108, the committee urgently undertake a study of the Canada Infrastructure Bank decision to provide $1 billion in low-interest financing to BC Ferries for the purchase of new vessels from a Chinese state-owned shipyard;

The committee hold one meeting to receive testimony from the following witnesses for an hour each, separately, and that this meeting be convened as efficiently as possible within 30 days following the adoption of this motion:

1. The Minister of Housing and Infrastructure;

2. The Minister of Transport and Internal Trade;

3. The CEO of the Canada Infrastructure Bank;

4. The CEO of BC Ferries;

And immediately following the conclusion of witness testimony at the meeting, the Chair be instructed to recognize a member from an opposition party for the purposes of considering a motion containing recommendations related to this study, that not more than one hour be provided for debate on the motion, and that every question necessary to dispose of the motion be put before the meeting can be adjourned.

Mr. Chair, I have submitted this motion to the clerk in both official languages for circulation. I'm prepared now, if you see it in order, to start the debate on said motion. I do have my thoughts. Just let me know if I have the floor to continue at this time or if you want to take a moment to send it to all members.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

I have confirmed that we have received it. The clerk is going to circulate it.

I see Mr. Kelloway's hand is up. Is that because you haven't received it, Mr. Kelloway?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

No, I was just going to ask...and my hand is up, as it was last time.

We're looking to, obviously, have it circulated, which you just said it is. We'd like to have just a few moments to take a look at it, if that would be okay with everyone.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I'm going to suspend for about five minutes, just to make sure everybody gets a copy of it, and then we can review it.

Then, Mr. Albas, the floor will be yours to speak to the motion.

Does that work for everyone?

Okay. This meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

I will turn the floor over to Mr. Albas first. I have Monsieur Barsalou-Duval on the list, followed by Mr. Kelloway and then Dr. Lewis.

Mr. Albas, the floor is yours, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I appreciate that this is not an easy time for any of us, but as I said at our first meeting, this is an issue that I think the transport committee needs to be seized with. Essentially, we have found a continuing story in which we find new insights as to what the government is doing—and it's not good.

Originally, when I pressed the Minister of Transport on this in the House of Commons, she actually said that she wrote a letter outlining her concerns that BC Ferries, which is owned by the good people of British Columbia, was purchasing ships. I won't go through the whole June 16, 2025, letter. Remember, this was only about three weeks ago. I'll read just the first paragraph and the last:

It is with great consternation and disappointment that I learned of BC Ferries' recent announcement that it has selected China Merchants Industry Weihai Shipyards...to build four new major vessels....

I am dismayed that BC Ferries would select a Chinese state-owned shipyard to build new ferries in the current geopolitical context, and I ask that you verify and confirm with utmost certainty that no federal funding will be diverted to support the acquisition of these new ferries.

Yet we find out, through the media, that the hapless new Minister of Housing and Infrastructure knew nothing of a $1-billion loan agreement that had been signed by the Canada Infrastructure Bank, essentially financing, with taxpayer dollars, the outsourcing of Canadian jobs to the shipyard in China.

Imagine my shock as we learned that, during a time of unjustified steel and aluminum tariffs, when people are receiving pink slips for their jobs because of these American tariffs, their own government is actually using their tax dollars to subsidize jobs and economic activity outside of the country.

I think it's completely on us as a committee to demand answers from both the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade and the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, because they do not appear to be on the same page.

Any time we're talking about scarce public taxpayer dollars effectively incentivizing other corporations to do the same, to seek financing for a project.... I don't understand how this is even within the Canada Infrastructure Bank's mandate. That's why the CEO of the Infrastructure Bank, specifically, has been called in our motion.

Obviously, with BC Ferries, there are a lot of questions. I've spoken to many reporters in British Columbia who have a number of different questions outlining the procurement and some of the details that come with this. Again, my focus is largely on getting answers so that people can know whether or not their government—remember, the government said, “Elbows up”, “Canada strong” and “we can build it together”—is, in fact, financing the outsourcing of Canadian jobs.

It doesn't seem that anyone, up until the Conservatives.... I should also thank my colleague from the Bloc for supporting this emergency meeting today so that we could bring this important issue forward.

The last thing I'll say, just simply, is that Conservatives are demanding answers for concerned Canadians, many of whom are facing job losses in their communities over unjustified steel and aluminum tariffs yet read in their newspapers that their own governments, both provincial and federal.... Particularly, as a federal member of Parliament, I find it outrageous that the Crown corporation known as the Canada Infrastructure Bank is actively financing the outsourcing of Canadian jobs. This is wrong.

We need to have some answers about the government's true position on this, because we have conflicting reports that have played out in the media. I really do hope that this committee can get behind this particular motion, and that we can have those ministers from the Canadian cabinet and the CEOs of these corporations come and answer our questions, as uncomfortable as they may be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

Go ahead, Mr. Kelloway.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the time.

On the motion, a couple of things come to mind. I don't believe that we should conclude a study or make recommendations without careful consideration of that study. From my point of view, any report should have expert analysis done by the committee's analyst. We shouldn't guillotine or presuppose witness testimony by making recommendations right after it. We should hear from the witnesses first, so we shouldn't, basically, presuppose the outcomes of this study. For example, a member is more than welcome to make a motion to undertake a report, but that should be done by the analysts, following witness testimony.

From our perspective, we would look to strike that last paragraph of the Conservative motion. I put that out there for consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kelloway.

Are you putting forward an amendment to scrap the last paragraph?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Yes, but I understand that Xavier also has time as well, so I don't want to jump the line there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

If you're putting forward an amendment, though, the discussion then becomes about the amendment.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

I would put forward the amendment then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Okay.

Did everybody understand what Mr. Kelloway just put forward as an amendment?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

It's basically scrapping the last paragraph.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Okay. What would the last...? It starts with “And immediately following the conclusion”. Is that correct? Okay.

Do members all understand the amendment put forward by Mr. Kelloway?

We'll begin discussion. I'll create a new list on the amendment. I have Mr. Barsalou-Duval, followed by Mr. Albas.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In terms of Mr. Kelloway's amendment, to some extent, I share his concerns. That's why I prepared another amendment that addresses those concerns, while letting the committee decide what it wants to do with the testimony provided at the meeting.

We must meet with these people in the committee. I'm thinking in particular of the officials from the Infrastructure Bank, which allocated the $1 billion in question, and the officials from BC Ferries, which decided to award the contract to a Chinese company. I would also like to know how the two ministers responsible for this area will justify the decision to allocate $1 billion of our public funds to this company. This money will go straight into the coffers of a Chinese state‑owned company. It's quite astonishing. Under the circumstances, talk of “subsidizing jobs in China” seems entirely appropriate.

We've heard about this issue before. Up until now, we haven't wanted to get involved, since the issue concerned a corporate decision. No matter how dubious or deplorable the decision, this matter involved a British Columbia Crown corporation making its own choices. This was in no way a matter of federal jurisdiction. However, when Ottawa decides to invest money—$1 billion isn't pocket change—I think that this raises questions. It's fair to ask the committee to hold a meeting so that witnesses can come and explain this decision.

I would also like to take this opportunity to talk about Quebec's significant needs when it comes to ferries, particularly in the Magdalen Islands. People are looking for a ferry to take over from the Madeleine II, which must soon be sent to dry dock. However, the federal government has allocated only $10 million over three years to the people of the Magdalen Islands to find a new boat. This amount is clearly inadequate. The dry‑docking of the boat has been postponed for two years, given the inability to find a boat that meets the criteria. I must remind you that this remains an essential need for the people who live there. Without a ferry, nothing and no one can get to the Magdalen Islands, including goods or cars.

I find it quite surprising that Ottawa would give British Columbia a cheque for $1 billion so easily.

I'm happy that the people of British Columbia have ferries. However, Quebec needs them too. I would like the federal government to show as much enthusiasm for meeting eastern Quebec's needs as it does for meeting British Columbia's needs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Mr. Albas, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to point out that, with Mr. Kelloway's amendment, effectively, he wants to push any timely recommendations as far back as possible to give the government as much clearance as possible so that they can either let this story die over the summer....

You know, as responsible parliamentarians, if we expect to have a government—a minority government, I'll just remind everyone—that will listen to Canadians and listen to their representatives, it's important for us to be able to make immediate recommendations that the government will see and hear, and to have those recommendations.... We may find through the process that there are important public policies, such as not financing with federal tax dollars, through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, steel, aluminum and shipbuilding jobs in another country, particularly China. This is an area that Chrystia Freeland, the Minister of Transport, has been very public about; she has huge concerns. Therefore, I think we need to be able to push those in power positions, positions of leadership, so that they immediately act on something.

With all due respect to the analysts, who do very good work, I do not need an analyst to give me a data-driven response for something that I know is wrong. Outsourcing Canadian jobs is always wrong. It's even worse when we have these unjustified steel and aluminum tariffs.

I hope Liberals will understand that. I hope they will not support this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

I'll go back to Mr. Kelloway.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

I have just a couple of key points on what's been said here.

For me, the amendment is put forward because it's the responsible thing to do in terms of the analysis of witness testimony and not presupposing those recommendations. It's not who's more Canadian or who's more focused. We all want to work. We want to see work completed by Canadians. We want work done by Canadians, but we also don't want to presuppose anything that may not be beneficial to the country writ large or this example.

I just wanted to put that in there. From a process perspective, it's to get the best recommendations. It's to go through the right process to get them and to do this strategically. It's not to avoid anything. It's not to remove anything. There is no grand conspiracy here. We want to get to the heart of the matter, but we want to do it the right way and with the right process. I think that's what all parliamentarians share.

I just wanted to put that on the record. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kelloway.

I have nobody left on the speakers list for the amendment proposed by Mr. Kelloway. Therefore, we will go to a vote.

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

I'd like a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes. We will have a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

That brings us back to the discussion on the motion put forward by Mr. Albas.

Next on the list I have Mr. Barsalou-Duval, followed by Dr. Lewis.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's my turn to move an amendment to the motion tabled by my Conservative colleagues. I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing the words “And immediately following the conclusion of witness testimony at the meeting, the Chair be instructed to recognize a member from an opposition party for the purposes of considering a motion containing recommendations related to this study, that not more than one hour be provided for debate on the motion, and that every question necessary to dispose of the motion be put before the meeting can be adjourned” with the words “And immediately following the conclusion of the testimony, that the committee devote one hour of business to determining the action it intends to take on this meeting, and that the questions raised be put to the vote before the meeting is adjourned”.

May I explain the amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Yes, please.