Transport Committee on Sept. 18th, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I sent a motion to the clerk this morning. Perhaps he could distribute it to the committee members. It reflects discussions that I've had with many people. I assume that everything should be fine.

It reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities establish an agenda structured as follows: a. The committee immediately requests that the Chair and the clerk, in accordance with the motion adopted on August 1, 2025, make public all documents received from the organizations listed. These documents shall be published on the committee's website and distributed in a press release through the Press Gallery Secretariat: 1. Office of the Prime Minister 2. Privy Council Office 3. Canada Infrastructure Bank 4. The Department of Housing, including the office of the responsible minister 5. The Department of Transport, including the office of the responsible minister b. As part of its study on the Canada Infrastructure Bank's financing of new vessels for BC Ferries, the committee will hold three additional meetings and call the following witnesses: 1. Davie Shipyard 2. Ocean Group 3. Seaspan Shipyards 4. Irving Shipbuilding 5. BC Ferry & Marine Workers' Union 6. BC Building Trades 7. BC Federation of Labour 8. The Shipyard General Workers' Federation 9. The United Steelworkers 10. The Canadian Steel Producers Association 11. Former Minister of Transport Chrystia Freeland 12. The Minister of Public Safety, as well as officials responsible for reviewing national security issues related to the contract between BC Ferries and the Chinese shipyard Merchants Industry Weihai Shipyard c. Upon completion of its study on the Canada Infrastructure Bank's financing of new vessels for British Columbia Ferries, the committee will immediately undertake a new study on the phenomenon of “Driver Inc.”, comprising at least six meetings. The committee will summon the Minister of Transport, the Secretary of State for Labour and the Secretary of State for Revenue to testify in this study for a minimum of one hour each. Other witnesses, chosen by the parties, will also be invited to appear. Finally, the committee will submit its conclusions and recommendations to the House.

The motion covers the main points of our discussion. It proposes first to make public the documents that we received before completing the BC Ferries study. However, the motion doesn't address the issue of BC Ferries documents, which may be discussed later, after this motion is adopted.

The next step is to conduct a study on the issue of “Driver Inc.” I believe that this is a serious issue in the trucking industry right now. The truckers are facing this crisis. I wrote to Minister MacKinnon about this issue this week. I believe that people are very interested in this matter. They want Parliament to take it seriously and they want their elected officials to commit to resolving the situation. I feel strongly about all this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Mr. Kelloway, you have the floor.

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

Thank you for that.

It's obviously very detailed and very lengthy. I know a copy is being circulated, Mr. Chair.

We would request to suspend for just a little bit, if that's possible, to read it. It's very detailed. We can huddle to go through it with a fine eye.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Kelloway.

Before I suspend, Mr. Muys, do you want to speak after I suspend, to give people a chance to review it, or would you like to speak to this now?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

I would like to make a friendly amendment to include Ontario Shipyards and a list of people we will call.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Why don't we allow for that friendly amendment? It might help guide discussions.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

For sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Colleagues, I just got confirmation from the clerk that it has been circulated and it should be in your inboxes.

I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes to give members who haven't read it yet a chance to do so.

The meeting is suspended to the call of the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

I call this meeting back to order.

Is your hand up, Mr. Kelloway?

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

I will defer to Will on this one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Go ahead, Will. Then I'll go to Mr. Albas.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

With respect to the proposed motion, I'm struck by the fact that, in our meetings earlier this summer, this committee had the opportunity to put questions to the relevant ministers from not only the federal Department of Transport but also housing and infrastructure Canada. It's not clear to me what other questions would be asked of the minister if they were recalled before this committee, given the time spent and interrogation that's already taken place on the matter.

The former Minister of Transport, in particular, is no longer in that role, and is taking on another significant role on behalf of the Government of Canada. What value or additional information this committee anticipates getting from the former minister, if she were to be recalled as a witness, isn't clear to me and doesn't seem to be the most efficient use of this committee's or that honourable colleague's time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Greaves.

I have Mr. Albas next.

He will be followed by Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

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

Mr. Chair, thank you for the floor.

To the honourable member from Victoria, I will be happy to tell him what has changed. I read today, published September 18, by Bill Curry, deputy Ottawa bureau chief of The Globe and Mail, “BC Ferries deal raised with Transport Canada weeks before Freeland's criticism, emails show”. If this report is accurate, the fact that the CEO of BC Ferries, six weeks ahead of the announcement about their controversial purchase of four ferries from a state-owned shipyard in the People's Republic of China, flagged it with the deputy minister of Transport Canada, the highest on the non-partisan side of that department, was critical. The minister was saying one thing, that she was shocked.

It's a damning indictment because Transport Canada was made aware of this six weeks before that announcement, and they did nothing to protect Canadian jobs. They just sat on their hands and let it proceed. They didn't act to secure those contracts. They didn't push back at it. This raises a number of questions about former minister Chrystia Freeland's abrupt resignation, and it blows a hole in her narrative that she wanted BC Ferries to buy Canadian and was dismayed and upset about it. She said these things on the floor of the House of Commons when I and other members raised concerns about this procurement.

We need to get to the bottom of this. This government has not been level with British Columbians and with Canadians in general. They say, hand on heart, “We want to buy Canadian. Canada strong. Let's work together. Let's build things here faster, better than we've ever done.” However, they were given a heads-up by the CEO of BC Ferries and did nothing, so we need to get to the bottom of this. Chrystia Freeland should come to testify and explain herself, exactly how she could say one thing on the floor of the House of Commons.... As far as I understand, she's still a sitting MP. I'm sure that now, as a former minister, she has the time to work with us, so she can explain herself.

This just reiterates the need to cancel this loan: $1 billion of taxpayer money is going to a PRC shipyard. I am sick to my stomach thinking that this is what the government has done in this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.

It's now Mr. Barsalou‑Duval's turn. He will be followed by Mr. Greaves.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to the question from my colleague, Mr. Greaves, I could repeat the comments made by my Conservative colleague. However, I would simply like to point out that the only minister, or should I say former minister, being called back to this committee is Ms. Freeland. Mr. Robertson, who has already appeared before the committee, hasn't been called back. The Minister of Public Safety has yet to appear before this committee to discuss the matter.

I think that Ms. Freeland should return because there have been significant new developments since her last appearance. Ms. Freeland wrote a letter that caused quite a stir. She stated that she disagreed with a single penny of Canadian money being used to purchase Chinese‑made vessels. In the end, it turns out that she knew everything. She knew full well about this deal long before the contract was awarded. She also knew that it would be financed with federal funds.

I'm surprised that the committee was told last summer that everything happened while the government was no longer in session and no longer running. There was a leadership race and an election and people were then presented with a fait accompli. We now understand that Ms. Freeland and her team, and perhaps even the heads of other departments, had been aware of the situation for a long time. An even greater source of frustration is the realization that her letter, which appeared all over the media, was just for show and that everyone was taken for fools. That's my take.

If we should have another take, I think that we need to hear her explanations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

It's now Mr. Greaves' turn.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's instructive to hear our colleagues across outline what their objections are, because if we apply just the slightest bit of pressure, we start to see their argument fraying at the seams.

As a basic reminder to our colleagues, BC Ferries is a provincial entity. It is a corporation, the primary shareholder of which is the Government of British Columbia. It does not report to the federal Minister of Transport.

It's an unfortunate, and indeed a somewhat alarming, precedent to suggest that federal agencies and entities, especially those that are intended to operate at arm's length from government, should in fact be pulled into this political bickering and be made, ultimately, a punching bag for other purposes.

The agenda of our Conservative colleagues is very clear, and they're on the record about this. They are demanding the cancellation of a loan—and I'll return to that in a moment—that is utterly essential to BC Ferries' ability to continue to provide a critical service on the west coast of this country, but this is really just a Trojan Horse for the broader agenda. It's been very clearly articulated that the Conservative Party wishes for the abolition of the entire Canada Infrastructure Bank. BC Ferries is being used as a vehicle to advance a broader agenda, which is a multi-year vendetta against a federal entity that, as we speak, is in the midst of funding critical investments in infrastructure across this country.

The CIB is a federal agency, but it also does not report to the federal Minister of Transport, so both of the arm's-length agencies at issue in this matter are not, in fact, accountable to the former minister—who my colleagues opposite are demanding return to this committee.

It is, I think, somewhat confusing if we interrogate the fact that this is a loan. The money that the Canada Infrastructure Bank independently decided to allocate towards BC Ferries to support their investment in fleet renewal is a loan that will be repaid with interest. That is the business model of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. This entire project is not one that will cost Canadian taxpayers money in the long run. It is, in fact, an initiative that will generate benefit to the public purse and, in the process, of course, will provide improvements to a service that is completely critical in my part of the country.

In that respect, I will simply underscore again a point I've made in this committee previously: We are playing politics here with a service that British Columbians rely upon and that my constituents in Victoria require for daily life. This is not just an abstract matter. This is what gets food and essential goods to Vancouver Island, home to more than 800,000 Canadians. This is a service that underpins the economy of western Canada. This is a service that provides 33 million rides every year, dwarfing by an order of magnitude the total number of passengers who ride passenger ferries in Atlantic Canada on an annual basis.

There are indeed issues related to BC Ferries that I would be very keen for this committee to take up, not least of which is the inequitable funding afforded to ferries on the west coast as compared to those used by our Atlantic Canadian cousins. The issue at hand here is really using for political expedience something British Columbians cannot afford to have delayed and undermined.

Therefore, on behalf of my constituents in Victoria and my colleagues who represent a majority of British Columbians, this is a political exercise we're engaging in. It is using something we rely on in British Columbia in service to a broader political objective of our Conservative colleagues: to undermine and ultimately destroy a federal agency that is providing funds to the benefit of the federal taxpayer in British Columbia and elsewhere across Canada. I don't think it's appropriate, and I don't think we should indulge in it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Greaves.

Next I have Mr. Muys.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Let me amplify some of the comments made by my colleagues Mr. Albas and Mr. Barsalou-Duval. There are new facts. That's why this motion has been put forward.

You know, I don't think it's political to be fighting to protect Canadian jobs. I come from the Hamilton region, where the steel industry has been absolutely devastated with the unjust tariffs. If we're spending $1 billion, then why, if it's being backstopped by Canadian taxpayers, won't it be Canadian steel, produced in Hamilton, being used rather than going overseas to China?

In fact, speaking of then minister Freeland, she held a half-day photo op summit in Hamilton at ArcelorMittal Dofasco to buy Canadian. I guess that was all politics too, because what actually was accomplished by a half-day photo op summit? By the way, shipbuilders were there. Rail was there. They talked about the need to use Canadian steel. That's why it was held at Dofasco. I think we have a great example here. It would be great to ask further questions about what transpired there and the discussions around that.

Again, there are these new facts, so it's appropriate to delve further into this with this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Muys.

Mr. Lawrence.

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

Thank you.

I'll start out by responding to some of the points made by Mr. Greaves. They rely on a series of logical fallacies, to put it kindly.

His first point is that somehow, if in fact we don't buy this ferry from a Chinese contractor, we can't have a ferry. That's simply untrue. The Liberals may not believe in Canadian manufacturing, but Conservatives do. We believe that those ferries can be built by Canadian hands with Canadian steel. They may not believe that's true, but we do.

Second, he says, well, there's no federal control, no federal relationship, with BC Ferries. That's untrue. The CIB, of course, is underwriting it in terms of $1 billion. That's a Crown corporation. If Crown corporations aren't responsible to taxpayers, who are they responsible to? As well, numerous times in the documents—I can provide you with the citations—federal bureaucrats talked about the federal flows that are coming directly to BC Ferries. Quite frankly, one of the reasons we need to have further conversations about this is the fact that a lot of those documents get to a certain point and then they're redacted. There are literally hundreds of pages of redactions. I would like to know what's under there. There might be some information in there that is commercially sensitive, and that's fine, but we need to test that evidence.

Then he asks why we're asking for former minister Freeland when we really should have the housing minister. Add him. We're happy to have him come and have him discuss again some of the redactions as well. We will gladly accept that amendment to add that minister.

The reality is that it's not really what we know from these documents; it's what they've unveiled that we don't know. There are discussions in there amongst bureaucrats talking about the impact that the cancelling of this loan will have on Canada-PRC relations. That's challenging, because we shouldn't be looking at that. Civil servants shouldn't be looking at tenders and going, “Okay, well, we should allow this loan to go ahead, or we should allow this contract to go ahead, because it may affect relationships otherwise.” No: We should be trying to get the best ferries and underwriting the best loans.

Finally, here's something for the B.C. audience out there. I believe Mr. Greaves is a B.C. MP. I'm surprised, quite frankly, that he doesn't want to find out more about this. It's in there. It completely redacts the BC Hydro documents and their report completely. This is tens of pages. But do you know what? They forgot to redact some of it. They are saying that having electric ferries will cost B.C. taxpayers half a billion dollars. That's a lot of money. That is a lot of money to upgrade their facilities.

There are lots of unknown things in there. Quite frankly, I would say to my colleagues across the board that this is something that deserves many meetings. I think the Bloc motion is flawed, not because it's including the BC Ferries but because we don't have enough meetings on it. There's a lot more to be told. Just take the hundreds of pages of redactions; do you have no curiosity about what's behind that blackout? I certainly do.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.

Dr. Lewis, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to highlight that this investigation is not about casting the CIB in a certain light. It's really about bringing transparency to Canadians who are asking a lot of questions about what happened and who have a genuine interest in knowing what happened and knowing the story behind how the contract got sent over to Beijing.

In question period, when this contract first came up, it was revealed that a Chinese shipyard got the contract. The former minister, Minister Freeland, brushed this off as a provincial matter and said that they only fund operations, but at the very same time, her staff were emailing the Prime Minister's Office about how to manage the CIB loan announcement. Parliament was, in some sense, misled.

Canadians expect the truth from their government, not political positioning to cover for some aspect of what appears to be incompetence. That's why these documents need to be disclosed to the public, and the study needs to happen.

The Liberals also told Canadians that Ottawa knew nothing and had nothing to do with the BC Ferries' Chinese state-owned shipyard contract. However, now we know that the Canada Infrastructure Bank—a federal Crown corporation—actually bankrolled and subsidized the interest rates. It gave interest rates for contracts far below rates that Canadians can secure on their own. This is of serious interest to the Canadian public.

Instead of transparency, Liberals chose to deflect, deny and almost spin what had happened. Canadians deserve transparency to know why their tax dollars are being invested in a Chinese-owned shipyard and not in their own shipyard industries and workers.

In addition, the Canada Infrastructure Bank was supposed to invest in Canadian infrastructure. Instead, it gave a billion-dollar loan for ships built in China with zero Canadian content requirements. That's not building Canada for Canadians, that's really building Beijing. Why wasn't a single question asked of the CIB about protecting Canadian jobs and shipyards before signing the cheque?

Canadians also need to know more about the timeline of events and how it was only in June that we found out that the contract was going to the Chinese shipyard, when decisions were made fairly early in January. Also, why did the CIB not publicly announce the deal before they signed the cheque, and why did they wait so long before announcing it? Those are other questions that Canadians are curious about.