EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities NUMBER 031 2nd SESSION 43rd PARLIAMENT Thursday, May 6, 2021 Le jeudi 6 mai 2021 Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE May 6, 2021 Committee NUMBER 031 NUMBER 031 NUMÉRO 031 31 06 05 2021 2021/05/06 15:35:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent des transports, de l'infrastructure et des collectivités Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities TRAN Chair Mr. Vance Badawey 2 43

(1535) [ English ]

The Chair (Mr. Vance Badawey (Niagara Centre, Lib.)) :

Good afternoon, everyone. It's my pleasure to call this meeting to order. I'd like to welcome all of you to meeting number 31 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee. To ensure an orderly meeting, there are a few points I'd like to make. First off, members and witnesses may speak in the official language of your choice.

Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the committee is meeting in person in a committee room. Keep in mind the directives from the Board of Internal Economy regarding masking and health protocols. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourselves.

For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled by the proceedings and verification officer as normal. I remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute. With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do our very best to maintain the order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

Members, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on October 29, 2020, the committee will now continue its study of targeted infrastructure investments. I would now like to welcome and introduce our witnesses for today. First, from the City of Corner Brook, we have Mayor Jim Parsons. From the City of Sept-Îles, we have Mayor Réjean Porlier. From the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority, we have Ian Hamilton, president and chief executive officer. Finally, from the Insurance Bureau of Canada, we have Craig Stewart, vice-president, federal affairs.

With that, I am going to start off with Mayor Parsons. Mayor Parsons, you have the floor for five minutes.

Mr. Jim Parsons (Mayor, City of Corner Brook) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks to the committee for providing me with the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of the people of Corner Brook. Federal infrastructure funding is of immense importance to our community. Before I speak about the specifics of our situation as a municipality, I would like to mention one notable, recent project in our community. Corner Brook was founded on the development of our pulp and paper mill almost 100 years ago, and we are now a modern government services centre for the west coast of Newfoundland, with a campus of Memorial University and a burgeoning tourism sector.

That said, our paper mill is still uniquely important to our community and our regional economy. We have a deep-water port here in the city. For many years, it was underutilized for industrial purposes, but two years ago we were able to secure funding through the national trade corridors fund to purchase container-handling equipment, including a new crane. This enabled us to attract a new international container service to the port, which would have our mill as an anchor tenant. When COVID-19 hit last spring, the newsprint market, of course, in the U.S. disappeared almost overnight.

This was a disaster for our mill. However, our investment in our port saved the day. Container service commenced in May 2020, allowing our mill to reach new markets, support a more diversified client base and reduce shipping costs overall. Our mill prevailed against the additional impacts of COVID-19, outsurviving many global competitors. This success is largely due to a relatively small $5.5-million investment from the federal government, and I would like to thank MP Gudie Hutchings for her support on this file.

As a city of approximately 20,000 people, we are able to sustain our operations through responsible fiscal management. However, we rely on federal and provincial partners for help when it comes to the development and maintenance of our extensive municipal infrastructure. Each year we fund our infrastructure development primarily through the following sources: provincial, multi-year capital funding; the gas tax, of course; the ICIP; and ad hoc funds through Infrastructure Canada like the new Canada healthy communities initiative and through programs through the ACOA and the FCM.

We typically use our multi-year, provincial funding and our gas tax funding on our “must have” or “can't wait” projects, like water and sewer upgrades, and road investment and repair. ICIP funds and other funds are used typically for bigger projects or “nice to have” projects. Since we can't count on any specific project getting funded through those latter streams, we either have to tolerate potential delays on those projects or have backup funding. We have experienced a few challenges with the ICIP that I would like to inform you about.

As it is project-based, there is little predictability as to which projects get funded. The bilateral nature of the funding has led to some misunderstandings on eligible costs between the province and the federal government at Infrastructure Canada. Finally, the ICIP seems to be unable to accommodate many large-scale projects within the overall funding categories. For example, we are currently pursuing a $90-million waste-water treatment facility, and at the current annual allocations, this project, should it get funded, would exhaust the entire annual green-infrastructure ICIP allocation for the province.

Therefore, it's unlikely to get funded. We would like to make a couple of recommendations when it comes to any federal funding. Specifically, we would like the government enhance the flexible and predictable models of infrastructure funding for municipalities. We were really glad to see another proposal to double the gas tax this year.

As a regional centre, per-capita funding mightn't be the most progressive funding model—we sustain more infrastructure on a per-capita basis—but we would be happy to tolerate that minor inequity for the flexibility and predictability that the gas tax model affords a mature, responsible municipality like ours. Also, we would like to see more highly targeted, large-scale funding for regional priority projects. I mentioned waste-water treatment. If this is, indeed, a priority for the federal government, we would like to see a clear funding path.

We would gladly do our share to build reserves and would incur debt, if it is necessary, as long as we can get a commitment and a clear path forward from our federal and provincial partners. Thank you very much.

(1540) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well done. We are now going to move on to Mayor Porlier. Mr. Mayor, you have the floor for five minutes.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Réjean Porlier (Mayor, City of Sept-Îles) :

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for having me once again. This time I hope my remarks, which concern the dynamic use of Canada's territory, will lead to more discussion between us. I am the mayor of Sept-Îles, an eastern Quebec city located near the centre of the province, approximately 1,000 kilometers from Montreal on one side and 1,000 kilometers from Blanc-Sablon on the other. Blanc-Sablon is near the home of my friend, Mr. Parsons, who just spoke. Allow me to explain why I want to talk to you about dynamic use. There are many villages and towns between my home and Mr.

Parsons', and their populations are slowly but surely declining. And you can understand why. Just imagine, it's 2021, and highway 138, the only road on the North Shore, still isn't finished. It's been promised to us for decades. Young people in those towns may be waiting for their yearly outing, but the transportation just isn't there. Do you think these young people, who are going away to study somewhere else, want to return to their villages? The answer, of course, is no. Those villages are increasingly isolated and in decline.

Our infrastructure needs to be upgraded so we can use the territory in a dynamic rather than resilient manner, the way it is now, as we wait for our villages to shut down. How can we claim that a territory, this big, beautiful territory, that we're using in a resilient manner, is legitimate? I imagine the same is true in the so-called more remote areas across Canada. The government is starting to consider establishing an economic corridor between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. For a long time, the talk was solely about isolated communities, and it was understood that wasn't good enough.

Now the whole economic dynamic has been added to the picture. Everyone hopes the road is completed someday. We hope a government will have the vision to complete it, to open the economic corridor so people can come and go, which may encourage them to stay in their towns. There's also talk about aviation. I think the territory is completely disorganized, and aviation in Quebec, generally speaking, is as well. Current ticket prices are prohibitive, and an enormous amount of work is being done to establish an aviation network.

The Institut de recherche en économie contemporaine, IRÉC, conducted a study on the subject and concluded that we had to be innovative, that we had to take off our blinders and try to look at the situation from a different angle. That's more or less the message I wanted to convey to you today, that we should try to consider the dynamic use of our territory in a new way. According to the study findings, we should look to the cooperatives, where the people acquire ownership of the modes of transportation and therefore work to preserve them. As you can see, the challenges are considerable.

While we neglect these territories everywhere, we invest billions and billions of dollars to expand road networks in the major cities. I think that's counterproductive, particularly in view of the fight against climate change. As motor vehicle fleets significantly expand, we can't even complete a single road to the other side of our region, where our natural resources are exploited. My message for you today is that we must not wait for crises like the current pandemic to happen. The way to restart the economy in times of crisis is often to focus on infrastructure.

So let's at least meet the needs of the most remote communities. Sept-Îles is a regional hub with a population of approximately 26,000 inhabitants. If none of the towns east of that hub are revitalized, we will all suffer the consequences. Sept-Îles is a hub, but it receives less and less support. Consequently, we need a vision.

(1545) I hope that, in the course of your proceedings, you will adopt a vision for the development of the Canadian territory as a whole because I think we must at least meet essential transportation needs, particularly in air and ground transportation. I hope you will pay attention to that. There's also the communications component, which is increasingly under discussion. We obviously have to improve high-speed Internet access. Efforts are being made to do so, which will enable people to work remotely from virtually anywhere.

We also have to make it easier for people to come and go so they no longer feel isolated, even if they live in very remote places. That's my essential message today. I hope we can discuss it. Thank you for your attention.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well done. We will move now to the Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority. Mr. Hamilton, you have the floor for five minutes.

Mr. Ian Hamilton (President and Chief Executive Officer, Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority) :

Thank you very much for having me, and good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It is my pleasure to be invited today to discuss the power of targeted infrastructure investments to build sustainable, resilient supply chains and deliver prosperity. The Hamilton-Oshawa Port Authority or HOPA Ports, as we know ourselves now, is the largest integrated port network on the Great Lakes, with port and marine facilities in Hamilton, Oshawa and now Niagara.

Our goals are to facilitate international trade, improve transportation efficiency in Ontario, reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, and serve the Ontario industries that rely on the multimodal transportation network that we provide. In Ontario, we don't necessarily think of ourselves as a marine province, but we have 10,000 kilometres of Great Lakes shoreline and access to a marine highway in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence that connects the North American industrial heartland to any market around the world.

Our maritime character has an advantage of geography that perhaps we have come to take for granted, but in doing so we could miss out on its benefits, especially the economic prosperity that it can deliver. At HOPA Ports we have been working to leverage a valuable combination of strategic location, transportation infrastructure and industrial land in Hamilton's and Oshawa's working waterfronts, successfully attracting more than $350 million in investment in the past decade, supporting 2,100 jobs on site, and handling goods worth $3 billion connected to 38,000 jobs in the province of Ontario.

Throughout southern Ontario, by beginning to see these assets as part of an integrated network we can start to explore innovative ideas that serve our growing region. We should be thinking of how to use marine highways to reduce congestion on our clogged highways, by consolidating truck traffic onto short-sea shipping alternatives or by staging construction materials for urban waterfront development projects elsewhere in the region and delivering these materials by barge on a just-in-time basis.

We need to ensure that we are continuing to foster a positive environment for manufacturing, food processing and construction materials—sectors that are among the most valuable economic engines for our region. As we have seen in Hamilton and Oshawa, there is enormous demand for transportation-intensive industrial land for these types of businesses, and we're currently working to activate more valuable industrial land along the Welland Canal, specifically in Thorold, Welland and Port Colborne, to allow for the attraction of new industry and jobs in the region.

It is part of our mandate and responsibility, as Ontario's largest port authority, to facilitate trade in our region. We believe the best way to accomplish this is to begin to take a more regional perspective and to tap into Ontario's rich marine heritage to help deliver a prosperous future. One way to move forward on our mandate is to ensure responsible investment in infrastructure that has the greatest return for the Canadian economy. We were immensely pleased to see the recent federal budget renew the national trade corridors fund, a highly successful and well-administered program.

The NTCF has been a vehicle for delivering targeted economic stimulus through infrastructure. Now more than ever, the NTCF can be used to support cost-effective, energy-efficient supply chains that play a critical role in Canada's economic recovery. In 2018, the predecessor Hamilton Port Authority received an investment of $17.7 million through the NTCF program. We matched that fund and more, and put in a total of $45 million. Since that time, that fund has actually been able to attract a further $50 million in third-party investment onto our property.

In looking ahead to the design and objectives of this round of the NTCF program, we would highlight the integrated nature of trade within the Great Lakes region. We would encourage the renewed program to consider that the functions of the Great Lakes region are different from those of the coastal trade gateways. Canada-U.S. bilateral trade throughout the Great Lakes is valued at more than $6 trillion annually. Especially in southern Ontario, Canada's manufacturing heartland, imports of raw materials are essential for the downstream competitiveness of Canadian industries.

The GTHA is the fastest-growing region in North America, with a population due to surpass eight million. Meanwhile, the region suffers from some of North America's worst road congestion, costing an estimated $6 billion per year. We would encourage the NTCF program to emphasize increasing Canada-U.S. trade, including imports tied to domestic industrial supply chains such as those for manufacturing and construction, which will be central to economic recovery and employment.

There is a unique opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases and congestion resulting from truck transportation, through the development of short-sea shipping opportunities. Better use of the marine mode would reduce trucks on the provinces's highways, decrease road congestion, cut capital requirements for expanded roadways and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Shipping goods by water is far more energy efficient and less costly than land-based modes. A single vessel of 30,000 tonnes of cargo can replace close to 1,000 trucks.

(1550) Investing in marine transportation in the Great Lakes will advance Canada's blue economy strategy, with the potential to spur growth across the board in fishing, marine transportation, shipbuilding, energy, tourism and recreation. The expansion of trade capacity at Canada's Great Lakes ports is essential to the growth and competitiveness of the agri-food, construction and manufacturing sectors. In order to meet all these demands, we must begin making better use of our marine capacity. Doing so would represent a major step forward to delivering benefits for Canadian trade, environment and local economies.

At HOPA Ports, we are ready now to start making the investments Canada needs to emerge stronger from the pandemic. We have identified shovel-ready infrastructure improvements that would maximize immediate impact in our regional economies while also delivering long-term benefit to Canada's supply chains. We look forward to working with you towards a more sustainable, resilient and prosperous Canada that makes the most of its maritime transportation infrastructure, and in particular, those on the Great Lakes. Again, thank you very much for the opportunity to address the committee.

I'd be pleased to answer any questions when they come up.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. That was well done. We're now going to move on to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, with Mr. Craig Stewart, vice-president of federal affairs. Mr. Stewart, you have the floor for five minutes.

Mr. Craig Stewart (Vice-President, Federal Affairs, Insurance Bureau of Canada) :

Thank you, Honourable Chair. Good afternoon and thank you, committee members, for the invitation today. I coordinate work on disaster preparedness and climate change at the Insurance Bureau of Canada or IBC—your home, car and business insurers. As an industry, we are particularly interested in strengthening resilience among businesses and households in the face of the increasing impact of climate change in Canada. Why is infrastructure important for climate resilience? Canada is warming at twice the rate of much of the rest of the world due to climate change. For insurers, this is a material financial threat.

Canada’s insured losses due to severe weather have quadrupled, from $422 million annually before 2008 to $1.9 billion, on average, since. Our problem is your problem. In 2019, Lloyd’s of London left the Canadian commercial insurance market, due in part to these significant severe weather losses. Businesses like condominium boards and tourism operators couldn’t find affordable insurance after Lloyd’s left the market. Climate resilience is defined as the ability of a community to absorb future stress from floods, windstorms or wildfires while continuing to function.

Infrastructure such as stormwater system upgrades, flood diversion channels or natural features such as wetlands are key to introducing resilience. The Government of Canada has taken some important steps to address this escalating climate risk. From funding resilience retrofits through the green and inclusive community buildings program, to partnering with us to develop a national high-risk flood insurance program, early work is under way. Public Safety Canada is leading a national risk profile to assess which communities across Canada are most exposed to flood, wildfire and earthquake risk.

Infrastructure Canada has launched a national infrastructure assessment, which considers how natural disasters such as floods and fires impact infrastructure. It also considers how to mitigate future climate risks through the deployment of defensive infrastructure, including where nature may play a role. In combination, these two efforts should provide the detail needed to prioritize future investments to lower Canadian risk. Much more needs to be done. The investments announced are insufficient.

In 2017, the government launched the $2-billion disaster mitigation and adaptation fund—DMAF—which was quickly overcommitted. Budget 2021 announced a $1.4-billion extension of that program over 11 years. That number is still inadequate to protect Canadian communities. To put that into context, we paid out more than $1.4 billion in losses from a 20-minute hailstorm in Calgary last June. The Government of Canada is finally taking the future risks of climate change seriously. However, we are facing escalating climate risk right now.

Climate adaptation deserves the same degree of all-hands-on-deck rigour to design the policies and programs that will actually protect Canadians today. Here are our recommendations for your committee report. First, Canada needs a national climate adaptation strategy that sets time-bound targets for protecting Canadians. For example, that strategy could target protecting 30% of high-risk Canadian homes and businesses from flooding by 2030. That strategy should centre on the national risk profile.

The national infrastructure assessment should explicitly link to it and identify future programming, like an expanded DMAF and a resilient home retrofit program that addresses those goals for communities at risk. Second, governments investments can’t do it all. Private capital is essential to building resilience, yet we spend a lot of time in this country debating how to price carbon and almost no time pricing climate risk. We lack the valuation framework and tools needed to price the resilience value of infrastructure and to convert this into revenue-generating financial instruments.

Canada has now joined Australia and the U.K. in the Coalition for Climate Resilient Investment—CCRI—a public-private collaboration to develop the valuation frameworks needed to deploy private capital. Infrastructure Canada should be aggressively positioning this country to benefit from this work. Finally, the Canada Infrastructure Bank should play a role in this policy development with CCRI. Currently, the CIB has not invested a dime on climate adaptation—and they won’t until resilience projects can earn revenue. They should engage in demonstration pilots that build systemic resilience in Canada.

In conclusion, we’re finally playing offence on climate change by aggressively lowering emissions. However, we also need to play defence to protect Canadians from the severe weather we are already experiencing. Targeted infrastructure investments from the public and private sectors must be foundational to our resilience game plan. Thank you.

(1555) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Stewart. You raised some great points. To all of the witnesses, well done. On behalf of the committee, I very much appreciate the valuable time you've taken today to be with us on this very important subject matter. With that, we will go to our first round of six minutes for each recognized party. We will start with the Conservative Party. Mr. Scheer, you have the floor for six minutes.

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to echo what the chair said about the very interesting presentations by our witnesses today. We heard a lot of different aspects of Canada's infrastructure needs addressed by a very interesting group of witnesses. I particularly liked the mention of the idea of these trade corridors. This was something that of course the previous Conservative government really championed with the Asia-Pacific corridor.

Many communities throughout Canada were able to upgrade everything from roads to rail yards to port facilities in order to help deal with some of the logistics challenges that prevented Canadian companies from accessing Asian markets. That was a very successful corridor program. It's nice when you see those types of legacy projects continue and benefit diverse communities, from Newfoundland all the way to British Columbia. I want to touch on that a little bit with the representatives from the port authorities in Corner Brook and Hamilton-Oshawa.

Obviously, hard assets are a huge benefit to being able to expand our trading opportunities and export more. I think I heard the gentleman from Corner Brook talk about the ability to buy a crane. It's easy to understand how that benefits and enables the ability to expand operations. Sometimes, though, government rules and regulations get in the way of some of the expansion of some of the operations. I want to ask a question specifically about cabotage and your view of the current rules relating to cabotage here in Canada and the ability for ships bringing goods to Canada to stop at multiple points of entry.

We have two different ports here, two different parts of the country, and I'd love to hear your different perspectives on the way that rule affects your ability to grow and expand.

(1600) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Scheer. We'll start off with Mr. Hamilton. Then I'll move over to the mayor from Corner Brook. Mr. Hamilton.

Mr. Ian Hamilton :

Thanks very much. I guess the answer is a bit like my daughter's profile: It's complicated. I think the opportunity with cabotage, obviously, is that part of it was originally designed to protect a domestic fleet and to protect a domestic shipbuilding industry. As a result of that, we've ended with a large shipping community in Canada that has really been geared up to serving the Canadian market. If you were to abandon the cabotage rules, then I think there would have to be some consideration towards how they can manage and how they can work with their workforces, being obligated to use existing union workforces.

I say all of that as a preface to my answer, because I think there would have to be some consideration for those domestic operators today if it were to be opened up. However, the opportunities to actually opening it up I think are quite large. You would bring in a lot more competitiveness and you'd bring in a lot more capacity for ships coming into the system. I think when you look at jurisdictions like Europe, where these cabotage rules don't exist, you see how much they use short-sea shipping and smaller vessels to transport goods and how effective it can be.

There is a real opportunity to it in creating more capacity and more competitiveness, but I will acknowledge, for all of our ship-owning friends in Canada, that there has to be some recognition of the impact it would have on their existing operations.

The Chair :

Mayor Parsons.

Mr. Jim Parsons :

Thank you. I believe Mr. Hamilton would have a lot more expertise in this regard. I sit on our port corporation board by virtue of my office as mayor. We have an international container freight service here. In the past we have had a domestic shipper as well. Of course, with our mill we largely export to international markets. We have opportunities for our fisheries and fishing industry, of course, but we are somewhat limited by those rules. Again, on the implications to the overall shipping industry, I think I'd defer to someone like Mr. Hamilton. From our perspective, it does limit somewhat what we can do and how we can support our local regional economy.

Hon. Andrew Scheer :

I'll try to very briefly get to our two mayors. Like you, we get very frustrated when we hear stories of the billions of dollars that go lapsing in government programs or the fact that the Canadian Infrastructure Bank hasn't yet been able to complete a single project and it's supposed to be a signature government program. We've heard your recommendations, but I just want to give you one more opportunity to talk about what you're looking for in terms of flexibility for local areas.

What we've heard in previous meetings is that sometimes, when the criteria get set here in Ottawa, there are a lot of great projects that are getting filtered out because they don't quite fit in to what the government in Ottawa has set. What would you like to see in terms of flexibility to empower local decision-making?

Mr. Jim Parsons :

Thank you. As I mentioned, it's the flexibility. We've seen funding like the gas tax, which has been very helpful. Because we are a mature professional organization we have a lot of accountability and a lot of ability to decide what's best for our municipality. From bilateral funding like ICIP, we've actually seen more flexibility from Infrastructure Canada than we have through our provincial government. Sometimes there are disagreements about the eligible costs and things like that, and we get a little hung up. As I mentioned also, the funding categories that are used sometimes limit how much can be done.

Green infrastructure here in Newfoundland amounts to roughly $30 million a year in the federal contribution perspective. Our single project, a $90-million water treatment facility, would take up that entire allotment for a year. There's a need for flexibility at both the provincial level and at the municipal level. Municipalities are becoming more independent and more responsible, and I think we should be allowed to, as much as possible, set our own course.

(1605) The Chair :

Mayor Porlier, go ahead.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Réjean Porlier :

I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Parsons that most expenditures are incurred in the municipalities. We're on the ground, but it takes time and negotiation to get funding. The project has often started by the time funding is paid out. There should definitely be a way to simplify the process. Allow me to add a comment on cabotage, which is underutilized in Quebec but would be a big help. Studies show that we would save a lot of money on road maintenance if we used cabotage more. We should introduce incentives to encourage the practice. Once established, it will become increasingly independent. We should really establish a cabotage tradition in Quebec.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mayor Porlier. Thank you, Mayor Parsons, as well as Mr. Scheer. We're now going to move on to the Liberal Party. We have Mr. Fillmore. Mr. Fillmore, you're up for six minutes.

Mr. Andy Fillmore (Halifax, Lib.) :

Thanks, Chair. Thanks to the witnesses for giving us their time and expertise. There's a wonderful diversity of experience here this evening. Mayor Parsons, I was glad to hear of the programs that you've been able to access in Corner Brook, and I hope that you'll continue to avail yourself of them. I was particularly glad to hear you give a shout-out to the CHCI program, and I hope that it lands well in your neck of the woods. Mr.

Stewart, on your definition of resiliency, thank you for putting that on the record with this committee, with resiliency being the ability of infrastructure to withstand future challenges from climate change and adapt to future risks. Thank you for that. It's wonderful to hear your thoughts on the green and inclusive community building fund that we've released, and your thoughts on DMAF as well, and the need to continue paying attention to disaster mitigation. Thank you for that. I would like to direct my question, however, to Mr. Hamilton. Mr.

Hamilton, I'm sure the port community is actually quite small in Canada. You've probably visited the Halifax port and you know that we, like the HOPA ports, are in urban areas. When a truck has to leave the port, it has to rumble through residential neighbourhoods, the central business district, main streets, shopping districts and so forth. I was very glad to hear you talking about the interest in consolidating loads and reducing the number of trucks, which is a positive in so many ways, in terms of GHG reductions and quality of life in the downtown.

It even comes down to damage to the historic heritage buildings that we have in our downtown, and that may be the same where you are as well. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit more about the plans you have to reduce truck traffic, the way the trade corridors fund or other funds might help you, and what you're looking for there, if you would. Thank you.

Mr. Ian Hamilton :

There are a number of ways to do it. Working with your individual municipalities to ensure the following of the municipal truck routes is an essential item. I think Montreal is doing it, we're doing it and Vancouver is doing it. We were using RFID technology to track trucks to see where they were actually routed through the downtown corridors and to try to educate and ensure that the trucks were following the prescribed routes. That's the obvious thing.

For the bigger picture, what we're really excited about is the Canadian centre on transportation data, and the open data and the work that's currently going on between goods moved, transparency and freight visibility. We believe there hasn't been enough work done in Canada to create the databases of information so that we can truly understand where the capacity exists. It can be capacity in a system, as in the Great Lakes on the marine side of it, but it could also be capacity in terms of space inside of a truck and how we work to maximize utilization of that space and reduce the volumes.

I know it's right in its infancy, but we really think the CCTD is a great initiative. Port authorities across the country can really help in collecting and helping to do the analytics on that data, with a goal to try to maximize the utilization of the existing capacity, which would ultimately reduce the truck volumes. By using data to find more sustainable supply chains, we believe there are opportunities to create short-sea shipping services that could take trucks off the most congested parts of the road. Data is the new currency. Canada has worked very much in silos, based on the different modes.

It's time now to integrate those silos and build a database that allows us to look at transportation in terms of integration between the modes rather than three individual silos. There are a couple of hard initiatives, but the data work that's being done is phenomenal.

(1610) Mr. Andy Fillmore :

Thank you, Mr. Hamilton. To hear you talk about data, you remind me very much of the CEO of the Halifax Port Authority, Captain Allan Gray, who's very much focused on data and bringing a smart view to our port operation here as well. If there's a moment left, I wonder if I might change the topic and ask you about greening the energy used in the ships themselves. Canada has a hydrogen strategy that's emerging. Is there any discussion at all in HOPA about facilitating a move to greener fuels?

Mr. Ian Hamilton :

Last year, in Hamilton, we actually fuelled the first LNG vessel that was ever fuelled on the Great Lakes. We think hydrogen is an absolutely fantastic technology, although it's just not ready for the market yet. As to anything we can do, we're offering incentives in terms of access to our docks, as well as free storage space—in that situation—for the LNG before it was loaded onto the vessels. We're doing whatever we can to try to encourage the shipping line to use greener technologies. I think it's Desgagnés that has moved a lot of its vessels to LNG.

LNG arguably might only be a stop gap until a better technology like hydrogen comes to commercial use, but we believe the 30% reduction that LNG can provide is a great step forward, even if it might not be the crème de la crème that will arrive to us in the future.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Hamilton, and thank you, Mr. Fillmore. We're now going to move on to Mr. Barsalou-Duval from the Bloc Québécois. Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor for six minutes.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Porlier, earlier in your opening remarks, you cited the consequences for some towns of not being connected by road. When young people go away to study, many of them never return. Knowing that, why do you think highway 138 has never been finished?

Mr. Réjean Porlier :

It's unfortunate, but in some ways it's the same old story; it's the chicken and the egg. There aren't many of us on the North Shore. The total population of the region is approximately 90,000 or 91,000 inhabitants. It's the second largest Quebec region. The coastline is 1,200 kilometers long. Consequently, it's hard for us to make our voices heard, which is why it's difficult to attract the investment needed to complete the highway. In addition, since the road's unfinished, there are fewer and fewer of us. I'm really convinced of that.

Once people manage to leave their isolated and barely accessible villages, they naturally don't really feel like going back. When it comes to investment, it's really a matter of will, a true uphill battle. During every election campaign for decades now, politicians have promised to complete the road to encourage people to occupy the region. There's even a joke about it. One of Quebec's leaders, Premier René Lévesque, once told a young girl that the road would be finished by the time she grew up. She stopped growing and is still a young girl. We're eager to see the highway completed.

It's unfortunate, but the reality is that it's actually a matter of political power. We don't carry a lot of weight when it comes to making decisions about where investments are made. So I think we're being deprived of enormous potential. We're slowly but surely seeing towns shut down. I think there are fewer and fewer of us across the region as a whole.

(1615) Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

I'm going to continue along the same lines. This has an impact on the vitality of those towns because the communities are isolated that way. However, building a land link to all those towns would very likely generate economic benefits. There's talk, for example, of a road link between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. What benefits would it generate if it were built?

Mr. Réjean Porlier :

The benefits would be enormous, not only for Quebec, but for Newfoundland and Labrador as well. I think the road would provide much quicker access to certain places, depending on it's starting point. Trade between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador would increase and benefit the tourism and other industries. This region is poorly known and has enormous tourism potential. That's increasingly recognized. This miserable pandemic has had one positive the effect: the crisis has encouraged people to explore their region and to visit it more and more.

At some point, however, they get to the end of the road and have to turn around. Completing the link to Newfoundland and Labrador can't be just a dream. It has to be built soon. Finishing the road will also provide access to the region's natural resources. This vast territory has so much to offer and is largely unexplored.

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

You said the pandemic has encouraged us to explore our region. Last year, I had the opportunity to do that for the first time. I drove to the end of highway 138. Other people may also have a chance to do it one day. I was bitterly disappointed to see that the road stopped. I got to the end and felt I hadn't seen everything. I knew there were still things to see. It's sad for Quebeckers not to have access to their own region. How is this situation perceived on the North Shore? From what I understand, this is the main challenge you face right now. Is there a consensus on it? How much popular support is there for the project? What do people think of it?

Mr. Réjean Porlier :

Although it's very hard to reach a consensus on a large region such as ours, there's a consensus on the issue among the regional population and even among the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We met with mayors from Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal minister of the time in Sept-Îles. We also travelled to Ottawa with representatives of the indigenous communities. That was a first. We discussed climate change at length and haven't finished those talks.

One of the issues that has to be addressed is the fact that the boat that provides the marine link for the towns on the river is finding it increasingly difficult to land during the navigation season. It's not unusual for it to continue on without stopping at the places where it should land to deliver food, for example. That's one of our problems. So people hope the road will be completed. There's also the health issue. When weather grounds aircraft and prevents boats from sailing and a medical emergency occurs, the result is a real challenge for these people.

So we understand why they don't want to live in the region.

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

I'm going to ask one final question, since I see I don't have much time left. I know the North Shore was affected by the cuts Air Canada made to its regional routes. What do you think of the agreement reached between the government and Air Canada?

Mr. Réjean Porlier :

Competition declines every time Air Canada is significantly subsidized. We've experienced it. So that's my biggest fear. Air Canada has a virtual monopoly in Quebec. We're setting up a cooperative that will provide a minimum fee schedule, and that will belong to us. We know this is possible with larger aircraft such as the Q400s. We'll finally have a say in the development of aviation in Quebec, particularly in the regions. In our view, Air Canada's record of service to citizens isn't all positive, and that's unfortunate. Its prices are prohibitive.

I've seen a one-way ticket from Sept-Îles to Quebec City sold for $1,400. It's less than a two-hour flight. It's ridiculous, but that's the way it is. So these airlines are underused because their prices are prohibitive. Some people drive their cars in the dead of winter to get medical care in Quebec City, where the major centres are, since they can't take a flight because prices are too high.

(1620) [ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval. We're now going to move on to the NDP and Mr. Bachrach. You have the floor for six minutes.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our witnesses for your presentations. I'd like to continue with Mayor Porlier. It's really good to hear your testimony. You represent a very rural region that I imagine is probably similar to some parts of northwest B.C.—very small communities with difficult transportation connections and other aspects of remoteness that impact the quality of life in those places. Could you describe for me what the current state of affairs in your region is when it comes to rural connectivity and access of rural residents to broadband Internet?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Réjean Porlier :

A special effort has been made in recent years. Naturally, even programs that come from Ottawa are, in many instances, administered by Quebec City, and they've finally understood that the region has to be served. We're seeing efforts being made to do that. Commitments have even been made and timelines set for communities in all Quebec regions to get adequate bandwidth access. I'm talking about high-speed Internet access. We're seeing light at the end of the tunnel. This is definitely one of the factors that will ultimately help people stay and work their community.

[ English ]

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Thank you, Mayor Porlier. Following up on that, one of the things I think we see across Canada is that the model for building access to broadband in rural areas involves partnering with the private sector, and then the private sector goes out and tries to put together a business case. Usually the most sparsely populated areas are left out or they're at the end of the line when it comes to service. Do you think the current model, which relies on the private sector and the existence of a profitable business case, is adequate for rural areas such as the one in your region?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Réjean Porlier :

I think you've asked an important question. Private companies are in business to make profits, whether in this sector or elsewhere, even in aviation. So they'll go where the money is, which is where populations are concentrated. The government naturally has to help serve places where it's less profitable to do so, but we can't wind up with prohibitive prices either, as I said earlier, because that's what happens when you let the free market solve the problem. People who have access to the service—that is, if they can even get access—will pay impossible prices. Only a few will get access.

There has to be assistance from all levels of government. Internet access is an essential need in 2021. Everyone should have access to the Internet on the same conditions, and those conditions depend on access. Access makes everything else possible, including development. I'm one of the many who think you need only put development tools in place. Once that's done, we'll do the rest. Give us a minimum level of resources, whether it be in transportation, data or digital access, then watch us develop.

We can be very imaginative, but the bare minimum condition is that prices must be affordable for citizens across the region.

[ English ]

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Mayor Porlier, what you mentioned about affordability is very interesting. What we have seen with the federal government is that pretty much their sole strategy for ensuring the affordability of broadband is competition. In my estimation, there are many parts of rural Canada where there are so few customers that they can only support one service provider. There is always a monopoly in those areas. Do you feel that the government's current strategy for driving affordability through competition is going to serve rural areas adequately?

(1625) [ Translation ]

Mr. Réjean Porlier :

You're right to bring up competition. There are places where it's not possible as a result of the number of people who live there. That has to be acknowledged. However, we shouldn't have to subsidize excessive costs either. Somewhat the same model applies in aviation. We subsidize the assistance provided to purchase an airline ticket, but we think ticket prices are too high in many cases. What we do is subsidize private business rather than take all that money to set up a better system. I agree with you that it's a matter of strategy.

You have to establish a strategy that's designed, not to enrich a business that's serving a non-viable market, but to lay the necessary groundwork to provide service access to everyone. There's a price to pay, but I think that will provide us with a better service. Airline ticket prices are an excellent example. It makes no sense to sell an airline ticket for $1,200. That's an entirely unreasonable price. If I subsidize ticket purchases, all I'm doing is taking the money and giving it back to the airline. Consider the cooperative example I mentioned earlier.

According to the proposed fare schedule, a round-trip ticket from Sept-Îles to Quebec City will cost $318, including tax, for a flight on a Q400 because that's a good aircraft. The entire difference between $318 and $1,200 for a round-trip ticket will go directly to the wrong place.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Bachrach.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

We're now going to move on to our second round, starting with the Conservatives for five minutes. Ms. Kusie, you have the floor.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much to all our witnesses who are here today. I'm going to continue down the Liberal line of questioning of my colleague MP Fillmore in regard to ports. I really liked what he was talking about in that conversation about data and freight visibility. That was very encouraging to me. Certainly many of the stakeholders I've talked to have indicated the lack of a supply chain map within our nation clearly identifying all modes and how they interrelate to each other, and secondly, the lack of transparency as to data.

This was something that I mentioned in my speech regarding the port of Montreal discussion that we had last week. Building on that, one of the other items I talked about in my port of Montreal speech was the concern that many ports have in terms of the lack of capacity and the infrastructure that would be required, and a necessity to meet the demands of capacity going into the future. To Mr. Hamilton, I would ask if he has any concerns in regard to future capacity constraints for his port, please.

Mr. Ian Hamilton :

Specifically for Hamilton and Oshawa, we certainly feel the constraints now and we're struggling to meet demand, which is why we're looking at other opportunities along the Welland Canal in Niagara. Although we don't do too many containers, container volumes generally grow at about double what GDP grows at. It's sort of a rule of thumb. You can see that there is going to be continuing demand for imported container volumes, which puts increased capacity issues onto particularly the gateway ports, but we see it inside the interior ports as well. To answer your question, yes, we do see capacity issues.

The other area that we see is what we could call “gentrification”. So many cities were built around the ports because they were there. In a lot of ways, sometimes the city has outgrown the port and now there's continual pressure. You see it in Hamilton, you see it in Toronto and you see it certainly in Vancouver, where the residents are wishing the port wasn't there. It's very important that we start to look at ports outside the urban boundaries. Again, this is why we're looking into some of the more rural areas of the Niagara Peninsula to see opportunities to expand.

(1630) Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hamilton, my next question is going to be if capacity concerns were felt by many of the ports in Canada, in your opinion. You touched upon ports within your region. Do you ever have conversations about these concerns with the other major ports? MP Fillmore brought up Halifax, of course, since that's where he is, but I continue to have conversations with other ports, such as Prince Rupert and Vancouver. Do you ever have conversations where these concerns, by these larger ports, are shared as well with these port authorities?

Mr. Ian Hamilton :

I serve on the board of the Association of Canadian Port Authorities, which is a fantastic forum for the CEOs of the port authorities to talk and share concerns. We know that, universally, every port feels they have the same issues—some more acute than other ones, and some looking at more of the long-term problems. Some of the ports you mentioned, particularly around Vancouver and Prince Rupert, which see phenomenal growth, are probably some of the ones that are the most acute, but some great projects in Montreal have been announced to address some of their shortages.

I know that Quebec City has a neat project on the go. I know that expansion on the east coast has always been a consideration for Halifax. Yes, I think every port is faced with the same situation, some worse than others, and we do communicate together on that subject.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Thank you very much, Mr. Hamilton. Mr. Chair, with my last half a minute here, I will move to the notice of motion that I put on advisory two days ago. I know there have been conversations amongst all parties, as well as the clerk, so I'm hopeful I can present it, we can vote on it and move along to the rest of the rounds with our witnesses here today. I'll put it forward again. I move:

That with the exception of the planned appearance of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the study of the Government’s Response to the Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 Tragedy and one meeting on the Twin Otter type aircraft study, that the committee prioritize all remaining meetings before June 10th in the Spring

schedule to the consideration and adoption of reports with regard to the following studies: Aircraft Certification Process; Impact of Covid-19 on the Aviation Sector; and Canada Infrastructure Bank.

I would just like to get the assurance of the committee that we will do our best to complete these reports and get them to the House, given the quantity of work that we have done on them to date, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Kusie. I want to speak on this as well. I think we can go to the vote. Mr. Clerk, I had a discussion with my assistant today, and I understand there is a bit of a problem for Tuesday's meeting. If you can let members of the committee know what that challenge is with respect to how it affects our schedule, I'd appreciate that.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Michael MacPherson) :

The issue is that one of the witnesses we were looking at bringing in currently resides in the U.K., and we have very late evening sittings on Tuesdays. He would have required technical assistance and support, and he would not have been able to get IT support. I guess it would been around midnight where he is. On the subject matter of that study, there's a report coming out next week. I believe the department wanted to share that information with the families first and would have felt really awkward being at committee to answer questions on that before they had a chance to discuss it with the families.

The Chair :

What does that do for our scheduling?

The Clerk :

I guess the impact would be, if the committee wants to begin looking at draft reports on Tuesday, we would simply bump it back and move the first meeting that we were thinking of for Ukraine Flight 752 into June, and everything else would pretty much stay the same. We would just focus on reports, except for next week's visit with the ministers.

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Yes, I'm fine with moving the first meeting of the study. I should just add, Clerk, the motion also states that the Twin Otter study remains as well, not just Flight 752, just to clarify for all committee members. Thank you.

The Chair :

That's correct. Are there any further questions or comments from members of the committee as per the motion? With none, Mr. Clerk, I'll ask you to call the vote, please. (Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Thank you, members.

(1635) Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Thank you, colleagues.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Kusie. We're now going to go back to that second round of questions. We have the Liberals, with Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, you have the floor for five minutes.

Mr. Churence Rogers (Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, Lib.) :

Thank you, Chair, and welcome to all of our guests today. I especially want to highlight Mayor Parsons from the beautiful, scenic city of Corner Brook on the west coast. I'm happy to hear that you're getting great support from your MP, our colleague Gudie Hutchings . Mayor Parsons, I just have a couple of questions. First of all, you talked about the impact of the infrastructure programs and the funding you get for the city of Corner Brook. I guess the alternative to that is what the impact would be on small and medium-sized cities like yours, and communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, without further future infrastructure investments from the federal government.

Mr. Jim Parsons :

As you know well, Mr. Rogers, the municipalities here are facing a difficult situation when it comes to the state of infrastructure. Our city has been in this area for about a hundred years and incorporated as a city for only 60 years, but we have a great deal of infrastructure needs when it comes to upgrades and maintenance. Without substantial support, it is almost impossible to keep ahead of it. We undergo a pretty rigorous asset management program, but there is never enough infrastructure funding to go around. It is imperative, really, that we continue a steady, predictable stream of infrastructure funding.

As I mentioned in my testimony, the gas tax model has worked really well for us. We don't have to wait. We can move ahead. It offers us a great deal of flexibility to make decisions for ourselves and really prioritize, as opposed to project-based funding, which is more difficult to predict.

Mr. Churence Rogers :

Mayor Parsons, I was going to ask you about the gas tax funding and about the stability that it brings to you and the flexibility and so on. Do you have any other suggestions or recommendations to the federal government in terms of the gas tax fund, how it's currently deployed and the flexibility it provides?

Mr. Jim Parsons :

I think there are sort of two sides to our needs. Any municipality requires ongoing maintenance and upgrades to infrastructure, so predictability is super important. If we can maintain and grow that aspect of it while at the same time providing a clear path for large infrastructure projects—these once every 20 year-type projects—that are the priority of our federal and provincial governments.... I think providing more predictable, steady funding would be key and would allow us to do a lot better asset management for our municipalities.

Mr. Churence Rogers :

Of course, the fact that we're doubling that gas tax fund for this year is tremendous news for you and other mayors across Newfoundland and Labrador and across the country. I have one final question for Mr. Stewart with regard to the insurance programs. Is paying greater attention to risk management by municipalities the way to prevent future escalating premiums for municipalities and, I guess, for all around the sector?

Mr. Craig Stewart :

Thank you for the question. Canada is becoming a riskier and riskier place for insurers to do business. If you take a look at the losses that insurers have paid over the last decade on the property side, there are some areas of the country where insurers are actually losing money. Focusing on risk reduction at the municipal level is a way to make sure that constituents and businesses pay a reasonable amount of insurance instead of the increases that we've been seeing lately.

(1640) Mr. Churence Rogers :

For our good friend from Sept-Îles, how do you see the value of the infrastructure funding in completing work in your particular region?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Réjean Porlier :

Thank you for your question. I'm thinking in particular of the recreational and sports infrastructure financial assistance program, PAFIRS. During the last campaign, needs were in the order of $1.4 billion and and the fund had only $282 million. The fund includes money from both the provincial and federal governments. As you can imagine, the gap is a big one. We currently have to renovate an arena that's coming to the end of its useful life, and we still aren't in a position to do it. I want to point out, for those who don't know it, that Sept-Îles is a port city.

We have the largest mineral-handling port in North America. When the mining companies arrived, they built the ski resort, the golf club, the curling club and so on, but that's not the case today. So cities are finding it very hard to keep up with the pace of replacing all that infrastructure. The needs are very great. We're naturally grateful for the efforts that have recently been made, such as those concerning the gasoline tax. However, a lot more needs must be met.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. We're now going to move on to the Bloc. Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have two and a half minutes.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My next question concerns a matter that may previously have been addressed in committee, though without necessarily being subject to questions. Mr. Porlier, in rural municipalities such as those on the North Shore, where there are no roads, we often see that maintenance of certain types of infrastructure, such as wharves and in some instances airports, is deficient and causing problems, even for regular supply purposes. From the moment a road is built, the federal government often uses it as a pretext to stop maintaining, or at least funding, those wharves.

However, the wharves represent the livelihood of the people who live there because they affect fishermen, who can't go and fish in the forest. Do you think that stopping maintenance on your infrastructure, just letting it go, on the pretext that you no longer need it since you have a road constitutes bad practice on the government's part?

Mr. Réjean Porlier :

It's actually even tougher when we're told that we'll be getting a road and, consequently, that there will be no investment in other infrastructure, but the road doesn't come quickly. However, you're right about the fishing. There's fishing all along the coast. Earlier I said that we have 1,200 kilometers of coastline back home. When you need to travel fast, you take a plane, and that'll be the case for a long time to come. So we have to keep providing a minimum level of maintenance on our infrastructure, and that remains a problem. We can't say we'll focus on only one aspect.

It all goes back to the question of vitality, of dynamic use of the territory. There's a real difference between using a territory in a dynamic manner and using it, as I often see, in a resilient manner. We tend to think that people will cope, that they're used to investment funding not always coming in. However, all those people are exhausted. They can't wait to cut the ribbon. I'll be the first to jump into my car and go visit Newfoundland, and many people are eager to do the same.

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Thank you. I'd like you to go back to aviation, even though it's not directly related to infrastructure. The existing federal program subsidizes transportation only where there are no roads. Is this kind of program viable in a place that's located thousands of kilometers from the major centres?

(1645) Mr. Réjean Porlier :

We're fortunate to have the road in Sept-Îles, but I should point out that we have the third busiest airport in Quebec. It's a regional hub, a place where passengers arrive from the north, the Far North, Wabush and all the communities east of the city. So our infrastructure has to be maintained and kept up to date. It's about development; not just economics, but socioeconomics. It's about the communities. Actually, the economic component will often overwhelm everything else, but it's very important for the people who inhabit this region.

What I'd like, and what I've been requesting for a long time, is that we sit down with representatives of the two orders of government so we can come up with a strategy together and be able to say that we now have the tools we should use to ensure a dynamic use of the territory.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Barsalou-Duval. We'll move to Mr. Bachrach of the NDP. You have the floor for two and a half minutes.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Stewart, I found your presentation at the beginning very interesting. I understand that you welcomed the government's intention to conduct a national infrastructure assessment. Can you share with the committee what you feel the priorities of such an assessment should be? What areas of infrastructure should the assessment focus on?

Mr. Craig Stewart :

In context, in our view it's important to take a step back and conduct an assessment to figure out where the greater needs are across the country. As I said in the presentation, I'd like to stress, though, that it should be coordinated with two other activities in government. One is the development of a national adaptation strategy. Two, it should be coordinated with the work done by Public Safety Canada, Finance Canada and Natural Resources Canada on a national risk profile. We need to get an understanding of who is most vulnerable to climate risk and we should be reducing their risk accordingly.

Therefore, only a national infrastructure assessment that links in to these other two studies will give us the sort of eagle-eyed view of the whole country that we need. Implicit in my answer is that we believe climate resilience is, of course, the number one issue. Trade corridors are important, of course, and there's enormous demand for broadband in rural and remote communities. We get that. But as insurers, we also believe that due attention needs to be paid to climate risk in this country. Frankly, we have done very, very little collectively to address the issue of our growing climate risk.

The amounts that are being allocated in infrastructure programming are too small to meet what the needs are of municipalities across the country. In short, we believe climate resilience should also be prioritized in programming from Infrastructure Canada. The infrastructure assessment will be key to eliminating that.

The Chair :

Mr. Bachrach, a quick question.

Mr. Taylor Bachrach :

Oh, a quick question.... Well, I guess it's daunting to hear the magnitude of the climate adaptation challenge. We're not investing nearly enough in climate mitigation. I think the amount we're investing in adaptation is even less. This isn't an easy question to answer in two seconds, but I'm wondering how we make sure that both of these two tranches related to climate are moving forward adequately. Right now, it feels like neither is.

The Chair :

That's a key question.

Mr. Craig Stewart :

In our view, private sector capital is important on both sides of the equation—bringing private sector capital into Canada and doing the necessary work to attract it. As I mentioned, there are efforts on price resilience under way globally. Canada should be tying into those efforts and figuring out how we attract that capital to Canada. It can't be just governments that are footing the whole bill.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Bachrach. We'll now move to Mr. Scheer of the Conservatives. You have the floor for five minutes.

Hon. Andrew Scheer :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate the testimony that we've heard. I certainly appreciate the different perspectives. I always find it interesting when proponents come in and give governments ideas on how they can do a better job of things. It's not necessarily always about just spending more money. The expenditure of money is not necessarily the best metric to determine success. It's the efficiency of that program. When you spend a lot of money but get poor results, we've got something wrong.

I really enjoyed the feedback on the impact of cabotage rules and the consequence on our shipping industry and our logistics industry. I'm hopeful that we can continue on with this line of questioning. Mr. Chair, we have had a motion before the committee for the last few meetings. Many members have had the opportunity to express themselves. Hopefully, we can quickly take care of some housekeeping and then move back to give our witnesses more opportunity to discuss this very important topic. Mr.

Chair, I'd like to move that we resume debate on the motion and the amendment we were dealing with at the last committee meeting.

(1650) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Scheer. We have a motion to resume debate. Are there any questions on that motion? Mr. Fillmore, do you have question on that motion?

Mr. Andy Fillmore :

Yes. Thank you, Chair.

The Chair :

Mr. Fillmore, my apologies. There are no questions on that. It goes straight to a vote.

Mr. Andy Fillmore :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Is the motion we're voting on now whether to resume debate?

The Chair :

That's correct.

Mr. Andy Fillmore :

Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore. Mr. Clerk, can you call the vote, please? (Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. We have one hand up so far. I would encourage others who are going to have questions or comments to get their hands up. Mr. Fillmore, you have the floor.

Mr. Andy Fillmore :

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I do want to make some remarks, but I want to begin by saying thank you to the witnesses who joined us and shared their wisdom with us tonight. It's much appreciated. I guess the first thing I'd ask is whether Mr. Scheer consulted with Ms. Kusie. We just passed a motion by Ms. Kusie on how to best spend the time of this committee, and here we are with another Conservative motion thwarting the intention of how this committee should best spend its time. I want to carry on. We've had some interesting debate on this motion. Unfortunately, it's been very time-consuming.

It's left witnesses who have prepared for the meeting unable then to speak. We did a little bit better today. Unfortunately, we're still leaving maybe an hour on the table that we're not going to be able to have with the witnesses. I really have been reflecting on the motion and the motivations behind it. The more I thought about it, the plainer it became that this is simply a motion that we can't support. I know we've moved some amendments that have tried to make marginal improvements to the motion, but they've been just that—marginal. We've been tinkering at the margins.

We tried to make changes to a completely unreasonable deadline for a request that will run into the thousands of pages for a document production order. We tried to make an amendment to make sure we respect official languages in how this motion would be responded to, given the importance that we all place on ensuring that both of our official languages are respected and that official language laws are always followed at the federal government level. We even tried to make amendments to ensure that our committee is not asking the Canada Infrastructure Bank to violate its own statute.

At the end of the day, those amendments—even if they all got passed—would only serve to make slight improvements to what is a fundamentally flawed motion, and one that we simply cannot support. The point is that this motion has been designed to sabotage the Canada Infrastructure Bank's ability to fulfill its mandate, which is to attract private and institutional capital to get more projects built across the country to benefit Canadians.

We heard, even this evening, testimony from a witness who twice brought up the importance of attracting private capital to investments in public infrastructure in Canada, and the necessity of that, the ability to appear attractive and to bring investment partners online for projects of scale that are important to job creation, and to moving toward a low-carbon economy and toward creating an inclusive economy. Yet here we are, persisting with a motion to sabotage the CIB.

The CIB is investing in important projects all across the country, such as the biggest public transit project in Quebec in the last half-century, the Réseau express métropolitain, the REM, in Montreal; projects like the Alberta irrigation infrastructure project, helping to make farmland more productive and to enhance Canada's food security and strengthen our homegrown agricultural industry; and projects like the very topic we are discussing with the excellent witnesses we have with us right now, the Erie Connector, the subject of this motion and project that will reduce Ontarians' electricity costs, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create jobs.

This motion is meant to put a stop to projects like these, by harming the Canada Infrastructure Bank's ability to attract the very private and institutional capital that is at the heart of the CIB's mandate to make Canadian tax dollars go further, as underscored by tonight's witnesses. The Conservatives claim to be on the taxpayers' side, but it's hard to see how, when they are trying to sabotage the CIB's ability to make every tax dollar get more built for our citizens.

This motion is an attempt to drag confidential business information from the Canada Infrastructure Bank's investment and project proponent partners into a partisan committee where it can be used and misused for political purposes by the opposition. As I said on Tuesday, it grieves me to see the other opposition parties following the Conservatives' lead on this. It's really unfortunate.

It's an attempt to destroy the independent and apolitical status of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, an institution that is intentionally insulated, through its statute, from political interference so that we can actually attract that private and institutional capital in an unhindered and unimpeded way.

(1655) I'm going to share with you that in one of the places where I was a city planner over my long career trying to build communities and build infrastructure, my observation was that many of my colleagues were—

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

I'm calling on you to say that you've started a filibuster.

[ English ]

Mr. Andy Fillmore :

I'm sorry. Is this a point of order, Mr. Chair? I'm not sure....

The Chair :

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Barsalou-Duval? Go ahead.

Mr. Andy Fillmore :

I think he's indicating that, no, it wasn't.

The Chair :

No, it wasn't? Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Fillmore.

Mr. Andy Fillmore :

It was a mistake with the mute, I think. Okay, thank you. When we were trying to regenerate the downtown of my city, we came to realize that there had been a culture that had emerged within certain departments in the local government that was more concerned with enforcing stale rules than with understanding the nature of capital and how capital builds cities, how capital builds infrastructure. I was able to bring some experts to the community to speak to fellow staff members about the role that capital plays in regenerating a downtown and rebuilding a city. That shifted the culture in the institution.

As a result of people's understanding capital, understanding the risks of private capital that the people providing that capital go through, the risks they take, we were able to redirect the fortune of my city, and we are now in an incredible renaissance. I think that maybe some members of this committee could use the same remedial instruction on the importance of capital and the frailties of it when it comes to overexposing proprietary secrets. I also mentioned on this committee before that I worked on the Boston Big Dig project.

That was a $14-billion project that spanned seven miles through the downtown of Boston. Had the lead company, Parsons, Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc., had to reveal their business case when bidding for that project, that project still wouldn't be built because they would have run away from building what is one of the greatest modern infrastructure projects in contemporary urban history. What would happen if this motion were passed?

Investors, infrastructure companies, and managers of institutional capital in Canada and abroad would see that there is now a new risk that they need to account for on top of all the other ones—pandemics, changing interest rates, and every other financial risk we can imagine that must be accommodated in a business case. They would now need to account for a risk in negotiating and finalizing infrastructure projects with the CIB, knowing that everything they do might wind up on the front page of a newspaper or be broadcast on a publicly viewable Zoom committee meeting.

There would now be a new political risk that they would need to account for. It's unconscionable. How can the Canada Infrastructure Bank negotiate in good faith and sign the confidentiality agreements that are a standard part of any large investment deal, knowing that this committee might try to extract that confidential information from it in violation of its signed commercial contracts? Involving the law clerk and other such propositions won't make a difference to these institutional and private firms.

What they will see is their potential investment partner being forced to break the contract that they have signed. The privileged information

section of the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act exists for a very important reason. It exists to give the infrastructure world the confidence that it can deal with the Canada Infrastructure Bank as a good-faith investment partner. It's no coincidence that Export Development Canada, the export bank of Canada, has almost word for word the same provisions in its legislation. The Business Development Bank of Canada, BDC, to name another example, has almost exactly the same provision in its legislation. Mr.

Chair, it's clear that the opposition is using this motion to try to make it appear that the CIB is somehow being evasive or not transparent enough, even though this committee could call whenever we like—as I have mentioned and as my colleagues on the government benches have mentioned—the CEO of the CIB, Ehren Cory, to answer any questions that we might have. Any question that you would like to have answered, the CEO will come and discuss that. However, the truth is that this motion is designed to cut the knees out from under the CIB—just as it's hitting its stride—for wanton, political point gathering.

The CIB has made over half a dozen new investment commitments in just the last six months and is announcing new deals all the time. These investments benefit Canadians. They grow our economy. They get new, important projects off the ground that otherwise might not ever get built—like the Lake Erie Connector—and Canadians end up with cleaner, greener, more-livable communities in which to live, work and thrive.

(1700) We heard a point made by one of the members on Tuesday that parliamentary privilege somehow trumps the law by which the CIB works. That may well be, but I'll tell you this: Those infrastructure companies and those private and institutional investors have no idea of what parliamentary privilege is or why it's worth a darn. What they care about is being able to do the work that they have spent years becoming good at, years of learning how to build the infrastructure that keeps Canadian communities going.

If this motion passes, all they'll see is that they signed a contract with the Canada Infrastructure Bank that included commitments by the CIB that they would not share the company's commercially sensitive information with anyone outside the CIB, and now, the parliamentary committee, claiming privilege, is forcing the CIB to break its contract for wanton, partisan, political point-gathering. It's such a travesty and an embarrassment.

That's why I have said before that this motion, should it pass, would have a chilling effect on the CIB's ability to fulfill its mandate and attract private and institutional capital. It introduces political risk that the CIB was specifically designed, specifically conceived of and specifically executed to avoid this very thing. We won't let this opposition try to derail that, so we will continue to oppose this motion. Thank you, Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore. Ms. Jaczek.

Ms. Helena Jaczek (Markham—Stouffville, Lib.) :

Thank you very much, Chair. While I am pleased to enter into debate on this motion, I do want to apologize to the witnesses. I was very much looking forward to having my turn to question them. Mayor Porlier, if you're still listening at all, I did have the opportunity to look up your wonderful site on tourism at Sept-Îsles. It is very intriguing. Mayor Parsons, one of my best friends comes from Corner Brook, but I have never visited, so I am certainly hoping to have that opportunity. Let's get back to the motion.

This motion ostensibly is about transparency, trying to find out more about this deal related to the Lake Erie Connector. The implication is that there is some sort of nefarious, secretive stuff in various documents that presumably will reflect badly on the government. As my colleague Mr. Fillmore has said, clearly Mr. Scheer has made his opinion of the Canada Infrastructure Bank very clear. The motion is simply a way of putting a chill on the agreement in principle.

It will no doubt cause other projects that are in line for consideration by the Canada Infrastructure Bank—probably many of those already being negotiated—and for the principals of those projects to wonder if their agreement is going to be dragged in front of a parliamentary committee and scrutinized and so on. It seems to me that it's clearly a partisan move by the official opposition that may very well, in fact, cause a number of projects to be deferred or not entered into because investors will not want to have their particular project go through this process that we're embarked on today.

As the notion is transparency, I think it's very important for people to realize just what is totally public information about the project itself, as follows: How was the route chosen?

The Lake Erie Connector project is being developed by ITC Investment Holdings Inc., the parent company of ITC Holdings Corp., the largest independent electricity transmission company in the United States and a subsidiary of Canada-based Fortis Inc.

Why is this transmission line needed?

The Lake Erie Connector is needed to create a direct energy transmission corridor between the Ontario IESO and U.S. PJM energy markets, helping improve the security and reliability of both regional systems. It also is expected to help increase market efficiencies

—surely something the Conservative Party would approve of—

and benefit the economies of both regions. The project has the potential to strengthen the regional grid by playing a role in emergency grid restoration.

How does power currently flow between the Ontario IESO and the PJM energy markets?

The energy currently must flow across limited existing interties and through other markets such as Michigan or New York to travel around Lake Erie. Some entities do

schedule power in this way, but it is inefficient and costly. The Lake Erie Connector will provide a new, direct, and efficient trading route between the two markets and will benefit both regions.

What is the route of this energy transmission line?

The proposed route of the Lake Erie Connector is between Nanticoke, Ontario and Erie County, Pennsylvania and beneath Lake Erie.

Nanticoke, as some of you may recall, was the site of a very large coal-generated electricity plant, and that was closed by the former Ontario Liberal government, and of course, it has all the infrastructure sitting there, ready to connect to this Lake Erie Connector.

(1705) How was the route chosen?

The two points of interconnection in Ontario and Pennsylvania were chosen because they provide excellent access to the existing transmission systems. The cable route has been optimized to connect these two points while minimizing environmental impacts, avoiding areas of historical and archaeological interest (such as shipwrecks), and utilizing low-impact shoreline crossings.

Where will the energy come from?

There are a variety of generation sources in the markets of the Ontario Independent Electricity System Operator...and PJM Interconnection, and neighbouring regions. The shippers who purchase capacity on the Lake Erie Connector will determine the source of the energy they transfer.

How large are these energy markets?

Ontario is Canada's second largest province covering more than one million square kilometres with a population of 13.5 million people.

Actually, I think it's closer to 14 million people since this was put together. It continues:

PJM comprises all or part of 13 U.S. states, with a population exceeding 60 million—the largest energy market in the world.

Have you engaged public input on this project?”

Yes, numerous, public consultations in Ontario and Pennsylvania were held—the respective connecting points of the line—to discuss the project and gather community input.

How could this project impact homes and businesses?

[The] project development team has worked closely with local and regional planners and with local residents and other stakeholders in the U.S. and Canada to minimize impacts to local residents.

What are the major milestones in this project? I think some people may recall, as we heard last Tuesday, that this project was first conceived of in 2014.

In 2017 [the proponents] received major permit approvals from Canada's National Energy Board [with the] issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the project...; the U.S. Department of Energy...granted the project a Presidential Permit, which is required for international border crossing projects...[and] the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers...and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection [granted approvals].

Remaining milestones in the project include completing project cost refinements and securing favorable transmission service agreements with prospective counterparties, after which ITC Investment Holdings, Inc. would proceed with construction, as soon as 2021 or 2022.

Hopefully, without the derailment of this motion, we can see this project actually start construction this year. Next, how will the cables be installed under water?

The Lake Erie Connector will use two cables that are each approximately six inches in diameter. A specialized ship will lay the HVDC cable along the bottom of Lake Erie utilizing low-impact water jet technology to create a temporary trench that is only slightly wider than the cable itself, and which will be filled by natural forces.

Of course, this type of underwater cable was used through the years: the transatlantic telephone cable. My father actually was an engineer on that project many decades ago. It's proven technology, and it will no doubt be a very efficient and effective way of transmitting the power that way. Is this transmission project safe?

Placing transmission cables beneath waterways is an established and safe way to move power. These cables will be well insulated, do not contain liquids or gels, and are made from non-flammable materials.

Can the cable be damaged once it is placed under Lake Erie?

This is highly unlikely. The cables will be placed safely and securely beneath the lakebed. In the unlikely event that the cable is damaged, the system can identify the location and shut down within fractions of a second. Protocols are in place at both converted stations to ensure safety.

(1710) What is high-voltage, direct current transmission?

High-voltage direct current (HVDC) uses direct current to transmit electricity, in contrast with the more common alternating current (AC) systems. HVDC systems are often built as an overlay to a robust AC system or for unique circumstances. HVDC transmission lines are especially appropriate for underwater applications. HVDC systems have a long record of reliable performance around the world. As an analogy, an AC line is like a highway, with multiple interconnections to the regional grid that act as on- and off-ramps. A DC—

(1715) The Chair :

Ms. Jaczek, can I interject for just a second? I do apologize. Members, unfortunately, once again, for the second meeting in a row, I am going to have to excuse the witnesses. It looks as though this is going to go on for quite some time. Although the witnesses gave us their very valuable time today, which we all truly appreciate, I don't want to take more time where they'll be just staring at a camera, listening to a debate. With that, I give my sincere appreciation to all the witnesses.

It was a very robust and great discussion, back and forth, with many of the interventions by the members, as well as answers by the witnesses. A lot of great points were made. Once again, I express my sincere appreciation to each and every one of you. With that, I will excuse all of you. You have a great evening. Hopefully we'll see you back at this committee at some point in time. Thank you very much. Ms. Jaczek, you have the floor again.

Ms. Helena Jaczek :

Thank you so much. Are there any other transmission lines similar to this one?

Yes, transmission lines similar to the Lake Erie Connector have been in use all over the world for many years.

What is the environmental impact of this new transmission line?

The technology involved and the line route for the Lake Erie Connector were chosen to minimize environmental impact. The line will be buried under the lake bed and at the landing points. The safe and reliable HVDC technology ensures that this energy transmission line has no adverse impact to the environment. From planning our projects within the best interest of the environment to recycling at our facilities, we focus on sustainability efforts that set a positive example for the other businesses and the communities we serve. These efforts have been recognized at the local, state and federal level.

Will there be any overhead transmission lines used?

No. The current project plan envisions all of the cable being installed underwater or underground

For public concerns, will the cost of this transmission project change their utility bill?

The costs for this line will be borne by the parties that purchase capacity on the line.

How long will this transmission cable be in service?

There are numerous examples of similar types of projects that have been in operation for decades.

There has been complete openness as to what this project is all about and who the major proponents are, namely, well-established companies with a good record. It really is an indication, certainly to me, that we have no need whatsoever to demand any further information in regard to this particular project. We want this project to go forward. As I said before, the current Conservative government in Ontario is extremely enthusiastic about this project. It needs to go forward and any delay would be extremely unfortunate for electricity consumers in Ontario. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Jaczek. Mr. Rogers, you have the floor.

Mr. Churence Rogers :

Thank you, Chair. I, too, want to weigh in on this debate and to ask questions about what the opposition is putting at risk here, and the areas that CIB is really focused on and the importance of what they're trying to accomplish. I think it's clear to all of us that the motion is meant to harm the CIB's ability to attract private and institutional investments to infrastructure projects. The opposition has complained about the CIB allegedly not succeeding so far in crowding in enough private capital, and now they want us to use this motion to make their criticism into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I want us to understand the areas the CIB has targeted for getting more infrastructure built. These are areas where, if the opposition succeeds, Canadians will end up with less infrastructure in our country. They will be the losers, and the Canadian institutions of capital like our pension funds will continue to build projects that benefit citizens of other countries and not our own, so let's look at what the CIB is focusing on.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the Canada Infrastructure Bank's $10-billion plan to invest in major infrastructure initiatives to create jobs and strengthen economic growth. The growth plan developed by the CIB is expected to create 60,000 jobs across the country. Over the next 24 to 36 months, the CIB's plan will build new infrastructure that connects more households and small businesses to high-speed Internet, strengthens Canadian agriculture and helps build a low-carbon economy. These investments will help Canadians get back to work.

One of the defining characteristics of the CIB is to invest in projects in a manner that attracts private and institutional capital, now and in the future. In this way, every dollar of public investment has maximum impact. In delivering this plan, the CIB will also work in closer co-operation with provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous communities across the entire country—

(1720) The Chair :

Mr. Rogers, can I just interject for a second? Apparently there's a problem with the

interpretation.

The Clerk :

Yes, I believe it's a connectivity or a sound issue with Mr. Rogers' connection. The sound quality was too poor for them to provide

interpretation. You may have to go to a different speaker and come back because they aren't able to provide

interpretation right now, and we have to be able to provide

interpretation.

Mr. Churence Rogers :

Did you want to do a sound check, Mr. Chair?

The Chair :

Mr. Rogers, from your end, do you have everything hooked up properly? Do you have your microphone on in terms of the bottom box? To me, you sound fine, so I'm not sure what the problem is. You're coming across loud and clear on my end, but apparently the interpreters can't hear. They're having some problems. I'm just making sure that the equipment on your side is all hooked up.

Mr. Churence Rogers :

Yes, it is, as it was previously. I'm not sure why the sound for some reason is not coming through.

The Clerk :

It appears that they're not getting a great signal. It may be a connectivity issue on your cellular network. I guess it keeps dropping out a little bit, and it's just not quite good enough for them to provide

interpretation at this time.

Mr. Churence Rogers :

Perhaps it's something to do with the fact that we had a major power outage today. I'm not too sure if that might have impacted the system here that's run by Bell Aliant.

Mr. Andy Fillmore :

It sounds like you could you use some investments in resilient infrastructure, Mr. Rogers.

The Chair :

Mr. Rogers, I'm going to go over to Mr. El-Khoury and he'll take up some time here. If you want to log off and log back on, I'll come back to you.

Mr. Churence Rogers :

I will. Thank you, Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Rogers and Mr. Clerk. Mr. El-Khoury, you have the floor.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Fayçal El-Khoury (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is quite a surprise to me. I come from the business world, and I can tell you that agreements on commercial projects always include a confidentiality clause.

(1725) Our Conservative colleagues are asking the Canada Infrastructure Bank not to comply with the confidentiality clause. They're sending a clear message to potential investors, both local and foreign, not to invest in Canada. Let's consider the matter from all sides. First of all, what are Canadians' interests? We've heard witnesses, including the mayor of Sept-Îles, tell us about desperate needs for infrastructure projects. We've heard about the suffering of small towns whose inhabitants move away and never come back.

This kind of bank, which makes infrastructure projects possible, is essential in remote regions and small communities. Our Conservative colleagues are saying no to that. I'd really like to hear what Mr. Barsalou-Duval and Mr. Bachrach have to say about that. Is it in Canadians' interest to obstruct the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which works in an environmentally friendly way by creating green infrastructure? The bank will also create jobs for Canadians across the country, from sea to sea. It's hard to see where this is headed. The toughest phase of infrastructure projects is getting funding.

However, we're discouraging potential investors from investing in Canada, not encouraging them. We aren't trying to create jobs and grow Canada's economy. I'm appealing here to Mr. Barsalou-Duval as a member from Quebec. You can't imagine how pleased and proud I was when the federal and provincial governments jointly announced an $800 million investment to connect all Quebeckers to high-speed Internet. The regions and rural areas need it, and they'll benefit from it. What do you think about the Réseau express métropolitain, the REM?

That's a project that can create thousands of jobs and stimulate our economy for Quebeckers. They need it after this unfortunate and disastrous pandemic. This isn't the time to raise barriers, and partisanship has no place here. Everyone should encourage the Canada Infrastructure Bank to continue its work and implement projects because that's what Canadians want. For all these reasons, I'm not prepared to support this motion, and I ask my colleagues not to support it either. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

(1730) [ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. El-Khoury. Well done. It is 5:30, members, and I'm going to go on for the next 15 minutes. I'd like to go on as long as we can but, unfortunately, the heritage committee has the resources at 6:30. They're into clause-by-clause for C-10 , so we're looking at a 5:45 shutdown. I just wanted to give everybody a heads-up on that. I now have Mr. Iacono. You have the floor.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Angelo Iacono (Alfred-Pellan, Lib.) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's not surprising that this motion was introduced by the Conservatives. Long before the last election, they made it known that they wanted to make cuts to infrastructure, not to build. The 2019 Conservative election platform was based on a promise to save $18 billion in cuts to and delays of infrastructure projects across Canada. Conservative politicians say they're for the people, but they're far from that, since they make cuts to programs and services Canadians rely on. However, that's not really surprising because it's what Conservatives do best.

The former Conservative leader and conservatives like Doug Ford have opposed our infrastructure investments at every stage. The Conservatives' empty promises have actually meant delays and cuts to infrastructure projects across Canada. Let's be clear: the Conservatives won't tell Canadians what crucial water, electricity or broadband projects would be shelved so they can pay for the tax cuts they're proposing for the rich. You needn't take our word for it. Just look at what Doug Ford has done in Ontario.

By the Ford government's own admission, they 've missed two construction seasons by putting slogans ahead of actual objectives and seeking political victories when they should have tried to start up projects. The funding our government offered was available from day one. What the Conservatives proposed on infrastructure was nothing less than a repeat of our own commitment to build stronger communities. The Conservatives' cuts hurt. It's the families in my riding and Canadian communities who'll be affected by their plan. The former Conservative leader's platform is a failure.

However, we believe that continuing infrastructure investments, not cuts, is essential to achieving the vision and ambition that we have for a more prosperous Canada. We're putting this belief into practice by investing in various provincial projects. For example, funding for a project such as the REM will help many Quebeckers get to work sooner and do so in the knowledge that their choice is the right one for the environment. It's important to note exactly what those projects are. A commitment of $1.28 billion has been announced for construction of the Réseau express métropolitain.

The REM calls for construction of a new automated light rail system serving the greater Montreal area. The system will include 26 stations over 67 kilometers, practically doubling the length of the present 71-kilometer-long metro system. The REM is the largest public transit project undertaken in Quebec in the past 50 years. The system will gradually go into service between 2022 and 2023.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank's investment commitment includes the following items: an initial loan interest rate of 1%, increasing to 3% over a period of 15 years, with the loan commitment covering project startup and construction risks. A project like the REM will benefit everyone. In addition to the number of jobs created, it will generate significant impact for Quebec businesses and workers. Nearly $2 billion will be paid out in salaries in Quebec and more than $4 billion in local content. That represents 65% of the value of the project.

(1735) Construction work on the REM will involve many specialized trades and professionals, including engineers, architects, automated site systems experts, cabinetmakers, steel fabricators and erectors, electricians, mechanics and so on. My riding of Alfred—Pellan is full of talented workers. They'll be able to put their knowledge and experience to work on the construction of the REM. In addition to increasing mobility in the greater Montreal area, the project will revitalize the region's local economy.

Ultimately, the REM project, supported by the Canada Infrastructure Bank, will support hundreds of families in my riding. In addition to creating jobs and wealth, the REM will stimulate the creation of a centre of excellence and expertise in automated mass transit in Quebec. The repair and maintenance of a high-tech system will help guarantee permanent high-quality jobs and a new Quebec knowledge base. However, we definitely must not overlook the project's environmental benefits. These investments will promote sustainable development and greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Adjustments have also been made to the project to reduce its environmental impact. Furthermore, in conjunction with the REM project, we should mention the plan to build a station at Montreal's Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport. This new station and the new rail link will thus be connected to the REM light rail system. The Canada Infrastructure Bank's investment will be in addition to its previous $1.3 billion investment in the REM. It goes without saying that an accessible REM station will be a major public good, providing rapid and practical service to and from the airport.

Whether it's local road traffic or the weather…

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

Go ahead, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

Mr. Chair, this speech is related to my colleague's remarks. To my knowledge, when you discuss a motion in your speech, you must stay on topic. I didn't sense that a full description of the REM and the Montreal metro was actually related to the topic before us.

Mr. Angelo Iacono :

Mr. Chair, I was showing…

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval. I'll just ask all members to try to stay within the realm of the amendment to the motion. We all have to remember that we are discussing the amendment to the motion presented by Mr. Scheer. Mr. Iacono, we'll go back to you.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Angelo Iacono :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think it's important to show how this project will benefit Quebeckers. I'm sure this concerns my colleague since he's a member from Quebec. As regards the Port of Montreal, my colleague is familiar with the connection between the REM and the Port of Montreal. So I won't talk about that since he says it isn't interesting. The investments our government makes through the Canada Infrastructure Bank to support infrastructure will improve the lives of Canadian communities. These are projects that enhance both Canadians' mobility and Canada's reputation.

If our NDP and Bloc québecois colleagues choose to support this motion, they will be putting partisanship above the interests of Quebeckers and Canadians. They will cause definite harm to the economic recovery of our beautiful province, among other things. Thanks to the investments of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the mayor of Quebec City, Mr. Régis Labeaume, can retire with the satisfaction that the REM will see the light of day. What satisfaction will our Bloc québecois colleagues derive from that if this kind of project falls through as a result of partisanship?

(1740) [ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Iacono. I'll now go back to Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers, let's see how your mike is. Why don't we do a quick sound check?

Mr. Churence Rogers :

I can do a quick sound check here to see if that's any better for the interpreters.

The Chair :

Mr. Clerk, how does that sound for the interpreters?

The Clerk :

I'm told that Mr. Rogers is still cutting in and out, but I guess they will try to work with it.

The Chair :

We're going to try to work with it, Mr. Rogers. Mr. Clerk and interpreters, if it's a problem and we can't get

interpretation, please let me know immediately. I don't want this to impede Mr. Barsalou-Duval or others who are expecting it to be in French. With all due respect to our members, please let me know right away. Mr. Rogers, go ahead. You have the floor.

Mr. Churence Rogers :

Do you want me to restart my comments?

Interpretation was a problem, so I can start from the beginning, if you wish.

The Chair :

Go ahead. We have three minutes left before I suspend.

Mr. Churence Rogers :

Okay. As I was saying, what is being put at risk here by the opposition with this motion? What are the areas that the CIB is focused on? It's clear to us that the [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] ability to attract private and institutional investments to infrastructure projects. The opposition has complained about the CIB allegedly not succeeding so far in crowding in enough private capital, and now they want us to use this motion to make their criticism into a self-fulfilling prophecy. I want us to understand the areas that the CIB has targeted for getting more infrastructure built.

These are areas where, if the opposition succeeds, we'll end up with less infrastructure in our country. Canadian institutions of capital like our pension funds will continue to build projects elsewhere. The benefits that would come to our country will now be somewhere else. Let's look at what the CIB is focusing on.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the Canada Infrastructure Bank's $10-billion plan to invest in major infrastructure initiatives to create jobs and strengthen economic growth. The growth plan developed by the CIB is expected to create 60,000 jobs across the country. Over the next 24 to 36 months, the CIB's plan will build new infrastructure that connects more households and more small businesses to high-speed Internet—

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I see that we are encroaching upon the time. We're within one minute of when we must conclude our meeting for the next meeting to take place. As such, I want to make a motion to adjourn—if it's in order that I do so while interrupting MP Rogers, unfortunately.

The Chair :

Actually, Ms. Kusie, I was going to deal with that at 5:45 p.m.

(1745) Mrs. Stephanie Kusie :

Okay. Pardon me.

The Chair :

A motion would be somewhat redundant. I will go back to Mr. Rogers and give him his last minute. Mr. Rogers, go ahead.

Mr. Churence Rogers :

As I was saying, these investments will help Canadians get back to work. One of the defining characteristics of the CIB is to invest in projects in a manner that attracts private and institutional capital now and in the future. In this way, every dollar of public investment has maximum impact. In delivering this plan, the CIB will also work in close co-operation with provinces and territories, municipalities and indigenous communities across the country. Given the substantial amount of work already completed, the CIB expects to begin investing in projects before the end of 2020. Mr.

Chair, I know I don't have the time, but I would like to begin highlighting what some of these investments will be: $1.5 billion for agriculture infrastructure; $2 billion for broadband; $1.5 billion for zero-emission buses; $2 billion for energy-efficient buildings and retrofits; and $2 billion for clean energy. That leads me to be somewhat surprised by the NDP's not supporting this kind of investment, when we're talking about clean energy, clean buildings, retrofits and so on to combat climate change. There's also $500 million for project acceleration. Mr.

Chair, given that you're about to adjourn this meeting, I would want to come back to these comments at some later point to elaborate on each of the items I've just listed.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Thank you to all the speakers. We do look forward to this debate continuing on Tuesday. Therefore, I will take this opportunity to suspend this meeting, and we'll see you all on Tuesday. [ The meeting was suspended at 5:47 p.m., Thursday, May 6 ] [ The meeting resumed at 6:35 p.m., Tuesday, May 11 ]

(1835) The Chair :

Members, I will now take this opportunity to reconvene our meeting. Welcome to the continuation of meeting number 31 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. As always, or of late, today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. The webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee. To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few points to follow. First off, members may speak in the official language of their choice.

Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For members participating in person—I don't believe there are any—proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in a committee room. Keep in mind the directives from the Board of Internal Economy regarding masking and health protocols. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on a video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself.

For those in the room, your microphone will be controlled as is normal by the proceedings and verification officer. I will remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. When you are not speaking, your mike should be on mute. With regard to a speaking list, the committee clerk and I will do the very best we can to maintain the order of speaking for all members, whether you are participating virtually or in person. Members, the committee will now continue its debate on the amendment to Ms. Kusie's motion presented by Mr. Scheer.

The order of speakers upon suspending was as follows: Mr. Rogers, followed by Ms. Jaczek, followed by Mr. Fillmore, followed by Mr. Scheer. With that, Mr. Rogers, you have the floor.

Mr. Churence Rogers :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to restart the intervention that I started in the last meeting before we concluded. I just want to identify some of the key areas where, if the opposition motion succeeded, Canadians would end up with less infrastructure in our country, and institutional capital like pension funds would continue to build projects elsewhere, but not in our own country for the good of Canadians. I started to identify some of the projects and investments that I feel are critically important for Canada and Canadians for the long term. We're talking about a period of 24 to 36 months.

We're talking about major projects that would create in the vicinity of 60,000 jobs across the country. One defining characteristic of the CIB is that it would attract investment in projects in a manner that attracts the private sector and institutional capital and, hopefully, gets some of these projects off the ground and built. In delivering this plan with provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous communities across the country, we would see major investments in projects that would benefit all Canadians.

Given the substantial amount of work that's been completed, the CIB expects to begin investing in some great projects before the end of 2020. I want to identify some of these projects for the committee and talk about their value and what it means for all of us and for Canadians right across the country—from coast to coast to coast. First, let me focus on the $1.5 billion for agriculture infrastructure. The CIB's investment will focus on transformative irrigation infrastructure projects that are high priorities in western Canada.

Particularly, the benefit of this new initiative is estimated at 700,000 acres of newly irrigated land, which would increase food supply output. It would improve water resource management. It would also secure domestic food supply for all of us. Of course, there would be export opportunities. Agriculture and agri-food sector growth can face obstacles in attracting long-term investment capital, as we know, to finance large infrastructure projects.

The CIB's investment in irrigation will mitigate private sector leaders' concerns about the risks associated with financing projects that involve uncertain ramp-up periods and high-risk repayment sources due to exposure to the commodities pricing associated with revenues from agricultural products. Preliminary estimates suggest that completed critical irrigation projects could also help stimulate an additional $1.5 billion in investments by the use of [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] and associated precision or smart technology that would create, of course, more efficiency in the agriculture sector.

As a world leader in agriculture and agri-food, Canada is uniquely placed to build up its competitive advantage while improving the food system for Canadians and strengthening the resiliency of Canada's supply chains. We all know the importance of that as, from year to year, we experience unexpected storms, droughts and climate change problems that occur from time to time and create all kinds of difficulties for the agriculture sector. That investment in itself would be a huge win for the agriculture sector, for sure.

(1840) Another project investment that I would like to identify would be the $2 billion earmarked for broadband. That would be a game-changer for all Canadians, particularly Canadians living in rural and remote areas that now have no access to the Internet system. They get left out of the marketplace. They get left out of the business opportunities that could exist, and they are challenged to receive even the basic service. The CIB's broadband investment initiative will accelerate connectivity in Canada by developing and delivering large-scale and high-impact projects.

These CIB investments will connect more than three-quarters of a million households and businesses, particularly in underserved communities by creating n