Transport Committee on May 21st, 2024

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Iacono, thank you for that question on very important issues in my province of Nova Scotia.

We have an opportunity to support communities in their vision for a very clean future. It's about using every opportunity for a green economy. Nova Scotia presents a tremendous opportunity. Comparable data from other provinces and elsewhere shows that electricity is not greener. However, communities have the ability to change the way they produce and use electricity, including indigenous communities. Through a new partnership with 13 Mi'kmaq communities, the Canada Infrastructure Bank is supporting investments in the creation of

clean energy storage sites for electricity by partnering with the utility, supported by the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

This is going to create economic opportunities for the communities that are participating in the initiative. It's also going to help launch a systemic solution to store more green energy as our renewable production goes up, but we still have a reliance on certain fossil fuels, including coal, which we need to transition away from quickly. This creates an enormous opportunity to support the economic imperative of helping Mi'kmaq communities that are seeking to grow, while at the same time greening the grid for everyone in order to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and pursue additional industrial opportunities in the green economy.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

Minister, it's important to highlight the significant contributions of the Canada Infrastructure Bank across the nation. The CIB investments have resulted in a reduction of 8.3 metric tons of annual greenhouse gas emissions, investments in 46 indigenous communities, financing for 5,466 zero-emissions buses and broadband connectivity for over 434,000 homes.

Could you discuss the significance of these investments by the CIB throughout Canada?

Additionally, as you had also mentioned, what are the reasons for the Conservative Party's opposition to initiatives aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Look, it's not for me to speak to the motivations that other parties may have. I know that there are notable Conservatives who have expressed support for the Infrastructure Bank in the past and Conservative provincial governments that are now considering the idea of moving forward with their own complementary initiatives. To the advantages, I'm very happy to speak. This creates an opportunity to crowd in private funding to build infrastructure that serves a public purpose. It's an opportunity for us to solicit an initial private investment in projects that are going to achieve an important public goal and will help drive economic opportunities for Canadians as well.

When we see billions of dollars in money—that's paid back, by the way—invested in projects that can then, in turn, pull in billions of dollars of additional private capital, more things get done that otherwise wouldn't get done. The kinds of things that get done are high-speed Internet in rural communities, public transit in major urban centres, emissions-reducing projects in buildings and communities right across the country, and, as we discussed in response to your last question, economic opportunities for communities that too often have been left behind, including, as you raise in your question now, the opportunity for more indigenous communities to take part in a growing economy, particularly, a growing green economy.

From my perspective, from a social, economic and environmental point of view, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, given its recent uptick in volume and the pace at which it's operating, is checking the boxes on all three categories.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

You mentioned in your opening and in replying to my colleague across prior to this that we have a plan and they don't. Can you elaborate on that?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

The answer I gave was in response specifically to development cost charges, given the questions that were coming in. Development cost charges create a very real increase in the cost of building, which is passed on through the economy in either higher home prices or a reduced number of homes being built overall, or both.

Despite the line of questioning we've seen, both today and by one of our colleagues, Mr. Aitchison, whom I have great respect for, at a recent committee appearance, there's not a plan from the Conservative Party to actually address development cost charges. They have tabled a housing plan. They have put forward legislation that their leader presumably will move forward with at some point, but it doesn't include anything for development cost charges.

I'm out of time, but I'm happy to pick it up should you wish to delve in further.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Iacono.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being here today. You will only be spending one hour with us. I would have preferred that you spent at least four hours here, since there is much to say about your department, particularly in light of the last budget.

One item in this budget caught my eye, and that's where I'll begin.

The government announced its intention to use federal public properties to build housing. Post offices, vacant land and military bases are among the properties mentioned. That in itself may seem like common sense to many. There have long been questions as to why the federal government wouldn't dispose of its surplus properties. The government is finally signalling its intention of doing so, and we'll see what results that brings.

However, there are concerns that the federal government may decide not to comply with municipal bylaws. So, by retaining ownership of its land and granting leases to the Canada Lands Company, for example, the federal government would look after developing for building construction, while ignoring municipal bylaws and without consulting municipal residents.

Is that your government's intention?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

No. Normally, I will seek opportunities to work with municipalities. It is not my role to impose regulations on them. However, if, during discussions with various federal government sources, we find available land to build housing on, we will negotiate the necessary terms with municipalities. The situation may vary from one project to another, but I will have to work with the municipalities.

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

So you intend to comply with applicable municipal bylaws for those properties. Is that correct?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I do not intend to circumvent local bylaws. However, if there are bylaws that make it difficult to build housing, we have programs for arguing why they should be changed. Those conversations are easier with Quebec than with other provinces, because we've reached a province-wide agreement there.

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

I ask because I saw a concrete example recently. A federal building is going up right in the middle of a heritage area in Old Montreal. The Department of Justice is not building it, but it will be a federal courthouse, which will include, for example, the Federal Court of Appeal, the Federal Court, the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, the Canadian Tax Court and other minor federal courts. The building will cost $160 million, and its construction has begun even though residents in the area had no idea what was slated to be built there. The Government of Quebec was not aware of its architectural appearance, nor was the City of Montreal. No one was consulted, but the site is already operational.

So you can understand that when we see the federal government behaving like that, when citizens don't even know what's going to be built in a heritage neighbourhood and they see a 10-storey building suddenly appear, they have grounds to be concerned about what will be done under the programs announced in the budget.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

As you well know, it varies from project to project. I don't know the details of that project at this time. If you would like more information, however, I can speak with my assistants and we can get in touch with you. If you have any general concerns, you can contact my office, but I don't think it's a systematic problem.

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

What I'm trying to tell you is that we are seeing concrete examples of federal buildings going up in very sensitive heritage areas without anyone being consulted. Neither citizens, nor heritage committees, nor the Government of Quebec, nor cities were consulted, yet a 10-storey building springs up in a neighbourhood. It's quite ludicrous, and I can't understand why the federal government would choose to operate like that.

What I would have liked to hear from you is that this situation makes no sense and that, when measures announced in the budget are implemented, you will make sure such situations do not reoccur, because people feel that the federal government has no respect for them. They feel that the government is remote and arrogant and that it could not care less about their circumstances.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I need to check the details of this project, but I have no intention of circumventing local bylaws. Working with local and provincial governments is important. In order to discuss this particular project, I would need to know the details. We can discuss it after the meeting, if you'd like.

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

What I'm telling you is that municipal bylaws exist for a very specific reason.

In your last budget, you also announced that you intended to define real estate rules and planning regulations for every location in which housing will be built using federal funds such as the Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund, the Housing Accelerator Fund and the Permanent Public Transit Fund. However, not all of those regulations fall under federal jurisdiction.

So you will decide on behalf of the cities what will be built and where. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

There are 15 seconds left, Minister.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, it's hard to provide an adequate answer in 10 seconds, but I think it's essential to work with our partners at other government levels to carry out projects and move forward with building housing for people, while respecting the jurisdiction of other levels of government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Schiefke]

Thank you very much, Minister and Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Next we have Mr. Bachrach.

The floor is yours. You have six minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister and Ms. Gillis, for being with us today.

I met recently with sustainable transportation advocates. They expressed dismay that the latest budget contains a cut to a couple of key transit funds, the first of which is the zero emission transit fund, which is used to purchase electric school buses and electric transit buses. In their view, this fund has been reduced at a time when the impacts of climate change are being felt right across the country.

The commissioner of the environment and sustainable development has highlighted that your government is not on track to meet its emissions targets. Why is this government cutting back on the purchase of clean technology at a time when we need to be accelerating our action on climate change?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

I have a different characterization of how you've just described things, because as we see certain programs come online, the total amount that we're investing in green public transit opportunities is going to significantly increase.

I can understand why looking at one fund in isolation can lead you to the conclusion that there's less money in this fund this year as compared to last year, but when you look across the system, which is what's most important to me, my concern is whether we are doing what we can to maximize the value for the investment to get the emissions reduction and improvements in public transit. I expect, depending on the specific projects that a municipality may apply for, there may be enhanced eligibility, as the permanent public transit fund comes online, to get some of the same projects done, because we've determined that it's a more efficient way to have the federal government support clean transit opportunities.

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

These funds were announced at certain amounts, and now those amounts have been reduced, so I don't see.... The permanent public transit fund is also a fixed amount that's been announced. I'm wondering why the zero emission transit fund went from $2.75 billion to $2.4 billion. It seems like it should be going in the other direction, that we should be adding more money to these funds. Is it because it was undersubscribed? Is there not interest from municipalities in securing these investments?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

As part of the effort when we were seeking to refocus government spending, we were looking at the funds that best delivered the outcome that we believed they were designed to achieve. When it comes to public transit, the reason that you're seeing such a ramp-up of the permanent public transit fund—which is the main way we fund public transit for communities—is that we think we can get more done that way.

Over the next number of years, particularly as the funding comes online in 2026, you're going to see a consistent, reliable program for the long term that municipalities can rely upon, rather than having a program that appeared for a short piece of time. That program is undoubtedly going to show some positive results, but our belief is that when it comes to supporting sustainable public transit in the long term, the public transit fund is a much larger-scale, consistent delivery mechanism.

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

There are issues with the permanent public transit fund, but I'm not going to have time to get into them in this round.

Similarly, the rural transit solutions fund, which is one that impacts communities in the riding I represent, went from $250 million to $150 million. Three years after Greyhound pulled its service entirely from Canada, and we have poorer bus service across the country in rural communities than we have had in 50 or 60 or 70 years, the government is pulling back on the key offering that they promised was going to help communities recover from the withdrawal of Greyhound services. Why has the rural transit solutions fund been reduced? Surely the permanent public transit fund is not going to help rural communities deliver bus transport.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Certainly it should, and that's actually part of the way that we're.... Some of this policy work remains to be finalized, but that's actually one of the reasons that we want to make this shift. That fund, again, as a newer item that we moved forward with a number of years ago—also the one that my community can rely upon without a pre-existing municipally owned public transit system—didn't necessarily see the speed of uptake that I would have hoped for or thought would happen.

By establishing more reliable criteria as part of the permanent public transit fund that smaller communities are eligible for, which we're working to develop right now, we expect that there will be a simpler, more consistent way for communities to access public transit funding. For example, communities may need a small bus to do a loop around a smaller series of communities rather than a subway system or a rapid transit bus system. You should expect to see, as the rollout of that fund comes to life, that there will be a feature designed specifically for rural communities that will be longer-term and more reliable.

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

Moving to a transit challenge a little farther from the place that I represent, I know folks in Toronto are very concerned about the aging subway cars on the Bloor line. The province and the city had a plan to replace those cars, but Toronto had to cancel its RFP because the feds wouldn't come to the table with the funds required to make the purchase. This affects not only commuters but also people in Thunder Bay who work for Alstom, who would be manufacturing these subway cars.

Why has your government allowed this key transit infrastructure to crumble and left workers wondering about the future of these key manufacturing jobs?