:
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 106 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, February 21, 2024, the committee is meeting to discuss infrastructure in Canada.
Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.
Although this room is equipped with a sophisticated audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to our interpreters and can cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on.
In order to prevent incidents and to safeguard the hearing health of our interpreters, I invite all participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table, away from the microphone, when they are not in use.
Colleagues, today we have the honour of welcoming the Minister of Infrastructure, the Honourable Sean Fraser, and two ministers to follow. We also have Kelly Gillis with us.
Thank you both for joining us.
I know you're pressed for time, Minister, and you have to leave directly after the line of questioning, so I'll turn the floor over to you for your five-minute opening remarks.
As a sign of good faith, I'll be significantly shorter than five minutes to make time for whatever questions committee members may have.
I would like to start a bit off topic and wish my daughter a happy eighth birthday. It was eight years ago today. It was pretty exciting. I highly doubt that she is tuned into CPAC at home, but in any event, it's good to put that on the record.
Look, folks, I know the language around the study today and on infrastructure more generally is fairly broad. It's not lost on me that the genesis of this meeting was about the question of whether the federal government funds roads. I'm pleased to share that we do, in fact, fund roads through a number of programs, and there's not been a policy change in this regard.
Mr. Chair, I'm happy to take whatever questions the committee members may have.
:
Hello, Minister. Thank you for coming today.
I want to share some concerns with you that Canadians have brought to our attention about the “no new roads” policy. You stated today that you fund roads, but we're more concerned about the funding of new roads, and my question will focus on that urgent reason for you being here.
In February, your cabinet colleague, environment minister Steven Guilbeault, said at a conference in Montreal, “Our government has made the decision to stop investing in new road infrastructure.”
Minister, isn't it your government's goal to stop building new roads so that Canadians will stop driving their cars, thereby reducing their carbon footprint, in order to fight climate change?
:
Thank you, Dr. Lewis. I appreciate the question.
I would like to correct the record. There is no such policy as the one you suggested in the introduction to the question. We actually have a number of different programs that fund roads, both in the past and going forward.
Those kinds of programs would include the national trade corridors fund, the Canada community-building fund, the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, the investing in Canada infrastructure program.
There are a number of different programs—Parks Canada, to go further—that in fact fund roads. We believe they make an important contribution to different communities. In urban environments, we have shifted toward—
:
There are further questions, yes.
I want to highlight—because I'm so proud of this—a recent announcement made in Newfoundland and Labrador that stands in stark contrast to what the opposition's pushing for today.
Last week , on your behalf, announced over $15 million in federal funding dollars for 31 different highways and road projects across the province. This includes projects in my riding of Bonavista—Burin—Trinity in towns like Marystown, Grand Bank, Musgravetown and Bonavista.
Just last year, your predecessor announced $153 million towards a $300-million Trans-Canada Highway twinning project that will see highway expansions, including over 40 kilometres past Whitbourne in my riding going west towards Port aux Basques. That's pretty exciting for me as a member of Parliament for the riding of Bonavista—Burin—Trinity. That sure sounds like a great road-building policy to me.
Can you elaborate on these announcements and how similar announcements are happening across Canada?
:
Look, thanks very much for the question, Churence.
Putting $150 million towards the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway in Newfoundland is a big deal. The announcement you referred to in the opening to your question, which was putting millions of dollars into the community to help build road infrastructure—that is also a big deal.
Newfoundland and Labrador, through the Canada community-building fund, to date has had municipalities use about $50 million towards road building in your province since we've been in government. It's important that we understand the impact this has on communities, particularly on rural communities.
I'm a rural MP. I live in a small town, but I have a riding of about 10,000 square kilometres. Road-building projects put people to work and can improve highway safety and can improve connectivity between communities.
To some of the points that Dr. Lewis made during her intervention, we have significantly stepped up transit infrastructure around buses, public transit and active transportation, disproportionately in urban environments. For people like you and me in communities like yours and mine, the impact of investing in road infrastructure improves the efficacy of travel and safety for the general public, and the economic activity it generates is a positive thing, in my view, and in the view of the government.
To answer your question, we've now invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Newfoundland and Labrador alone. That's putting people to work to build out roads, to help grow the economy and to improve the quality of safety on our highways.
:
Certainly, and I agree with your assertion altogether that some of these major projects, particularly on these bigger highway investments you're referring to, don't happen without significant investments by the federal government.
I mentioned during a previous answer my own community benefiting from the twinning of 37 kilometres of highway between Sutherland's River and Antigonish. That is helping to improve safety on what was the most deadly stretch of highway in my province, but within municipalities, when you look at the extraordinary cost of investing in infrastructure, you can see that clearly that they need support as well.
One of the things that sometimes gets lost in the mix is that even the decisions taken by municipal governments to fund roads are sometimes using federal resources. On the municipal projects I was pointing to, in Newfoundland, 391 different projects were funded by the federal government through decisions taken by municipalities through the Canada community-building fund. Literally, in your province alone, hundreds of road projects have benefited from federal funding. It makes an important difference, not just for those major highway expansions you're referring to but also for transportation, particularly in smaller communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in fact in every jurisdiction in the country.
Thanks as well to Mr. Fraser for being with us today to resolve the unfortunate situation in which we now find ourselves as a result of the statements made by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
I suppose that, since you're the first of three ministers to appear before us today, you'll be setting the tone.
So you will be the one conveying the official version, or at least the person most responsible within government for decisions regarding the funding of roads.
As you're no doubt aware, Mr. Guilbeault stated not long ago that his government had made the decision to stop investing in new road infrastructure. That statement was very clear.
In the end, you said your government was going to continue investing in roads.
Would you please confirm whether the statement that Mr. Guilbeault made is consistent with your government's policy?
:
I'll definitely ask him the question.
You say you come from Nova Scotia, a region of vast expanses. Quebec has vast expanses too. Thousands of Quebeckers currently have no road links to the national highway system. It's quite remarkable to hear such a statement from a minister. I don't know if you've thought of the people who have no road access and who've been told that no new roads will be built. That makes no sense. Thousands of people have been neglected for tens, even hundreds, of years, and they hope one day to see a road built to their door. We have a central government telling them it doesn't think they count. That's not a very positive statement.
Moving on to another topic, yesterday my leader asked the Prime Minister twice whether your government was willing to require Quebec municipalities to use money from the Canada community-building fund for housing. The purpose of that fund is, among other things, to fund water and sewage treatment plants and roads.
The Prime Minister clearly hasn't understood that. He has no idea what the Canada community-building fund is, even though your government allocates $2 billion a year to it.
Did you speak with the Prime Minister before your government hijacked the cities' money and interfered in a jurisdiction that is not its own?
Thank you, Minister, for being with us today.
You mentioned in a previous response that you met recently with your provincial counterpart in British Columbia, Minister Fleming. I thought I would start there.
Northwest B.C. is a region I represent. That region, specifically Tahltan territory, is a major mineral producer. Several active mines are currently producing critical minerals. I know this is a priority of your government. Through the critical minerals strategy, your government has committed to investing in infrastructure that supports this work.
Highway 37, which services that region as well as several indigenous communities, has seen a huge increase in industrial traffic. It wasn't built for the traffic it's seeing. As a result, we're seeing some seriously unsafe situations. There have been over 500 road accidents on that highway alone since 2018. On Monday, we heard from the chief of the Telegraph band about an 83-year-old in Telegraph Creek who was experiencing chest pain. Emergency responders weren't able to get to Telegraph Creek by road because Highway 51, which accesses Telegraph Creek from Highway 37, was not in a condition they could travel on.
The B.C. government has committed to investing significant funds to upgrade Highway 37 and Highway 51 to serve both the indigenous communities that rely on them and the mining industry that's active in that region.
My question is a simple one: Will your government be there and contribute the federal resources that are necessary to improve the safety and accessibility of those highways?
:
First, thanks very much. I find there is great value when members of Parliament can provide that local context on projects, so I appreciate it. Having sat on this committee for a number of years, I made efforts to do the same with some of the projects that were most important in my community. It's possible that we can support projects of this nature.
We've not made a decision to date on whether there's funding going into a particular project. It's not because we're sitting around and delaying, but because when there are highway projects, typically the primary jurisdiction falls within a provincial government, or it can be a municipality, depending on the nature of the specific project. We don't pick individual projects and say we're cutting a cheque for this or that. We establish programs that can fund different kinds of projects that are eligible and then rely on partners who have primary jurisdiction to prioritize those projects.
It's a discussion I'd be more than willing to entertain with the provincial government of British Columbia in order to understand which projects we may be able to fund. Of course, they go through an exercise of allocating their share of a federal program.
Of course, in the future there may be new or different programs that would change the eligibility. However, if you want to have a discussion off-line with me or my team to identify opportunities, that's something we'd be happy to do.
:
Yes, I appreciate that, Minister.
Specifically, the Province of British Columbia has approached your government and asked for a partnership to support this work through the critical minerals strategy. It's my hope and desire that you will engage in that work as the minister responsible for infrastructure and ensure this important region in northern British Columbia gets the infrastructure support it deserves.
I'll move on more broadly to other infrastructure issues that are challenging for communities in the region I represent.
The community of Smithers applied in 2020 for an important waste-water project. They've been receiving letters from your counterpart, the , saying that they're no longer in compliance with federal waste-water regulations. They applied in 2020. They were turned down in 2021. They revamped their project. They reapplied in 2022. Now it's been almost two yours since they've heard back from your government about whether they're going to get the funding.
In northern B.C., as you know, the construction season is very short. Every season that goes by without putting shovels in the ground is another season when the community risks not being in compliance with your government's own waste-water regulations. Their effluent, of course, goes into the Bulkley River, which is part of the Skeena watershed, an important wild salmon river. Everyone wants to see this cleaned up. Everyone wants to do the right thing and accommodate the future growth of the community.
Can you tell the people of Smithers when they're going to hear back from your department about this important infrastructure project?
Just by way of process, when we put funding on the table, we then invite provincial governments that we reach a bilateral agreement with to send a list of their ranked priorities in order to use the funding that we have made available for water and wastewater. By and large, we meet the priorities that are identified by provincial governments.
We can look into this specific project, but it will depend on whether the provincial government has exhausted its allocation under the fund and the water and waste-water stream. If funding remains available and the provincial government wishes to advance it, and presuming it's eligible—which it sounds from your description as though it could be—it sounds as though it would be a meritorious project, but I'd have to look at the assessment.
Of course, that would also rely upon the provincial government's decision regarding whether to prioritize or not prioritize a specific project.
Mr. Minister, when you said there's been no policy change, as you did in your opening remarks, I found that hard to believe, because yesterday Global News reported—and let me read the headline—that “Guilbeault's road funding remarks send staff scrambling, emails show.” This was the result of an information access request that Global News made, to which it got two days' worth of emails from your department, Infrastructure Canada.
To quote some of what was revealed in those emails, there was “'quite the blowback'”, and we need to urgently find out what roads were funded this year and last year and give some examples. There was some scrambling to cover up.
Maybe you can comment on how that seems to be at odds with your comment that the policy has not changed.
:
Look, I'll reassure you where I can, but two things can be true at the same time.
We do want to encourage more people to take public transit and to use active transportation, and we've backed up our desire to do that with multi-billion-dollar investments in public transit and hundreds of millions of dollars towards active transportation.
That doesn't mean that it's somehow false that we also fund roads, because there are other reasons—public safety, economic development, efficiency in transportation corridors—that we have made a decision to fund very specific road projects. They've happened in my own community. I'm not sure whether they've happened in yours, but I expect they very well might have.
From my perspective, we both want to encourage the development and use of public transit for economic, social and environmental reasons, but we also recognize the value of building roads, and I don't think those two statements are inconsistent.
To the extent that you have specific questions about Minister Guilbeault's comments, he's going to be here this morning, and I'd encourage you to place your questions before him.
:
Okay, I just have a couple of clarifications.
First, the Canada community-building fund is not linked to revenue from gasoline sales. We're talking about an era gone by, part of the reason the program has changed. However, the road network you're talking about is largely funded, particularly the maintenance, by provincial governments.
To my point, there are a number of different programs, particularly the national trade corridors fund, for those kinds of economically important trade corridors where we have invested hundreds of millions of dollars, even billions, on projects, including road networks for the very purpose you've indicated.
:
That's excellent. Thank you.
It's refreshing when I find members of Parliament who have a unique focus on issues of great importance. From the day I first met you, climate has been at the front of the radar, and I thank you for that.
There are a number of different things that we do. We have programs that we put in place to help with adaptation and resiliency. We have programs that we've put in place to focus on mitigation. We have a focus on water and wastewater that can actually protect the health of our marine environments.
In addition, there's the work of one of our colleagues, , the member of Parliament for Halifax. When we were brand new MPs, he moved a private member's bill that required us to adopt a climate lens on infrastructure investments. It's essential that we continue to assess the impact of the investments in infrastructure on our climate so that we make better decisions to ensure that we're building communities that are sustainable, healthy and prosperous.
We have a number of ways that we support mass timber. Before I get into the ways we support mass timber, I'll say that I'm a huge supporter of the technological advances that are allowing us to build sustainable buildings at the speed you can produce them, along with the safety at the work site. The opportunity to build a factory-type setting creates enormous advantages for the technology. It's going to be a big part of the path forward to help address the climate crisis.
We're looking to include a number of different technologies in the catalogue of pre-approved designs that we've launched, including mass timber specifically. That will create opportunities to create a consistency in demand that will help us ramp up the production of mass timber. We supported a number of projects earlier to help address the housing supply, including a unique program at UBC that focuses on building kits that are designed to produces houses that meet the building code in the province.
We're also looking at additional ways that we can support mass timber projects through investments in the factories that are engaged in mass timber construction. There are a number of different ways we're looking at doing this, and there were a number of projects we supported in the past. The technology, as a solution to the housing crisis, is sustainable, and can also have the potential to drive the economic opportunities in the forestry sector in our country. It has me fully behind it.
Minister, we were discussing the Canada community-building fund at the end of our exchange earlier. We criticized your government for wanting to add more fund eligibility conditions and to interfere in a jurisdiction that is not its own. You told us that your priority was to promote housing construction. I'm glad to hear that because I'd like to discuss a very specific housing project with you.
The riding that I represent includes the municipality of Contrecœur. That municipality had a problem with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the CMHC, because CMHC had classified it as a rural municipality, whereas its population has grown to more than 10,000 inhabitants. The problem is that, since CMHC still classifies Contrecœur as a rural municipality, it has become extremely difficult to implement all the funding programs for social and affordable housing creation in that municipality. The funding level is way too low. Furthermore, since the municipality is also located in the metropolitan Montreal area, housing prices are extremely high, which puts considerable pressure on the local market.
We sent you a letter last week asking if we could count on your support in our efforts to have Contrecœur reclassified. That would help make social and affordable housing development projects viable in the coming years. Without that support, the municipality will be stuck in this situation for the next four, five or six years. I have a copy of that letter.
I'd like to discuss this situation with you. How does one go about getting a municipality reclassified when this kind of administrative error occurs or when demographic change makes reclassification necessary?
:
Minister, a few months ago I expressed to you my concern that the way you structured the housing accelerator fund pitted very small cities against very large cities. The cut-off for the urban stream is a population of 10,000 people. The community I had in mind at the time was the City of Terrace, which has a population of about 12,000. The mayor has expressed this concern to me directly.
In your response, you indicated that you were also a rural MP and that you were going to ensure that those small communities had a fighting chance in the fund. The City of Terrace's application to the housing accelerator was turned down by your government, and now the city is wondering where your government stands when it comes to supporting their housing priorities.
Just for context, the City of Terrace has been significantly affected by industrial development in northwest B.C. It's a regional service centre. It lacks lots of the revenue opportunities that other communities are able to tap into through those industries.
They have a housing crisis. They want to build housing, and the city wants to partner with your government to make that happen. What's your message to community leaders in Terrace? Are you willing to sit down with me as soon as possible and discuss their priorities so that we can find a way to ensure that federal dollars make their way to that community?
:
When I say “infrastructure”, that includes where infrastructure already exists, and it includes an existing network of roads.
I live in a very small community, but we're supporting public transit. It's not through subway expansion in a community of 9,500 people, but with a small bus that's helping seniors, low-income families and Canadians living with disabilities access the service they need in their community.
I recognize that cars are essential for a lot of people in the communities where we live, but we can do more to create opportunities for people to use public transit and active transportation and to build walkable communities, while still recognizing that some people are going to need cars for some parts of their lives.
We can improve their ability to move through their communities in different ways if we make smart infrastructure investments going forward.
:
No, and if I was ambiguous in my remarks, let me clarify them.
We fund roads and we believe there will be new road projects that will need and deserve federal funding in a number of instances, but the individual projects will differ based on the merits of a specific project. In my view, particularly when I'm focusing on where we're building housing, we're pursuing more density where services, infrastructure and opportunities exist, as opposed to urban sprawl. It's not only more sustainable; it's more economic. It reduces the cost of living and, for a lot of people who can live closer to their jobs, the grocery store, their friends and neighbours, it creates more livable communities.
They may still own cars and they may still travel between communities, but they may have other modes of transportation that they will be able to use if we adopt smart planning policies.
:
There will be some need to invest in road projects, but often we can find solutions within communities by encouraging density and proximity to services.
Again, two things can be true. We can invest in the twinning of a highway for public safety and economic reasons to make transportation more efficient, but we can also believe that if a person lives close to where they work and where their friends and neighbours are, we don't need to invest millions of dollars of Canadians' money to build out new water pipes and new roads because we can create opportunities where those water pipes and roads already exist.
We're not just going to be saving municipalities money; we're going to be saving Canadians money. They may not need to live as far away from their work, because they will have an opportunity to live in proximity to transit or very close to where their destination may be.
I don't agree with your characterization of my answer, but I would suggest that we can sometimes invest in roads for some reasons while we put the focus on creating opportunities for people to move throughout their communities by investing in public transit and focusing on density, particularly when it comes to housing.
:
Before I begin, I'd like to thank my colleague, who was my teacher during my first year on this committee. She encouraged me in my efforts to speak French. I couldn't speak a word of French at first, but now I can express myself in acceptable French and I want to practise it.
The infrastructure program is very important.
By investing in infrastructure, we've also expanded economic opportunities for Canadians and their families. That's very important because it also improves quality of life.
The quality of our environment also improves when we invest in green infrastructure and water treatment plants for communities. This is very important because it also affords more opportunities to use public transit. It also makes it possible to construct new buildings as well as recreational and cultural infrastructure that supports heritage.
When we make these kinds of investments, we improve quality of life, the environment and economic opportunities. We also create jobs for Canadians, and that's good for the entire country.
It's simple. When we build housing, for example, it isn't just homes for families; it benefits the entire community. For example, my children use parks. My daughter, whose birthday is today, plays soccer in my community. It wouldn't be possible without recreational infrastructure.
Furthermore, when we invest in infrastructure, it's also a good thing for the people who build it. I went to school with some of the people who work in that field.
So it's a good thing for our economy, for Canadians' quality of life and for our environment, and it's a good social program. Every time we have an opportunity to build new infrastructure, we support the economy and improve Canadians' quality of life.
:
Investment in public transit is essential. The program we've just discussed provides for multi-billion-dollar investments in support of public transit systems in all provinces. The Canada Infrastructure Bank has invested $1.3 billion in Montreal's Réseau express métropolitain, or REM.
In the future, however, it will be essential for us to respect the municipalities' ability to establish long-term plans. That's why we'll be establishing permanent programs to support investment in public transit systems.
When we make a decade-long commitment, for example, that encourages communities to develop a long-term vision, safe in the knowledge that the government will be there to support them. They can thus establish plans not only for public transit, but also for housing and other infrastructure, such as schools, health systems and recreational infrastructure.
Long-term planning is very important and has to be taken into account if we want to make good investments. That was important for past investments, and it's very important that we also continue making investments in the future.
:
I call this meeting back to order.
Colleagues, for the second hour of our meeting today, we have appearing before us the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Transport. Thank you for being here, sir.
We are also joined by Arun Thangaraj, Deputy Minister of Transport. Welcome to you.
[Translation]
He is accompanied by Serge Bijimine, assistant deputy minister, policy; and Joshua LaRocque, director general, transportation infrastructure programs.
[English]
We're going to jump right into it, Minister, to ensure we get to all of the questions that the colleagues would like to ask.
The floor is yours for your opening remarks, sir.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
[English]
Colleagues, thanks for the invitation.
Canada, as you know, is a big country, a huge country, so an efficient and reliable network of roads is critical. From coast to coast to coast, roads are part of how we get goods and people where they need to go safely and quickly. Taking care of these roads and keeping them strong and in good repair is important. Also, expanding them when necessary is equally important.
[Translation]
Let's be clear: most Canadian roads are under provincial, territorial or municipal jurisdiction. That means that those levels of government are mainly responsible for activities such as the planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance and funding of the road system. Transport Canada has long funded numerous road infrastructure projects and will continue to do so.
[English]
By far, the biggest source of such funding is the national trade corridors fund, or NTCF.
You guys know it quite well. Since its launch in 2017, the NTCF has provided over $4.1 billion for 213 infrastructure projects across Canada, which—this is very important to mention—includes over $1 billion for 42 road projects. These projects are designed to help improve our national supply chain, making it smoother, more efficient and more robust. It's there to ensure that goods and raw materials get where they need to be when Canadians need them.
Here are some examples.
We're investing $135 million to upgrade the Klondike highway corridor in the Yukon. This project includes rebuilding 110 kilometres of road, along with new bridges and EV charging stations.
We also provided over $70 million to help the City of Edmonton improve the crossing at 58th Street and help CP Railway increase safety and improve traffic flow. The project will build a new overpass over the existing railway crossing, two new traffic lanes and a realigned intersection at 82nd Avenue and 58th Avenue.
In Nova Scotia, we completed the twinning project for Highway 104. This included twinning and upgrading 28 kilometres of existing highway and building an entirely new one-kilometre, four-lane realignment of the highway to facilitate container and truck traffic in that corridor.
[Translation]
We have earmarked $45.9 million to improve access to the Port of Montreal by extending Boulevard de l'Assomption between Rue Notre-Dame and Avenue Pierre-De-Coubertin. We will also create a road link between the port and the Trans-Canada Highway. Transport Canada has provided $50 million from the national trade corridors fund for another project in Montreal that, among other things, will help improve the road system around Mirabel airport and facilitate access to a new loading bridge.
[English]
In B.C., we're providing $12.2 million at the Fraser Surrey Port Lands to improve the fluidity and safety of road and rail traffic operations.
That is just a small sample of NTCF projects across the country involving roads. With this program, we have made investments in important projects across the country.
[Translation]
I'm very pleased to see that the Auditor General acknowledged, in the report she released a few days ago, that the national trade corridors fund is working very well. Incidentally, I'd like to say that Transport Canada is also responsible for the Outaouais Road Agreement, the purpose of which is to enhance overall efficiency and promote safety while encouraging regional and industrial development and tourism in the National Capital Region.
Incidentally, last December I was pleased to announce a joint $70.4 million investment under that program to support numerous road projects around Gatineau on roads that you no doubt use from time to time.
[English]
In closing, I'll come back to what I said earlier: Although jurisdiction for most of our country's highways and roads falls to municipalities, territories or provinces, there's still an important role for the federal government to play, and we will play that role.
[Translation]
Thank you very much.
In keeping with relevance, I want to say that Montrealers—including in my riding of Laval—are extremely happy when it comes to roads.
As you can see, the Samuel De Champlain Bridge was built, and it's toll-free. Also in my riding, the Pie-IX Bridge was just renovated. Furthermore, Autoroute 15 is being enlarged.
That is all thanks to our government, which acted diligently to invest in roads.
[Translation]
It's a pleasure to have you here today, Minister.
You mentioned that the national trade corridors fund was established by your government.
Would you please tell us how important a program such as the national trade corridors fund is and how it helps Canadians?
:
Thank you for your question, Mr. Iacono.
It's an essential fund. I had the good fortune to be the parliamentary secretary to Amarjeet Sohi, who was Minister of Infrastructure and Communities when the project was brought forward, and I was therefore involved in the creation and introduction of that fund.
The fund plays an essential role with regard to supply chains as it helps facilitate the distribution of goods. We understand how important supply chains are, and we witnessed the consequences of dysfunctional supply chains during the pandemic.
We are investing strategically in ports, roads and level crossings. You have to view the supply chain in a more overall, unified and structured way. It has to be more fluid. One of the program's roles is to fund projects strategically in order to make those corridors much more fluid and resilient. Regardless of what the Conservatives say, climate change is having a real impact on our infrastructure, including road infrastructure. Consequently, we're making strategic investments.
:
Yes, I can definitely tell you about that.
We discussed this last week. I had a chance to give a press conference with my colleagues and because it touched on three points. So I had a chance to follow up on the report. We obviously thank the Auditor General and her team for their excellent work.
I would note that 213 projects were approved and financed by the fund, which plays a strategic role, and that 42 of those projects involved road infrastructure. So it can't be said that we aren't funding road projects.
The Auditor General essentially told us that the fund is working well, and she had two recommendations.
Projects are normally submitted to the group of experts or officials who work on the fund. They analyze them and approve some. They prepare a list and submit it to another committee. What the Auditor General said was that insufficient information had been provided when the projects were ranked. For example, no one knew why a particular project was rated 7.2 out of 10 while another was rated 7. Why the discrepancy? Projects should have been supported by more documentation, and we absolutely agree on that point. And that will be done.
The second recommendation was that there be better mechanisms for assessing results. Action had largely been taken to do this within the department at the time the Auditor General presented her recommendations. We wanted to ensure we were better equipped to assess the impact of those projects.
:
Yes, that's it. He'll be able to tell us.
Minister, we're discussing road projects, but we're also talking about funding alternatives to roads. Sometimes people say that there's little to choose from in those solutions and that we'll have to nudge people if we want them to switch from driving to public transit.
I'll tell you a little secret: I drove here this morning in an electric car. It's better.
There's unfortunately a lot of traffic when you drive to Ottawa from Quebec. I bet you're beginning to understand where I'm headed here.
There's a major project that's being supported by the people of Gatineau, Hull, Aylmer and all across the Outaouais who would like to see a light rail service built out to their door.
In August 2023, your colleague Greg Fergus said that an announcement was imminent and would be made in September of that year. It's now March, nearly six months later.
In November 2023, you yourself said that an announcement would be made "in a few weeks" and that "good news" was on the way. You said that good news would shortly be announced "regarding funding for studies and the rest of the project".
I'd like to know if you can announce that good news today for the continuation of the project, which everyone would like to see implemented to reduce traffic in the Outaouais region.
I have another question about public transit, since we're discussing alternatives to roads.
I'm very much interested in a project that has been talked about recently. It's often said that there's no alternative to cars in the regions, but there actually is one, whether it be in Gaspésie, Bas‑Saint‑Laurent, Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, Abitibi or even Mauricie, and that's Via Rail's trains.
Unfortunately, most of those trains date back to the 1940s or 1950s. Their cars are falling apart. We even hear that service breaks could occur in the near future. We need massive investment in Via Rail's trains for the regions. Trains as old as my grandfather. That's really something.
Could your government decide to invest in that area? Could it decide to renew the fleet to prevent service breaks in the coming years?
Thank you, Minister.
This discussion today is, in large part, about the balance between investing in highway infrastructure and investing in public transportation. That's how your government has framed it. There are a lot of concerns around public transportation.
I represent a rural riding in northern British Columbia, and people there who don't own cars have fewer transportation options than they have had, I would say, in the last 50 years. We've lost Greyhound entirely from our country, and our passenger train service, in many parts of the country, is on life-support.
Your government has headed down this path of building a new passenger rail system between Toronto and Quebec City and has essentially privatized that corridor. Before you object to the word “privatization”, I think that when a private consortium designs, finances, builds and operates a rail system, that is essentially de facto privatization.
That corridor, as you know very well, is currently contributing 95% of Via Rail's revenue across the country, so when it comes to passenger revenue, the corridor is very important to the long-term success of Via Rail. In the area I represent, those funds are needed to ensure that the train continues to run and that we actually expand that service in the future.
How is Via Rail going to maintain its long-distance routes across the country using only 5% of the revenue?
:
Okay, I'll interpret that as your willingness to support Via Rail's long-distance routes financially.
Via Rail has very clearly stated to your government that the first priority, in terms of investment, is renewal of the actual fleet. Canada, right now, is running some of the oldest train sets in the world. These are train cars that are over 70 years old. The mechanics can't keep them running forever. Via Rail's CEO has told us very clearly that if there isn't a commitment in this year's budget to renewal of the long-distance fleet, we're going to lose those routes. These train cars aren't going to last forever, and within 10 years, they won't be serviceable anymore.
Is your government willing to commit to buying new trains for the long-distance routes so that we don't lose train service in areas like the one I represent in northern B.C., along with the Canadian, which goes from Toronto to Vancouver, and the train up to Churchill? All of these routes are extremely old rolling stock. Are you willing to commit to the renewal of those fleets?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being with us, Mr. Rodriguez.
In response to what you said, it was your colleague, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who said there would be no more investment in the road sector, not the members sitting around this table.
Mr. Rodriguez, as I was a member of the Quebec cabinet a few years ago, I know that interfering in a colleague's files generally isn't appreciated. Consequently, when a colleague appears and wants to discuss a matter that concerns a cabinet colleague, he or she should at least make that person aware of the fact and seek his or her approval.
Mr. Guilbeault said that the federal government had decided to stop investing in new road infrastructure and did so on behalf of the Government of Canada, to which you belong.
Did he inform you that he would be making that statement, yes or no?
:
I'd like to talk to you about the Quebec City bridge.
The Liberal government, to which you belong, made a solemn promise during the 2015 election campaign that the Quebec City bridge file would be resolved on June 30, 2016, or else the government would not be pleased.
Seven years later, in October 2023, your party, the Liberal Party, contended that the Quebec City bridge file was about to be resolved, that it was imminent. That was in 2023. One year later, in March of this year, we thought you were coming to Quebec City with good news about the bridge, but, no, you came to tell us once again that it would be resolved imminently.
I think the only thing the Liberal government has done on this issue is add more rust to the bridge, Mr. Rodriguez.
Can you now give us a date when this file will be closed? You promised 2,821 days ago that it would be resolved, and we are now no further ahead.
:
They are absolutely essential.
It's also important to note that these funds, such as the national commercial corridors fund, are used everywhere. I looked at the list today, and earlier I mentioned that $4.1 billion is invested in the fund and that it's allocated to 213 projects.
For example, there are 12 projects in Alberta; Mr. Strahl will be interested to know that there are 52 in British Columbia. There are also projects in Manitoba and New Brunswick. I could provide committee members with the complete list of projects. However, those projects are conceived and designed strategically. We wonder where we can take action to facilitate the distribution of goods or to solve a problem that affects it.
For example, if a train passes through town and regularly blocks traffic, and we realize we're dealing with a crossing for a large number of trucks carrying a lot of containers, perhaps it would be a good idea to build a viaduct that would prevent any slowdown in train and truck traffic.
The national commercial corridors fund, whether it be for crossings or corridors as a whole, is designed, built and funded in such a way as to make those corridors more fluid and resilient because climate change exists and has impacts. Forest fires are caused by climate change. Consider the recent forest fires, for example. When the towns were evacuated, that had an impact on both people's lives and on commerce because of the road closures. Consequently, we are investing strategically to facilitate the distribution of those goods, but also to make our infrastructure more resilient so it's less affected by climate change.
:
We have a great deal to complain about.
A few moments ago, I mentioned the Quebec City bridge, for which we've been awaiting a resolution for 7 years, 8 months and 21 days. You've promised us year after year that the matter would be resolved.
There's another unresolved issue in the Quebec City region concerning the shipyard in Lévis, in my riding. The good news is that the shipyard has been included in the national shipbuilding strategy. Everyone was delighted with the announcement that was made a year ago.
However, in the past year, we've heard no news about that contract, which is supposed to be signed with the Government of Canada. We're anticipating contracts worth $8.5 billion, thanks to which 1,800 jobs could be created, an enormous number for the Quebec City region and obviously for the riding I represent. One thousand suppliers across Quebec are associated with the shipyard and are waiting. So this concerns the entire shipbuilding ecosystem, not just the marine contractor in Lévis. It's been a year since it was announced that the national shipbuilding strategy would include Davie shipyard in Lévis.
Will this matter be mismanaged as badly as the Quebec City bridge file, Minister?
:
Of course, this is part, as you mentioned earlier.... You were bang on with respect to the first part of your answers to questions about supply chains and multimodal networks. I don't want to be repetitive in that regard. However, the attachment to road investments obviously touches many ministries: public safety, environment, tourism, infrastructure. I do know first-hand how hard you're working with those other ministers to ensure that those networks are very robust.
I want to focus on the economy.
As you know, I just got back from Washington with a member of the Conservative Party, as well as a member of the NDP. Together, we had some very good discussions with members of Congress, both on the House side and the Senate side, about integrating supply chains and, with regard to your earlier comments, how important that is domestically.
However, in our travels to Washington, and we recognized that economic leaders from both countries are in fact prioritizing proximity-based hubs that concentrate production facilities and sales within the same region to streamline logistics, as well as to improve inventory management and accelerate response to market demand, which is what I want to zero in on.
With that said, how important is it to you and to the ministry to participate domestically and—equally as important—binationally in capital investments to ensure that transportation capacity needed within these proximity-based hubs is robust, as well as to add to the overall supply chains to ensure binational fluidity, strengthening our binational economic relationship?
I want to thank you, Mr. Badawey, for those important meetings that you had in Washington. I also want to thank your colleagues from the opposition, because they can go there and have great meetings and share their ideas, and together we can do better for our country.
To be honest, I'm here purely for political reasons. I don't actually know why I'm here, because it would have been easy to ask me for a full list of projects, and I would have given it to them. It's free. I still can give it to them if they ask, but they're not asking for that.
Anyway, what you guys are doing on those trips to the States and the financing that we're doing in those regional hubs and the strategic investments that we are doing are fundamental for our economy.
You know, Mr. Badawey—because you and I had the chance to discuss the trade corridors—how much we have to be present there to make sure that they're not pieces here and there but that they're more fluid, more robust and more resilient to climate change. I think the work of the government through the NTCF and through other departments, as you mentioned, is absolutely crucial.
:
I call this meeting back to order.
[Translation]
Colleagues, for the third hour of our meeting, we have the Hon. Steven Guilbeault, MP and Minister of Environment and Climate Change.
Joining him are representatives of the Parks Canada Agency: Ron Hallman, president and chief executive officer; Andrew Campbell, senior vice-president, operations; and David Millar, vice-president, real property and assets.
Welcome, all. We are pleased to see you again today.
[English]
We'll jump right into it, Minister, and give you five minutes for your opening remarks, because time is very tight.
The floor is yours, sir.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the unceded traditional lands of the Anishinabe Algonquin nation, who have long been the stewards of the lands we are sharing today.
I would also like to thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss Parks Canada's considerable investments in infrastructure, including road construction and maintenance.
I am here today with several representatives of Parks Canada: Ron Hallman, president and chief executive officer; Andrew Campbell, senior vice-president, operations; and David Millar, vice-president, real property and assets.
As the committee is aware, Parks Canada is responsible for some 3,300 kilometres of roads across the country, including sections of the Trans-Canada Highway that cross our national parks from the Rocky Mountains to eastern Canada. Arranged in a straight line, these roads would take you directly from Vancouver to Toronto. This system is essential. Every year, these roads are used by more than 20 million people who visit the national historic sites, national parks and national park reserves across Canada.
[English]
More than that, many of these highways and roads are critical components of local, regional and national transportation corridors across the country. They are a major part of the infrastructure that supports community safety, connects regional and national economies, and serves as a fundamental element of our nation's tourism industry.
Our government recognizes the role this essential network plays in our society in ensuring the safe, reliable and efficient movement of people, goods and services.
Our government has invested nearly $1.6 billion since 2015 to maintain, enhance and strengthen existing roadway infrastructure in Parks Canada-administered places, including twinning entire sections, adding 40 kilometres of passing lanes along the Trans-Canada Highway and adding new overpasses that improve both driver and wildlife safety. These new overpasses serve as vital ecosystem connectors.
Parks Canada infrastructure investments have made a real difference. Some 87% of roadways and 67% of associated bridges are in good or fair condition, which represent an increase of 45% and 20%, respectively, since 2016.
I am sure that some of the other recent investments will be familiar to members of the committee.
[Translation]
In Quebec, for example, Parks Canada has invested more than $55 million in improvements to Promenade Road in the Mauricie National Park, a key 63-kilometre corridor running through the park.
[English]
Several important local and regional transportation corridors are being upgraded on Parks Canada-administered lands in Newfoundland and Labrador. These include Highway 436 into l'Anse aux Meadows National Historic Site, Highway 430, and Highway 431 in Gros Morne National Park. There's also more than $45 million in improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway that passes through the Terra Nova National Park.
In Alberta, a $95-million rehabilitation of Highway 93 north through the Banff and Jasper National Parks is now largely completed. Bridges along the Yellowhead Trans-Canada Highway 16 through Jasper National Park have been upgraded to better accommodate transport traffic.
In British Columbia, the twinning of a key segment of the Trans-Canada Highway in Yoho National Park was completed in 2021.
In addition, Parks Canada is exploring ways to enhance its road network sustainability. Recent investments have improved infrastructure resilience against storms, which are, as the committee knows, increasing in both frequency and intensity due to climate change.
In Prince Edward Island National Park, for example, Parks Canada is investing $4.6 million in the restoration of the Gulf Shore Way to address hurricane Fiona's impacts and protect against further erosion and potential roadway loss.
Other initiatives are focused on the more sustainable use of road systems. We commonly include culvert replacement or exclusion fencing in areas of wildlife crossing, which gives aquatic species and large and small mammals better and safer ways to cross roadways. With the construction of often impressive overpasses and underpasses, Parks Canada is improving landscape connectivity and minimizing vehicle collisions. These efforts help keep wildlife and people safe.
Building on work to date, and in keeping with the long-standing commitment to sustainable transportation in our iconic national parks, I look forward to announcing details on an alternative fuel trial in Banff National Park at a later date. Parks Canada's support for low-emission transportation and investment in infrastructure serve as an example of our government's commitment to leadership under the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change.
[Translation]
In conclusion, Parks Canada recognizes the essential role that its road system plays in linking Canadians to these special places. Safety, reliability and resilience are priorities for Parks Canada. This system is necessary both to ensure that our children [Technical difficulty—Editor] coming from school, and to support our thriving economy.
Parks Canada is also committed to managing infrastructure in a healthy and responsible manner and always making the best decisions for our environment. That's why we have invested $1.6 billion in the roads on lands administered by Parks Canada since 2015. More recently, the 2022 budget provided some $557 million over three years to carry out infrastructure projects over Parks Canada's vast and varied property portfolio across the entire country.
Thank you very much.
:
The “no more roads” policy and the analysis that you didn't do.... That's why you're here.
Again, I'm going to state this: In Toronto, it takes 29 minutes to drive 10 kilometres. It's the third-slowest in the world in terms of traffic patterns. In Vancouver, it's 23 minutes to drive 10 kilometres. In Winnipeg, it's 19 minutes. In Montreal....
I have a whole list of cities around the country, big and small. All of the them have one thing in common: traffic congestion. We need roads. Those are just for folks who live in the cities. I suspect that you know that you can't use a bike lane in most rural ridings. You certainly can't walk to work or walk to drive your kids to hockey.
What do you mean when you say, “the network is perfectly adequate to respond to the needs we have”? It's blatantly untrue. This is not even an analysis; it's just facts.
You've clearly walked back your comments, just like you've walked back many of the policies you've had to put forward—or, frankly, the walked them back for you.
On that, most Canadians are against a carbon tax increase and are even more against the April 1 carbon tax increase.
In the case that the doesn't make a carve-out against your own signature policy and your raison d’être here, is there any case...?
You do a lot of analysis and you do a lot of polling, so you must be seeing exactly what the public polls are seeing, which is that 70% of Canadians are against it and 70% of premiers have now come out against it. Different party leaders and different legislators have all come against your April 1 23% tax increase.
Welcome to our committee, Minister Guilbeault.
I have some questions that are associated with infrastructure.
You talked earlier about keeping wildlife safe. One of the challenges with roads and highways is the erosion of tires, which release tiny particles of a preservative called 6PPD, which then acts with ozone to create a compound that's toxic to aquatic life—for example, coho salmon.
I am aware that the EPA in the United States has started to tackle this problem in order to protect ecosystem diversity and wildlife. Has Environment Canada or Parks Canada taken up the baton on this issue of rubber tire particles that affect fish?
:
Thank you. I'd really appreciate that.
I'm also very interested in infrastructure in terms of our natural infrastructure.
As you know, our government committed to invest in improving the state of natural infrastructure, such as wetlands, coastal ecosystems, agriculture lands, forest lands and so on. I'm interested in whether Environment Canada or Parks Canada has a role in those investments. What kind of natural infrastructure...?
We know that natural infrastructure, when it's healthy, stores and maintains carbon so that it's not going into the atmosphere. This is directly a climate issue.
Are there any investments that you can talk to us about in terms of natural infrastructure?
Thanks as well to the minister for being with us today.
Minister, do you know what the towns of La Romaine, Chevery, Harrington Harbour, Tête-à-la-Baleine, Baie-des-Moutons, La Tabatière, Pakuashipi, Saint-Augustin, Vieux-Fort, Rivière-Saint-Paul, Middle Bay, Brador and Blanc-Sablon have in common?
:
Yes, you say your remarks were about the third link.
That's what you're saying now, but that's not what appears in the article that was published in The Gazette. I'm quite certain that the journalist, Michelle Lalonde, did a good job of faithfully reporting your remarks. I don't think I'm mistaken. She quoted you as clearly saying that you were not going to build any new roads.
However, the journalist addressed the third link idea in the second article she subsequently published. So what we understand is that you had discussed projects "such as" the third link.
What we understand from that is that the government won't commit to any major projects.
Consequently, as I see it, investing to connect towns such as those that I mentioned is nevertheless a major project. We're talking about investing billions of dollars, but, well—
:
I'm talking about studies conducted by your office. If there are any, I'd like to have them.
However, I don't blame you for wanting to step away from the car-centric model. I think we can all agree on that.
I just wonder whether the purpose of your statement was to restore your image as an environmentalist and to conceal the decisions your government has made.
I'm thinking, for example, of its decision to allow the Trans Mountain purchase and even the construction of other such pipelines, as well as oil drilling permitting for places like Bay du Nord.
You've also decided to base your energy transition entirely on oil and to allow the oil companies to conduct business as usual on the assumption that isn't a serious problem because we're going to use carbon capture, an unproven experimental technology that, as far as we know, may not even work.
Ultimately, wasn't your statement solely intended to conceal your government's poor record?
Minister, I think indigenous communities were particularly surprised by your comments regarding federal investment in roads. That's because so many indigenous communities across the country have very urgent road transportation needs, especially in remote communities, whether they are communities in Nunavut's Kivalliq region or the four first nations in northern Manitoba that declared a state of emergency this past winter because of the state of their ice roads.
In northern B.C., the region that I represent, there are similar urgent road priorities. The Takla First Nation accesses the community of Takla Landing using a resource road whose maintenance is at the whim of the resource companies that happen to be operating in the region. They've expressed a desire to see federal investment in their transportation options.
On Highway 37 in northwest B.C., which accesses Tahltan territory, there are several producing mines that are contributing to your government's critical mineral strategy. Those communities have expressed a need to upgrade that highway. There have been over 500 accidents on that highway since 2018.
These are really urgent needs. I suppose my question to you is this: Do you not agree, particularly given the federal government's unique and important relationship with indigenous communities, that these kinds of projects should be priorities for federal investment?
Not all residents in northern B.C. get around by road. There are many residents in coastal communities that depend on boats and float planes to get to where they need to go, and related to that, there's a serious problem with the network of weather stations that your department is responsible for maintaining.
In 2022, there was a float plane crash off the northern end of Vancouver Island that killed three people. The owner of the company that owned the float plane that was involved had been writing to the transport minister with concerns about the condition of the Sartine weather station, which hadn't been working for two years.
In the riding that I represent, Holland Rock is a weather station just off Prince Rupert, right at the mouth of the Skeena River. Every winter it seems to become non-operational, and mariners on the north coast have expressed serious concerns about their safety, because they can't get vital weather information that helps them make decisions about navigation.
I've raised these concerns repeatedly with your department. I'm in touch with your office about this issue. What I'd like today is for you to commit to making the investments necessary to ensure that there are zero outages in the weather station network on the B.C. coast this winter.
Good afternoon, Minister. Welcome to the committee.
I sincerely think you'd have us believe that you've been inducted into the club of the misquoted and that it's all the media's fault. I don't agree with your reading of the situation. All of Quebec read the statement you made to an audience of public transit supporters on February 12 last. I think you clearly stated your intention to stop investing in roads and, while you were at it, also to avoid investing a cent in construction of the third link.
I don't know whether you realize it, but the people of Les Etchemins, Bellechasse, Lévis, Montmagny, Lotbinière, Beauce, Portneuf and elsewhere viewed your statements as a slap in the face. I'd like to remind you that the Quebec government has engaged CDPQ Infra to analyze overall mobility in the Communauté métropolitaine de Québec, including the third link.
The third link should be viewed as a highway link. It isn't a whimsical notion, Minister. To deny that is to ignore the reality of our communities. It's irresponsible to announce that you plan to stop investing in our roads when you're aware of the reality of rural areas, where motor vehicles are a necessity, not an option. I think your view of this matter is dogmatic and based on a single model, the urban model.
I'm going to help you understand the reality I live in.
Minister, can you tell me how many kilometres one has to travel from Saint-Cyprien in the extreme south of my riding, near the U.S. border, to undergo cancer treatment at the hospital in Lévis, in the extreme north?
There's a lot of politics surrounding your comments in this meeting, and I think everyone can acknowledge that, but at the heart of it is a very important policy conversation about the balance between investing in highways and freeways and investing in public transportation.
The concept of induced demand is well established in the urban planning field. When you make certain kinds of investments in expanding highways and freeways, you actually both undermine the climate policy goal and don't solve the problem. Often the goal is to reduce congestion and to reduce travel times. If you induce demand, you can actually undermine that goal at the same time.
I'm sure, Minister, that you're in touch with the and the on the climate impacts of different investments. How does your department contribute to that conversation when it comes to ensuring that investing in highways and freeways doesn't undermine your government's climate goals?
:
You're right that for urban planners and the people who've studied the impact of road transportation, the concept of induced traffic is a well-known one.
I'm not a transport expert and I'm not an urban planner, although I did receive an award from the Order of Urban Planners of Quebec for my work on urban planning and transportation over the years. I guess they felt that it should be underlined.
We have, as a government, tried to increase the offer of different types of transportation modes through our investment, the largest investment in public transit in the history of the country, but we're also investing in roads. We're investing billions of dollars to help the auto sector in Canada modernize and transition to electrification, welcoming companies to Canada that have never invested here before, such as Volkswagen.
Also, we've created the first-ever public active transportation fund to fund such initiatives for municipalities, including rural municipalities. There's one in my hometown, a bike path, that's been established. We're working with municipalities all across the country to help people who want to diversify their mode of transportation to have access to those infrastructures as well.
Minister, you started this committee by saying that you didn't say what you meant in your comments, which was that your government has made the decision to stop investing in roads. First you said that you didn't say it, and then you said that you didn't mean it, and then you said that you meant something entirely different.
Then you talked about “the analysis that we have done is that the network is perfectly adequate”, and it turns out that there is no analysis or you did no analysis, or if there is an analysis, you refuse to share that analysis with anyone.
Then you said that the carbon tax was revenue-neutral. We know there is $20 billion in the government coffers, of which $18 billion is not remitted. That's not revenue-neutral, if you understand the definition of revenue-neutral.
Then you said that more families get more back in rebates than they do in paying the carbon tax. We know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that's not true for the majority of families where the carbon tax applies.
If you're not going to be truthful on the first four questions I'm asking, I'm going to just ask you once: Are there any circumstances that will cause you to walk back the April 1 23% tax hike that you are about to impose on Canadians, which your colleagues believe has nothing to do with roads or the cost of gas?
:
First of all, I don't share your interpretation of my comments. I didn't say that I hadn't said it. What I said is that it should have been clearer. I accept full responsibility for that. I said it, and I repeat it.
As regards carbon pricing, your party and your leader never mention the increases that they receive in the rebate. Yes, the pricing will rise on April 1, but the rebate will too. In addition, your party never discusses the fact that, if we don't do it in Canada, if we don't put carbon pricing in place, it will be imposed on us by our economic partners.
Border adjustment taxes are being introduced in Europe. This means that every company that exports to Europe will have to pay a border tax if we don't have our own taxation system. U.S. treasury secretary Janet Yellen has also noted several times that the United States of America, our biggest economic partner, is also considering instituting border adjustment taxes that would apply to countries that don't have a carbon pricing system.
Consequently, we either do it ourselves or else it will be imposed on us by our economic partners. I think that if we have to choose between the two, we're better off doing it ourselves.
Welcome, Minister, and welcome to our officials.
I would like to focus on one particular comment you made earlier. It was about the $45 million that was spent in my riding of Bonavista-Burin-Trinity in Terra Nova National Park. For the benefit of the committee, I want people to realize how significant and important that was.
That was a very dangerous piece of highway, with a single lane for passing traffic. It was very dangerous and caused the loss of many lives over the decades. The work that was done on the passing lanes has saved many lives. The single lane for passing on that highway was a very dangerous stretch that people hated to drive. Today, it's a pleasure to drive through beautiful Terra Nova National Park.
Parks Canada invested $45 million, as you said. I'd invite anybody on this committee or anybody across the country to come and visit beautiful Terra Nova National Park.
We have all the parks, like Gros Morne, and Torngat in Labrador.
The other part of the equation, minister, is this. I know that Environment Canada has been spending money through Parks Canada on other sites in the province. Could you share some examples of other capital asset projects that have been led by Parks Canada in Newfoundland and Labrador?