TRAN Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Wednesday, March 25, 2026
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[English]
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 27 of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Wednesday, March 11, 2026, the committee is commencing its study of the loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank to the Mersey River wind project.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.
First, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.
This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.
Colleagues, before I welcome the witnesses for the first half of today's meeting, I would like to bring to your attention the budget for this study that was circulated to all members. It's moved by Mr. Albas. Are we all in favour of adopting the budget?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Appearing before us today, for the first half of the meeting, we have, from the Canada Infrastructure Bank, Ehren Cory, chief executive officer; Sashen Guneratna, managing director; and Frédéric Duguay, general counsel and corporate secretary. All three witnesses are joining us by video conference.
Welcome to all three of you.
We'll now turn the floor over to you, Mr. Cory, for your opening remarks. For that, you have five minutes, please.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, honourable members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today in relation to your Mersey River wind farm project study.
Joining me, as mentioned by the chair, are Frédéric Duguay, who is our general counsel and corporate secretary, and Sashen Guneratna, who is the managing director in our investment team and who led the Mersey River investment.
Across Canada, electricity needs are growing, and meeting that demand while keeping power reliable and affordable is a real challenge.
[Translation]
The Canada Infrastructure Bank, or CIB, was created to help deliver critical infrastructure across the country, and we have a specific mandate to invest in clean energy projects.
[English]
In Nova Scotia, the demand for electricity is growing. At the same time, the province is transitioning away from coal-fired power generation. This requires major capital investments to add clean power and renewable technologies. As this transition occurs, the province and Premier Houston are equally focused on maintaining access to reliable and affordable energy.
To date, the CIB is investing in eight clean energy projects in Nova Scotia: six wind projects, a transmission intertie with the Province of New Brunswick and the province's first energy storage project. Nationally, we're currently committed to financing 24 clean power projects. All of these are designed to increase supply, strengthen reliability and help mitigate the financial impact on ratepayers.
Across all of our priority sectors, as a reminder for committee members, as of December 31, the CIB has invested $18 billion across 108 projects. Eleven of those are completed and 89 are in construction.
Since our launch in 2017, the CIB has become an increasingly efficient operation. Since July 2024, we've been collecting enough revenue from the repayment of capital and interest to cover 100% of the CIB's operating costs. Additionally, the CIB's operating expenses represented only 0.2% of the capital we've committed to projects, meaning more than 99% of our spending is directed to delivering the infrastructure that Canadians need.
[Translation]
For all our investments, we crowd in private capital. We act as a catalyst, not a competitor to the private sector to help unstick projects. Every project undergoes a market sounding to confirm that private partners will participate alongside us.
[English]
If we determine that a project can be financed entirely by the private sector, we do not invest.
The Mersey River wind farm is expected to generate almost 150 megawatts, enough to energize more than 50,000 homes. As the first project under Nova Scotia's renewable-to-retail program, it allows consumers to buy energy produced from 100% renewable sources directly, introducing consumer choice and competition in the market, and it supports the province's emission reductions goals.
As a first of its kind model, the project carries unique first mover and revenue risks, particularly around securing and retaining retail customers. This meant that traditional private lenders were not prepared to finance the full project on their own.
[Translation]
That is where the CIB came in.
[English]
We are lending $206.4 million to Mersey River wind alongside Slate Asset Management, the majority owner, and Roswall Development, the minority owner and construction manager. Our financing helped de-risk the project, crowd in private capital and allow it to move forward.
This loan was not provided at a below-market rate. Given the unique commercial risks of the project, the prevailing market rate is being charged. It's true that this is not always the case for the CIB's investments. The interest rate we charge varies for each project, and reflects the specific risks being addressed.
As an arm's-length organization, the CIB's board and management make independent, non-partisan, commercial investment decisions. Across all 108 of our investments, we apply a consistent and rigorous process to confirm that a project fits within our mandate, delivers public benefits and meets our strict due diligence standards. This includes conflict of interest checks, know-your-client reviews and compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.
The Mersey River wind farm project was no exception. The project aligns with our clean power sector and the CIB Act. Following a rigorous review, no material conflicts of interest or client concerns were identified.
[Translation]
Lastly, like all CIB-financed projects, it's important to repeat that CIB loans are repaid and repaid with interest. Repayment allows us to reinvest and get more infrastructure projects built, while delivering good outcomes for Canadians.
[English]
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to your questions and the discussion.
Thank you, Mr. Cory.
We'll begin our line of questioning today with Dr. Lewis.
The floor is yours. You have six minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Cory.
Canadians expect that taxpayer-backed financing decisions are going to be made on merit, with strict due diligence and without political influence. Today, we're examining a $206-million loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank to the wind farm project linked to several well-connected Liberal insiders, including former MPs.
Mr. Cory, small businesses in communities like Haldimand—Norfolk, where I live, and across Canada are paying average bank rates of roughly 8%. The Infrastructure Bank is funded by taxpayer dollars, so you can imagine how taxpayers feel about such deals being made in secrecy with Liberal insiders.
Generally, small businesses are taking out loans at an 8% rate. Can you tell us whether the rate you have given this project is less than 8%?
As I said in my opening comments, for each of our projects, we charge an interest rate that's based on the individual project. What I can confirm is that for this project, we're charging what is a generally accepted market interest rate for a large industrial wind project of this nature, so the financing....
The reason we did this loan is all about the risk of the consumer program. As I described, this is the first in what's called the renewable-to-retail program, whereby Nova Scotians can choose to buy their power directly from a 100% renewable source. It creates choice in the market, and allows both industrial and retail clients to buy clean power directly from the source, so the loan we provided is market competitive.
What exactly is the interest rate? Could you tell us what the interest rate is that was granted to this company?
Mr. Chair, as we've discussed at this committee in the past, each of our negotiations.... Given that they're bespoke and competitive, we don't disclose individual interest rates. What I can confirm is that this is a market rate.
Mr. Cory, do you believe taxpayers, who pay your salary and fund these loans, deserve to know the terms of a $206-million loan that appears to benefit Liberal Party-connected insiders?
Mr. Chair, the loan benefits Nova Scotians because it creates new renewable power in the province and it creates consumer choice to be able to buy clean power. That is who the loan benefits, to be very clear—and every one of the CIB's loans.
We are extremely transparent with our owners, who are all of you and taxpayers, about all of our money. You can find on our website the details of this investment, the size of it, who the borrower is and where the project is located.
We'll continue to be as transparent as we possibly can be because we think that's absolutely part of our job—
Mr. Cory, we're not asking for commercial secrets. We're asking for transparency with taxpayers' money. You know very well that the average business person pays 8% interest to borrow money to fund their business. That is not the rate for this company. We know it is substantially lower than the rate the average taxpayer or business is getting.
The benchmark interest rate you would use for a project like this is that of other large-scale renewable and energy projects across the country. That's the competitive interest rate we're charging. I don't think it's a direct comparison with small borrowers, as Dr. Lewis asked. For sure, we're charging a rate that would match what you'd see on projects like this across the country.
Any company choosing to accept public financing should expect a higher level of scrutiny than a standard private bank.
What is so secret about this interest rate? Do you not believe taxpayers have the right to know what rate the CIB is lending out at, on their funds?
The CIB is a Crown corporation whose job is to get value for taxpayers, but we operate as a commercial institution, lending money to people across the country. Part of our negotiations with those parties is confidentiality regarding the terms. I don't want to be completely specific.
I don't know if it's 1%, 2% or 3%. You will not disclose the rate, because it's a secret Liberal insider deal.
I'll just repeat that the interest rate is an acceptable market rate that is higher than those quoted by the member.
Mr. Cory, did the bank know, before granting this low-interest, taxpayer-funded loan, that the individuals involved in this project had past roles in the Liberal government or political activity?
I'm going to have Mr. Duguay talk through our due diligence.
I'll just say this about the way our work goes when we are approached for a loan—in this case, by the equity owner slate. We conduct a review of the project. Eventually, if we decide to move forward with the loan, we conduct due diligence, which includes conflict of interest checks and what's called, in the financial industry, “know your client” reviews. These were conducted for this project.
Mr. Duguay can speak to the specifics.
I think it would be helpful for the committee.
Mr. Duguay, you have 30 seconds to add to the response.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Briefly, in 30 seconds, we have adopted due diligence guidelines. They are transparent and publicly available on our website. The guidelines are in the integrity due diligence policy. We conduct due diligence and KYC checks across all project counterparties, which would include the corporate entity and the principals behind the corporate entity. That would include reviews that are aligned with guidance published by FINTRAC and adopted by other financial institutions.
Thank you very much, Mr. Duguay.
Thank you, Dr. Lewis.
Next, we'll turn the floor over to Ms. Fancy.
You have six minutes.
Thank you very much.
Through you, Chair, I am the member of Parliament for South Shore—St. Margarets, which is at the heart of this matter. I'm here today to talk about my constituents and the benefits this project has for them—and not only for them but all Nova Scotians.
Currently, Nova Scotians are struggling under the weight of rising power bills, due to having no competition and a monopoly. The town of Bridgewater, which is in my riding, recently put out that $4,000 per year, per person, is the current cost for power. With 94,000 constituents in my riding, that's $376 million that's leaving my riding every year in power.
Mersey River Wind sells to Renewall, which supplies the municipalities, the towns and the businesses at less than what the ratepayers are currently paying. People in my riding right now are very upset that we're even having to sit here today because we are desperately seeking alternatives to energy. Some people can't afford to, literally, keep the lights on.
This is also the first wind project that has never been selling to Nova Scotia Power. Like Mr. Cory said at the beginning, this is the first time we have, exactly, straight to retail.... Since 1992, Nova Scotia has been under this monopoly, when the Conservative government at the time sold the public utility to Nova Scotia Power, or Emera. It's currently choking our ratepayers in the province, with no plan to help the crumbling infrastructure or grid. What Mersey Wind and this project will do is force their hand into speaking for the people in Nova Scotia.
People forget that this project is about jobs too. There could be 250 potential jobs in my riding. I know that anyone across the way right now would be advocating for that many highly skilled jobs in their riding, in the same way I'm trying to do today, so talk about frustration, both from me and from the outpouring of information that I've been getting from my constituents. I think we forget, too, that your former colleague from across the way, who used to represent our riding—I'm very happy that I beat him—was also involved in these consultations over the last almost four years.
Nova Scotia is a small province. My last name's Fancy. If you look my last name up in our phone book, there are three pages of us. People know each other. That's not conflict. That is the reality of our small communities. I wonder how many Conservatives sit on the Nova Scotia Power board, who are upset with their monopoly being broken by plans like this. Mersey Wind is about competition, and I'm going to continue to stand firmly and unapologetically for this project, my constituents and all ratepayers in my wonderful province.
I have a couple of questions here for Sashen, who was our case manager. How does this project benefit not only my constituents but all Nova Scotians?
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Canada Infrastructure Bank has been working very closely with the province, since our inception, in identifying the priorities of the province and in helping achieve those priorities. This project, along with the six other wind projects that we have financed, along with the transmission between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and the battery projects, have benefited all of Nova Scotia by providing clean, reliable energy. Also, the other projects that we have financed, where we have provided concessionary investment, have helped the ratepayers of Nova Scotia achieve lower electricity bills. On those projects, we are lending to help with affordability issues and, as Mr. Cory explained, this is a done at a market rate, given the type of risk that we are dealing with in this particular project.
In addition to providing clean, reliable electricity for the Nova Scotia grid, we're also helping to create jobs. We're also creating opportunities for indigenous communities by enabling their ownership of these critical assets in Nova Scotia. On many of the projects we have invested, the WMA, who represent 13 indigenous communities in the province, are owners. That is for many renewable projects, for the intertie with New Brunswick as well as for the battery projects in the province.
Thank you very much.
I have one more follow-up question. It's very clear to me and my constituents that this project is a very strong investment both economically and environmentally. I was wondering whether you could speak to what made the Mersey River Wind project such a strong investment for the Canada Infrastructure Bank. What results can Canadians expect to see?
What makes this a very important investment for us and a strong investment across the country is that it provides choice to consumers.
First and foremost, if a retail customer in Nova Scotia wants to buy direct from a generator of electricity, this paves the way to do that. It provides that consumer with a clean source of electricity to power their home, business or municipality. We're very interested in that.
As members know, many of the electricity grids across this country are managed by Crown-owned utilities. Providing choice and providing independent ownership and private ownership of assets, such as generation assets and battery storage projects, are important to the Canada Infrastructure Bank because they brings in private money where, in the past, public money has been used to build these assets, and it provides choice.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Fancy.
[Translation]
Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor for six minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to the witnesses.
We are here today because we found out that the Canada Infrastructure Bank granted a loan in the amount of $206 million to Liberal insiders, starting with the company's president, Michel Samson, a former minister from Nova Scotia, a former interim leader of the Nova Scotia Liberal Party and a registered lobbyist for Roswall Development since 2025. He also happens to be the brother of Darrell Samson, the former Liberal member of Parliament for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook. Another director, Edgar Samson, also happens to be a brother of Darrell Samson.
In addition, another director of the same company, Mitchell Brison, is the brother of Scott Brison, a former Liberal Party member elected seven times in the riding of Kings—Hants and a former cabinet minister under Mr. Martin and Mr. Trudeau.
What's more, David Dingwall's son-in-law, who is also a former Liberal MP, works for the company.
It is clear that all these people in the orbit of the Liberal Party were given a $206 million loan. However, it doesn't end there. They will likely also benefit from $122.5 million from the renewable energy program fund and $25 million from Natural Resources Canada's electrification program. That is a total of $354 million of taxpayer money going to Liberal insiders.
The last time we had you here, Mr. Cory, it was because you had granted a loan at very advantageous rates to build boats in China. We told you at the time that it didn't make sense. While we were hearing about the “buy Canadian” policy, which the Liberals were constantly using as their slogan, you should have applied that policy.
This time, I feel as though you are confusing the “buy Canadian” directive with the “buy Liberal” directive. Am I wrong?
[English]
Thank you.
[Translation]
I will let Mr. Duguay complete my answer.
[English]
I will make a few comments first. It's most important to know that the CIB operates as an arm's-length Crown corporation. All investment decisions that we make are made on the merits of the project and the merits of the counterparty who makes the proposal. We do our due diligence, as Mr. Duguay was describing, around a conflict of interest check. I can confirm that there was no conflict of interest for anyone at the CIB with any of the participants at any of the counterparties. We had no conflict of interest. When we conduct our know-your-client view and we look for high-risk borrowers, we look at things such as if people been in public service.
[Translation]
I understand. Mr. Cory, you're telling me that you work at arm's length from the government and that you verify all conflicts of interest. However, I took a quick look at the Registry of Lobbyists, where I learned that the project was intensively lobbied by Roswall Development.
On June 17, 2025, there was a meeting with five Liberal members: Jessica Fancy, Lena Metlege Diab, Kody Blois, Shannon Miedema and Mike Kelloway. Oddly enough, two of those MPs are at the table today to defend the project. I don't know if that's a coincidence.
On January 7, 2026, members of the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure's cabinet and the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources's cabinet also met with two lobbyists from Roswall Development.
On February 12, 2026, the director of operations at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, who reports to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, met with a lobbyist from Roswall Development.
On February 23, 2026, two days before the loan was announced, this time it was the Atlantic policy adviser from the Prime Minister's Office who met with lobbyists from Roswall Development.
You're saying that there was no political influence. Does that mean that all these meetings that took place are a coincidence and there was absolutely no politics involved?
[English]
Mr. Chair, I can confirm that none of those meetings involved the CIB or had anything to do with us. We provided a loan based on the merits of the project. It's a project we're really proud of.
I can't speak to what meetings happened. I can speak very much to our process and the way we do our work, which is completely non-partisan. Of course, it follows best practices, as outlined for all financial institutions by—
[Translation]
What I'm telling you, Mr. Cory, is that the company heavily lobbied this project to Liberal MPs and government members. Coincidentally, it ended up getting the money. You're telling me there's no connection between the lobbying that was done and the loan that was obtained, when it was Liberal Party cronies who did all this work. Don't you think that's a little far-fetched?
[English]
I can only confirm that our work was purely based on the merits of the loan, the merits of the project, the investment memo that we developed and the investment thesis we developed. That's how we work.
You have to remember that, as a Crown corporation, we truly work at arm's length. I don't have conversations with any of the individuals the member asked about. This has no impact on the way we do our work or on our investments.
Thank you very much, Mr. Cory.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.
[English]
Next, we'll go back to Dr. Lewis.
Dr. Lewis, the floor is yours for five minutes.
Mr. Cory, you said that you lend based on the merits of the loan. The merits of the loan obviously have to look at whom you're lending to.
When did you or the CIB learn that the $206-million loan was given to a company with connections to the Liberal Party?
As a general process that we follow for all investments, we would conduct KYC activities during the investment's due diligence phase. That would be prior to an investment reaching a financial-close milestone.
We also do continuous monitoring in terms of counterparties as part of general asset management activities if—
I'm asking about the process. He said that you were going to speak to the timeline. I'd like to hear the timeline as to when you learned about the connections to the Liberal Party.
As part of the process, we conducted KYC due diligence activities on all the individuals prior to the CIB reaching financial close on the loan. Our KYC review would include situations where principals previously held public office. It's important to note that FINTRAC guidance talks about the act of holding public office. It doesn't impute a political definition to that act.
If we have a counterparty identified as having held public office previously, we review when that was. In most cases, FINTRAC provides guidelines. You usually do a look-back period of five years. With respect to these individuals, in several cases, the public office held was more than five years prior. That's a factor we assess as part of a risk assessment when determining whether enhanced diligence or review needs to be done on counterparties.
Essentially, you knew that this loan was going to be given to Liberal-connected insiders before you granted the loan. Does CIB have any safeguards that were applied in this case to make sure that there was political independence, and that there is political independence, in your loan?
As Mr. Cory said, we operate truly at arm's length from government. We make decisions based on the merits of the project and the project meeting our legislated mandate. We size our loan to the gap that is preventing that project from proceeding. When we do counterparty review, in some cases, we will review counterparties, and it will be noted that a particular individual may have previously served in public office. That is not by itself an indicator of a higher risk. In this case—
Was this issue raised with the minister? You knew there were Liberal insiders. Did you speak to the minister about this issue?
Thank you, Mr. Duguay.
I have two comments. One, there were no conversations with any minister of the Crown about this project at any stage for us. The only time there was a discussion was when we were planning a public announcement of said investment, when we informed MPs and MLAs of all parties at all levels of government so that we could do a public announcement of the deal.
The second thing is that I want to be crystal clear—
So you informed the Liberal MPs and the minister that this $206-million deal was going to people who were previously connected to the Liberal Party, even former MPs affiliated with this deal.
Mr. Chair, that was where the second part of my answer was about to go. I'd like to be super clear: Our loan is to a company that is reputable, well-governed and, as far as we're concerned, based on our diligence review, meets all of our know-your-client requirements.
It's not a loan to individuals, first of all. It's a loan to a company. The company is doing good work in Nova Scotia—
Did you advise the minister and MPs that there were Liberal insiders connected to this company? When you decided that you were going to go public with this, did you advise them?
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair; to be very clear, the only conversation with anyone in government was literally, as I was trying to describe, when we were holding an announcement a few weeks ago in public to announce the project moving ahead, at which time we informed local members provincially and federally that we were planning an announcement and they would be welcome to attend.
The answer is that there was no further discussion other than there was a public announcement coming.
Thank you, Mr. Cory.
Thank you, Dr. Lewis.
We'll turn the floor over to Mr. Kelloway.
You have five minutes, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to the witnesses for being here.
I'll start with you, Mr. Cory. Did this project receive any special treatment, yes or no?
No, I do not. Apparently, I was once at an industry round table with one or two of them, where, along with 40 or 50 others, we talked about energy in Nova Scotia. It's the only time I think I've ever been in the same room. I've never met them.
I'll stay with you, Mr. Cory. Could you describe the process in terms of when you're making an investment? Clearly, you have taxpayer dollars. This is important. We're here to discuss that. Can you walk through the process by which you made this approval?
I'm from Nova Scotia. As was clearly articulated by a member across the way, this is an important project. MP Fancy spoke very eloquently about the impact for Nova Scotia. It will bring jobs and help the ratepayer, which we desperately need in Nova Scotia. We have ingenuity in Nova Scotia. We have skill in Nova Scotia. We have people who want to invest in Nova Scotia.
On the merits of this project, sir, can you talk about the process by which you approved it? We're proud in Nova Scotia of all the stakeholders, including the Premier of Nova Scotia, who endorses this project. Can you speak to that, sir?
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the question. It's exactly where I was going to start.
Mr. Guneratna spoke to this a little bit. This project really started with a strategic conversation we have been having with the Province of Nova Scotia, the premier, his government and the deputy minister of energy in the province around how the transformation of the electricity grid in Nova Scotia needed to happen.
That has a number of tentacles to it. The battery storage project is one. The wide build-out of wind is another, as well as new transmission and the potential for offshore wind. There's a pretty ambitious plan afoot in Nova Scotia, so we've been working at a strategic level with the province around all of those investments and what they're going to take. That's step one.
From there, the next step was the equity provider, which is Slate Asset Management, a company that I think is based here in Toronto. They reached out to us and said that they were planning an investment and wanted to talk to us about the project itself.
Our team, led by Mr. Guneratna, met with them, received financial models from them explaining the project and the renewable-to-retail program, this concept of consumer choice and the risk that comes with that. It is quite unique, because it's not like most power projects that are owned by utilities, where you build them, they go into the rate base and they get paid for. For this project, they have to go out and sell power to individual consumers, sign them up to buy clean power, sign up companies that want to have clean power, hospitals that want to have clean power and individual consumers. That was the challenge that the project faced.
Our investment team, led by Sashen, did a review of that and came up with terms of a loan that would address that problem. Those terms are not a low-interest loan. As I said in my opening remarks and in questions earlier, that's a competitive interest rate. It's designed to help manage the risk so, if they have a slower time signing up customers—imagine—then our repayment might take a little longer. That's the kind of flexibility that taxpayer money.... That's why the CIB exists. We help them share in the risk of ramp-up and signing up customers so that this new program can exist and that a new wind farm can get built.
That's the basis of our investment. That's what we took to our investment committee at the CIB, and eventually, then, to our board, which is a set of 10 private and completely independent individuals. We presented the merits of that investment, and we made it on that basis. That is how investments—this one and all others—work at the CIB.
Okay. Mr. Albas wants my question.
I'll say this, and this is just more of a statement than anything. I think it's important for this committee to clearly evaluate and assess why investments are made. Something is very disturbing about this one.
In all seriousness—you can laugh over there—there's this trope that nothing can happen in Atlantic Canada unless you know someone, and it really bothers me. It bothers me that you've decided to do this.
Now, on the merits, you can do whatever you want.
Mr. Albas can squint and pretend he's a professor of high order. I take this seriously.
You can evaluate, and you can certainly determine if something was offside here, but this is a major project that, on its merits, makes sense. It's beginning to look like a Facebook post, where the trolls come out, make their posts and say, “Yeah, but....” “Yeah, but....” “Yeah, but....” I think that, if any Canadians and, in particular, any anti-Canadians are watching this today, they know exactly what I'm talking about.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Kelloway.
[Translation]
Mr. Barsalou-Duval, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Actually, I would like to correct something I said earlier. I mentioned that several of the Liberal members who participated in the June 17 lobbying meeting were at the table today. I said there were two, but there are actually three. Shannon Miedema also took part in the lobbying meeting and is now around the table to defend the project.
That brings me to my question for Mr. Cory.
You know, Mr. Cory, several years ago, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities produced a report concluding that the Canada Infrastructure Bank should be abolished. The NDP agreed, the Bloc Québécois agreed and the Liberals agreed. We all came to that conclusion at the end of the study, agreeing that it was a bit of a partisan problem. Today, what we're seeing is that this is ultimately what happens. Money is being handed out to friends of the Liberal Party.
When we see this kind of thing happening, which is exactly what everyone feared, do you think it helps people trust your institution and your alleged impartiality?
[English]
I have two comments. First, we're very proud of the progress we've made at the bank in getting infrastructure built in this country, across this country, working with governments at all levels, regardless of political stripe.
I think Canadians would look at the CIB and realize that we have projects in Alberta, in British Columbia, in Nunavut and in Nova Scotia. We work with governments of every stripe. We work with individuals of every stripe. We work with business owners across the country. Many business owners bring us ideas, and we work with them to get infrastructure projects built. We conduct rigorous review around conflict of interest. There were none in this case.
Mr. Chair, I dispute this notion. There's no preferential treatment in this loan. We made a loan to people who had a really positive business idea that's providing choice. It's backed by the Nova Scotia government. It's backed by other parts of the federal government. It's a really strong contributor to the overall grid—
[Translation]
Mr. Cory, you say that the project is supported by the Liberal government. However, we see that the Liberals are lining up to defend the project today, when it benefits the Liberals. I'm sure you'll understand that this is what worries me the most. It seems to reassure you. I'm trying to understand why.
Thank you, Mr. Barsalou-Duval.
[English]
Thank you very much, Mr. Cory.
Mr. Lawrence, you have five minutes.
Thank you.
Mr. Cory, your shamelessness, at points, is just shocking.
The company got $200 million from your bank. The president, chairman of the board and two directors are, by FINTRAC's definition, “politically exposed persons”. They are all relatives of former or current Liberal members of Parliament.
Did you know this before you gave them the loan?
Mr. Chair, I would like it to be Mr. Cory. He gets paid over $1 million by taxpayers. He can answer our questions.
Mr. Chair, I'm happy to start, but Mr. Duguay is better positioned than I am. I believe the premise of the question....
By the way, Mr. Duguay is our organization's “know your client” and anti-money laundering expert—what's called the CAMLO—so I will be turning to him.
I will just say that the premise of the question is not correct. There was no identification of persons who—
Mr. Cory, you didn't do your due diligence. That's what you're saying. You did not know that the president and the chair were politically exposed persons related to current or previous Liberal MPs.
You're telling me that there's no conflict of interest. Therefore, you'll have no problem sharing your agenda for the last two years, or telling me that you haven't spoken to Scott Brison, Darrell Samson or David Dingwall in the last two years.
Mr. Chair, at the will of the committee, I'm happy to share documents as required.
I can confirm that I've spoken to none of the individuals the member asked about.
More importantly, I can confirm that, based on the standard of diligence we conduct around “knowing your client”—which looks at individuals' political involvement, to be clear—none of the individuals mentioned met our threshold.
Thank you, Mr. Cory.
Your thresholds aren't working. You are here more frequently than some of our members. That's because of conflict of interest after conflict of interest. If you don't see a conflict of interest in terms of the president, the chairman of the board and two board members being family members of former Liberal MPs, your policy has failed. Quite frankly, your moral judgment has also failed, sir.
Could you please give us, immediately, the repayment terms of this loan?
No, thank you. I will ask you my question, Mr. Cory. You get paid over $1 million. You can answer some questions, sir.
Please, there is no commercial—
We don't even need a point of order here, colleagues.
I just want to say that I'm going to stop the time here to respect your time, Mr. Lawrence.
As always, I want to ask colleagues to please allow the witnesses to respond, and to not talk over each other for the benefit of our interpreters, for health reasons.
We'll give you another 10 seconds for that, so you have two minutes and two seconds, Mr. Lawrence, to restate your question.
Thank you.
There is no commercial disadvantage to publishing the repayment terms—none, zero, zip. That's an excuse, sir.
Will you commit to publishing the repayment terms within the next 24 hours?
Mr. Chair, the question was about the repayment terms. I don't know, off the top of my head, what the terms of that loan are. We have over 100 loans.
Certainly, if the committee wants an answer, I can aim to provide one.
Yes, please provide that within the next 24 hours. I understand that we have your commitment to do so.
Mr. Chair, as always, when the committee requests.... We're pleased to answer everything, and we'll endeavour to answer as quickly as we can.
I'd like a firm answer from you, Mr. Cory.
Will you provide repayment terms to this committee within 24 hours, yes or no?
Your shamelessness is just beyond.... It's unbelievable that you can't just answer a simple question.
I believe we have a commitment from you to provide to the committee, within 24 hours, the repayment terms. I appreciate that. I thank you for that. This could have been a lot less painful if you'd just given it to the committee at the beginning.
I will return to the conflict of interest. If Mr. Cory wishes to rely on Mr. Duguay, I'm okay with that.
I want to establish whether you didn't find out that there were Liberal family members there—president, chair of the board and two directors on the board—or you knew about them and just decided that it's okay.
As I said, Mr. Chair, in response to earlier questions, when you follow FINTRAC guidance, the relationship you look at is past political office or a member who is currently holding political office. It's not related to any political parties. As the fact said in the press release that was issued by the Conservative Party, in some cases some of the members previously held public office. FINTRAC guidance that is applied across all financial institutions provides a five-year look back. In several cases, these members held public office for more than five years.
Thank you very much, Mr. Duguay.
Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.
Next, we'll turn the floor over to Ms. Miedema.
The floor is yours and you have five minutes,
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you for having me here at the transport committee.
It's really nice to see you again, Mr. Cory and team. I am the member of Parliament for Halifax, a proud Nova Scotian, really excited about this project, and now the House Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development's chair, as of yesterday.
The word “shamelessness” has been thrown around at this committee meeting, and I would like to just first apologize for the disrespect that's been paid to you here today. I find it quite shameful and it's 100% unwarranted. You've been nothing but professional—
I have a point of order. You can't disparage members at the table, and to call me shameful, that is not appropriate.
Mr. Lawrence, I do want to give you the floor.
I just want to stop the time. There will be four minutes, 15 seconds left.
It is inappropriate for another member to call a member, an honourable member, shameful. I expect a full apology.
Thank you very much, Mr. Lawrence.
I'm just going to advise all members to be selective when using words to describe other honourable members in this room. Let's try to keep this as cordial as possible.
With that, I'll turn the floor back over to Ms. Miedema.
You have four minutes, 15 seconds.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I was describing behaviour and the lack of respect given, not an actual person. I will continue.
I used to be the director of environment and climate change for the City of Halifax. I worked there for 15 years and worked with the Canada Infrastructure Bank for much of that. This project has been a long time in the making.
I know Mr. Roscoe. I know of the project. The City of Halifax is one of the participants in the Mersey River wind project. The city will be getting 75% of its energy from this project to help us achieve our climate goals locally and save money. It's a win-win-win, so I'm really happy about that.
I'm really happy about the other energy projects that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has done in giving shareholder interest to first nations and indigenous communities. I think the CIB is a shining example of how we can work together as a country and across parties on climate action, renewable energy, energy security and resilience, which we need to do. Climate cannot be a partisan issue.
The Mersey River wind project is the first renewable to retail license in Nova Scotia, the first and only that lets customers buy renewable electricity directly from developers. It was introduced under the former provincial Liberal government as a tool to introduce competition into the electricity market.
Mr. Cory, what are the benefits of a diversified electricity grid, particularly one that is increasingly grounded in renewable sources?
I think this is one of the challenges that a number of provinces are facing. Certainly Nova Scotia is facing this as it tries to both grow its energy sector and meet the increasing demand for people to use electricity for transportation purposes and for heating, but also transitioning off a fossil-reliant grid.
The problems are threefold.
The most basic one is around affordability and the increase in costs as you make all of these investments.
The second is around reliability because renewables, while they're incredibly important, are not as stable. That means you need to invest in things like battery storage and transmission to balance the grid.
The third is you've got to keep creating competition and choice because we're trying to build a sector across the country. I think that's why our investments in Nova Scotia in general are ones that we're really proud of, and in particularly the Mersey River project, because it delivers on all three of those things.
Thank you, Mr. Cory.
Can you talk a bit about the gap that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is filling in allowing these important and innovative nation-building projects to move forward from a finance perspective?
In general, there are two basic gaps that we're filling. One is an affordability gap. One is a risk gap.
By an affordability gap, what I mean is that building infrastructure is expensive. To the extent that we can help smooth that cost across the longer term, it helps to not create huge spikes. Given our challenges as a country in meeting basic affordability, if we can do that as the bank, we can act as a shock absorber as we make some of these generational investments. That's the one that we call “affordability”.
On the risk one, for lots of infrastructure projects, they have this “build it and they will come” problem. You are going to make an investment up front and you don't know for sure what the payout will be. Mersey would be an example of this. You're going to build a wind farm, but you have to go out and sell the capacity. That might take six months, or a year or two years. The ramp-up of that is uncertain. That's true when we build new ports or transportation systems in this country, and it's certainly true in Mersey. We call that a “risk gap”.
Every investment the CIB makes is filling one of those two gaps or in some mix both of them. That's certainly the case here, and if you look across all of our investments in Nova Scotia in the electricity grid, those are the two things we're doing. That's why we're there.
Thank you. I really appreciate all of your great work.
Can we expect any announcements of more projects in Canada in the near future that are focused on clean energy?
There are no scoops for today, but I will say that we are really active across Atlantic Canada, certainly in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and P.E.I., and in the north and in parts of western Canada, in trying to make the energy transition that we need to be building our grid out for the future.
Thank you very much.
We have eight minutes left. We'll go with Mr. Lawrence for four minutes, followed by Ms. Fancy for four minutes.
Mr. Lawrence, the floor is yours, sir.
Thank you.
I want to pick up where I left off, Mr. Duguay.
You were unaware that the president, the chairman of the board and two directors were connected Liberal insiders.
We conducted standard due diligence, as we do for all projects.
As part of that due diligence, when you look at a counterparty, in some cases it will identify that the person previously—
Mr. Duguay, yes or no, were you aware that the president and chairman of the board and two directors were connected Liberal insiders?
It's a fact that the individuals previously held public office. FINTRAC guidance doesn't necessarily import what are political connections. The test is reviewing whether individuals—
Did you know prior to giving the loan that the president, the chairman of the board and the two directors were related to former or current members of Parliament?
No, Mr. Duguay, I'm going to stop you there. We are a Parliament. I am representing 100,000 people. We're representing 40 million.
I've asked you a simple question. Yes or no, did you know that the president, chairman of the board and two directors were relatives of former and current liberal MPs?
I'm going to stop your time there, Mr. Lawrence. You have two minutes and 43 seconds left.
Colleagues, I'm going to ask once again that we do not talk over each other. We're not always satisfied or happy with responses provided by witnesses, but we try to make sure that we don't talk over each other.
You can continue to ask the questions, Mr. Lawrence, but for the health of our interpreters, I would ask that everybody kindly not talk over each other. I'm going to turn the floor back over to you. You have two minutes and 43 seconds, sir.
Mr. Duguay, for the fourth time—this is a simple question—did you know that the president, the chairman of the board and two directors were relatives of either current or former Liberal members of Parliament?
We completed our due diligence checks, Mr. Chair. As I've said, we did identify, through our due diligence, that the individuals previously held public office. As part of our standard due diligence, we completed checks in respect of whether that would impose a higher risk profile. We operate at arm's length from government, and with respect to these individuals, there was no high-risk profile.
Thank you, Mr. Duguay.
The Canada Investment Bank was aware that the president and the chairman of the board and the two directors were Liberal insiders. What enhanced due diligence did you do?
Generally, when you do due diligence on counterparties, you do an open-source search. You would essentially review any material that's publicly available with respect to these individuals. That would include doing a media check and identifying whether there's been any adverse media with respect to the individuals.
When you do enhanced due diligence, you'll generally go a bit further. You'll want to identify any situations where there's been either past litigation with respect to any individual or the company, any past regulatory findings or any current court filings.
In this case—
If there were five Liberal members of Parliament who were members of the board of directors, would that be okay with you?
If there were five current members of Parliament...?
Mr. Chair, I'm just trying to understand the question because that wasn't the case here.
If they were current or previous members, would you be okay with that?
I'm just trying to see where the line is because, obviously, having connected Liberal insiders controlling an organization that's getting $200 million is just fine with the CIB.
Where is the line here?
Mr. Chair, we adopt and follow guidelines that are provided by FINTRAC, which are adopted across the financial sector—
Is that the only standard you have to adopt? You don't have to do anything better than the bare minimum when you're giving out tens of millions of dollars?
Mr. Chair, we follow our guidelines in respect of best practices across the financial sector and we do that voluntarily.
I would invite all members to go to our website and read our integrity due diligence policy that outlines what our standards are.
Thank you very much, Mr. Duguay and Mr. Lawrence.
Finally, for this panel, I'll turn the floor over once again to Ms. Fancy.
The floor is yours for four minutes, please.
Thank you very much.
Through you, Chair, let's talk about affordability gaps.
I know that if you ran it through whatever ChatGPT the Conservatives have going on over there, "affordability" is one of those words they keep talking about. Within my riding, this is an affordability gap.
We have people living in energy poverty in my constituency, in my province, and this is our way out. Just this morning, because of what we have with Nova Scotia Power and Emera, they released an 8.1% rate increase. Based on the 1992 agreement, the monopoly that we have, every year this company, Nova Scotia Power, can increase its power rates.
This morning, at 8 a.m., that rate increased again for Nova Scotians by 8.1%. At the basis of this whole project, based on the criteria we're talking about today, they had to have a certain number of people signed up. They needed 35,000 people signed up and they got 50,000 signed up. I've got constituents calling all the time saying, “Oh my gosh, we have competition. Can I sign up?”
What the Conservatives are doing right now is creating affordability gaps for Nova Scotians. Our Conservative premier has been boasting about this time and time again throughout this whole project.
Mr. Cory, let's talk about differentiation between projects. What differentiated the Mersey River wind project from other potential investments when it came to delivering value for Canadians?
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. I really appreciate it.
For us, the differentiator is the creation of choice and competition in the market and about creating, in an innovative way, what does not exist in many markets: the ability for consumers to buy power directly from a renewable source.
As I mentioned earlier, there are people in what is often called the “MUSH sector” of municipalities, hospitals and universities who want to be able to buy clean power. There are businesses and industries where it's part of their competitive play to actually be able to get clean power, and there are consumers who want to be able to get clean power.
That option and choice does two things. It allows them to make choices about getting clean power, and it drives down prices over time. That's what differentiates this project, and it's part of why we're proud of it.
Thank you very much, Mr. Cory.
I'm the vice-chair of our national rural caucus, so let's talk about rural ridings for a second here.
With a project of this scale in a rural region, how does the Canada Infrastructure Bank ensure that local businesses and communities are meaningfully included in the economic opportunity that it creates? I ask because it sounds like the Conservatives are now trying to make it so that rural economic development is not allowed to happen.
I think the good news about infrastructure projects—and this speaks to a comment that was made earlier—is that they happen in physical places across our country, in big cities, small towns, and rural and remote communities. Most of the economic value accrues in those places.
As we heard earlier in this session, the jobs that will be created in the local community, both in the construction and operation of this plant, are significant. They're part of what the Infrastructure Bank does for our country by helping to build local economies. We're really proud of that.
We measure that across all of our investments. We estimate that the total job creation, just to give you a sense of the scale of this, of the 108 projects we're investing in, is over 300,000 jobs in total across Canada. As I said, that's in communities big and small. It's in first nations and Inuit and Métis communities. It's in large cities and small towns. It's in northern Ontario, where I'm from, and Nova Scotia, where you're from.
Thank you very much, Ms. Fancy.
I would like to thank the witnesses, on behalf of all members of this committee, for their appearance before us today and for answering the members' questions.
Colleagues, I am going to suspend for a couple of minutes to allow our clerk to transition over to the second round of witnesses.
The meeting is suspended.
I call this meeting back to order.
Colleagues, appearing before us for the second half of today's meeting, we have, from the Halifax Port Authority, Mr. Fulvio Fracassi, president and chief executive officer, who is joining us by video conference.
Welcome to you, sir.
From the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, we have Mr. Luc Boisclair, vice-president, engineering and technology.
Welcome to you.
Colleagues, we hope to have online very soon Mr. Atul Sharma, senior director of government and stakeholder relations at the Toronto Port Authority, but we are having some difficulties connecting him.
I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Fracassi for his opening remarks.
Mr. Fracassi, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm grateful for the opportunity to share how the Port of Halifax supports the Atlantic trade corridor and contributes to Canada's trade diversification efforts.
The Port of Halifax generates $4.87 billion in annual economic output, including $3 billion directly, and supports over 25,000 jobs. We are a deepwater, big-ship port receiving the largest container ships calling at any Canadian port. Halifax is serviced by a diverse range of container shipping lines, including major global carriers such as MSC, CMA CGM and ONE, to name a few. We have a total of 17 container services connecting Canada to more than 150 countries globally.
Our deep waters and big-ship infrastructure make us the only Canadian port that can receive the ultra-sized ships of over 12,000 TEUs. These mega ships represent almost 40% of the world container fleet and are expected to reach 50% by 2030.
In terms of our overall volume of about 500,000 TEUs in 2025, the percentage of our trade with Asia grew by about 4% last year, representing approximately 45% of our overall volume. Our growth countries in the region were India and China. Trade with Europe and the U.K. also remains strong, representing about 36% of overall volume for the port, with noticeable increases with Italy, France and Portugal.
Our global connectivity, our ultra-sized ship capacity and our strategic position along the great circle route as the closest full-service port to Europe and Southeast Asia through the Suez Canal uniquely positions the Port of Halifax to contribute to Canada’s trade diversification objectives.
We are also supported by distinguished partners, including PSA, the world's largest terminal operator, and TiL, which holds a 49% investment stake in PSA Halifax and is a division of MSC, the leading container company globally. In addition, our partnership with CN Rail plays a crucial role in accessing major inland markets within one to three days.
Through these strategic partnerships, major public and private investments at the port, and close collaboration, we have worked to maintain and grow our service offerings, including a new direct service with India, the only direct service to Canada. We continue to leverage our deepwater and big-ship infrastructure to competitive advantage. This includes discussions with carriers to potentially receive ships in Halifax of 18,000 TEUs and 400 metres in length by 2028.
Continuing to invest in Canada’s ports is key to achieving our trade diversification objectives. The HPA strongly supports the trade diversification corridors fund and welcomes the federal government's efforts to create more resilient and competitive supply chains.
As eastern Canada’s only port that can receive ultra-sized ships, it is essential that we increase our capacity to berth two ultra-large vessels simultaneously. Our expansion project for the south end container terminal will achieve this objective while also increasing our terminal capacity to 1.3 million TEUs. This project is scalable to two million TEUs when required. Work has already commenced.
This project leverages Halifax’s strengths with an already existing ecosystem and supports other port initiatives undertaken in eastern Canada. This also avoids a scenario whereby ultra-sized vessels are forced to bypass Canada to call at U.S. east coast ports due to lack of capacity.
It is important that we enhance the Atlantic trade corridor in a way that complements the central trade corridor by adding capacity, resilience and fluidity to the entire network, supporting importers and exporters across eastern and Atlantic Canada. As we continue to build out our world-class infrastructure and existing ecosystem, collaboration will be key to developing a national port network that delivers improved supply chain resilience, lower congestion pressures and more dependable end-to-end service in a cost-effective manner.
It is through a team Canada approach, leaning on each other's strengths, that we will be successful in expanding trade and driving economic development for the benefit of the entire country.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Fracassi.
[Translation]
I now give the floor to Mr. Boisclair for five minutes.
Good afternoon, everyone.
The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation is a non-profit organization that operates and maintains Canada's seaway infrastructure.
The seaway is a network of locks and canals linking Montreal to Lake Erie, under a long-term agreement with the Government of Canada. The network includes 13 Canadian locks, located in Quebec and Ontario, and two U.S. locks, located in New York State.
[English]
While the seaway is not a port, it is part of a larger Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway system that includes ports. Altogether, the system generates $66 billion in economic activity by moving 252 million tonnes of cargo worth $157 billion. It supports more than 350,000 jobs and creates $23.2 billion in wages.
At the wharves of the St. Lawrence Seaway, along the Welland Canal, and in Sainte-Catherine, Quebec, ships load and unload cargo, supplies and fuel, and undergo crew and pilot changes. Our multi-user wharf in Sainte-Catherine is fully leased and supports the berthing of four vessels. Of the more than 13 wharves along the Welland Canal, the majority are leased and in service.
We have recently completed dredging at wharf 10 in the city of Welland and have dredged and rehabilitated wharf 7 near the multimodal connection in the city of Thorold. We are moving ahead with private partners, and commodities will soon be moving at both locations.
Wharf 18, located at Port Colborne, is a shovel-ready, multimodal infrastructure project. It will add one million tonnes of cargo-handling capacity and open new cruise ship berthing to boost regional tourism.
The project received $22.6 million from the national trade corridors fund, but requires additional funding to begin construction. We are advocating for complementary support from the Province of Ontario, along with contributions from private partners and operators.
In 2025, 37 million tonnes of goods passed through our locks and canals to domestic and international markets. Key commodities include grain, fertilizer, iron ore, steel, aluminum, cement, project cargo, road salt and liquid bulk, including petroleum products.
[Translation]
The St. Lawrence Seaway has the capacity to immediately double its volume. Moving more goods by sea can help relieve congestion on already busy roads and rail systems. A Seawaymax vessel can carry the equivalent of 300 freight cars or close to 1,000 trucks.
[English]
To capitalize on this corridor, we propose a project called the “inland advantage”. There is a clear opportunity to scale the impact of the seaway and expand the strategic value of the infrastructure already in place.
What we offer is divided into three parts. First, reintroduce containerized short-sea shipping between Halifax, Montreal and the Great Lakes via the seaway. Second, move energy via the seaway to domestic and international markets to strengthen Canada's global competitiveness and support climate-aligned infrastructure by diversifying export routes. Third, make the seaway an even more resilient marine corridor for winter operations.
We welcome the new trade diversification corridors fund and its approach. The recent closure of the navigation season last January reminded us that investments are essential not only to extend the navigation season, but also to ensure reliable operations in the months of December, March and April.
The seaway is one of the original nation-building projects. We have a deep history and a future filled with possibilities. By maximizing active wharf capacity on the seaway, increasing resiliency to extend the navigation season and expanding container and energy movements, the St. Lawrence Seaway will help diversify and modernize Quebec's and Canada's broader coastal and inland port network.
As the federal Minister of Transport mentioned earlier this week at the official opening of our 68th navigation season, “a modern, dependable seaway strengthens Canada's position as a reliable trading nation.”
Thank you.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Boisclair.
[English]
We'll begin our line of questioning in the second round with Mr. Davies.
Mr. Davies, the floor is yours. You have six minutes, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to everybody.
Mr. Boisclair, I recall that you, at one point, were in charge of the Welland Canal. You were in St. Catharines and Welland for a while. It's my home turf. The Welland Canal goes right through the middle of my riding, through Port Colborne, Welland and Thorold.
I want to talk about a couple of things, and I want to thank the St. Lawrence Seaway for the work it did on lock 8 this past winter. It really was a sight to see the improvements, including the hands-free mooring technology that was installed. I think about $6 million was put into bridge 21. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that just the first phase of the infrastructure renewal at that bridge?
Okay. That's great. That's good to know.
I want to dig into wharf 18. I'm sure that you expected to get some questions from somebody in my area. First of all, is that wharf considered decommissioned or abandoned?
It wouldn't have counted, up until recently, as part of your infrastructure renewal strategy, would it?
The regular infrastructure repair would have repaired it, but we're looking for commercial development as well.
That wharf went out of commission well over 10 years ago, I believe. I drove by there the other day, and it's collapsing. There are going to be some serious problems with the walls. I think some are still made of timber. If that wall collapses, how does that impact the project to restore or revitalize that as a working wharf?
The project actually reconstructs the whole front face, so again, having a bit more or less collapse will not change the scope of the project.
Okay. It was a couple of years ago that the former minister of transport came to Port Colborne and made the announcement of the $22.7 million from the national trade corridors fund. My understanding was that it was supposed to be matched by either Transport Canada or the St. Lawrence Seaway, but the St. Lawrence Seaway's position is that it's not going to add the extra money to make that project viable. Is that correct?
The application for the national trade corridors fund called for half from the NTCF and half from a private partner.
It was from a private partner. As I explained, we're now looking for a private partner or provincial government.
The ones that need—I'm going to say—more minor repairs are getting repaired under our regular asset renewal program.
Okay. I just want to be clear on this because it seems to me, after several years.... This wharf has been out of commission for over a decade. There was a major announcement with great fanfare. My understanding is that private sector opportunities have come through. They've done their due diligence, and they've determined that it's not viable without the federal government actually taking a larger chunk of that investment.
The president of St. Lawrence Seaway told me about six months ago that it's in the interest of the St. Lawrence Seaway to have all of its assets operating at maximum capacity. This one is at the mouth of the Welland Canal. It has a major economic advantage to Port Colborne. The industrial expansion, the economic development opportunities from tourism, the industrial strategies and the short-sea shipping containers are all in the mix, but the bottom line is that you can't make enough money with fees on that dock to justify the investment. Is that a fair assessment?
We're not the operator of any docks, so again, we collect wharfage, and we collect tolls on the ship cargo, but because we're not operating, we're not party to one part of the revenue stream.
Is there a sunset in this? Does that fund have to be used under a certain period of time? Has that money been built into your capital projects schedule?
No. The current efforts are at other wharves. Just to point out, wharf 17 is getting some work, and significant repairs were done at wharf 7 and wharf 10.
My understanding is that the policy of the St. Lawrence Seaway is to have the same number of wharves available for the number of ships that pass through the canal. That's the minimum standard. Is that correct?
That's correct, because if there's a shutdown in navigation, we need safe places to berth all the vessels.
Wharf 18 would actually add capacity. My understanding is that you're actually operating at about 40% capacity now.
In your view, what is the likelihood of wharf 18 being recommissioned in the next five years?
Thank you very much, Mr. Davies.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Boisclair.
[English]
Next we'll go to Ms. Nguyen. The floor is yours for six minutes, please.
Thank you to both witnesses for joining us today to talk about the opportunities for ports at this time when we're thinking about economic renewal and making sure that we are investing for our future.
I want to ask both of you this.
Mr. Fracassi, I appreciate your team Canada approach on these efforts here. Could you talk about the opportunities you see in terms of opening up new markets and how the trade diversification corridors fund that has been announced through budget 2025 will create opportunities for you to grow new markets?
Yes, we're very supportive of the trade diversification corridors fund. Indeed, we believe it opens up opportunities for us. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, one of our key priorities is to invest in infrastructure to provide a greater capacity and to help improve efficiency and fluidity.
In terms of the trends in the container industry, the ships are getting larger. At the Port of Halifax, we've already received and serviced ships of 16,000 TEUs. There's a real opportunity to expand our infrastructure to make sure that we can receive and deal with two mega ships simultaneously. That provides opportunities in terms of competitiveness and pursuing additional cargo.
The Port of Halifax is strategically positioned on the great circle route in that it's the closest port to Europe and it's one day closer than the rest of the east coast American ports to southeast Asia via the Suez Canal. These kinds of investments that make us more competitive and more efficient will allow us to better leverage some of the infrastructure and services that we have in place.
For example, the Port of Halifax has 17 services that connect Canada to over 150 countries globally. The capacity to invest and improve services really does open the door for us to position ourselves to contribute to trade diversification, especially in terms of emerging markets such as India, for example.
I'm going to use my colleague's analogy of team Canada. It is a team sport, so the investment is not only, for example, in our locks and bridges infrastructure. It has to be through multiple actors working as a system. I'll name a few.
For containers, we need customs clearing with CBSA. For navigation along the seaway, we need icebreaking capabilities for winter operation with the pilotage service. There are other services that are provided to the vessels. Terminals need to have the proper stevedoring and all other services.
Thank you very much.
As I learn more about ports and how they function in this country, I'm wondering if you could talk to me about how we're doing in terms of collaboration between different government departments, on the CBSA side and Transport Canada side; how the two departments work together; and how that's working for both your organizations.
I'm going to say that the operational collaboration is very good, but all these actors have some limitations. They either cannot do 24-7 around the clock or they have limited assets. The collaboration is very good, but every actor has their own set of limitations—staffing, for instance, or some collective agreements in place that are not fully supporting what we are trying to do.
The collaboration is good. I think we can always do better. The team Canada approach I mentioned I think is key to success and to ensuring that each player within the system, each port, has its strengths to bring to the table. It's our belief that through a coordinated approach we'll be able to achieve our trade diversification objectives and drive economic development.
From a Port of Halifax perspective, we're focused on what we call our “big ship” strategy. We're the only port in eastern Canada that can receive those larger ships. That's where we can make our biggest contribution in terms of having capacity and being able to receive those ships so that they do not bypass Canada for U.S. east coast ports. Other players within the system can bring their strengths to the system.
Thank you.
Thank you very much, Ms. Nguyen.
Thank you, Mr. Fracassi.
Colleagues, as you see, a vote has been called. The bells are ringing. I would need unanimous consent to continue.
I believe we have unanimous consent to go perhaps one more round. That would include six-minute remarks by Mr. Barsalou-Duval, followed by Mr. Davies, followed by Ms. Miedema and then Mr. Barsalou-Duval again for two and a half minutes.
Do I have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
At the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, we had the opportunity to hear from the president and chief executive officer of the Desgagnés group, who told us about an unfair practice put in place by the federal government when it comes to steel transportation. The government decided to subsidize steel transportation by rail and to abandon transportation by boat. That led to the volumes that transited through the seaway being redirected to the rail network.
Earlier, Mr. Boisclair, you mentioned that there were many advantages to shipping by boat, particularly in terms of reducing greenhouse gases. It is also more efficient, because large quantities of goods can be shipped more easily by boat than by rail.
How do you perceive the government's decision to fund one mode of transportation at the expense of another, when it harms companies that use your facilities?
Our forecast for next year is similar. We don't anticipate a significant increase in the volume of goods.
Okay.
I have another question for you.
Last summer, a bunch of boats were stuck in the St. Lawrence. The Port of Montreal had to impose restrictions requiring a number of them to lighten their load. I would like to know what your role is and how you see the future in terms of water levels.
Whether we like it or not, it seems that declining water levels are an increasingly frequent occurrence. Is this an effect of climate change?
Can we expect the carrying capacity of the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes to be reduced in the next few years?
That is, in fact, a major problem. The examples you gave are downstream from the seaway, but we were also at risk. We've had a couple of weeks of draft reduction.
What we do is represent the industry at the International Joint Commission, which manages the water flows coming from Lake Ontario. Our role as a waterway operator is to represent the marine industry at that forum.
There's more variability because of climate change. In some years, there will be weeks when water levels are low, which will lead to restrictions. It's hard to predict the quantity, but it should be more and more frequent.
Conversely, it seems to me that in the spring, we are seeing very high water levels more and more often. Perhaps it's because I don't have all the knowledge, but I find it a bit hard to understand why we have so many floods in the spring and then, in late summer, we also often run out of water. Doesn't that seem a bit contradictory?
It may seem a bit contradictory, but the flooding experienced around Montreal in recent years was also caused by the Ottawa River and by water flows other than the St. Lawrence. It's not the only contributing factor.
As a representative of the organization in charge of the seaway, can you take steps to mitigate the effects of both low water levels at the end of the year and very high water levels in the spring?
We are working with industry stakeholders to announce restrictions as quickly as possible. That way, they can load their ships accordingly. That is one step we are taking.
We are also taking steps to help them navigate during periods when there are current issues. We have operational tools in our tool box to optimize things.
Are you considering, for example, dredging the seaway or raising water levels? Is there any physical work in the offing?
I have another question for you, but I don't think I'll have enough time.
Mr. Chair, if I may, I'll use the rest of my time in my next turn.
That's fine. I will add 40 seconds to your next round.
Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
[English]
Next, we have Mr. Davies.
Mr. Davies, the floor is yours. You have five minutes, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect to wharf 18, you indicated that it was shovel-ready. Does that mean you have detailed engineering drawings available?
You have a design. For a design or the paperwork, I'm looking to see if we could do a P3 somehow. Are the drawings sufficient to attract a private-sector partner?
I still philosophically think this is a seaway project, and the seaway should fix its own assets. If we could find a partner to offset some of the costs, how long would it take for the seaway to move that through your capital improvement system? You would still have to run the project. Is that correct?
That's correct.
This is a two-year long construction project. You would probably add one year of planning.
I'll go back to my original question. Is this the only wharf in the system now that has been classified as abandoned?
This one was probably abandoned two decades ago as well.
Do you have any plans for those other wharfs? If there were money available, would wharf 18 be your key priority?
The $22.7 million through the national trade corridors fund is another government funding source. We have The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. We have Transport Canada, which owns everything. Now we have a fund that is contributing to this project. I'm concerned that we're going to lose access to those funds through the national trade corridors fund if we don't move on wharf 18 soon.
Do you agree with that?
You're going to have to deal with a couple of bridges in the next years. My understanding is that bridge 5 is going to have to be replaced at some point, and that looks like it will be about $120 million, in and of itself.
We expect bridge 5 to be replaced no later than 10 years from now.
That's a five-year procurement and erection project.
If you were to ask for a bridge, could you ask for a wharf? This is really important for the future of the city of Port Colborne on so many levels. Because of the land that's attached to it, it's in a key economic development zone.
My last question is about the development lands on the east side around Ramey's Bend. Are you familiar with those?
We don't have any plans. There's some land that we lease, where there's potential development, but we don't have infrastructure capital expenditures planned around Ramey's Bend.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fracassi, it's wonderful to see you, if virtually, again.
Thank you so much to both of our witnesses for being here.
I'm really excited to be here at transport committee for this, because I'm really excited about the opportunities for the Port of Halifax to really meet the moment we are in right now for Canada. Our government's established a bold goal of doubling Canada's non-U.S. exports by 2035.
For the benefit of colleagues here, Mr. Fracassi, can you explain a bit more about what the port is and what it does? There's so much more than just boats in and out, from the perspective of food security—transport, grain elevator—all the way to cruise ships. Can you just paint a picture for colleagues, please?
You're correct: A large portion of the business of the port is containerized cargo, but we're much more than that, of course. We also provide services at the Richmond Terminals, for example, for break-bulk. As well, we are a premier cruise port: 90% of cruise ships that come to Atlantic Canada stop at the Port of Halifax. You mentioned the grain elevator that is there as well. We manage other real estate and assets on behalf of the government.
Of course, there's a whole ecosystem that operates around the port, whether it's the industrial areas responsible for packing and unpacking cargo, or the rail service that gets us to major markets within a day to three days, depending on location. That gives a bit of a broader flavour of what the Port of Halifax is and its important impact on the economy, not only for Halifax but for the province and the country.
Thank you.
I think, if I'm not mistaken, some years ago, the port endeavoured to do a big “vision 2050”, and there were some studies and research done to help inform that strategy. Is there anything you can share, as to the social and economic benefits that the port provides to Halifax or Nova Scotia, in more detail? Is there a report you could share with the committee for their reference?
Our 50-year infrastructure plan is available, which basically scopes out the future vision for the port. It includes some of the items I've already spoken about in terms of expansion to help grow the containerized part of the business. It covers crews and other aspects of the work that we do. There's also our sustainability plan that is available, which talks about how we interact and work and contribute to the community in Halifax and beyond for the benefit of the entire city, province and the region. Those are certainly available and speak to the positive and significant impact that the port has on the community.
As I mentioned earlier, we had done a study on the economic impact of the port, with billions of dollars contributing to GDP and over 25,000 jobs, just to give a bit of the positive impact that the port has for the city, the province and the region.
What do you need to make your vision a reality, from the federal government, the provincial government and, perhaps, other partners?
I think one of the key components, and there are several, is, of course, that investment in infrastructure is absolutely key. If we're to drive economic development and position ourselves to contribute to Canada's trade diversification efforts, it takes infrastructure investment to be able to position ourselves to go after new markets.
I had mentioned that we currently service some of the largest ships that come to Canadian ports, but we need to extend that capacity. We can service one ultra-sized vessel at a time, but we need to be able to do more.
Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor for three minutes and 10 seconds.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Boisclair, I'm going to continue my discussion with you.
In my riding, particularly in the cities of Varennes, Verchères and Contrecœur, which I believe are not on the territory covered by the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, we're experiencing a major problem: The wake from commercial vessels causes significant shoreline erosion. In some places, we're losing one to two metres of land per year. People have been complaining for years. Unfortunately, the federal government is completely turning a deaf ear. It seems unwilling to help people struggling with this problem.
One of the things we asked for in a previous report was that a shoreline protection program be implemented, similar to what was in place in the past. In fact, we tabled a petition to that effect in the House today. We did a committee report on it.
I would like to know what the situation is on your end, in the territory you cover. Your territory was covered in the committee's study on the issue. Are these major problems on your territory?
Erosion occurs mainly in areas where there is free navigation, particularly on lakes. Even in the seaway, we don't get involved in these areas.
Another topic I would like to discuss with you is the issue of icebreakers. I think you mentioned how important they are.
We know that the icebreaker fleet is aging, which is a problem often raised by maritime industry businesses and chambers of commerce.
Do you foresee a problem or are you already experiencing problems with icebreakers?
This is already a problem for the existing shipping season. Availability is an issue. Even when an icebreaker is on site, there are problems with the availability of personnel to operate it on an ongoing basis.
What kinds of problems are we talking about? How problematic is it? Would you need, let's say, eight more icebreakers? Are you concerned about the existing ones that are reaching their end of life? Is the large territory they have to cover a problem? What kind of challenge is that for you?
We are in contact with the Coast Guard precisely to define what the need is. I don't think anyone has really established that.
The problem is the slowdown. We manage to get ships through, but only two or three a day, precisely because we're waiting for the icebreaker to come and break the ice and open the channel for the ships.
Unfortunately, your time is up. Thank you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
Thank you, Mr. Boisclair.
[English]
Thank you very much, Mr. Fracassi, for joining us here. On behalf of all members, I want to thank you for your time and for your testimony today.
Colleagues, that concludes our meeting. I wish you a wonderful rest of the day.
This meeting is adjourned.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer