Evidence of meeting #5 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ferries.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Chief Executive Officer, Canada Infrastructure Bank
No. To date we have not received any direction around Canadian content.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Yes. I thought it was kind of strange, because he kept arguing that you guys are independent, but somehow he can force you to include those kinds of things.
Now, he also did say, and I'm quoting exactly from Hansard, “The next day I was in a conversation with the CEO of the Infrastructure Bank to find out and to clarify what had happened and what recourse or opportunity there might be to reverse direction on that financing.”
You said in your testimony that when you had that conversation with him, there was no discussion about cancellation. Who's right?
Chief Executive Officer, Canada Infrastructure Bank
Well, of course, to the best of my recollection, our conversation really was centred on him understanding the details of the loan and the rationale for why we made the loan. That was the conversation as I recall it, certainly.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Okay. You're saying that there was no mention of cancellation. All right. I just thought that would be interesting.
Mr. Chair, I would like to move the following motion:
That, in relation to the committee's study of the Canada Infrastructure Bank's financing of new vessels for BC Ferries, orders do issue
(a) to the Canada Infrastructure Bank and British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. to produce the complete bond purchase agreement, entered into between those two entities on Friday, March 28, 2025, and which is disclosed on page 5 of BC Ferries' Management's Discussion & Analysis of Financial Condition and Financial Performance, published on Thursday, June 12, 2025;
(b) to British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. to produce
(i) records outlining the particulars of all options which it explored for the acquisition of the four new vessels in question, including vendors, suppliers, shipyards, countries of origin and per unit prices,
(ii) the complete commercial agreement it entered into with either or both of China Merchants Jingling Shipyard (Weihai) Co. Ltd. or China Merchants Industry Weihai Shipyard Co., Ltd. for the construction of the four new vessels,
(iii) any agreements, contracts, memoranda of understanding, letters of intent or term sheets concerning the operation and maintenance of the four new vessels or of any systems, sub-systems or charging or other supporting infrastructure necessary for the vessels' operation,
(iv) any BC Ferries internal decision-making post-Seaspan & Shirocca Consulting reports on ferry replacement and
(v) any document unredacted under the subject: NMV Evaluation Results: Preferred Proponent;
(c) to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, including the office of its responsible minister, the Department of Transport, including the office of its responsible minister, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, including the office of its responsible minister, the Privy Council Office and the Office of the Prime Minister to produce all records, including agreements, memoranda of understanding, minutes of meetings or discussions and briefing notes or materials, concerning the Canada Infrastructure Bank's financing of BC Ferries projects, including specifically BC Ferries' acquisition of the four new vessels and related charging infrastructure; and
(d) to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, British Columbia Ferry Services Inc., the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, including the office of its responsible minister, the Department of Transport, including the office of its responsible minister, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, including the office of its responsible minister, the Privy Council Office and the Office of the Prime Minister to produce all correspondence, emails, text messages or any other electronic communications exchanged between any of them or between any of those federal government entities and the Government of British Columbia, since January 1, 2023, in relation to BC Ferries' acquisition of the four new vessels and related charging infrastructure, including any Canadian content requirements,
provided that
(e) all documents shall be deposited with the clerk of the committee no later than Friday, August 29, 2025, in an unredacted format and, except as provided in paragraph (f), in both official languages, who shall distribute them to the members of the committee as soon as possible; and
(f) all documents deposited by British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. (i) may be deposited in their original language, (ii) be translated by the Translation Bureau, which the committee requests be done on a priority basis, by Friday, September 12, 2025, and (iii) shall be distributed by the clerk of the committee to the members of the committee as soon as the translations are available.
If you really want me to, Mr. Chair, I will do it en français as well, but I do believe that by this point we have emailed it in. We also have copies, so that all members can take a look at it.
I hope you find it in order. I'm happy to start by speaking to it once you find it in order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.
The first thing I would like to do, because we do have to now move and dispense with this motion, which I think might take some time.... I'm just taking a guess here, but I think that's what's going to happen, so I would first of all like to thank our two witnesses for being here with us and sharing their time with us.
Thank you very much. We wish you safe travels home. I'll excuse the witnesses.
I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes to make sure that everybody has this in both official languages, at which point I will turn the floor over to you, Mr. Albas.
This meeting is suspended.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
I call this meeting back to order.
Colleagues, just as a technicality, I need to ask whether or not we have the support of members, including Mr. Barsalou-Duval, to go in camera as we discuss this.
Do we have support? I need to have raised hands.
Do you agree with the proposal to continue the session in camera?
Some members are saying no.
Can I go to a recorded vote on this?
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
If we were suspended, though, I would have gotten the floor.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Before I proceed, this is what you have told me. Before I proceed, I have to ask whether or not there's support to go in camera.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Once again, I'm listening to the advice of the clerk. I don't think in this case that we need to adjourn.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
If we restart a meeting, it just automatically restarts.
It doesn't say anything about in camera.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Okay, everyone, I apologize for the delay. We are going to resume with asking the committee whether or not the committee would like to go in camera.
I'd like to go to a recorded vote on that, please.
Everyone, we are voting on whether people are in favour of going in camera or not going in camera. If you would like to go in camera, vote yea. If you are voting against and you want to keep it public, you are voting nay.
(Motion negatived)
Thank you.
Mr. Albas, I turn the floor over to you, sir.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Believe it or not, Mr. Chair, I've had many requests to say the motion a second time, so if you'll indulge me, I'll do it in French.
No, I just wanted to see the look on your face, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC
Colleagues, I will simply say this: We believe that there have been a number of contradictory statements made throughout this procurement loan situation. We think more needs to be looked into. We're not satisfied with those contradictions, and we feel this production order would allow us to look into this closely.
Again, Mr. Chair, I will simply point out that, while debate may be welcome, it will certainly be noteworthy if the Liberals decide they want to spend their time filibustering. We are going to be voting on this by the end of the hour we set aside to dispose of it. I would suggest that we get to a vote as quickly as possible and that everyone cast their vote however they will. We can then proceed to talk about other items that I know are also important to other members of this committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Albas.
Do we have any members who would like to be on the speakers list?
I have Monsieur Lauzon.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't entirely agree with my colleague when he says there is a contradiction. The witnesses we heard today each clearly stated their role, starting with Minister Freeland. Committee members have all made it clear that the current situation is not what they would have wanted. We would all have liked the product to remain Canadian, produced in Canada by Canadian workers, but we all understand everyone's role.
Minister Robertson clearly explained all of the guidelines and policies he must follow with respect to the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I did not note any controversial or contradictory statements among the witnesses who took part in today's meeting.
When the committee members spoke with the BC Ferries representative, he clearly outlined several reasons for the current situation, including the economic reasons. In his view, there is a process that must be followed for the benefit of Canadians and ferry customers.
In this case, the company obviously did its due diligence. It did its homework when determining its ordering requirements. To do that, it needed financial assistance from the Canada Infrastructure Bank. In this case, it was clear that this was a repayable loan. There is no controversy when it comes to communications or dates. Nor is there any contradiction in the process put in place by either BC Ferries or the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Today's meeting has given the committee a better understanding of the situation.
That said, the committee learned today that there are a number of reasons why Canadian companies did not submit bids. For example, Canadian companies that already had a full order book were unable to bid on the contract to build new ferries due to the tender deadline. It was clearly demonstrated to us that the infrastructure deficit was weighing heavily on the ferries. The committee also learned, through transparent and uncontested testimony, that a service disruption would be extremely costly, running into millions of dollars. It was therefore imperative to find a quick way for BC Ferries to continue providing service while minimizing costs.
Finally, the decision to award the contract to a Chinese company was a business one. The Canada Infrastructure Bank was not involved in that decision. The two ministers concerned were not involved in that process.
I think we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel here today. Could things be done better? The committee could make recommendations in this regard.
Minister Freeland has suggested bringing all stakeholders together to facilitate a discussion and explore ways to improve. We are always open to considering any decisions made during such consultations. That is part of how our government works. It makes sense.
I have learned a lot today about the specific role that everyone plays in the bidding process. After discussing this process with the BC Ferries representative, committee members could see that it was complex and time consuming. Unfortunately, this process was interrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The company spoke about a multistep process involving feasibility, qualification, project implementation and tenders. These infrastructure projects require a lot of time and energy.
That being said, following our meeting and discussions today, I am certain that there were no ill intentions, questionable communications or contradictions between the stakeholders we heard from today.
It was made clear that Minister Freeland's letter was not necessarily related to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. In fact, the purpose of her letter was to prevent her department's money from being spent outside Canada. This is a loan from the Canada Infrastructure Bank, not from the Department of Transport and Internal Trade. This loan responds to the call for tenders issued by BC Ferries. In my opinion, it is clear that BC Ferries' infrastructure deficit needed to be addressed.
Consequently, I believe that the motion currently on the table is greatly exaggerated in terms of what is being asked of nearly all of the players who are directly or indirectly involved in this project. The provincial government and all those involved, directly or indirectly, must be able to communicate their points of view.
I believe we have done our job as a committee, Mr. Chair. We invited the key players to the table to explain the process to us and show us how they arrived at this decision, which was to award the contract to a Chinese company. Is this the best of both worlds? No. We would have liked to see the Canadian steel, aluminum and lumber industries benefit from this contract. We would also have liked to see Canadian workers benefit and ensure that unions could take advantage of this opportunity. However, the situation has been explained so well today that we can say that the committee has done its job, asked the right questions, and achieved its objectives. In fact, I would be prepared to make recommendations based on what we have learned.
Can we ask that the department and BC Ferries get in touch with one another to add some details to the record to justify their comments? We are not questioning the comments made by the witnesses who appeared here today. I don't think anyone around this table needs justification for the communications that took place between the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the department; I think the minister was clear about the dates of the communications. He said that on such-and-such a date he learned of BC Ferries' decision and that the next day he called the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Everyone co-operated. No one was compromised, and I did not feel there was any ambiguity. However, I can tell you one thing: This ask is extreme. This motion asks all parties involved to provide the necessary documents, but there should be an amendment. I will come back to that.
I see that Mr. Barsalou‑Duval has his hand raised. I may propose a subamendment, but before going any further, I would like to hear what Mr. Barsalou‑Duval has to say on this matter.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Lauzon.
The next speaker on my list is Mr. Kelloway, followed by Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.
The floor is yours, Mr. Kelloway.
Liberal
Mike Kelloway Liberal Sydney—Glace Bay, NS
Chair, I'll defer to the next member, given the fact that there may be discussions on a potential amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Schiefke
Thank you very much, Mr. Kelloway.
Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor.
Bloc
Xavier Barsalou-Duval Bloc Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With regard to the motion proposed by my Conservative colleagues, I want to start by making several observations based on the testimony we have heard and the things we have learned today.
To begin, we learned that the June 16 letter from Ms. Freeland requesting that no federal funding provided to BC Ferries be used to purchase ships built in China was a bluff. The letter was worthless because, at the time it was written, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure already knew that BC Ferries had secured a funding agreement with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, or CIB. Despite this, it appears that the minister did not ask the CIB to backtrack or cancel the agreement, and the CIB told us that it would go ahead. Furthermore, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure's testimony was hard to follow, and it was difficult to know what his real position was. He said he was sorry, but the CIB told us that he seemed to be fine with it. So we are eager to find out what is really going on.
Then we learned that, despite statements by Minister Mélanie Joly to the effect that the government is requiring large infrastructure projects to be built with domestic steel and aluminum, the CIB has not received any directives about encouraging the infrastructure projects it finances to purchase Canadian steel and aluminum products. We have also learned that the CIB has no objection to the loan being used to finance Chinese state-owned companies, even though our steel sector is subject to 50% tariffs from the United States.
Mr. Chair, I would say that this situation is quite disconcerting. There are still some grey areas. There are some contradictions, particularly in the testimony from the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, and a lot of information is missing. However, I believe that the Conservative motion will allow us to obtain more information. I would very much like to see the contracts and documents related to this loan. I would like to know whether it was absolutely impossible to backtrack, as the ministers have told us. However, the Canada Infrastructure Bank told us that it has only one shareholder, the federal government. The CIB makes the decisions and is independent, but at the end of the day, the government is still the boss. I feel that this government lacks the political will to find solutions to the problems we are facing. By reading the contracts and the correspondence related to this decision, and by getting more opinions, we will be able to shed light on this matter.
I look forward to seeing the amendments that the Liberals, the government, may propose to make the Conservatives' motion acceptable to them. I am prepared to support the motion as it stands, but I am also open to discussing what could be changed. I hope that lessons will be learned from this situation because, frankly, it is clear that they are improvising, sending out disjointed messages. It is not unlike how the decisions involving taxpayers' money do not seem to be consistent with the government's words. It is terrible that the Canada Infrastructure Bank does not seem to be putting Canada's national interests first either. We obviously believe that the CIB should never have existed, and today is it clear why. Decisions are made behind closed doors, without any consultation, and the government seems to be presented with a done deal, even though these decisions are not necessarily in our best interests.
There needs to be more transparency.