Guilbeault stepped in a pothole - but Canada still needs to tread carefully on infrastructure
If you squint, it's possible to read federal Environment Minister Steven Guil‐ beault's controversial com‐ ments about federal fund‐ ing for road construction and see the faint outline of something the federal gov‐ ernment and (most of) the provinces committed to more than seven years ago.
As part of the Pan-Canadi‐ an Framework on Clean
Growth and Climate Change which all of the provinces ex‐ cept Saskatchewan and Mani‐ toba approved in December 2016 - the assembled govern‐ ments agreed to a broad range of principles and goals, including a commitment to support "the shift from higher to lower-emitting types of transportation, including through investing in infra‐ structure."
"Shifting from higher- to lower-emitting modes of transportation includes things like riding public transit or cycling instead of driving a car," the framework said.
Transportation is the sec‐ ond largest source of GHG emissions in Canada, ac‐ counting for 22 per cent of the national total in 2021. And it only makes sense to focus public investments in infra‐ structure, as much as possi‐ ble, on limiting those emis‐ sions.
But there's still a gap be‐ tween that broad notion in the 2016 framework and Guil‐ beault's recent suggestion that the federal government has decided to "stop investing in new road infrastructure." The minister fell into that gap when his comments were re‐ ported by the Montreal Gazette this week.
In an attempt to dig him‐ self out on Wednesday, Guil‐ beault said that he was speak‐ ing only about major new road construction projects like Quebec's Third Link; he'd already said that project is "in‐ compatible" with the fight against climate change.
"Yes, we're moving more and more towards electric ve‐ hicles, but that in itself does‐ n't justify inviting urban sprawl," he said in 2022.
That explanation didn't fully explain how the Liberal government views invest‐ ments in road infrastructure. But the government's political opponents have already heard enough.
"This prime minister's radi‐ cal minister of environment is launching a war on cars," Con‐ servative Leader Pierre Poilievre told the House on Wednesday.
Roads and highways in Canada are primarily the re‐ sponsibility of provinces and municipalities. But the federal government can help with building and maintaining them. In fact, it has hardly re‐ frained from helping over the past eight years.
An official map of federally funded projects lists 673 en‐ tries under the heading of "roads, bridges and trade in‐ frastructure." The Canada Community-Building Fund, formerly known as the Gas Tax Fund, transfers more than $2 billion each year to provinces to help municipali‐ ties cover costs across a num‐ ber of areas, including high‐ ways and local roads.
Less than a year ago, the federal government commit‐ ted $153 million toward twin‐ ning a portion of the TransCanada Highway in New‐ foundland. On Friday - a scant two days after the "war on cars" supposedly was declar‐ ed - the government an‐ nounced $21.4 million to im‐ prove local roads in Prince Ed‐ ward Island.
But Guilbeault is also not the first person to question the wisdom of major new road construction at a time when reducing greenhouse gas emissions is supposed to be a pre-eminent priority.
What we're talking about when we talk about roads
The
Washington Post
and the
New York Times have, for in‐ stance, reported on concerns that new federal funds for in‐ frastructure in the United States could be counter-pro‐ ductive if a significant portion of that money is put toward expanding road capacity. At least one U.S. study support‐ ed those concerns, conclud‐ ing that emissions would be higher if federal money was put toward building new roads and adding lanes to ex‐ isting roads.
The problem can be traced to a concept known as "in‐ duced demand."
"Building more roads con‐ sistently results in more traf‐ fic," the U.S. study's authors wrote. "In short, traffic ex‐ pands to fill the new lanes within a few short years, bringing with it more pollu‐ tion."
A year ago, the govern‐ ment in Wales went so far as to cancel a number of major road projects and introduce new rules to ensure future construction is in line with the country's emissions targets.
WATCH: The environ‐ ment minister's infrastruc‐ ture comments, explained
In Canada, there is at least a broad consensus that, where possible, the use of public transit is something to be encouraged. Stephen Harper's Conservative gov‐ ernment introduced a public transit tax credit in 2008; Poilievre probably wouldn't consider that government, of which he was a supporter and member, to be "anti-car."
(The Trudeau government repealed that tax break - not because of any unfairness to car owners, but because it was simply ineffective at in‐ creasing ridership.)
But a blanket statement against new road construc‐ tion risks - both politically and practically - discounting rural and suburban areas where roads are the best or only op‐ tion. Roads also tend to be quite popular among many of the people who rely on them.
Be careful around pot‐ holes (and hornet's nests)
"In many ways, the minister walked into a hornet's nest here," Matti Siemiatycki, direc‐ tor of the Infrastructure Insti‐ tute at the University of Toronto, told CBC News this week.
As evidenced by his pivot to the question of Quebec's Third Link, the minister would have been on firmer ground if he had limited his comments to specific construction pro‐ posals. If, for example, the Liberal government was asked to contribute to Ontari‐ o's proposal for a new high‐ way north of Toronto, it would be fair to ask whether that would be a justifiable use of federal funds.
The proposed Highway 413 has been pitched as a way to reduce congestion. But the law of induced demand sug‐ gests any such impact won't last very long. And while it won't do much to make com‐ muting any easier, the new highway might just drive up greenhouse gas emissions.
(For the sake of reducing congestion, experts often suggest implementing road tolls. Coincidentally, the On‐ tario announced its intention this week to ban such fees.)
If the Ontario government ever asked for assistance, would it make sense for the federal government to help with the cost of such a project? For the sake of win‐ ning a few more votes in the Greater Toronto Area, maybe. For the sake of aligning the policies of the federal govern‐ ment with the goal and neces‐ sity of reducing Canada's emissions, maybe not.
Federal infrastructure spending should take into ac‐ count the long-term priorities and needs of the country - an uncontroversial idea. Next time, Guilbeault might want to stick to just saying that.