Evidence of meeting #126 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bank.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Senior Legislative Chief, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
If the amendment were adopted, it would require the Minister of Finance to invite his provincial counterparts.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
In the absence of this amendment, what happens? What's the process now?
9:20 a.m.
Chief, Excise Policy, Sales Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
If I may, the Minister of Finance has already started discussions at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels on the need for a coordinated approach on cannabis taxation. Those discussions will likely continue at the upcoming meeting of finance ministers in December. For that reason, this amendment may not be necessary in terms of the process that has already started and that is taking place.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
That was going to be my point. To my understanding, this has already happened. The invitation has already happened. The meeting is in December.
9:20 a.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I know there will be a meeting in December, but the provinces are not satisfied with the discussions thus far. At the first meeting, the provinces said that sharing cannabis tax revenues on an equal basis was not acceptable. Two weeks ago, the Department of Finance published a draft bill and a consultation document, asking the provinces once again what they think of equal sharing. It is as though the department had not understood a thing from the discussions.
As a result, I am not confident that the Minister of Finance will understand, at the consultations in December, that the provinces want more than 50% of the revenues. During that meeting in December, he will simply maintain his position that revenues should be shared equally, regardless of what the provinces say. He will attend the meeting, but he will not listen to what is being said. He will have made his decision and will act accordingly, whether the provinces like it or not.
The purpose of amendment NDP-1 is to arrive at a mutual agreement of principles and objectives. The proposed measure in this amendment would prevent the minister from unilaterally maintaining the equal sharing of revenues, which is what he wants. It would require him to reach some kind of agreement with the provinces, whether mutual or consensual. Reaching an agreement is important, regardless of the type of agreement.
The government will push ahead with its agenda and sign one-off agreements with each province, as it did with health transfers. That is the approach of a government that imposes its ideas. It holds consultations—bravo!—, but they serve no purpose because it does not listen; it keeps pushing and signs. The government holds consultations and it looks good, but it does not budge from its position. This is what happened in the past and it will happen again this time.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 170 agreed to on division)
(Clauses 171 to 175 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 176)
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We're starting with division 2, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank agreement act.
We have amendment CPC-1 from the official opposition.
Who is taking the floor on CPC-1?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I am. It's my amendment.
After having heard the witnesses and the minister speak to this, I'm unsatisfied that this is the right thing to do with Canadian taxpayer money. I'm proposing this amendment to remove those five lines from the bill.
My concerns are that we are rushing into this. We will be financing infrastructure projects overseas while we know we have a $2-billion deficit here in infrastructure spending between what the government intended to do and actually has done. Fewer than 30 projects out of 174 have been completed in Alberta. There are other concerns from international experts regarding the purpose of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. I took the time to read what China's President Xi Jinping has said on it. He distinctly connects the one belt, one road initiative with the AIIB. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is supposed to further the interests of China's foreign policy, and I don't really see why Canada should be financing that.
The second part is that witnesses before the committee said that a human rights and environmental review had been done of each and every single project. If they had done that, they would know that, actually, there's been a total lack of transparency, because that documentation is not available online. Through this project and future loan guarantees, so as the loans are paid out, if we proceed with paying our share into it, buying our voting share, we would be financing pipeline projects and Asia would be receiving loan money indirectly from the Canadian taxpayer. I think fundamentally that's wrong. We can't be doing such things when seemingly the Canadian government is opposed to supporting energy jobs in Canada while we're making it easier for them to be financed overseas. I think that's wrong. President Xi Jinping has said this furthers China's foreign policy interests.
There's one other part. Witnesses said repeatedly that this is an opportunity for Canadian construction companies to bid on these projects. They tried to make the connection that these Canadian companies might receive these funds in the future. That's also incorrect. Canadian companies could already bid on the projects. I have taken the time to look at international reviews of these infrastructure projects that have been financed by this bank, and with regard to international relations with the Asia Pacific, Jeffrey D. Wilson from the Asia Research Centre at Murdoch University points out that in the majority of the contracts, preference is given to Chinese construction contractors in AIIB-funded projects. This is a gentleman who took the time to review the procurement and bidding process and found that Chinese contractors in fact do get preference when bidding. I just don't see the wisdom in spending $375 million U.S. at this point.
I'd like this amendment to pass so we don't waste taxpayer money.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
I find it interesting that this government, which is opposed to pipelines, is in favour of using Canadian tax dollars to fund them abroad. The Green Party leader is here today. She said she wants to end fossil fuel subsidies but she votes in favour of a bill that would subsidize the transport of fossil fuels in Asia through the construction of pipelines funded by Canadian taxpayers. It's clear that there's no objection to pipelines outside of Canada and there's no objection to subsidizing fossil fuels. As long as those subsidies don't help Canadian workers, the Liberals and the Green Party are just fine with those subsidies.
Our party believes in creating jobs and opportunity here at home. We also have to tackle the growing problem of inequality where wealthy international financiers are making a fortune off the backs of taxpayers around the world, and in particular, here in Canada. These so-called infrastructure banks are designed to transfer the risk of mega construction projects off of the backs of the investor and onto the backs of the taxpayer. We believe in the free market where risk and reward go together. We do not believe in socialism for the wealthy, welfare for the wealthy, and that is exactly what these infrastructure banks are.
We call on the government to champion the free market and more equality and to stand up for Canadian jobs, workers, and taxpayers, and not the interests of making the wealthy wealthier in faraway lands.
Thank you.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
It's probably not proper for me as chair, but I do believe that Mr. Poilievre's facts are wrong that the Liberals are opposed to pipelines. I believe the Prime Minister came out and said that if they meet the environmental guidelines...and did support energy east, etc., but in any event, Mr. Dusseault.
9:30 a.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to explain my support for the Conservative amendment, which seeks to reduce Canada's contribution to this Asian infrastructure bank to zero.
This contribution would take up to $480 million from the Treasury, from the international development budget—I do not think we have repeated that often enough—, to fund infrastructures in Asia. In my opinion, this decision is ill-advised.
We are told that this contribution will promote Canadian interests abroad. Come on. I do not know if anyone around the table really believes that investing in this bank will promote Canadian interests abroad. If we want to put the interests of Canadians first, I think we can do that in many other ways. We can spend $480 million in our economy rather than investing it abroad, especially since those Asian infrastructures will probably operate on a user-pay basis.
I do not think that money will ever come back to Canada. It will go into the pockets of a foreign bank, whose executives are questionable. Personally, I am doubtful about the safeguards. What safeguards does that bank have? Some witnesses have said that the protections against corruption are insufficient.
I appeal to all members of this committee to support this motion, and thank the Conservatives for proposing it. Once again, if we had $480 million to spend in Canada, I would not invest it in that Asian bank. I would invest it instead in our economy, in Canadian entrepreneurs and SMEs, at home, in Sherbrooke, and right across the country.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, Mr. Dusseault.
I have on my list Ms. May and then Mr. Albas.
9:35 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Under the strange rules which I find myself here, I'm normally not allowed to comment on amendments that are not my own, but since I was directly attacked by Mr. Poilievre, I'd like to make it very clear that I support this amendment, because it's not an infrastructure bank in Asia to build pipelines; on the contrary, it's the Asian Development Bank, and one of its primary goals is to alleviate poverty. Since 2015, our money has gone to—
9:35 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9:35 a.m.
An hon. member
Go ahead.
9:35 a.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible—Editor]
9:35 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
The Asian Development Bank funding...? Okay. I apologize, Mr. Kmiec.
I would make it very clear that there's no money in this budget going to build pipelines in Asia. I oppose fossil fuel infrastructure anywhere in the world. Under the current commitments that Canada has made for its overseas funding, it said very clearly, just recently in Bonn at COP23, that the funds we provide overseas are also going to go through a lens, and that they are not to be promoting any increase in fossil fuel use, infrastructure, or emissions overseas. That's a very clear commitment on our foreign assistance at this point.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate Ms. May's trying to clarify the comments.
However, Mr. Kmiec has done a fair bit of research on which projects have been approved, and among them are pipeline projects in Asia. I would encourage all members of the House of Commons to familiarize themselves with it.
When we had officials here, we asked whether or not these projects were financially feasible. Unfortunately, the officials said they were not feasible if they were to be done on their own without some sort of government backing which would encourage investors to put in money to see those projects go forward.
We have energy east. The government likes to say it made a business decision and decided not to go forward. Canadians would be quite alarmed to hear that we are actually fortifying investors in Asia to do pipeline projects and we are not doing the same in Canada. It seems the government has been playing footsie with a slow, inevitable march toward realignment.
I don't think there's been a proper debate in either House of whether or not we want to turn our back on multilateral relationships which have created a lot of stability in the world. I think there should be a debate as to whether or not we should be proceeding. When you have these small developments go bit by bit, we are actually inching toward that without having a proper discussion.
Last, again referencing our multilateral past, Mr. Chair, you of all people should know, in your capacity as member of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Group, it may end up being quite provocative to be investing this kind of money when we have allies, such as the United States and Japan, which probably would not look kindly upon this, particularly at this time when we're trying to close the gap with NAFTA negotiations, or trying to close the gap with the trans-Pacific partnership.