Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, Canada's infrastructure is not mature; it is aging. The work that was done more than 30 years ago has to be done over again, including sanitation infrastructure, water mains, sewers, drinking water, and so forth.
There is also the infrastructure for moving people, as well as transporting merchandise and logistics, which are very important for economic growth.
Massive investments are clearly needed. This is timely because investing in infrastructure creates economic activity. It benefits suppliers, workers, and so forth. So it will stimulate economic growth. The Governor of the Bank of Canada said once again yesterday that Canada's projected economic growth is weaker than expected.
The benefit of investments in infrastructure, if they are strategic and well-considered, is that they stimulate all economic activity.
Another benefit is that the investment backs something valuable, an asset. This is not bad debt; it has benefits.
To achieve this, the government wants to introduce programs. In the current context, major investments are needed for certain projects. We also note that retirement funds, whether the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the Ontario teachers' pension plan or federal public servants' employee pension plan, are also facing investment problems. Stock market returns are not what they used to be and, above all, bond yields and interest rates are quite low.
Infrastructure is also an investment vehicle and a good match for the various pension funds in question. So it is attractive for them to pursue this.
In Quebec, we saw that the caisse de dépôt was not allowed to do this. A special law had to be enacted to enable the caisse de dépôt to do this. It has to be done a certain way. It is not a question of the government guiding the investment; rather, the investment has to appeal to the private sector.
There is something interesting about the caisse de dépôt law. When an investment is made, there also has to be a private partner. As a result, it does not become a government order, but rather it has to be part of a profitable investment. In this sense, it is interesting that the private sector is joining forces with the public sector. If the private sector is not ready to invest, it could be because it is not a good investment, and vice versa.
A critical mass is needed for such increasingly large-scale projects. This applies to moving people, but in other sectors as well.
A report was tabled, or will be—in any case, there were leaks to the press—, the report of the consultative committee chaired by Mr. Barton. In any case, there is clearly some interest. How can we attract...
Why should the private and public sectors work together? We are not talking about a public-private partnership given the ownership of the infrastructure. The issue instead is the draw for investors and matching them with an institutional investor, in a relationship more similar to that of the market because, if there is no private interest, perhaps the return on investment is not good enough.
These aspects are extremely important. That is why we support this kind of initiative. In the case of the Réseau électrique métropolitain de Montréal, the organization responsible for Metropolitan Montreal's power grid, we see that the federal government needs to play a role, but not just the federal government. It is also important for other projects that could provide a boost, such as a faster rail link in a corridor in central Canada, which that we strongly support.