Finance Committee on May 30th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That's not a problem. Thank you for coming.

We still haven't heard from Veterans Affairs.

In the next section, clauses 305 to 402, there are no amendments. Those are quite a few clauses. Does anybody have anything on clauses 305 to 402, or can we get unanimous consent to carry them on division?

(Clauses 305 to 402 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 403)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

This will likely take a little time. On division 18, the Canada infrastructure bank, we'll start with amendment BQ-8.

Mr. Ste-Marie, the floor is yours.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Amendment BQ-8 may seem rather technical but, in our view, is fundamental.

As far as the creation of the infrastructure bank is concerned, Bill C-44 brings about a major change, one that is totally absurd and has gone without mention. Amendment BQ-8 seeks to correct that.

The infrastructure bank would be the agent of the crown for all projects specified by the government. Paragraph 5(4)(d) of the proposed act stipulates that the infrastructure bank would be the agent of the crown whenever the government sees fit. That means the bank would be considered the representative of the federal government and enjoy all of the privileges and immunities that go along with that status.

Further in the new act, it is clear from subsection 18(c) that the privilege would extend to wholly private projects submitted to the infrastructure bank. According to the provision, the bank may “acquire and deal with as its own any investment made by another person”.

First of all, that gives private investors an unlimited loan guarantee. We are talking not just about the $20 billion that was announced but, rather, about an unlimited loan guarantee. That is ridiculous.

Second of all, that shelters those private investments from the jurisdiction of Quebec and municipalities because, under the new act, the investments and infrastructure projects are the federal government's. Unlike with the Champlain bridge project, for example, the government will no longer have to use its declaratory power to consider an investment as being exclusively under federal jurisdiction. That is a huge change that has gone overlooked and a terrible injustice, in our view.

What this change does is exempt investors from Quebec's laws and municipal bylaws. Quebec's environmental legislation will no longer be taken into account. TransCanada's energy east pipeline project could be approved without any BAPE hearings, as long as the investments are made through the infrastructure bank. Quebec's Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities would also be tossed aside. Roads and every other type of infrastructure could be built in green areas. The change flouts Quebec's laws: city plans, land-use plans, and zoning bylaws. It is, in all likelihood, unconstitutional.

I don't understand why this change appears in Bill C-44. If the government persists in creating this infrastructure bank, it must, at the very least, do what we are asking and eliminate these abusive powers by removing subsection 5(4) of the new act. I hope my message came through loud and clear.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

Is there any discussion on BQ-8?

Mr. Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning everyone.

I'd like to thank my colleague from Joliette for his comments, which are always well-researched, well-articulated, and relevant. We may not always agree, but, when it comes to his approach, the member for Joliette sets the standard for us all.

Mr. Chair, we're discussing one of the most important parts of this omnibus bill. Our party opposes the creation of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We think it's totally unacceptable to sneak such an important measure into an omnibus bill. Not only do we want the measure removed from the bill, but we also oppose the bank's creation entirely.

All the subsequent votes will reflect our position, as we will be voting against the measures.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Deltell, and I remind committee members that there are witnesses here today.

I believe you were here yesterday as well.

Is there any other discussion?

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, I wholeheartedly disagree with my Bloc Québécois colleague. Having had the opportunity to work with him on other issues, I have tremendous confidence in his ability to raise important points. In this case, however, I strongly disagree with his conclusions.

That leads me to ask the witnesses a question. Mr. Campbell or Mr. Fleming, do you anticipate any problems in terms of the infrastructure bank's mandate interfering with Quebec's jurisdiction?

[Glenn Campbell, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canada Infrastructure Bank Transition Office, Office of Infrastructure of Canada]

No, we do not.

If I may say, this provision that was referred to, Mr. Chair, does not bestow additional powers on the institution. It merely clarifies the relationship between that entity and the Government of Canada for the purposes of managing its liabilities. The crown corporation is required to be subject to any provincial law that applies. There is no additional power. If I understood the various commentary correctly, none of that issue about agent/not agent status pertains to the project. This only pertains to the corporate entity under the Government of Canada, and therefore the project will continue to be the responsibility of the public sponsor. That means if it was a municipality or province, then really they remain in control, and whatever provisions apply to them in their home jurisdiction apply. The infrastructure bank does not interfere in that process or relationship.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

I have a subsequent question, Mr. Campbell.

We might as well knock down this straw man while we can.

Would the example my honourable used, the energy east project, be one that you would envision qualifying for funding from the infrastructure bank of Canada?

[Glenn Campbell]

Any major infrastructure project that has the capacity to combine public and private interests would, in and of itself, be in scope. Of course, all the determinations of a particular government, nationally or federally, or review, would also apply as usual.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Ouellette.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

When the Canada Infrastructure Bank makes a decision, is the Canadian government on the hook for the possible repercussions? Or is it responsible only in certain cases?

[Glenn Campbell]

The bank through its board is accountable to the minister and to Parliament for the purposes of executing its mandate in terms of the functions bestowed on the corporation, to the extent to which it is accountable for how it structures projects and its fiduciary responsibility pertaining specifically to the federal investment. However, the other parties to a particular project, for example if it were a municipality or province—because it's a shared partnership model—would in turn also be accountable to their constituents for that particular project.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

So the bank would have a liability to environmental laws in Canada?

[Glenn Campbell]

All of those existing statutes that pertain to anything in the infrastructure space would continue to apply. The bank is not envisioning any interference at all. All existing rules, regulations, policies, procedures, reviews would all still apply as normal in that regard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I hope that's clarified.

Mr. Ste-Marie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to clarify a few things.

According to the legislation, when an infrastructure project is considered to be under federal jurisdiction, provincial legislation, like Quebec's, and municipal bylaws apply, so long as they do not conflict with federal legislation. Major fiascoes can arise, however, as we have seen in Quebec, where city plans and agricultural zoning rules gave way to the creation of airports. We also witnessed that with Canada Post, which did not consult anyone on the installation of community mailboxes. Mayor of Montreal and former Liberal MP Denis Coderre even took a jackhammer to the slab foundation of a community mailbox in protest of the legislation. We should expect the same problems in this case.

As Mr. Campbell confirmed, if the energy east pipeline were to go through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, it is very likely that, under its Environment Quality Act, Quebec would have a say over minor details, but not over the route of the pipeline. Constitutional expert Patrick Taillon confirmed our fears: the bank would be the agent of the government and even wholly private projects going through the bank would be considered government projects.

I therefore beg to differ with Mr. Campbell. His remarks contradict those of Mr. Taillon, a constitutional expert and professor at Université Laval. Mr. Campbell's comments also indirectly conflict with what a public servant told a Radio-Canada journalist yesterday, if we are to believe the article that came out. The public servant confirmed that any investment made through the Canada Infrastructure Bank would be wholly covered by the bank.

I appreciate that Mr. Campbell has to follow government orders. The same thing happened with Bill C-29, in the fall, when we discussed the financial sector's desire to be exempt from Quebec's Consumer Protection Act.

With all due respect, we were ultimately right, Mr. Campbell.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion on this point?

(Amendment negatived)

We're still on clause 403.

Next is amendment NDP-19.

The floor is yours, Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome back to our witnesses. They are giving up a lot of their time, and we are appreciative.

Here is my first amendment. As you can see, it won't be my last, since the next 10 are mine. I hope my fellow members will indulge me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are you suggesting that we deal with them all at once?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

No, no.

I think it's important to mention that I did not come up with the language in amendment NDP-19. It was taken from the Liberal Party of Canada's 2015 election platform. During the campaign, the Liberals did talk about an infrastructure bank, but one that looked a lot different than what we see here. During the campaign, they described the infrastructure bank a lot differently than the proposed measure establishing the bank does in the bill before us.

Section 6 of the new act, which sets out the bank's purpose underlying its activities, reads as follows:

The purpose of the Bank is to invest, and seek to attract investment from private sector investors and institutional investors, in infrastructure projects in Canada or partly in Canada that will generate revenue….

Now this is the new part. During the election campaign, the Liberals didn't talk about the requirement to generate revenue. I received confirmation that the revenue would come from tolls, user fees, and so on.

Section 6 of the proposed act goes on to state:

… and that will be in the public interest by, for example, supporting conditions that foster economic growth or by contributing to the sustainability of infrastructure in Canada.

My amendment would change the provision setting out the bank's purpose and cite the Liberal Party of Canada's platform, which states, and I quote:

We will establish the Canadian Infrastructure Bank (CIB) to provide low-cost financing to build new infrastructure projects. The federal government can use its strong credit rating and lending authority to make it easier and more affordable for municipalities to build the projects their communities need. Where a lack of capital represents a barrier to projects, a Canada Infrastructure Bank will provide loan guarantees and small capital contributions to provinces and municipalities to ensure that the projects are built.

That was the Liberal Party of Canada's platform. During the election campaign, the Liberals proposed the creation of an infrastructure bank to Canadians.

My amendment would change the bank's purpose to read as follows:

6 The purpose of the Bank is to provide low-cost financing—including by means of loan guarantees and small capital contributions—to municipal governments for the construction of new infrastructures. It makes use of the Government of Canada's solid credit ratings and lending power to allow municipalities to easily and affordably subsidize the infrastructure projects that they need.

I would therefore be very surprised if my government colleagues were to reject an amendment incorporating, word for word, part of their party's election platform into the bill. You can understand how shocked I would be if they did not think the content of their platform was good enough to be included in the provisions governing the infrastructure bank. What I am proposing is simply what they told Canadians they would do in their platform.

This is a perfect opportunity for my Liberal colleagues to walk the talk. I can't see how they could object to this. Indeed, I would be extremely shocked if they did not support this amendment.

I will stop there so that we can discuss the amendment. Naturally, I will call for a recorded division afterwards.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Dusseault. You must have an interesting bookshelf with some good documents on it.

Is there any other debate on this motion?

Go ahead, Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you.

Committee members might remember an intervention of mine with the finance minister. There are ways that the federal government can help municipalities.

However, I don't think having the current mandate of the infrastructure bank combined with the NDP's amendment will do it any good. In fact, it will create a lot of confusion. I'm against the concept that the government is going for, but I do want to compliment the member. There are further things the federal government could do.

Some provinces have their own municipal finance authorities. Those authorities could be working with the federal government. Instead of going to Wall Street for funding, they could be going to the Government of Canada. I don't think at this late stage that the NDP's trying to complete the Liberal platform in a backward way will do any good—although someone told me one time that three lefts do make a right.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!