Evidence of meeting #96 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was project.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I appreciate the ability to voice that. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We always learn things here.
Is there any further discussion on NDP-19?
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
A recorded vote, please.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
We'll withdraw this one. It's pretty similar to the previous one.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Amendment NDP-19 had more precisely the words of the Liberal Party of Canada. NDP-20 is withdrawn.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Amendment NDP-21 seeks to delete lines 31 to 33 on page 238, in the provision setting out the bank's functions. The purpose is to make it impossible for the bank to receive unsolicited infrastructure proposals from private investors. The paragraph in question indicates that unsolicited projects can be funded by the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Consider a project that isn't a priority for a municipality or province, for instance. Since a public sponsor is needed, there is nothing stopping a private investor from submitting a project proposal to the municipality for its support.
What municipality would be crazy enough to turn down an infrastructure project? That's why we're talking about unsolicited projects that could end up having municipality support—projects that were on the drawing board but not considered priorities initially. They become priorities, however, because private investors have found a way to make money. That is not the work of an infrastructure bank but, rather, a bank that supports private investors and their profits. That is something altogether different.
Unsolicited projects are particularly problematic when you have investors saying that they have an amazing project that will bring in millions of dollars. They ask the mayor and the premier whether they want to partner with them on the project, and it will be very tough for those officials to turn down such a proposal. We are talking about unsolicited projects from the outset, so my amendment would prevent those kinds of projects. It is imperative that a province and municipality deem a project to be a priority before it is funded through the Canada Infrastructure Bank.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you.
Is there any discussion on NDP-21? Are there any questions for the witnesses?
Do you want a recorded vote?
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Yes.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As you will see, the amendment would delete lines 1 to 5 of clause 403 on page 239. The provision concerns the collection and dissemination of data, which must be done by Statistics Canada or Infrastructure Canada in order to have accurate and reliable data on the bank. This would change the Canada Infrastructure Bank's mandate, so we are asking that lines 1 to 5 on page 239 be deleted given that we are talking about projects that generate revenue.
I take exception to the requirement that projects generate revenue, an aspect that was never mentioned during the election campaign. All of a sudden, the Liberals viewed it as acceptable. Infrastructure that generates revenue is a good thing, according to the Liberals. That includes toll projects, and they want more. That's not acceptable to me. We therefore want to delete this part, which talks about generating revenue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The motion is on the floor.
Is there any further discussion from any side?
All those in favour of amendment NDP-22?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Could we have a recorded vote, Madam Clerk?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On amendment NDP-23.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
It's along the same lines, Mr. Chair. It's on the same page.
Proposed section 7 deals with the functions of the bank. Paragraphs 7(1)(a) to 7(1)(h) list what the bank can do and what it can invest in.
The amendment would add the following paragraph after line 11 on page 239, in other words, after proposed subsection 7(2):
(3) The Bank may invest in an infrastructure project respecting new or existing infrastructure only if no new fee, charge, levy or other amount will be charged for the use of the infrastructure.
Once again, the purpose of the amendment is to stop the proliferation of tolls in Canada through the infrastructure bank. We are trying to prevent the Liberals' oft-repeated wish for more tolls from coming true with the help of the bank. Tolls are a bad thing and, in most cases, hurt the middle class. It's unacceptable for people using the same road to get to work every day to have to pay for using the road. My amendment would prevent the infrastructure bank from investing in projects that would impose new fees or charges for the use of the infrastructure.
I would like a recorded division.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any discussion from any corner?
Could we have a recorded vote, Madam Clerk?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)
We're still on clause 403, and now have amendment NDP-24.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am still on clause 403 and the infrastructure bank. This time, I jump to page 241, where it talks about the infrastructure bank's board of directors.
As everyone knows, private investors including BlackRock and McKinsey & Company were heavily involved in coming up with the rules for the bank. They practically wrote the bill, not to take anything away from our witnesses who may have helped with the drafting. The bill was drafted in close consultation with these firms. Everyone knows that the Prime Minister has met numerous times with BlackRock executives. Everyone knows that BlackRock is knee-deep in the Office of Infrastructure, even when it comes to the preparation of documents concerning the infrastructure bank.
As you will see, Mr. Chair, the purpose of my amendment is to make sure that an employee or an individual with direct or indirect ties to BlackRock or McKinsey & Company, or a subsidiary of those firms, cannot be appointed as a director or officer of the bank. The amendment seeks to resolve a seemingly obvious conflict of interest, given that these people wrote the legislation governing the bank, no doubt in a self-serving way. What firm would take part in consultations or contribute to an infrastructure project like this without getting something in return? They aren't doing it for the public good or the good of Canadians; they are doing it for their own shareholders, their own pockets, their own investors.
That is why I want to prevent these two firms from having a place on the bank's board or having one of their representatives appointed as an officer of the infrastructure bank. The infrastructure bank, on the whole, is bad enough, so at the very least, let us avoid any conflict of interest. My amendment will prevent those who stand to gain from the infrastructure bank from wielding influence over it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'll remind people that there are witnesses here if you have any questions for them.
Mr. Ouellette.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I have a couple of quick questions for Mr. Fleming, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Grover.
Is it normal in a law to name specific firms?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Canada Infrastructure Bank Transition Office, Office of Infrastructure of Canada
I would generally say, as an official, that I think it would be inappropriate to discuss specific names and individuals in this context without justification in that regard.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
So, it's not normal to name in a Canadian law a specific firm?