Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for being here today.
Ms. Van Buren, it's my personal perception, when I look the project list for the CIB, that it seems to have two objectives. The first one is based on a narrow ideological agenda of the government and to push forward projects with this narrow ideological agenda to infrastructure within Canada rather than having a more global and holistic view of the true infrastructure that is required and putting our resources toward that.
The other piece, to me, seems to be some type of political balance that the Infrastructure Bank is supposed to play, despite the comments from the government that this entity and the government are not one and the same. They are different, but I used as an example in the last meeting.... I brought up a lot of protest about the Alberta irrigation project that this government has gone on quite extensively. To me it seems to be a small favour, sort of, as an exchange or something that is supposed to make us as Albertans—I am an MP from Alberta—forget about what I believe is the complete destruction of our natural resources sector by this government, which I brought up to the infrastructure minister in our last meeting.
It would seem to me that the bulk of these projects fall into one of those two categories, either some ideological base or some type of political currency. In your estimate—sort of depoliticizing this question but getting your sincere response—how do you and your organization perceive the selection process for deciding whether or not to invest in an infrastructure project? Do you think the process needs to be more independent from the government? More widely, could you comment on the selection process for projects, please, and your perception of it?