Thank you, Mr. Chair.
At this point in time, I would like to speak to what was reported in the second quarter, as a preface to my amendment.
When we look at the second-quarter results for the fiscal year 2023-24, since inception of the CIB—I want to be clear on this—investment commitments of $10.1 billion into projects valued at nearly $28.9 billion are currently on the books. At the end of the second quarter, the CIB portfolio included 51 commitments, 45 of which have reached the “financial close” milestone. These are all loans that will be repaid and reinvested into more infrastructure in the future.
I want to give a few more examples, Mr. Chair, if I may.
In Durham region, it's $62 million towards 98 zero-emission buses that will reduce GHGs by 6,525 tonnes per year. Here in Ottawa, with zero-emission buses, the electrification of vehicles is a key to the City of Ottawa's goal of reducing GHG emissions by 100% by 2040. This invests in that direction the city has taken. As well, this demonstrates the city's commitment to lead by example.
Autobus and its zero-emission school buses is another example. Electric buses contribute to Quebec's objective of electrifying 65% of its school bus fleet by 2030 while providing high-quality transit services for students. This will remove 2,146 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions and support up to 131 buses.
Mr. Chair, we look at and speak about the affordability issues that Canadians have throughout the country and what we as a government are attempting to do to ease that pain when it comes to affordability. This is a mechanism. This is a lever. It's being good at the business of government versus attempting to be good at the business of politics, which we see a lot of in the House, unfortunately, and sometimes at committee.
When we look at the business of government and at what we are attempting to do to leverage funds to alleviate the financial pressure on Canadians, while moving forward with the direction that we brought forward, whether it be climate change, updating our infrastructure or working with municipalities that are, quite frankly, in infrastructure deficits. When a municipality is in infrastructure deficit, it finds itself relying on the property taxpayer or the water bills. This gives a lot of opportunity to leverage funding to then—and I'll say it again, underline it and bold it—alleviate the financial burden on Canadian taxpayers, whether it be at the federal level or at the municipal level with respect to property taxes and water bills.
When we look at owner-operators of properties, primarily in Canada's western prairie provinces, many retrofits—approximately 95 properties—will be represented. This represents 240 buildings. It's just another example. This will facilitate energy-efficient, at-scale housing in the multi-unit sector that aligns with responsible building, especially as it relates to climate change. It will be optimizing energy performance in more than 6,400 residences, significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 50%.
Mr. Chair, I welcome the motion—I really do—so that I can go on ad nauseam with respect to the examples of what these investments are supporting.
However, once again, I want to highlight for those watching what the intent and the business plan of the CIB is. Quite frankly, it doesn't go against a lot of the intents that former governments had, regardless of what party they may have belonged to, with respect to attempting to leverage those dollars to therefore alleviate the financial burden on Canadian taxpayers. The difference is that this is actually doing it.
Yes, there are ups and downs. That's business. However, when we ultimately look at the bottom line, there is a benefit when you see what is being invested or leveraged and, secondly, what is in fact being built. With that said, one of the interests that I have as we possibly move forward with this study and we hear from the partners, whether it be from government or from the private sector....
I guess I'll add this. When the CIB was created, it was created to be at arm's length from government. In fact, we take the experience that was made up of the actual panel of the board. I have to add that the experience they brought to the table is part of reports with respect to members of the advisory council on economic growth. These are folks who are well experienced in business. These are folks who are well experienced in leveraging funding from all Canadian sectors. These are folks who are experienced at getting the job done.
When we as government put forward initiatives, especially as they relate to capital investments, not only to build new assets but also to manage the assets that we currently have, we want to do so in an expeditious manner. Most importantly, we want to do so without the financial burden being placed on the Canadian taxpayer at all levels of government, whether it be federal, provincial or municipal, which is equally as important as it relates to property taxes and water bills. That's in particular on water bills at capital fixed rates, which consumers can't control with respect to their individual water bills.
That's what this is intended to do. Yes, we're making gains, but we're going to make more gains. What's expected is that those gains will be made well into the future as we leverage more money and the private sector gets more involved in those capital investments as needed throughout the country.
As I said earlier, the CIB has the mandate to move forward utilizing that experience, which I mentioned earlier, contained within the advisory council on economic growth, with that, again, being at arm's length from the government.
I noticed that the recommendation Ms. Lewis put forward actually asks for the meetings and for representation from the government to be present at these meetings. I don't think that's appropriate. I think, quite frankly, with government being at arm's length, we can proceed with simply utilizing the representation from the CIB itself.
That's what we're drilling down to on this particular project, the reasons why, how, what and the intentions. I think for the most part that would be appropriate, to receive that representation and, therefore, to receive the answers that we're expecting on this particular project. That's the one amendment I'll start off with, by removing that and just proceeding with those folks who are actually in the game, those folks who are making the decisions and those folks who were actually part of this specific project.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.