Debates of Nov. 1st, 2016

Fall Economic Statement

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge my colleague, whom I also respect. We enjoy debating with one another even though our views are diametrically opposed. We agree on maybe two things: that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Aside from that, we disagree on everything.

As far as the investment bank is concerned, the thing that surprises us about the Liberals' approach is that there are tools in place already. Our government created PPP Canada, public-private partnership Canada, which allowed private investment to play a role in infrastructure development, which is quite logical. We do not have a problem with private investment.

I know that the NDP has a socialist philosophy, which I have a great deal of respect for, and they may have some concerns about this, but we are not afraid of private investment. In fact, we welcome it, but the tool already exists.

Why is the government creating a new mechanism when one already exists? That is our question.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the last question I had the opportunity to ask my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent some time ago, he had the nerve to acknowledge the economic expertise of Quebec separatists, who were deeply concerned about Quebec's finances, among other things.

Let us talk about Quebec's finances. In the government's economic update, on page 29, where it talks about the establishment of the Canada infrastructure bank, we find a line that explains how it would be used. It could be used for:

Facilitating an interprovincial clean energy grid project through the provision of a loan guarantee to lower risk and reduce financing costs for the proponent;

Sounds like Muskrat Falls to me. Knowing that my colleague thinks it is important to manage government expenditures carefully, is he not concerned to see the government jump headlong into the money pit that is Muskrat Falls?

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is because we have a different view of things, but personally, the first image that came to mind was that of the energy east project. We are talking about the transportation of energy from one province to another. That is what energy east is about.

For us, there is no question of rushing headlong into the project. The member is quite right: we have to be prudent when dealing with public investments. For that reason, when at other times I saluted the efforts of the indépendantistes, I was talking more about free trade, in which they played a major role, for which we commend them by the way.

With regard to the specific question of private investments, I would like to reiterate that, where we live, we have no problem with private investment, as long as it is done properly and especially as long as the risk is shared. For us, it is not investing when all the risks are borne by the taxpayers and all the benefits go to private business. The risk and the benefits must be shared by all parties.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals talk about attracting foreign investment and that they are going to attract all this money into Canada, yet if we look at their actions, we see them increasing taxes and creating higher deficits and more regulatory burden.

Can the member maybe school them on what really needs to happen in order to get foreign investment to come here to Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question reminds me that I forgot one paragraph in my speech.

The point is that we live in a big world. We live in North America and beside us is the United States of America. Does it have a carbon tax? No, but we will have to. It is not good for attracting foreign money, if every business will be punished with the Liberal carbon tax. It is not good for our economy. It is not good for entrepreneurs. It is not good for the creation of wealth and jobs.

I hope the government will get back on track and be sure to not impose too much tax on our creators of wealth and jobs, the entrepreneurs.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech made by my colleague from the Standing Committee on Finance.

The member tried to sell us the same song he was unable to sell in the Quebec National Assembly for a number of years. He did not succeed today, either.

However, he came here with a platform. After leaving us a country with anemic growth, after leaving behind a $180 billion debt accumulated over 10 years, the Conservatives made a commitment to achieving a zero deficit.

Faced with anemic growth and the collapse of the price of oil and other natural resources, what choices would this member make today? Would he cut services to Canadians and to families? Would he raise taxes? How would he achieve a zero deficit, which he was unable to sell Canadians in the last election?

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

Mr. Speaker, where should I begin?

First of all, I will say that I am very proud of the seven years I spent in the Quebec National Assembly as the member for Chauveau.

Furthermore, I would like to remind the member, who is starting his career in the House of Commons, that one does not have to be in power to be proud of representing one’s fellow citizens. Personally, I am very proud to have represented the citizens of Chauveau for seven years in the Quebec National Assembly. There is a reason I was elected three times.

Incidentally, I always had 52% or 53% of the vote, an absolute majority. And I also won by an absolute majority a year ago, in the federal election. If the member wants to go there, good luck to him. He will not go unchallenged.

With regard to substance, the member is talking about our budget. I would like to remind him that when we were in power, we faced the worst economic recession in history since the Great Depression. Canada was the country that fared best. It was the first G7 country to come out of recession.

We like to compare ourselves to the best, and we were the best.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me read from the Liberal electoral infrastructure announcement of August 27, 2015. It states:

A Liberal government will make the largest new infrastructure investment in Canadian history. Our plan will:

Nearly double federal infrastructure investment to almost $125 billion—from the current $65 billion—over the next decade, reaching an additional $9.5 billion by year ten....

Page 15 of the Liberal Party platform, on the subject of infrastructure, states that the infrastructure bank would “provide low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects” and “provide loan guarantees and small capital contributions to provinces and municipalities to ensure that the projects are built.”

I understood from this that the Liberals were committed to massive public investments to update our infrastructure and that they would do this through their deficits. Canadians also understood this. The reason is simple. Never did the Liberals mention anywhere in their platform that their intention was to privatize public assets. Never did the Liberals mention anywhere in their platform that their intention was to privatize the revenue streams of assets, and never did the Liberals mention anywhere in their platform that their intention was to allow for tolls and user fees to become the rule for public assets.

However, this is where we are in this so-called economic and fiscal update.

I wonder how Liberals in the House, especially those who proclaim to be progressive, feel about the direction their own party is taking.

The Liberals' master plan has become clear: they want to privatize everything. That became clear on October 20. That is when we found out that the Liberal government contracted the Credit Suisse investment firm to study the benefits of privatizing Canadian airports.

Never mind the fact that the Liberals never uttered a single word about privatizing airports during the election campaign, which is a huge problem in and of itself. Is there not a single Liberal MP in the House who has a problem with the fact that the Liberals are contracting a firm whose raison d'être is to buy infrastructure, including airport infrastructure? Is there no conflict of interest when the government asks that firm whether it should sell it its infrastructure? Is there not a single Liberal member in the House who can see the obvious conflict of interest in the awarding of this contract?

I will explain this to the House in simple terms. Credit Suisse has a vested interest in the privatization of Canadian airports because it buys airports, and now the Liberals are asking this company if they should privatize their airports. This is a troubling trend because the Liberals also stacked the so-called advisory council on economic growth with infrastructure privatization proponents. One of them is Dominic Barton of McKinsey & Company. He is the chair of the council. He has been with McKinsey & Company for five years, and in that time, he has been a proponent of infrastructure privatization around the world.

In June, once he had begun his intensive research to determine what the Canadian government should do to grow the economy, he wrote an opinion piece that was widely disseminated and features the following thought right in the middle of the piece:

In some cases, funding can be found without raising taxes: governments can create revenue streams by instituting user charges, capturing increases in property value, or selling existing assets and recycling the proceeds.

Asset recycling: how green.

Governments can also do much more to encourage private investment, starting by providing regulatory certainty and the ability to charge prices that produce an acceptable risk-adjusted return. Even more broadly, they can take steps to create a market that more efficiently connects institutional investors seeking stable, long-term returns and projects that need financing.

It looks like Mr. Barton reached his conclusion before the good old advisory council on economic growth even completed its report.

Michael Sabia is also a member of the advisory council. He is from the private sector and for the past few years has headed up the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. He is also a strong advocate for the privatization of infrastructure. Once again, here is something he said in a speech given to the Toronto Board of Trade:

For long term investors, infrastructure offers something that’s not easy to find today: stable, predictable returns in the 7% to 9% range with a low risk of capital loss—exactly what we need to meet our clients' long term needs.

Those are Mr. Sabia's own words.

The privatization of infrastructure is therefore definitely in the interest of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. It wants a piece of the pie.

Mark Wiseman is also a member of the advisory council. He is a senior managing director of investments at BlackRock, a private investment firm with $4.7 trillion in global assets under its management. This firm is even larger than the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, which is a big deal in its field.

BlackRock has a vested interest in privatization. It seeks out assets and infrastructure. Mark Wiseman is part of the advisory council that is advising the Prime Minister on economic growth.

Once again, that is a conflict of interest, and they do not even try to hide it. How can people like Michael Sabia and Mark Wiseman, not to mention Dominic Barton, be included in this group that is supposed to make recommendations to the government, when those very individuals stand to benefit?

Worse still, on October 20, 2016, they did indeed table a report with recommendations that, if implemented, would bring their firms billions of dollars in returns, and would probably also earn these individuals millions of dollars in bonuses.

What does the Minister of Finance think of all this? He was quoted in The Globe and Mail on October 20, after the release of the Barton report. He said:

As we think about how best to amplify our impact on infrastructure investment in this country, we need to create ways for institutional investors to invest in our country...So we’ll move forward in a way that will allow us to attract institutional money and it’s not conditional on any other government activity around government assets.

His last sentence in that quotes means, “We will bring in the private sector to take over and control our highways, our ports, our airports, our water treatment plants and we will move the public sector out of the way”. That is exactly what it means.

With the economic and fiscal update, it becomes clear that it was the plan all along. Now with the Canadian infrastructure bank, which I will call the Canadian privatization bank, that will be funded to the tune of $35 billion by the federal government, the Liberals are hoping to leverage $165 billion from the private sector.

As the Canadian Federation of Municipalities suspected, $15 billion of the funds promised to municipalities and communities will be hijacked to be put in this bank.

Now there is a $200 billion question. How can we give these private investors a 7% to 9% return, and this is what Michael Sabia would like to see, on their investment on highways, on ports, on airports and on water treatment plants, on power distribution and other public infrastructure? Those private investors, and yes, we are talking about pension funds but we are also talking about private equity firms, will not invest out of the goodness of their hearts. There are maybe some generous people and companies, but their investors will be looking for a return, and a high return.

The math is simple. We will have to impose tolls and user fees in places where there are none. Where there are currently user fees, we will need to jack them up to get the return the investors want.

The next question is this. Who will invest in this privatization bank? To hear Liberals talk, we would think it would only be pension funds. We will ask the CPP and the Caisse de dépôt et placement to invest.

As I said, BlackRock is a private equity fund worth more than $4,700 billion in assets under management, and by a strange coincidence, it will actually be hosting a meeting of interested investors in Toronto in two weeks. That is strange coincidence.

It is as much of a coincidence as seeing Mark Wiseman of BlackRock being a part and a member of this advisory council on economic growth.

Not only will pension funds be part of this privatization bank, so will private equity funds and banks. Obviously, if it is opened to private equity funds, to banks in Canada, it has to be opened outside of the country as well. Therefore, welcome funds from all over the world. I really think Canadians were not looking forward to the possibility of Saudi Arabia owning Pearson Airport when they heard Liberals talking about infrastructure during the campaign.

By the way, this economic update also announces that the Liberals will be looking at increasing thresholds for review on foreign investment takeovers to $1 billion from the current $600 million. Once again, this is surely a coincidence, but this will mean that even more foreign takeovers will be rubber stamped and merely rubber stamped. There will be no oversight over that, especially on infrastructure. This fits very well with this privatization scheme that we see.

Finally, let us not forget that the search for high returns usually also brings about boondoggles. I will ask my Toronto colleagues to remember Highway 407.

I would remind my friends from Montreal everything that happened with CHUM.

How, then, have we come to consider so openly the possibility or the need to privatize our infrastructures? Well, last Thursday, Dominic Barton told the Standing Committee on Finance what he has been saying for the last five years. I will say it in English, since he said it in English:

“Our view there is we want to leverage private capital because we see the infrastructure gap being about $500 billion in Canada. There is no way that public money can fill that gap.”

I agree with him on the $500-billion figure for the infrastructure deficit. We can agree on that point. But let us remember that the tax rate on corporate profits has been reduced by the various governments from 28% to 15%, resulting in a minimum annual loss of $10 billion to $20 billion. It could be even higher.

In reducing corporate income tax, it was hoped that companies would reinvest that money. That did not work, since the real investment rate has been pretty much constant over about the last 10 years, if not more.

What happened in the end? Certain companies have been enjoying massive tax cuts for the last 15 years. Those cuts have limited the capacity of the different governments, including the federal government, to invest in things like infrastructure. Those companies that benefited greatly from tax relief and made no investments in return are now telling us that they have the money to help us with our infrastructures, because the government can’t do anything anymore. Who said that cynicism was dead?

Where was the Liberals' promise of privatization during the election? We never heard a word about it from the Liberals during the campaign. On the contrary, when we talked about tolls and the Champlain Bridge, they said that there was no way they would ever impose a toll on the Champlain Bridge. That might be true, but they will place a toll and a user fee on everything else.

When did the Liberals tell Canadians that instead of the public infrastructure and the public investments that were promised, they would actually pay user fees and tolls instead of seeing their taxes go where they should have gone? Never. I can understand my Conservative friends being frustrated right now, and they have good reason to be. What the Liberals are bringing forth is basically a Conservative scheme. Let us not be blind about it.

In the last Parliament, the Conservatives were not so bold to go that far and now they are doing the job for the Liberals. I can understand why they would be frustrated because that would fit perfectly in the Conservative fiscal plan of years past. Now we have what supposedly is a progressive government. We have a government that tries to convince Canadians that signing onto the trade agreement, which was negotiated by Conservatives, is a progressive trade agreement.

Now the Liberals are trying to convince people that the GHG emission levels, which were set by Conservatives, are progressive targets. I cannot wait to see how they will be able to explain that the privatization scheme they are putting forth now is actually a progressive privatization scheme, because that makes no sense.

Yet the Liberals seem inclined right now to go where Conservatives did not even dare to go. That raises very important and very tricky questions that they will have to answer in the next few years. Setting up this privatization bank will not be done tomorrow, even though we see elements in this budget right now. It will not be done even in the next few weeks or the next few months. It will take a while.

Members can be sure that we will be here, watching what the Liberals are doing and denouncing that, because this is never what they intended to do during the campaign.

Canadians deserve the truth. If they were to have the truth from Liberals during the campaign, they would have been told to expect that the only way, according to them, to invest and fill that infrastructure gap would be to privatize, to bring in the private sector to privatize the revenue stream and eventually to install tolls and user fees. If that had been the case, we can be sure Canadians would have wondered whether they should vote for the Liberal Party.

I will say it: this is a betrayal. Canadians will be right to feel betrayed, to feel that they have not gotten the truth from this government. When they travel on highway 20, or the 401, when they see that Toronto’s Pearson airport has been sold to a Saudi investment fund, they will be right to wonder if they really voted for this and if they really agreed to the government going in this direction.

It will be the same when they see the government trying to bribe the provinces, who are being fiscally throttled at the moment. The government will offer them an amount of money from this privatization bank, they will be able to privatize their power distribution network, and that way they will have money to invest elsewhere with private sector support. That is precisely what this investment bank is proposing.

I will at least give the finance minister credit for having spoken part of the truth. I will repeat what he said, because it is incredibly revealing of the lack of sincerity the Liberal Party is demonstrating. I did not want to use unparliamentary language.

According to the Liberals, what does this mean?

“So, we'll move forward in a way that will allow us to attract institutional money”, which means pension funds, private equity, and so on, “and it's not conditional on any other government activity around government assets.

How could this be any clearer? The Minister of Finance wants to give the private sector a large stake in Canada's infrastructure. In this sentence he is saying that the public sector, namely the government, will get out of the way. That is called privatization. The Liberals are going to have to answer this question many times in the next few days, weeks, months, and years.

The House can rest assured that we are going to challenge the government at every stage of this public infrastructure privatization bill.

[Rémi Massé, Liberal, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague whose riding is next to mine.

I would like to say that it must be difficult for my colleague to find negative things in our budget. I know that he is aware of the difficult economic reality that families in our region face every day.

Our government is very proud. In recent months, the Minister of Finance has announced all kinds of important investments that will help our families: the Canada child benefit, enhancements to the pension program and funds, tax cuts, enhanced student loans and bursaries, and the repeal of the Conservatives' 2012 employment insurance reforms. This is all good news.

I realize that his job is to criticize the government. However, from an objective standpoint, does our colleague recognize the work done by our government in 12 months to help families in our region that need a helping hand?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague and riding neighbour.

He promotes his party and his government, which is something that I understand very well. He speaks about employment insurance and the employment insurance reform, for example. However, the government only went half the distance with the employment insurance reform. It did not go all the way.

Changes were made that will eliminate some of the harmful measures that were implemented in the 2012 reform. However, to claim that they did away with the reform is completely untrue. I invite the member to talk to the various groups that represent unemployed workers in the Lower St. Lawrence region, starting with Action Chômage Kamouraska. That organization will tell him that such is not the case and that the government took a few steps in the right direction but did not go all the way.

When it comes to other decisions that the government has made regarding the regions, I have two words for him: diafiltered milk. There have been many protests in his riding. Personally, I regularly speak with farmers who have been promised that the matter will be resolved quickly. However, it is clear that the government is making all sorts of excuses for its inaction on this file and this is costing dairy producers tens of thousands of dollars a year.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that the NDP and the Conservative Party have totally opposite views on many issues. However, there is one thing we agree on. During the last election campaign, the NDP put forward a bold but realistic and responsible platform in which they promised not to run a deficit. However, we know that the current government was elected on the promise of running a small deficit. Today, that deficit is out of control.

My question is this. There was no mention of the investment bank during the election campaign, but it will have a major impact on Canada's economic future. What are the NDP member's concerns about the creation of an investment bank?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal platform promised an investment bank or an infrastructure bank.

My colleague can read about that on page 15 of the Liberal platform:

[The] Infrastructure Bank [will] provide low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects. [It] will provide loan guarantees and small capital contributions to provinces and municipalities to ensure that the projects are built.

Reading that, my understanding is that the government wants to set up an infrastructure bank to prioritize various pieces of infrastructure across the country so it can decide to invest more. That is what the Liberals promised: $120 billion over 10 years. Now we are looking at a little bit of investment, $35 billion, $15 billion of which was previously committed, to attract $365 billion in private capital in a bank that will therefore be largely controlled by private capital, which will be looking for high returns.

I am not necessarily in favour of privatization. Far from it. If the Liberals had been honest, they would have explained the plan to Canadians from the get-go, but that did not happen.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques on his excellent speech. I think he did a great job highlighting the new dangers that have emerged in relation to the privatization of our public infrastructure.

I wonder if he could talk specifically about what is missing from the Liberal Party's economic statement, particularly regarding Quebec. We are seeing a rise in precarious work among youth, and the Minister of Finance says we should get used to it. Household debt continues to rise, but the government has done nothing to address it. This statement says there will be no compensation for our dairy producers, nor will there be any assistance for Bombardier, the forestry sector, key sectors of job creation in our regions all across Quebec.

I would like the member to comment on that.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to that I would add that there is nothing on softwood lumber and nothing on diafiltered milk. The economic update was a big zero, because all it does is postpone and defer everything, which is what the Liberal Party does with all its promises and commitments.

If we look at infrastructure funding, for example, from which Quebec could in fact benefit, two-thirds of the new envelopes promised, new infrastructure funding, will be spent two elections from now. Today the Liberals are boasting about creating the privatization bank. However, when we talk about diafiltered milk and assistance for the aerospace industry or softwood lumber, the federal government has nothing to say. This is despite the fact that a crisis is happening right now, and producers want assistance from Ottawa, such as loan guarantees.

Even more importantly, a week ago the minister even had the audacity to tell young people that they should just get used to more precarious jobs. There is nothing in this economic update to indicate that he understands their situation or is trying to improve it.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. He knows how much I respect him. He is a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, and he does a lot for that committee.

Let us get back to the facts. Today, the minister announced the next steps in our plan to invest in economic growth and job creation in Canada.

I invite my colleague to carefully review the numbers that the minister announced. In the fall economic statement, we announced an additional $81 billion for infrastructure this year, over 11 years. That is $180 billion in total for infrastructure. Of that amount, we are taking $15 billion from the infrastructure bank. Why? Because we want to build more infrastructure and we want to do it more quickly. The rest of the money will be invested by this government. We spoke about social infrastructure and green infrastructure.

I have the following question for my colleague: why is he opposed to building more social infrastructure in Canada?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is one word: privatization.

I attended the in camera meeting. I analyzed the economic update this afternoon before coming here. The Liberals are not taking $15 billion from the infrastructure bank to invest it. They are taking $15 billion that was promised to the municipalities, to the communities, and putting it in this infrastructure bank. Incidentally, the government is going to add some other poorly defined elements to the infrastructure bank, like property or a stake in existing infrastructure, in order to attract private investors.

That money will not be there to spend. It will be there to attract private investors who will once again want to use this privatization bank to earn predictable returns of 7% to 9% on their investments, as Mr. Sabia said.

I would like my Liberal friends to tell us why they never mentioned that they would be taking this approach during the election campaign. Why did they not mention the huge investment that the private sector would make in infrastructure in exchange for what they expect will be good returns?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his speech. I have a rather technical question for him.

In its budget, the government announced that it was abolishing PPP Canada. We were glad about that. We felt it was high time for that to happen.

Does my colleague not think that this new Canada infrastructure bank is just a more powerful version of a PPP Canada strategy?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, further analysis of the implications is required, but I would say yes indeed, that seems to be the case.

In fact, I recently read an article by Joël-Denis Bellavance, who said that the government seemed interested in following the lead of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and what it is doing with the rail line from Montreal to the West Island. This is a small project with a contribution from the federal government and a major contribution from the Caisse. Obviously the Caisse is after what it hopes will be some interesting returns.

We are seeing that here multiplied by 50 to 100. There are all sorts of examples, not just rail projects, but water treatment plants, distribution networks, airports, and ports.

Indeed, that seems to be the case, but again, further analysis is required.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Drummond, Official Languages; the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Veterans Affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the consent of the House to speak.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member for Joliette have the unanimous consent of the House to speak?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, like other members of this chamber, I had the good fortune today to listen to the Minister of Finance's announcement, and I believe it is a happy day for Canadians. We should all look at what was presented a little earlier today as a positive thing for all regions in Canada.

Just before I got under way, my colleague from Quebec asked me to make sure I emphasized one of the gold nuggets in this announcement, which is a $2 billion commitment for rural development. Once again, this reinforces the government's commitment to rural economic and social development. This is something we as a government take very seriously.

It is a good day today. We see once again the Government of Canada emphasizing the importance of our middle class. If members read the title and the book itself, they will find it is a good read. I highly recommend that members across the way, in fact all members, read the paper supporting the speech from the Minister of Finance. Members will find that it talks about the wonderful things from within that are going to advance or see progress within Canada's middle class and those who are aspiring to be a part of it. This is why I say it is a good thing in terms of what we heard today.

A special emphasis is on infrastructure, which we saw in the comments from members of the official opposition, and also from my friends the New Democrats when they talked about infrastructure. Allow me to point out the difference between the three political entities in the chamber, which is not to disregard the Greens or the Bloc, but I suspect they are supportive in general of the investment in infrastructure.

I sat for years in opposition, as a number of my colleagues did, and we saw a Conservative government talk about infrastructure. There was a great deal of frustration from the opposition as to why the government did nothing more than just talk about infrastructure. The Liberal caucus at the time recognized the value of the Government of Canada investing in infrastructure, to actually see shovels in the ground, to see projects being green-lit and moving forward, and to see progress. We genuinely believe that, by investing in infrastructure, we are investing in Canada and the future of our country. However, for years, we saw very little being done on that particular file.

It is no surprise, and I am glad, that the opposition critic for finance and the New Democrat critic both brought out the Liberal platform book. One of them made reference to the just over $100 billion to which the Liberal Party committed during the election. Well, good news, not only are we maintaining or doing that policy platform, but we are actually increasing the amount of money going toward Canada's infrastructure. I see that as a positive thing.

At the end of the day, I think there are some things we may have in common with the New Democrats. They tend to believe in the importance of infrastructure, contrary to some of the things they might have said in the last campaign, but we have been consistent on it. The Liberal Party was the only party that said it was going to invest in Canada's infrastructure even if it meant we would have to incur a deficit situation, which makes us stand out from what the New Democrats had said. However, if we want to see the separation in terms of the Conservatives and Liberals, we need only look at the Stephen Harper government to clearly see it.

It was interesting that, earlier today, we had a member from the Alberta Conservative caucus stand up and ask what the Liberal government had done in the province of Alberta, and it was kind of baiting a little in its terms. I had the good fortune to ask the member a question in regard to his speech.

In my response to the member I indicated that the Minister of Infrastructure, who happens to be a member of Parliament from Alberta, works closely with all members of our caucus. We have a loud and strong group of members of Parliament from Alberta. Seventy-two projects have already been approved.

We recognize the efforts put into this by many municipalities and the provincial government. The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of the situation in Alberta. We have demonstrated our caring attitude by the way we have reacted to the crisis. As an example of that caring attitude one only needs to look at the 72 infrastructure projects. The cumulative total by other levels of government coming into it is close to $3 billion. That is probably more than what the Conservatives did in their entire 10 years and we have been in government for less than a year. I do not say that lightly, because I know the frustration that many of the municipalities in the Prairies had, as well as the City of Winnipeg, in trying to get approval and a shovel in the ground with the former Conservative government.

Now we have enhanced the infrastructure program. We need to really look at why the Government of Canada has put so much emphasis on infrastructure. The time to borrow and to invest in infrastructure is when interest rates are low. There is a valid argument to be made for that. I personally love the argument in terms of the employment issue. If we invest in infrastructure, we are creating jobs. Jobs are important. That is why I used the Alberta example with respect to infrastructure. Investing in infrastructure is an investment in jobs and we need valuable jobs.

Investing in infrastructure is important. By investing in infrastructure we are investing in long-term economic and social benefits for Canada as a whole. If we have the right infrastructure, we are better able to get our products to market, for example, and we have healthier communities and a cleaner environment. If you look at where the government has put its emphasis, there is a lot to be said about the fact that we are getting our priorities right but also that our priorities are reflective of what Canadians really and truly believe in and want to see the government move towards. Let me give the House some specific examples of that.

Canadians are concerned about public transit. They want a government that is prepared to invest in public transit. Our commitment to expanding public transportation is the single largest commitment toward infrastructure in Canada's history. We are doing this because it is what Canadians want to see done and because it would also be better for our environment. It would provide jobs and improve the overall performance of Canada's economy. Expanding public transportation would get students to school quicker, would get people to their jobs quicker, and would give us a healthier environment.

We can talk about the social benefits of infrastructure spending. There are many different needs and they vary greatly. We can talk about investing in the betterment of our communities, whether they be rural or urban. We can talk about investing in shelters for individuals who have suffered domestic abuse. There is definitely a serious need for shelters and a need for places for people to go when they leave the shelters. We need to develop a halfway system.

There is an amazing demand for infrastructure dollars.

I remember being on the opposition benches and asking a question about infrastructure in the city of Winnipeg, about how the streets and sidewalks were in desperate need of attention and that the money the Harper government at the time talked about was nowhere near what the city of Winnipeg needed. I do not think we really have an understanding of just how deep the need for infrastructure is.

I suggest that what we heard from the Minister of Finance was a progressive step forward in the way to deal with infrastructure financing. We should not fear what the minister put on the table today. I know that New Democrats typically in Ottawa, virtually exclusive to Ottawa, are now going to use the mantle of privatization as a fear factor so that they come across as the only party that has concerns about privatization.

I would remind my New Democratic colleagues across the way that I was in the Manitoba legislature where there was a great deal of discussion about how the private sector could contribute to the development of infrastructure. In fact, the New Democratic government brought in legislation to ensure there would be more transparency and accountability in that regard.

The reason I bring that up is that it should not be a partisan issue as to how we can ensure, as much as possible, that the demands on the building of Canada's infrastructure be met. We should be looking at ways to best meet that demand and I suggest one of the best things we can do is to not take the private sector out of the equation. In fact, it would be a disservice.

If we were to check with some municipalities where this has occurred, there are examples of success stories that are very real and have actually saved taxpayers considerable amounts of money. At the end of the day, all we are really saying is that infrastructure demands are of such magnitude that we need a strong, national leadership that is prepared to work with the different stakeholders, specifically referring to the provinces and municipalities, to try to come up with a comprehensive, holistic approach to deal with those needs, which are very real and tangible. That is what we are seeing from this government. It is called leadership.

I appreciate the efforts of the Minister of Finance and the cabinet in recognizing just how serious an issue infrastructure really is. We should be listening to what the provinces and municipalities are actually saying. If provinces or municipalities are saying they want the private sector to have a role or that pension programs could invest in infrastructure, why would we shy away due a fear factor that some might espouse? It would be a shame, given the demand for infrastructure that exists.

Suffice it to say, I could speak at length on infrastructure, but there was another aspect to the update that was provided by the minister earlier today, and that is the invest-in-Canada hub. I believe attracting foreign investment is long overdue in Canada. In the last year, we have witnessed a government that has been not only progressive but aggressive in bringing investment to Canada and ensuring that trading corridors are as open as possible in order to generate the jobs that Canada's middle class needs and wants and that we are prepared to deliver on.

Therefore, with respect to that foreign investment, we have an agency of sorts that will ultimately be a focal point to allow for better coordination to ensure that we are maximizing on potential investment from around the world so that companies look at Canada as a favourable place to invest, which is something that is long overdue.

For many years, the province of Manitoba looked at different ways to achieve this. For example, there was an investor component in the provincial nominee program. I suggest that there is likely a half dozen or so different agencies in the province of Manitoba, both non-profit and for profit, that are looking at ways to draw in investments because they know something that we should be proud of and should be boasting from the top of this Hill, which is that Canada is a great place to live and invest. What we must do is communicate that message.

Today, we heard from the Minister of Finance and the Government of Canada that we will develop that hub so that the rest of the world will know what we already know, that Canada is a great and safe place to invest. There are many different opportunities. I knew that when I was the immigration critic by just the level of interest that had been expressed by some countries that were prepared to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into our country. I see that as a positive.

It is not just the investment that excites me, and many of my colleagues within the caucus, but the fact that we go far beyond that. From the Prairies, let us look at how the government dealt with the issue of canola and China. That saved hundreds of millions of dollars in potential exports. The government went in directly and resolved that issue. We can talk about the issue of beef, the signing of the Ukraine-Canada trade agreement, or the fantastic work that the Minister of International Trade did on getting the Canada-EU trade agreement signed and getting it across the goal line, which is of great significance for all Canadians.

I believe that people as a whole understand the importance of trade. This is a government that is committed to not just getting trade but to getting the best deals we can in order to ensure that Canada continues to grow and prosper into the future, by looking at investment and trade as ways in which we can generate the jobs of the future. It will be those jobs in the future that will help feed our middle class and those who are aspiring to be a part of the middle class.

There are other initiatives taken by this government. The Minister of Finance made reference to a few that I talked about yesterday. We have spent a lot of time talking about Canada's middle class and about the tax break that was given to our middle class, where nine million-plus Canadians are receiving more money today as a direct result of that tax cut. That is something that is there. That is more money in the pockets of Canadians. We also put in the tax on the one per cent, on Canada's wealthiest, to help compensate for that commitment.

The Minister of Finance also made reference to what I believe has been a tradition of the Liberal Party, that caring attitude of social programming. We see that in terms of the increase to the GIS, the increase in student loans for our young people, and the increase in the Canada child benefit program. These are programs that will ultimately assist our young people and lift tens of thousands of single seniors and children out of poverty situations. This is something that is taking place today because we have a Minister of Finance and a government that understand the importance of advancing Canada's middle class, that does not forget about those who need that extra hand from the government, and that focuses special attention on issues such as infrastructure and investing in Canada.

That is why I am suggesting to all members that they should be supportive of the motion put forward by the Minister of Finance today.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to recap a few of the things my colleague mentioned.

He mentioned rural development, the middle class, investment in the Canada hub, and public transportation, Then he talked about attracting foreign investment. He said that Canada is a great place to invest. It is a safe place. I could not agree more.

However, I would like to ask my colleague why his transport minister, for nine months, has been sitting on a report, the Emerson report, which clearly recommended that we increase foreign ownership levels for low-cost carriers to come into Canada to provide transportation to secondary airports, one of them being the Region of Waterloo International Airport in my riding.

I wrote a letter in June and have asked questions in the House why we are sitting on this report and not allowing foreign investors to invest in Canada to provide better service for Canadians, to provide low-cost service for Canadians. There is radio silence on this issue.

My request is this. Just get out of the way and allow these private industries to create the jobs they want to create and provide better service in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize that the minister the member is referring to is doing his job, and he is doing a fantastic job.

We have airports scattered all over the different regions and all sorts of discussions take place. The minister has a responsibility to listen not just to one individual member of Parliament, but also to the different municipalities and other stakeholders to get a better understanding of all of the different aspects. It does not necessarily happen overnight.

I would like to assure the member that, for the first time in many years, we not only have a cabinet minister but also a government as a whole that understands that the best way to move forward is to make sure that we are doing our homework and getting the job done right. A part of that means that we should be working with the different stakeholders before we make a decision that could backfire if we acted as quickly as the member might like us to work. We want good, sound decisions to be made.