Debates of Nov. 1st, 2016

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

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

Madam Speaker, the member spent a vast majority of his time commenting on deficits, so my question is with respect to deficits.

I have said many times in the House that we provided Stephen Harper and his government with a multi-billion dollar budget surplus. Virtually every year since he took office, he had a running deficit. In fact, he had the largest running deficit of any other government in the history of Canada, in excess of $150 billion.

Given the track record of the Conservative Party on deficits compared to Liberal governments that have consistently had balanced budgets, why does the member believe the Conservatives have any credibility on the issue of balanced budgets?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to remind everyone that one of the ways the previous Liberal government balanced its budget was to cut $25 billion from the health care and social transfers to the provinces. Our provinces and municipalities are still suffering from those cuts.

What my colleague fails to remember as well is that our Conservative government paid down over $40 billion of the national debt. During 2008 to 2010, we did go into deficit to fund infrastructure projects and to create jobs. Our job creation record was incredible. It was the strongest in the G-7. Well over one million new jobs were created as a result of the investments we made, This is in contrast to what we find here of not one new job in spite of all of this borrowing.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has a good recollection of the practices of Liberal governments of the past. He spoke about Canadians still suffering from their cuts. In 1997, the port of Churchill was sold, and look where we are now. We are still throwing money at that fiasco.

Is the member at all concerned with this suggestion of privatizing and selling assets, with the mention of asset recycling in the budget? Is the member concerned with this cost pressure on Canadians as well?

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

Madam Speaker, I have not done a lot of research into the actual privatization measures in the bill. However, I outlined in my speech clear concerns when it came to increased costs, for example, the child care plan that the Liberals implemented. The parliamentary budget officer has indicated very clearly the increased pressure this will place on the budget, up to $40 billion in additional funding. There is no mention in the budget as to where that money will come from.

I do not have a clear answer to the member's question, but I would be happy to discuss that with her later.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, government members talk about the Conservative record and the size of the deficit. My colleague was here during the world economic downturn that we had to navigate through. He knows the Liberals at that time were pushing us to make the deficit even larger. The world is not in a recession like it was back then. The Liberals are talking about making investments, but what are the results of those investments over the last year? Could my colleague point to any?

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot point to any results over the last year, but I can point to significant results with the investments our government made with the stimulus we placed in the budget. One of those investments was the knowledge infrastructure program, which invested in colleges and universities, allowing them to expand their facilities to train more workers. When it comes to skilled worker training, Conestoga College in my riding was the recipient of many dollars which helped it to expand its ability to train skilled workers, something our Canadian economy will need.

If we are to borrow money, then let us invest that money in something that will create jobs. Let us simply not continue to borrow money to operate our budget.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to rise and represent the people of Timmins—James Bay in discussing Bill C-29, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016.

It is fascinating, with the new Prime Minister. Besides his love of selfies, there are the words “middle class”. I do not think the Prime Minister ever gets up without saying “the middle class”. The Liberals have an interesting caveat: “and those wanting to join the middle class”. The whole government is supposedly about the middle class. I guess we have a different view, the Prime Minister and I, on what is the middle class.

I look at the implementation of the bill, and we see that the plan is to privatize public assets and sell off infrastructure. The Liberals did not run on that, but that somehow is going to help the middle class. It is failing to help small businesses, which most of us in Canada would agree is the backbone of the middle class.

When I look at the Liberals' original budget, when they brought in their middle-class tax break, if people earned $23 a hour or less, they got zero. If they made $50 to $100 an hour, they got the maximum bang for their buck. That discrepancy in value is the Prime Minister's notion of the middle class. I guess he and I just come from different places.

My family joined the middle class when my father was 42 years old. He was a miner's son, and my mother was a miner's daughter. In those days, the idea of going to university or college just was not on. My mom quit school at age 15 and went to work. My dad was working when he was 17, but when he was 40, he had enough money to go back to school. He became an economics professor.

That was the middle class: the belief that people could rise up. If they saved money and got an education, there would be something for them. What did the middle class look like for our family? It was seven people, three generations, living in a little townhouse in Scarborough, with a used car, but it was the middle class. It meant that my mom sometimes worked five days a week and sometimes Sunday to make sure that the bills were paid, but that was the middle class, because the middle class was about having the weekend, about having a pension, about being able to retire. It was a promise my father made that any one of his children could go to university without being burdened with debt.

I look at what this young generation is facing and at the erosion of the middle class, and I think something has significantly changed. Maybe the Prime Minister is not quite as in tune with that. Certainly his finance minister is not in tune with that, as he tells this young generation to suck it up and get used to the fact that they are not going to have pensions, that they are not going to have permanent work, and that they can live in the Uber economy. We have different views on the middle class.

We certainly have different views on the issue of small businesses. My wife and I ran a small business for 10 years. We paid the rent. We paid people who worked for us. There was never any money left over, but it was a good life, but it was hard.

The Prime Minister's notion of small business in the last election was that it was a tax dodge for millionaires. I was really shocked at how someone could be so out of touch on small business. He was talking about how millionaires set up front companies to avoid paying taxes. He would certainly know, as he set up three of these companies to his benefit: 90562 Canada Inc., which held his securities and investments; 7664699 Canada Inc., which was his personal holding company that listed $958,000 in short-term investments and $255,000 in cash; and JPJT Canada Inc., which brought in about $1.3 million over that period.

There is nothing wrong with making money. Certainly people should be able to make money, should be able to invest, but when his notion of a small business is a front that allowed him to get a break on taxes, it is very much out of touch with mom and pop operations. They work 50 and 60 hours a week, and their kids work there too. That is the disconnect. He promised that he was going to give a break to small business, but he did not.

The other area he promised a big break on in the election, when he was still running on the progressive platform, and we all remember that, was the closing of the corporate tax loopholes on stock options. Most Canadians do not have to deal with that, because most Canadians will never benefit from that. In fact, only about 8,000 insiders benefit. They benefit to the tune of $750 million a year in corporate tax breaks. The Prime Minister promised that he would close that, but of course, the finance minister, as soon as he was elected, told his pals and buddies on Bay Street that their interests were protected.

I think of that because I see a government that tells us that it cannot find $155 million to cover the shortfall in child welfare for children who are literally dying from a lack of mental health services and who are living in a broken foster care system. It cannot find $155 million for the 163,000 children who cannot get homes. However, it can find $750 million for 8,000 friends, probably many of whom know the finance minister.

While we are talking about tax breaks and the Liberals turning their backs on small businesses, a deep concern is their refusal to go after international tax havens.

One of the benefits in this bill, I notice, is that they will implement the multilateral competent authority agreement on reporting requirements for very large corporations. However, corporations only have to meet these kinds of reporting provisions if they are making over $750 million a year, which means that about 85% to 90% of the world's corporations will still slip under the radar. That is deeply concerning, because we see tax avoidance by the super-rich as one of the fundamental problems undermining the development of a progressive society, not just in Canada but around the world. We need to get serious about this, because more of these costs are being downloaded onto people who cannot escape the tax burden, people who, as the Prime Minister said, are part of that group that wants to be part of the middle class. If the Prime Minister were deeply serious about his commitment to the middle class, we would see him taking action to make sure that those who should be paying their share are paying their share and that those who are already paying too much of their share would get a break. However, that does not seem to be how this is working.

The Prime Minister promised a record amount of spending. This was going to be the Liberals' progressive vision. It was going to spend, spend, spend, but everyone has to pay for it someday, and they never explained how people would pay for it.

Now we have learned that the Liberal buzzword is “asset recycling”. I have the dictionary of weasel words, and I looked it up. “Asset recycling” is not in the dictionary of weasel words. It is a new weasel word that has come forward that the current government has embraced. It learned the weasel word from the expert on it, Kathleen Wynne, who ran on being a progressive and then started the sell-off of Ontario Hydro, which will be a hugely destructive process. We are actually seeing in our northern and rural regions of Ontario that people cannot pay for their hydro. However, that will not be a problem for insiders who have friends who will be buying into this.

I am deeply concerned about the Liberal government not being honest with Canadians. The Prime Minister never told Canadians that he would be looking at the implementation of toll roads, selling off bridges, and selling off airports. Who would the government be selling them to? It could be friends, perhaps, or foreign nations, who could be buying port authorities. Is this the idea of a progressive government? We saw this in Ontario with Highway 407, which has turned into such a huge boondoggle that we will be paying for it for the next 100 years, and it is making enormous profits year after year. In 2014, it made $887.6 million in revenue off Canadians who drive along a highway that could have been paid for with public spending and repaid to the taxpayer.

We need to have an honest discussion about what the government's plans are for the privatization of assets, because it will impact the bottom line for Canadians. It will impact services.

The fact that the Prime Minister was not honest with Canadians and did not explain how he would cover those costs is deeply troubling. We are seeing the first wave of that asset recycling.

I urge people in the rest of the country to pay attention to what happened with the Wynne government. Not only was there the sell-off of public resources; it was also doing cash for access to ministers. If we look at the front bench, they are a regular slot machine for industry types who go to private meetings and pay $1,500 to meet with them as the government is talking about contracts and is looking at the serious sell-off of assets. Who has their ear? It is not Mr. and Mrs. Ordinary on the streets of Canada. No, this is being done in corporate boardrooms.

Of all the outrageous things I saw with the previous government, it never tried to pull something like that, except once, with Bev Oda, but she gave the money back. However, these guys are carrying on, and that is not in the interest of the middle class.

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

Madam Speaker, for a number of years now I have unfortunately been in the chamber and have listened to many of the personal attacks the member across the way often gets into. I find that at times he is somewhat extreme in his comments, and I think that is most unfortunate. I believe that many of the accusations are outright wrong, on many different fronts, and I only wish I had the time to address each and every point the member consistently hits.

My question for the member is very concise. He wants to talk about being progressive. Why then is he voting against a budget that would lift children and seniors out of poverty and that would have a tax on Canada's richest people? These are the types of things the member spoke about and that he is challenging the government to do. In fact, the government is doing just that, not to mention the millions of dollars we would spend to investigate how we can end taxing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has accused me of being extreme. That is okay. I would rather be accused of being extreme than of being bizarre. When I hear that kind of question, I am not sure what the member is getting at. I looked through the budget to see that it would somehow look after all the little widows and orphans around the world, the way the Liberals are claiming it would. It actually looks like it would just help their friends.

Maybe that is a different view of what the middle class is. The Prime Minister thinks he is middle class, when his front-line ministers are engaged in cash-for-access private parties with the senior levels of all senior corporations. Liberals actually believe that this is somehow a good thing. They say, and we have heard it from the finance minister, that this is how they talk to ordinary people. I am sorry, but the ordinary people I know do not get invited to those insider rub-dubs. Maybe only Liberals do.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Timmins—James Bay for his comments. I paid particular attention to his comment about the Prime Minister indicating how small-business owners are trying to avoid taxes by having small businesses. The majority of the agriculture industry is small business. The farms in my riding are small businesses.

I wonder if the member could expand on how this budget would impact these small businesses and on the fact that the promise the current Liberal government made to reduce the small-business tax from 11% to 9% did not happen.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question of small businesses is vital, because the Prime Minister promised that he would help small businesses, and he walked away from that promise. The Prime Minister has said publicly that he thinks they are millionaire tax dodges.

I will say that in the rural regions I represent, the farm communities take on an enormous amount of debt. The farmers need that debt to put assets in the ground so they can run a viable business. They carry a huge debt load, but in carrying that debt load, they are actually putting that money right back into the local economy, unlike the insider friends of the Prime Minister. They do not put that money back in the local economy. They seem to be putting it offshore. This is why we need to deal with the issue of offshore tax havens.

When we talk about lowering tax bills for the middle class, we are talking about putting that money right back into families' pockets and right back into the local economy.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for his speech.

I think that the Liberals did not once use the word “privatization” during the election campaign. Instead, they talk about asset recycling and use other such esoteric language. I thinks it is a real shame. The people of Quebec will learn the cost of the CHUM, the Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, with the cost overruns, the longer deadlines, and all the profit going only to private companies.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to be more progressive. It is not progressive to pursue a privatization policy to help his chum. It was not acceptable to Canadians.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the members who have taken part in the debate so far on Bill C-29, the second part of the Liberals' plan to implement and then break many of their election promises.

I will jump right in, though. The first thing I want to talk about is the indexation of the Canada child benefit. That is nice to see, because during the budget debate, I asked this question of almost every single Liberal government caucus member I could possibly ask. It was on page 240, annex 1 of the budget. The numbers are right there. They actually go down, starting in 2017-18, so it is nice to see that the government will be indexing this. It was something I was asking about repeatedly. Obviously the Liberals figured out that they had forgotten to index it to inflation. It is nice to see them listen sometimes, although I do note that the thresholds will only begin to be adjusted in 2020-21, so there will actually be a gap year for many families, who will lose access to the child benefit program.

As I said, it was a question I asked repeatedly. None of the members provided me with a cogent response to what I was trying to find out, but it is good to know that the Liberals are paying attention in the House and occasionally do change their policies.

Many government members today have lauded the government for their so-called middle-class tax cuts, but of course we know that the biggest bang for the buck, the most tax reduction, will be for those earning $199,000 and above. They will get the biggest tax credit out of this. It is nice to see that the Liberals are taking care of the people who probably can donate $1,500 for those special fundraisers they are occasionally hosting with lobbyists.

Those earning $199,000 and more are receiving the greatest tax cut. There is nothing in the budget for those earning under $45,000. Actually there is something for them, and it is a carbon tax, courtesy of this Liberal government. These are the people who are not getting a single tax credit. What they are getting instead is a brand new carbon tax, and according to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, it will cost the average household $2,569 by 2022. All of the tax credits for their kids that many of these families were taking advantage of will be gone. They are getting little in return, and are actually giving the government more of their after-tax pay. Then we have the CPP increases as well that will further reduce their ability to save and to pay for the day-to-day goods they need.

There is almost nothing in this budget on infrastructure, especially for Alberta. It is a pittance. When I hear the numbers for what the Liberals have actually spent on infrastructure in Alberta, it amounts to almost nothing. It reminds me that from fiscal years 1994-95 to 2005-06, the Liberals only delivered $351 million in aggregate to Albertans.

If we compare that to the Conservative government's record on infrastructure from 2005-06 to 2014-15, they delivered $3.4 billion in aggregate. When it comes to what Albertans need in public infrastructure spending in order to grow their economy locally, they know that the Conservatives have their best interests in mind. Here I am thinking in particular of the ring road that was built in Calgary and the ring road completed in Edmonton as well,

The past record of Liberal governments has been in very sharp contrast to what the Conservatives were able to do while in power, so what I am expecting over the next four years for Albertans from the government is pretty much nothing. Come election time, the Liberals will have to account for it. They will have to explain why they did so little for a province that right now is going through probably one of the sharpest recessions it has had in 35 years.

It started as what I would call a commodity downturn. Oil and gas is not so much a boom and bust business, but the prices do go up and they do go down. Maybe some are used to this. Albertans are used to this. This is not our first time going through a downturn. What is happening for the first time is that we have two levels of government that are intent on prolonging the pain, prolonging the recession.

I will just mention that 45% of organizations are now saying they will not hire more people. They will actually keep things the same. That is the lowest level this index, started by the Human Resources Institute of Alberta in 2014, has reached. It used to be under 20%. Most companies and organizations used to be growing all across the province, trying to hire more people. That is not happening today. Thankfully, 45% are saying they will keep the people they have, but many of them are still letting people go.

As a result of a policy decision by the Notley government provincially, it is making things worse and causing the downturn to turn into a full-blown recession.

I want to speak more about the Alberta HR trends report published this fall by the Human Resources Institute of Alberta. It has an interesting statistic, that the most common reason for leaving a workplace used to be termination without cause. That actually accounted for a significant proportion.

Two years ago, most Albertans were switching between jobs. There was so much opportunity out there that many people were switching jobs just for a few thousand dollars more in salary. The opportunities were there. If people wanted to work for a smaller company, they could do that. If they wanted to change the sectors they were working in, they could that. If they wanted to move their family to a different city, they could do that.

What can they do today? Not much of that anymore. They cannot do any of those things because of government decisions, the lack of pipeline approvals and the lack of negotiations on free trade agreements with countries where our commodities need to go. What the government is really doing is following through on what the previous Conservative government left for them to accomplish. There is nothing new going on.

Albertans need every single pipeline to be approved in order to get construction jobs from that, and so that oil and gas companies, the energy companies, have an opportunity to plan for the future, knowing whether or not they can move the commodity through a pipeline. Moving it by rail is extremely expensive. It cuts into the margins. They cannot have as many people working for them, and they cannot grow the companies.

Another interesting statistic is the temporary layoffs. This commonly happens in organizations as they try to adjust in a recession, which Alberta is going through again. Temporary layoffs are at an all-time high. That index, started by the Human Resources Institute of Alberta two years ago, is at at 25% now. The number of companies making temporary layoffs has grown. A quarter of all organizations in Alberta are now making temporary layoffs, laying off someone for three or six months, and then maybe, possibly getting them back.

When StatsCan reports this type of data, many people are being captured as employed but are actually not being paid. They do not have any earnings. They still have a job, nominally, to go back to, but that might be six months or a year down the line. They are not earning anything. They are just waiting and hoping that the economy will get better. However, that will not happen if these policy decisions by the federal government, as well as the provincial government, continue and do not improve.

Just looking at some of the indices that we have provincially, the year-to-year totals show the number of active drilling rigs is down by 50% in Alberta, down to 126; and the number of wells drilled, 163, is down 50% from last year. Another good indicator of manufacturing strength and the strength of the energy industry in Alberta is electricity generation, which is down 10% year over year. That is a drop in demand, not so much a drop in supply. The electricity generation stations are still there; they have not gone anywhere. The coal-powered plants are still there; they have not gone anywhere.

Another statistic I want to talk about is the number of employment insurance recipients. It is up 62% year over year. That 62.4% is a whopping number for Alberta. I do not see any activity from the government. If this were the arms trade, and I remember the debate on that, member after member would be getting up and speaking about how important the arms manufacturing industry was, the tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of good-paying, middle-class jobs at stake. What about good-paying, middle-class oil and gas energy worker jobs? Where is the concern on that side? What is in the budget for them?

I do not see anything that will help end the recession in Alberta and turn things around. All I see is continued constraint on pipelines for Alberta workers and Alberta companies. The unemployment rate is now 8.5%, up almost 2 percentage points year over year. In Calgary, it is almost 10%, or one in 10. In my area, I would say it is probably one in eight people I meet in my constituency office who are unemployed.

Half of the geo-scientists, geo-physicists, in the province are unemployed. That is who is unemployed today. Let us think about the next generation, the younger workers who are exiting university at this point. They have no jobs waiting for them. Their choice is to leave the country. We spent a generation building up our labour capacity, our HR capital, the ability and the knowledge of our workers, of our youth to take on these jobs and to work in these industries.

Now, we are going to lose them to other places. They are going to leave the province, possibly leave the country, and many will not return. We have spent a generation trying to build up that capacity, and now we are going to lose it because of the policy decisions of the government.

Even though 2.3 million Albertans are still employed, that is down 2%. If we think of large aggregate numbers, it is huge.

In this budget, I do not see much for Alberta workers. I do not see anything in this budget for the 122,000 Alberta energy workers who are unemployed and those in the indirect industries who support them, such as the people who fix and pay for uniforms.

I will be voting against this budget implementation bill. There is simply nothing in it for Alberta.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the things I have noticed about Albertan Conservative MPs is that they sure know how to talk, but when it comes to walking the talk, we find them coming up short all the time.

The Harper government, the Conservative government, built not one inch of pipeline to tidewaters.

If members want to take a look at what this government has achieved within the year, there were over 72 projects, working with the municipalities in the province, dealing with infrastructure dollars.

Can the member tell Canadians, in particular Albertans, how many infrastructure projects were actually approved in the last four years of the Harper administration and how many inches of pipeline the Conservatives built to tidewaters?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for asking that question because I get the opportunity to correct him, which is great.

First, if he looks at the Alberta Clipper and the four other pipelines, he will see that all of the pipelines are connected together through different paths, so the Conservatives actually were getting energy to market. They were getting it down to the Gulf coast. He should talk to Enbridge and figure that out. It is easy. They are large projects. He can figure this out by looking at a map of North America.

Second, in the last four years of the Conservative government, it sent $747 million to Alberta in 2011-12, $391 million in 2012-13, $390 million in 2013-14, and $333 million in 2014-15 for the province, companies, and municipalities to build infrastructure projects for Albertans to grow their economy. That is not the Liberal record. They did zero.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested to hear my colleague from Alberta talk about what is not in the budget for energy workers. I would put it to him that I would like to see energy workers in Alberta working in projects supported by Unifor and the CLC, such as to improve our refinery capacity.

We spend much too much time in this place, as my hon. friend from Winnipeg just did, imagining that somehow Canada's economic future rests in getting raw resources out of this country as quickly as possible to jobs in other countries, for other refineries.

In the 1970s, we had 40 refineries in this country. We now have 17. If they build the Kinder Morgan pipeline, that Chevron refinery in Burnaby will likely close because it cannot process raw bitumen, but the Kinder Morgan pipeline will be shipping raw bitumen that Chevron cannot handle to export markets instead of creating jobs in Canada. That is why Unifor opposed the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

Would my friend from Alberta agree with me that this country ought to start figuring out what to do to create sustainable, long-term jobs in ancillary infrastructure rather than focusing on rip-and-strip exports?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can call what Albertans do rip and strip. Do we accuse the lentil industry of not making soup in Canada because it found markets overseas to send upgraded lentils to? Do we accuse farmers exporting wheat of ripping and stripping from the natural landscape because they will not produce bread here and instead export their wheat to other countries?

The history of Canada is one of exporting our resources, especially in a margins-based business like the refineries. We have the Alberta government now proceeding with the expansion of the North West upgrader, a project that a former energy minister, a former boss of mine, is saying could put the Albertan taxpayer on the hook for up to $26 billion. Simply put, refining is a margins-based business. It is a difficult one to be in. It is a very local market. We cannot simply have large refineries refining product to ship across vast distances. That is one of the reasons we do not have private companies running to build refineries. It takes thousands of workers. It is a huge expense when we have refineries sitting idle in North America. It is easier simply to ship a product and refine it there for their markets.

This is a question for private companies to undertake. The Alberta government is undertaking it right now and it is a very questionable project for the taxpayer.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to rise on behalf of the hard-working and conscientious residents of my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh, who join our fellow Canadians everywhere in expressing our dismay at yet another budget implementation bill. It is the second since March of this year and, yes, it tries to push through more than a dozen acts in 234 pages in one bill, denying the proper study required, which is really unfortunate and disrespectful of the work we do in the House.

In the interests of time, I will not elaborate on the subterfuge of omnibus bills but will, instead, direct interested Canadians who are listening today to look up the reactions of not just my NDP caucus of the past but that of the Liberals when the previous Conservatives surreptitiously forced controversial agendas by abusing the omnibus method.

Indeed, it is imperative to immediately speak against the crucial issue of selling off Canada's assets in order for the Liberals to appear capable of managing deficits. This subterfuge, which is the privatization agenda, is being unscrupulously advanced.

This privatization scheme is to our great peril, as the actions of a previous Liberal government have proven with the sell-off of the Port of Churchill; as Ontario's manufacturers, institutions, small businesses, and residents, who are all facing out-of-control hydro costs, can attest to; and as our own health care system can demonstrate. It has been proven that privatization is the problem and not the solution.

Canadians were hoping for better from the current government. I and my NDP caucus agree that we do need to make new investments in infrastructure, and we anticipated the roll-out of a long-awaited infrastructure plan that our home towns, cities, and counties could applaud along with us. We know how important it is for front-line municipal governments to have the means to address the staggering infrastructure deficits across this country.

We were intrigued, in an encouraging way, when the mandate letter of the Minister of Infrastructure directed that the public-private partnership, or P3 screening for infrastructure projects, would be removed. Indeed, one of the top priorities is, to quote from the mandate letter:

making changes to the Building Canada Fund so that it is more transparent and approval processes are sped up, which would include removing the P3 screen for projects.

In hindsight, maybe we should have been more cynical and more suspicious of these sunny ways. Now we see the Liberals moving with a scheme to privatize public infrastructure, and that needs to be stopped in its tracks.

Never during the election did the Liberals suggest that they would invest in Canadian infrastructure by privatizing these public assets. Then, in budget 2016, they mused about exploring asset recycling, a deceptive term that really means privatization.

Recently, the finance minister's handpicked economic advisory council, which is made up of many advocates for private investments in infrastructure, has now recommended implementing an infrastructure bank and asset recycling, including private airports, toll highways and bridges, power transmission, and natural resource infrastructure. Liberals are clearly going ahead with the Canadian infrastructure bank, which will largely be funded with private funds that will be demanding a high rate of return, which will be provided by the privatization of revenue streams of this infrastructure such as tolls and user fees.

I am alarmed that this morning, during our debate, there are not more members of the House who have an understanding of what is going on here. Everyone needs to buckle down and read this. These are real impactful statements that are foreboding for the announcements that are to come very quickly.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has expressed serious concerns that the Liberals would take the money promised for housing and local infrastructure and, instead, put it into their new infrastructure bank scheme, meaning far less money for local priorities. Canadian communities were counting on this money to address urgent infrastructure needs, but now they may face red tape and new privatization hurdles instead of what was promised.

The fact is that, for private investors to want to take part in the Liberals' now questionable infrastructure bank, the scheme depends on projects creating new revenue streams, which means Canadians will end up paying the price through user fees and toll roads. The hopeful, progressive language in the mandate letter, along with the Liberals' campaign platform, is indeed a fluffy ball of cotton candy. Now we hear backlash from recent reports that poised the Liberals to move ahead with plans for selling off existing public infrastructure, like airports, ports, and bridges.

The CEO of the Vancouver Airport Authority said in The Globe and Mail, in reaction to the flywheel investment recommendations, “If you get a big cheque, that’s great, one time, but now there’s going to be a company run by a pension fund and an investment bank that is going to be taking a huge amount of money out of the airport to repay their investment”.

Once people begin to realize that privatization is behind asset recycling, which is happening, Liberals have created a more puffy ball of cotton candy, which has given us the term I just mentioned, “flywheel for reinvestment”. It gets better. A flywheel for reinvestment catalyzes the participation of institutional capital in existing assets. Is that not wonderful? Why do they want to sell off the valuable infrastructure that Canadians' hard-earned dollars built? It is to pay for their budget shortfalls.

The Liberals plan to take credit for infrastructure money they did not spend, while leaving Canadians to pay the price through things like new user fees and tolls. The Liberals never said a word about privatization during the election. They never explained to Canadian provinces and municipalities that they really proposed a flywheel of reinvestment when they spoke of a Canada infrastructure bank.

What we hoped for and recognized is that a Canada infrastructure bank would serve an agreed purpose as a smart and timely economic stimulant that would help provinces, territories, and municipalities access lower federal interest rates. Little did we know that this was so far from the concept envisioned by the Liberals.

Faced with the dual problems of declining investment and aging infrastructure, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has estimated that Canada's municipal infrastructure deficit is $127 billion and will grow by $2 billion annually. We can see that investing in public infrastructure has its clear merits, and we are compelled to do so. Including job creation and economic stimulus, it addresses the repairs and upgrades our communities need on an ongoing basis.

Our current economic conditions present compelling reasons for investing in infrastructure now, and the Liberals have never presented their stance on economic stimulus to include a fire sale of federal assets. Canada has an opportunity to take advantage of historically low long-term interest rates and clinch a policy to accelerate the rate of investment in public infrastructure that it promised. This is a nightmare.

Flywheel privatization means the sell-off of more public assets to pay for public infrastructure and private companies that will profit from our use of public services. We have seen countless times what that means: cutting off sources of revenue for government, enriching private investors, and burdening the public with the added costs for services, along with the financial losses of government.

There is only one taxpayer, but there are plenty of other ways to generate revenue, such as restoring Canada Post. The NDP also champions the closing of tax loopholes and cracking down on offshore tax dodging, not taking advantage of ordinary Canadians who keep getting betrayed by this government.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for an excellent speech and for taking the time to read into the details of this document. It is very disturbing when we talk about the infrastructure bank that is going to be created and the asset recycling principle. This is what it says in proposed new section 42.3(1) about the minister's powers:

The Minister may, for the sound and efficient management of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, lend money by way of an auction on any terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate.

We are talking about the minister doing cash for access with his Liberal buddies and lobbyists, the same minister who, starting with a $10 billion deficit, ran it to $30 billion and is now running it further, so I wonder if the member has any faith in the government to not waste Canadians' infrastructure assets.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it actually appeases me to a certain extent to know that other people are starting to read between the lines and raise these alarm bells, each for our own reasons.

As a matter of fact, the proposal of an infrastructure bank is just one way, as well as the chapter that was quoted by the member, that we are undermining the real work of the government and the initiatives that we have to take. We have a role and a responsibility, and the use of public assets is not the way to go.

In terms of transitioning to a green economy, to which the government has made indications it will commit, we are undermining that, and we are spinning ourselves backwards here. I hope more people will be able to focus on the merits of a real infrastructure bank, and not be confused with this scheme that just entices private investors to use our—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member believes there is merit in a national government working with the different stakeholders, actually consulting with them on a wide spectrum of issues that would deal with the infrastructure situation we have in Canada.

I would cite, for example, NDP governments in the province of Manitoba looking for P3 and coming up with legislation, and looking at ways in which the private sector could be involved in infrastructure. NDP governments have actually sold off government properties also.

The point is this. Should the national government actually demonstrate any interest in working with the different stakeholders, if the stakeholders are coming to Ottawa saying they want a national government? Is there an obligation, from her perspective, for Ottawa to be listening to what provinces and cities are saying with respect to infrastructure?

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the quick answer is yes. They should be consulting, but not for $1,500 a ticket.

What we need to do is have a real, meaningful consultation process. These are the lines we always hear. This has been done. We know that this process, the consultation that has taken place, and the things that have been rolled out now indicate to us that we do have an investment bank scheme. However, what kind of consultation has taken place? It is nice for me to tell the House what I think should happen. It is a little late. The member should read his Bill C-29.