Debates of May 11th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure Bank

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, actually it was the Conservatives who made the gas tax permanent and indexed it.

We look at the mechanism of PPP Canada that has already been set up, already has a track record. If there is a mandate the Liberals want to expand, then they should look at expanding it on exactly the structure that has been there and proven for many years. We should not set up a new bank that is supposed to be at arm's length using $35 billion of taxpayers' money, taking out of the communities the money that has already been announced in the communities. I find that absolutely outrageous.

For the member to think that one hour of debate on this significant bill is appropriate, then he needs to think again, because this is not appropriate. The House needs to debate the bill, we need to have proper transparency, and we have to have the parliamentary budget officer look at this conflict of interest. That is where we need to go as Canadians. Obviously, the government does not want to have this shown to Canadians.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to rise in the House today to talk about the Liberals' infamous infrastructure bank, which I would say is loaded with conflicts of interest. I want to begin by thanking the NDP for moving this motion on such an important topic today.

I will have another chance to talk about these dubious relationships a little later, but I want to begin by outlining the unusual progress of this plan and the problems we have had from the start getting to the bottom of things because of the lack of transparency of the Liberal government, which was supposed to be so open and transparent.

In October 2015, the Liberals promised to run small deficits of $10 billion and announced the creation of an independent infrastructure bank. What a good way to hide public money in a shiny new Liberal government toy.

When the bank was finally announced in November 2016, I asked the Minister of Infrastructure where he intended to get the money to finance it. It was radio silence as usual, and I did not get an answer. The next day, when I again asked where the money was supposed to come from, I was told that the government was planning to take $15 billion out of the infrastructure program for Canadian municipalities and put it into the bank. At that point, a lot of people in municipal government did a double take, when the money they could have used to fund major projects in communities across Canada just evaporated.

A few weeks later, the government rubbed salt in the wound. Not only was it going to take Canadian municipalities' $15 billion away and invest it in the infamous infrastructure bank, but now, most of the projects funded by the infrastructure bank would be worth over $100 million or even $500 million because investors would not be interested in funding anything smaller. Where I come from, people call that getting shafted.

In November, December, January, February, March, April, and May, I asked the Minister of Infrastructure at every opportunity to name a single project worth $100 million or more that could be funded by this infrastructure bank in a small or medium-sized municipality in Canada. I did not ask him to name 10, 20, or 100 municipalities, but just one little project. I have asked him this question at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, during question period, and during various discussions, but he has never been able to name a single project.

That makes sense, because if you look at all Canadian municipalities, the average value of the projects partially or fully funded by the federal government is not $100 million or more, but rather $6.7 million. With the exception of projects in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and a few provincial megaprojects, there are no projects worth $100 million or more in the vast majority of Canadian municipalities. This means that that $15 billion, which could have helped all Canadians, will serve only a small group of individuals, namely foreign investors, the friends of the Liberal Party.

The Prime Minister and his Minister of Infrastructure did not understand the story of Robin Hood, who steals from the rich to give to the poor. What the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance, Minister of Infrastructure, and government are doing is taking money that should have been given to small and medium-sized municipalities and giving it to multi-billionaire foreign investors. That is what is happening.

Then, we learned from Michael Sabia, president of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, who sits with other investors on a committee that was put in place to advise the minister, the government, and the Prime Minister, that these investors will want returns of 7% to 9% before they are interested in investing in this bank.

My colleague who just spoke and I are former municipal officials, former mayors. We can say that all the municipalities are able, with obligations, to get funding at a maximum rate of 2%. As a result, the municipalities have no interest in investing in this infrastructure, except on the recommendation of the government. It will only serve to fill the pockets of these private investors, these foreign investors, and these friends of the government who are filling the Liberals' election coffers at fundraisers across Canada.

Every time we ask the government about this, it is radio silence. We learned from a document that I mentioned earlier, written by BlackRock, that in August 2016, the largest investment firm in the world secretly met with senior officials and their guests, potential clients of this bank. Through the Access to Information Act, we were able to get access to information about all of these meetings, including the agendas and subjects discussed.

Oddly, we have no information because everything except for the titles was redacted. We do not have the names of the people who attended the meetings with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Infrastructure, and the Minister of Transport. Where is the list of BlackRock's guests and clients, those who are going to profit from this infrastructure bank? This is frustrating. The Liberal government says it is transparent, but it is impossible to get this list or what was on the agenda for the meetings.

BlackRock even helped the minister write his speech during an event that was held in November. It is unbelievable when we think about it. With all the support around the minister, including writers, he had to ask a private firm to help him write his speech.

As I was saying, all the top Liberals were at that meeting: the Minister of Finance, the Minister of International Trade, the Minister of Innovation, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Heritage, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of the Environment, and, of course, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Surprise, surprise. The infrastructure bank is exactly what the investors were hoping for. Investors have managed to create a bank to meet their needs and that will yield minimum returns of between 7% and 9% and possibly 10% to 12% in some cases. Of course the projects will have to be worth more than $100 million to be of interest to them.

Who made these smart recommendations? Michael Sabia and Mark Wiseman, two members of the Trudeau government's advisory council on economic growth who, coincidentally, will directly benefit from the establishment of this infrastructure bank.

Michael Sabia is the president of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and Mark Wiseman is member of the global executive committee of BlackRock. There is obviously a conflict of interest. It begs the question: did these people declare a conflict of interest? The answer is no. There is no declaration, and they have no intention of stepping away from the consultations. They came up with the idea for this infrastructure bank. They recommended it to the government. They got the Justin Trudeau government to make that decision. We asked many questions, which all went unanswered.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind the hon. member that using the surname of other members in the House is not allowed. Even if the name is part of a quotation, for example, it is not allowed. It is preferable to use the name of the riding or the appropriate title of the member.

I am not certain whether the member was finished, so the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska has the floor.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I think I got carried away and strayed from my text. I made the unfortunate mistake of calling the individuals by their last names. I will pay close attention the next time.

Before concluding my speech, I would like to note that a report by a committee of the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, whose president is Kevin Page, someone we certainly know and who is the former parliamentary budget officer, says that there is no solid business case for creating the infrastructure bank, since it will have the potential to increase costs to taxpayers while privatizing the infrastructure that is currently profitable and risk-free.

That report questions why the infrastructure bank needs to be created. We do not know. Saying that it is innovative is not a good answer. The case for the bank is weak.

Personally, I am profoundly shocked to see the minister, with the candour he has, trying to make us believe that what he is putting in place is a good thing for Canadians.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which is indeed based on such relevant experience. He represents Quebeckers and the municipalities in Quebec well.

It is atrocious that we are getting these dribs and drabs of information about a project of this size that is supposed to provide structure and could do precisely that, but that ultimately seems to serve the interests of high finance. It is such an important project, but it has been stuffed into an omnibus bill and we will not have time to talk about it as we should.

According to these dribs and drabs of information, a board of directors is already being set up, and applications are being taken. However, $30 billion of our money, the public’s money, is being invested in this bank.

Who, then, will represent the public on that board of directors?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very relevant question.

The explanation is a total lack of respect for democracy. I would not want to imagine things, but it is rather odd that these announcements were made right in the middle of the disaster we are experiencing in Quebec. We might even wonder whether it was pushed forward precisely to pull a fast one on us. A site has been announced and managers are already being sought for this future infrastructure bank, even before it has been created by Parliament and the bill has been passed here.

In addition, the government had the audacity to include it in an omnibus bill so that it would pass unnoticed, thinking that we and the public would not see through it. This is completely unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about rural infrastructure, and I want to pick up on that particular point.

We have a government, through the current minister, that has recognized the value of infrastructure in rural Canada. In fact, for the very first time, literally $2 billion is being designated for rural infrastructure. That is a very important point to recognize.

The member challenges the government and asks about the infrastructure bank and potential rural projects. My question is specifically regarding that question he lobbed over this way.

Does the member believe that rural Canada will benefit if we invest in infrastructure, in such things as transmission lines? All sorts of projects will potentially be eligible for significant amounts of financing. I would suggest that rural Canada would benefit immensely from that, keeping in mind that this infrastructure bank complements the current $170-plus billion that is going toward infrastructure.

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying not to laugh, because we have already asked all the questions about what my colleague is trying to explain to us.

We have asked the minister to name one project that could be financed by this bank in a small or medium-sized municipality in a rural area, a city with a population of 40,000, 50,000, or 100,000, but he has never managed to do that.

I asked the minister and his senior officials, unofficially, to name a single project that could be funded by this infrastructure bank, and they were never able to name a single one.

If the member opposite, then, is better than the Minister of Finance, let him name one concrete project that could be carried out. He will see that he is going to need all the notes from his strategists, because he will simply not find any.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very enjoyable to hear my colleague’s comments, which are based on his experience as mayor. The member knows very well that when you are a mayor, you have major infrastructure projects that require the contribution of the other governments.

In his opinion, why does this government want to do this through a bank, when there are programs such as P3 Canada that already exist?

[Alain Rayes, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very relevant question that clearly reveals the government’s intention. There is no reason to create a bank. Everything is already in place right now.

A mayor, or a municipal council, has never needed to go looking for financing, because we all have access to funding through municipal bonds, at an interest rate of less than 2%, and the federal government and the provinces are also able to do this.

There is therefore no reason to create a new structure, other than to make people believe it is a good thing or to enable officials in Toronto to get on the gravy train and help foreign investors earn even more money. There is no other reason.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver East.

I am very happy today to have the opportunity to rise in support of the motion from my colleague, the member for Beloeil—Chambly. The motion, in my view, is very clearly worded and its purpose is also clear and concise. The clauses concerning the Canada infrastructure bank's creation should be removed from Bill C-44, the budget implementation act, 2017, No. 1, so that they can be studied as a stand-alone bill.

This is not an unreasonable ask. It is widely acknowledged that the government's proposed infrastructure bank scheme is complex. Canadians and parliamentarians should take the time to study it before it is enacted as part of an omnibus budget bill, which is precisely the type of bill that the current government used to decry and condemn as undemocratic. After all, if we are to invest $35 billion into this scheme, we should allot more than a couple of hours of study.

I am sure my colleagues would agree that this sort of spending deserves more careful scrutiny, which is why it needs to be excised from Bill C-44 and studied as a stand-alone bill. Why is the government burying such an important and expensive initiative in a 300-page bill? What is it afraid of? A government that has boasted over and over again about its pledges to be open and transparent is afraid to allow any sunlight to fall on its infrastructure bank scheme. Could it be because this scheme would benefit its wealthy friends first and foremost instead of the citizens of Canada?

What are the criteria and governance models that this bank would operate under? Already there are concerns that corporations and private investors have been given unprecedented control over the planning and development of this scheme. Where is the consultation with everyday Canadians that Liberals are so fond of? Why will the Liberals not even allow elected members of this House to study this scheme? Are they concerned that their scheme will not pass the smell test?

The government promised that investments in infrastructure would benefit Canadians, but it is difficult to see how a scheme that would pad the profits of corporations and wealthy private investors would do that, especially when everyday Canadians would be paying the price through new tolls and years of user fees with nothing to show for it in the long run. This is the oldest trick in the book, and we all know how it ends. Governments give sweetheart deals to corporations for infrastructure projects, people pay through the nose, corporations make profits, and then the crumbling infrastructure is dumped back on the public. It is not a scenario that benefits taxpayers.

How can Canadians be sure that decisions made by this bank would, indeed, be in the best interests of taxpayers? Will corporate profits always trump public good, or just sometimes? Either way, it is not acceptable to push this through without consultation, without study, and without the disinfectant of sunlight on this scheme that seems to have been concocted between the government and a few of its wealthy friends. It is just the latest example of the arrogance of the government, “Just trust us; we know best.”

It is passing strange that the consultation the government loves to trot out as a delaying tactic whenever convenient is so conspicuously missing here. When it came to pay equity for half of our population, the Liberals conveniently kicked the can for a couple of years, citing the need for consultation, even though pay equity is a human right and has been studied to death. After ragging the puck on electoral reform for months, the Liberals insisted on consultations in many forms, town halls in each riding, postcards, and even a famously incoherent and universally ridiculed online questionnaire, only to abruptly pull the plug on their promise to make 2015 the last election under first past the post. However, when there is an opportunity to help their wealthy friends get even richer off the backs of Canadians, it is suddenly inconvenient to have consultations. It must be just a coincidence.

If the Liberals think they have a case to move forward, they should not be afraid to pull the plug, just like they did on electoral reform. They should pull the infrastructure bank scheme out of the omnibus budget bill so it can be studied properly. If they acted as they claim, in the best interest of Canadians, they should not be afraid of scrutiny, and their scheme should be able to stand, or fall, on its own merits. This unseemly haste does not bode well for Canadians. If elected representatives cannot be allowed to properly study this costly scheme, one must ask again what the government is hiding. What is it afraid of?

Public infrastructure should serve the interests of Canadians. Privatizing investment in public infrastructure is not just a bad business decision for the taxpayers of Canada; it represents a blatant conflict of interest.

We do not have to look very far to find examples of boondoggles that have cost taxpayers dearly. In my home province of Saskatchewan, I can point to a couple of infamous examples. The Regina bypass portion of the Trans-Canada Highway is contracted to a foreign company that has been accused of unfair labour practices, and the cost of this project has ballooned from $400 million to $2 billion. What about the sketchy land deal known as the Global Transportation Hub scandal, particularly the revelation that the land purchased by the GTH could have been bought years earlier for a tenth of the cost? As a result of the Saskatchewan Party's GTH scandal, two businessmen, who also happen to be Sask Party supporters, took $11 million in profits out of the pockets of Saskatchewan taxpayers. Now the Sask Party government has unilaterally killed the Saskatchewan Transportation Company, STC, because it thinks that a private operator will be able to take it over. Yes, a private operator would be only too happy to buy STC's assets in a fire sale and then only offer service on routes that would be profitable. What happens to the less profitable routes that serve Canadians in remote communities who have no other means of transportation to get to cancer treatment?

Selling off profitable crown corporations like SaskTel will only lead to higher costs for consumers and an unnecessary loss of equity and revenue for the province, and therefore the taxpayers. I really do not care which party people belong to. Stories like these should make their skin crawl.

In the last 30 years, there have been many failed experiments that have exploded the myth that private business can deliver essential public services and infrastructure at less cost and with better results than the public sector. Canadians pay taxes for the common good. That includes public services and public infrastructure.

During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals promised to establish the Canada infrastructure bank to “provide low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects”, but in 2016, they subsequently announced that the bank would be financed largely by private-sector investors. I am pretty sure that private-sector investors are not known for their pro bono work.

Projects financed by the infrastructure bank would have to generate revenues that would pay significant returns to investors, resulting in user fees, tolls, and of course, new costs to be assumed by Canadians across the country. What the Liberals are proposing is nothing short of privatization of our infrastructure. This privatization would benefit their friends: wealthy investors. It would not help middle-class Canadians, and middle-class Canadians are who the Liberals keep saying they are trying to help.

All Canadians should ask this question: If the bank's mandate would be to finance projects with income-generating potential, what would happen to essential infrastructure projects in the regions deemed unprofitable but that are in the public interest and are necessary for public safety? Based on the Liberal plan, the bank would have great autonomy in choosing which infrastructure projects were financed. Given these circumstances, who would guarantee that the decisions made by the bank's board and executive director were in the public interest, and moreover, who would have the power to prevent corruption and ensure accountability?

In fact, we are learning through the news media that there is an internal federal report that warns of a wide range of potential problems with the proposed Canada infrastructure bank, including that it would duplicate the work of provinces, slow down projects, add new layers of bureaucracy, and expose Ottawa to “public relations disasters and embarrassment”.

If the government is so convinced that its infrastructure bank scheme is in the best interest of Canadians, it should have no objection at all to severing it from the omnibus budget bill and having it scrutinized by parliamentarians and Canadians. After all, what does it have to hide?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her speech and her criticisms of the bank. That is what we are here for. Both of Her Majesty's loyal oppositions do an earnest job in holding us to account, and I thank them for their advocacy.

It should come as no surprise that we are investing all over Canada. In the area of Saskatoon alone, we have 13 projects, with a total eligible cost of about $60-plus million, half of which is the federal contribution. These are things I hope the member will admit are critical for the development of the Saskatoon area. Indeed, the mayors and city councillors are over the hills about these investments, which have been underfunded for so long.

There seems to be a fear of the private sector. Pushed to its limit, the suggestion is that we would have to build all these projects, even in our classical funding model, all by ourselves. That is not the case. We work with partners, and they contribute to our understanding of needs. Indeed, we defer to the provinces and municipalities for their expertise as to which projects are selected.

Has the member read the legislation? It took me half an hour. It is not buried anywhere in an omnibus bill. It is an easy read. I am glad to sit down and work with her. To truly understand the functioning of the bank, it is worth that half-hour sit-down. Has she read the legislation?

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, of course my community of Saskatoon and my riding of Saskatoon West are pleased to get the investments they have received.

I met with my counterparts, colleagues and friends within city council, to talk about what they thought of an infrastructure bank. Members need to know that in the province of Saskatchewan, there are only a million people. The two largest cities have populations of 200,000. Although the City of Saskatoon, in particular, has a very long list, as we all know most municipalities have not been able to keep pace with the infrastructure needs of their communities. It is a very long list of things that need to happen in my community. It was clear from their list and our conversations that none of the ones on their wish list would fall under this infrastructure bank. Therefore, I believe that the $15 billion used to create the bank has come out of my community.

What we are discussing today is the ability to have the conversation. I am not afraid of private investment. I want to have the conversation. I want this huge investment of taxpayer dollars, and all the stuff that has gone on prior to the bill even being passed, to come to Parliament to see the light of day and be debated. It is within an omnibus bill. It is not being pulled out, because I believe it will not—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Edmonton Riverbend.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Liberals on the other side of the House say that city councillors and other members of municipalities are “over the hills” excited about this infrastructure bank. I know it was originally said that it could potentially come to a place like Calgary. I would not describe the mayor there as being over the hills excited these days about the decision to locate it in a place like Toronto.

Is my NDP colleague hearing similar things? A bunch of infrastructure announcements are being made. There are lots of flashy lights, and many members of Parliament on the Liberal side are standing there, excited to make an announcement. However, a lot of it is not funded until the years 2022 and 2023. We heard the infrastructure minister say that everyone is excited about these infrastructure projects, yet there are no shovels in the ground. I wonder if that is similar in her city of Saskatoon.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have concerns for sure. Folks in my riding have concerns about so much of the money being back-ended, not only for what we traditionally view as public infrastructure but also for social programs, such as daycare and public housing. Although they are bunched in around social infrastructure and public infrastructure, many of those programs are not going to be funded to the levels the Liberals promised during the election until after the next election. I find that very disappointing.

My riding really needs that basic social infrastructure, and we cannot wait until the next election. The Liberals promised that it would happen for the people in my riding during this term.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to this important motion brought forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

For decades, Canada's vital public infrastructure has been suffering from serious neglect from the lack of political will of government after government to adequately invest in it. To make matters worse, not only have federal governments continued to fail to adequately invest in public infrastructure, but there has also been a significant downloading of the responsibility to provincial and municipal governments. In turn, many provincial governments over the years have followed suit and downloaded their responsibilities to local governments, as well.

The result is that local governments have been left holding the bag. Local governments have been even further handcuffed by successive cuts to transfers made to them by both the federal and provincial governments. Between the 1990s and 2000s alone, transfers from other levels of government were reduced from 26% to 16% of total annual municipal revenue.

While estimates of the infrastructure deficit can vary, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in its annual alternative federal budget, pegs that figure at $171.8 billion. There is absolutely no doubt that investment is needed.

Canada's public infrastructure is desperate for upgrade and expansion, and these are not just some make-work projects. Public infrastructure, such as improving roads and highways and expanding public transit services would not only significantly improve the lives of Canadians as they go about their day, but would help Canada build a more environmentally sustainable society, allowing us to do our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, for example.

As Canadian cities continue to grow, the failure to provide the essential funding to increase public transit options impacts Canadians at a personal level and the broader economy as well.

The 2014 traffic index found my city of Vancouver was home to the third largest amount of gridlock in North America, just behind Los Angeles and Mexico City, with Toronto not far behind. Gridlock was believed to cost the average commuter nearly 79 hours in 2014. That means for over three days per year, people are stuck in traffic.

In 2009, the OECD estimated that the greater Toronto area alone lost $3.3 billion in productivity as a result of urban sprawl, congestion, and underinvestment in public transit. Fast, frequent, reliable, accessible, affordable, high-capacity transit is essential.

In my riding, we often see buses drive past stops because they are full. There is no question that more buses are needed. The B-Line on Broadway often has long lineups. People in my community would love to see a rapid transit that takes them all the way to UBC. Enhanced HandyDART services are also much needed for seniors and those with mobility challenges.

Significant and stable long-term funding is required to provide the services needed to meet existing and future transit demands. Investments in public infrastructure are investments in our country's future.

Aside from a deficit in transit infrastructure, we also need soft infrastructure support. Things like libraries, community centres, neighbourhood houses, art and cultural spaces, theatres across Canada in both cities and rural communities are vitally important community institutions.

In Vancouver East, Vancouver's Chinatown is one of Canada's major tourist and historical sites. It is a recognized national historic site yet today, it is number three on Heritage Vancouver's top 10 watch list of endangered sites in Vancouver and on the top 19 endangered places list on the National Trust for Canada.

Today, historic Chinatown is faced with enormous redevelopment pressures and the neighbourhood is fast gentrifying. Currently, the community is very concerned about the future of 105 Keefer Street. It is located next to the Chinese memorial which commemorates the Chinese railway workers and soldiers. This memorial depicts the history of Chinese Canadians in Canada and is profound in its meaning to our community. The Vancouver Chinese memorial is one of a kind in North America and is also a major tourist attraction.

In recognition of the above factors, the Chinese Benevolent Association, the Canadian Alliance of Chinese Associations, the Chinese Canadian Military Museum Society, Chinese Canadian youth and seniors living in Chinatown held a joint press conference earlier requesting all levels of government to work in collaboration to acquire 105 Keefer Street and develop it for the community with special emphasis for low-income seniors housing.

The community would like to see all levels of government contribute to this much needed affordable housing in our community and to include the purchase of 105 Keefer as part of that initiative. This would be an excellent infrastructure project for the federal government to support.

Also, there is a historically significant role for Chinese society and clan associations in serving the social, political, and financial needs of Chinese Canadians. To bridge the history to the current realities of today, the community would like to see our government help rejuvenate these historic Chinese society and clan buildings. These buildings could be renovated in order to better serve the needs of today's community by creating usable community cultural spaces, space for food programs, and affordable housing.

The critical shortage of affordable, social, and co-op housing in this country is acute. Despite big talk about affordable housing strategies and big announcements about making investments, the government is simply continuing to kick the can down the road. In fact, it is investing in this year's budget exactly zero dollars to address the crisis.

My constituent Emily wrote:

Today I had the opportunity with my daughters school, Fresh Air Elementary, to tour Lookout's shelter in North Vancouver.

We learned that the shelter is full every night and that BC Housing waitlists are impossibly long. I know that the people who are homeless often face multiple barriers that will make it almost impossible to find housing in the regular rental market.

We need a national housing plan that includes mixed income housing such as Co-ops, accessible housing, housing for seniors and housing for people that are really hard to house. There has to be affordable options for families too.

The city of Vancouver has 20 sites ready to go, and we can see affordable housing developed there now. One of them is at 58 West Hastings, a city-owned site. The mayor signed a pledge and committed that the project would be 100% welfare, pension rate community-controlled social housing. One partner of the project is the Vancouver Chinatown Foundation. The city is now seeking additional financial support from senior levels of government, and it is vital that the federal government become a partner in this important project.

Aside from housing, soft infrastructure is also critical in our community. Take for example the Chinese Cultural Centre's newly re-elected board chair, Fred Kwok, would like to see a theatre built for community use at the Chinese Cultural Centre. The land is available. The plan was drawn up by the late Joe Wai, an architect that left a huge legacy in our community. A partnership with the federal government would be essential to see this project succeed.

I wholeheartedly agree that Canada needs significant, immediate, and sustained investments to upgrade, improve, and expand our public infrastructure. However, like my New Democratic colleagues, I have very serious concerns about the government's proposed Canada infrastructure bank. The government can pick any name it wants, but it cannot change what it really is: the growing privatization of Canada's public infrastructure. We know the government has given large multinational corporations significant control in the creation of this program. It had even decided where it should go before the matter was examined by committee.

What we know is that this is just another term for private-public partnerships, what we call P3s. Why the fancy name? Years of evidence have shown P3s for what they really are: costly, private profit-generating projects that are prone to cost and time overruns, high user fees, and when something goes wrong, it is the public that is on the hook.

A 2016 paper from the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy concluded that P3s cost as much as, or even more than, conventional fixed-price procurement arrangements. As I alluded to, it also found “risks that are supposedly transferred to private partners are never truly transferred.”

This is going to be done on the backs of Canadians. The government is rushing this through because it wants to hide it so that people cannot have accountability and cannot have transparency, which is exactly what the government said it would not do.

It is time to support this motion. Canadians deserve no less.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Madam Speaker, given that debate has been shut down and we have one hour at the infrastructure committee to discuss this, I want to hear the member's opinion and thoughts about posting for positions on the board and for a CEO before the committee has seen the legislation, before the legislation has come to the House, and before the legislation has been passed.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals promised there would be no abuse of omnibus bills, yet here we are with another broken promise. They are doing exactly what they said they would not do. We have a major initiative here and the government is hiding it within 300 pages of an omnibus bill. In addition to that, the Liberals are absolutely shutting down debate so that we cannot have a thorough debate about the issue.

In fact, today it was reported that an internal report recommends that the government should ensure there is clear accountability on this issue and that parliamentarians should fully investigate this. For the government to have made decisions about the board and the location of the infrastructure bank is absolutely astounding. The Liberals are ignoring the important voices of every single parliamentarian. We represent our constituents, the people who elected us to bring forward points of view on their behalf. The government is usurping all of that. It is inappropriate and wrong.

Canadians deserve accountability and transparency. We are talking about $35 billion of Canadians' money. The Liberals need to step up and do what they said they would do during the campaign, which is be accountable.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her advocacy for her community. I heard the passion with which she expressed her concern for development, particularly in social housing. These are needs in any city and most communities. In mine, for example, it is up to 30% or 40% in certain areas and boroughs.

These are the things we need to be fighting for and that is why we have a classical infrastructure model of up to $180 billion. This is why we will not be using private capital in most circumstances to leverage these purchases and construction. We will be working with private partners and we will be looking to work with private partners for these things. In some areas it will make sense and in some areas it will not.

Has the member talked to any community members for projects that will make sense in her riding, will make sense for the Vancouver area? We recently announced projects in the Vancouver area of $300 million, half of which are federally funded. Again, not all of those are privately leveraged, but there are circumstances where we will be building more infrastructure in order to build bigger projects, more projects in communities where they need it and where it makes sense to allow private partners to participate, but it is not all of them. It is 8% of our classical funding model. Perhaps the member could consult with members in her party because the projects themselves come from the proponents and they are not pushed by the bank in and of itself.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member says affordable housing would not be part of the infrastructure bank. Perhaps he should actually talk to his colleague, the member for Spadina—Fort York, who seemed to indicate that affordable housing would be part of that.

To set that aside for a minute, I am interested in the question that is top of mind for my constituents. With this set-up of the infrastructure bank, will people be stuck with user fees and tolls for these big projects? Why will the Liberals not come clean and tell them if that is their plan? Canadians deserve to have the answer and none of us knows that at this point. The government would not confirm that one way or the other. My projection is that they would be stuck with user fees, that they would be stuck with tolls. My community is telling me this in terms of their concerns.

Has the member read the internal report and is he concerned about what the internal report is suggesting?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.

It is an honour to stand in the House today to speak about the important work our government is doing to support our municipalities' infrastructure investments for the 21st century.

In budget 2016, we launched the first phase of the plan, which is designed to achieve three major objectives: encouraging long-term economic growth, building inclusive communities, and supporting a low carbon emission green economy.

The initial phase focused on repairing and modernizing existing infrastructure. It also provided for financing the design and planning stages of new large-scale projects.

That first phase has been successful. Through Infrastructure Canada's two funds, the $2 billion clean water and waste water fund, and the $3.4 billion public transit infrastructure fund, the Government of Canada has supported 1,760 projects across the country. Over 70% of these projects are currently under way.

When we first took office, we made a commitment to Canadians and Canadian municipalities to be transparent and to make strategic evidence-based investments in infrastructure. We knew the best way to do this was in partnership with provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous peoples, and key stakeholders, so we met with them. We talked to them, and we continue to talk to all our partners and stakeholders. We know the best way to be successful is to ensure that the work we are doing and the plans we are putting forward are based on the needs and expectations of the people it is meant to serve.

As the Prime Minister said in the House on Tuesday, we ensure we talk to people, like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the big cities mayors' caucus, and to engineering and construction industry members. Last week, I spoke to a group of mayors from the UMQ, who put forward their views on our project, and they were very positive about it. With their valuable input and contributions, we were able to develop our long-term infrastructure plan, which we call “investing in Canada”, through which we will invest over $180 billion over 12 years.

Our plan focuses on five key areas: public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation, and rural and northern communities. It also features two new initiatives: the smart cities challenge, which I spoke to the mayor and guests about yesterday in Toronto; and the Canada infrastructure bank.

When we were developing the Canada infrastructure bank, we also met with groups like the Canadian Council for Public Private Partnerships, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. We knew the importance of having the experts at the table from the very beginning. That is also why I would like to commend the House of Commons and Senate committees that are looking into the bank very carefully. The bank is being reviewed by four distinct committees. I would like to thank those members for their time and hard work on the matter.

The Canada infrastructure bank is a new tool for communities across Canada to take advantage of in order to build strong and stronger communities.

We are proposing the Canada infrastructure bank because we believe that the federal government has an opportunity to make a place for itself among the many private sector investments in infrastructure and to form partnerships with some of the largest institutional investors in the world.

If Parliament approves it, that is exactly what the Canada infrastructure bank will do. It will invest up to $35 billion in new infrastructure focusing on growth everywhere in Canada.

Fifteen billion of those dollars will come from the investing in Canada plan. That $15 billion represents approximately 8% of the total funds we have committed to infrastructure under our long-term plan, which I referred to earlier, of over $180 billion.

We will make an additional $20 billion in capital available to the Canada infrastructure bank to enable it to hold assets in the form of equity or debt.

The bank will be the federal government’s contact point with the private sector and will hire experts from the private sector so that the government can maximize the investments made with private capital.

The bank’s funds are in addition to the funding for infrastructure that we have committed to doubling. Most importantly, they represent a new way of helping our financing partners meet their urgent infrastructure needs. We will free up public funds to build more public infrastructure using private capital to build these new projects.

We expect that the bank will attract private sector capital that would otherwise not have been invested in public infrastructure. That will have a multiplier effect on our transformational infrastructure capacities. Once the bank has been created as an autonomous crown corporation, it will provide a new tool that the provincial, territorial, municipal, and indigenous partners will be able to use to build the infrastructure that Canadians need.

It will also be responsible for negotiating complex transactions and finding innovative financing solutions for transformational infrastructure projects everywhere in Canada. It is therefore essential that we find and attract talented and experienced managers who will ensure that the bank fulfils its mandate. My colleague, the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, has initiated the search for senior management, namely the chairperson, the board of directors, and the chief executive officer of the autonomous crown corporation. The objective is to ensure that the bank is operational by the end of 2017.

This process is open and merit-based, and it will enable us to find the experts and professionals who are needed for managing the bank. The selection process is designed to attract diverse and highly qualified personnel.

At this point, I would like to address some of the allegations made in the House, in particular by the member for South Surrey—White Rock. The suggestion has been made, and it was not simply made by her, that the bank would take away from current projects that have been announced or are under way. That is patently false. The member can rest assured that the projects in her riding, totalling $72.5 million, half of which is federally funded, will go through.

Another issue that was raised was the ownership of the gas tax fund. It bears reminding the House that the gas tax fund was created by the last Liberal minister of finance, now the current Minister of Public Safety, to truly balance the budget. The gas tax fund is a Liberal initiative that creates sustained funding to municipalities through regular funding from the government.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I met with the UMQ. We do not share entirely the same opinion on how much money gets funded by the federal government. We are entering into a difficult, earnest, and open negotiation phase with Quebec, and municipalities will participate in the advocacy. It was very eager to hear what our plans were.

Wherever I go in Quebec to make announcements, the mayors of the cities, and especially the councillors, who work as hard as we do, if not harder, are delighted to be getting infrastructure. There has been a crying need for decades, because of capital underfunding, and that has consequences.

If approved by Parliament, the bank will be an important new tool for our provincial, territorial, municipal, and indigenous communities to build more infrastructure, while freeing up public funding for public projects.

The Government of Canada has been open and transparent regarding all phases of the bank's development. We will continue to work openly with our partners to ensure our investing in Canada's infrastructure plan continues to meet the needs of communities across Canada.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Out of the $120 billion promised and planned by his government after the election, how much, to date, has been taken out of the treasury to be invested in infrastructure? To my knowledge, it is almost nothing.

How is the infrastructure bank going to make sure that the $120 billion promised for infrastructure is distributed to the various projects as quickly as possible?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Obviously, we need to clarify the fact that the $180 billion is being allocated to a 12-year project. As the member well knows, the model agreements we will have with the provinces will vary from province to province, based on need.

For the existing projects in Quebec, and I am certain that this is what the member wanted to ask about, we pay the bills when they are submitted to the government. We do our due diligence, and when we approve a project, the money is allocated to that project. Whether it comes from the bank, as such, or from the treasury, as such, is therefore not as important as the fact that the project is approved and the commitment to providing the funding is made.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to share a thought with the House. The danger of privatizing public infrastructure is twofold. First, there is a risk that we will be making users pay more; and second, if we introduce a profitability factor, that will put areas outside of urban centres at a disadvantage, particularly in the communities in my riding, Jonquière.

Take for example cellphone service and the purchase of new cellphone towers. Certainly, it will be more attractive, for a private company, to erect these new towers in regions where there are more users. For the smaller communities in my riding such as Lamarche, with a population of about 500, buying new cellphone towers for infrastructure will not be attractive for the private sector, because there are fewer users. This is of crucial importance, however, for developing the economy of these small communities, as well as for tourism and for retaining population.

What does my colleague say to these small communities that will be penalized and will not be able to benefit from what his project is promising? That project will not be important for our communities. They will not actually be able to benefit from it.