Debates of May 11th, 2017

Free Movement of Members of Parliament within the Parliamentary Precinct

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I thank the hon. member for Hamilton Centre very much for raising this issue. He is of course familiar with the ruling that I made on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Beauce and the hon. member for Milton some time ago, which of course is before PROC, also known as the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I thank him very much for raising this, and I look forward to the report of the committee in due course.

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In a moment I will request unanimous consent to propose a motion, but would like to give a minimum amount of context for the folks watching at home.

Bill C-4 that this House has debated and sent to the Senate is a bill that reversed an ideological attack on some of the fundamentals of unions from the previous government. I want to call to people's attention that the House has already passed the bill, and now the Senate has delayed and tried to gut this important legislation. I really feel it is time to finish the job.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I hope you would find unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: “That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that the House disagrees with the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Income Tax Act.”

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

Business of the House

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the government tell us what its plans are for the rest of this week and next week?

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the debate on the NDP opposition motion. Tomorrow morning the House will begin consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C-37, the opioids legislation. Following question period, we will proceed to Bill C-7, the RCMP labour bill.

On Monday and Tuesday next week, we will return to debate on the bills just listed. On Wednesday we will resume debate on Bill C-4, respecting unions. In the evening, the House will consider the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development in committee of the whole.

Next Thursday, May 18, shall be an allocated day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Opposition Motion — The Canada Infrastructure Bank

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House in order to demonstrate to many of my colleagues how important this motion is to the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, and certainly to the vast majority of the ridings we represent. This motion is important because the Liberals are creating an infrastructure privatization program that will not meet the needs of the communities we represent.

The priority of the corporations within the infrastructure privatization bank is not to build infrastructure, but to make a profit. Furthermore, the government has handed over control of planning and implementing the privatization bank to private investors and multinationals. During the election campaign, the Liberals promised infrastructure investment that would benefit all Canadians. Now we are in a situation where the government has just put the interests of big corporations first.

I represent 25 municipalities that believed the Liberals’ promises about infrastructure investment. In the riding I represent, the largest municipality, the major city, is the 18th largest in Quebec. The next one has almost 10 times fewer residents, as does the third. After that we have villages with populations ranging from 3,000 to 500. Even for the largest municipality in the riding I represent, the infrastructure privatization bank will not be there. In fact, projects over $100 million that provide long-term returns of 10% to 12% do not exist in my riding and do not exist in the vast majority of ridings that we represent in the House.

It is understandable that, for electoral reasons, the focus would be on the major urban centres, where most Canadians are concentrated, but our country is being developed keeping land use in mind. We occupy, through our different ridings, a vast country outside the major urban centres. The very large majority of the municipalities we represent will therefore not have access to this infrastructure bank.

I can say that these communities have certain needs. Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was a municipal councillor for six years. The district I represented faced numerous infrastructure needs. Part of the sewer system of the district was 100 years old. Part of it was still made of brick. The year after I was elected, there was a great deal of rainfall. This is indeed the time to talk about this, now that so many communities are experiencing this flooding. After an abundant rainfall, many houses had backed-up sewers.

At that time, the city manager told me not to worry, that it was an exceptional situation that did not happen often, maybe every 10 years. However, there was a problem, because in the following year there were more heavy rains; the whole thing started over again, as it did the year after that. Today we are in a situation where events like this are happening more and more regularly, like the one we are now facing. All the experts and scientists agree that we are going to experience situations like this with increasing frequency.

Our municipalities have major infrastructure needs, as old infrastructures are in need of upgrading. The district I represented had a combined sewer system, that is, the same system had sanitary sewers and storm sewers. We know that today this is no longer the norm. At one time, the goal was to send the water to the river as quickly as possible, in both urban centres and rural communities.

In the 1980s in Quebec, we had a vast land drainage program. There are great benefits to land drainage, but it also takes the water to our rivers very quickly, and in communities like mine, 10 or 12 hours after a rainfall, the river level rises substantially, causing a lot of problems.

All municipalities are grappling with these kinds of infrastructure issues. The needs are great, and not all of the smaller communities can meet them. As I was saying earlier, the infrastructure bank targets projects of over $100 million. However, there is a problem with respect to all the other programs as well.

This government does not seem to realize that not all the municipalities have thousands of employees. The largest municipality I represent has 250 employees, the second largest 10 times fewer, and 22 of the 25 municipalities I represent average two and a half employees. We are then asking two and a half employees to deal with these issues and these infrastructure programs, which are in no way adapted to their reality. What is more, I am going to have to tell them that the billions of dollars the government will be investing in an infrastructure bank are not for them.

Regarding the wastewater treatment program I was talking about earlier, I was not surprised to find that the projects approved in my riding were those of the only three cities. The mayors of the towns told me that when they could have been ready to submit their project, they were told that they might just as well forget about it, that there was nothing more available, that it was “first come, first served” and their turn had come and gone. These communities have to be kept in mind.

When it comes to infrastructure, most of the communities I represent are barely keeping their heads above water financially, and this is certainly the week for that imagery. The tiniest wave can make them go under, because they do not have the resources to maintain roads or their drinking water and wastewater treatment systems. This is important.

When I was a municipal councillor, I represented an urban district, and in my last year in office I had to go door to door to explain to the citizens of my district that the sidewalks would be removed from their street when the street was redone. At one time, when a street was built, a sidewalk would be built too, but we no longer have the resources to maintain this kind of infrastructure. It is important for the government to understand that it cannot go off in this direction. It is better to stop working with these private investors, whose only aim is to make big profits.

Ottawa has the capacity to reduce costs for Canadians by financing projects at far lower rates. If the Liberals think that their privatization program offers real benefits for Canadians, they should not be afraid to support today’s motion and withdraw their legislative measures for the infrastructure bank from the omnibus budget bill, so that those measures can be studied and given genuine debate.

I have just explained the needs of the riding I represent. We must take the time to talk about issues concerning the infrastructure of all of our communities. The infrastructure bank must be removed from the omnibus bill so that time can be taken to discuss it. We must explain to the government what the communities we represent are experiencing.

I represent 25 mayors who are counting on me to support them on the infrastructure issue. I must be up to that challenge. To do so, I must have the opportunity to discuss this. The Liberals have to abandon this infrastructure bank, stop rushing through the issues in their omnibus bill, and allow us the time to discuss them.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has made some very significant points.

As we know, all of our communities need infrastructure. If this infrastructure bank had merit, we would be hearing about it, but even the government's own expert, KPMG, said this is going to be a disaster. We have had years of the Liberal government courting billionaires in order to get information on how to set this up so that billionaires, basically, are going to be having the profit but Canadian taxpayers are going to be having all the risk.

Quite rightly, in question period, we heard today that Canadian taxpayers have only had two hours to discuss this. I do commend her and her party for bringing this forward because we need to address this, to debate it.

Why does she think the Liberal government is putting the needs and wants of billionaires ahead of the needs and wants of Canadians and their communities?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear and obvious that the Liberals have had this bank project in mind since the election campaign. They have already advertised the board of directors positions of the infrastructure bank. They have already begun filling those positions, and they already know the friends from private corporations they want to place on the board; there are no representatives of public companies.

To me, it shows a total lack of respect for the House to move forward even before the House has voted on this infrastructure bank. The government is showing great arrogance and a total lack of respect for the parliamentarians in the House.

It is clear that there are crony corporations that have a huge amount of money to make with this bank.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous respect for my hon. colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. We share the same interests on a number of subjects, especially those relating to our constituents in small towns.

My colleague has concerns about the municipalities’ access to funding. The infrastructure bank is a funding tool, but it is just one in a whole array of funding tools that will be available to the municipalities.

To multiply the leverage of the money we have, does my colleague agree that the funding that can be generated through the infrastructure bank should be generated as planned, and that the municipalities that need funding will be able to find it through traditional methods? Would that not be a good thing?

[Brigitte Sansoucy, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we already have tools to assist municipalities without diverting public money to a private bank that is totally outside the decision-making power of elected officials. Let us be clear: it is the bank that will have the power to decide on priorities, even for projects of $100 million and more. The big cities will not even be well served by this model, since it does not meet the needs of municipalities of any kind.

We have to adopt genuine programs that provide assistance to municipalities, but above all we must allow the communities the power to decide on their priorities themselves.

At present, we have a model in Quebec that ensures that it is the province, in collaboration with the municipalities, that prioritizes projects, and that is how we must continue to operate.

With this tool, we are giving the opportunity to set priorities to those who want to make the profits. It is they who will decide which projects will be most cost-effective, even if the communities have not prioritized those projects. That is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.

I want to say how delighted I am to be able to tell the House today about the government's achievements and plans for infrastructure in our country. The Government of Canada knows that investing in strategic infrastructure is vital for the success of communities where Canadians live.

My colleague, the hon. Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, spoke passionately and eloquently about the difference that infrastructure made in his life since becoming a member of cabinet. As it has been frequently pointed out, we hear the same story everywhere. Infrastructure creates new opportunities for Canadians. Public transit allows people to commute between their home and their workplace; child care facilities are safe and nurturing places where children can learn and play; modern water supply and sewage treatment systems make it possible for homes and businesses across the country to have safe drinking water.

Through investments in these vital sectors and other areas, the Government of Canada clearly shows its commitment to the health, well-being, and quality of life of Canadians across the country.

I would like to elaborate on this. As my colleagues know, the Government of Canada first presented its infrastructure investment plan in budget 2016. This plan targeted three sectors: public transit, green infrastructure, and social infrastructure.

To jump-start the work and to respond in the short term to urgent needs, the first phase of the plan addressed the repair and rehabilitation of current systems. Across Canada, the provinces and territories applied to the $3.4 billion public transit infrastructure fund program to purchase new buses, expand vehicle maintenance garages, and install bus shelters. Although this work is not impressive, it is important and even necessary. Bus shelters are important. Public transit users like to use them as they wait for the bus when it is raining or snowing. Modern and reliable buses are important. They need fewer repairs, which means that public transit services are more regular and Canadians can get to work or school on time. It is important to have the space needed to do required maintenance and repairs in order for the buses to quickly get back on the road.

We have also invested $2 billion in water and wastewater facilities across the country under the clean water and wastewater fund. To date, we have supported over 900 projects under this funding program, which means that Canadians are benefiting from improved access to quality drinking water and that our rivers and lakes are now less polluted.

Finally, over 2,000 projects to retrofit and renovate social housing have been approve to date. That means that nearly 900 existing social housing units have been made more energy efficient and now have improved access to water.

We also simplified and broadened the eligibility criteria for projects under previous programs so that the necessary funding could be quickly distributed to communities. As a result, we have approved funding of over $800 million for projects across the country.

In Quebec, this funding has been used to support various projects, such as those involving the Le Diamant theatre, Saint Joseph's Oratory, and the Musée d'art contemporain de Montréal. I have also had the opportunity to announce many water and wastewater projects in my own riding, which will help the communities and municipalities in my region.

Last November, we tabled our fall economic statement, which set out the financial framework for the next steps of our infrastructure plan. We made those commitments official in budget 2017. We increased our commitment to infrastructure by providing for investments of over $180 billion. I want to emphasize that because it is a historic investment of $180 billion over 12 years. We increased our investments in social infrastructure, green infrastructure, and public transit infrastructure, and we are making investments in trade and transportation infrastructure and rural and northern communities infrastructure.

Today I am pleased to welcome to Parliament representatives from Matane who have come to talk about the importance of infrastructure in our communities. I am proud that we have the financial means to invest in key pieces of infrastructure going forward.

We have boosted our investment in social infrastructure, and we have also released details about two new initiatives, the smart cities challenge and the Canada infrastructure bank. As my colleagues have explained, the Canada infrastructure bank will invest $35 billion in loans, loan guarantees, and capital investment, and will also attract private capital for public infrastructure.

Mobilizing private capital will enable us to optimize federal infrastructure dollars. People have expressed concern that the bank will invest only in major projects in big cities, and we want to address those concerns.

I just want to reiterate that the Government of Canada is determined to finance infrastructure in rural and northern communities through its invest in Canada program. Those communities will also get money under other funding programs in our plan.

Many of the needs of small communities are the same as those of big cities, and the purpose of the bank is to offer support for these investment sectors. Small communities need facilities to generate clean electricity, and have to deliver strategic projects to transport energy and connect to other networks, just like big cities. Small communities also use interprovincial networks to transport electricity, which is just one of the sectors where the bank will be able to intervene.

The bank will examine projects with revenue-generating potential, and it is possible that large-scale projects will also be undertaken in our small communities or rural regions. Some of these sectors might benefit from the advantages of the major projects also delivered in the regions in collaboration with other communities.

In addition, we are happy to prepare for the challenge of smart cities, which is another way to rethink the way we invest in infrastructure by presenting our cities with the challenge of engaging in innovation. Our cities have to be at their best to handle international competition and meet the needs of their citizens.

By creating smart cities, we will promote innovation and positive change for our cities, and that positive change will mean benefits for the Canadians who live in those cities. We believe that small cities will contribute to improving the quality of life of residents, and we are sure that our cities will seize this opportunity and will find new initiatives that will take advantage of innovation and technology to effectively meet the needs of their citizens. In the end, the challenge of smart cities is another tool that will help support long-term change all across Canada.

In closing, we understand that change must lead to growth that will benefit all Canadians at every stage of their life, whether they are young, newcomers, working, retired, veterans or indigenous people.

We have made major progress this past year by investing in projects to establish communities that are healthier and more economically viable. The investing in Canada plan outlines the way we will be investing in the future in Canada by putting qualified, talented, and creative Canadians at the heart of an economy of the future that is more focused on innovation.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am flabbergasted to hear what the member just said in his speech.

He says that the bank will help smaller municipalities in funding their infrastructure projects. Does he know that the minimum for projects to be eligible to funding from the infrastructure bank will be $100 million?

In my riding, the municipality of Elgin has 600 people and Dundee has fewer than 1,000 residents. It will be impossible for them to launch $100-million projects, which means that smaller municipalities will never get any funding from the government or from that private investment bank to improve their infrastructure. As a result, inequality will grow everywhere in Canada, and I am not even talking about the user fees people will have to pay.

Again, we see a double standard. We will be giving money to investors who are already very wealthy and who will invest in projects that will be profitable to them. It is one of the criteria of the investment bank. I cannot believe that the member said smaller municipalities will benefit. I would like to hear him explain why.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always surprising to hear NDP members criticize our investments in infrastructure, which are historical investments worth $180 billion over 12 years. If NDP members were sitting on this side of the House, we would be going through a period of fiscal restraint, and smaller communities would be suffering from budget cuts.

The Government of Canada will invest in smaller communities, and we have set aside $2 billion to be able to do that.

In my riding, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, we invested $40 million in infrastructure since the beginning of our term. These are concrete examples of our investments in smaller communities. Thanks to the infrastructure bank, there will be more investments like these.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and throughout the first part, I was shocked. I was thinking that it is absolutely extraordinary what can be done with public financing. Why do they need to turn to the private sector?

The question remains, but the more relevant question I have for my colleague is very simple. Where will the government get the $35 billion that it plans to throw into that infrastructure bank to serve as a financial lever?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I know he heard my speech.

In an important part of my speech, I said that the infrastructure bank will make it possible to go after private investments that will be added to our public investments, in order to generate more investments and more support for the creation and development of projects. That will be the key to success with this infrastructure bank. Indeed, it can serve as an economic lever to attract investments and develop more projects across Canada.

We are confident that this is the best way to take action and develop Canada's economy. I am very proud of the investments we will make in the Canada infrastructure bank.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the exasperation of my colleague from Quebec, who is trying to explain economics to the NDP. What he brought to light is that during the election campaign, we promised to invest in infrastructure and stimulate growth in Canada, in every region of Quebec and Canada.

The NDP on the other hand, promised to balance the budget at any cost. That would have led to cuts and austerity, meaning that we would not have been able to invest in infrastructure in the regions of Quebec and Canada.

I hope that my hon. colleague can explain to us the types of projects communities can expect from our increased investment in infrastructure through the infrastructure bank and the investments we are making outside this bank.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary. That is an excellent question.

I have dozens of examples. However, as I said earlier, in my riding, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, more than $40 million will be invested in infrastructure, namely drinking water, wastewater treatment, and an arena renovation in Mont-Joli. We also have investments in Sayabec and throughout my riding, in fact. If the NDP members, for whom I have the utmost respect, were on this side of the House we would not be able to invest in infrastructure because we would be dealing with budget cuts, which would make it impossible to stimulate the economy in my region.

We are proud of what the Government of Canada has done. I am proud to represent my riding as we pursue a strategy to stimulate the economy of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity I have been given to talk about some of the statements in today's motion.

I think Canadians deserve to know the facts, and they are not going to find them in this motion. In particular, I will take issue with the hon. member's claim that private corporations will be the largest beneficiaries of the Canada infrastructure bank, because reality is that Canadians will benefit the most.

The investments we make in infrastructure today will pay dividends for years to come. They will build stronger, more inclusive communities; they will deliver clean, sustained economic growth; and they will create jobs for middle-class Canadians and for those working hard to join it. That is why our government, as part of our bold plan to put Canadians first and grow the economy, is investing more than $180 billion in infrastructure over 12 years, which is a historic amount.

This amount includes $28 billion for public transit, which is sure to appeal to the people of Châteauguay—Lacolle. We live on the south shore, a bridge away from Montreal, and we are strong supporters of public transit, not only to improve traffic conditions, but also to help the environment and mitigate the impact of climate change.

It also includes $10 billion for trade corridors. Châteauguay—Lacolle is home to one of the country's busiest border crossings with the United States. It is of the utmost importance that that corridor stay open to all and that it promote efficient communications between our businesses, our fruit and vegetable industries and their American clients.

It also includes $9 billion for bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories on green infrastructure. These are essential, as they promote healthy communities and environmental conservation, which is in the interest of our businesses and our families alike.

What is more, in the creation of the Canada infrastructure bank, we are introducing innovation into these very communities that are built, so that Canadians get a greater return on their investment. I repeat that. It is Canadians who are getting the return on their investment.

In short, the Canada infrastructure bank is an arm's-length organization that will work with provincial, territorial, municipal, indigenous, and private sector investment partners to transform the way infrastructure is planned, funded, and delivered in Canada. It is important to put the emphasis on the fact that it is all these partners that are part of the economic ecosystem that is important to developing and to building good infrastructure.

The Canada infrastructure bank will be responsible for investing at least $35 billion in revenue-generating infrastructure projects that are in the public interest, and attracting private sector capital to those projects so that more infrastructure can be built across Canada, not just what we have now that is available with public funding, but more infrastructure that will benefit Canadians.

As a result, more projects will be built, more jobs will be created, and more sustainable economic activity and growth will be unlocked. That is the leverage effect that we are looking for.

Our government has already introduced legislation in the House establishing the Canada infrastructure bank with the goal of having the bank operational in late 2017. Yes, it will be this year. We need this bank now. We need it yesterday, in fact.

Once up and running, the Canada infrastructure bank will attract new investment to infrastructure by using innovative approaches to how infrastructure deals are structured and paid for. It is all about the financing. We want to increase the number and the volume of financing instruments that are available for the huge amount of deferred maintenance and infrastructure that we do not have, that we are missing today in Canada.

It will bring expertise and its own funding to the table, as a partner with other governments and institutional investors; it will build a pipeline of investment-grade projects that Canadians need; and it will work with its partners to provide better data on the state of infrastructure in Canada.

That is very key because, as someone who has worked in many areas of financing and in public institutions, I know it is important to be proactive when we are dealing with issues of infrastructure and the decaying of facilities that we need to have a healthy and innovative economy.

Most of the government's $180 billion infrastructure plan would continue to be delivered through traditional infrastructure funding models. Therefore, we are recognizing that, yes, those traditional models work, but we just need to have that additional bang for our buck. The bank would offer a new innovative and effective tool and other financial instruments that provincial, territorial, municipal, and indigenous partners could choose to use and to build more public infrastructure projects.

The advantages of this option are clear. By bringing in additional funding via partnerships with the private sector, governments can reduce—that is the key word—their upfront capital contribution as well as those funds that would normally be dedicated to long-term operating costs. These long-term costs are a major component for projects, including public transit, where municipalities now bear the majority of the operating costs. This sharing of capital and operating costs with the private sector can be of particular benefit to provinces and municipalities that may face borrowing constraints.

The Canada infrastructure bank would also leverage and increase investment in infrastructure. To attract private and institutional capital, the bank would be focused not on all projects but on the kinds of revenue-generating projects that can demonstrate sufficient demand to cover a significant portion of capital and life-cycle operating costs through prices paid by users. This approach would provide a number of benefits, particularly the efficient allocation of capital. Capital does not know ideology. When we look at our resources, we must use them in the most efficient way possible. The use of pricing will help optimize the scale of infrastructure projects, keeping total costs in line with the need of a given project. Infrastructure pricing, applied broadly, also has the potential to ease traffic congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce the consumption of vital resources by supporting the efficient use of infrastructure assets.

I would add that the bank would only make investments in infrastructure projects that generate revenue and are in the public interest. A key consideration for the bank would be whether the project attracts private sector capital that would not have otherwise been invested in public infrastructure. The bank's investments would be made strategically with a focus on large, transformative projects. These are not for small, municipal projects. These are for large, transformative projects such as regional transit plans, transportation networks, and electricity grid interconnections.

With all of these positive attributes, the Canada infrastructure bank would allow us to more effectively invest in infrastructure, and that is what it is all about: looking at our resources, how can we best invest? Doing so would strengthen and grow the middle class and make Canada an even better place to call home. I cannot think of a better reason for our hon. colleagues not only to reject today's motion but to lend their support to the timely passage of our government's budget implementation act, which would help make the bank a reality for the benefit of Canadians.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in one of my previous lives, I was the mayor of a community of about 20,000 people, and I sat on the B.C. mayors leadership council, representing communities with populations from 20,000 to about 70,000. In terms of taxation across Canada, 8% of taxes get paid to municipalities, 42% to provincial governments, and 50% to the federal government. Therefore, by far the majority of the money goes to the federal government, and yet municipalities on any of these projects are required to come up with a third of the cost of their particular project: a third municipal, a third provincial, and a third federal.

When I look at this $35 billion being taken away from the majority of the municipalities in Canada to go into this fund and I think of some of the other ways that money might have been used to benefit the majority of municipalities—for example, decreasing the amount of money that municipalities have to come up with for infrastructure projects and increasing the federal portion—I see that this $35 billion of our money is really not being used as effectively as it possibly can be.

What does taking $35 billion away from the majority of municipalities really do to benefit the majority of Canadians?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of the $35 billion, $15 billion is coming from infrastructure that is already dedicated to green public transit and social infrastructure, and the other $20 billion is coming from investments the government will be making in purchasing assets. This is not taking away from municipalities. This is actually providing, with a small proportion of the overall investment, an ability to leverage that amount and make more money available to municipalities.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned that the bank would be revenue generating, in the public interest, and an alternative method of growing infrastructure in large projects. Since this is an alternative method for those larger projects, which are situated mostly in our cities, why is the government's own infrastructure spending not then being reallocated more toward our rural communities where our agriculture and agrifood people are trying to continue to work with the big green combines? They are so huge now they are not fitting on our roads or access ways, and our country depends on the export of our agriculture and agrifood products.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have specifically carved out $2 billion of infrastructure money for small communities. That is not in any way preventing those communities from also applying and receiving other infrastructure money. In fact, it is really opening up the envelope of accessibility.

In my riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, municipalities are very excited about contemplating projects that they could only dream of in the past. Now they are actively planning and working toward making these projects a reality.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her candour. The more candid the Liberals get about what the infrastructure bank really means, the more clear it is that it is a bad idea.

She talks about leveraging. That was one of the major themes of her speech. I wonder if she knows that leveraging investment is not like leveraging donations. If people donate, say, to the Red Cross or something, sometimes the government will offer to match their donations dollar for dollar, or $1 for $2, or something like that. That is not a zero sum game. It is actually creating more investment in the cause. However, the infrastructure bank does not work that way. Canadians, at the end of the day, are going to pay back the investments that were made.

I worry that the hon. member thinks the model is the same as when the government matches donations to charities, and does not realize that BlackRock is not acting like a charity, and it does not deserve to be treated like a charity by the government, which is what the infrastructure bank would do. I wonder if she could explain to us how it is that BlackRock is going to be giving money to infrastructure projects and not expecting to get all of its initial investment back, plus the return it wants to get of 7%, 9%, 10%, or 12%.