Debates of May 11th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure Bank

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her very good question.

We committed to investing $2 billion in rural communities. That is a very important part of our plan. In addition, $500 million has been allocated to Internet service for rural and small communities. I want to emphasize that. It is an option in our traditional funding structure.

Some people think that the infrastructure bank will only fund big projects in big communities, but that is not at all the case. Here is how it will work. We will take proposals. Not all of the proposals will be approved, but Canadians and Quebeckers will be our primary consideration in selecting proposals that make sense. If a small community submits a major proposal, it will be given due consideration because the infrastructure bank has a multiplier effect. It provides access to funding, to private capital that we could not otherwise afford. Those people invest in projects that make sense for them, but when we evaluate projects, when the bank evaluates projects, it will have to put the needs of Canadians and Quebeckers, first.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the importance of public infrastructure and how it will help stimulate the economy and provide additional support to Canadian families.

We believe that one of the best ways to restore the confidence of Canada's middle class is to invest in public infrastructure in order to build stronger communities and build an economy that works for all Canadians and their families.

Strengthening the middle class means that hard-working Canadians can look forward to a good standard of living and better prospects for their children and grandchildren. When the middle class succeeds, we all succeed.

We know that our investments in our communities will help everyone contribute to improving our economic, social, and environmental well-being, but how can we achieve those objectives in practical terms? That is a good question.

Governments throughout the world are constantly struggling to create public assets, such as roads and bridges, that meet taxpayers' quality expectations while also standing the test of time. That is why, in budget 2016, the government announced its proposal for a historic infrastructure plan.

We are working closely with the provincial and territorial governments on making targeted investments in public transit, green infrastructure, and social infrastructure as soon as possible. Budget 2016 announced $11.9 billion over five years in support of these priorities.

In the speeches I heard today, several members talked about projects that have yet to start.

This morning, many individuals were saying that there are not a whole lot of shovel-in-the ground or shovel-ready projects. I just made a quick call to my office to find out, in the beautiful riding of Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, what projects in fact had been approved, and that we do have shovels in the ground. Again, we can totally see that the federal contribution for some projects that have been made was $84 million and project total values were $225 million.

There are some wonderful projects that we see, which I know I am very proud of and I advocated for very strongly during my campaign. One of them was the restoration of the beautiful Petitcodiac River. For those members who are not familiar with my area, the Petitcodiac project consists of replacing a causeway with a 200-metre bridge in order to achieve maximum recovery of the Petitcodiac River system. Back home, it is a project that is very near and dear to all of our hearts. Restoring the full tidal flow was expected to restore as much as 80% of the functions of the river, creating conditions necessary to restore fish passage and the unique Petitcodiac tidal bore. I can say that even last summer some individuals were out there with their surfboards, so we can almost promote tourism in a lot of ways, which is fantastic.

The first part of our plan outlined a new collaborative approach and use of infrastructure investment to make our communities stronger, but we knew that we needed to do more.

That is why in last fall's economic statement the government announced an additional $81 billion over 11 years for public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, infrastructure to support trade, infrastructure for rural and northern communities, and smart cities.

In all, combined with existing funding, we will be investing more than $180 billion over 12 years in our cities, our towns, and our trade corridors to provide cleaner air and water, better neighbourhoods for our children, and smarter, more connected communities. This investment is unprecedented in Canadian history and it comes at a time when the need is great.

Our communities need to keep people and goods moving. Our most vulnerable citizens need housing. To meet this challenge, we need to think even bigger.

Finally, I will address the issue of the creation of the Canada infrastructure bank. No level of government can achieve on its own the ambitious infrastructure objectives. We must work with the other levels of government, public and private organizations, and investors around the world. Canada has enormous infrastructure needs, with a huge potential for building world-class infrastructure that will improve communities, create good jobs, and make the economy stronger and greener.

It is important to attract investment that will fund a larger number of infrastructure projects. Investors have told us that they want to invest in Canada, but that certain specific conditions must be in place. That is why we introduced Bill C-44, which establishes the new Canada infrastructure bank as a crown corporation. The bank will be run by a CEO and governed by a professional board of directors.

Through the new infrastructure bank, which is an independent institution, we will work with the provinces, territories, and municipalities to build world-class infrastructure that will improve our communities, create good jobs, and make the economy stronger and greener.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank will seek to attract investments from private sector institutions in new public infrastructure projects that will generate revenue in Canada. Simply put, it is a new way of funding transformative projects in communities across our beautiful country. By attracting new investors, we can carry out more infrastructure projects that Canadian communities need.

The bank will be entrusted with investing at least $35 billion in federal funds using a wide range of financial instruments. Through the creation of a new institution that is able to work with the private sector when it makes sense to do so, public funds will be used more wisely and more strategically. These investments will lead to better projects that will create the good, well-paying jobs that are needed to sustainably strengthen Canada's economy.

In closing, I want to say that we know that we will not overcome the challenges we are facing overnight. We know that to govern effectively, we cannot just focus on today and tomorrow. We also have to focus on the years and decades to come. We need to ensure a better future for our children. We are optimistic, knowing that we can build a better life for the next generation.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, we heard earlier from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities that the government was going to use strategic, evidence-based investments in infrastructure as part of rolling out the money. The Senate committee studying infrastructure just two months ago warned that Liberals could end up wasting billions in infrastructure money because it lacks a detailed strategy and that the only metric that Infrastructure Canada is using to measure success is how much is spent and not what it is getting spent on.

I wonder if the member could comment on the Senate's report, which comments quite negatively on the Liberals' ability to spend infrastructure money properly, and how we can trust them to do it properly and hand over control to a bank when they cannot even get their own act together.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

We were elected on a commitment to make historic investments in infrastructure. The previous government neglected our infrastructure for 10 years. Now, we need to move forward and make wise investments.

We are working with the municipalities, provinces, and everyone so we can carry out good projects, projects that our communities need.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Absolutely, Madam Speaker, those are the kinds of projects for which we would like to see federal support. Part of my family originally settled in the Petitcodiac. That was the Steeves family, one of whom was a Father of Confederation. It is exactly the kind of project that the infrastructure bank would not fund, so I am puzzled that the member would raise that as an example.

I note in the pan-Canadian framework for climate change and green energy that the report mentions that the private infrastructure bank would be used to provide green energy in Canada. What are we going to be doing, paying for export power lines to the United States?

The member says that this is great news for the provinces and for the municipalities, and yet the KPMG report raised serious concerns about the intrusion of the federal government into areas that are traditionally municipal and provincial. I wonder if the member would be willing to make available to all the members in this place the feedback by the provinces, territories, aboriginal governments, and municipalities on how comfortable they feel about this infrastructure bank.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her question and her comments.

I was talking earlier about the project to restore the Petitcodiac River. As I said, I am very happy with this project.

An infrastructure bank will help us release public funds for projects such as this one to restore the Petitcodiac River. Attracting more capital will allow us to release public funds to deliver projects that the communities and provinces are asking us for.

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

Madam Speaker, out of the $180 billion for infrastructure, $90 billion was in the existing Conservative programs, with 7,300 projects that have been completed and some that are still under way. I am glad that, in the member's riding, she saw the benefit of that.

What I also want to say is that, in phase one, there was $1 billion in lapsed funding. Those projects announced in 2016 had to be completed by 2019, but $1 billion did not, and that $1 billion will not be reallocated until 2022, which I find absolutely astonishing. However, PPP Canada has leveraged billions of private-sector dollars for infrastructure since 2009.

Why are the Liberals not using that mechanism if they are looking for new mechanisms to leverage private-sector dollars? We already have one in place.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Once again, our government was elected on a commitment to make historic investments in infrastructure. We are looking at all the options. We want to be sure that we can deliver as many projects as we can support and finance. That is exactly what we are now doing.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Strathcona.

Today we are debating the government's proposal for a Canada infrastructure bank. In particular, today's NDP motion asks the House to remove the clauses concerning the Canada infrastructure bank from Bill C-44, the budget implementation act, so they can be studied as a stand-alone bill.

I would like to start with a short history of the proposal and then move on to some of the concerns I have about the infrastructure bank.

In the 2015 election, the Liberal platform stated that it would:

...establish the Canadian Infrastructure Bank to provide low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects. The federal government can use its strong credit rating and lending authority to make it easier and more affordable for municipalities to build the projects their communities need.

This was not one of those high-profile promises, like electoral reform, which the Liberals have since broken, and it seems to be an entirely reasonable promise to make: using public money wisely to build and maintain public infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the plan has changed radically. In the latest budget, the government reveals that the infrastructure bank will involve $35 billion, $15 billion of which is public money. The rest will come from private investment banks and funds that expect a sizable return on their investments and a real say in the priorities of where that money is invested.

Do we need such a private infrastructure bank in Canada? Do we need to pay more for infrastructure projects? Do we need to pay tolls and extra fees? Do we need to give up the planning control of where our money is spent on public infrastructure?

According to a study by researchers at the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, the federal government could build even more infrastructure simply by borrowing at preferred rates and then passing the savings on to cities and provinces. That was exactly what the Liberals promised in the last election.

The government seems to be doing this for only one reason, and that is to take the credit for infrastructure projects it has had little or nothing to do with, projects that will profit wealthy investment bankers, projects funded by taxpayers paying extra tolls and fees, all the while taking the costs off government books so its fiscal record looks better than it is.

I would like to look a little more closely at some of the concerns surrounding the Canada infrastructure bank proposal. First among these is that unnecessary added cost that it would bring to public infrastructure projects.

As the Liberals pointed out in their election promises, the federal government can use its strong credit rating to access funds to help provinces and municipalities move forward with infrastructure projects that will benefit all Canadians. Why bring in private investment firms that demand higher returns? The government is simply adding a middleman who wants a profit.

As we heard earlier in various speeches, the Liberal government recently commissioned a study by KPMG to look into the infrastructure bank idea. It obviously did not like the answers it got since it initially refused to release the report.

One of the points the report makes is that Canadians do not like paying extra fees and tolls for the use of public infrastructure, something that really should not come as a surprise, especially when those fees and tolls will not be paying back public monies used for the project, but instead paying for profits to investment bankers.

The report mentions the push back the government might get if we start charging fees for water use. It points out that private investors internationally have only taken on municipal water assets after the community has adopted full costing and metering of water use.

In my riding, water metering is already in effect in many communities, simply because water is a precious commodity in the dry interior of southern British Columbia and paying for use instead of per household is a strong incentive for water conservation. People are paying their own municipal governments, not a private corporation, for that water use. This example points to the fact that private investors are simply interested in making a profit rather than getting involved for the public good.

Every municipality has ongoing infrastructure maintenance and operating costs that they must bear every year. Small rural municipalities and regional districts already are struggling with per capita costs that are much higher than those in larger cities. It makes no sense to them to embrace an infrastructure bank that will inevitably cost their citizens even more in the long term. They need a federal government that will provide the funding they need in the form of grants or low interest loans, just as the Liberals promised in their election platform, not through a private infrastructure bank.

Small municipalities in rural Canada are also concerned that $15 billion have been taken out of the infrastructure pot and put in a bank that probably will not be that interested in funding small town projects.

In recent years, governments across the country have been undertaking public-private partnerships despite the obvious fiscal and control problems that come with them.

A couple of years ago, the auditor general in my home province of British Columbia found that provincial taxpayers were on the hook for about $31 million in extra interest rates on one project alone, the Fort St. John Hospital, representing the private equity in the project borrowed at an interest rate of 14.79%. This led one journalist to wonder if the B.C. Liberals had put the charge on their Visa card.

The amount that B.C. taxpayers pay every year for the extra interest costs of PPP projects has been calculated at $81 million.

I do not have time to go into all the other concerns about this proposal: concerns about the privatization of airports; concerns about the lack of public oversight, the lack of public input into the priorities of the infrastructure bank, the lack of public involvement in the board of the bank; concerns that the people who the Liberals are getting to design the system are the very people, wealthy investment bankers, who will benefit from it; and concerns about the rush to get this started. The jobs are already posted on the government website before the bill has been fully debated in the House, let alone passed through the House and Senate.

The KPMG study I mentioned earlier calls for careful study of the infrastructure bank proposal, but instead the government is trying to rush this through with only two hours of committee hearings. We all know what can be done at a committee in two hours, maybe hear from six witnesses who have 10 minutes each to speak and answer a few questions. This is entirely inadequate to cover the myriad of concerns about this proposal.

We are talking about a lot of money, $35 billion. The Liberals might point out that it is merely the amount of the annual budget deficit, but to Canadians it is a big number, especially with the extra tolls and fees they will be paying to fund this investment. The minister has said, “We are not hearing concerns from [those on] whose behalf we are doing this.” We are doing this on behalf of the citizens of Canada and I am hearing concerns from my constituents. I am left to wonder who the minister has been listening to and who he thinks we are doing this for.

We in the NDP feel the Canada infrastructure bank proposal needs to be taken out of Bill C-44 and thoroughly studied as a separate stand-alone bill. That way Canadians can provide some input into a major change in government policy, a change that will unnecessarily cost Canadian taxpayers a great deal of money, while at the same time giving up public oversight into how that public money is spent and which public infrastructure projects move forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the member across the way. The infrastructure bank and the commitment this government has made to Canadians dealing with infrastructure is being realized by not only this budget but the previous budget. We have seen record amounts of billions of dollars being put into infrastructure for every region of our country.

If we look at the budget itself, it talks about the importance of infrastructure. It talks about the infrastructure bank. We now have a budget implementation bill to implement what has been talked about in the budget. It is completely relevant to the budget.

What causes the New Democrats to believe that having the infrastructure bank is not in any way associated to the budget? All they have to do is read what is in black and white and listen to the commitments given by the Prime Minister and the minister responsible. It is a given.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know where to begin. First, the communities in my riding are happy to get government assistance in the infrastructure projects they need. There was some money announced for my riding and people were happy to hear that. However, it was through the normal way government does business, through the government providing monies that it could get with low interest rates if it needed to borrow. It has nothing to do with a Canada infrastructure bank that is privately managed.

Although one can argue that the infrastructure bank is part of the budget, the NDP wants to take this out of the budget because it is a very different part of it, something brand new that we should look at carefully. It also will not get that careful study in a couple of hours in committee. It needs to be taken out of the budget bill and studied separately so Canadians can make their concerns known and so we can hear the advantages and disadvantages and make a good, intelligent decision. That is why we want it taken out of the bill and done separately.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the member would comment on the government's attitude, regard, and respect for the House by going ahead with the infrastructure bank before it is authorized by Parliament.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, I totally agree with the member. It comes back to the fact that the government seems to be rushing this through, not only putting it in a large omnibus bill that has many other parts to it, almost 300 pages long, but now advertising for the positions on the board and the CEO before the bill has been passed in the House and before it has gone to the Senate. It will be some time before that happens. The government is being disrespectful of this place by moving ahead with this as if it is a fait accompli.

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

Madam Speaker, it is my first time rising today in the debate, although I have listened to all the speeches. We do need to study the infrastructure bank more fully. There is a potential role for infrastructure and the infrastructure bank if its purpose is to access financing at a lower interest rate than that available, even in municipalities. This is a valid purpose. My concern is that the municipalities want funding, not financing.

I had hoped to ask this question of government members. Could we get some clarity? I do not feel we now have clarity on how much funding is available for infrastructure projects as opposed to financing through the infrastructure bank. These are separate needs and the first is more urgent than the second.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, what the member just described of providing low-cost funding to municipalities and regions is exactly what the Liberals promised in their election platform. This is not what we would get from a private infrastructure bank. An infrastructure bank is one thing; a private one is a very different animal.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion tabled by my colleague the member for Beloeil—Chambly. This is an important debate. I am pleased that my colleague has chosen to bring this forward, because otherwise we would not have an opportunity to even debate this important legislation, which is included in a major omnibus budget bill.

Among the 30 laws that would be enacted or amended by the omnibus budget bill is division 18, which if approved would establish the Canada infrastructure bank as a crown corporation. I emphasize “if approved” because none of the myriad measures contained in the budget bill would come into effect until the bill is deliberated at committee, receives final debate and votes, and is reviewed in the other place. The law to establish a Canadian infrastructure bank is not in legal effect.

Our first concern is that the law to establish significant reforms in the allocation of tax dollars was tabled as part of an omnibus budget bill, which is yet another promise broken. The decision to include the bill in the 300-page budget bill clearly diminishes opportunities for its thoughtful and careful review and is a concern raised by KPMG, who the Liberal government hired to advise it on whether it should proceed quickly and expediently to set this up. In fact, the government's own consultant advised to take it slowly. Then there was time allocation on debate, before the majority of members had the opportunity to even share their concerns and ask questions, and a mere one hour for committee review. It is absolutely astounding. This shows a high degree of disregard for the role of Parliament, including our very important duty to scrutinize spending, a responsibility of every member of this place.

Our party has allocated this opposition day to enable this very expanded debate to all members of this place, and we encourage all members to participate.

Second, the government has taken premature and possibly illegal actions to establish the proposed bank before the law enabling its creation is debated and approved by Parliament, let alone declared in legal effect. Bill C-44 has only just been referred to the finance committee for study.

As persuasively raised in a question of privilege presented by the NDP House leader, the member for Victoria, yesterday in this place, the government has already chosen and publicly announced a location for the yet unauthorized bank. It has already initiated a search for the board of directors, its chair, and the CEO. It has also announced on its website that the deadline for appointment is the 23rd of this month, a mere two weeks from today, and yet we are still just debating the law that would establish the bank.

These actions are beyond presumptuous. They could well be considered illegal, certainly based on past Speaker's rulings, as the enabling law is a long way from being enacted. No such actions may even be authorized by order in council. No authorizations have been issued by Parliament to establish the bank or to authorize the spending of funds to take effect. A case has been made that these premature actions may be held to be in contempt of the House and an attack against the authority of Parliament. We await the ruling by the Speaker. This is hardly a great start to the establishment of this institution.

Third, there remains a level of confusion about what is the actual purpose of this proposed bank and whose interests it is intended to serve. The stated purpose of the bank is to seek and attract investment from private sector institutional investors in infrastructure projects in Canada and partly in Canada, which I will speak to in a minute; to generate revenue, by levies and tolls—how else; and finally, to be in the public interest, adding that the definition of what is in the public interest is fostering economic growth or contributing to the sustainability of infrastructure, presumably developed by these private interests.

This provision alone raises myriad issues. What does “projects...partly in Canada” mean? What are the risks to Canadian investment if projects are partly located in the United States of America? Is the government thinking of export power lines perhaps from coal-fired power in Alberta and Saskatchewan? How does this benefit taxpayers? The law empowers the bank's board to determine what is in the public interest. Do Canadians agree with this? These are public dollars.

Who decides what is in the public interest for Canadians? It is the bank's board of directors? The law specifically precludes that the board would include any federal, provincial, or municipal government representatives. Therefore, clearly, no elected officials would have a say in what is public interest.

What happened to elected officials being held accountable for spending taxpayer monies or deciding on priority projects that serve the public interest? We have to remember that up to $35 billion of public monies are going to be given either directly to the bank to be accessed by private entities or through loan guarantees.

As National Post columnist Andrew Coyne has commented, the government appears to be relying on “the old political euphemism—it's not spending it's 'investment'”.

It is important to keep in mind that the government has committed $35 billion of taxpayers' money, including for loan guarantees, and that $15 billion of those dollars, gifted to this bank for access by private entrepreneurs, are removed from allocation for public infrastructure, including light rapid transit and green infrastructure, which the government speaks of ad nauseam.

Others have queried whether it actually qualifies as a bank. Despite the private investor board, the law mandated considerable role by government. For example, loan guarantees require approval of the minister of finance, and yet there are no clear criteria or requirements for transparency. Second, the cabinet chooses and fires the board and chair. Third, the board reports to the infrastructure minister not the minister of finance. It is not really clear who, in fact, in the government is responsible and accountable for the bank. Perhaps one minister would be accountable when it works and another minister would be held to account when we lose money.

There is concern that the bank is to be established as a crown corporation, thereby exempting it from access to information requests, so significant to the promises of transparency and accountability. Of course, we can read in the mandate letters over and over again about responsibility to ensure transparency and accountability, except for this bank.

Will it be subject to scrutiny by the PBO? It appears not. That is $35 billion that the PBO cannot even scrutinize.

Another issue that has been raised by a good number of persons is on conflict of interest. There are already serious concerns with the fact that the government sought advice and had direct guidance in establishing the bank from a number of the very entities that would most likely benefit from the bank and potentially be candidates for the board.

A proper study would include a review of any potential conflicts of interest, the impact of the bank on existing infrastructure programs, and how taxpayers would be affected if a project fails. Therein raises the spectre of bankruptcy. Canada's infrastructure minister is promising that taxpayers will not be left holding the bag should any projects funded through a proposed infrastructure bank go bankrupt. How this assurance can be given by the government is unclear if the board is to be run by its board of directors from the private sector.

The government will be left holding the bag when, under bankruptcy law, creditors have been deemed priority over government seeking recovery of costs for the cleanup of abandoned well sites. We recently had decisions of the court saying that, in the occasion that there is a problem, the creditors go first, so these private entrepreneurs will gain the money first, not the taxpayers.

It is absolutely important that all members participate in this debate on behalf of their constituents and find out what the risks are to their communities and what the projects are that will not proceed if these monies are funnelled through the infrastructure bank.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am curious if my colleague is aware that municipalities currently deal with banks. They borrow money for projects. The City of Kingston, for example, currently deals with the Toronto-Dominion Bank. When cities work on larger projects, quite often there are other provincial resources they can dip into that are just another form of a bank. Where does the province get the money? It goes to a bank.

What makes this particular infrastructure bank unique is that it takes advantage of available capital throughout different parts of the world that can be put into one bank that can specifically be used for infrastructure projects of this nature for municipalities to use.

Municipalities already deal with banks. There is not much of a difference between the infrastructure bank that is being proposed and the banks they already deal with, whether at the private level, by accessing through provincial banking systems, or by actually using large capital available, like this. I am curious if she is aware that municipalities are currently doing this.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I noticed that the member across the way said there is not much difference. If it is exactly the same as the other banks, why are we going through all this effort? Why are we taking $35 billion of taxpayers' money that could be spent right now on critical projects in our communities and giving it to a bank and to people who will have no accountability to us in this place who are accountable for the spending of public money?

I would add that the pan-Canadian framework on clean growth and climate change states that this bank would be used to finance clean electricity systems. When we think about why people would invest, it raises the question of what kind of clean-energy projects are likely to attract investment. It would not likely be the retrofitting of co-operative housing.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, one interesting thing about public-private partnerships is this. Generally speaking, users would have to pay a fee or a toll to get those projects running. As the member mentioned, it is all about revenue and profits.

The other issue is the borrowing rate. For governments, whether provincial or federal, the borrowing rate is usually much lower than what the private sector can get. Therefore, in this instance, with the PPP model, is there anything in the documents that the member has seen to indicate that the borrowing rate through this Canada infrastructure bank would actually be lower than what the federal government can obtain for infrastructure projects?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question and one to which I have been wanting the answer. What is the borrowing rate going to be? When we look at the very purpose in the legislation to establish this bank, what does it say? It says that the purpose is to generate revenue for the bank and to attract private investment. Therefore, it will want a good return on its dollars.

I will give members an example. Similar to this was the PPP model. I am a little surprised to see the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities standing and defending this bank, because I know that he, the city councillors, and the mayor of my city were not pleased that the previous government required them to use a PPP to build the LRT they are now building. They got less money from the federal government as a result. Therefore, I think a lot of questions will be raised by constituents across this country as to why we are going to repeat what was a model that actually ended up costing municipalities more than if the federal government had simply done the borrowing.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is a municipal financing authority in the community I come from where the municipalities can come together and collectively borrow at a lower rate than what a bank would normally charge. If the government wanted to do something useful, perhaps it could coordinate a municipal financing authority for the rest of the country, and particularly for small communities so that they can reduce their costs. Does the member feel that would be far more useful than an infrastructure bank that would line the pockets of insiders?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. I have had representatives of the local governments in my province come to me with a number of proposals. One is in northern Alberta, where they wanted the federal government to allow a number of municipalities with first nations and Métis colonies to come together to build water treatment plants. Unfortunately, right now the system does not allow that.

Also, in Edmonton, there has been a push for the regional governments to work together, but an individual municipality has to take its chances and ask for the money, instead of some kind of a consortium. Those are the kinds of mechanisms the government should be looking at.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Central Nova.

It is a pleasure to participate in the debate today on the government's infrastructure investments and the Canada infrastructure bank. We know that efficient public transit helps Canadians get to and from their jobs faster, that social infrastructure makes for great communities to live in, and that green infrastructure provides clean water to drink and clean air to breathe. Across Canada, infrastructure spending is on the rise, but so too is demand for better neighbourhoods and better communities. As Canadian communities continue to grow, the need for vital infrastructure also grows, and Canadians feel the effects of this growth every single day. Business owners struggle to get their products to customers through congested ports and border crossings. Commutes can be long, buses and trains overcrowded, and getting the kids to hockey practice takes far too long. I think we can all agree that we need more Sidney Crosbys and Connor McDavids in this country.

In budget 2016, the government made a down payment on future growth through investments of $11.9 billion for phase 1 of its infrastructure plan. These smart, strategic investments are already making a difference in communities across Canada, supporting the repair of our aging pipes and roads, building and refurbishing affordable housing, upgrading public transit, and improving indigenous communities. Building on this historic investment, the fall economic statement added an additional $81 billion in funding starting in 2017-18, targeting public transit and green and social infrastructure. This funding would also go to projects in northern and rural communities and those that help to facilitate trade. Total federal investments in infrastructure will now exceed $180 billion over 12 years, a truly historic initiative by this federal government.

This is our opportunity to finally break the gridlock, a call to action for leaders across Canada to work together to plan, to implement, and indeed to deliver transformative infrastructure renewal. With their help, long-term regional transportation plans of Canada's major cities will be funded and transit systems will be built and expanded.

Let me add to that by focusing locally. In my own home city of London, Ontario, I had the pleasure recently of announcing a number of transit projects—54, in fact. I will highlight a few here.

One is the rehabilitation of Dundas Place. Anyone in London knows what that means. That is $8 million. As well, here are new and accessible transit paths and sidewalks, for $1 million; the Kiwanis parks pathway connection, for $1.05 million; funds to construct new downtown cycle tracks, for $1.075 million; replacement of all our bus shelters, 380 in total; the purchasing of closed-circuit monitors for 213 buses; and also funds, $4 million in total, for 14 buses in 2018 and 2019.

These proven investments in infrastructure and transit will boost the economy, not just for today but for years and even decades to come. It is the means by which all countries can build a more prosperous, inclusive, and sustainable society.

Canada's cities continue to attract people from around the world for their diverse and energetic offerings, but the same things that make these cities desirable can also bring discord. Challenges ranging from traffic congestion that takes time away from families and friends to poor-quality air that can make it difficult to enjoy city life are just some examples. We must find solutions as a country.

To encourage cities to adopt new and and innovative approaches to city-building, this government proposes $300 million over 11 years to launch a smart cities challenge. Through a nationwide merit-based competition led by Infrastructure Canada, participants would be invited to create ambitious plans to improve the quality of life for urban residents. Participants would propose ideas that leverage better city planning and implementation of clean and digitally connected technology. These might include greener buildings, smarter roads and energy systems, and advanced digital connections for homes and businesses.

Winning cities would be selected through a nationwide merit-based competition facilitated by the government's new impact Canada fund. These challenges present opportunities to leverage 21st century innovations and technological advances to strengthen and grow our communities.

However, there is more. I want to focus now on the Canada infrastructure bank.

We know that no level of government can accomplish ambitious goals for infrastructure by itself. We need to work in partnership with other levels of government, with public and private organizations, and with investors from around the world.

It is important to attract investment that will allow more infrastructure projects to get under way, especially infrastructure projects that might not otherwise be built were it not for these important partnerships coming into being.

Canada is a country with enormous infrastructure needs and a great deal of potential to build world-class infrastructure that will enhance communities, create good jobs, and build a stronger, greener economy. Investors have told us that they want to invest in Canada, but they need specific conditions to exist. That is why the Government of Canada is establishing the new Canada infrastructure bank. Through this new bank, an arm's-length organization, we will work with our provinces and our territories to build world-class infrastructure that will enhance communities, create good jobs, and build a stronger, greener economy, which is something that I hope we all want. Certainly on this side, we want that.

The Canada infrastructure bank would provide innovative funding and financing for large, complex infrastructure projects that improve economic performance. Very simply, it is a new way of funding transformational projects in communities right across this country. The bank will be responsible for investing $35 billion—federal dollars—through loans, loan guarantees, and equity investments into large infrastructure projects that contribute to economic growth.

By establishing a new organization capable of working with the private sector where it makes sense, we will see public dollars go further and put to smarter use, leading to better projects that create the good, well-paying jobs needed to strengthen the economy over the long term. This is a long-term vision, something that we have to embrace and endorse.

Let me conclude by speaking about the importance of green infrastructure.

We know that provinces and territories are looking at ways to ensure their communities remain healthy and productive places to live. Investments in sustainable infrastructure are needed to support greenhouse gas emission reductions, enable greater climate change adaptation and resilience, and ensure that more communities can provide clean air and safe drinking water for their citizens.

To achieve this, the government is working with all levels of government and with indigenous partners to evaluate, select, and fund green infrastructure projects that would deliver the best outcome for Canadians. Projects that may receive these additional investments include, among others, interprovincial transmission lines that reduce reliance on coal-fired power generation; the development of new low-carbon, renewable power projects; the expansion of smart grids to use power more efficiently and effectively; water treatment projects on reserve; and the construction of infrastructure to help manage the risks associated with floods and wildfires.

This investment builds on those in budget 2016, which are now supporting communities right across this country as they adapt to the challenges of climate change. This includes investments that support electric vehicle and alternative transportation fuel infrastructure, initiatives to foster regional electricity co-operation, and the development of building codes and standards that integrate climate resiliency requirements. These measures support the ongoing transition to a clean growth economy.

To conclude, these investments in infrastructure that we make today will pay dividends for years to come, delivering clean, sustained, economic growth; building stronger, more inclusive communities; and creating more good, well-paying jobs for Canadians.

We have a plan that will bring hope not only to Canadians, but I hope also to the opposition, who I think all agree that economic growth in this country is of vital significance. It is about how we achieve it, and I am sure we disagree on that—I know we disagree on that—but this is a plan that I truly believe in. It is a plan that we consulted on right across this country.

One of the best ways we believe that we can bring confidence back to the middle class is through such plans. We know that investing in our communities means everyone can contribute to advancing our economic, social, and environmental well-being.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about $180 billion of infrastructure money from his government. I will just remind him that $90 billion is from existing Conservative programs.

Second, talking about infrastructure boosting the economy today, I want to remind the member that his government allowed $1 billion of funding from last year to lapse. It is lapsed funding that will not be reallocated until 2022.

I also want to remind the member that PPP Canada has been in existence since 2006 and has already leveraged billions of dollars in private sector infrastructure.

I would like the member to define “arm's-length”, because according to the the legislation, the minister determines who gets the financing, the minister determines which projects are loan guarantees, and the minister also chooses the board and the CEO. Would he please elaborate on “arm's-length”?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question; however, this government will not take lessons from the Conservative Party on how to generate economic growth in this country. It was under Mr. Harper that Canada experienced its most anemic economic growth rates since the Great Depression, so we are not about to take lessons.

Indeed, we are investing in transformational infrastructure projects, not small-scale projects—gazebos, for example. We have a larger, more long-term vision.

As for investments and the Canada infrastructure bank being an arm's-length organization, it is indeed an arm's-length organization. Ultimately the infrastructure bank would be accountable to Parliament. Regular audits would be conducted by the Auditor General and a private sector auditor, which I remind the member are the highest standards of accountability required for crown corporations, and there is also a five-year review conducted by Parliament. I am satisfied with what has been proposed.