House of Commons Hansard #175 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was bank.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:35 a.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have the great honour and privilege to represent the riding of North Island—Powell River. It is the third largest riding in B.C., with many remote communities that are asking for help. They need sewers and water.

There is one community in my riding that is at risk of forest fire because it simply does not have the water pressure for the fire trucks to get the water that is needed. I have many communities begging for infrastructure so they can have meaningful Internet access to open up doors for them.

If members on that side of the House are so proud of the infrastructure bank, why is it not in this place for discussion? Why are they hiding it? Why are they in secret rooms talking with corporations that will make the profit instead of having the discussion here where it belongs?

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

Mr. Speaker, there is $15 billion being extracted from projects that have already been announced in communities: $5 billion coming out of public transit projects, $5 billion from trade and transportation corridors, and another $5 billion from green infrastructure projects. How does the member feel that is going to impact her community?

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is important to be looking at the realities of where the infrastructure funding is going, where it is being taken out of projects that are desperately needed in communities across the country.

I serve small communities. The largest community I have is just over 34,000 people. The smallest has about 20 to 30 people. They face unique challenges. I think of Kingcome, which is desperate for funding to help get off diesel because it is costing too much money. It is a small indigenous community trying to build up an economy for itself and it is paying a lot of money toward energy costs.

It is not going to have an impact because those small communities cannot make the returns that the Bay Street people want. That is why it needs to be separated.

I am so concerned that the government is not separating this very important information and making it legislation so that it can be accountable, talked about, and something that is open. Canadians have a right to have their voices heard.

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs Québec

Liberal

Marc Miller LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member just said is precisely the point. She seemed to suggest in her speech that only large communities can benefit from large projects and that rural and smaller communities cannot. In the case specifically of getting communities off diesel or coal, these are projects that may be of some interest to the bank itself, but also to the $2 billion in specific project funding for traditional infrastructure we have for smaller and northern communities.

I wonder whether the hon. member has actually given consideration to that thought and believes we can actually have larger projects in smaller communities, as we plan to do, where it is feasible, in our budget plan. Had she given any sort of consideration to that before she spoke today?

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that at no point did I say that smaller communities could not benefit from larger projects. What I did say is that they do not have the resources to make sure that the Bay Street people who are investing and expecting a significant return are going to be able to pay those tolls.

I do not know why we cannot have a discussion in this place about what those tolls are going to look like and what we are asking Canadians to be on the hook for. It is shameful that the government will not separate these bills. It is too important. The government should do it right.

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Edmonton Mill Woods Alberta

Liberal

Amarjeet Sohi LiberalMinister of Infrastructure and Communities

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the members of the NDP for their belated support for infrastructure. When we were discussing the infrastructure plan during the campaign, they were so focused on artificially balancing the budget at the cost of ignoring the needs of the communities that need infrastructure. I remember having a debate with one of the NDP's prominent candidates. I asked what the New Democrats' plans were for infrastructure. What I heard was they would build infrastructure five or 10 years from now.

When the New Democrats rise in the House to talk about affordable housing, public transit, water, and waste-water infrastructure or their support for rural communities, I welcome that, because at least they recognize that infrastructure is important, that it is the bones of our economy.

Since taking office, our government has been working hard to deliver unprecedented investments in infrastructure. I am pleased to tell the House today about the investing in Canada infrastructure plan. As well, I will speak more about the Canada infrastructure bank which is one of the government's new, innovative solutions to help address Canada's pressing infrastructure needs and build more infrastructure.

We want to build strong foundations that will allow all Canadians to thrive, excel, and innovate. In budget 2016, we launched the first phase of our long-term infrastructure plan which is designed to achieve three important goals: create long-term growth for those middle-class Canadians and those who are working hard to join the middle class; build inclusive communities so everyone has a fair chance to succeed; and support a low-carbon, green economy.

The plan would invest more than $180 billion over 12 years, bringing new and innovative infrastructure investment tools to the table and would support five key areas for investment: public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, trade and transportation infrastructure, and the rural and northern communities infrastructure. Our plan would deliver better public transit, clean water, and more social housing units for Canadians while creating long-term growth and jobs for the middle class.

When we ran during the last election, we said we would double the infrastructure investments across the country. We said that now is the time to invest in our country and in Canadians. Now we are delivering on that commitment. When we came into office, we started consulting broadly with our partners—provinces, territories, municipalities, and indigenous communities—to make sure we were investing in the right way, to make sure our investments would have maximum impact and would address the real needs of our communities.

It quickly became clear that everyone was feeling that the infrastructure deficit was caused by the lack of sustained, predictable funding from the previous government and it was clear that an ambitious plan was needed now. Our partners told us that existing infrastructure across the country was in dire need of repair and modernization.

We decided to roll out our plan in two phases. The initial phase of the investing in Canada plan was designed to focus on the recapitalization, repair, and modernization of existing infrastructure assets, making buses accessible, and giving access to clean drinking water to communities facing boil water advisories. Phase one also recognized the challenges municipalities face when trying to plan for the long term by funding the design and planning work of new, larger scale infrastructure projects like Ottawa's second phase LRT, the downtown relief line in Toronto, Calgary's Green Line, or Edmonton's LRT expansion.

We did this to help municipalities rebuild the foundations of their systems and to start planning for projects that will form the core of our ambitious long-term plan.

Our plan is about building not just more infrastructure but building infrastructure that meets community needs and addresses the pressing infrastructure gaps that are felt throughout Canada. To ensure that we are supporting the infrastructure that our communities need, we continue to work in close relationship with our provincial, territorial, indigenous, and municipal partners to plan and deliver infrastructure projects that will shape our country for years to come.

We have made great progress in delivering projects under Infrastructure Canada's new programs. We streamlined approvals under the new Building Canada fund to better support our municipal, provincial, and territorial partners, and to approve projects faster.

We added new eligibility categories to recognize our partners' priorities, making cultural and recreational projects and ferry infrastructure eligible, for example. The members of the NDP will remember that, because they are the ones, along with Liberal MPs, who requested that we change the category to include ferry infrastructure in our plan. These changes were not only made by our provincial and territorial partners, but also at the requests of other MPs.

Since taking office, we have approved 2,200 projects across the country, with a total combined investment of $20 billion since November 2015. We have approved more projects to help our communities in a year and a half than the previous government did in five years combined.

These projects are now rolling out in communities large and small and will make a big difference across Canada. Our investments so far mean 200 projects that will make public transit more accessible for people with disabilities, with more than 1,000 new buses along with other improvements. Together these investments will develop faster, more reliable service and help reduce traffic congestion and pollution. Another 1,000 projects will give more Canadians access to clean drinking water and reduce pollution in our lakes and rivers.

More than 89,000 social housing units have been renovated under our plan. As well, 182 arts and heritage facilities in 109 communities are being improved, and nearly 6,000 housing units on reserve for indigenous communities have been built, renovated, or planned, along with 125 projects aimed at building and improving schools for indigenous children. There are 251 projects under the post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund under way to enhance and modernize research and commercialization facilities on Canadian campuses.

An example of the results of our investments so far can be found in the town of Lanigan, Saskatchewan. Due to a lack of infrastructure investment by the previous government, the people in Lanigan were lacking quality water to bathe their children, wash their clothes, and prepare their food. Thanks to the financial support from our government, the community will soon upgrade their water and waste water treatment systems.

We have helped communities in North Bay, Ontario; Selkirk, Manitoba; and Moncton, New Brunswick to buy new buses that are reliable and accessible. They are better for the environment.

North Vancouver, London, and Inverness in Nova Scotia have installed new transit shelters. Durham in Ontario and Winnipeg in Manitoba have expanded their facilities to accommodate maintenance of their fleets.

Our plan is funding water supply main replacement in Clinton, Ontario. It is helping the community water conservation project in Tahsis, British Columbia, and funding the Mayo lift station in Mayo, Yukon.

In my home province of Alberta, we have supported key infrastructure projects such as the expansion of the Edmonton Yellowhead Trail, a project that was ignored by the previous government for 10 years. The Fort Edmonton Park expansion is a very important project from an indigenous reconciliation point of view. Other projects are the Southwest Calgary Ring Road and the Lacombe and Red Deer water and waste water line.

Our long-term infrastructure plan is focused on investing in the projects that will transform our communities for the 21st century. We know that Canada's infrastructure demands outpaced investments for decades, and let us make no mistake: underfunding infrastructure has a cost, and it is significant. That is why budget 2017 builds on the measures announced in budget 2016 and clearly outlines the next steps in our government's plan to make smart investments that will help grow our economy and strengthen the middle class.

The proposed budget implementation act includes legislation to establish the Canada infrastructure bank, which I would like to talk about now. Even with our historic investment in our country's infrastructure, there remains a gap that we cannot completely fill. We need to find a new way to build more infrastructure, understanding the limited resources of all orders of government. During the campaign, we committed to creating the Canada infrastructure bank. Through our consultations, our government recognized that we needed to find innovative new ways to effectively mobilize private capital to supplement our historic public investments and build more new infrastructure projects that will benefit Canadians.

Through consultations with mayors from across the country, municipal associations such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, provincial and territorial governments, first nations, industry associations, global organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and investment groups such as the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, we drafted the details of the bill that is before this House.

We are proposing the creation of a Canada infrastructure bank because we believe there is an opportunity for the federal government to attract private sector investment in infrastructure and partner with world-leading institutional investors to build more projects across our country. The bank would finance those projects that are in the public interest, but that often do not get built because they are too costly or face competing priorities. Such projects have a potential to be transformational but often do not receive funding under traditional infrastructure programs.

If approved by Parliament, the Canada infrastructure bank would do just that. It would invest up to $35 billion in new growth-oriented infrastructure across the country, including public transit systems in our largest cities, energy transmission corridors, and more. Fifteen billion dollars would be sourced from the investing in Canada infrastructure plan. This $15 billion is approximately 8% of the total commitment of infrastructure funds that we have made under our $180 billion long-term plan. It is on top of our initial commitment to doubling infrastructure investments.

We would make an additional $20 billion in capital available to the Canada infrastructure bank for investments that would result in the bank holding assets in the form of equity or debt. This $20 billion would therefore not result in a fiscal impact on the government.

If approved by Parliament, the bank's mandate would be to make investments in revenue-generating infrastructure projects that are in the public interest as well as to seek investments from the private sector and institutional investors in those projects.

To carry out its mandate, the bank would structure investments in infrastructure projects that have revenue-generating potential and are in the public interest; attract private sector and institutional investors to projects so that more infrastructure can be built; serve as a centre of expertise on projects in which private sector or institutional investors are making a significant investment; foster evidence-based decision-making and advise all orders of government on the design of revenue-generating projects; and collect and share data to help governments make better decisions about infrastructure investments.

The bank would amplify federal support by bringing private sector and institutional investors to the table to help pay for the transformational projects that our country needs.

The bank would offer our funding partners a new way to help meet their pressing infrastructure needs. It would be a new tool for provincial, territorial, and municipal partners to use in building infrastructure that Canadians need, should they wish to use it. It would free up public dollars to build more public infrastructure, such as housing and recreational and cultural facilities, and it is expected to attract private sector capital that would otherwise not be available for building the infrastructure our country needs.

If approved by Parliament, the bank would be established as an arm's-length crown corporation that would be accountable to Parliament and would report on its activities to Parliament twice a year.

The Government of Canada has engaged Canadians and stakeholders from across Canada on our long-term infrastructure plan. The development of the Canada infrastructure bank, we believe, will help us achieve the results that we want to achieve.

I would like to stress a few points again.

The bank is an optional tool for our partners to use. It is up to provinces, territories, and municipalities to decide if they choose to use the bank to help build more infrastructure.

The bank will focus on new infrastructure, not selling existing assets. We need to build even more infrastructure in this country. The bank is one way of doing that.

The bank is one additional tool we are putting into our infrastructure tool kit. Of the total of $186 billion in the plan, less than 10% would be delivered through the infrastructure bank.

The bank would be a tool for certain projects that have a revenue stream. It would enable us to focus our grant money on infrastructure that does not have revenue attached to it. It would allow us to stretch our infrastructure dollars even further.

Earlier this week, we were proud to announce the search for the leadership of the bank. This is an important milestone toward the creation of the bank and, if Parliament approves it, will allow us to be well positioned to have the bank operational in late 2017.

These searches will identify a chairperson, board members, and a chief executive officer. The process will be open and merit-based and will identify experts and professionals who are needed to lead and govern the bank.

The selection process is designed to attract diverse and highly qualified individuals, taking into consideration the desire to achieve gender parity and to reflect Canada's linguistic, cultural, and regional diversity.

We know that our country is stronger when decision-makers reflect Canada's diversity. That is why we are searching for people with the right talent who can help us design and build this bank and also help us deliver on the commitments we have made to Canadians.

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech.

I wonder if the Minister of Finance will also be making a speech today. I know the minister has done a lot of work in the municipal sector and is very familiar with the issues.

A lot of people are wondering if the Minister of Finance and his Bay Street buddies are actually the ones making decisions about how this bank is set up. I would like to read an excerpt from the Liberal platform that explains what the bank is all about.

Where a lack of capital represents a barrier to projects, the Canada Infrastructure Bank will provide loan guarantees and small capital contributions to provinces and municipalities to ensure that the projects are built.

When I read this, I have trouble reconciling what was said during the election campaign and what is being proposed today by the government, which is giving all the power to private investors.

I want to ask the minister about an important aspect of the motion, and that is our request that the bill be split. He said many times that Parliament should pass it. In this case, he should acknowledge that it is important to have Parliament's approval before moving forward.

Will the minister agree to split the omnibus bill so that we can have a genuine, robust study even as his government looks for a board of directors?

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Amarjeet Sohi Liberal Edmonton Mill Woods, AB

Mr. Speaker, we held a wide range of consultations leading up to the introduction of the legislation. We consulted with provinces, territories, municipalities, the private sector, labour unions, trade councils, and all sorts of other stakeholders to ensure we were crafting legislation that would reflect their needs and allow us the flexibility to build the infrastructure they needed. That is why the legislation includes the oversight of Parliament, as well as an arm's length decision-making process on project selection and financial execution.

We feel very comfortable that we will select the right talent to establish the bank, board members, and CEOs, who will guide us in the execution as we move forward in establishing the bank by the end of 2017. Canadians expect us to deliver on infrastructure. That is why we are doing this and why it is part of the budget implementation act.

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is not arm's length because the minister has to approve the financing of projects.

I want to talk about some of the alternative facts. The minister spoke about sustainable funding. The Conservative government brought in the gas tax that went directly to communities. He talked about historical spending on infrastructure of $180 billion. There are $90 billion in the existing Conservative programs. We announced 7,800 projects and completed 7,300, which was 94%.

Pages 266 and 277 in budget 2017 talk about lapsed funding. There was so much red tape that there were $1 billion in lapsed funding, something the Liberal government said it would never do. If there were any money, it would go back to communities. We see in the budget that it will not be reallocated until 2022. When will communities be receiving their money?

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Amarjeet Sohi Liberal Edmonton Mill Woods, AB

Mr. Speaker, let me focus on the bank. I will share an example of how municipalities struggle to make decisions. Members from Alberta may remember that a number of years ago, the provincial government consulted with Albertans on the need to build a rail link between Edmonton and Calgary. Albertans wanted that kind of rail link, so they supported it. However, the mayors of major urban centres like Edmonton and Calgary were concerned that if the link was built, it would take resources away from their own LRT projects and were reluctant to support this. With the bank, they would not have to compete with those kinds of projects.

We have dedicated funding for urban centre public transit systems. With the creation of this bank, we could look at potentially building such a link that would link Edmonton and Calgary with a high-speed train. What is wrong with that? Members may not like it, but we want to explore the potential and believe that if we can engage the private sector in making those kinds of projects a reality, Canadians will benefit. I can give more examples—

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Mr. Speaker, I hold my colleague opposite in high esteem but, honestly, Canadians expect the Liberals to keep their promises. That is what Canadians expect. They are not expecting a pan-Canadian infrastructure system with tolls.

I would like to ask my dear colleague how the Liberals had the nerve to break another promise and bury something so important in an omnibus bill if this is so important for them and for all Canadians. That is truly shameful.

The only thing the minister can do is rise and answer the question honestly and frankly.

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Amarjeet Sohi Liberal Edmonton Mill Woods, AB

Mr. Speaker, we are so proud to be delivering on our infrastructure commitments. We promised Canadians we would double our infrastructure investments and we are in fact almost tripling our those investments.

We understand that Canadian communities have been denied the opportunities to succeed, to grow their economies, to create jobs, to have safe, clean water to drink, and to reduce congestion in major urban centres. We heard from those communities. That is why we have created this additional tool kit that will free up resources for Edmonton to build its LRT, for Calgary to build its LRT, for Toronto to build its subways, for Vancouver and Surrey to build their LRT systems and still engage the private sector to build community infrastructure that otherwise will not be built.

What is wrong with them? Either those members do not get it or they—

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean.

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for outlining for the House the significant investments made by the government in infrastructure.

We know there is a direct link between infrastructure investment and job creation. The minister mentioned the post-secondary institution strategic investment fund. In my riding right now, construction is under way at Algonquin College, at a cost of $22 million, which will create a centre for innovation, learning, and entrepreneurship. It will also include an indigenous entrepreneurship centre. This will allow students to literally create the partnerships and the skills to make the jobs of tomorrow.

Could the minister elaborate on the direct connection between infrastructure investments and good middle-class jobs?

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Amarjeet Sohi Liberal Edmonton Mill Woods, AB

Mr. Speaker, our government clearly understands this. That is why we are focused on infrastructure to grow our economy and create long-term prosperity. Investment in post-secondary infrastructure, public transit infrastructure, trade-oriented infrastructure, and rural communities infrastructure is necessary.

When infrastructure is underfunded, people are denied access to clean water. They are stuck in traffic, wasting their time, and losing productivity. That is why we have committed to invest in infrastructure.

I am so proud that with the introduction of the Canada infrastructure bank we can do more. We can undertake projects that some people think are unimaginable, like the rail link I talked about or the high-speed link from Toronto to Windsor. How do we fund those projects? We fund them by engaging the private sector, by mobilizing the innovative thinking around that. People who can utilize these projects are excited.

Our municipalities want to see more infrastructure, but they do not want to compete with other priorities. They want to have dedicated funding and we have given them that dedicated funding. The bank will do more on top of that.

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Alain Rayes Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC

Mr. Speaker, the minister is fond of taking every opportunity to say that he consulted a lot of people about his infrastructure bank. I managed to get my hands on a document through the Access to Information Act. I cannot show it to members because there are clear rules in that regard. However, this document sets out all of the work that was done with BlackRock, a private investment firm that has a vested interest in the bank's creation because the bank will generate significant investment revenue for the firm.

Oddly enough, the entire list of people who were consulted is blacked out in the document. The Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance participated in the meeting. It is impossible to find out the names of those who wanted to meet with the Prime Minister.

If the Prime Minister really wants to work with the other parties, can he tell us the names of the people he actually consulted?

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Amarjeet Sohi Liberal Edmonton Mill Woods, AB

Mr. Speaker, the presentation that was made to investors is publicly available. The member can see it. There is nothing secret about it.

We take pride in our investments. We are attracting foreign capital to invest in our country. Canada is open for business. Our country has lacked the infrastructure that could transform our communities and allow people and goods to move faster. We see a lot of potential not only through $180 billion out of that 92% being delivered through traditional ways, but also mobilizing the value capital through the infrastructure bank.

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the minister defend this bank.

First, I will be splitting my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

I want to thank the member for Beloeil—Chambly for bringing this motion forward. This is a very important issue. Many of us would agree that Canada is open for business. However, it is about what kind of business and what that process looks like. As we have seen with the development of this bank, there are some serious concerns on this side of the House. I want to give a bit of an overview of this bank.

Of a total of $35 billion of taxpayer dollars, $15 billion are being taken away from communities, but the government has announced these projects. Therefore, there is an anticipation from communities that these projects will be built in their communities. However, that is not so, because $15 billion are being taken away from communities, $5 billion are being taken away from public transit projects, $5 billion are being taken away from trade and transportation, and $5 billion are being taken away from green infrastructure. Therefore, the minister should really let communities know which ones will be affected and which projects that have already been announced will not go forward. That is the prudent thing to do. The government talks about being transparent. That is a measure of transparency.

Also, the CPP Investment Board has stated that investors will only look at projects worth over $500 million because it needs a return on its investment. However, $20 billion will be provided to the bank through equity and debt, which means it will not be on the books unless the project defaults. This is another very problematic issue.

The bank will seek out private investors and public pension funds to invest in Canadian infrastructure projects. However, if we come back to what the expectation is from investors, they want a return on their investment as high as 12%. For those who have RRSPs invested or any investments whatsoever, 12% is a really good return rate. What is missing in this is that the minister has not identified where that money is coming from. How is that being paid back to the investors? If it is through taxes, tolls, road pricing, whatever fees and mechanisms that looks like, it should be implicit in the legislation. It is not there. There is no mention of what the return on investment will look like. Again, that is very problematic.

I go back to 2009, when the Conservative government set up PPP Canada. At the time, I was the mayor of a large city of 520,000 people. We were a beneficiary through PPP Canada. We worked together and commenced the building of a biofuel facility, which is being completed now. We leveraged private sector dollars. However, the taxpayers are not paying fees to investors on that front. Therefore, the structure is already there in PPP Canada. The initial investment into PPP Canada was $1.3 billion, which leveraged $6 billion in infrastructure. The mechanisms and the tools are there.

One of the other functions of the bank is data collection. The FCM has been doing data collection for quite some time. In fact, $50 million were given to the FCM by the current government specifically for data collection. Therefore, again, it is a repetition of things that are already being done.

The infrastructure bank portion of Bill C-44 will be studied for just one hour. For something as significant as this, with $35 billion of taxpayers' dollars, to be studied at committee for one hour is absolutely not enough time. Within the motion that has been put forward today, the NDP has requested that this be brought back to the House separately so we can have a wholesome debate on it. Unfortunately, the government has invoked time allocation. It is shutting down debate and giving one hour in committee. This is absolutely unacceptable.

In a Globe and Mail article on Wednesday, May 10, the Minister of Infrastructure stated: “We are not hearing concerns from [those on] whose behalf we are doing this”. Of course there are no concerns from the people for whom they are doing this. That comment from the minister is really telling.

I want to talk about the significant conflict of interest. The Liberals gave direct control over the development of the bank to the very same private investors that will be profiting from the bank. This is a clear and blatant conflict of interest. BlackRock officials were invited by the Liberals to work directly with senior public servants, as well as ministerial staff, ahead of a closed-door meeting with the Prime Minister and ministers on November 14. This was to ensure that BlackRock clients would hear from the minister about the infrastructure bank. In fact, they even looked over the speaking notes of the minister. Documents also reveal that a member of the finance minister's advisory council, who is the president and CEO of Quebec's largest pension fund, was the lead in the policy decisions of the infrastructure bank. That is interesting, because now the pension fund is seeking a $1.3 billion contribution from the Liberal government for a $6 billion light rail transit project. Again, this is a blatant conflict of interest.

The postings for the positions on the board are closing before the end of this month, and the legislation has not even been passed.

Let us talk about the Liberal infrastructure plan. Ninety per cent of the announced infrastructure projects have failed to start construction. That means there are no jobs being created and the economy is not being stimulated. The majority of the funds in the Liberal infrastructure plan are back-ended after 2022. There are no bilateral agreements for phase two that have been signed, and no projects have been submitted by the provinces.

The PBO, the Fraser Institute, the Senate, and the C.D. Howe Institute all have serious concerns. They cannot follow the money, there is no transparency, the projects are not getting built, and there is no way they can measure progress. No wonder the government wants to muzzle the PBO.

The Liberals continue to say “historic” amounts of spending, and they are spending. They are spending $253 million on the Asian infrastructure bank, but we are going to be on the hook for $1.3 billion in loan guarantees. The Chinese government is taking the lead on that.

I would like to make an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by adding to part (c) after the word “investors” the following:

using taxpayer dollars while also imposing user fees on Canadians

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion.

I therefore ask the hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly whether he consents to this amendment being moved.

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do consent, and I would add, tongue in cheek, that if the NDP and the Conservatives are working together against this measure, then it must mean the government is really headed in the wrong direction.

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

The amendment is in order.

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

NDP

Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC

I thank my colleague for her speech, her amendment, and I dare say, her support. She can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe she supports the motion.

She skilfully illustrated the problem with studying such an important plan, which requires a $35-billion investment by taxpayers, in just one hour in committee. The speaking time of parliamentarians and their ability to provide input are being limited.

Earlier, in response to my question, the minister said that the government held consultations before introducing the legislation. That is too bad because legislation is a way of consulting parliamentarians and it leaves a lot to be desired right now.

I would like my colleague to say a few words about the fact that the government is looking for candidates for the board of directors and has chosen a location for the bank with no regard for our opinion on the matter. The fact remains that making such decisions before they are reviewed or voted on by Parliament is extremely problematic.

Does the hon. member not agree?

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC

Mr. Speaker, we do support the NDP motion put forward. It is very problematic; there are serious conflict of interest issues. We need to have this legislation reviewed. We need to have the recommendations coming out of the advisory board reviewed. We need to have the request for $1.3 billion, which was made by an individual on the board, reviewed. To not have the time to have a wholesome discussion is absolutely unacceptable, when we are talking about $35 billion of taxpayer monies that are being shuffled behind closed doors, and debate is being shut down. I do not know how any Canadian across this country would accept this kind of behaviour from a government.

Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, as a historical note, it was the then finance minister, now public safety minister, who introduced the gas tax transfer to assist with municipal infrastructure. Budget 2017 is now taking extra steps on top of the $180 billion commitment to restore infrastructure and rebuild infrastructure in this country with the announcement of the Canada infrastructure bank.

It is also important to note that this will be debated in two committees in this place and two committees in the other place. How can this possibly not benefit our Canadian communities from coast to coast to coast, when the Canada infrastructure bank is going to add more of the infrastructure Canadians need and address the $500 billion deficit we have in this country?