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.
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (A) for the financial year ending March 31, 2018, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.
Jody Wilson-Raybould LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32, I have the honour to table, in both official languages and with respect to Bill C-46, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, a document entitled “Legislative background: reforms to the Transportation Provisions of the Criminal Code (Bill C-46)”, including a charter impact statement.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to four petitions.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, three reports of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group.
The first concerns the 70th annual meeting of the Council of State Governments' Southern Legislative Conference, held in Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America, from July 9 to 13, 2016.
The second concerns the annual legislative summit of the National Conference of State Legislatures, NCSL, held in Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A, August 8-11, 2016.
The third concerns the 69th annual meeting of the Council of State Governments–West, held in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, United States of America, September 6-9, 2016.
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill S-217, an act to amend the Criminal Code (detention in custody).
The committee has studied the bill and recommends not to proceed further with this bill.
Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal Humber River—Black Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, in relation to the main estimates 2017-18.
Judy Sgro Liberal Humber River—Black Creek, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Liaison Committee regarding committee activities and expenditures.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, in relation to the main estimates 2017-18.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions, and if you were to seek it, I think you would find that there is consent to adopt the following motion:
That, at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the member for Beloeil—Chambly, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, May 16, 2017, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
Denis Paradis Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the minister responsible for Global Affairs Canada. In 2008, the International Joint Commission began its study of water quality problems in Missisquoi Bay but has not pursued the matter since.
All levels of government on both sides of the border, as well as other watershed organizations, are making a tremendous effort to combat cyanobacteria in Lake Champlain.
Despite their efforts, cyanobacteria still pose a threat to local people's quality of life. People in my region, Brome—Missisquoi, and around Lake Champlain drink that water. I am not sure that water is even potable at certain times of the year.
Residents of the Lake Champlain region are asking the minister responsible for Global Affairs Canada to instruct the International Joint Commission to develop effective solutions to the cyanobacteria problem in order to restore water quality in Lake Champlain.
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Mr. Speaker, on this day, exactly one day before the International Awareness Day for Chronic Immunological and Neurological Diseases, I have the honour to present electronic petition 734 on behalf of more than 1,000 signatories, calling the attention of the Government of Canada to create a national strategy with respect to addressing the diseases referred to as chronic immunological and neurological diseases, which implicate upwards of 1.4 million Canadians. They ask the government to consider how it might address the impacts of these diseases, not only on the health care system and the economy, but of course also on those living with these diseases.
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, last night I had the honour in this place to speak in support of labelling genetically modified foods, and today I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of my constituents for labelling genetically modified foods.
Various polls consistently show that over 80% of Canadians want mandatory labelling of GM foods, and the petitioners ask that the House of Commons establish mandatory labelling of all genetically modified foods. I thank Lilian Martins and the Big Carrot natural food market for advocacy on this issue, and Kate McMurray from the Big Carrot, who was here on the Hill last week to advocate.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
moved:
That, in the opinion of the House: (a) public infrastructure should serve the interests of Canadians, not work to make private investors rich; (b) during the election, the Liberals did not reveal to voters their plans to privatize investment in public infrastructure; (c) infrastructure built by private investors will cost more than public infrastructure; (d) it is a conflict of interest to allow private corporations, who will be the largest beneficiaries of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, to participate in the planning and development of the Bank; (e) the Bank will leave taxpayers with an unacceptable burden of fees, tolls, and privatization that will only make private investors wealthy, to the detriment of the public interest; and (f) the clauses concerning the Canada Infrastructure Bank’s creation should be removed from Bill C-44, Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, so they can be studied as a stand-alone bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their warm welcome.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say at the outset that I will be sharing my time with my fantastic colleague from North Island—Powell River.
As members just heard, today, we are presenting a motion on the Canada infrastructure bank proposed by the government, which we could call the privatization bank, the bank of broken promises, or the conflict of interest bank. These synonyms all aptly describe the Liberal government's proposal.
During the election campaign, there was an issue that was very important. All our communities, all our constituents, and, I would even go so far as to say, all the parties here in the House of Commons were concerned about it. That issue was, of course, our public infrastructure. We see various infrastructure problems every day, depending on where we live. If we live near a big city, we know that there are problems with traffic congestion and commute times. People from ridings like mine, Beloeil—Chambly, and those who live in remote areas are dealing with issues related to Internet access and other problems.
There are still major infrastructure problems affecting our communities and the people who live there.
What we heard during the last election campaign was a proposal to take advantage of low interest rates to help municipalities and the provinces to capitalize on that reality and invest public money in their public infrastructure. What we are seeing today is a plan that proposes a so-called infrastructure bank, but really, is more of a privatization bank, a bank that benefits people in the financial sector, groups like BlackRock, rather than people who are experiencing the day-to-day problems associated with our infrastructure.
I think when we look at how this whole plan of the infrastructure bank has gone ahead from the outset, we see it has happened behind closed doors. It has gone on with investment groups, like BlackRock, which we learned last week is going over presentations and talking points with ministers. I think there is a pretty clear indication of who stands to gain the most from this proposal that the government has put forward.
There are tangible facts here. It is not just wanting to go after the private investors who stand to gain the most at the expense of taxpayers, at the expense of Canadians. It is also looking at what we saw in The Globe and Mail just this morning, that an internal memo from Infrastructure Canada said a few things that are important for the motion that we are debating today.
The first is to take our time. It is hard to do that when it is part of an omnibus budget bill, which the Liberal Party promised to do away with in the last election. It is difficult to do that when we are going to spend one or two hours studying something that will so fundamentally change how we invest in infrastructure in Canada. Not only that, but it is going to be once again at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.
What else did we see in this report that was revealed to us today?
We saw that this is going to slow down, potentially, the going ahead of infrastructure projects. Why? It is because it will create all kinds of jurisdictional snafus.
I want to read one quote from the article, if I may, which I think illustrates very well the exact kind of problem that this kind of bank poses and the problem of putting what is done so well by public dollars, for the public interest, into the hands of the private sector. The report states:
Catalyzing private capital to invest in Canada’s water utility industry is challenging and would require a transformation of the industry as a whole.
It uses the water utility industry as an example because, of course, issues related to water are some of the core issues related to infrastructure.
It is hard to examine this kind of fundamental issue when it is part of an omnibus bill that includes so many important points and that is also now under time allocation, I might add. The Liberals are cutting off the debate.
That is why we are asking the government to honour a number of its election promises. Obviously, we are talking about the election promise to invest public money in public infrastructure, but we are also asking it to separate this aspect from the rest of the bill. We simply cannot accept such an important change without giving it the attention it deserves, and we must have a separate bill on this issue alone.
Another thing that is problematic about the whole issue of the infrastructure bank and the omnibus bill is that the board of directors positions are already posted. The Liberals are going ahead with choosing the location of the bank and which of their friends will be on the board of directors.
All this is being done not only before we get to committee, but before Parliament has even voted on the bill, omnibus or otherwise. This is totally unacceptable for something as fundamental as infrastructure. Let us not forget that infrastructure is one of the federal responsibilities that has a direct impact on the daily lives of the people we represent.
Speaking of the impact on taxpayers, let us not forget that the Liberals were elected on a promise to invest this public money, whether we like it or not. On that we can all agree. There is no doubt that we desperately need to invest public money in our public infrastructure. We could have a whole other debate on the fact that these investments are being spread out over 10, 11, or 12 years and not over a shorter period to allow communities with the greatest need to benefit immediately, but that is a discussion for another day.
Let us focus on the impact on the public and let us talk about user fees and tolls. Taxpayers are being asked to pay twice. First, they are asked to pay taxes. We have a social contract in Canada whereby we agree to invest public money in our infrastructure so that our bridges do not collapse when we are commuting to work. The public is prepared to accept that.
However, it is not prepared to accept that the government will invest a significant amount of its money in infrastructure only to then tell its friends, such as BlackRock, behind closed doors that it will let them charge Canadians a second time by imposing user fees and tolls.
The government tells us not to worry, that there will be no tolls or user fees, and that it will depend on the project. However, we really wonder where businesses are going to get a return of 8% or more if not from the pockets of taxpayers, who have already invested in their infrastructure through government spending. It is completely unacceptable to ask middle-class families, which this Prime Minister says he is always defending, to pay twice for this infrastructure. This goes against what this government promised.
I want to focus on that point, because what is key here is what we are asking Canadians to be on the hook for. We are asking them to be on the hook through their tax dollars, and that is fine. They are ready to accept that. However, we are asking them to be on the hook for the friends of the Liberal Party, who are meeting Liberals behind closed doors and looking over their talking points and their presentations. They are then turning around and saying, “Great, we are going to pick and choose.”
We hear MPs from Toronto, for example, who tell us, “This is great. We are going to invest in social housing.” Good luck looking to the private sector to invest in social housing. Maybe it is social housing for the people who go to the Prime Minister's fundraisers at $1,500 a pop, but I certainly have a hard time believing it is going to be the priority for those private investors. That is exactly why government has to play a role. The government's role is not bankrolling private companies to fleece the taxpayer twice on critical infrastructure. It is to really live up to its commitment to invest those public dollars in our public infrastructure. We cannot repeat it enough.
I will end by saying that we have hope today. We may be naively optimistic, but we have hope because it is not just the privatization bank, the Liberal Party's bank of conflicts of interest and cronyism, it is also the bank of broken promises, as I said at the outset.
In fact, this bill, which would create a bank that will fundamentally change how we invest in infrastructure, and that is worth repeating, and give power to the private sector, is part of an omnibus bill. The Liberals promised not to use this type of bill.
They promised to invest public money and not to privatize our infrastructure and airports. The privatization of our airports is another matter we could discuss, but I do not have enough time. In short, these are all commitments that the Liberal Party made.
I would remind my colleagues, cabinet ministers and backbenchers alike, who all represent their communities and say they want to invest in green infrastructure and affordable housing, that the commitments they made during the last election campaign consisted of investing public money, not BlackRock's money. BlackRock, I might add, will not be interested in investing in environmental protections and access to affordable housing for Canadians in need, which are fundamental issues.
We are making a heartfelt plea to the Liberal Party. We are asking the Liberals to put an end to their old ways, which have traditionally been to hold meetings behind closed doors with their Bay Street friends. We are asking them to finally follow through on their commitments to Canadians, who desperately need public infrastructure paid for with public money. We are also asking the government to put an end to omnibus bills and to really examine this fundamental issue.
Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Conservative
Dianne Lynn Watts Conservative South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague and the motion put forward today, because this is of the utmost importance. It is really relevant now that Canadians begin to understand exactly what this bank is all about.
The committee allotted one hour of discussion for this bill. I wonder if the member can comment on that as well as on shutting down debate on this issue.
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the work she does on this file.
I would say, tongue in cheek, and with all due respect to my Conservative colleagues, that the questions we have heard from them on this issue show that even the previous government realized that this kind of scheme is a bad idea and serves to benefit one group of people, those in the financial and private sectors, and not Canadians who really need public infrastructure to serve their needs and the needs of their communities.
To get to her question about what is going on in committee, she is absolutely right. There was one hour in committee on $35 billion of taxpayer money going to a privatization bank that is going to fundamentally change how we invest in our infrastructure in Canada. Not only that, it is exempt from access to information requests. There are all these fundamental issues that turn around this bank.
It does not need to come from us. It can come from the internal memo to Infrastructure Canada from KPMG we are reading about this morning in The Globe and Mail. It should slow the heck down. Instead, the government is putting it in an omnibus budget bill, with one hour in committee. It is totally unacceptable.
Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in my friend in the sense that he does not highlight what this government is actually doing on the bigger picture of infrastructure. Imagine $180 billion being invested in Canada's infrastructure over the coming years. That is an incredible amount of public dollars being committed to things such as housing, recreational facilities, roads, and so much more. A very small percentage of that, less than 10%, would go through this infrastructure bank.
If the NDP maintained its balanced-budget approach and were to invest in public infrastructure, how much more than $180 billion would it have invested?
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, if I were to share the clip of Kevin Sorbo screaming “disappointed” every time the member feigned disappointment on these issues he campaigned on in the last election, that joke would get old very fast.
The member talks about housing. I have a hard time imagining that a private investment company is going to say that it is going to help the little guy and the people who need it the most through that kind of infrastructure.
In the last budget, the Liberals listed all these great public transit projects that the bank could pay for. However, they used the word “could”. At the end of the day, it is the private sector that will decide. It is the friends of the Liberal Party who will decide. We find that completely unacceptable. We are prepared to work with the government to invest public money in public infrastructure.
The money must be available immediately, but instead it looks to us like it will be available in 10, 11, or 12 years. Obviously, this does not meet the dire needs our communities have right now. This is exactly the opposite of what this member and all the others in the House promised during the last election campaign. Today they have an opportunity to fix this, and I urge them to do so.
Opposition Motion—Canada Infrastructure BankBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure bank has been a long-standing issue that continues to be locked in the shadows. New Democrats had to put forward this motion today because of the lack of clarity, transparency, and accountability with respect to this bank. I believe that the most important part of today's discussion is this: If the government is so proud of the infrastructure bank, why make it part of an omnibus budget bill in 2017? Why not have this section of the bill separated out?
I believe that Canadians and municipalities deserve the right to hear, in detail, how this bank will work, especially when its creation is under a cloud of suspect behaviour, with private companies that will be the same companies making the profits from these ventures sitting in the driver's seat. This shows a clear conflict of interest. Now Liberals have cut our ability to debate this by virtue of shutting down debate.
This needs to be clear. First, the infrastructure bank was squished into an omnibus bill, creating a lack of accountability and vigorous debate in the House. Second, the debate was shortened so these issues could be rushed over by the government.
We have asked for this provision to be split from the omnibus bill, something the Liberals have yet to do. If the government is so proud, it should not be afraid and should be willing to have this discussion. I believe this would truly allow for an in-depth analysis, more hours of debate, and a specific committee to review the process, rather than one hour, as it currently stands. This provision will be reviewed quickly at committee, in conjunction with the 300 pages of legislative changes in Bill C-44. This is a lack of accountability.
It is important that all parliamentarians take this seriously. There is a general lack of clarity with respect to the infrastructure bank, and there are many alarming issues surrounding this scheme. First, many measures will have to be dealt with in future legislation. Second, the lack of transparency is troubling. The bank will be able to withhold important information from the Attorney General of Canada and the parliamentary budget officer under the guise of being sensitive commercial information. Third, the bank will have serious consequences for our public infrastructure and the lives of Canadian citizens.
As the deputy critic for infrastructure, it has been a pleasure to advocate in this role, most notably for Canadians living in rural and small communities. Too often we hear the word “infrastructure” tied to larger communities. Too often smaller centres are simply left out of the equation.
For us to quickly demonstrate how the scheme will never benefit our rural communities or the middle class, we can simply break down the nature of the beast. The bottom line is that private investors will not be joining the government's scheme for the pleasure of building infrastructure but rather will be expecting a significant financial return.
I want to be clear. It makes sense to me that these investors will want a return. Investing is for the purpose of making a return. My concern is that infrastructure is moving in this direction. I am concerned that Canadians are not having a say on this bank. I am most concerned that these investors have been shown to be in the driver's seat in building this bank. It is like asking the fox to guard the hen house, with a complete lack of acknowledgement of the role of a fox.
The Quebec pension plan, for example, is very clear. It expects a return of 7% to 9%. Where do members think it would get that from? It would be from the tolls and user fees collected from Canadians. Simply said, rural communities cannot sustain the level of returns Bay Street bankers require. That means that all the communities I represent will be ignored. Other MPs in this House should really reflect on the usefulness of this bank in their ridings, and most importantly, must ask who this bank is really helping.
Why is the government so proud to encourage the urban-rural divide? Canadians deserve to know what will bring these returns. What will be sold off? Where will the new tolls be imposed? What user fees can we expect? Every time the Prime Minister is asked, he talks about the different models and the potential. The outcomes of these models require more taxpayers to shell out more money.
It was hard to understand the reasoning to create this bank from the start. This dubious venture was not in the Liberals' major campaign platform. Why suddenly is it such a major project priority? We have all witnessed the government's mammoth infrastructure stimulus plan fall flat: all this taxpayer money and very little to show for it. Does the arm's length nature of this bank allow the government to relinquish the hard decisions on the infrastructure file? Is this an excuse for its failed stimulus?
The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy says the Liberals have not shown a solid business case for its new infrastructure bank. At the head of the institute is the former parliamentary budget officer, surprisingly enough. The omnibus budget bill also limits the independence of the current PBO. It does not look good when the Liberals are limiting the PBO's powers in this year's budget while ignoring calls from the previous PBO about this year's budget.
What are the Liberals hiding? It could do with the fact that the bank has the potential to increase overall costs to taxpayers, because infrastructure built by private investors will always cost more than public infrastructure.
The government has the capacity to borrow at a very low cost, so why will it not? It may have to do with its friends on Bay Street. Rather than building critical infrastructure that benefits everyday citizens, the Liberals are creating a privatization scheme that puts the need of their wealthy friends first.
Government records show that corporations and private investors were given unprecedented control in the planning and development of the Liberals' privatization bank. BlackRock's extensive involvement in the creation of the infrastructure bank of the private sector raises conflict of interest questions. These are very important questions that need to be discussed in the House. It is a conflict of interest to allow private corporations which would be the largest beneficiaries of the Canada infrastructure bank to participate in the planning and development of the bank.
The Conflict of Interest Act states that a “public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to...improperly further another person’s private interests.”
The Liberals promised investments in infrastructure to benefit everyday Canadians, but instead they are getting a government that puts the interests of larger corporations first. This is a fine example of a Prime Minister who has lost touch with Canadians who rely on public infrastructure. It is also a sign that he has lost touch with the middle class and those working hard to join it.
Infrastructure can create meaningful employment for many, but this bank will pay with taxpayer money with one hand and take our user fees and tolls with the other. Therefore, Canadians will be paying twice.
The government has yet to make a compelling case for why it would be better to work with private investors seeking high returns when Ottawa has the ability to finance projects itself at a much lower cost.
While the Liberals are unphased and standing tall in the face of this important criticism, Canadians deserve better. They deserve to know what is happening. Canadians need to know what is being pawned off, where the tolls will be, and what user fees they can expect.
This project will hinder the growth of middle-class Canadians by imposing costs that will line the pockets of millionaires and billionaires while leaving everyday Canadians on the hook.
While the Liberals and their buddies are too busy figuring out how to make this venture profitable, Canadians are quickly figuring out how unaffordable and impotent the government is.
Last night on Power Play on CTV, the member for Gatineau said on a panel about the infrastructure bank that Canadians do not need to know. I disagree. The Liberal government needs to take this discussion out of the backroom secret meetings, pull it out from the omnibus budget bill, and put it in the House for debate. I hope the government will stop hiding and do the right thing.
Michel Picard Liberal Montarville, QC
Mr. Speaker, I actually found the previous speaker's remarks to be more honest and principled because here we have a catalogue of completely unfounded allegations and speculation, which strikes me as a bad way to let people know how an infrastructure project is going to help them.
Public transit and Internet access are services that have an impact on people's day-to-day lives.
I am therefore wondering what budget she has in mind to not only invest in those kinds of projects, but also keep them up and running.