House of Commons Hansard #186 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was licence.

Topics

Bill C-44Point of Order

10:05 a.m.

Bloc

Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, during the Standing Committee on Finance's clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-44, I presented an amendment that the committee chair ruled inadmissible. Since the Standing Orders do not recognize us as members of the committee, I was not allowed to dispute the chair's ruling. I was not even able to ask the committee to overturn the ruling. That is how our parliamentary rules treat members of non-recognized parties.

The chair of the Standing Committee on Finance justified his decision on the grounds that it would have broadened the scope of the bill, thereby extending the charge on the public treasury. We disagree. Here is why. The employment insurance fund is no longer part of the consolidated revenue fund. It is managed at arm's length, so there is no burden on the treasury.

Furthermore, my amendment would not broaden the scope of the bill or the benefits. It is not a new benefit. It merely extends the qualifying period, much as Bill C-44 does anyway.

Bill C-44 makes it possible to go back further than 52 weeks when it comes to sick leave, preventive withdrawal, or compassionate leave, but not in the case of parental leave. This bill makes changes to the employment insurance program regarding maternity leave and seeks to increase the number of weeks a woman is eligible for benefits during her maternity leave. What happens, though, when the mother loses her job during her maternity leave or just a few days later? She will be penalized.

The current EI system penalizes women who lose their jobs right after giving birth. This government, which claims to be a feminist government, has been aware of this situation for at least a year, and yet it does nothing. It continues to allow women who lose their jobs to be penalized by the EI system, which it refuses to change.

Our amendment has only one purpose, that is, to protect mothers and children when the moms lose their jobs. Imagine a single mother who has just had a baby and then loses her job. That is truly heartbreaking.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to debate this amendment today on behalf of women. I am sure you understand how difficult it can be for women who find themselves in these situations, but I also understand that it is not up to you to change the rules of the House.

Bill C-44Point of Order

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I thank the hon. member. The Chair will consider the matter and get back to the House shortly.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's RulingBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

There are 113 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-44.

Motion No. 87 will not be selected by the Chair as it requires a royal recommendation.

All remaining motions have been examined, and the Chair is satisfied that they meet the guidelines expressed in the note to Standing Order 76.1(5) regarding the selection of motions in amendment at the report stage.

Motions number 1 to 86 and 88 to 113 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 86 and 88 to 113 to the House.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:05 a.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting the short title.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The Chair has received word from the member for Joliette that he does not wish to proceed with Motion No. 2.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 7.

Motion No. 4

was not proceeded with.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:10 a.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

, seconded by Ms. Pauzé, moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 23.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 42.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 43.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 44.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 49.

Motion No.11

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 50.

Motion No.12

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 64.

Motion No.13

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 65.

Motion No.14

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 113.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 114.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 122.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 123.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 124.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 125.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 156.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 158.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 159.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 160.

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 161.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 162.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 163.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 164.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 165.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 166.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 167.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 168.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 171.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 174.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 177.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 178.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 179.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 180.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 181.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 182.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 183.

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 184.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 185.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 186.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 187.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 188.

Motion No. 83

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 189.

Motion No. 84

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 190.

Motion No. 85

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 191.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:25 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

With respect to the following motion at report stage, neither the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, nor the members who gave notice of the same motion are in the House to move it. Consequently, Motion No. 86 will not be called.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:25 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

moved:

Motion No. 88

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 312.

Motion No. 89

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 313.

Motion No. 90

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 314.

Motion No. 91

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 315.

Motion No. 92

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 316.

Motion No. 93

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 317.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:25 a.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

moved:

Motion No. 94

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 403.

Motion No. 95

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 404.

Motion No. 96

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 405.

Motion No. 97

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 406.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:25 a.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

moved:

Motion No. 98

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 442.

Motion No. 99

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 443.

Motion No. 100

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 444.

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 445.

Motion No. 102

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 446.

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 447.

Motion No. 104

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 448.

Motion No. 105

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 449.

Motion No. 106

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 450.

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 451.

Motion No. 108

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 452.

Motion No. 109

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 453.

Motion No. 110

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 454.

Motion No. 111

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 455.

Motion No. 112

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 456.

Motion No. 113

That Bill C-44 be amended by deleting Clause 457.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:35 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

This is to confirm that notice of Motion No. 4 had been given by the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and by the hon. member for Victoria, neither of whom was present this morning to move the motion.

Accordingly, Motion No. 4 will not be proceeded with.

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Joliette.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:35 a.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend you for reading that long list of amendments.

The situation is critical. Bill C-44 is a mammoth bill, an omnibus bill. It is 308 pages long, amends 47 existing federal laws, and creates five new ones. It covers a whole host of areas. The governing party promised to bring an end to the use of mammoth or omnibus bills, but here we are again. It does not make any sense. Improving legislation takes a lot of debate and a lot of work so that any changes do not infringe on other jurisdictions. This is not the way that things should be done, and I find it very unfortunate.

Clause 18 of Bill C-44 creates the Canada infrastructure bank, which is also being called the infrastructure privatization bank because that is what it does. We are against the creation of this bank.

As proposed, the infrastructure bank or infrastructure privatization bank is completely at odds with the Liberals' election promise. They said that they were going to create an infrastructure bank that would give municipalities a line of credit so that they could build public infrastructure for less. The Liberals changed their minds. They said that this line of credit or assistance would be for private companies and the financial sector, starting with Bay Street.

There is an incestuous relationship between the government and the Bay Street financial lobby. I think that is deplorable. We have seen it in a whole raft of bills and decisions.

Last fall, in Bill C-29, the Liberals tried to make Bay Street exempt from the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. That measure was hidden away in a mammoth bill. We managed to get the government to back down on that, but it did so only at the last minute.

What is happening now with Bill C-44 is even worse. I would need a lot of time to cover everything in this bill that should be changed. The situation being critical, I will concentrate on the main problem, a game-changing move that gives private investors on Bay Street and even from abroad an incredible, impossible advantage: the power to circumvent provincial laws, Quebec laws, and municipal regulations.

As it stands, with Bill C-44, we are no longer masters in our own house. This is unbelievable. This cannot be happening. Why? Because, in Bill C-44, the government is giving agent of the crown status to the infrastructure privatization bank along with all of the projects it handles, even the ones that are entirely private. That is no small thing. It means that private investment will enjoy all the privileges and immunities of government and be able to circumvent Quebec's laws and municipal regulations. This makes no sense. This part of the bill must be removed, and that is the subject of my speech this morning.

More specifically, in subsection 5(4) of the future Canada infrastructure bank act, this is stated in legal terms that seem fine at first glance:

The Bank is not an agent of Her Majesty in right of Canada, except when

(a) giving advice about investments in infrastructure projects to ministers of Her Majesty in right of Canada, to departments, boards, commissions and agencies of the Government of Canada and to Crown corporations as defined in subsection 83(1) of the Financial Administration Act;

(b) collecting and disseminating data in accordance with paragraph 7(1)?(g); (c) acting on behalf of the government of Canada in the provision of services or programs, and the delivery of financial assistance, specified in paragraph 18(h); and

This is already confusing, but it gets works in paragraph (d), which states:

(d) carrying out any activity conducive to the carrying out of its purpose that the Governor in Council may, by order, specify.

That is really quite something. This means that, by order in council, the government can give the infrastructure privatization bank the status of agent of the crown, thereby allowing it to operate outside of provincial laws and municipal bylaws. That must be removed from the bill, because it makes no sense whatsoever.

Worse still, according to paragraph 18(c), the privileges granted to the bank can be extended to completely private projects that go through it. That paragraph gives the bank the power to:

...acquire and deal with as its own any investment made by another person.

The privileges of the crown, which allow the government to be above everyone else, would be given to the infrastructure privatization bank, which could then use those privileges to give priority to any project it wants. As a result, foreign investors such as BlackRock, Asian investment firms, or Toronto banks could decide to build a bridge, a water system, or an oil pipeline, and those projects would not be subject to our laws. That is what the bill does. It is a major power grab. For the first time, elected members of Parliament are going to delegate to the government the power to grant crown agent status to the projects that it wants. We would be giving projects a power that we have here. That is unacceptable and must not happen.

Yesterday, constitutional expert Patrick Taillon gave a wonderful presentation in this regard before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. We consulted five legal experts, four of whom are constitutional experts, and they all agree. They say that the wording of that part of Bill C-44 raises serious concerns. One constitutional expert even said that the wording was making investors uncomfortable because they think that the legislation might be deemed unconstitutional and challenged in court. Investors would therefore be reluctant to invest in the bank with the wording as it now stands. Of course, if that were to happen, it would be fine with us, since we are against this infrastructure privatization bank. In short, this bill is poorly written and must be clarified.

In the past, the courts have deemed that Quebec laws were not applicable to federal projects, or at least that they applied as long as they had no effect. For example, in the case of energy east, Quebec laws have no bearing on the route, but they can affect the colour of the pipeline. That makes no sense.

When it comes to installing cell towers, we see that there is no compliance with municipal regulations. As for Canada Post and its mailboxes, we saw Denis Coderre, the mayor of Montreal and a former Liberal MP, take a jackhammer to the base on which the mailboxes were to be installed. However, officially, we have no power over that.

Federal infrastructure currently represents only 2% of Canada's infrastructure. However, this infrastructure bank could change things because private funding has a leverage effect. As for crown agent status, it makes no sense. We remember the expropriation of 40,000 hectares for Mirabel and Forillon National Park, among others. This must change.

A number of Quebec laws will go out the window because of Bill C-44. One of those laws is the Environment Quality Act. This means that the BAPE will no longer be able to hold public consultations. Another is the Act respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities. Quebec is large in terms of land mass but has relatively little arable land. Land use plans, urbanization plans, zoning regulations, and basically all of the infrastructure financed by the infrastructure bank would be exempt from these laws. We will no longer be masters in our own house.

At the Senate committee, the Minister of Finance said there was no link between the government and the infrastructure bank. He clarified that by saying that the bank would operate at arm's length from the government. That is what he said, but according to the constitutional experts we consulted, that is not what is written here. That is why the minister must clarify his intention and state it clearly in the act so that this bill does not end up before the Supreme Court for years, casting the whole thing into legal limbo.

The same goes for PMO spokesperson Olivier Duchesneau, who wrote this to Michel Girard of the Journal de Montréal:

Projects in which the bank invests will be subject to provincial and municipal laws and regulations. Projects financed by the bank will certainly not be exempt from zoning regulations or provincial environmental reviews such as the BAPE.

If that is indeed the government's intention, it must amend the bill now because that is not how it reads. We are going to run into problems. This is a major power grab.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:45 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague for his comment.

When it comes to this bill, I think that two things are very clear. First, this is indeed an omnibus bill. The bill is over 300 pages long and amends 30 laws of our Parliament with a single vote. It is unbelievable. It is the very definition of an omnibus bill.

I would like to quote what the Liberals said during the election campaign. It was very clear.

We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.... We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.

On this undemocratic practice, this omnibus bill, the Liberals promised on a stack of Bibles in the last election that they would not do what the Harper government had done in burying important pieces of legislation inside of budgets.

What is one of the pieces of legislation buried here? It is a $35-billion privatization bank whose associated risks are not understood. Even the Senate is giving more scrutiny to it than the Liberals are allowing in the House of Commons. Even the Senate has suggested amendments. Even the Senate has said that the bill needs to be broken up so that it has proper scrutiny, because it is a $35-billion investment that is going to last generations.

Liberal members are going to vote for it without any clue as to what it is going to mean for our communities.

I have a very specific question. People in Quebec and in other provinces are concerned about the fact that this bill will make changes to laws governing critical infrastructure, such as water and roads. Will this law cause constitutional problems for the future of our country?

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:45 a.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent comments. I appreciate his question.

Our party denounces the fact that this is an omnibus bill. Since the Bloc is not a recognized party, we have to do a lot of work and research. The Liberals are not keeping their election promises, and that is fuelling cynicism. We have found two instances where they are trying to give their Bay Street friends improper gifts. That needs to change.

The Minister of Finance said that he had no intention of passing bills that would circumvent Quebec laws and municipal regulations, but that is exactly what this bill does. However, we have not heard what the Minister of Justice thinks about this.

I call on the Minister of Justice. I would like to know her opinion and her interpretation of Bill C-44, since the infrastructure bank and the projects that will go through it may be given crown agent status by order of the government.

Does she agree with the Minister of Finance, or does she agree with the five legal experts, including four constitutional experts, that we consulted?

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

I would remind the members that there is a debate happening in the House right now.

I am having a hard time hearing it over the conversations taking place. If they have a conversation, maybe they could just whisper rather than talking out loud, or else take it into the lobby and then come back when the discussion has taken place.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Malpeque.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Joliette as he spoke mainly about the infrastructure bank.

If I could put it simply, I would say the member sees a mountain where there is really only a molehill. The outrageous comments the member made about how this infrastructure bank would affect his province, municipalities, and other institutions in a province are just absolutely and purely wrong. It is simply wrong.

What is the infrastructure bank? This bill would establish the Canada infrastructure bank as a federal crown corporation and set out its powers, governance framework, and financial management and control. That is the same as other crown corporations that operate in this country.

As for the $35 billion and making an opportunity for so-called friends, that is purely wrong as well. What this infrastructure bank would do is bring Canada up to the 21st century by providing the opportunity for private investors to partner with public investors to build the infrastructure that our children and grandchildren will need in the future. That is what this bank would do.

This is an opportunity for Canadians to set the foundation for our infrastructure going forward into the next decades. That is what it would really do.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

The hon. member for Joliette has 45 seconds to answer the question.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Mr. Speaker, I take great offence to the insults my colleague just levelled against me.

It is ridiculous to say that we are making a mountain out of molehill. I would remind the member of a unanimous motion passed in the National Assembly that supports my argument. It reads:

That the National Assembly affirm the application of all Quebec laws to any future projects supported by the Canada Infrastructure Bank and, in order to clearly reflect this legal obligation, that it call for amendments to Bill C-44, currently being studied by the House of Commons, to ensure that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is subject to the laws of Quebec.

We have the support of five legal experts and four constitutional experts, including Mr. Taillon, who gave an excellent speech yesterday. We also have the support of Michel Girard, who is very highly regarded.

It is not just me that the member is insulting, but rather all Quebeckers. I take great offence to what he said. This must be changed. If that is the government's intention, it needs to change it, because it is too vague. It is not clear.

If this is what it means to be an MP in the 21st century, it reminds me of Ireland's Home Rule movement. As members will recall, Ireland did win its independence in the end.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I remind the hon. member that we may have to stop at some point, and he can resume after question period.

Motions in amendmentBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

10:50 a.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the amendments we have moved, because we are trying to help the Liberal government again. We are trying to help Liberals keep a promise they made to Canadians. It was a solemn promise that they would not abuse the legislative process and use trickery to hide important pieces of legislation and changes to what Canadians would expect to happen.

One of the tactics governments sometimes resort to is omnibus bills. Canadians became quite familiar with them during the last government and with governments before that, when they started piling a bunch of changes to different laws into one bill, calling it a budget bill, and passing all the changes at once.

This bill is over 300 pages long and amends 30 different pieces of legislation all in one act. My goodness, the Liberals are grimacing across the way at the idea of 30 pieces of law being amended in one bill. The Liberals promised in the last election they would never do something like that. They said, “We will not resort to legislative tricks to avoid scrutiny.” They said, “We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.” So said the current Prime Minister , hand on heart. Well, this bill has 300 and some pages, and 30 different Canadian laws are to be changed in one stroke of the pen.

One might ask what is in here. There is a lot.

They are breaking a promise to our veterans. No, Liberals would not do something like that. They said they would provide lifelong pensions to injured vets. Well, there are changes to the veterans' pension act in this bill, but not that change. That is weird. One would think they could have gotten around to that somewhere in 300-odd pages.

What else is in here? They want to change the parliamentary budget officer, one of the watchdogs of Parliament, a key watchdog who provides oversight and scrutiny of how public money is spent. The Liberals said we have to strengthen the PBO. What did they do in the omnibus bill? They said the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate should review anything the PBO does, any plans the PBO has, and approve those plans beforehand.

They also said that individual members of Parliament should not be allowed to ask the parliamentary budget officer to do investigations into government spending. That is where some of the best ideas have come from, when individual members of Parliament, in seeking to answer questions on behalf of the people we represent, used the watchdog, the parliamentary budget officer, to go after government spending and find out what was really happening. Liberals do not want to continue that practice.

Then there is the privatization bank. They want to pop in $35 billion. They say they want to de-risk investment for the largest pensions and hedge funds around the world.

We know what risk is like. Imagine someone going to Las Vegas and saying they would like someone to de-risk their trip. They would like to go, have a lot of fun, make investments, gamble, and bet on things, but they want to do it without any risk. Liberals say, “No problem. You can come in with all these multi-billion-dollar infrastructure investments and we will de-risk it for you.” Who will pick up the risk? The public will be happy to pick up the risk. That is what the Liberals have said.

I cannot believe I am saying this, but the Senate of Canada is providing more scrutiny over this bank than the Liberals are providing in the House of Commons. The Liberal finance committee rammed the bill through with less than two hours of study. The $35 billion will last generations. It is going to impact our communities and municipalities as they seek to find the resources and make decisions.

Now the Liberals have opened up a can of worms. From public testimony, it appears that they are changing the way investments are done around key infrastructure like highways and water, which are entirely provincial jurisdiction. The centralized Ottawa infrastructure privatization bank would be making those decisions. Provinces like Quebec are now raising the alarm, saying those decisions have to be made as close to the ground as possible, as locally as possible, not by Ottawa. Enough of that happens already.

Our private investor friends, BlackRock and the like, even helped design this bank. Talk about the fox watching the henhouse. They actually held the pen with the finance department in designing this infrastructure bank. That is going to work out just great for the Canadian taxpayer, because BlackRock and hedge fund companies are very interested in protecting the public purse, right?

By the way, all those sell-offs—privatizing the ports, the railway stations, the airports—will have toll fees, because they will need revenue on all these infrastructure investments. What are these private companies going to want? They are going to want profit. They are going to want a return on investment. Where could they possibly generate revenue if they bought an airport? It would be through tolls. Who pays tolls? The public pays tolls.

The government, in the future, is going to say it is not the one raising tolls at ports for exporters. It is not the one raising fees to fly through Canadian airports. It is some private hedge fund no one has ever even heard of, because they are not public anymore. They are not public airports. They are not public ports. They belong to someone else, and someone else is making those decisions. The government will say that it footed the bill, that it put up the cash for it and took the risk, as outlined in the bill, but it is going to be someone else who gets the profits. Only in a Liberal world view would that make any sense at all.

The idea that the government would cram all these things into a massive bill and ram it through the committee process in the House of Commons, when even the Senate is taking more time for scrutiny, is deplorable. It goes directly against the promise of hope and hard work. What happened to all the hope? What happened to all the hard work by my Liberal colleagues? If it wants to make such a significant change to the way Canada is built, how we build our infrastructure, then allow us the scrutiny and take this piece out of the budget omnibus bill. It is far too important to us, to future generations, and to taxpayers.