Debates of Oct. 26th, 2023

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the simplest way of putting it is to look at it from the point of view of the just under $28 billion that is going to be going through the Canada Infrastructure Bank when we factor in both private and public dollars coming from Ottawa, which is almost two to one. We almost have one dollar coming from Ottawa versus two dollars coming from other sources. Those other sources would not be investing if they did not believe that the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and the 48 projects that are out there, were not worth their while investing in.

I think that speaks more than any member of the Conservative Party could in terms of their criticism.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities' report on the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I am actually surprised that we are debating this today, because the committee released its report on the Canada Infrastructure Bank in May 2022, and here it is, fall 2023. It was tabled quite a while ago, and we had the opportunity to debate it well before now.

That said, there may be one thing worth talking about, and that is the recommendation in the report. That may be one of the reasons the Conservatives wanted to have this debate. In many cases, committees produce reports, study issues and make a number of recommendations. In this case, the report on the Canada Infrastructure Bank contained a single recommendation.

I would like to take this opportunity to mention that the Liberal member for Winnipeg North, who spoke before me and who speaks very regularly in the House, does not seem to have bothered to read the committee's report before giving his speech. He said that the Conservatives were against it, and he is right. However, he also said that the other parties should listen to him before taking a position. Perhaps he did not know that the other parties had already taken a position. If there was a committee report, it is because the parties took a position. If there were any recommendations from the committee, it is because the various parties took a position on this issue.

What I can say is that we produced a strong majority report and that the majority agreed on the only recommendation, which was to abolish the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Votes are secret; they are held in camera. How could we get a majority if the government disagreed? It is probably because all the other parties voted in favour of the recommendation. When the report was produced, everyone agreed that it was necessary to abolish the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

To gain a better understanding of what the Canada Infrastructure Bank is and of its raison d'être from the Quebec perspective, we looked at what cities, provinces and the federal government own, respectively, in terms of infrastructure in Canada. We wondered what role the federal government plays when it comes to infrastructure. In short, 98% of infrastructure does not belong to the federal government. Only 2% of infrastructure belongs to the federal level.

Why, then, is the federal government getting involved in matters of infrastructure? There is a fundamental problem here. Some $35 billion has been invested in the bank, but it is not up to the federal government to decide or to dictate to cities and provinces how they should manage their infrastructure, especially since it owns only 2% of infrastructure. It is our cities and our governments, including the Quebec government, that are in charge of infrastructure, so that is where the money should be going. Because of this basic principle, we thought it made no sense to support a federal infrastructure bank, which is ultimately a blatant intrusion in areas of jurisdiction that are not its own.

Nearly all of the witnesses were very critical of the infrastructure bank. The Liberal member who spoke earlier may not be aware of this, but I did not hear many witnesses praising the Canada Infrastructure Bank. In fact, I cannot name even one.

Perhaps the member knows this, because he has been in politics for several years now, but I want to mention that the Canada Infrastructure Bank was part of the Liberals' 2015 election platform. The Liberals could therefore say that they ran for election and put in place what was in their platform. I would like to take that one step further, however, and specify that the infrastructure bank that was put in place and the infrastructure bank that was in their election platform are a bit different.

On page 15 of the 2015 platform, it says that the Canada Infrastructure Bank would provide municipalities with lower interest rates on loans related to the construction of infrastructure and housing. That is interesting because we are talking about the housing crisis right now. However, we would be searching for a long time to find the word “housing” in the documents of today's infrastructure bank, because it is not there. As for the municipalities, the infrastructure bank also does not finance municipal projects at low rates. The Canada Infrastructure Bank's direction has changed over time.

After it took office, the Liberal government decided to set up the Advisory Council on Economic Growth to provide guidance on how to generate more economic growth in Canada. The advisory council was chaired by none other than Dominic Barton, who is known to be a close friend of the Prime Minister. We know that the Prime Minister likes to appoint friends to key posts, as we saw when he endorsed his buddies from WE Charity. I will come back to that later.

During his career, Mr. Barton has also held other positions. It is worth mentioning that he was head of McKinsey. It is also worth mentioning that the Advisory Council on Economic Growth looked into the idea of an infrastructure bank. In fact, that was one of its main recommendations in its first report.

Let us talk a little more about how the advisory council saw the infrastructure bank. I mentioned that Mr. Barton was chair of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth and that he also headed up McKinsey. I should also note that Mr. Barton surrounded himself with several people, including Michael Sabia, who would later go on to play a role at the infrastructure bank.

A board needs a secretariat, people to do the real work, to take notes and keep things running. However, this particular secretariat was not made up of federal officials. It was McKinsey that provided the employees to work on the advisory council's files on a volunteer basis. It was the McKinsey employees who supplied the discussion papers, who took notes on the discussions and who kept the secretariat running.

In committee, Mr. Sabia told us this about the role of the secretariat led by the McKinsey employees:

[McKinsey] essentially act[s] as a secretariat, on a volunteer basis. The concepts and suggestions came from the board members. As you know, an advisory board needs a secretariat, and McKinsey played that role. So they have been very involved in our reports and our deliberations.

Let us not forget that the McKinsey people were working on a volunteer basis. When he came to testify in committee, I asked Mr. Barton whether these people were volunteering for the government or for McKinsey. I asked him whether these people were paid. He said that they were paid by McKinsey, not by the federal government. However, the report was for the federal government. At the end of the day, they were offering pro bono services while being funded by McKinsey.

Was that work truly pro bono? Could it really be argued that McKinsey had no interest in the matter? For example, did it not have an influence over the direction the government took in terms of future economic growth?

The advisory council was designed to advise the government on economic growth, and it was McKinsey's people who had an opportunity to exert their influence. That is my conclusion, because when looking at the now notorious first report advocating for a Canadian infrastructure development bank, it is clear that they are no longer advocating for the 2015 version of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, but rather an infrastructure bank that takes public money and uses it to benefit the private sector, large multinationals and investment funds. They want us to bring the infrastructure projects to them. They say they will finance them. Basically, they want these big funds to participate so their money is poured into our infrastructure.

Clearly this idea has evolved quite a bit from the original one. It is interesting to see this change of direction. Whether we like it or not, the McKinsey people sort of steered the advisory council in that direction. Could it be that the McKinsey employees knew people who got contracts or money as a result? Was it their area of expertise? I think a lot of people already know the answer to that question.

Practically the only difference I saw between the version promoted by the Advisory Council on Economic Growth and the Government of Canada's version was $5 billion. The Advisory Council on Economic Growth recommended an infrastructure bank funded with $40 billion, whereas the government created one funded with $35 billion. Otherwise, they are almost identical.

Led by Mr. Barton, what the Advisory Council on Economic Growth proposed was quickly implemented. In fact, about a month after that was tabled, we were already reading federal government documents that referred to a future infrastructure bank created roughly in the image of the one proposed by the Advisory Council on Economic Growth. Global Affairs Canada specifically talked about it at the Long-Term Investment Summit.

Was this decision made in the best interest of the public? I do not know. What I do know is that the Canada Infrastructure Bank was a disaster. The Conservatives are talking about it today.

The CIB was founded in 2017 and, in 2020, there were virtually no projects in existence. It had no idea where it was headed. It had a hard time recruiting employees. The board of directors was a shambles. No one there spoke French. It was a madhouse. They did not know what to do with it. The CIB was given $35 billion, but they had no direction.

In a panic, they called up Dominic Barton. As mentioned earlier, he had worked on the Advisory Council on Economic Growth with Michael Sabia. Mr. Sabia was then recruited to become chair of the CIB.

In committee, I asked Mr. Sabia how he was recruited, who recruited him, whether he sent in his CV, how this all came about. He told me that he received a phone call from Bill Morneau. I just about fell over. We are told that the CIB is not political, but it was the Minister of Finance who called him directly to tell him that he had a job for him and asked him if he would accept it. Worse yet, it was not even his department. The CIB is not the responsibility of the Department of Finance. It is the responsibility of the Department of Infrastructure.

The minister for another department was calling to tell him he had a job for him. What a wonderfully open, democratic, transparent and apolitical process this was, to be sure. I am being sarcastic, of course.

Mr. Sabia told us that when he became chair of the CIB in 2020, it was not going well, that he was there to put out fires and rescue the CIB.

However, one of his first decisions as chair of the CIB was to award a sole-source consulting contract to McKinsey. Everything is falling into place. Maybe McKinsey's volunteer work paid off in the end. It was a $1.4‑million contract. That is pretty good money. One point four million dollars is nothing to sneeze at.

He gave us an explanation as to why McKinsey was chosen. I am sorry, the document is in English.

Mr. Sabia told us, “the decision taken at the time was to use some of the people from McKinsey who had been involved in the initial thinking around the Infrastructure Bank, to draw on their accumulated knowledge.”

In other words, given that McKinsey knew the CIB so well, it was awarded the contract so that things would go faster. Since McKinsey thought up the CIB, it obviously knew it very well. It had told the government what to do in the first place. McKinsey got the contract, but this time, instead of telling the government what to do for free, it was charging big money. It is as if McKinsey got a second chance to tell the government the same thing, because the CIB did not really exist yet and had not quite taken form—it was spinning its wheels.

It is fascinating to observe that the kind of volunteer work we are talking about is not always completely altruistic. It can sometimes serve private interests. The government does not seem to mind.

I asked Mr. Sabia more questions when he came to see us at committee. The CIB was clearly struggling, but before he became chair of the CIB, he worked at the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and one of his projects was the REM. Well, the CIB just happened to invest in the REM. All this starts to get confusing because everything is all mixed together.

The CIB invested in the REM, but before the CIB was established, the federal government had had some money for the REM. The federal government had already invested in the project. It had received a federal grant of $1.28 billion that had been announced by the current government.

That $1.28-billion federal grant magically turned into a $1.28-billion loan. There is a slight difference between a loan and a grant. It started out as a government grant. It became a loan from the CIB. Obviously, Quebec did not really come out a winner because it will pay interest on the loan rather than taking the money to the bank and using it for the project.

I asked Mr. Sabia how that decision was made and what the process had been from one to the other. He replied, “That was a decision made by the government and...the government informed us of that change.”

The government claims that the CIB is not political, and yet it directly informed the Caisse de dépôt of the change. Essentially, the CIB had so little in the way of a track record and so few projects that the government said that it was going to take a project that it was financing, stop financing it and give the money to the CIB so that the CIB could establish a track record. That is basically what happened.

That shows that the CIB is not really useful. It is not relevant. The government is taking projects that would have received funding anyway and funding them through different means, through the CIB. The CIB should have been generating billions of dollars, but instead it is generating $1 for every $8 or $10. The government promised extraordinary numbers, a huge windfall, resulting from private investments from all of these great private firms that are close to the government, but in the end, these much-talked-about investments never happened. Most of the projects that the CIB invests in are public projects, projects by our own governments and institutions, whether it be our municipalities, our cities, our provinces or the Quebec state that we hope to be one day, projects that they want and that are important to us. To find a way to make the CIB relevant, the government decided to send those projects to the CIB, but then it claims that the CIB is not political and that it is far removed from government. However, we all know that the CIB is very political. After serving as chair of the CIB from April 2020 to December 2020, Mr. Sabia magically became the deputy minister of finance from 2020 to 2023. Surely, he submitted his resumé as part of a long, open process. I am sure of it. At a certain point, it gets to be too much. No one believes it any more. That is what I wanted to demonstrate.

Unfortunately, the CIB is a hot potato that the Liberals are trying to justify. They claim it is useful and serves a purpose. However, what the cities told us when they appeared before the committee, and continue to tell us every time, is that they need money to build infrastructure for housing, water and all the municipalities' other needs. They do not need new federal programs that come with all kinds of criteria and standards that no one understands. They do not want to be forced to hire three or four people to analyze criteria every time a new program comes out or have staff work full-time to keep track of any new programs launched by the federal government and assess their compatibility with Quebec programs. At some point it never ends. Cities want to be given money directly and use it to build the infrastructure they need.

We already have a program that works. Give Quebec money so Quebec can invest in infrastructure. It would be so easy, and it works every time. There is another approach we can live with. The gas tax fund works very well. It is not perfect, and it could use some tweaking, but, generally speaking, it works very well. Cities would like to see more money there. Part of the gas tax revenue could be allocated to infrastructure projects. Cities build the infrastructure they need, not what the federal government decides they need. That is different, and it works well. Why not enhance programs like that one, which offer more leeway, through agreements with Quebec for things like the gas tax fund? No, instead the government creates programs by and for Ottawa so it can have the ribbon-cutting ceremonies that party insiders want. At the end of the day, those programs do not work. They are a dead end.

That is what I wanted to lament today. I hope the member opposite understands now why all parties except his voted against this bank.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc is voting against this for a totally different reason. It wants to break up Canada. It is a party that does not want the federal government playing a role more than just handing over money. That is the Bloc's position and that is why it is ultimately opposing it.

Needless to say, under the Canada Infrastructure Bank, there are a number of projects in the province of Quebec. One of the projects I like is the 4,000 zero-emissions school buses project. I suspect there is a very good chance that project, in good part, is made possible because of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

All communities will directly or indirectly benefit by the investments of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Bloc does not like the Canada Infrastructure Bank because it goes against what it is as a political entity. Would the member not agree?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question, because it gives me an opportunity to respond to an argument he made in his response to a question asked by my colleague after his speech. He said that the Bloc Québécois sees the federal government as an ATM and that we want it to hand over the money without any sense of accountability.

It is an interesting image. It is pretty cute. It is a nice metaphor, I will give him that. The question we have to ask, however, is who puts the money inside the ATM. Well, it is all of us, with our taxes, who fill up the federal ATM. It makes sense to want more control over the spending or our tax money instead of the federal government imposing its own priorities, which differ from ours.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, it clear to me: The Canada Infrastructure Bank plays on Team Liberal. It gives money to Liberals. It invites Liberal friends to work at the bank. I do not think that this serves the interests of Canadians. Does the member agree?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, to answer my colleague's question, I would say that they are in real trouble at the bank. They are really in trouble. I think that they are in such bad shape that there is no way the Canada Infrastructure Bank is going to recover. What my colleague is describing is a bit like the image we have seen.

We see the Liberals giving contracts to Liberal insiders, and they are trying to create programs for Liberal insiders, as we saw with the WE Charity and the infamous McKinsey.

This does not inspire confidence in anyone. I think the best thing would be to start from scratch.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with him on many of those things. My background is in international development, and I will say that going to communities and going to provinces and telling them what they need is not a good practice. Municipalities should have the ability to have more control over the infrastructure projects.

We also, as the NDP, brought forward a supplementary response to the committee report that we are debating today. One thing that was brought up was that one of our colleagues has brought forward Bill C-245, an act to amend Canada's Infrastructure Bank. It looks at fixing some problems the member talked about like prioritizing projects in indigenous and northern communities, altering the structure of the board of the bank and removing the privatization aspects.

Would he be supportive of that sort of legislation?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, we understand that the NDP is always trying to find ways to save the government and give it a hand. They think the Liberals are so pitiful and should be kept in office, but the reality is that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is fundamentally flawed. I do not think patching it up is the best solution.

As we have shown, it is not up to the federal government to get involved in infrastructure. It owns only 2%. What the federal government needs to do is transfer the money to those who need it, and stop creating so many roadblocks. It needs to get out of the way as much it can.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to first commend my colleague for his excellent speech. I think he showed, with facts and evidence, that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is an organization that should not be. We know that there is political interference. The infrastructure bank favours friends of the government and the Liberal Party.

However, I would like my colleague to talk about another issue. The member for Winnipeg North mentioned that the federal government is an infrastructure expert. I want to give an example to show that the opposite is true. Ottawa and Quebec have been negotiating for 15 years to try to upgrade the bridge maintained by CN that was privatized in the 1990s. The federal government, the Liberal Party government, said in 2015 that this was a priority, a promise. Eight years later, this matter has still not been resolved.

Here is another example. In 2017, the same government tried to sell 25 ports in eastern Quebec for $1. This government says that it is an infrastructure expert, but it is prepared to divest itself of these ports that it is supposed to be managing for $1 because it is so incapable of running and maintaining them. It is incompetent in that regard.

I would like my colleague from Pierre‑Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères to comment on that.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really like the picture my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques painted of Ottawa's so-called experts who are struggling to manage their own assets. When we go out to Quebec's regions and see the wharves and airports, people everywhere tell us that the situation is outrageous, that the federal government has stopped investing and has turned its back on them.

The Verchères wharf in my riding is a good example. It has been an eyesore in the middle of the village for 20 years. This wharf is over 300 years old. The reality is that the federal government is neglecting it. It is not taking care of the wharf, so it is falling apart.

It is hard to reach Fisheries and Oceans Canada on the phone. When we do manage to get through, we wonder whether there is anyone on the other end. They are the experts, and yet they are allowing their infrastructure to fall apart. People in our towns and villages are left wondering what this federal government is all about. That is both the question and the answer.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe I am hearing my Liberal and Bloc colleagues in the House talking about a Government of Canada ATM.

The Government of Canada is not an ATM. It is not an ATM for infrastructure, or for any of its services. It is not a cash machine. We are talking about taxpayers' money.

The Liberal government has never been able to balance a single budget. Now it is trying to lecture us about the infrastructure bank, this great big apparatus that hands money over to Liberal friends. Worst of all, the Bloc Québécois supports it. The party said as much earlier: It supported it in committee and wonders why this is being reintroduced here.

The Bloc Québécois not only supports the Canada Infrastructure Bank, it supports carbon taxes, which mean Quebeckers will pay even more for their gas.

Why is the Bloc Québécois so supportive of the Liberal government?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not know how to respond. I do not know where my colleague was during my speech.

When I talked about the ATM, I was referring to the metaphor that my colleague used. In no way did I claim that I agreed with that. In no way have we claimed to agree with the institution that is the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

My colleague may be making up a parallel reality, a parallel universe. If he truly listened to what is happening and what is being said, I think he would better understand why he is out in left field.

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

Madam Speaker, I was listening very closely. There is a difference in opinion from the Conservatives, but they are united. There is a Conservative-Bloc coalition to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

This is more of a comment, but I think it is a sad thing for all Canadians in all regions because the Canada Infrastructure Bank has many fine things it is doing. It is having a very positive impact in all regions of the country, and it is sad to see the coalition of the Bloc and the Conservatives to try to get rid of it.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives and the Liberals need to talk to one another. The Conservatives are accusing us of supporting the Liberals and the Liberals are accusing us of supporting the Conservatives.

In the real world, the reality is that the Bloc Québécois supports Quebec. Perhaps that is what bothers them.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.

More and more often, Canadians are experiencing the extreme and harmful effects of wildfires, droughts and floods due to climate change. This year was the longest and the worst wildfire and drought season on record claiming lives, causing loss of homes and crops, and challenging Canada's freshwater security.

It has never been more critical for Canada to proactively invest in climate-ready infrastructure to protect Canadians and to make communities more resilient, physically and socially. Our communities need to be connected and supported, and need to have the ability to support growing populations that could withstand climate change. Projects need to be completed, and the federal government needs to act with more urgency.

Members of the New Democratic Party understand the urgency and have been proposing changes to the Infrastructure Bank for many years so that it would actually work for Canadians. My colleague, the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, brought forward a private member's bill that spoke to the importance of this. It proposed public ownership of the CIB in the fight against climate change. Her bill spoke to the importance of a focus on rural and northern communities that are underfunded and left without critical infrastructure, basic infrastructure like water and roads. The Conservatives and the Liberals refused that common sense solution.

In the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, also addressed the concerns of the CIB not efficiently delivering projects that would serve the public good. He spoke of the issues arising from private sector involvement in delivering public infrastructure, of the inadequate sensitivity to the needs of communities in funding decisions and of the issues with costs and transparency.

With an ample $35 billion in federal government funding, the CIB should have, by now, been able to narrow Canada's infrastructure gap and to deliver projects that would have created jobs and supported communities for the long term. However, after years of the bank, the gap in the most basic of infrastructure needs, like water and housing, is growing. This is a failure.

When the study was done, the PBO's analysis of the bank's project selection process showed that of the 420 project proposals received, there were only 13 publicly committed to. Alarmingly, it was found that the bank had rejected, or was no longer considering, 82% of the submitted projects. Most were screened out because, somehow, it was decided they were in the wrong sector or deemed not of sufficient size.

As the large number of proposals showed, communities clearly have infrastructure needs that require federal support. However, the bank's rigid fixation with massive projects and with private sector investment means it rejects most proposals. Communities that need the funding the most are being denied.

The results are that critical projects have not been completed and that Canadians are left without vital infrastructure to support their needs as the devastating impacts of extreme climate events increase. The costs associated with the climate crisis will continue to rise unless we take a different approach. I suggest the adage that an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure. This should be a consideration in how projects are selected.

As a country, we need to be prepared for the next devastating flood, drought or wildfire. In B.C., the province I call home, the rivers and lakes are the cornerstone of the local economy, forests, fish, food crops, quality of life and cultural memories, yet watersheds in B.C. and across Canada face increasing pressures as extreme climate events threaten their stability. When a watershed is healthy and maintained, it can minimize climate change risk, support local wildlife populations, provide clean drinking water and increase disaster resiliency.

First nations, local governments and communities are working every day on the front line of the climate crisis with limited resources to keep watersheds healthy and secure. Indigenous and western science confirms that healthy watersheds protect against climate disasters like droughts, wildfires and floods, yet the CIB is not supporting them on this natural infrastructure. Healthy watersheds serve as natural defences against climate crisis. Wetlands act as natural sponges to purify water. Stream banks filter polluted runoff and provide shelter for salmon. Mature forests retain water and release it when needed most.

This is low-cost, climate-resilient, natural infrastructure that the government is ignoring. We need bold federal leadership and investment in natural infrastructure to address the climate crisis in B.C. and across Canada. The watershed sector in B.C. is a major employer and economic driver, generating over 47,000 indirect and direct jobs, and contributing $5 billion to the GDP.

The recent investment of $100 million by the B.C. NDP government in the co-developed B.C. watershed security fund with the First Nations Water Caucus is an important start, but the federal government needs to be at the table with a federal investment.

We are seeing the successes that can happen when governments properly invest in their communities. When projects are completed, funding is transparent and communities can plan for changes, addressing immediate needs for their communities to grow and flourish.

The NDP supports the findings and recommendations of the majority of this report concurred in today, which details in length the failure of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. As I have said, if the government stays on the same path and continues with this bank, it is time to change its mandate to make the CIB a public bank to serve the public good.

Right now, it could invest in the B.C. watershed security fund; give indigenous, provincial and municipal governments the resources they need for better planning and decision-making; and invest in natural infrastructure to fix the water and housing deficit in our country.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that the federal government has all sorts of other infrastructure joint projects, both with provinces and municipalities. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is just another tool, a very important tool. B.C. also benefits from it. When I talked about Quebec, I referenced the electric buses project. The same thing is happening in B.C., where there is not one but maybe two approvals for more electric buses.

The NDP talks about the energy, a cleaner environment and so forth. Many of the infrastructure jobs being created are greener jobs and are leading to more environmentally sound projects. The Canada Infrastructure Bank has demonstrated very clearly that it can make a positive difference for Canada's environment.

Why does the NDP want to see it abolished? That is what the Conservatives are proposing, along with the support of the separatists.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, that just demonstrates how the Liberal government does not understand the urgency of the infrastructure deficit across the country, talking about one or two approvals. The programs the federal government is talking about are always oversubscribed. It is impossible for small, northern and rural communities to get the infrastructure they need in those lottery-based infrastructure programs.

I had meetings just this week with municipalities out of Saskatchewan and British Columbia that do not know if they are going to get projects funded. They have to wait years to get funding from the government.

The NDP is talking about regular, steady investment in the infrastructure gap. There is no reason the Infrastructure Bank cannot do it, except for the fact the government does not want to spend one penny of its own money. It is open to giving a loan, but it will not invest one penny to get the infrastructure gap addressed.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has spoken about the amount of money the government is spending with its cheque-book diplomacy, putting money in the pockets of their friends all the time, that far exceeds the amount the government has spent on programs for the NDP's confidence-and-supply agreement commitment to keep the government in power, like the dental plan. There is way more money going into this slush fund, and other slush funds, that the government has put together than in its supply agreement.

Would she consider withdrawing her support from her party's commitment to continue supporting the government because of the boondoggles she sees in this report?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is no bigger slush fund than what the oil and gas industry has taken from Canadians over the decades. I can talk specifically to Coquitlam, which hosted the Kinder Morgan pipeline since the 1950s. It was paying basically the most marginal amount of taxes to the City of Coquitlam. It did not invest in one hospital, school, community centre, road or bridge.

In the last eight years, since the Kinder Morgan sale and the expansion of the TMX, it started offering sponsorships around the city in relation to small businesses and business events. It is a joke. Billions of dollars worth of federal subsidies are going to oil and gas that could come to these infrastructure projects.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with what my colleague just said. This country does indeed give the oil industry way too much money.

Earlier, my Liberal colleague said the Conservatives are completely out of touch when it comes to fighting climate change. That is absolutely true, but so are the Liberals. Last year, an International Monetary Fund study found that Canada directly or indirectly invested $50 billion in the oil industry in 2022. That is not counting the Trans Mountain pipeline, which cost us $33 billion.

Does my colleague not think that money would be better invested in things like fighting climate change and building housing? All kinds of electricity infrastructure could be built in cities in Quebec and elsewhere. Does she not think that money could be put to better use than it is now?

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. It is a disgrace that the Liberal government and the Conservative government before subsidized oil and gas. We lost lives this year in wildfires. Young people, under 20 years old, were lost fighting fires because of the burning of fossil fuels. It is time for change, and the Liberal government needs to get with the program and modernize its thinking.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House to speak to an important report put forward by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that takes on the Canada Infrastructure Bank, a Crown corporation that the Liberals have touted as a real model for years and unfortunately has very little to show for it.

I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, as well as other MPs from other parties who have been very clear that the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which, over a year ago was sitting on $25 billion, had very little to show for the work it was supposed to be doing.

I also want to share on the record, as colleagues of mine have said, that I am proud of the work we did to put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-245, that would transform the Canada Infrastructure Bank for the better for Canadians. In essence, our private member's bill, Bill C-245, aimed to make three major changes: first, to remove the private-for-profit model; second, to prioritize indigenous and northern communities that we know have the greatest infrastructure gap in the country, particularly around climate-related projects; and third, to shift the governance model, requiring indigenous representation on the governance board.

I am very disappointed that both the Liberal and Conservative MPs voted against my private member's bill. I want to acknowledge the support of northern MPs from the Liberal side, the MP for the Northwest Territories and the MP for Yukon, and others who abstained, recognizing the desperate need for infrastructure investments in northern indigenous communities facing the climate crisis.

For all the Liberals who voted against Bill C-245, it is not wrong to admit to their mistakes. This is the legacy of Bill Morneau, who is long gone from the House. The model of the Canada Infrastructure Bank as it exists right now is not making a difference for Canadians. It is not bettering the lives of Canadians across our country.

For the Conservatives, who we know, with great fury, opposed the Canada Infrastructure Bank, it was telling that they refused to support Bill C-245, which sought to transform—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, John Nater]

The hon. member, on a a point of order.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is a problem with the interpretation. We cannot hear the interpreter.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, John Nater]

Order, please. I would ask the hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski to say a few words. Hopefully, that will ameliorate the situation. If not, we may have to proceed to a different member.

The interpretation seems to be functioning now, so I would ask the member to restart where she left off.

The hon. member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski.