Debates of Oct. 26th, 2023

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

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

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Financialization of Housing”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Veterans Affairs

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, entitled “National Strategy for Veterans Employment”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

I would like to thank all the team members and staff who work to support the committee. I would especially like to congratulate the analyst because, in the course of this study, we received 36 witnesses, as well as briefs, and he did an outstanding job. We are very fortunate to have such dedicated staff in Canada's House of Commons.

Wasted Food Reduction and Recovery Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-360, An Act to establish a national strategy to reduce the amount of wasted food in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the wasted food reduction and recovery act was inspired by Becky Greenlees, Nelson, the Tri City Moms Group and the Immigrant Link Centre Society, all of whom continue to rescue food and feed families in Port Moody—Coquitlam.

Food is wasted at alarming rates in Canada. Over 50 million tonnes of food is wasted every year. It does not have to be this way. Community groups like Second Harvest have the solutions, and the government needs to act.

As food prices continue to climb and more Canadians are facing food insecurity, we must reduce the amount of good, healthy food that is wasted. Over 500,000 children are relying on food banks every month, while landfills fill up with perfectly good food.

Wasted food is harmful to people and the environment. The government has allowed this problem to go unchecked and has allowed private companies to use marketing tactics, like arbitrary best before dates, to increase their profits while leaving Canadians hungry.

I ask the government to adopt this bill as its own and help stop wasted food.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, presented on Monday, May 2, be concurred in.

I will be sharing my time.

It is a pleasure for me to speak today to this important third report of the transport committee. It is a report with one recommendation: “That the Government of Canada abolish the Canada Infrastructure Bank.” I was quite pleased to see that this recommendation was endorsed by the majority of the committee. I hope, therefore, that as a result of today's debate, this report will be concurred in and we will have a decision by the House to call for the abolition of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

This underlines the reverse Midas touch the Prime Minister has. Everyone has heard of the Midas touch from the old myth where there was a king and everything he touched turned into gold. That would have been great for his national economy, although it might have led to inflation given the increase in the supply of gold. What we have with the Prime Minister, though, is a reverse Midas touch: Everything he touches turns into complete disaster.

It would be of mythical proportions if it were not demonstrable in the clear record of the government and the Prime Minister. After eight years, the Liberal-NDP government truly has the Midas touch, although I can guess, from the fact that the majority endorsed this report, that even the NDP may have agreed to this recommendation to abolish the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I say, “et tu Bru​te”. It is a majority recommendation from the committee.

Let us talk about the record of the Infrastructure Bank, which the Liberals have been championing. It is projected to lose money every single year. It has not completed a single project, and according to Statistic Canada's definition of private sector investment, it has attracted no private sector investment. That is a pretty clear indictment of the immense failure we have seen at this so-called Infrastructure Bank, which has not completed any infrastructure projects.

Only the Prime Minister could lose money running a bank. It is a reverse Midas touch indeed. We could talk about ethics in government. We could talk about our economic situation. We could talk about our foreign policy reputation. We could talk about the situation of crime, drugs and disorder. It is clear that the Prime Minister has a whopping, massive record of failures and of not delivering on the things Canadians want.

This is why more and more Canadians are responding to the call for a common-sense plan. After eight years, people have had enough of the NDP-Liberal government's record of failures. They are looking for a common-sense Conservative alternative that would put the interests of Canadians first: their homes, their jobs, their paycheques and their well-being.

I want to address one specific aspect of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and that is the close relationship between the government and McKinsey and how that relationship was part of the story of the creation of this so-called bank.

It has been clear from the beginning that the government has had a close and cozy relationship with the consulting company McKinsey. McKinsey has gotten over $100 million in contracts from the government. While the public service has grown, there has been a significant expansion in outsourcing, and McKinsey has been a big part of that.

The government has a close relationship with McKinsey in spite of the role that McKinsey played in advising Purdue Pharma on how to fuel the opioid crisis and in spite of the fact that McKinsey advised the Saudi government, giving it information about dissidents, with that information leading to the subsequent targeting of these dissidents. We have spoken in the House before at great length about the, frankly, innumerable ethical and moral failures of McKinsey.

However, what happened in this context in particular? Dominic Barton, who is the former managing partner at McKinsey, was an adviser to the government and led something called the Prime Minister's growth council at the same time as McKinsey was pitching its products to the government. According to his testimony, he was not directly involved in the pitching process, but one of the people working within McKinsey was involved in supplying analysts for Canada's growth council at the same time as that person was involved in pitching to the government for Government of Canada contracts and business. They were quite successful in getting this business from the government. This was an instance of a cozy relationship between a consulting firm and the government and a situation in which that consulting firm was able to do a great deal of business.

Dominic Barton was subsequently made ambassador to China, and he was asked, by a member of the government at the previous meeting of the transport committee, this question: “As ambassador, did you misuse your position to lobby for business, somehow, for a company with which you were no longer associated and from which you didn't profit?” Dominic Barton replied, “There were extremely strict rules and protocols put in place. Basically, it was excommunicado. There were very strict processes and protocols followed. If anything ever came in, it went to the deputy head of mission or the deputy.”

That was a very interesting claim, which was subsequently contradicted by emails that were made public that revealed something quite different. There were discussions. I am trying to find the emails in front of me, and I will get to them if members want specific citations during questions and comments. Subsequently, there was an email exchange, and we probed this issue at another meeting of the transport committee. The email exchange was specifically looking at the availability of Mr. Barton, while he was the ambassador to China, to participate in a call related to the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

It was evident from those emails that there were conversations about the Infrastructure Bank that, in fact, Dominic Barton was involved in. The Conservatives sought to hold Dominic Barton accountable for this at committee and asked how he was no longer with McKinsey, ostensibly, but had these close relationships with all these folks who work for McKinsey, how people who had worked for McKinsey ended up in influential roles within the Infrastructure Bank and how he, as ambassador to China working for the government, was still involved in these kinds of calls.

At one point it was referenced in one of those emails that this was a very sensitive matter, and it is no surprise that it was a sensitive matter. It was a very sensitive matter because people did not want it to come out that there was this very close relationship between the government and McKinsey. I believe the closeness of that relationship played a significant role in the creation of the Infrastructure Bank, which subsequently engaged many people who work or had previously worked for McKinsey. It was very beneficial for McKinsey.

McKinsey did well out of this, but it was not beneficial for Canadians to have a so-called Infrastructure Bank that, in the end, is losing money every year, has not completed a single project and has attracted no private sector investment. The so-called Infrastructure Bank is delivering for Liberal insiders, like McKinsey, but it is not delivering for Canadians. We can talk about the many failures of the government to deliver results for Canadians, but I think what is underlining that failure to deliver results is that the Liberals are working hard to deliver for someone else. That is, they are working hard to deliver for well-connected insiders.

While I am on my feet, I should mention that today at the government operations committee we have hearings on another important ongoing Liberal scandal. This is the “ArriveSCAM” issue: $54 million was spent on an app that was really glitchy and did not work properly, and well-connected middlemen who did no IT work were collecting a significant amount of money, over $11 million, simply to receive and subcontract that work out. The Conservatives will be fighting to get to the bottom of what happened with “ArriveSCAM”. We also saw in the news today that there is new information: A $9-million contract was given to GC Strategies. These well-connected Liberal insiders have been cashing in, it seems, on multiple contracts.

Again, the Liberals and the Liberal-NDP government in general are trying to assist well-connected insiders, but they are failing to deliver for Canadians. We need a new government, a common-sense alternative, that would stand up for the best interests of the Canadian people.

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

Madam Speaker, when it comes to dealing with public policy, the Conservatives have demonstrated one thing: They are a very high-risk party. If we want to talk about being reckless, all we need to do is take a look at their attitudes toward excellent programs.

The member is critical of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. What would the Conservative Party do? It would get rid of the infrastructure bank completely. Think of the billions of dollars—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, like a bunch of seals, they are all clapping as one, worshipping the fact that they want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Do they not realize what the Canada Infrastructure Bank has delivered for Canadians in terms of jobs thus far and billions of dollars in investment?

My question is: Can the member be very specific as to why the Conservative Party, in a reckless way, wants to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank? Can he explain that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There are members who seem to want to answer the question being asked, but they are not the members who should be responding. I would remind members that they need to keep thoughts or ideas to themselves.

The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for a response.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think my dear colleagues were inspired by references to Midas; they wanted to bring the Greek chorus phenomenon into Parliament. I welcome the affirmative lyrical support.

The member across the way is trying to characterize our position on the infrastructure bank as if we just woke up this morning and decided to do it. We are proposing to concur in a committee report that was the result of extensive study and that came out with a majority recommendation for the abolition of the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

I can only conclude that, if it was a majority of the committee, even the Liberals' coalition partners in the NDP, after hearing the evidence, agreed with this: A bank that is losing money every year, has not completed a single project and has attracted no private sector investment sounds like an institution that is not working very well.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to infrastructure, there is a major underlying issue in the Canadian federation that we do not talk about, and that is the fiscal imbalance. The federal government has a much greater capacity for financial action than the provinces do, and yet the vast majority of infrastructure is a provincial responsibility.

Perhaps my colleague can tell me what he thinks, because the Conservative Party has said on many occasions that it is in favour of greater autonomy for the provinces. I believe that the money allocated to the Canada Infrastructure Bank should be transferred directly to the provinces, who know their infrastructure needs since they are directly connected to the communities.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this. Does he agree that the funds going to the Canada Infrastructure Bank should instead go to the provinces as tax points?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, our position is, of course, that we are calling for the abolition of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We believe very much in the principle of subsidiarity, that the federal government should work collaboratively with provinces and local governments.

We have also taken the position that part of the constructive work needs to include setting goals for the development of, for instance, new housing. The approach we have taken on addressing infrastructure gaps in housing is to tie infrastructure funding, especially at the local level, to municipalities' ability to deliver on critical goals around the construction and availability of new housing. We also want to give the flexibility to local governments to figure out the best way to do that. We want to work with them to establish goals and achieve results and to tie those federal investments to the results. I think that our approach to this is collaborative and effective, and it recognizes the competency of different jurisdictions.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague likes to talk about McKinsey, but under the Conservative government, we saw PricewaterhouseCoopers go from $9.8 million to $45 million in terms of outsourcing.

We had Michael Wernick testify at the government operations committee. He cited that there was a direct correlation between the gutting of the public service and, later, the cost of outsourcing. He also highlighted that the cuts, when it came to training and leadership, had a serious impact on why the government went to outsourcing. New Democrats do not want to see outsourcing. We want to see those jobs remain in the public service.

The member talked about Dominic Barton. Does he believe that Dominic Barton was a closer friend with the current Prime Minister or Prime Minister Harper? I think it was the latter.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to say something very directly to the NDP member. At the government operations committee, we have requested documents related to the government's relationship with McKinsey. We want to insist on having all those documents.

Now the NDP member wants to look at outsourcing to other companies. I think this is legitimate, but if we do not have the support of the NDP to demand the documents on McKinsey, then what is the point of going on to look at other things? We need to be able to access the documents. Let us have the support of the NDP and insist on getting all documents related to McKinsey, and if they are not provided, challenge the issue appropriately. Then we can go on to look at other issues.

What is the point in asking for more documents from other companies if we have already set the precedent that we are not actually going to insist that those documents be delivered?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to speak on behalf of the residents of Calgary Centre for the first time in this Parliament. I really appreciate the fact that we have a speech here today on the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

When I first ran in Calgary Centre in 2019, this was one of the key items on the agenda about one of the boondoggles that the government is actually foisting upon Canadians here. When I say boondoggle, I mean that literally: There are billions of dollars going into a slush fund that does not actually meet a requirement that was necessary in the Canadian economy at that point in time. I say that because I worked in the finance industry, and there were all kinds of infrastructure funds across Canada. The thing about those infrastructure funds is that they invest in actual projects that make sense to invest in. There is a return of capital.

The thing about infrastructure funds is that the return of capital associated with infrastructure is much lower than it is with any other investment. Most infrastructure is in long-lived assets. There is a lot of security involved with it, so it is not going away any time soon. It usually has a strong revenue profile associated with that infrastructure, whatever it is, whether it be new rail opportunities or new service opportunities that serve Canadians. Every one has to meet a mark, and that mark, of course, is mathematical. It is finance. Meeting a cost to capital that is very low is not hard to do. That is why so many infrastructure funds had funds available for investing in infrastructure in Canada. What we did not have available was boondoggle funds.

The government saw the opportunity to say we need some boondoggle funds in infrastructure in Canada. Every infrastructure fund in Canada said, “No, we don't. We don't need any more infrastructure. We're having enough difficulty finding good investment opportunities in infrastructure in Canada that we don't need another five billion bucks competing with us that is going to be slipping money under the table, frankly, to people on projects that don't make economic sense.” There are a lot of projects in Canada that make economic sense for these infrastructure funds.

Now, the issue about competition here is very prevalent. We need to realize that all these infrastructure funds had previously been set up because so many funds and so many investors in Canada recognized that Canada had fallen behind on its infrastructure investments and needed more infrastructure. They have been stalled under the government for one reason: The government is not understanding what actual projects need to get developed in Canada. It is a problem. The government's response to the economic malaise it has created in the economy is just to put extra billions of dollars into this instrument into the Canadian economy that does not have to meet the test of actual economic performance. It is a way around it. It is called “sustainable finance”.

My colleagues here all know that I spent a number of years, a couple of decades, in the finance industry. These things are mathematical at the end of the day. I noticed my colleague for Kingston and the Islands is over there winking at me because he always talks about finance, and I get to instruct him a lot.

The other point here, of course, is that all these things make sense. At the end of the day, sustainable finance is a way of playing games around where the return actually comes. The return does not come with these funds. It is a transfer of wealth from all these funds, from Canadians, into the pockets of insiders.

I can actually quote how many of these insiders are being paid in this boondoggle the Liberals have created. They have got insiders here. Despite the fact that they have hardly invested any money from this Canada Infrastructure Bank, they have collected in the last couple of years, 2020-21, almost $7 million in bonuses. Every employee of this boondoggle investment infrastructure bank actually gets bonuses, despite the fact that, at one point in time here, they had one investment. They had one investment with the provincial infrastructure system in Quebec; it was layered in structure behind the actual pension fund in Quebec. If colleagues want to talk about how that is performing for the Canadian people, I can go into that as well.

Then, in 2021-22, again, we see $7.7 million in bonuses to these Liberal insiders that have been appointed over there, transferring money from Canadians to their friends. It is a boondoggle of the highest order, investing in economic opportunities that do not exist and are not there. These are actually just ways of the government trying to paper over the fact that it has ruined the economy, so it will get some money being invested here into a sector where it no longer makes economic sense.

I spoke earlier about this whole concept of sustainable finance. There is no such thing. There is finance; it has always been sustainable. The whole thing about math is that the numbers have to go around at the end of the day. I see my colleague from Kingston and the Islands shrugging, as if to say, “Who cares if the numbers go around?” Well, they do have to go around. It matters a lot, because somebody is paying the price. In this case, the people paying the price are the taxpayers of Canada, and they are paying it to Liberal insiders.

I say congratulations to those who are on the inside of that and making a good living. Regular Canadians have seen what has happened to the economy as a result of the government's actions, which have ruined the economy. Investment has been leaving this country in the hundreds of billions of dollars over the last eight years, a significant egress of capital.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board does not even invest in Canada. It invests in foreign entities because it does not see the opportunity to invest in Canada. The organization of exporting and developing countries does not see the opportunity in Canada. It has Canada as the lowest-ranked growth country, out of its 40 members, over the next few decades. We are not talking about the next year or two. For the foreseeable future, Canada is seen as practically uninvestable, because of the government's policies.

I know it is a laughing matter for my colleagues across the way. It is not a laughing matter. Our entire economy depends on this. Being $1.3 trillion in debt, doubling the national debt, is not conducive to an economy that works. We have to get back to making that economy work.

What did the government do this year? It doubled down on the Canada Infrastructure Bank, but that is not working, so it put $15 billion into a new one: the Canada growth fund. It did this without much of a mandate and without it being passed. The government just said there was more money for another slush fund, which it needed to invest in projects that make no economic sense but make political sense for shovelling the money out the door a little more, collecting some friends and putting some money in everybody's pockets. It is all a circular economy, as they say, and it is a sustainable finance model. I suggest that it is sustainable for those stuffing money in their jeans.

For the rest of Canadians, it is not sustainable at all. It is a boondoggle. It is a way to make the government's friends rich at the expense of taxpayers. At the end of the day, Conservatives are here for Canadians, who pay their taxes and expect government to operate efficiently and effectively. Nothing of that order is happening here right now.

The opaque nature of every one of these funds and the investments they make is just obscene. There is no way we can continue on this course, with billions of dollars going into projects that the Liberals favour and have no foreseeable outcome at the end of the day. It is really just a way of spinning out and making Canadians more and more poor.

I will now refer to the concurrence report, because according to Yves Giroux, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, “despite the CIB's goal of leveraging private investment, projects to date have been exclusively funded by federal, provincial and municipal levels of government.” He is a man whom I greatly respect and have spent a lot of time discussing finance with. Therefore, there is no leveraging going on, as was the concept and the whole goal of this. That is because nobody believes this infrastructure bank is going to do anything good at the end of the day. It is just going to put money into the pockets of insiders. That is a shame, because there is so much more we could be doing with taxpayers' funds. We could be putting money into the needs of Canadians, but we are not doing that right now. We are running massive deficits, and this is part of that.

When people ask me back home what I would cut if I were in government, one of the first things I talk about is the Canada Infrastructure Bank, because it is a boondoggle. I would get rid of the boondoggles, first and foremost, before having to start making real cuts. The government will eventually have to make real cuts. Conservatives will be ahead of them. We will be cutting the boondoggles out and getting us back to balance in the Canadian economy.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Madam Speaker, I hear members opposite saying, “Oh, here we go.” That is because they realize some facts are about to be dropped on their imaginary next three hours.

The member opposite spoke about a boondoggle, yet the Conservative infrastructure plan consisted of fake lakes and fake photo ops. He referred to the Canada Infrastructure Bank as not getting anything done. I would like to ask him specifically about a project in his home province of Alberta, which is going to create 143,000 new irrigated acres—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Jonquière on a point of order.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the interpreter is having difficulties. I do not know if people nearby are talking, but the interpreter is having difficulty translating what the member is saying.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

When members are having side conversations or trying to participate when it is not their turn, it creates problems for the interpreters' hearing what the recognized speaker is saying.

The hon. member can wrap it up.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a project in Alberta that will create over 143,000 new acres of irrigated infrastructure to reduce floods. Does the member opposite believe that residents and farmers in Alberta should have their fields flooded, that they do not deserve infrastructure because the Conservatives would prefer to cancel it?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is good to hear that my colleague actually does pay attention to some of the developments happening outside her home province, including in my province of Alberta.

Irrigation, which first came up in the 1930s, was a way to open up the dust bowl, Palliser's Triangle, to make sure we had some irrigable land. The water that flows through the Rocky Mountain systems and all the way down actually gets stored. It was an inventive way of storing some of that water at that point in time. There has always been the opportunity to make sure there is economic progress. It has been made more viable, and if it were totally viable there would be infrastructure funds competing for it. What makes it more viable is the fact that agriculture is worth more because the government has punished farmers to the level where prices for crops have gone up.

Take a look at how that has affected Canadians at the food store. Canadians are paying far more for food because of the government's policies. Of course, we are going to need more food. We are going to need more of everything going forward, and it is going to cost about 10% more per year thanks to the government's inflationary policies.

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

Madam Speaker, the sewer system in the city of Longueuil, in my riding, needs to be replaced. This is a major undertaking. Longueuil alone is looking at a bill of $600 million.

The city also has big plans to electrify its public transit fleet, its buses. It wants to move forward with its plans, but they will also cost millions and millions of dollars. Then, of course, there is the housing crisis. Plans are in the works to build housing. Like everywhere else, we need housing too.

The Canada Infrastructure Bank has an enormous amount of money. If it is abolished, does my colleague agree that the money should be transferred to Quebec City? Cities are the creatures of Quebec City and the provinces. Quebec and the cities are the ones that know what their municipalities and their people need.

Does my colleague agree that all the money should be transferred to Quebec?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I read the Bloc Québécois' supplementary opinion, which says that this was a boondoggle.

It is something the federal government uses to dole out money and push the files it prioritizes in the province of Quebec. It is true, it is an economic instrument for the federal government. It is not something that is useful for balancing Canada's economy.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member, in his intervention today, spoke about the CPP. Polls show that Albertans are overwhelmingly opposed to the plan by Danielle Smith to introduce the APP, the Alberta pension plan. We know that the leader of the official opposition has said he does not support the Alberta pension plan.

Albertans deserve to know how their members of Parliament stand on this. I do not support the Alberta pension plan. Could the member tell us whether he supports or does not support the Alberta pension plan?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, let me say very clearly that what I support is an independent pension plan for all Canadians, not the one the NDP keeps bringing to the floor of the House of Commons. It wants to manipulate at the political level what those pension plans invest in, which, frankly, would harm all Canadians in their retirement years. That is what is going to destroy the pensionability of Canadians, as opposed to what Albertans decide by themselves in a referendum about where they want their pension funds managed.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a bit of an issue, in the sense that there is so much I would like to be able to comment on in a very limited amount of time. I want to pick up on two points, the most recent being the pension question that the member was asked.

It took a while. Unlike the Prime Minister, who came out very clearly in regard to the CPP and how important it is to Canada, the Conservatives, a national party looking at the benefits for all Canadians through the CPP, took a while to realize that. The leader of the Conservative Party just recently came out and said that they support it, that they are going to get behind it.

The member now stands up and puts a black cloud over that. I do not know where the member stands on the issue. This is an Alberta MP who just finished talking about how they do not want the Infrastructure Bank, yet my colleague just brought up an issue that shows there are jobs being created in an area of irrigation. There was a late-show debate just last night during which one of his colleagues from the Prairies was saying how important irrigation is. They are so reckless. If one wants to talk about taking a risk, look at the Conservative Party today. It is all over the place on major policy issues.

I used to have what I called the Homer Simpson award when I was in the Manitoba legislature, because one often hears about some pretty stupid things. I am kind of inclined to give that award to someone very special—