Rachel Blaney

[Infrastructure, May 11th, 2017]

Let us make this clear, Mr. Speaker. It is not just the NDP that is raising red flags. KPMG, that old socialist firm, provided a report to the government that said this so-called infrastructure bank could lead to “public relations disasters and embarrassment”, embarrassment because of the potential to slow down projects, lack of clear details, and Canadians' aversion to user fees.

Will the Liberals reconsider this corporate welfare bank? We are just trying to save them from some embarrassment.

[Infrastructure, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, then the government should separate it from the omnibus bill.

The priority of corporations is not to provide infrastructure; it is to make profit. I know. It is breaking news. The Liberals secretly plan to develop their privatization bank with corporations behind closed doors. That is as transparent as, say, a black rock.

If the Liberals actually want to put Canadians ahead of corporate interests, will they simply commit that there will be no tolls or user fees as a result of this bank?

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2017]

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

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

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2017]

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

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

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

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

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2017]

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

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

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

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure bank has been a long-standing issue that continues to be locked in the shadows. New Democrats had to put forward this motion today because of the lack of clarity, transparency, and accountability with respect to this bank. I believe that the most important part of today's discussion is this: If the government is so proud of the infrastructure bank, why make it part of an omnibus budget bill in 2017? Why not have this section of the bill separated out?

I believe that Canadians and municipalities deserve the right to hear, in detail, how this bank will work, especially when its creation is under a cloud of suspect behaviour, with private companies that will be the same companies making the profits from these ventures sitting in the driver's seat. This shows a clear conflict of interest. Now Liberals have cut our ability to debate this by virtue of shutting down debate.

This needs to be clear. First, the infrastructure bank was squished into an omnibus bill, creating a lack of accountability and vigorous debate in the House. Second, the debate was shortened so these issues could be rushed over by the government.

We have asked for this provision to be split from the omnibus bill, something the Liberals have yet to do. If the government is so proud, it should not be afraid and should be willing to have this discussion. I believe this would truly allow for an in-depth analysis, more hours of debate, and a specific committee to review the process, rather than one hour, as it currently stands. This provision will be reviewed quickly at committee, in conjunction with the 300 pages of legislative changes in Bill C-44. This is a lack of accountability.

It is important that all parliamentarians take this seriously. There is a general lack of clarity with respect to the infrastructure bank, and there are many alarming issues surrounding this scheme. First, many measures will have to be dealt with in future legislation. Second, the lack of transparency is troubling. The bank will be able to withhold important information from the Attorney General of Canada and the parliamentary budget officer under the guise of being sensitive commercial information. Third, the bank will have serious consequences for our public infrastructure and the lives of Canadian citizens.

As the deputy critic for infrastructure, it has been a pleasure to advocate in this role, most notably for Canadians living in rural and small communities. Too often we hear the word “infrastructure” tied to larger communities. Too often smaller centres are simply left out of the equation.

For us to quickly demonstrate how the scheme will never benefit our rural communities or the middle class, we can simply break down the nature of the beast. The bottom line is that private investors will not be joining the government's scheme for the pleasure of building infrastructure but rather will be expecting a significant financial return.

I want to be clear. It makes sense to me that these investors will want a return. Investing is for the purpose of making a return. My concern is that infrastructure is moving in this direction. I am concerned that Canadians are not having a say on this bank. I am most concerned that these investors have been shown to be in the driver's seat in building this bank. It is like asking the fox to guard the hen house, with a complete lack of acknowledgement of the role of a fox.

The Quebec pension plan, for example, is very clear. It expects a return of 7% to 9%. Where do members think it would get that from? It would be from the tolls and user fees collected from Canadians. Simply said, rural communities cannot sustain the level of returns Bay Street bankers require. That means that all the communities I represent will be ignored. Other MPs in this House should really reflect on the usefulness of this bank in their ridings, and most importantly, must ask who this bank is really helping.

Why is the government so proud to encourage the urban-rural divide? Canadians deserve to know what will bring these returns. What will be sold off? Where will the new tolls be imposed? What user fees can we expect? Every time the Prime Minister is asked, he talks about the different models and the potential. The outcomes of these models require more taxpayers to shell out more money.

It was hard to understand the reasoning to create this bank from the start. This dubious venture was not in the Liberals' major campaign platform. Why suddenly is it such a major project priority? We have all witnessed the government's mammoth infrastructure stimulus plan fall flat: all this taxpayer money and very little to show for it. Does the arm's-length nature of this bank allow the government to relinquish the hard decisions on the infrastructure file? Is this an excuse for its failed stimulus?

The Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy says the Liberals have not shown a solid business case for its new infrastructure bank. At the head of the institute is the former parliamentary budget officer, surprisingly enough. The omnibus budget bill also limits the independence of the current PBO. It does not look good when the Liberals are limiting the PBO's powers in this year's budget while ignoring calls from the previous PBO about this year's budget.

What are the Liberals hiding? It could do with the fact that the bank has the potential to increase overall costs to taxpayers, because infrastructure built by private investors will always cost more than public infrastructure.

The government has the capacity to borrow at a very low cost, so why will it not? It may have to do with its friends on Bay Street. Rather than building critical infrastructure that benefits everyday citizens, the Liberals are creating a privatization scheme that puts the need of their wealthy friends first.

Government records show that corporations and private investors were given unprecedented control in the planning and development of the Liberals' privatization bank. BlackRock's extensive involvement in the creation of the infrastructure bank of the private sector raises conflict of interest questions. These are very important questions that need to be discussed in the House. It is a conflict of interest to allow private corporations which would be the largest beneficiaries of the Canada infrastructure bank to participate in the planning and development of the bank.

The Conflict of Interest Act states that a “public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to...improperly further another person’s private interests.”

The Liberals promised investments in infrastructure to benefit everyday Canadians, but instead they are getting a government that puts the interests of larger corporations first. This is a fine example of a Prime Minister who has lost touch with Canadians who rely on public infrastructure. It is also a sign that he has lost touch with the middle class and those working hard to join it.

Infrastructure can create meaningful employment for many, but this bank will pay with taxpayer money with one hand and take our user fees and tolls with the other. Therefore, Canadians will be paying twice.

The government has yet to make a compelling case for why it would be better to work with private investors seeking high returns when Ottawa has the ability to finance projects itself at a much lower cost.

While the Liberals are unphased and standing tall in the face of this important criticism, Canadians deserve better. They deserve to know what is happening. Canadians need to know what is being pawned off, where the tolls will be, and what user fees they can expect.

This project will hinder the growth of middle-class Canadians by imposing costs that will line the pockets of millionaires and billionaires while leaving everyday Canadians on the hook.

While the Liberals and their buddies are too busy figuring out how to make this venture profitable, Canadians are quickly figuring out how unaffordable and impotent the government is.

Last night on Power Play on CTV, the member for Gatineau said on a panel about the infrastructure bank that Canadians do not need to know. I disagree. The Liberal government needs to take this discussion out of the backroom secret meetings, pull it out from the omnibus budget bill, and put it in the House for debate. I hope the government will stop hiding and do the right thing.

[Seniors, May 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, according to a CIBC report, caring for aging parents costs Canadians $33 billion a year in out-of-pocket expenses and time taken off work. Budget 2017's non-refundable caregiver tax credit does not help those who disproportionately shoulder the task of caregiving: women and those in lower income brackets. With a rapidly aging population, that figure of $33 billion is expected to grow. Why is the government turning a blind eye to the impact of our country's changing demographic?

[Air Force Day on the Hill, May 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as the member of Parliament representing CFB Comox, it is my pleasure to honour our distinguished guests who are joining us to celebrate Air Force Day on the Hill.

To those here and to those back home, I want to share my deep appreciation for the work they do. It is an honour to express my sincerest gratitude for their enduring commitment to our country. Whether they are in a foreign theatre standing up for our shared values or at home saving lives by carrying out important work such as search and rescue missions, I know Canadians stand proud. In the process they put their own lives at risk, the most significant dedication. While their reach is far greater than all of our ridings combined, they should know that wherever they fly, this House represents a collective acknowledgement of the work they do.

Beyond kind words, the best way to truly thank them would be to invest. Let us make sure the Government of Canada is there to support them.

Happy Air Force Day on the Hill.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the opportunity to hear about so many people who have fought for our country. We must always remember those who have served and lost their most previous gift, their lives. I thank the member for reminding us of that today.

Again and again on this side of the House, we are hearing very important quotes about the amount of intelligence and information, and the key role that the defence minister played. Given that the Minister of National Defence's role in Afghanistan most likely was as an intelligence officer, do the Conservatives believe that the minister was in a conflict of interest when he decided to quash a public inquiry into the transfer of prisoners by Canadians to face likely torture in Afghan custody?

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today I share in the deep sadness of the discussion we are having in this place. In the work I have done with the defence minister, I felt he was very honest, that we had meaningful conversations, and that he cared deeply about the people I represented from CFB Comox. Therefore, it is a sad day for me personally to be here.

The reality is that we have seen the government flip-flop on the issue of the Afghan detainees. While the government was in opposition on this side of the House, it supported an inquiry. It is important to remember that there has been no public inquiry. This is about full transparency and disclosure. How can the Liberals reconcile the three different versions that the minister of defence has given of his role in Afghanistan? If they cannot, will they admit that the minister has more to explain than just his exaggerated claims in India?