Sheri Benson

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, of course my community of Saskatoon and my riding of Saskatoon West are pleased to get the investments they have received.

I met with my counterparts, colleagues and friends within city council, to talk about what they thought of an infrastructure bank. Members need to know that in the province of Saskatchewan, there are only a million people. The two largest cities have populations of 200,000. Although the City of Saskatoon, in particular, has a very long list, as we all know most municipalities have not been able to keep pace with the infrastructure needs of their communities. It is a very long list of things that need to happen in my community. It was clear from their list and our conversations that none of the ones on their wish list would fall under this infrastructure bank. Therefore, I believe that the $15 billion used to create the bank has come out of my community.

What we are discussing today is the ability to have the conversation. I am not afraid of private investment. I want to have the conversation. I want this huge investment of taxpayer dollars, and all the stuff that has gone on prior to the bill even being passed, to come to Parliament to see the light of day and be debated. It is within an omnibus bill. It is not being pulled out, because I believe it will not—

[Business of Supply, May 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver East.

I am very happy today to have the opportunity to rise in support of the motion from my colleague, the member for Beloeil—Chambly. The motion, in my view, is very clearly worded and its purpose is also clear and concise. The clauses concerning the Canada infrastructure bank's creation should be removed from Bill C-44, the budget implementation act, 2017, No. 1, so that they can be studied as a stand-alone bill.

This is not an unreasonable ask. It is widely acknowledged that the government's proposed infrastructure bank scheme is complex. Canadians and parliamentarians should take the time to study it before it is enacted as part of an omnibus budget bill, which is precisely the type of bill that the current government used to decry and condemn as undemocratic. After all, if we are to invest $35 billion into this scheme, we should allot more than a couple of hours of study.

I am sure my colleagues would agree that this sort of spending deserves more careful scrutiny, which is why it needs to be excised from Bill C-44 and studied as a stand-alone bill. Why is the government burying such an important and expensive initiative in a 300-page bill? What is it afraid of? A government that has boasted over and over again about its pledges to be open and transparent is afraid to allow any sunlight to fall on its infrastructure bank scheme. Could it be because this scheme would benefit its wealthy friends first and foremost instead of the citizens of Canada?

What are the criteria and governance models that this bank would operate under? Already there are concerns that corporations and private investors have been given unprecedented control over the planning and development of this scheme. Where is the consultation with everyday Canadians that Liberals are so fond of? Why will the Liberals not even allow elected members of this House to study this scheme? Are they concerned that their scheme will not pass the smell test?

The government promised that investments in infrastructure would benefit Canadians, but it is difficult to see how a scheme that would pad the profits of corporations and wealthy private investors would do that, especially when everyday Canadians would be paying the price through new tolls and years of user fees with nothing to show for it in the long run. This is the oldest trick in the book, and we all know how it ends. Governments give sweetheart deals to corporations for infrastructure projects, people pay through the nose, corporations make profits, and then the crumbling infrastructure is dumped back on the public. It is not a scenario that benefits taxpayers.

How can Canadians be sure that decisions made by this bank would, indeed, be in the best interests of taxpayers? Will corporate profits always trump public good, or just sometimes? Either way, it is not acceptable to push this through without consultation, without study, and without the disinfectant of sunlight on this scheme that seems to have been concocted between the government and a few of its wealthy friends. It is just the latest example of the arrogance of the government, “Just trust us; we know best.”

It is passing strange that the consultation the government loves to trot out as a delaying tactic whenever convenient is so conspicuously missing here. When it came to pay equity for half of our population, the Liberals conveniently kicked the can for a couple of years, citing the need for consultation, even though pay equity is a human right and has been studied to death. After ragging the puck on electoral reform for months, the Liberals insisted on consultations in many forms, town halls in each riding, postcards, and even a famously incoherent and universally ridiculed online questionnaire, only to abruptly pull the plug on their promise to make 2015 the last election under first past the post. However, when there is an opportunity to help their wealthy friends get even richer off the backs of Canadians, it is suddenly inconvenient to have consultations. It must be just a coincidence.

If the Liberals think they have a case to move forward, they should not be afraid to pull the plug, just like they did on electoral reform. They should pull the infrastructure bank scheme out of the omnibus budget bill so it can be studied properly. If they acted as they claim, in the best interest of Canadians, they should not be afraid of scrutiny, and their scheme should be able to stand, or fall, on its own merits. This unseemly haste does not bode well for Canadians. If elected representatives cannot be allowed to properly study this costly scheme, one must ask again what the government is hiding. What is it afraid of?

Public infrastructure should serve the interests of Canadians. Privatizing investment in public infrastructure is not just a bad business decision for the taxpayers of Canada; it represents a blatant conflict of interest.

We do not have to look very far to find examples of boondoggles that have cost taxpayers dearly. In my home province of Saskatchewan, I can point to a couple of infamous examples. The Regina bypass portion of the Trans-Canada Highway is contracted to a foreign company that has been accused of unfair labour practices, and the cost of this project has ballooned from $400 million to $2 billion. What about the sketchy land deal known as the Global Transportation Hub scandal, particularly the revelation that the land purchased by the GTH could have been bought years earlier for a tenth of the cost? As a result of the Saskatchewan Party's GTH scandal, two businessmen, who also happen to be Sask Party supporters, took $11 million in profits out of the pockets of Saskatchewan taxpayers. Now the Sask Party government has unilaterally killed the Saskatchewan Transportation Company, STC, because it thinks that a private operator will be able to take it over. Yes, a private operator would be only too happy to buy STC's assets in a fire sale and then only offer service on routes that would be profitable. What happens to the less profitable routes that serve Canadians in remote communities who have no other means of transportation to get to cancer treatment?

Selling off profitable crown corporations like SaskTel will only lead to higher costs for consumers and an unnecessary loss of equity and revenue for the province, and therefore the taxpayers. I really do not care which party people belong to. Stories like these should make their skin crawl.

In the last 30 years, there have been many failed experiments that have exploded the myth that private business can deliver essential public services and infrastructure at less cost and with better results than the public sector. Canadians pay taxes for the common good. That includes public services and public infrastructure.

During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals promised to establish the Canada infrastructure bank to “provide low-cost financing for new infrastructure projects”, but in 2016, they subsequently announced that the bank would be financed largely by private-sector investors. I am pretty sure that private-sector investors are not known for their pro bono work.

Projects financed by the infrastructure bank would have to generate revenues that would pay significant returns to investors, resulting in user fees, tolls, and of course, new costs to be assumed by Canadians across the country. What the Liberals are proposing is nothing short of privatization of our infrastructure. This privatization would benefit their friends: wealthy investors. It would not help middle-class Canadians, and middle-class Canadians are who the Liberals keep saying they are trying to help.

All Canadians should ask this question: If the bank's mandate would be to finance projects with income-generating potential, what would happen to essential infrastructure projects in the regions deemed unprofitable but that are in the public interest and are necessary for public safety? Based on the Liberal plan, the bank would have great autonomy in choosing which infrastructure projects were financed. Given these circumstances, who would guarantee that the decisions made by the bank's board and executive director were in the public interest, and moreover, who would have the power to prevent corruption and ensure accountability?

In fact, we are learning through the news media that there is an internal federal report that warns of a wide range of potential problems with the proposed Canada infrastructure bank, including that it would duplicate the work of provinces, slow down projects, add new layers of bureaucracy, and expose Ottawa to “public relations disasters and embarrassment”.

If the government is so convinced that its infrastructure bank scheme is in the best interest of Canadians, it should have no objection at all to severing it from the omnibus budget bill and having it scrutinized by parliamentarians and Canadians. After all, what does it have to hide?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 8th, 2017]

With regard to the quality of service provided by the Ministerial Enquiry Unit and MP Unit of Citizenship and Immigration Canada: (a) what is the total number of full time staff for each unit, and what are their job designations; (b) what training is provided to staff in preparation for responding to inquiries from MP offices; (c) are there regularly scheduled training or briefing sessions to keep the unit staff current on ministry policies and practices, and if so, how often do these occur; (d) do both units get the same training, and if not, what are the differences; (e) how do job descriptions and the mandates of these two units differ; (f) does one unit, or both, have the mandate to review files and to push for a timely resolution; (g) do these two units work collaboratively on files, and if so, how is information shared and updated; (h) who is ultimately responsible for incorrect information given to MP offices, i.e. what is the chain of command, or organizational chart for these two units; (i) what is the process for reporting instances of incorrect information given to MP offices; (j) what is the process or mechanism for reporting and fixing a problem in the system identified by an MP office; (k) what are the service standards for processing applications and security checks and verifications; (l) what remedy is available for cases that have gone beyond the service standards and timelines, and if difficult cases are moved to a different unit for treatment, are they then subject to a different set of protocols and service standards; (m) what are the protocols and service standards for applications originating from remote areas; (n) where services are not available, or not available in a timely fashion in a remote or less-serviced area, are applicants then given information on faster options (e.g. in a larger urban centre) that may be available to them; and (o) are all applicants given the same options and information, or is this a flexible standard, depending on the agent or officer?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am all for long-term planning. I am all for working in collaboration with the provinces. What I have an issue with in this budget implementation bill is the commitments the government is making beyond its mandate. To me, those are not sincere commitments. They go much beyond the mandate, both for housing and for child care.

I would like to have her comments about what the government is doing in this term to help child care and to help people with housing.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I do feel that my colleague is very sincere. She and I share a lot of the same concerns in our ridings around child care and around affordable housing.

Unfortunately, what I am finding during this debate is that when push comes to shove, when we ask what the government is actually doing this year, in this budget, to make a difference in the lives of people in our ridings, we often get the reference back to the previous budget and the measures that were put into place.

I would like the member to comment on the fact there is no money in this year's budget for child care, and how she feels about that.

[Public Services and Procurement, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, after years of the Phoenix fiasco, there is still no light at the end of the tunnel for thousands of workers. It is interesting that the longer this fiasco drags on, the fewer answers the government can give us about when it will be able to solve it. Maybe that is because this broken system is actually creating new victims every single day.

If the government will not tell us when all the current cases will be resolved, can it at least tell us when it intends to stop creating new ones?

[Canada Labour Code, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, my comment to the hon. member on the analogy of elections and secret ballots in the workplace is that the analogy does not hold up. It holds up for the Conservatives when they want to talk about being the champions of democracy, but it is not the analogy that fits in the workplace. It would, if workers were choosing between one union or another.

The real point I want to make is that the member does not seem to understand how secret ballots take place in a workplace. It is not the way he thinks it happens. They do not just fall out of the sky and everyone knows a secret ballot is going to happen. The problem with the secret ballot is that it gives notice within a workplace, and what we know from evidence and what we have in heard in committee is that once notice is given, employers intimidate employees. That is the issue.

The card check system just allows employees to choose to be represented. It does not change the workplace. It is simply a choice in representation. How in the world can that be undemocratic?

[Canada Labour Code, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, as I have said in the House on previous occasions, Bill C-4 was a very good first step.

As some members will remember, the previous government's omnibus Bill C-4 did a number of things, including decimating the health and safety for public sector workers. There is more than this; we need to restore important safeguards for workers, including safety safeguards which were repealed in the omnibus bill of the previous government.

Today is a good first step. I would like to hear from the minister on when we are going to see the repeal. You commented in your speech about the importance of safety. There are still things in legislation that need to be repealed. Today is a very good first step. We need to move on and start to get back to good labour relations and safer workplaces.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue my questions, since I have been given another opportunity.

I would categorize this implementation bill as an omnibus bill. It is full of things that are not necessarily budget related, including changes to the Investment Act and changes around parental leave.

There is not much in this implementation of budgets. A lot of other things have been crammed together.

However, my comment on one of the insertions in this omnibus bill is around the changes the Employment Insurance Act. Here is an example where the government really could help families, particularly in my riding. Instead of increasing the benefits, instead of making it easier for people to access the employment insurance program and making it better, which I need to remind people is funded by employers and employees, not the government, the government has just extended what I would say is not a very high level of benefits over a longer period of time.

In my riding, many people will be unable to access this extended parental leave because they just cannot afford to live on that amount of money.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments of my hon. colleague concerning the cuts to program delivery, which we saw over the years of the previous government, and how many communities suffered, including my own, which lost counter service and delivery of government programs, and the Canada Revenue Agency. We lost a counter service and service to our community in Immigration.

I have many questions for my hon. colleague, but I will ask him this. Why is there nothing in the budget to increase that program delivery, to put resources back into the service delivery of the government? He talked before about the government that cut them.