OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates Volume 151 No. 240 1st SESSION 44th PARLIAMENT Thursday, October 26, 2023 Speaker: The Honourable Greg Fergus HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES October 26, 2023 DEBATES No. 240 No. 240 N o 240 Volume 151 240 26 10 2023 2023/10/26 10:05:00 Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates House Of Commons 1 44

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayer

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings

(1005) [ English ] Committees of the House Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP) :

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

Mr. Emmanuel Dubourg (Bourassa, Lib.) :

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”. [ Translation ] 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.

[ English ] Wasted Food Reduction and Recovery Act

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Bill C-360. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-360,

An Act to establish a national strategy to reduce the amount of wasted food in Canada . She said: 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)

Committees of the House Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC) :

Motion for concurrence 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.

(1010) 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 arrive scam 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 arrive scam.

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.

(1015) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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!

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: 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 (Mrs. 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.

(1020) Mr. Garnett Genuis :

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.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ) :

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?

[ English ]

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

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.

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP) :

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.

Mr. Garnett Genuis :

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?

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC) :

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 funds. 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.

(1025) 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.

(1030) Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.) :

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—

[ Translation ]

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

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

Mr. Mario Simard :

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.

[ English ]

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. 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.

(1035) Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

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?

Mr. Greg McLean :

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.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ) :

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?

Mr. Greg McLean :

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.

[ English ]

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

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?

Mr. Greg McLean :

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.

(1040) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton is rising on a point of order.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Madam Speaker, the Speaker issued guidelines in the House. We are not to use mock names or be insulting in any way to other members of the House. I hope you would remind the member opposite of that.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I would just say that if it is causing disorder in the House, I would ask members to please be very careful with the language that they are using. The hon. member was also talking in general, not specifically about an individual. I also want to say that one cannot say indirectly what one cannot say directly. Please be careful. We want to keep the debate going and to make sure it is respectful. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, we need to look at what the Conservative Party is saying about the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We have now had two of its members say they want to abolish it. They are making it clear and reinforcing that fact. They believe that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a bad idea. Members are saying, “Yes, it is.” That is what I mean about their being so reckless when it comes to what the interests of Canadians really are. Do Conservatives have any idea that we are talking about 46 projects all over Canada?

The government has committed just under $10 billion, and the Conservatives are going to throw it away. They say it is garbage and it is not necessary. Do members know that the $9.7 billion has now accessed an additional $20 billion from the private sector? That is an incredible amount of money. The Conservatives say there are no projects, or they will qualify it and say there are no projects that have been completed.

When we spend billions of dollars on projects, they do not necessarily happen overnight, but there are 46 projects well under way, including projects in the home provinces of the two people who rose to speak on the concurrence report. The projects are going to make a huge difference, but the Conservatives want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. This goes back to Stephen Harper, who never really believed in investing in Canada's infrastructure, nowhere near to the same degree the government has.

From day one, the government has been focused on Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and on supporting individuals in need. Part of recognizing how we are going to do that is by investing in our economy through the creation of jobs, through the development of trade agreements and through bringing forward a higher standard for infrastructure spending. No government in the history of Canada has spent more money on infrastructure, because we recognize that to have a strong Canada, we need to invest in infrastructure.

With the billions of dollars we spent and invested in infrastructure, we also had an add-on with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which the Conservatives across the way like to mock. They now say they want to abolish it completely. Even in my home province of Manitoba, there are infrastructure dollars from the bank going toward the Internet to modernize and to make sure that rural Manitoba is connected. On the one hand, the Conservatives are critical, saying we are not doing enough on rural connectivity, even though we are doing more than Harper did.

Then, when it comes time to invest in the infrastructure, they are saying they do not want that infrastructure and they are going to cancel the Infrastructure Bank. The Conservatives have no idea what they are talking about. It is almost as if they walk into their back room, talk to their leader , who gets a bright idea, and then make the decision that common sense says infrastructure is bad. Why is it bad? They need to explain that to me.

We invest and see $27 billion going toward Canada's infrastructure on projects that will have a profoundly positive impact, yet common sense, according to the Conservative ideology, says it is bad. That is why I was talking about the Homer Simpson award. It is incredible. I do not understand it. When I first found out we were going to be talking about another concurrence report, the first thing that came across my mind was not necessarily to talk about the subject matter; it was to talk about “Here we go again with the Conservative Party's trying to filibuster legislation.”

(1045) It is legislation that is so critically important, yet they always use concurrence motions to prevent legislative debate. Let me give members an example. The day before yesterday we were talking about trade agreements. There is a lot of infrastructure necessary in Ukraine. It is a very important deal. It is infrastructure that Canada has a great deal of experience with, and it is part of that trade agreement. Let us talk about the two days of solid hours of debate that takes place, something we all support, although maybe not. I should not say that.

Do members remember when the member for Cumberland—Colchester said that Canada is taking advantage of Ukraine at a time of war and asked why we even have this piece of legislation? He even described it as being “woke legislation”. This was after the President of Ukraine came to Canada to sign an agreement, which has so much power with economic ties and messaging on the war, and a huge part of it is dealing with infrastructure. I do not know why, but Conservatives are once again trying to be mischievous. On the one hand they say they support Ukraine, and then they do something like this.

I asked if we could pass it by Christmas, and they waffle. Now we are on another piece of legislation, and they are using that tactic again. When I came here I was not expecting to talk about the Infrastructure Bank, although I have a lot more to say on it. Rather, I was expecting to speak to legislation dealing with the Investment Canada Act, Bill C-34 , which is very important. When we think of infrastructure, we have to recognize that it is so badly needed in many of our communities. Having the Infrastructure Bank is, at least in good part, meeting many of those demands and getting things to market.

We are supposed to be talking about foreign investment coming into Canada today, a modernization of the act from 2009, because a lot has changed since then. We are supposed to be talking about ensuring that the minister has a national security review of the transactions that are taking place. Today, AI is something that is very serious. When we take that into consideration with international investment, I always thought Conservatives would be concerned about that. However, once again today we see, through the moving of this concurrence motion, that they are saying no.

They are not being sensitive to issues such as technological advancements, AI and the impact it is having on international investments into Canada. Canada welcomes international investment, but we have to make sure that we have things in place to modernize the act, whether it is in respect to the minister or other processes, to protect the technology and our industries. That is what we are supposed to be talking about today. Instead, Conservatives have brought forward a motion on the Infrastructure Bank.

Given their position on the Infrastructure Bank, I hope that either the Bloc or New Democrats will bring forward an opposition day motion to seek clarification. I would like to see the leader of the Conservative Party backtrack on the issue of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. If he really believes in building a stronger or healthier Canada, this reckless policy of getting rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank is the wrong way to go.

(1050) The Leader of the Opposition needs to understand that investments in infrastructure matter. I could go through the 46 projects there, even though the Conservatives want to spread inaccurate information. We can read what they have said in their speeches, just in the introduction. They tried to give the false impression that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is doing nothing, that there are no jobs because none of the projects are actually completed.

What about the hundreds, potentially thousands, of jobs, both direct and indirect, that are already in place, with people working today, because there are 46 projects under way? Some will be completed sooner than others. Some will make a huge difference for the environment. I am thinking about the community of Brampton. A number of months ago, when I was looking at the Canada Infrastructure Bank, there was talk of an investment to electrify the public transit buses. I do not know exactly where that is today, but I can assure the House that it is making progress.

That is not the only public transit in Canada that has accessed the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and that is a good thing. I understand some members in the Conservative Party do not necessarily care about the electrification of vehicles. I suspect that includes buses. Rather, they are trying to play up the myth that we are going to see cars blowing up or catching on fire because we have too many electric vehicles, and it is such a small percentage overall of the population. It is that whole tin hat syndrome, which they tend to have. It is something—

(1055) Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would say that, according to the new rules, we are not supposed to be name-calling. On it referring to a specific individual, there were two members opposite who raised the specific issue of cars on fire, which was raised by me. I did correct the record that the transportation statistics say that 3.5% of those vehicles—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

That is a point of debate. I would like to remind members to please be careful with the wording they are using in the House. It is best to try to make sure that the debate is respectful.

Mr. Charlie Angus :

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, if you listen back, I do not believe the Liberal member referred to the member wearing a tin hat. He talked about how these were “tin hat” scenarios. If the member identified herself as wearing a tin hat, that is her issue. However, the member did not refer to her as wearing a tin hat—

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

All sides of the House use certain words to describe situations or to describe parties. I would like to remind members that we have to be very careful to not describe individuals.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Madam Speaker, again, according to the new guidelines, the member for Timmins—James Bay cannot do indirectly what he cannot do directly. I think that is what he attempted to do.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

When I was making that comment, I was making it for everyone. I want to remind members to please be respectful with their comments.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, I was here when members opposite spoke, and a member from Calgary, in reference to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, used the word “boondoggle”, saying it is nothing more than that. He also used the words “slush fund”, and he amplified those words. The member was very clear in what he believes. The reason I raise that is that I really do not believe that the Conservative caucus as a whole is aware of the many investments that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has made. What the Conservatives are aware of is the political spin that is coming from their leader's office and the back room.

On the political spin, there are a couple of words that they have needed to use in this debate: the Canada Infrastructure Bank is a bad thing, the Conservative Party would get rid of it, and the Canada Infrastructure Bank has not completed anything. Therefore, we get Conservative members standing up and believing what they have been told. There is a problem with that. Members do not have to believe me directly. They can do a simple Google search of the Canada Infrastructure Bank and they will get a very good sense of its valuable role.

Anyone who is going to be following the debate today on a Canada Infrastructure Bank can make sure that they consider doing a bit of research on their own. They would find that the Conservative Party is completely and absolutely out of touch on this issue. It makes no sense whatsoever. One of my colleagues provided me a sheet here, just to give members a bit of a sense of what there is. There are actually 11 projects dealing with public transit today. I made reference to one of them being in Brampton, and it is a significant project. There are eight projects dealing with clean power.

Let us think about the Darlington small module reactor. Darlington is a wonderful community in the province of Ontario. The website states that, at a cost of $970 million, “Once built, the [small modular reactor] will reduce carbon emissions by an average of 740 kilotonnes annually between 2029 and 2050...The 300-megawatt SMR will provide enough electricity to power 300,000 homes.” I do not know exactly how many homes Winnipeg has, but I would suggest that would be close to half. That would be 300,000 homes being powered, and the Conservative Party says that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is doing nothing.

This is just one project in a community. I look to my colleagues and even members of the New Democratic Party and the Bloc. Before they position themselves in any way that would show any sort of support to the Conservative Party on this issue, would they please look at the projects that are there? This is an environmentally sound project that would be to the benefit of 300,000 homes, and in the long term, these are the types of projects. I made reference to the buses in Brampton because I remember seeing the video on it, and I was really impressed.

The point is that it does not take very much to get a very good sense of exactly what the Canada Infrastructure Bank is investing in. The bottom line is that we are talking about close to $27 billion, most of which is not the Government of Canada's money.

(1100) Board of Internal Economy

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

Before continuing with questions and comments, it is my duty to inform the House that for the purposes and under the provisions of

section 50 of the Parliament Act, the following members have been appointed members of the Board of Internal Economy, namely: the Hon. Karina Gould , in place of the Hon. Mark Holland , member of the King's Privy Council; the Hon. Steven MacKinnon , in place of the Hon. Dominic LeBlanc , member of the King's Privy Council; Mr. Mark Gerretsen , in place of the Hon. Steven MacKinnon , representative of the Liberal caucus. We will continue with questions and comments with the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

Committees of the House Transport, Infrastructure and Communities

Motion for concurrence The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, I am glad that speech is finally over. That particular member made reference to a Homer Simpson award. Homer Simpson would at least admit he has made a mistake by saying “D'oh!” This particular Prime Minister and that member who supports him go rake-walking almost every day, whether it be on foreign policy or on the economy. They smack into a rake and instead of saying “D'oh!” and asking what they should be doing differently, they just continue on. The Infrastructure Bank was created in 2017. The Liberals got rid of a very useful P3 Crown corporation. That took $35 billion away from municipalities.

Will the member finally admit that the only thing the Infrastructure Bank has given is bonuses to its executives consecutively? There has been zero transparency, and the transportation committee has said in the majority opinion that it should be abolished. Will the member admit to having a “D'oh” moment and give himself a Homer Simpson award?

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

We are going back and forth, and I have had individuals come up to the chair as well, so I just want to ask if we can be respectful during the debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Madam Speaker, did the member actually listen to anything I said in regard to what it is the Canada Infrastructure Bank has done? I did make a mistake. I could have actually modernized my comments. I was saying there were 46 projects. I understand it is actually 48 projects. I said it was a total of $27 billion. It is actually $28 billion. It is beyond me. I do not understand why members of the Conservative Party who have already spoken to this issue are being so reckless. It makes no sense at all.

They can look for themselves on Google at what it is the Infrastructure Bank is reporting as projects that are well under way that are going to be completed. I do not understand why the Conservative Party is so against infrastructure investment. It makes no sense.

(1105) [ Translation ]

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ) :

Madam Speaker, I love the member for Winnipeg North's sense of humour, and I enjoyed his presentation on the Homer Simpson Awards. I could name a clear winner of the Homer Simpson Award. I know the winner of all winners. In fact, I think the award should be shared. We put $30 billion into a pipeline infrastructure project. The member was telling us earlier that the Conservatives are irresponsible, that they are going to deprive us of $10 billion in infrastructure investment. We have collectively invested $30 billion in a pipeline. If that does not deserve a Homer Simpson award, what does?

I would like to amicably ask my colleague whether he agrees that Quebec would be better served if infrastructure funds were transferred directly to the provincial government so it could manage that money.

[ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, the biggest challenge I have with my friends in the Bloc is it does not necessarily matter what program is out there, they prefer to see the Canadian government as an ATM to hand over money to the provinces, and there is no sense of accountability. That is the kind of sense that I get. It does not matter.

Even when we were talking about housing, it is, “Hand over the money.” When we talk about health care, it is, “Hand over the money.” When we talk about infrastructure now, it is, “Hand over the money.” I believe that Ottawa does have a strong national leadership role to play on a wide spectrum of issues. That is the expectation Canadians have. I believe that as a government we are delivering on those expectations in the best way we can. [ Translation ]

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) :

I must inform the hon. member for Jonquière that he had a chance to ask a question, so if he has more he wants to say, he will have to wait his turn. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[ English ]

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP) :

Madam Speaker, there are $133 billion of investments that went into the United States last year from Biden's Inflation Reduction Act and commitment on the environment. Our workers and our environment are getting a one-two punch. One is from the Liberals, who have made lots of promises on these investment tax credits. They promised them over a year ago. They are nowhere to be seen. Investment dollars are moving south. The other punch is coming from Conservative ideology. Danielle Smith, who chased out $33 billion in clean tech, turned Alberta into a clean-tech wasteland.

We have the Conservatives blocking every effort to get the sustainable jobs legislation, and we have their MPs from the 401 corridor ridiculing the $7-billion investment by Volkswagen and $7 billion by Stellantis. We need to send certainty to international markets that we are ready to be there and play a role, yet without the tax credits and without an environment to make it happen, that investment money is going elsewhere.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, the member raises a concern that a good number of members have. I can assure members, in terms of the Liberal caucus as whole, that we want to be able to ensure that we are getting those good-quality middle-class jobs in renewable energies. There has been a very strong statement over the last number of months that Canada is prepared to lead the world when it comes to electric batteries. That is one of the reasons we saw the huge investments in regard to electric battery production. It is more than just at the Volkswagen facility.

I believe that the footprint of that Volkswagen facility is going to be like 200 football fields. It will be the largest manufacturing plant, from what I understand, in the country. We take it very seriously in terms of how it is we can capture those renewable jobs, those green jobs, well into the future. The United States is also aggressively looking for those jobs, so we have to be in a position to push hard.

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP) :

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that I agree with the member for Winnipeg North insofar as his comments with respect to needing to go faster and further on the climate crisis are concerned, and it is not just he and I.

The UN Secretary-General said that our planet “is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible” and that the “global climate fight will be won or lost in this crucial decade on our watch.” To the substance of the report, the member will note in the report that this is a $35-billion Infrastructure Bank, and several witnesses called out their concerns with the lack of efficiency in getting funds out.

I will cite Heather Whiteside, an associate professor from the University of Waterloo, who said, “CIB hasn't done much.” At the time, over half of the projects announced were in the MOU stage. Dylan Penner from the Council of Canadians told the committee that he was concerned with the CIB's delays as well with respect to action on the climate crisis. What would the member for Winnipeg North have to say in response to the concerns of these non-partisan witnesses?

(1110) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Madam Speaker, again, I really encourage members to take a look at the types of programs that are there and the progress that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has actually made. For example, when it comes to green infrastructure, it has 17 projects that have been approved and are well under way in terms of development. When we talk about clean power, there are eight projects, and that is just through the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

There are numerous programs over and above what the government has initiated both through budgetary and legislative means to encourage the development of green industries, including the Atlantic accord and working with provinces to make a difference, which is something, again, that the Conservatives are wanting to filibuster, but that is neither here nor there right now. At the end of the day, we continue to move forward both from a legislative point of view and with organizations that are arm's length, like the Canada Infrastructure Bank, in expectation that we are moving towards what we committed to, net zero.

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC) :

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North was basically talking about how nice the bureaucratic structure of the investment bank is. He gave us a bunch of poetry about how beautiful the bank is without giving any evidence on how productive the results of these investments are and how much Canada has benefited from the bank, which was supposed to deliver investments and results rather than be a structure that is really doing nothing.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

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.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ) :

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.

(1115) 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.

(1120) 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. (1125) [ 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.” [ Translation ] 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.

(1130) [ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

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.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) :

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?

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

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.

(1135) [ English ]

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

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?

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

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.

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) :

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.

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

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.

Mr. Bernard Généreux (Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, CPC) :

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, but supports carbon taxes, which mean Quebeckers will pay even more for their gas. Why is the Bloc Québécois so supportive of the Liberal government?

(1140) Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

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.

[ English ]

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

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.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval :

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.

[ English ]

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP) :

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.

(1145) 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.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

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.

(1150) Ms. Bonita Zarrillo :

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.

Mr. Greg McLean (Calgary Centre, CPC) :

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?

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo :

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.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ) :

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?

[ English ]

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo :

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.

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP) :

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—

(1155) The Acting Speaker (Mr. John Nater) :

The hon. member, on a point of order.

[ Translation ]

Mr. Denis Trudel :

Mr. Speaker, there is a problem with the

interpretation. We cannot hear the interpreter.

[ English ]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. 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.

Ms. Niki Ashton :

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that Conservatives did not support my bill, Bill C-245 , which sought to transform the Infrastructure Bank in such a way that it could make a difference in the lives of Canadians, when it comes to the major infrastructure needs in our communities. It is not a bad thing to have a Crown corporation that is committed to building desperately needed infrastructure in our country, particularly as we face the climate crisis.

We know that our infrastructure needs are significant on various fronts, but we also know that we are particularly deficient when it comes to climate-resilient infrastructure and ensuring our communities have the kind of infrastructure they need to face the climate crisis. I want to acknowledge that the Bloc supported our bill at second reading, and I am thankful for that support, as well as that of the Green MPs. The reality is that, in ditching Bill C-245 , Canada missed an opportunity to transform a Crown corporation, an infrastructure bank, in such a way that it could meet the needs of our communities.

My bill was rooted in the experience of communities like the ones I represent, communities that are on the front lines of the climate crisis and are facing record wildfires and flooding. Communities such as the first nations on the east side of Lake Winnipeg do not have all-weather road access. They have to rely on ice roads for shorter periods of time to access medical services, shop more affordably and bring in the materials they need to build the homes they desperately require and other necessary infrastructure. I have heard time and again from first nations and northern leaders.

As a northerner myself, it is clear to me that the infrastructure gap in regions like ours is only getting worse. In talking about Bill C-245 , I heard stories from first nations. One first nation was refused funding to upgrade a community home that was in desperate need of fixing because it could not show Canada's Infrastructure Bank how it was profitable. A northern community that was trying to switch from diesel fuel was told to apply for solar panel funding in the middle of winter.

There are serious concerns from indigenous leaders that Indigenous Services Canada may help out once things are really and truly broken, but not a moment before. Prior to Bill C-245 coming to the House at second reading, I acknowledged at the time that communities in my riding were facing immense challenges, as communities were becoming isolated with the melting of the ice roads.

One of the projects we talked about needing investment was an all-weather road on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, connecting a dozen first nations that right now are becoming increasingly isolated as a result of the impacts of the climate crises. We also talked about the transfer from diesel reliance to more sustainable forms of energy. Four of the communities I represent in the far north of northern Manitoba still depend on diesel fuel. We know that many communities in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories are in the same boat. This is unnecessary, given our ability to invest in sustainable energy.

That requires government involvement, and the Canada Infrastructure Bank would be well placed to be involved in this kind of work. As the climate crisis becomes more serious, it is clear that our infrastructure is not up to snuff. It is clear that our communities desperately need a partner in the federal government to invest in the infrastructure we need. Currently, we know that Indigenous Services Canada is not meeting the needs, by a longshot, of indigenous communities when it comes to infrastructure. The housing crisis in communities, for example, is acute.

There is a need for critical infrastructure, whether it is health centres, or water and sewer, or roads in the communities or roads connecting communities that currently do not exist.

(1200) Indigenous Services Canada is not meeting the needs of indigenous communities. The Canada Infrastructure Bank could play that kind of role. It is not playing that role right now. Since Bill C-245 , we have noticed that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has paid greater attention to the needs of northern and even indigenous communities. I want to acknowledge the work being done on the airport here in Thompson and the Canada Infrastructure Bank's involvement there.

I also want to acknowledge the work of the Keewatin Tribal Council in pushing the visionary Pusiko development and hope that the infrastructure bank will be a willing partner in terms of investing in this kind of legacy project. However, I am deeply disappointed that we are still not seeing the kind of significant investment in northern and indigenous communities or communities across the country, underscoring the work of the transport committee. What is the point of an infrastructure bank that is not making a difference to communities?

On that, I want to end by saying that many of us are in Parliament because we want to better the lives of our constituents, people across our country and people around the world. To that end, I would like to finish my speech by stating clearly that Canada must call for a ceasefire now in Israel and Gaza. Canada must be a voice for peace and justice. As the representative of UNRWA said, “History will ask why the world did not have the courage to act decisively and stop this hell on Earth.”

(1205) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, there are many different ways that government supports infrastructure. I have said before that, in the last 50-plus years, no government has invested more public dollars in infrastructure. That includes the Province of Manitoba, which has agreements with municipalities and provinces. With the new government now in the Province of Manitoba, I think there will be even greater opportunities. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is a very important add-on to the building of Canada's infrastructure. Even Manitoba has benefited through the expansion of rural Internet services.

Will the member not acknowledge that this is only one aspect of infrastructure? It needs the provinces and municipalities to also step up and say what their priorities are, and she might want to share that with some of her provincial colleagues, in particular. Could she provide her thoughts on that?

Ms. Niki Ashton :

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, current departmental programs, particularly under Indigenous Services Canada, are clearly inadequate when it comes to meeting the needs of indigenous communities on infrastructure. Time and time again, I have raised with Liberal counterparts the need to invest in the all-weather road on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, and they have patently refused to do that. The Liberals talk a good talk when it comes to reconciliation. Part of reconciliation is addressing the housing crisis and the infrastructure gap in indigenous communities. The gap is only growing.

I certainly hope the Liberals do not think that what they are currently doing is sufficient, because it is not. We need to transform the infrastructure bank to make the difference that Canadians, indigenous and northern communities deserve. If that is not going to be the case, then we should get rid of it.

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, a lot of witnesses at committee had comments about the lack of transparency within the Canada Infrastructure Bank. People did not know where the money was going or how much each project was getting. It was very difficult to get that information. Could the member comment on her experience when listening to the testimonies at committee?

Ms. Niki Ashton :

Mr. Speaker, the testimonies at committee were damning when it comes to the track record of the infrastructure bank. Again, the strongly worded recommendation to get rid of the bank is deeply rooted in that testimony. What New Democrats have said is that we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Do we need a Crown corporation that has as a focus to partner with communities in building the infrastructure they require? Yes, we do.

Do we need it the way it is right now, where it seeks to gain profit for private partners, where it is not transparent and where it is not committed to infrastructure that is resilient in the face of climate change? No, we do not. Despite some of the cosmetic changes, there are still very serious concerns about the infrastructure bank's existence. As I said, New Democrats certainly put forward a transformative vision for the bank. We hope that it could still be applied; if not, we should get rid of it.

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP) :

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought forward Bill C-245 , and it was a way of fixing the infrastructure bank. What we have seen, time and time again, with the government is that it is very good at coming forward with these big projects, big words, big announcements and proposals, such as the red dress alert, announcements on housing and the core ombudsperson, which I know she knows quite a lot about. However, the action and follow-through are not actually there.

Does she believe that this infrastructure bank could be saved if the Liberal government actually stepped up and put some principles in place, principles that were in the legislation she wrote, to fix the infrastructure bank at this time?

(1210) Ms. Niki Ashton :

Mr. Speaker, I think we are all here because we hope that we can change things for the better. I hope that the Liberals will see there is a desperate need to transform the bank. They made some cosmetic changes in the recent budget, in terms of a focus on indigenous communities. It is nowhere near enough. We know the climate crisis is only deepening. Our communities' needs for infrastructure and investment are only deepening. The time to transform the infrastructure bank is now.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs (Cybersecurity), Lib.) :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this topic. I have to wonder, however, if the Conservatives made a very critical error in their strategy. It is interesting to me that the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan actually used the issue of the Canada Infrastructure Bank to filibuster the legislation that was scheduled to be discussed today, which actually would allow and authorize the minister of industry , where he considers that investment could be injurious to national security, to review such things.

It is interesting that the Conservatives, who talk tough when it comes to national security, would have an opportunity to actually debate having legislation to keep Canadian national security interests at the forefront of what we do, which would modernize the legislation. What are the Conservatives doing instead? They are filibustering and blocking legislation. I think their strategy today is going to be very telling for Canadians: They do not actually care about national security interests in this country, because if they did—

Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The new guidelines have been issued, and we are not allowed anymore to make comments that question the courage, honesty or commitment to the country of other members in the House. I think that was where the Liberal member went on that one, if you could correct her.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. John Nater) :

I would just remind the House that we try to use our words in a judicious manner to try not to cause disorder. I will give the floor back to the hon. parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Mr. Speaker, it seems I have hit a very specific nerve with the Conservative Party. It seems I am alluding to exactly what they are afraid of, which is that they are not serious when it comes to matters of national security. They are reckless when it comes to producing meaningful legislation that would actually keep Canadians safe. They have just allowed Canadians to see very clearly their lack of seriousness when it comes to matters of national security.

What I find even more interesting is the fact that they have chosen this topic; I had been looking forward to the day when we could discuss our plan for infrastructure rather than the Conservatives' reckless history. The Conservatives have chosen to abandon principles that would ensure our national security legislation continues to be modernized. However, the fact that they then chose the topic of infrastructure tells me that whoever was in charge of this scheme here today did not actually do their homework. They are about to be quite embarrassed for however long this debate continues.

Let us start talking about infrastructure and the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is what the Conservatives felt was going to be a winning issue for them. Let us talk about Conservative math for a second. The Conservatives have talked here today. I have listened to them refer to things such as slush funds. Meanwhile, the Conservative infrastructure plan previously included gazebos, fake lakes and photo ops with fighter jets. Despite that, let us actually talk about the Conservative record on building infrastructure. The Conservatives had what they called P3 Canada, which was their infrastructure program.

In 10 years, they had 25 projects which only totalled a $1.3-billion investment. Let us compare that—

(1215) Ms. Marilyn Gladu :

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We all want to make sure that the facts are presented in this House. The fund of which the member is speaking actually did 43,000 projects, and there was $53 billion—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. John Nater) :

That is debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux :

Mr. Speaker, this is now the second time in which the point of order has been marginal, at the very best. I do not know if it is being intentionally done, with this particular member. However, I believe that interference, when a member is speaking, is not appropriate. That is a point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. John Nater) :

I thank the hon. member. When there is a point of order, one does tend to listen to it. There should be a connection to the Standing Orders and to the precedence of this House. I think we have dealt with the point of order at hand, so I give the floor back to the hon. parliamentary secretary.

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell :

Mr. Speaker, I will not be surprised that the Conservatives are going to try to interrupt my speech continually, because the facts matter and they do not want to be confused by them. They do not want Canadians to actually realize that their record on infrastructure is abysmal, so I am sure they are going to keep interrupting. That actually further proves my point that this strategic goal to block legislation dealing with national security is reckless. They are reckless when it comes to national security, and then they choose a topic where their record is also reckless and abysmal.

Of course they are going to keep interrupting, because their feelings are going to be hurt and they are probably embarrassed. They are probably going back to their House leader's team and asking why they did this today. They will ask why they chose this topic; it was so terrible, because the Liberal members were able to point out their record. I am going to persist and continue to highlight to Canadians the recklessness of Conservative math. Let us get back to that. The Conservatives had 10 years. How many projects did P3 Canada work on? It worked on 25 projects, with $1.3 billion.

Let us compare that to just under five years with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, with 48 projects. By the way, let me go back to that $1.3 billion that the Conservatives invested in 10 years. It was all taxpayer-funded money, all from Canadians. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, in under five years, had 48 projects and $10 billion of investment from the government. Do we know what that turned into? It turned into a $28-billion investment. We heard at committee that investments such as this are transformational. In fact, I want to quote something we heard from a witness we had at committee.

She spoke about this on her own podcast, called The Raitt Stuff , on “The Infrastructure Deficit - the role of the Canada Infrastructure Bank”. This was on January 30. Who said this? It was the Hon. Lisa Raitt, a former Conservative minister. She was talking about the Canada Infrastructure Bank, and she said:

...unfortunately, [the bank] has been the topic of a lot of political discussion in the past number of years. It was not supported by the Conservative Party at various times in the last Parliament and in this Parliament as well. However, you’re doing a lot of work, you’re getting projects done and you are, I think, filling a need that has been shown to be necessary in order to get projects going here in Canada. So tell me what is going on in 2023 for the Canada Infrastructure Bank and the projects that you’re going to be looking at?

Conservative former ministers do not even support the Conservative position on this. As most Canadians know, Conservative math just does not add up. They are reckless. They spent more taxpayer money to get fewer projects done in double the amount of time. That is Conservative math for us. I am going to talk about some of these projects that I have heard members here today refer to as “slush funds”. I find that pretty interesting. They said that only Liberal insiders are getting rich from the Canada Infrastructure Bank.

I want to speak about a project in Alberta: the Arrow Technology Group, an $8.1-million investment. This is building broadband in underserviced communities, including 20 indigenous and four rural communities. Are the Conservatives suggesting that these underserviced indigenous communities are rich Liberal insiders benefiting from this bank, or is it that they just cannot wrap their heads around how to actually build infrastructure that matters? It matters for Canadians, indigenous communities and rural communities.

It ensures that they are connected so that they have the ability to stay connected with loved ones and to create economic prosperity in these