SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 240 - Oct/26/23

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/26/23 10:56:29 a.m.
Watch

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.

32 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu

Oct/26/23 10:57:01 a.m.
Watch

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.

32 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/26/23 10:57:13 a.m.
Watch

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

24 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/26/23 10:57:25 a.m.
Watch

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.

573 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/26/23 11:02:23 a.m.
Watch

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.

112 words

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

Oct/26/23 11:03:11 a.m.
Watch

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?

172 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/26/23 11:04:20 a.m.
Watch

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.

36 words

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

Oct/26/23 11:04:31 a.m.
Watch

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.

140 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Oct/26/23 11:05:30 a.m.
Watch

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.

139 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/26/23 11:06:19 a.m.
Watch

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. An hon. member: Oh, oh!

152 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/26/23 11:07:11 a.m.
Watch

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.

43 words

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

Oct/26/23 11:07:24 a.m.
Watch

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.

169 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/26/23 11:08:32 a.m.
Watch

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.

176 words

All Topics

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Oct/26/23 11:09:45 a.m.
Watch

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?

206 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/26/23 11:10:53 a.m.
Watch

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.

175 words

All Topics

Mr. Ziad Aboultaif (Edmonton Manning, CPC)

Oct/26/23 11:12:03 a.m.
Watch

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.

75 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/26/23 11:12:41 a.m.
Watch

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.

118 words

All Topics

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

Oct/26/23 11:13:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today we are debating the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities' report on the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I am actually surprised that we are debating this today, because the committee released its report on the Canada Infrastructure Bank in May 2022, and here it is, fall 2023. It was tabled quite a while ago, and we had the opportunity to debate it well before now. That said, there may be one thing worth talking about, and that is the recommendation in the report. That may be one of the reasons the Conservatives wanted to have this debate. In many cases, committees produce reports, study issues and make a number of recommendations. In this case, the report on the Canada Infrastructure Bank contained a single recommendation. I would like to take this opportunity to mention that the Liberal member for Winnipeg North, who spoke before me and who speaks very regularly in the House, does not seem to have bothered to read the committee's report before giving his speech. He said that the Conservatives were against it, and he is right. However, he also said that the other parties should listen to him before taking a position. Perhaps he did not know that the other parties had already taken a position. If there was a committee report, it is because the parties took a position. If there were any recommendations from the committee, it is because the various parties took a position on this issue. What I can say is that we produced a strong majority report and that the majority agreed on the only recommendation, which was to abolish the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Votes are secret; they are held in camera. How could we get a majority if the government disagreed? It is probably because all the other parties voted in favour of the recommendation. When the report was produced, everyone agreed that it was necessary to abolish the Canada Infrastructure Bank. To gain a better understanding of what the Canada Infrastructure Bank is and of its raison d'être from the Quebec perspective, we looked at what cities, provinces and the federal government own, respectively, in terms of infrastructure in Canada. We wondered what role the federal government plays when it comes to infrastructure. In short, 98% of infrastructure does not belong to the federal government. Only 2% of infrastructure belongs to the federal level. Why, then, is the federal government getting involved in matters of infrastructure? There is a fundamental problem here. Some $35 billion has been invested in the bank, but it is not up to the federal government to decide or to dictate to cities and provinces how they should manage their infrastructure, especially since it owns only 2% of infrastructure. It is our cities and our governments, including the Quebec government, that are in charge of infrastructure, so that is where the money should be going. Because of this basic principle, we thought it made no sense to support a federal infrastructure bank, which is ultimately a blatant intrusion in areas of jurisdiction that are not its own. Nearly all of the witnesses were very critical of the infrastructure bank. The Liberal member who spoke earlier may not be aware of this, but I did not hear many witnesses praising the Canada Infrastructure Bank. In fact, I cannot name even one. Perhaps the member knows this, because he has been in politics for several years now, but I want to mention that the Canada Infrastructure Bank was part of the Liberals' 2015 election platform. The Liberals could therefore say that they ran for election and put in place what was in their platform. I would like to take that one step further, however, and specify that the infrastructure bank that was put in place and the infrastructure bank that was in their election platform are a bit different. On page 15 of the 2015 platform, it says that the Canada Infrastructure Bank would provide municipalities with lower interest rates on loans related to the construction of infrastructure and housing. That is interesting because we are talking about the housing crisis right now. However, we would be searching for a long time to find the word “housing” in the documents of today's infrastructure bank, because it is not there. As for the municipalities, the infrastructure bank also does not finance municipal projects at low rates. The Canada Infrastructure Bank's direction has changed over time. After it took office, the Liberal government decided to set up the Advisory Council on Economic Growth to provide guidance on how to generate more economic growth in Canada. The advisory council was chaired by none other than Dominic Barton, who is known to be a close friend of the Prime Minister. We know that the Prime Minister likes to appoint friends to key posts, as we saw when he endorsed his buddies from WE Charity. I will come back to that later. During his career, Mr. Barton has also held other positions. It is worth mentioning that he was head of McKinsey. It is also worth mentioning that the Advisory Council on Economic Growth looked into the idea of an infrastructure bank. In fact, that was one of its main recommendations in its first report. Let us talk a little more about how the advisory council saw the infrastructure bank. I mentioned that Mr. Barton was chair of the Advisory Council on Economic Growth and that he also headed up McKinsey. I should also note that Mr. Barton surrounded himself with several people, including Michael Sabia, who would later go on to play a role at the infrastructure bank. A board needs a secretariat, people to do the real work, to take notes and keep things running. However, this particular secretariat was not made up of federal officials. It was McKinsey that provided the employees to work on the advisory council's files on a volunteer basis. It was the McKinsey employees who supplied the discussion papers, who took notes on the discussions and who kept the secretariat running. In committee, Mr. Sabia told us this about the role of the secretariat led by the McKinsey employees: [McKinsey] essentially act[s] as a secretariat, on a volunteer basis. The concepts and suggestions came from the board members. As you know, an advisory board needs a secretariat, and McKinsey played that role. So they have been very involved in our reports and our deliberations. Let us not forget that the McKinsey people were working on a volunteer basis. When he came to testify in committee, I asked Mr. Barton whether these people were volunteering for the government or for McKinsey. I asked him whether these people were paid. He said that they were paid by McKinsey, not by the federal government. However, the report was for the federal government. At the end of the day, they were offering pro bono services while being funded by McKinsey. Was that work truly pro bono? Could it really be argued that McKinsey had no interest in the matter? For example, did it not have an influence over the direction the government took in terms of future economic growth? The advisory council was designed to advise the government on economic growth, and it was McKinsey's people who had an opportunity to exert their influence. That is my conclusion, because when looking at the now notorious first report advocating for a Canadian infrastructure development bank, it is clear that they are no longer advocating for the 2015 version of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, but rather an infrastructure bank that takes public money and uses it to benefit the private sector, large multinationals and investment funds. They want us to bring the infrastructure projects to them. They say they will finance them. Basically, they want these big funds to participate so their money is poured into our infrastructure. Clearly this idea has evolved quite a bit from the original one. It is interesting to see this change of direction. Whether we like it or not, the McKinsey people sort of steered the advisory council in that direction. Could it be that the McKinsey employees knew people who got contracts or money as a result? Was it their area of expertise? I think a lot of people already know the answer to that question. Practically the only difference I saw between the version promoted by the Advisory Council on Economic Growth and the Government of Canada's version was $5 billion. The Advisory Council on Economic Growth recommended an infrastructure bank funded with $40 billion, whereas the government created one funded with $35 billion. Otherwise, they are almost identical. Led by Mr. Barton, what the Advisory Council on Economic Growth proposed was quickly implemented. In fact, about a month after that was tabled, we were already reading federal government documents that referred to a future infrastructure bank created roughly in the image of the one proposed by the Advisory Council on Economic Growth. Global Affairs Canada specifically talked about it at the Long-Term Investment Summit. Was this decision made in the best interest of the public? I do not know. What I do know is that the Canada Infrastructure Bank was a disaster. The Conservatives are talking about it today. The CIB was founded in 2017 and, in 2020, there were virtually no projects in existence. It had no idea where it was headed. It had a hard time recruiting employees. The board of directors was a shambles. No one there spoke French. It was a madhouse. They did not know what to do with it. The CIB was given $35 billion, but they had no direction. In a panic, they called up Dominic Barton. As mentioned earlier, he had worked on the Advisory Council on Economic Growth with Michael Sabia. Mr. Sabia was then recruited to become chair of the CIB. In committee, I asked Mr. Sabia how he was recruited, who recruited him, whether he sent in his CV, how this all came about. He told me that he received a phone call from Bill Morneau. I just about fell over. We are told that the CIB is not political, but it was the Minister of Finance who called him directly to tell him that he had a job for him and asked him if he would accept it. Worse yet, it was not even his department. The CIB is not the responsibility of the Department of Finance. It is the responsibility of the Department of Infrastructure. The minister for another department was calling to tell him he had a job for him. What a wonderfully open, democratic, transparent and apolitical process this was, to be sure. I am being sarcastic, of course. Mr. Sabia told us that when he became chair of the CIB in 2020, it was not going well, that he was there to put out fires and rescue the CIB. However, one of his first decisions as chair of the CIB was to award a sole-source consulting contract to McKinsey. Everything is falling into place. Maybe McKinsey's volunteer work paid off in the end. It was a $1.4‑million contract. That is pretty good money. One point four million dollars is nothing to sneeze at. He gave us an explanation as to why McKinsey was chosen. I am sorry, the document is in English. Mr. Sabia told us, “the decision taken at the time was to use some of the people from McKinsey who had been involved in the initial thinking around the Infrastructure Bank, to draw on their accumulated knowledge.” In other words, given that McKinsey knew the CIB so well, it was awarded the contract so that things would go faster. Since McKinsey thought up the CIB, it obviously knew it very well. It had told the government what to do in the first place. McKinsey got the contract, but this time, instead of telling the government what to do for free, it was charging big money. It is as if McKinsey got a second chance to tell the government the same thing, because the CIB did not really exist yet and had not quite taken form—it was spinning its wheels. It is fascinating to observe that the kind of volunteer work we are talking about is not always completely altruistic. It can sometimes serve private interests. The government does not seem to mind. I asked Mr. Sabia more questions when he came to see us at committee. The CIB was clearly struggling, but before he became chair of the CIB, he worked at the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec and one of his projects was the REM. Well, the CIB just happened to invest in the REM. All this starts to get confusing because everything is all mixed together. The CIB invested in the REM, but before the CIB was established, the federal government had had some money for the REM. The federal government had already invested in the project. It had received a federal grant of $1.28 billion that had been announced by the current government. That $1.28-billion federal grant magically turned into a $1.28-billion loan. There is a slight difference between a loan and a grant. It started out as a government grant. It became a loan from the CIB. Obviously, Quebec did not really come out a winner because it will pay interest on the loan rather than taking the money to the bank and using it for the project. I asked Mr. Sabia how that decision was made and what the process had been from one to the other. He replied, “That was a decision made by the government and...the government informed us of that change.” The government claims that the CIB is not political, and yet it directly informed the Caisse de dépôt of the change. Essentially, the CIB had so little in the way of a track record and so few projects that the government said that it was going to take a project that it was financing, stop financing it and give the money to the CIB so that the CIB could establish a track record. That is basically what happened. That shows that the CIB is not really useful. It is not relevant. The government is taking projects that would have received funding anyway and funding them through different means, through the CIB. The CIB should have been generating billions of dollars, but instead it is generating $1 for every $8 or $10. The government promised extraordinary numbers, a huge windfall, resulting from private investments from all of these great private firms that are close to the government, but in the end, these much-talked-about investments never happened. Most of the projects that the CIB invests in are public projects, projects by our own governments and institutions, whether it be our municipalities, our cities, our provinces or the Quebec state that we hope to be one day, projects that they want and that are important to us. To find a way to make the CIB relevant, the government decided to send those projects to the CIB, but then it claims that the CIB is not political and that it is far removed from government. However, we all know that the CIB is very political. After serving as chair of the CIB from April 2020 to December 2020, Mr. Sabia magically became the deputy minister of finance from 2020 to 2023. Surely, he submitted his resumé as part of a long, open process. I am sure of it. At a certain point, it gets to be too much. No one believes it any more. That is what I wanted to demonstrate. Unfortunately, the CIB is a hot potato that the Liberals are trying to justify. They claim it is useful and serves a purpose. However, what the cities told us when they appeared before the committee, and continue to tell us every time, is that they need money to build infrastructure for housing, water and all the municipalities' other needs. They do not need new federal programs that come with all kinds of criteria and standards that no one understands. They do not want to be forced to hire three or four people to analyze criteria every time a new program comes out or have staff work full-time to keep track of any new programs launched by the federal government and assess their compatibility with Quebec programs. At some point it never ends. Cities want to be given money directly and use it to build the infrastructure they need. We already have a program that works. Give Quebec money so Quebec can invest in infrastructure. It would be so easy, and it works every time. There is another approach we can live with. The gas tax fund works very well. It is not perfect, and it could use some tweaking, but, generally speaking, it works very well. Cities would like to see more money there. Part of the gas tax revenue could be allocated to infrastructure projects. Cities build the infrastructure they need, not what the federal government decides they need. That is different, and it works well. Why not enhance programs like that one, which offer more leeway, through agreements with Quebec for things like the gas tax fund? No, instead the government creates programs by and for Ottawa so it can have the ribbon-cutting ceremonies that party insiders want. At the end of the day, those programs do not work. They are a dead end. That is what I wanted to lament today. I hope the member opposite understands now why all parties except his voted against this bank.

2999 words

All Topics

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

Oct/26/23 11:32:32 a.m.
Watch

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?

150 words

All Topics

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Oct/26/23 11:33:36 a.m.
Watch

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.

143 words

All Topics