44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 26, 2023 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:34:26 a.m.
- Watch
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?
43 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:34:55 a.m.
- Watch
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.
110 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:35:30 a.m.
- Watch
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?
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:36:34 a.m.
- Watch
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.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:37:15 a.m.
- Watch
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.
226 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:38:36 a.m.
- Watch
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.
194 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:39:34 a.m.
- Watch
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, it supports carbon taxes, which mean Quebeckers will pay even more for their gas.
Why is the Bloc Québécois so supportive of the Liberal government?
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:40:45 a.m.
- Watch
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.
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:41:23 a.m.
- Watch
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.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:42:01 a.m.
- Watch
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.
55 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:42:23 a.m.
- Watch
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.
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.
987 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:49:09 a.m.
- Watch
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.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:50:18 a.m.
- Watch
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.
155 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:51:19 a.m.
- Watch
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?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:52:02 a.m.
- Watch
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.
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:52:52 a.m.
- Watch
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?
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:53:43 a.m.
- Watch
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.
67 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:54:41 a.m.
- Watch
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—
375 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:57:33 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member, on a a point of order.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
