44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 26, 2023 10:00AM
- 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
- Oct/26/23 11:57:36 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is a problem with the interpretation. We cannot hear the interpreter.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:57:49 a.m.
- Watch
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.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 11:59:00 a.m.
- Watch
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.
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.”
921 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:05:47 p.m.
- Watch
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?
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:06:51 p.m.
- Watch
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.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:07:50 p.m.
- Watch
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?
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:08:17 p.m.
- Watch
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.
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:09:34 p.m.
- Watch
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?
120 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:10:27 p.m.
- Watch
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.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:11:10 p.m.
- Watch
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—
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:12:38 p.m.
- Watch
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.
57 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:12:55 p.m.
- Watch
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.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:13:04 p.m.
- Watch
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—
291 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:15:19 p.m.
- Watch
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—
42 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:15:32 p.m.
- Watch
That is debate.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:15:36 p.m.
- Watch
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.
54 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:16:03 p.m.
- Watch
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.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 12:16:14 p.m.
- Watch
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 communities.
The fact that the Conservatives would insult indigenous and rural communities in Alberta by calling this, somehow, a slush fund is deplorable.
Let us also talk about Saskatoon and the $27.3 million to the English River First Nation for waste water treatment. This will be the first indigenous-owned waste water treatment plant. Is that more Liberal insiders getting rich, or is it real investment for indigenous communities so they have economic development in their communities and can ensure clean water?
The development of waste water treatment plants allows for economic development and growth in Saskatoon. Are the Conservatives suggesting that the jobs created from this infrastructure investment should be lost and that those families should be sent pink slips because Conservatives want to cancel this project? There are shovels in the ground. There are jobs in communities happening right now. Conservatives would see those employees fired and those shovels put away. It is completely reckless to destroy local economies and prevent local families from being able to provide for themselves because of Conservative ideology. The Conservatives do not believe that they should help build up Canada; they only want to tear it down.
Let us talk about the—
864 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
