Finance Committee on Oct. 31st, 2011

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I'm going to give the last minute to Mr. Marston.

All four presentations today have identified some key needs for investment. There is foreign aid and development, culture, infrastructure, aboriginal peoples, and the environment. Those are all key components. Now we're being told, and I certainly hope it's not the case, that the government's priority is going to be further corporate tax cuts, another $4 billion on January 1. To my mind, that's wrong-headed.

I wanted to set the record straight, coming back from Ms. Glover's comment about what happened three years ago. Three years ago the government didn't want to invest. We'll all recall, because we all participated in this, that the government had to be pulled kicking and screaming to make those investments. The budget and the government would have been defeated if they hadn't made those valuable investments. Now we're seeing the same circular argument coming back.

My question to each of you is, if you were finance minister, knowing the scope of the need across the country—and we've been hearing all day today from many great Canadians about the needs that are out there—would you be putting all of your eggs in one basket with a further corporate tax cut, or would you be investing in some of the key issues that you've been raising here today to make sure that Canadians are brought forward and that we deal with the economic slowdown? The Governor of the Bank of Canada has been concerned about it. I just wanted to ask you that. You can answer it or not. Would you be prioritizing those investments?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Raven.

[David Raven]

Sometimes the faint of heart should go last. However, let me give you an analogy about a challenge that I have.

I have to buy a fire truck to replace one that's 35 years old. The new truck can lift a fireman 100 feet in the air to service a hotel that's eight stories high. It's going to cost my community a million dollars. We have to really bargain. It costs $1.5 million. We're going to get it for a million by buying a second-hand demo. It's going to raise our taxes. We're going to have to finance it over a 25-year period, so it's going to cost us a lot in finance charges. I was lucky this year, in that I was acclaimed mayor. I don't have to run on that as a political platform, and all the candidates who are running for council are using that as a platform. Unfortunately, it may not buy us the truck we need, and it won't solve the tax problem for the city.

Ultimately, my tax solution is ten hotels that are going to be four stories high. You can't have those unless you have a fire truck that can take people off the top of them. I'm not a politician. I don't belong to any parties. It's a real challenge to everybody, and I just don't have deep enough pockets or tend to be that smart.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you.

Anyone else? I'll go to Mr. Marston if you prefer to talk about it.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

It won't take me long, I don't think.

I actually like the people on the other side, and the thing that is troubling for me is the commentary Mr. Adler gave a few moments ago about the NPD voting against this and voting against that. Part of the reason it happens is that this government has a habit of bundling things together when they know there's a portion the NDP can't support. So ultimately we get to that place.

I'll give you a prime example. It's such an outrageous one that I really don't like to use it. We had a bill go through, a justice bill, and part of the justice bill dealt with children who are molested. We offered to hive that off and treat it separately and pass it in one day, but they said no. I shouldn't say they all said no. I don't take it that way, but the minister said no. So then they put us in a difficult position, because in that same bill there are mandatory minimums that we don't support.

We'll get there somehow, but on other things we've not voted for we have reasons of principle. We've chosen not to vote. It's not a ridiculous notion, and we're willing to work with you. All we're saying is, if you're going to prepare your legislation, prepare it so we can segregate those things and deal with them on a priority basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do the witnesses want to comment on that—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

—rhetorical question?

We'll go to Ms. Glover and we'll look for a question to our witnesses. Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to get back to Mr. Dubeau once again. That will afford me the opportunity to repeat the names of a number of organizations in my riding.

First, I want to get a clear understanding of your suggestion. We've previously discussed your recommendation concerning our commitment. I answered that our government was committed.

We discussed Radio-Canada. I talked to you about my personal concerns. However, I want to be clear: Radio-Canada's services must be offered to all francophones and francophiles across Canada. Without Radio-Canada, the rural regions have no access to necessary, fundamental and essential information.

I want to talk about your second recommendation, that an arts and culture component should be included in the Roadmap itself. I want to know how that might work. The Roadmap contains a number of things, including arts and culture, which are a priority. There is $22.5 million that has been allocated to support for the official language minority communities; $4.5 million allocated to the Music Showcases Initiative for Artists from Minority Official Language Communities; $14 million which has been reserved for the Cultural Development Fund; $12.5 million which has been allocated to youth initiatives; and so on. The community radio station in my area has received certain amounts, as have the Galerie Sans Nom and the Festival du Voyageur.

What do we remove? If, as you told the NDP people, that doesn't result in costs, what do we remove so we can include your arts and culture component in the Roadmap? What do we do?

[Éric Dubeau]

That's a good question. It's quite a puzzle. I would say that our arguments turn around the introduction of an arts and culture component, not next September, but when the Roadmap is renewed. We want to pursue and develop an overall game plan.

However, I don't mean to dodge the question that way. I believe that, in your expenditure review, you are currently examining not only program expenditures, but also those associated with administration and services. I get the impression that priority has to be given to the protection and enhancement of investments in programs and services. That means that we have to find duplication and potential savings in administration and implementation.

I apologize for answering you this way. However, in the introduction to our brief, we acknowledge the fact that the economic situation is very difficult. In that context, we aren't advancing an argument that is without compromise or potential savings.

That's the answer I'm giving you.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

All right. That means we have work to do and consultations to conduct with the organizations in order to do that. However, you aren't suggesting eliminating all the amounts I just enumerated.

We're going to work to find a solution.

[Éric Dubeau]

A number, if not all, of those investments are still very relevant and important. Consequently, over the years, if the economic context ever changes, those amounts should be increased. However, I share your opinion: savings should be made elsewhere in order to invest in this field.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

All right, thank you.

I wanted to make a comment to the mayors about something Deloitte said when they were here before. They said that by lowering taxes you will see an increase in revenues, which is what we firmly believe. And we have seen it. Not only have we seen an increase in revenues, but we've seen an increase in investment to create jobs, from which again revenues come back to the government so that we can use those to pay for things such as infrastructure and increases in health care—that kind of thing.

So I don't want to leave the impression that there's not a valid reason for a low-tax agenda. You are politicians. You have to make those difficult decisions about your fire trucks and so on and so forth. The best way to be able to pay for those things is to have more revenues, isn't that right?

So my question is this.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have 30 seconds.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Would you not agree with us that making business more competitive and allowing more job growth and more investment by companies helps us to pay for those things?

[Christina Benty]

I would agree with you, but as far as the municipality goes, our revenue generation comes from property tax. We don't have additional opportunities to create much—

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

[Inaudible--Editor].

[Christina Benty]

Yes, I recognize that, but for us as municipalities, our revenue generation is solely from property tax, so that's how we're having to make our difficult decisions about roads and parks and sewers. And we in our small communities have to deal with arts and culture, health care, education, and the community expectation is high and the desire to pay more taxes is low, absolutely.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Glover.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here and for responding to our questions and for your presentations. If there is anything further you'd like us to consider, please submit it. We'll ensure that all members get it.

Here are a couple of logistical matters, colleagues. The buses will be here at about 5:10 or 5:15, so please make your way upstairs.

Again, thank you so much for being here today. We appreciate your input.

The meeting is adjourned.