Evidence of meeting #50 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tax.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON

I think I know enough now, Chair. Thank you.

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

The one-cent GST came from the big city mayors.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Are you finished, Mr. Holder?

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON

I am. Thank you, Chair.

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON

If the other side of this committee believes that these proposals are only about creating some kind of new tax stream, then feel free to take out those proposals that you feel are somehow creating a new tax stream.

I don't believe they are. I think the purpose of Ms. Chow's motion is to suggest that if this government is spending money on infrastructure—and it may not be, but if we are and if there is going to be a 2014 renewal of the infrastructure program for municipalities—then should we not provide the most comprehensive and well-informed advice to the policy-makers before they design that program? If there are problems with the way the program was administered in the past or if there are better ways of spending taxpayers' money in the future as you design a new program, wouldn't it be smart for this committee to look at whether or not there are better ways?

I like the notion that the federal government act as a guarantor of debt, for example, because there is no money to be spent. It's just backstopping and therefore reducing the debt charges to a municipality so the municipality itself can then build its own infrastructure without federal help. That seems like a no-brainer. Maybe there's a small additional piece of that money, because in backstopping the debt, there might be some that default, and how do you handle that? I don't know, but it would seem to me that would be a smart way of looking at infrastructure generally: staying away from anything that has the word “tax” in it.

A number of proposals in Ms. Chow's proposed amendment would seem smart to study or at least look at. If other jurisdictions have found better ways of spending federal infrastructure dollars, why wouldn't we look at that, rather than limit ourselves to increased private sector infrastructure? Look what private sector infrastructure has done for the city of Windsor and the bridge to Detroit: the company that owns that bridge is trying to block the building of another bridge every step of the way.

Private sector infrastructure is not necessarily the be-all and end-all, but maybe we need to look at the appropriate mix of private and public creation of infrastructure in the context not just of those three very small points, but in the context of how other countries do it. What other ideas are out there?

If we come to the point where the federal government says it doesn't have any more money, it's not going to spend any more money, and the taps are shut, why would you oppose a municipality having the ability to create a new revenue stream for itself when it's deemed necessary and voted upon by the citizens of that municipality?

The citizens of the city of Toronto—in polls, not by any kind of referendums—seem to be willing to pay more if the money goes directly to public transit infrastructure, but there's no mechanism for the City of Toronto to do that. They have limited taxing abilities, including only property tax and a few limited other things that the province has given them. They can't levy a sales tax. They cannot levy income tax. Sales taxes and property taxes are both regressive taxes, and I would rather that everything was based on income tax, but we're not there yet.

The problem for cities is that their tax base only grows if they build, so as a city you can't grow your tax base the way the federal government can. Federally, as incomes go up, so does the tax revenue for the federal government. Every time the average industrial wage goes up, the revenue of the federal government goes up; not so with a municipality. In fact, in Ontario they are forbidden by law from raising taxes through changes in the property values alone. They have to equalize those increases and decreases in property values across the entire municipality and then say that they are raising taxes. They can't do it any other way.

It's a very tight set of ropes around a municipality that make it very difficult for those municipalities to create necessary infrastructure. They turn to the provincial government for help and they turn to the federal government for help. One of the things we are suggesting is that we give them more tools—not necessarily that the federal government give them more money, but more tools.

Why would we turn a blind eye to even looking at that? It baffles me that the people opposite would be so rigid and blinkered that they would not want to study things that may in fact do a better job and a more efficient job of delivering infrastructure to taxpayers.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Okay, I am calling the vote.

It is a recorded vote. We are voting on the amendment.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

The amendment is defeated. We will now call the motion on the main report.

Mr. Coderre, go ahead.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

I have another amendment to propose, if I may.

We would like to add this: “4. The contract allocation process”.

We've said everything we had to say. All that remains is to vote on it, I think.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

I missed the first....

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

After the third point, we simply need to add a fourth one, as follows: “4. The contract allocation process”.

We agreed to examine the second point, which involves more bidders for federally-funded projects. Increasing infrastructure from the private sector side means not only that public funding is contributed, but also that we want a larger contribution from the private sector. We have to take a look at contract allocation.

That does not mean that that would be an extensive process. Nevertheless, I would like us to examine that and include it in our study. And so, let's add “4. The contract allocation process”.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

Okay. Are we willing to add this as a friendly amendment?

Mr. Poilievre, go ahead.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

Just for the sake of structure and eloquence, I think Mr. Coderre's amendment should be included under point 2, because they both deal with.... I'm just trying to figure out how we would structure it. Maybe you would put it at the front of point 2.

What was the wording?

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

It is “The contract allocation process”.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

I think “the contracting process” is the translation.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

And then we would say: “More bidders for federally-funded projects”.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

That's right.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

Agreed.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

The clerk has put in “contract allocation process".

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON

Yes, it would be "contract allocation process" and "increase" bidders. "Increase" works better than "more", given that it's the second clause of the sentence. It will be "Contract allocation process to increase bidders for federally funded projects".

Are you okay with that? That would be, as far as I'm concerned, a friendly amendment.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Larry Miller

It sounds as though we have support for that.

We are going to vote on the main report.

(Motion agreed to)

With that, the meeting is adjourned.