Debates of Nov. 16th, 1999

The House resumed from November 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-10, an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Municipal Grants Act

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to resume debate and to complete my remaining time of about 17 minutes.

The Municipal Grants Act is only necessary because the federal government feels that it needs special treatment in the payment of its taxes to the municipalities.

Previous to adjournment for the Remembrance Day break I had indicated to the House that municipal governments were the backbone of the Canadian economy and that their source of revenue was derived from taxation at the local level. Current high cost items such as the construction of water treatment plants and the upgrading and rebuilding of sewage infrastructure have created a lot of pressure on the revenue side for municipalities.

There are over 4,000 municipal governments in Canada, from the largest city to the most remote rural and northern community. Municipal governments in Canada have a pervasive influence on the economy, culture and quality of life. Municipal governments are major players in the Canadian economy, influencing technology and innovation diffusion and productivity.

Statistics Canada defines productivity as the technical efficiency of production. Municipal governments through investment in public services like transportation have a vital impact on productivity. In other words it costs money to provide services, and federal governments that have infrastructure in municipal jurisdictions certainly should be expected to pay for those services.

In 1996 municipal governments spent $39.2 billion providing community services and employed over 400,000 Canadians. Municipal government expenditures constitute about 5% of Canada's gross domestic product. In addition to the sizeable share of public sector spending on goods and services, municipal government capital spending totals about $9 billion a year, equal to a third of all public advancement and about 6.5% of all capital investment in Canada.

Municipal government asset portfolios include roads, water supply and distribution systems, sewage treatment facilities, street lighting, some public housing, recreation facilities, parks, community centres, and a wide variety of vehicles, buildings, machinery and equipment. Members can see that the needs and the services provided by the municipal governments are much like those of the federal government.

The question is how the municipalities pay for them. As I indicated earlier, it is by collecting taxes, specifically collecting property taxes. Federal buildings require as I indicated the same services as other property owners so, in essence, why should federal buildings not pay the full rate? Canadian municipalities do not have the luxury of either receiving the majority of their funds from the federal government or the option of collecting income tax.

I will read a short excerpt from a background paper prepared by the Parliament of Canada on local municipal government jurisdictions in Europe just to illustrate that there are other ways of dealing with the tax collection side.

In general there are at least two striking differences between the administration of local and regional municipalities in Europe and in Canada. First, almost all European states and local levels of government are formally recognized often constitutionally, and that is not the case in this country.

Second, the bulk of the financing for local governments is provided by the national level of government in most states primarily through grants and other transfers. By contrast the concept of property tax, the mainstay of Canadian municipal finances, is less significant and less well accepted. These two phenomena are common in both federal and unitary states in Europe although there are naturally a number of significant differences among them.

With respect to financing, the German case is particularly revealing. As political scientists Don Stevenson and Richard Gilbert have outlined in some detail, municipalities in the country of Germany receive a negotiated share of national taxes. This income represents more than 50% of the total revenues of most municipalities.

Certain major cities such as Frankfurt receive a lesser share, but only because of their ability to raise significant sums through their own means. However, as the case of Frankfurt demonstrates, this independent revenue capacity is due to its legal ability to levy business taxes, especially on banks. Property taxes on the other hand constitute only 5% of Frankfurt's revenue, unlike in this country where property taxes make up the majority of the funds raised.

The constitution of Germany, a federal state, is equally instructive. It specifically recognizes municipalities and their responsibilities for local affairs. In addition, it anticipates their input in decision making at the national level, which is missing in this country, largely through negotiation. Local governments are miniature legislatures with council members elected on the basis of party lists and forming government and opposition parties or coalitions of parties in each local council.

A similar situation exists in The Netherlands, a unitary state with 12 administrative regions or provinces, but it is a more radical case. Not only are municipalities recognized in the constitution, unlike Canada, but there is a ministry of urban affairs. Its 1986 municipal act actually gave municipalities more independence, lessened the supervision of provincial authorities, and deregulated the processes of municipal councils which operate along partisan lines as well.

With more than half of the entire population located in the adjoining urban areas of Rotterdam, Amsterdam and The Hague, it is perhaps not surprising that some 90% of municipal revenues come from the central government, roughly two-thirds of which are in the form of conditional grants. Like Frankfurt, Rotterdam is an exception to this rule as it raises nearly half of its revenues through business taxes. Once again, property taxes are insignificant, as in Canada, accounting for only 2.5% of the city's total revenues. We can certainly take a lesson from some of these European countries.

Sweden is perhaps the most extreme example of municipal importance and autonomy in Europe. This is all the more significant as it too is a unitary state. Swedish local governments, in addition to the standard Canadian responsibilities of the municipal level, are in charge of education, regional planning and the administration of most health and social services. They receive only one-quarter of their funding from central government grants but unlike most other European examples, they are able to levy their own income tax. That is really different from this country. Roughly half of their total revenues come from this income tax with almost all of the remainder of their funding being provided by fees and charges, not by property tax as we see it in this country.

At the other end of the spectrum are two unusual European cases, those of France and Great Britain. The former is long known for its massive centralization of government programs and a seemingly infinite number of government layers. It is currently in the midst of a considerable decentralization exercise. The outcome is still far from certain with various factions urging the elimination of layers known as departments and prefectures.

One apparently inevitable result of the reform exercise will be the continued existence of the local or commune level to which citizens are fiercely attached and which is viewed as the essential building block of French democracy. At the end of the day its decentralization may well come to resemble the situation already prevalent in most other European states. Certainly the direction of its reform is the same as it is elsewhere, if not the pace.

We can see that this country lags far behind in the reform of European governments. We can see how we differ in terms of taxation. That is why our position is basically that this federal government should not ask for special treatment when it comes to paying its fair share of taxes.

Another issue that has been illustrated is that European jurisdictions tend to recognize municipalities as legitimate entities, something that is totally missing in this country. There have been many occasions where the federal government has been asked by the municipalities for this recognition. The usual answer is that they are the creation of the provinces but I believe it goes further than that.

I remember clearly in 1996 at a Federation of Canadian Municipalities convention in Calgary, the Prime Minister acknowledged the importance of municipal governments as the first level of government, that which is closest to the people, yet at the same time our own Prime Minister will not recognize the municipalities in a legitimate fashion in this very House.

Since that time I have stood in the House on several occasions to ask the Prime Minister to acknowledge the legitimacy of the first level of government in Canada. Unfortunately we are still waiting. That has not happened.

Prior to the November recess I indicated that it was unfortunate the government had not informed Canadian municipalities about the tabling of Bill C-10 for debate at second reading. My understanding is that it has taken many years of negotiation with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the federal government to make these amendments. I am informed that the FCM was very disappointed not to have been informed that the bill had been tabled for debate at second reading.

Our position is that all laws pertaining to both the individual and private sector should apply equally to the Government of Canada, its personnel, its agencies and parliament. We believe in the principle of equality and fair treatment.

Bill C-10 is not supportable. It gives the Liberal government too much discretionary power. The remuneration of the dispute advisory panel is non-binding. It merely maintains the status quo and entrenches into legislation common practices that were put into place 16 years ago.

When we see what is happening in other countries, we need major changes in Canada. We need to repeal the Municipal Grants Act. It is really unnecessary. Repealing the Municipal Grants Act will certainly force the federal government to pay all of its taxes responsibly like all Canadian citizens. We need to recognize the legitimacy of the municipalities and invite them to the table on issues that affect them.

It is time we took a new approach to governance for the people of our country. As we head toward the new millennium we need to find new ways for all three levels of government to work together in a co-operative manner. Co-operative federalism means having all three levels of government at the table at the same time and treating each other with respect.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the Chair to seek unanimous consent that we return to the supply day motion that was originally before the House. There was an attempt made by the government House leader to do so at the close of question period.

I would ask that the Chair consider putting that motion again.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Does the hon. member have the permission of the House to put the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments knowing that his background in municipal government is similar to mine. I was involved in municipal government for 18 years on council in the town I live in of Picture Butte.

The recognition of municipal government and the importance it has in the running of the country has not been recognized fully by the federal government. It is certainly not recognized fully in this legislation.

The payment in lieu of tax system that was put in place leaves a lot of authority and discretion to the minister. That sometimes places municipalities in a very untenable position when it comes to budgeting and working out taxes for their own people.

What more importance does he see municipal governments being given by the federal government? Municipal governments are a creation of the provinces, but in order to bring them into the equation and the discussion, the federal government has to recognize the importance of municipal governments at some time. I would like my colleague to comment further on that aspect of his delivery.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, as we head into the new millennium, as a country we need to find ways to work together rather than to work apart. We have seen over the last decade, if not longer, that there tends to be a greater division between all three levels of government. Unfortunately, the municipal level of government tends to be neglected even more today than it was before.

I would like to redefine what the federal government has always called co-operative federalism. We need to exercise and put into practice the real definition of what co-operative federalism means. It means co-operation. There cannot be co-operative federalism unless all the stakeholders are at the table. There cannot be co-operative federalism if it is a top down approach, that the guy with all the money makes all the decisions. That seems to be the problem we encounter almost daily.

There has to be a new vision and a new way of doing business. We cannot do business unless everyone is involved.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, for the past six years I have made it a practice to visit as many of the municipal councils within my riding as possible. After six years I have discovered that the most fiscally responsible and accountable politicians elected in this country are at that level. Most of those municipalities run their governments in the black and if they do have debts they are very manageable debts. They have assets to deal with the debts.

In some parts of the country such as Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver we have what amounts to city states. They have vast responsibilities with huge populations.

In addition, the resources that the provincial and federal governments obtain come from these municipalities. They tax the wealth that is created in these municipalities. They take huge sums, billions of dollars, out of the municipalities and then design programs to which those living within the municipalities have to adhere in order to get some of that money back.

When I visit the municipal councils, I always leave them with the question, would they support a constitutional amendment that would recognize municipal governments? I ask my hon. colleague that question.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that those who work hard for the people closest to them and who are responsible and accountable and then are not recognized beyond the level that they work, whether it is provincial or federal government, they certainly would welcome being legitimate. Up to this time they are in a way an illegitimate entity or body. They really do not have legitimacy outside of the provincial boundaries as established by the provincial legislation.

It is ironic that the governments that are the closest and the most accountable are the ones which are the furthest removed from the public purse. As many of us know from our experience here and also from past municipal experience, the irony is that the legislation in this House sometimes creates a lot of hardship for the municipal organizations, certainly when it comes to the environment.

They just do not have the resources to put in place all the recommendations that need to be put in place. At the same time they are shipping all the dollars to both federal and provincial governments. They need funds to look after their own budget. Basically they go to the two upper levels of government begging for dollars.

Unfortunately they are not at the table and they really need to be at the table. It would make a huge difference in the governance of the country just to have municipal governments at the negotiation table, or even a simpler beginning would be to keep them informed of everything that happens in the House.

I have found travelling throughout the country that a lot of the information we have here they just do not have. As I indicated in my speech, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was surprised to find that the bill was being debated on the floor here. They were not aware that was happening.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, seeing as how my colleague is a former mayor of a municipal government, I would like to ask him a question. Are there programs that are presently administered by the provinces as well as by the federal government which could best and most effectively be administered by the government closest to the people, the municipal governments?

Are there programs being administered far from the people by either the provincial governments or the federal government that could be better and more cost effectively administered by the government closest to the people, the municipal government?

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Crowfoot for his question. If we reverse the whole system from a bottom up one rather than top down one, there is no doubt that we would have better government and more accountable government.

The biggest problem I have found as a fairly recent member of parliament is that Ottawa is too far removed from municipalities, from small town Canada, unless they are around this region. Other than through the newspaper and television most Canadians do not really understand what is happening here.

The problem is that we have had top down government for too long. We need to reverse that trend. I point my finger at the provincial governments as well. Even though they sing a good song at times, they play the same game as the federal system. I have witnessed that as a former mayor at the municipal level. When it comes to doing the right thing, walking the talk, it is a different matter. They sing the song “Yes, guys are doing a good job and we need to support you”, but when it comes to real bucks and real support it is a different matter.

They put in place regulations and rules that download. We have all heard the expression downloading to municipal governments. That happens federally and provincially. We need to reverse the trend. I reiterate that the municipalities need to be at the table to deal with matters that affect them and their purses directly.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter the debate on Bill C-10. This was an unexpected event for us this afternoon. We were earlier debating a Conservative Party supply day motion. Unfortunately that collapsed due to the fact that there were not enough members of that party in the House, so we are moving on with government Bill C-10.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

You guys would not agree to having it extended.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

The government says they would not agree to having it extended. I do not know why they would not.

Bill C-10 is an act to amend the Municipal Grants Act. Its purpose is to provide for the fair and equitable administration of payments in lieu of taxes. It addresses the issues of compensation for untimely payments, defaults on tax obligations by certain tenants of the crown and by others in the legal system. It establishes an advisory panel to advise the minister on disputes concerning payment amounts. It also amends the title of the act to the payments in lieu of taxes act.

My colleague from Dauphin—Swan River was a municipal politician and mayor for a number of years as were other members of the House who got their political start at the civic level. There is at that level a degree of accountability that perhaps others emulate to a certain degree.

Those who seem to be closest to the people at the municipal level also seem to be the ones who are the most accountable in terms of fiscal responsibility and in terms of delivering services to their constituents and people in surrounding areas. There are those at the local level who are calling on us, particularly the current Liberal government, to emulate our municipal counterparts in that regard.

I received a note yesterday from a constituent making that very point. When highlighting some of the wasteful spending going on by the government my constituent made reference to Bubbles Galore , a film produced not long ago and supported by some hard earned Canadian tax dollars. I share my constituent's concern in this regard.

He asked why the federal government engaged in these kinds of spending activities without giving it a second thought when his municipal government is accountable for expenditures of this type and knows that if it made these types of expenditures the constituents would be down at city hall knocking on council doors.

I ask that question of the government. Why is it that the government does not take the same accountable approach in terms of spending as do municipal governments?

The bill talks about several changes in the current act, one of them being interest payments made after agreed upon dates. It also talks about third party leases and property exclusions. The bill proposes to include some structures and improvements which used to be excluded from payment. However the bill does not drastically change the status quo.

We see that over and over again with the Liberal government. It seems to be willing to accept the status quo. The government wants to keep the status quo and use it as a model for approaching other topics and other situations, one of them being the Nisga'a treaty in British Columbia. Many people are concerned about the implications of that bill just as individuals are concerned about Bill C-10 and the application of municipal grants. The status quo is being presented in this bill.

The people of British Columbia are concerned that the Liberal government is promoting the same status quo in the Nisga'a treaty. It is making the same fundamental mistake, the same flaw, it made with the Indian Act, which it brought forward and has had in place for a number of years. It sets up inequalities and enshrines them in law, which is exactly what the Nisga'a treaty does in British Columbia as well.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

You are obsessed with aboriginal issues over there.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

The member for Peterborough seems to have awakened from his deep sleep on the other side. I am not sure if he will utter scurrilous remarks today as he has in the past. Perhaps he could listen to the people of British Columbia. They would like to have the opportunity to have a referendum on such an important issue as the Nisga'a treaty which will have great impact, not only throughout British Columbia but throughout the rest of the country. It will enshrine in law the treatment of people based on their racial background. That is clearly within the Nisga'a agreement. It is promoting the same status quo that Bill C-10 promotes. Bill C-10 which has to do with municipal grants perpetuates the same status quo attitude in this particular area. It does not address the discretionary power of the minister and the crown in several different areas.

The recommendations of the dispute advisory panel are non-binding. Bill C-10 merely maintains the status quo and entrenches into legislation common practices that were put in place 16 years ago. It keeps that particular problem with the old legislation going forward into the new legislation. That seems to be the approach of the Liberal government. It has to examine things as they are.

Members of the government and cabinet can stand in this place and tell us one thing. They can say whatever they would like in this place. What is more important is to measure the actions that go along with those words.

When individuals say something we tend to take their word for it right off the bat because we are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, when we see over and over again people saying one thing and doing another, over time the credibility of the message deteriorates. We see that time and time again with the Liberal government. It says one thing but it does another. We see that happening with this legislation. We see it, as I mentioned earlier, with the Nisga'a treaty.

We can draw a lot of parallels between a municipal government and a government at least saying that the Nisga'a treaty sets up a municipal form of government when in fact it does not. It sets up a different order of government that attributes powers and rights to the Nisga'a government which used to be within provincial and federal jurisdiction. We think that is wrong headed.

We think that whole process has been skewed. It has not received proper treatment from the government. We saw how it dealt with that bill in the House. It limited debate through time allocation and closure. We see it in question period. When opposition members rise to ask important questions about that particular piece of legislation the government is happy with the status quo attitude. It says everything is fine and that we should trust it, that it will take care of this legislation. It is the same with that piece of legislation and this one over here. What has happened is that the actions that back up those words are simply not there. The credo of the Liberal government is to keep everything going the way it is.

The Nisga'a treaty is not even supported by the leader of the official opposition in British Columbia who happens to be a Liberal, Gordon Campbell. He put out a news release and wrote a letter to the Prime Minister on the treatment of this legislation and said that the way it was handled was not appropriate.

Others have said that Bill C-10 is a piece of legislation that needs further scrutiny. My colleague from Dauphin—Swan River talked about how the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was not aware that it was to be the topic of debate. However, here it is. We would think there would have been more consultation on it before bringing it to the House because it will have such a big impact on local governments.

Some of my colleagues at the local municipal government level will ask me when I am back in the riding if the federal government has any understanding of the fact that they are neighbours with other individuals and other municipalities. Does it want to establish another order of government? This is with specific reference to the Nisga'a treaty and how it sets up another form of government.

The mayors of some of my communities have told me that they have to, by law, consult with one another when there is an impact along one of their borders with another community so that what is done in one community does not negatively affect another municipality. They may also work out an arrangement for the sharing of services, whether it is snow removal or whatever the particulars are of the local area.

A question that has been asked by some of the mayors in my community about the Nisga'a treaty is why this other form of government has been put in place with no structure in terms of consulting with the other local jurisdictions. They wonder how the sharing of services will work. They have concerns about when that template being used in the Nisga'a treaty will be applied to other jurisdictions, particularly around the lower mainland area of Vancouver and the surrounding areas where there is not a lot of land to be divvied up to different groups, that there will have to be some kind of an arrangement made. They are asking why it is that the government has not considered those factors in relation to the Nisga'a treaty.

We would say that perhaps it is a notion that again falls into that status quo, the status quo approach the government has to governing. Whether it is Bill C-10, the Municipal Grants Act, or any other piece of legislation in this place, the government seems to simply be on autopilot.

I would like to refer to some of the information that Gordon Campbell has directed toward the Nisga'a treaty. He is a member of the British Columbia legislature who got his start in municipal politics and who was the mayor of Vancouver. In referring to the motion the government made, he said:

The motion this morning...to invoke closure on the Nisga'a treaty debate is a reprehensible abuse of democratic processes.

That was the B.C. Liberal leader, Gordon Campbell, who said that. He said:

This is an egregious abuse of democratic process, and shows flagrant contempt for all British Columbians. It's an unacceptable slap in the face to our province, and to all Canadians who deserve a full and open debate on this landmark treaty.

On a matter of this critical importance to our country, to our province and to our constitution, every Member of Parliament deserves the right to speak. Every Canadian should demand the right of their MP to speak. To put this in context, we wouldn't for a moment dream of shutting off debate on a change to the constitution affecting Quebec, but that's exactly what the government's doing to B.C.

It was a Liberal leader who made that claim. He goes on to say:

In just a few short hours, debate on this treaty will be slammed shut forever, and there isn't a chance in the world that anywhere near a majority of opposition MPs will be able to speak to it in that time.

It was appalling when the NDP government shut down debate on this treaty, and denied British Columbians' elected representatives the chance to even ask questions on 11 of its 22 chapters. But the federal government's conduct defies description. Once this treaty is passed, it will be set in constitutional concrete forever and cannot be changed. We only had one chance left to speak to this treaty on behalf of British Columbians, and now the federal government is denying even that. The surest way to shatter public trust and confidence in the treaty process is to limit debate on what these treaties actually say and do. The federal government should be doing all it can to open up the treaty process. This is a dangerous step on the part of the federal government that will only further undermine public trust.

Those are the remarks of the leader of the opposition, the man who would seek to be premier of the province of British Columbia and who is a Liberal himself, and his opposition to the Nisga'a treaty. As I stated, he is a man who got his start in politics at the municipal level. Of course we are talking about Bill C-10 and municipal government and here is a man who has that notion of accountability, as many in this place do.

I know members of the Liberal Party who got their starts in civic politics. Some of them are here today. They did an admirable job at the municipal level. I think they are here because they have the purest of motives to make positive changes in this place. Yet the process is skewed against those who would want to make the positive kinds of changes they know are effective and work at the local level.

Under the Liberal government, there is a process in place that limits the role of members of parliament in terms of those who are on the backbenches. There is a limited role in committee and a limited role in other areas. They do provide an opportunity for some input and some debate on topics, but certainly not to the degree that most of them hoped they would have had as members of the government: to enact, direct and help their own government make the necessary changes within its own ranks to become more accountable and more democratic. I think some of them are truly disappointed. Those who have been here since 1997 are seeing that after two years that impact is not being made.

There are many members of the opposition who feel the same way. The accountability they sought, to work hard at the local level, is simply not a concept that seems to be getting through here to the Liberal government. Whether it is Bill C-10, the Nisga'a treaty or other legislation, the government has a status quo approach that everything is okay. We are to trust it, throw it the keys to the car and it will drive it. We can see that the car is going off the road. It is going to crash unless there is a change of heart by the government but we do not think there will be. That is why we will continue, as members of the official opposition, to put forward other ideas and another vision for the country. We will work to take the place of the government because that is our ultimate goal.

We can work from the opposition benches to make positive changes to impact on the government, but it is now at the point where after six years of governing the country, it is starting to show some of that same arrogance the government before it showed after being in office for a long period of time. It is time for a change.

If a group does not back up its words with actions, its credibility suffers. That was alluded to in the letter I read of the leader of the Liberal Party in British Columbia. That is what people are seeing at the local level as well. If federal politicians are not going to do what they say they are going to do, how is it that we can trust them to govern the country?

The people of British Columbia and right across the country are getting to that point. It is unfortunate because cynicism works into the hands of the government. To those individuals who say, “What is the use? I cannot change the system. My voice cannot be heard”, we encourage them to stay engaged and involved in the process. As they do get engaged in the process, change can be made. There are other groups out there that do get involved in the process.

We know that the Liberal government is disengaging itself from the process. It has decided what its approach is going to be. When government members go out to consult, we really believe it is simply an exercise in public relations, an opportunity to go out and give their message to other people.

I spoke with an individual over the last break who sat in on one of these Liberal western alienation task force teams. I like to call it the western alienation rescue team, or WART. They came to western Canada. This individual said that at the public meeting there was a committee of Liberal senators and members of parliament and that there were three people in the room. The panel of MPs and senators were quite surprised that this individual was able to find the meeting. It had not been publicly advertised. It was a meeting they had set up so they could say they had a meeting. This individual had to go to great lengths to find out when and where the meeting was going to be. That is the kind of consultation the government has put in place when it visits western Canada.

The Liberals wonder why they are so lacking in members in western Canada. It is because they have simply stopped listening. The Nisga'a treaty and Bill C-10 are perfect examples of that. We wonder what kind of consultation process has been undertaken with the municipalities on that.

We think it is time for the government to either wake up or get out of the way and let another group govern that is going to listen to people, be accountable and make the changes necessary to put the country on the right track.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure the other week to speak on Bill C-10. I first want to say, as a former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, that when the member opposite asks about saying one thing and doing another, Bill C-10 is an excellent example of doing something in consultation. In fact, when the original freeze on payments-in-lieu-of-taxes was brought in in December 1992 by the previous Conservative government there was no consultation.

Since 1993, this government has worked tirelessly with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities establishing, for example, the technical committee which reviewed the whole issue of making payments on time, making sure that they pay interest if they are late and making sure that if they want to appeal they go through the normal process.

Some of my colleagues on the other side, including my friend for Brandon—Souris, was on the national board of the FCM at that time. He, among others, spoke very loudly about what the Conservative government had done at the time in not putting private companies on a level playing field with public companies like the CBC given the fact that it was getting a 10% discount.

I would point out to the hon. member, when he talks about actions, that it was this government in 1993 that embraced the national infrastructure program. Unfortunately, none of the parties on the other side embraced it in 1993. It has created over 125,000 direct and indirect jobs. It has been announced again in the Speech from the Throne that by the December 2000, with the co-operation of municipal and provincial governments, we will have a new national infrastructure program.

We talk about the environment, the 20% club. This government initiated with municipal governments across Canada to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% over 10 years.

We talk about urban crime and safety issues. In 1997, I had the pleasure to be on the team Canada mission with the Prime Minister to Asia. I had mayors, some from communities across the way, who were on that mission. It was the first time in the history of federal-provincial-municipal relations that we were able to have a meeting. As president, I had a meeting with the Prime Minister and the premiers in Manila in 1997 to talk about infrastructure. The Prime Minister listened to those issues and in the end the program was extended.

We talk about community energy programs where we are trying to reduce CO2 emissions to improve the energy in the country. It is this government which embraced with the FCM that program.

We talk about actions. I would point out that in November 1996 I had the pleasure of addressing the first ever federal-provincial environment and natural resources ministers conference on these issues dealing with the environment.

When we talk about co-operation and talk about listening, the government needs no lessons from the Reform Party. The government needs no lessons when it comes to working in concert with municipal governments. Maybe we could eliminate the middlemen, which would be the provinces.

I should point out to the member that he is in error. Two weeks before this bill was introduced in the House, the FCM was given a full briefing on Bill C-10. It was introduced at first reading in the House on October 27. I believe that after second reading it goes to committee, and I know the FCM will be there. The FCM has supported all along the fact that we want to have ground rules that we can all agree to. We have that. This legislation has been drafted to deal with those issues.

Would my hon. colleague across the way like to comment on any of those things given the fact that when we talk about actions and co-operation I have tried to outline those very briefly for him?

I had a longer opportunity the other week to talk about some of the real issues that the federal and municipal governments have been able to deal with. My good friend from Dauphin—Swan River, who was a municipal mayor, was certainly involved in terms of dealing with issues and looking at the response of a national government when it dealt with these kinds of very important issues for the community, again remembering that there is only one taxpayer.

If the hon. member would like the make any comments on those observations, I would be delighted to hear them.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would certainly love to respond to some of the comments made by my colleague.

He first said that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities was given a full briefing. I do not dispute that fact. It was not aware that it was coming back for second reading in the House even just before the break week. There is also the idea of the infrastructure program, which he mentioned as being a good program. That was proposed by the municipalities, not by the Liberal federal government. Once again, that is what the government does. It takes somebody else's idea and passes it off as its own. That is what it did with the infrastructure program. That is exactly what it does. It is no different with this program.

He talked about the municipal infrastructure program. Guess what? The timing of those big signs that went up across the country just happened to coincide with the federal election. I am sure it was a coincidence—

[An hon. member]

No, they came after the election.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Shortly after, as a thank you to those areas, and now we hear that there is another infrastructure program coming up. That is fine, but is it going to be coinciding with another federal election? I wonder.

The member talked about CO2 emissions and energy. There are a lot of CO2 emissions that need to be taken care of on that side of the House, right here in this place.

I wonder if the member could comment on the slash and burn approach to health care and education spending that this government has taken since 1993. That is what municipal councillors are talking to me about: When is the federal government going to restore the money it gutted from health care and education? The slash and burn Minister of Health likes to talk about the money reinvested in health care, and it is great that he has reinvested it, but he is hardly even at half of what he cut from health care and education spending.

I do not know how it is that this member and other members of the government can stand in their places and defend that kind of record.

He talked about trade missions with the Prime Minister. I am glad he had an opportunity to visit with the Prime Minister. Maybe the Prime Minister could take a trade mission out to British Columbia. Perhaps he could visit some of the communities that are talking about the Nisga'a treaty and maybe talk to individuals about concerns they have with that, or about the high rate of taxes he is imposing on people in British Columbia and across the country. Perhaps he could take a little fact finding mission on those areas of concern.

The member asked me to comment on those. He made wide ranging generalizations and I am going to respond to every one of them.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member gave his speech. We are now into questions and comments and there might be other members on this side who wish to make them.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The period is called questions and comments.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was not quite finished with my answer, but I will wrap it up. If the member wants to ask me another question, I would be more than happy to respond to her question too.

As I was saying, this Liberal government has slashed and burned health care and education spending. It has done that. Those are the actions. The member for Oak Ridges talked about actions. Those are the actions his government is responsible for. People within the local ridings and communities are asking when the federal government is going to restore the funding. It has taken the approach of slashing and burning health care and education spending since 1993. When is it going to restore those dollars to the people who need them most, the people at the local level, within the municipalities and the provinces, rather than taking this hide and seek approach in Ottawa?

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did notice that the member for Dewdney—Alouette managed to try to get in another speech rather than simply responding to a question and comment from this side of the House. However, I want to pick up on his comments about this party stealing ideas.

I was a member of the board of directors of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities when the infrastructure program was developed, as was the current Minister of National Defence, the man who was the first minister for infrastructure in this government. As such, I would like to tell the member that this government brings good ideas to government. It does not steal them from anywhere. There are a number of us who contributed, and contributed very strongly, to making sure the infrastructure program we supported as municipal politicians was implemented by the government we chose to become part of.

As a member of parliament for the national capital region I would like to tell him that I am one of many who worked with our minister to bring forward very progressive legislation on municipal grants. We understand fully well the importance of this grant system, grants in lieu of taxes, to our municipalities. This is not a flash in the pan. This is not a stolen idea. It is an idea that many members on this side of the House worked very hard on with our ministers and with our Prime Minister. The member should be saying thanks instead of being critical.