House of Commons Hansard #117 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was federal.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the attentiveness with which my hon. colleague listened to my comments.

I would also reach back into my past and tell him that I was a school trustee during the first Toronto infrastructure program, so I have seen it from several views. It seems to me that he is casting a little doubt on the faith that municipalities and provinces can identify what their local priorities are. I can say from experience that these bodies are very capable of expressing what concerns they need to have met. They are very capable of prioritizing those needs. Two budgets ago when we invested in the green enabling fund that was disbursed through the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, we on this side of the House demonstrated that we do recognize the value and the appropriate input that can be made by other levels of government.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech and the facts do not play themselves out. I do not blame the hon. member; I think she has a canned speech.

I want to ask a question specifically on the Windsor gateway action plan. There was a government program set up between the federal and provincial governments, including a 60 day committee which took eight months. They deliberately kept the municipality out of the process so there was no partnership there.

Their recommendations are to work with two private proponents for a border crossing. They are not supporting the municipality's own border crossing, being the tunnel. They said they will work with the city to help do its own plan for the tunnel but will not provide funds for it, but they are going to provide funds for private corporations, the privatization of roads and services, with public money of $300 million.

They also left out the ferry service. The ferry service is a proposal that actually works to get trucks carrying hazardous materials off city streets so the municipality does not have to police them.

My question quite specifically is why was the municipality left out of the process? Why, unlike the private proponents, is it not going to receive money for its actual programs?

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I guess there needs to be an acknowledgement that any time any level of government enters into a partnership, it does change who holds the levers of power. I would agree with my hon. colleague across the way that all options should be on the table. This is a very important initiative and everybody should have full participation.

I obviously do not know the level of detail to which he is speaking. I would say that in any municipal infrastructure program with which I have been involved, and I have certainly been at larger regional meetings that involved mayors from cities right across southwestern Ontario to talk about these very issues, they have been consulted with quite broadly.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Eugène Bellemare Liberal Ottawa—Orléans, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to address the motion put forth by the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam.

While I appreciate his concern, and commend him for bringing this matter to the attention of the House, I am unable to support his motion.

Does the hon. member not realize that there are many demands today on the government's scarce resources, not just his? I would hope that he realizes this, because it is important for the government to remain firmly committed to sound financial management and fairness in the tax system.

The government intends to continue to follow a balanced approach to managing the wide range of priorities and pressures facing it, as exemplified by measures in the 2003 budget, which I will discuss in a moment

Since the beginning of our mandate back in 1993, two of the government's ongoing priority areas continue to be sound financial management and fairness in the tax system. Balancing these two equally demanding commitments has been a challenge for the government. It would appear that my hon. colleagues opposite have not been paying attention to any of the tax measures our government has consistently introduced since 1993.

The government is fully aware that better economic performance for Canada tomorrow requires a more productive, innovative and sustainable economy today. Our tax system plays an important role in creating a stronger, more productive economy

An efficient tax structure can enhance incentives to work, save and invest. It can also support entrepreneurship and the emergence and growth of small businesses. In addition, a competitive tax system is critical in encouraging investment in Canada, which leads to greater economic growth and job creation.

That is why the government launched a five-year $100 billion tax reduction plan—the largest in our history—which has strengthened the foundation for economic growth and job creation in this country, and helped low and middle income Canadians at the same time.

Need I remind hon. members that, in the course of preparing the 2003 budget, the Minister of Finance was advised by Canadians that his budget must be more than the tallying of accounts. The budget must reflect the sum of our values as well.

The budget the minister presented to this House in February meets this challenge in three arenas of national life:

First, it builds the society Canadians value by making investments in individual Canadians, their families and their communities.

Second, it builds the economy Canadians need by promoting productivity and innovation while staying fiscally prudent.

Third, it builds the accountability Canadians deserve by making government spending more transparent and accountable.

Just as important, the government is able to meet these challenges and pursue significant new investments, but without risking a return to deficits, because of our continuing commitment to sound financial management.

Exactly as I just explained, Mr. Speaker, we cannot support this motion because of the many demands on scarce government resources and because of our commitment to sound financial management.

Our commitment to fiscal responsibility is real and rigid—not just rhetoric—as demonstrated by the fact that we have already delivered five consecutive surpluses, a $47 billion reduction in the federal debt, the $100 billion tax reduction plan, and in our latest budget a $34 billion investment in health care for Canadians.

In Budget 2000, the government introduced its five year $100 billion tax reduction plan, the largest tax cut in history. The 2003 budget builds on the plan to further improve the tax system and enhance incentives to work, save and invest.

The plan continues to deliver growing tax relief—about $24 billion this year, and $30 billion in 2003.

Let me expand on this a bit. For example, 75% of the tax reduction plan was focused primarily on personal income tax deductions. Federal personal income tax reductions under this plan are 21% on average and 27% for families with children.

Key elements of this plan include: full indexation of the personal income tax system as of January 1, 2000; lowering personal income tax rates for all taxpayers; eliminating the deficit-reduction surtax; and substantially increasing tax support for students in post-secondary education.

We have also created a Canadian advantage in the area of business taxation. The government legislation a 7 point reduction in the general rate of corporate tax from 28% to 21%. For this year, the rate has already been reduced to 23% and will fall to 21% in 2004.

Honourable members will recall that we recently debated Bill C-28, the Budget Implementation Act, 2003, here in this chamber. That bill contains several measures that improve the tax system, many of which are directed at helping families with children.

There is no more important investment that we can make than in the opportunities we create for our children. Through this bill, the 2003 budget strengthens our long-standing commitment to Canadian children and families in several key areas.

First, annual assistance for children in low-income families is increased through the Canada child tax benefit to $10 billion by 2007—with annual benefits increasing to $3,243 for the first child, $3,016 for the second child and $3,020 for each additional child.

Second, in recognition of the fact that caring for children with severe disabilities imposes a heavy burden on families, a new indexed $1,600 child disability benefit, effective July 2003, will provide additional assistance of up to $1,600 annually to low and modest income families with a disabled child.

Third, $80 million per year is provided to enhance tax assistance for persons with disabilities, drawing on an evaluation of the existing disability tax credit and the input of a technical advisory committee.

The budget also adds to—and builds on—tax measures introduced in previous budgets to provide support to persons with disabilities.

More infirm children or grandchildren will now be able to receive a tax-deferred rollover of a deceased parent's or grandparent's RRSP or RRIF proceeds, and the list of expenses eligible for the medical expense tax credit is expanded to include, for example, certain expenses for the incremental cost of gluten-free food products for individuals with celiac disease.

Canada's high calibre workforce also deserves the support of a competitive tax system, a fact not overlooked by the tax reduction plan. The 2003 budget further improves the tax system through incentives to save and invest, to help small and medium sized enterprises and boost Canadian competitiveness.

For example, to promote savings by Canadians the budget increases registered retirement saving plan and registered pension plan limits to $18,000 over four years and indexes these new limits.

However, I urge my hon. colleagues to remember that any new tax measures must be done in concert with our commitment to sound financial management. We have to ask ourselves, what other commitment would we have to give up to pay for the proposal before us today? As the minister said in his budget speech, we will not go back into deficit.

I am unable to support this motion and I encourage other hon. members to follow suit.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Charlie Penson Canadian Alliance Peace River, AB

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina--Lumsden--Lake Centre.

It is a pleasure for me to rise today as the finance critic for the Canadian Alliance to take part in the supply day motion put forward by our party.

This is a very important issue for us. We know there is a need for infrastructure spending, infrastructure projects, especially in the municipalities. A lot of that takes place in major cities across the country. We know there is deteriorating infrastructure, whether it be water and sewer projects or highways.

My colleague from Saskatchewan knows the highway system in his province needs a lot of work, and it is difficult for a rural province to maintain that infrastructure. Therefore there is a need for funding to do just that.

A case has been well made for the fact that we have a deteriorating infrastructure across Canada. As I said earlier, when we think infrastructure, we think of primary infrastructure needs such as water and sewer, roads, airports, the type of thing that would enable municipalities to build upon. We do not think of infrastructure in terms of the cultural aspect such as bocce courts or recreation to that extent. There needs to be some basic infrastructure spending.

How can that be achieved by the municipalities that really do not have a source of revenue? After all, in terms of jurisdiction they are a creation of the provinces, and the provinces could certainly direct more money to them, but in many cases there is a pretty heavy load on them already. There is a ready source available for this and that is why we have identified the excise tax on gasoline.

This past year, excise tax on gasoline raised over $4.7 billion. Some people might think this is a tax on gasoline and therefore all that money goes back into the highway system or into the roads system across the country. That simply is not true. In fact only $190 million of that goes back at all. The rest goes into general revenue and essentially is a cash cow for the government.

Members of the Canadian Alliance think there is a need to establish some kind of formula that would allow our municipalities to participate, but we are respective of the jurisdictional nature of this. We do not want the federal government bypassing the provinces and sending it directly to them.

The member for Kitchener Centre spoke about how great the infrastructure program was, which was introduced by the Liberal government in 1994 after being out of office for 10 years. The difficulty with that type of infrastructure program was it was political in nature. The Liberals took advantage of the situation. We noticed that ridings represented by Liberal members received a lot more money than any other ridings across the country, and yet there was a huge need all across Canada. As I pointed out, my riding of Peace River received approximately one-third as much money as the riding in Winnipeg which was represented by the minister of foreign affairs at the time, Lloyd Axworthy. That was pretty consistent across the board.

We have to move away from this formula of picking winners and losers depending on who one voted for in an election. We need to establish some kind of formula that will allow municipalities with deteriorating infrastructures to have some kind of dedicated source of revenue.

There is currently 10¢ a litre excise tax on fuel and it raises about $4.7 billion. That tax room should be given up by the federal government and given over to the provinces. Then the provinces can dedicate that money to infrastructure to the municipalities. If the provinces had already have paid for that need, they would realize it as a gain or would not have to exercise that tax themselves in their jurisdiction. They would have that choice. It is a source of revenue that could be dedicated to the provinces and then ultimately to the municipalities if the government had enough courage to do so.

What do I mean when I say “enough courage to do so”? I mean that the federal government would have to forgo $4.7 billion in revenue. I think we need to explain where that comes from. That comes out of revenue which this year will be about $180 billion.

We have seen in the budget introduced on February 18 that the Liberal government likes to spend. To be exact, it is on a spending spree like we have not seen since the Trudeau days. We think part of it is that the Prime Minister wants to leave and buy himself a legacy, much the way a person would buy oneself some kind of degree from some university down in the deep south, where if enough money is paid they will give out a piece of paper. It seems to me, by the way, that a person who has to buy himself a legacy after 40 years has not been doing very much.

In my view I think the government has a lot of room to forgo that $4.7 billion. Some of that money might come from the Solicitor General's department. I think the gun registry program would be a good place for us to look for it. As well, the Minister of Finance has given a directive to all departments to look for ways that they can go through a program review to cut a billion dollars in expenditures. We think there is a lot more to be cut.

In fact, I would look to the Solicitor General's department. The overrun on the gun registry has been almost a billion dollars in itself and is probably approaching $2 billion. There is a good place to start.

It means that the federal government has to live with $4.7 billion less than it is currently living with. We realize that is a tough time for people who like to tax and to spend other people's money, but I do not think it would be that difficult. I think a program review is the right way to go. We believe that a lot more money than that can be realized just from cutting waste and inefficient spending and changing priorities for government spending. Let me talk about a few of them.

In the waste department, we have seen the scandals at HRDC and the billion dollars that seem to be lost there. We know that the advertising contract scandal continues to bubble. In fact it is raised almost daily in the House of Commons.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

An hon. member

The Prime Minister's museum.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Charlie Penson Canadian Alliance Peace River, AB

Yes, the Prime Minister has the new museum in his riding and it goes on and on.

But there are other areas. There are what we consider to be misdirected priorities. Business grants would be one of them. The NDP used to have a saying: corporate welfare. The NDP wanted to cancel corporate welfare. In my view corporate welfare is still alive and doing very well. Quite frankly, the Canadian Alliance has a problem with corporate welfare too. We think that if Canadians want to buy shares in Bombardier, General Electric, Pratt & Whitney or all of these companies, let them buy shares. They can do that, but why should the Government of Canada be giving these huge companies taxpayers' money?

The government has a very funny program called Technology Partnerships Canada. The government calls it a repayable contribution. Now what is the world is that? At one time the government used to just give them the money through grants, but it had to dress this up somehow because the public was catching on and did not want the government doing that. So now they call it a repayable contribution.

What is that? We have not seen much on the repayable part since that TPC program went into effect in 1995. In fact, there has been only a 2% return on investment for the Government of Canada. We think there is a lot of room for the government to find the resources it needs to put into this kind of program, but it does mean that the government has to slap its fingers and it has to discipline itself. The government has to cut back on spending. We think there are a lot of areas where that can be done.

Who would be the winners in all of this? The taxpayers are taxpayers whether they pay municipal tax, provincial tax or federal tax. It is all the same person we are talking about here, but we do know that in rural and urban municipalities there is a decline in infrastructure. It is old and it needs to be replaced and those are huge capital expenditures. We think a source of revenue that could be derived which is predictable and non-political is the way to go. Giving up tax points means that the government then has to honour that. If the government gives up these tax points and tells the provinces that the 10¢ a litre fuel tax is theirs, it cannot move back in and put another tax on it if it is given up. I think this is the way to go. We just need a government that can control itself and get control of its spending and there is room indeed to fund the program we are talking about. I certainly hope it does take place.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Oak Ridges Ontario

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's points were very interesting except that he maybe inadvertently left out a couple of things. Let me point out that dated April 16, 2003, Alberta will see another $43.2 million directed toward 43 new community initiatives through the Canada-Alberta national infrastructure program.

What does the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association president say about the national infrastructure program? He states that Alberta's “infrastructure needs are always great in our member municipalities” and says:

The Infrastructure Canada-Alberta Program provides a welcome funding boost to support important infrastructure-related projects. The funding support offered by [this program] allows our member municipalities to take on needed infrastructure improvements. Infrastructure is a high priority for municipal districts and counties.

In fact, I have congratulated the Alberta government by telling it that it is the best in terms of how it approved these projects along with the federal government and municipalities at the table. What is interesting, of course, is that here is an example of the Alberta association of municipalities saying that this is a workable project and Alberta has benefited by $43 million as recently as April.

I did not hear the hon. member say this about the benefits. I would like him to respond to that.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Charlie Penson Canadian Alliance Peace River, AB

Mr. Speaker, that is a very strange question. Of course the municipalities are going to welcome it. When Alberta is not used to getting anything from the federal government, $43 million is like money from home. If the government were to give the Alberta municipalities' association a choice of taking it through this kind of program with all of the political aspects or having a dedicated source of revenue through some kind of thing like the excise tax on fuel, I am sure the response from those same officials would be that they would rather have a dedicated source that is predictable and there all the time rather than these knee-jerk programs that come from the government to buy votes.

In Alberta I think the Liberals are still clinging on to a couple of seats in Edmonton and it would be interesting to find out where these grants went to. I know that the past experience is that they had been very politically motivated. I am not saying that Edmonton West got it, but there is a pretty good chance, I think, that this is the way it works. It has worked like that in the past and I am sure that given a choice, given their druthers, people would like to have a dedicated source that is non-political in nature.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Brian Fitzpatrick Canadian Alliance Prince Albert, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am going to bring a Saskatchewan perspective to this discussion and probably one from Manitoba as well. I remember that a few years ago the president of Agricore United was appalled at the huge amount of money that the federal government was extracting out of the agricultural communities of Manitoba and Saskatchewan because of their high dependency on transportation and the use of gasoline and diesel fuel. It was a huge amount, a disproportionate amount, and virtually nothing ever came back to those rural transportation systems.

I know that feeling. Where I come from, when the people talk about a national infrastructure program they think of pork barrel politics, helping out Liberal friends, or spending east of Ontario. That is what the people in my part of the world tend to think. They are very suspicious of any federal government program.

I have a question for the member from Alberta who gave such a good speech on this topic. Is it preferable on a user pay principle to give the taxing power back to the provinces, which I think under the Constitution is where it should be under section 92, direct taxes, or is it better to let some big federal bureaucracy dominated by Liberals decide how infrastructure money is allocated across the country?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Charlie Penson Canadian Alliance Peace River, AB

Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the member for Prince Albert. Even on rail transportation, rail basically pays the excise tax on fuel and there are a lot of bulk commodities shipped out of the west. The prices that consumers and people who ship products are charged is reflective of that. Their prices are higher because that excise tax is figured into it.

As I said, there is $4.7 billion raised from the excise tax per year and only $190 million ever goes back to anyone. That is distributed across the whole country and probably not too much of it in the member's riding of Prince Albert.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Larry Spencer Canadian Alliance Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the Canadian Alliance motion, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, Canada's infrastructure needs should be met by a regime of stable funding; and that accordingly, this House call on the government to reduce federal gasoline taxes conditional on an agreement with provinces that, with the creation of this tax room, provinces would introduce a special tax to fund infrastructure in provincial and municipal jurisdictions.

As I address this motion, I want to bring just a few facts to the attention of the House and to those Canadians who are following this debate.

Currently the federal gasoline excise tax is 10¢ per litre. In 2001-02, the federal government collected $4.7 billion in revenue. Some people believe that the gasoline tax is a dedicated tax for roads, or that it used to be. In reality, the Canadian federal gasoline excise tax has always gone to general revenue. The original purpose of the tax was to increase the government's bottom line and discourage consumption.

In 1975, it was finance minister John Turner who introduced the gasoline excise tax as a measure to “encourage immediate conservation”. Subsequent increases were instituted as revenue raising measures to control the deficit and the debt, the most recent of which came in the 1995 budget, which I will quote from:

To help meet the deficit targets, the budget announces increases in taxes on business and an increase of 1.5 cents per litre on the excise tax on gasoline.

The Liberal government has bragged for years about having eliminated the budget deficit, but it has remained all too happy to continue to collect the excise tax to fatten its own spending sprees. It should be noted that under the former finance minister's watch, Canadian consumers have been and continue to be gouged at the pump by a tax that has outlived its purpose.

Here are a few facts that illustrate how the Liberals have been ripping off Canadians on the gasoline excise tax. Motorists, as I mentioned before, have paid $4.7 billion in excise taxes in the year 2001-02. They paid $2.25 billion in GST on the gasoline in that same period of time. So they paid a total of $6.95 billion in federal gas taxes and GST on gasoline in the year 2001-02.

One of the most interesting parts of this little list of facts is the fact that $329 million of that total amount of taxes paid to the federal government is GST on the excise tax. That is a tax on a tax. That is the Liberal way of tax fairness. That is the Liberal brand of honesty. Not only does the government continue to collect a tax that has outlived its stated purpose, but it adds insult to injury by taxing the tax. That gives the taxpayer a double whammy and the government does it with this little tax called GST.

The GST, as it is commonly known, is properly the goods and services tax. It is a tax carried on by the government in spite of its campaign pledge to scrap the GST. It is a tax placed on consumer spending. It is designed to tax spending on the purchase of material goods. It taxes things like boats, cars, furniture, clothes and food and just about anything we can carry home and some things that we cannot.

The GST also taxes service charges. Repair services of all kinds fall into this category. Again it is a tax on services received by a consumer. It taxes something that is being used by the consumer but at least the consumer is receiving something to his or her benefit, and in a sense that benefit, or at least the expenditure for that benefit, is being taxed.

What benefit is the consumer receiving for meeting the demand of paying an excise tax? It is tax on a tax. How can that be fair? How can it even be legal? Or is it? And if so, why should it be? Why has the public not already revolted on this inequity alone? Does the government think this kind of taxpayer abuse is being fair? Does it think it is being honest? I do not think so.

Many people think that gasoline taxes, especially federal ones, are supposed to be dedicated to roads and highways. As I mentioned earlier, this is a misconception. However, the concept of having this tax designated to highways and infrastructure is one that is well received by the public.

According to a July 2002 survey conducted by the City of Regina, 85% of the respondents strongly agreed that fuel taxes should be spent on highways, streets and roads. Almost 88% of the respondents believed that municipal governments should receive a portion of the fuel tax collected. It is no secret that municipalities across the country, including the City of Regina, have struggled to meet their ever increasing infrastructure demands.

According to the recent City of Regina brief to the Province of Saskatchewan, it stated:

Simply put, cities do not have sufficient revenues to meet the costs of services and infrastructure expected within a city. Cities also have expenditure pressures, particularly for the capital funding necessary to deal with an aging infrastructure.

So the obvious question then becomes, what shall we do? Our motion today, in part at least, attempts to address the issue of the ever expanding infrastructure needs facing Canadian municipalities. It presents a strong suggestion of what we could do. Our leader, the member for Calgary Southwest, has stated:

What we are proposing instead is that the federal government permanently vacate a portion of the federal gas tax, say three to five cents a litre, and allow provinces the option of collecting that revenue. In order to ensure that this money is not used for other purposes, the transfer of these revenues to provinces and on to municipalities would be conditional on signed agreements that these resources would be used for infrastructure.

I hope people understand that this is suggesting that the excise tax be lowered. The lowering of that amount would be designated for the provinces to claim that tax, or they could leave it as a deduction if they wanted to.

What we are proposing is supported by many of the individuals and organizations as evidenced by the following comments which were also in that Regina brief. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation stated:

Gasoline taxes are a user fee and should be earmarked primarily for roadway and highway maintenance andimprovement. In many cases the tax take far exceeds roadway expenditures. In particular, the federal government has reaped the revenue windfall, but has provided only token support for roadway spending. This must change.

Harry Kitchen wrote an article entitled “Municipal Finance in a New Fiscal Environment”. He stated:

Of the alternatives that are generally viewed as possible supplements to—not substitutes for—property taxes, access to a municipal fuel tax would make considerable economic and political sense, especially in large urbanized areas with severe traffic congestion.

One of the problems that we face out in the real world, especially in Saskatchewan, is that the burden for infrastructure and schools falls heavily to those who own property. Property taxpayers are burdened because that is the only area that the municipalities have control over and property taxes continue rise.

Transport Canada stated:

Canada's public road network extends about 900,000 kilometres. Only about 15,000 km are owned and maintained by the federal government, mostly minor roads in parks and on other government property. Some 231,000 km of the national network are owned by provinces and territories...The remaining 655,000 km are owned and maintained by municipal governments, including streets and arterials in towns and cities, as well as the extensive sub-network of rural access roads.

We believe in fiscal responsibility and accountability. Our motion would achieve both these ends and assist our communities in a real and dependable way. I would urge all members of the House to support this motion to give the needed financing to our municipalities in order to support, renew, and maintain the infrastructure so necessary in our communities.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk about infrastructure. I believe that I am splitting my time.

We have very great and special needs for infrastructure in the north. The Association of Yukon Communities has made this case eloquently over the years. We have many more roads per capita and tough economic and environmental situations which make infrastructure costly and the needs very great. We were of course delighted in 1993 when the Government of Canada, which was not normally involved in infrastructure, presented the first federal-municipal-provincial-territorial infrastructure program.

It had great success in Yukon. Every single municipality received funding. There was another fund that went along with it for first nations and many excellent projects were funded under that program. They were funded so well that the program was extended in Canada with another $425 million. After that the Association of Yukon Communities, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and all the municipal associations of the country lobbied for a further extension of the program because it was so successful. It served people right across the country and addressed the needs that were identified by the people and municipalities.

In 2000 the second round of municipal infrastructure was started with $2.65 billion over six years. Of that, $600 million was for the strategic highway infrastructure. Highways are very important in our area for both resource development and tourism. The great Alaska highway has received funds under that strategic highway infrastructure program.

In 2001 yet another infrastructure program was started by the federal government. The municipal programs for water and sewers in our area were also used for recreation and roads. However, across the country, over and above these programs that all these municipalities could apply for, there were some big projects that needed to be funded. They could not be funded under the original program because they would have taken all the money. A special program was set up, the strategic infrastructure program in 2001, with $2 billion to fund these huge projects. This would have a great effect on the provinces and territories, and on Canada as a whole without taking it out of the municipal infrastructure-type projects.

Many of us lobbied for this infrastructure funding to continue. We were delighted in the last budget when 10 more years of commitment by the federal government was made for infrastructure. Another $3 billion was added to that: $2 billion to double the size of the strategic infrastructure fund, and $1 billion for new municipal projects.

On top of that, there are a lot of other projects and programs, some of which I will mention briefly, that also contributed to infrastructure but did not necessarily have infrastructure in the name or were not the common programs about which people are talking about today. For example, the green municipal fund that has been so successfully delivered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities is something for which I lobbied to continue and increase the funds because it was so successful and quite often it was related to infrastructure or assisted infrastructure.

When we had the tight budget year, when there were few things extra that could be funded, I was delighted that that fund was actually increased. Municipalities are using that very well across the country. It is delivered very efficiently by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

I have always been a big supporter of and have lobbied for infrastructure. We need money for highways, so I am delighted with any mechanism that will bring more money for highways. I would like even more than what the Alliance is asking for in this motion. Coming from rural Canada I want to speak for rural Canada and remind people that in rural Canada we have more miles of road per capita, and therefore more needs and sometimes more difficult conditions.

Whatever formula is used must take that into account because if rural people, with all these roads to maintain, happen to go into a big centre to purchase their gas then how will they get a fair share. All this would have to be worked out.

Having worked as a federal executive for many years I am familiar with how the Financial Administration Act works. This is another example where Canadians who are watching and the many seniors who are out there watching, who are so important to us, must be made aware. The Government of Canada takes all the money in from various sources of revenue, taxes and income tax, and then it decides what is important and needed. It does not match the revenues to the expenditures because it would not make much sense if it got less revenue one year and it could not pay enough for a certain area. It takes all the revenues and decides what is most in need and it provides the money that way. That is the way that Canada has financed itself for many years.

I wish to compliment the Tory member for St. John's East who made an excellent list of how allocated taxes have not worked in the past and do not work. If all the money is taken because there is a big year in a set area, then there is no money left for health, farmers, defence or even roads if they are not directly related.

I did want to put a plug in for my old alma mater too, for the great work that the municipal associations have done across Canada in lobbying for infrastructure. Most provinces have one major one but some of them have a rural one and an urban one. They all work very hard. The presidents and boards of directors are all volunteers and put in endless hours to help local communities, and the executive directors are very professional and have done a superb job in the nation.

I wanted to also point out that in the north we have a problem that increases infrastructure costs because of permafrost. Because of global warming we have entire communities and administrations whose buildings are changing. Some areas depend on ice roads for the economy and those cannot be put in at the same time or there may be a lot of open water and the economic drivers cannot get across. There is study going on in this area, but once again, it is another infrastructure cost.

I would like to commend the Government of Canada for its work on the national infrastructure guide through NRC. It is studying best practices in Canada as they relate to infrastructure so that municipalities, some of which are very small, several hundred people, can share the information and have savings such as the case I talked about concerning ice bridges.

I wish to make another point that relates to the north. These projects cannot be set up so that they are just for big cities or projects that are designed in a big manner for people from the south or non-rural areas to consider. Every municipality except one in Yukon has less than 3,000 people and most of them have less than 1,000 people. We cannot have huge project limits like $10 million as a minimum in a town that has 100 people. It does not make a lot of sense so we must be very regionally sensitive.

A couple of weeks ago I was at an Association of Yukon Communities meeting and it wanted to ensure that programs were not bundled into those big amounts. It passed a resolution stating that the Association of Yukon Communities and FCM's northern forum should address the issue of bundling that would restrict small and northern communities from meeting the criteria of infrastructure programs.

I want to commend the finance committee and the Government of Canada for recently recognizing that in the north per capita funding does not work because there are so many more miles of road per person and so few taxpayers, and so many difficult infrastructure problems. The government has altered the allocation of moneys to recognize those important needs of northern infrastructure which is important for both municipalities but also for economic development, and for that I am very thankful.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Rajotte Canadian Alliance Edmonton Southwest, AB

Madam Speaker, I listened quite intently to the member for Yukon. He waxed eloquent about all the good things he thinks the government is doing but I think he should address a few fundamental questions for us to clearly define where he stands. Perhaps he could say specifically whether he supports the motion presented by the Canadian Alliance to have some sort of an agreement with the provinces to vacate the tax room and allow them to have more stable funding for infrastructure.

I would like to ask him specifically, does he agree with the Canadian Automobile Association, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and other groups that say that spending about 5% of the revenue raised by the gas tax on infrastructure is simply unfair, it is way too low and it must be raised? That is the genesis of the motion we are presenting today.

Does he believe that the percentage of the amount raised by the gas tax spent on infrastructure is too low? If he does agree that it is too low, does he see the Alliance motion as a way in which to establish stable funding for infrastructure and of increasing the amount that is actually utilized of the gas tax money that is raised?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Madam Speaker, I always appreciate debating with my colleague, which happens quite often on the industry committee. We have a great time. We often agree actually, but in this case there definitely is no agreement.

I mentioned specifically that I am in favour of much more money for roads, perhaps more than the Alliance is proposing. However, as I explained in detail, and as the member for St. John's East explained this morning, that type of mechanism specifically does not work.

I am also very against transferring a lot of the powers and resources of the federal government to the provinces as the Bloc and the Alliance have talked about in many areas. It is one of the reasons I ran for politics. I believe in a strong federation, as the Bloc member said this morning, where everyone should cooperate and coordinate and work together.

I find it very interesting that the proposals coming from my colleagues whom I have such great camaraderie with right beside me, that so many of them are spend, spend, spend. This item would increase either our income tax or the national debt because it is an extra expenditure. It does not come from nothing.

They want to spend more on farmers, on defence and on health care and those are all great. I am in favour, but coming from me that is natural as a Liberal. But when the taxes and the national debt are increased to pay for all these initiatives, there has to be a right-wing party somewhere in Canada that the people can vote for in the hopes of cutting taxes and cutting the national debt. I think those are admirable objectives, but hopefully there would be a good right-wing party that could offer these platforms consistently so that the people who like those things, which is a fair assumption, could vote for them.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Madam Speaker, I think that we do have a right-wing party being the Alliance and the Liberal Party and that is why the member for LaSalle—Émard has basically tried to steal this idea, I believe in many respects.

It is interesting the government's record on municipal infrastructure is certainly not there. The concern I have with the motion is that we still do not have sustainable long term funding. That is part of the problem. There could be ebbs and flows depending upon the tax ratio and the price of gasoline, all those things.

In the current budget there is a 10 year plan that provides only $50,000 per municipality. I would like to ask the member for Yukon who sits on the industry committee, what could he provide his community for $50,000 per year?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Liberal

Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his comments and for mentioning the member for LaSalle—Émard. In many budget speeches he talked about how allocating taxes does not work. Millions and millions of dollars have been put into infrastructure by the federal government since 1993, which I outlined in my speech. I do not remember hearing in those early times from the NDP that this would be a good expenditure and perhaps the member could write me a letter and show me how he was promoting that in 1993.

I am very happy that the Liberal government members in Quebec, when they put their budget in about an hour ago, recognized that local governments do not have the resources they need. They are going to work out financing with them after having had their funding cut for so many years.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford Ontario

Liberal

Aileen Carroll LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Madam Speaker, I am extremely grateful to the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam for his motion today. I am grateful for three reasons.

First, he is asking the House to address an extremely important issue. The state of this country's infrastructure is critical to the future of all Canadians. It affects our ability to work effectively, grow economically, compete internationally, and to live comfortably and safely. Whether we are speaking of the concrete that makes our roads and streets, or the glass fibre cables that connect our information highways, we are speaking of the infrastructure that helps Canada work. Anything that is that important to this country is extremely important to the government.

The second reason I am grateful to my hon. friend is that his motion makes a proposal that is not uncommon these days. More and more we are hearing suggestions for “simple solutions to the challenges facing infrastructure in Canada today”, suggestions such as the federal government should give up tax revenues to the provinces and cities, or the federal government should make more tax room for the provinces and cities. By addressing this suggestion today, we are very helpfully addressing an issue that has been on the minds of many commentators and pundits across the country.

The third reason I am grateful for this motion is it gives me the opportunity to explain two things. It allows me to explain why the hon. member's suggestion is not workable and it allows me to explain why the hon. member's suggestion is not necessary. These two points will comprise the substance of my remarks this afternoon.

First, why would it not work? Let us quickly review the motion. It suggests that the government:

--reduce federal gasoline taxes conditional on an agreement with provinces that, with the creation of this tax room, provinces would introduce a special tax to fund infrastructure in provincial and municipal jurisdictions.

If we were to read this motion carefully, we would realize that what we have here is no “simple solution” to the challenges of the infrastructure or any other problems. In fact, what we have here is a solution so complex and so intricate that to seriously suggest it is tantamount to suggesting a renegotiation of the Constitution.

Under the Constitution municipal revenue raising powers are derived from provincial powers. The provinces have access to all the major tax bases, including fuel taxes. The motion even acknowledges this provincial authority. Remember that it says “conditional on an agreement with the provinces”.

But let us look at what the motion does not say. Does it say by what proportion the federal government ought to reduce gasoline taxes? No. Does it say what proportion of this new kind of tax room would be allocated to provincial and municipal infrastructure expenditures? No. Does it envisage different needs in urban and rural areas? No.

How are we supposed to obtain the answers to these questions? I guess we will have to negotiate.

Clearly it is true that Ottawa and the provinces can come to agreement. They have done so in the past and they will do so again in the future, but to get 10 provincial leaders in the same room to agree on the same rate of tax to be spent on the same types of infrastructure programs, provincial and municipal, rural and urban, would be an astounding accomplishment. Add to these negotiations the voices and views of municipal leaders from across the country and suddenly the chances of finding a satisfactory resolution would surpass the astounding and transform into the miraculous.

There is, I dare say, a greater chance of Canada's parties of the right uniting under one banner than there is of this motion ever becoming a reality. That is how unrealistic it is. There is another reason the motion is unworkable and that has to do with the principles of good management and common sense, two key principles that guide the government. One of the hallmarks of the government has been its ability to put this country's fiscal house in order while at the same time targeting spending to the priority of Canadians.

This motion would help tie the hands of the government. Excise taxes on gasoline are an important source of general revenue for the government. Federal taxes, including gasoline taxes, go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

This fund finances a wide range of federal programs which benefit all Canadians, and which are important to them, such as old age pensions, national defence and transfer payments to provinces for health care and post-secondary education.

This motion essentially amounts to establishing a designated fund, something the government has always opposed.

Dedicating tax revenues to specific programs limits the flexibility of governments to respond to changing priorities and can result in some programs being overfunded while others suffer shortfalls. As well, making budgetary and long term investment decisions under a program funded by earmarked taxes is difficult as revenues from these taxes fluctuate from year to year.

The third reason for avoiding earmarking revenues to certain activities is that all potential spending initiatives, including infrastructure, should be evaluated independently of tax sources and examined as competing priorities.

Indeed, what if we did come to an agreement with the provinces, an agreement which I assure the House would only be realized after a good deal of blood, sweat and tears? What if, having lived with the agreement for a few years, we realized it was not enough or, what if, after 10 years or so we found that our provincial infrastructure funding pools were in surplus while other priorities were wanting? Would we ask the provinces to go back to the table for yet another round of negotiations? Such are the perils of earmarked funds such as the motion suggests.

As hon. members know, there are many demands today on government's scarce resources. Because of this it is important that the government remain firmly committed to sound financial management.

The government intends to continue to follow a balanced approach to managing the wide range of priorities and pressures it faces. I assure the House that a wide range of priorities includes infrastructure. Indeed, it is my confidence in the government's commitment to infrastructure which brings me to my second and final argument that the motion is not necessary.

Earlier this year the Government of Canada confirmed its long term commitment toward infrastructure by announcing a $3 billion investment in budget 2003. This $3 billion represents a significant down payment for the 10 year federal commitment toward infrastructure. This latest investment brings the Government of Canada's commitment to community infrastructure to more than $12 billion since 1993. This in turn is generating more than $30 billion in total infrastructure investments.

Since 2000 the Government of Canada has set up numerous infrastructure initiatives, each targeting different types of projects in different types of communities.

For example, the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund targets large-scale projects, while the Canada Infrastructure Works Program supports upgrading of services in communities across the country. Other infrastructure programs concentrate on roads, affordable housing, green spaces and cultural areas, as well as the crucial Border Infrastructure Fund.

Thanks to these investments, the federal government is already meeting needs. These expenditures are predictable and stable; they are not subject to the ups and downs of the economy or the market.

These expenditures will improve the quality of life of all Canadians and will stimulate economic growth in all communities in the country, by ensuring that we have top-notch public infrastructure.

Our friends opposite would suggest that by merely striking an agreement and throwing some tax dollars at a problem, we can find a solution. The government knows this suggestion is neither simple nor workable.

This is a problem that needs more than money; it needs vision, the kind of vision the government offers. It needs an integrated approach to economic, social and environmental issues that is key to the long term sustainability of our cities. It needs solutions that will be found in the partnerships of federal, provincial and municipal governments.

The government does not pretend to have all the answers, but I can say that none of the answers to the challenges facing Canada's infrastructure are found in the motion. Therefore, it is with respect that I tell hon. members that I am unable support it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Rajotte Canadian Alliance Edmonton Southwest, AB

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my hon. friend a couple of questions.

First, is she satisfied with the percentage of the revenues that the government collects from the gas tax and puts back into roads and highways? Is she satisfied with it? The Canadian Automobile Association is not. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates that 2.5% of the amount the feds collect in gasoline taxes was invested in roads. Is she satisfied with that or not?

Second, the motion states in part that “Canada's infrastructure needs should be met by a regime of stable funding” and that “this House call on the government to reduce federal gasoline taxes, conditional on agreement with the provinces”. Could she explain how the motion which I just quoted is different from a statement made by the member for LaSalle—Émard, the leadership candidate she is supporting? He stated:

We simply must change the ways cities receive at least some of their funding. If access to a portion of the gasoline tax ends up being the preferred mechanism of municipal leaders, the federal government will be at the table with the provinces offering to vacate tax room.

Would the member please explain to me how those two things are different in substance?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Aileen Carroll Liberal Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON

Madam Speaker, I did not know I would be asked two questions and I did not write them down, but I believe I understood the first one in that there are critics of the 2.5% amount coming from the taxes assigned to roads. I just finished discussing this. I said that there was no conviction on the part of the government that a designated portion would meet the needs in a fluctuating situation. As such, tying it down further or assigning another specific amount will not meet the demands.

The ability to be flexible, of money flowing into a general revenue pot from which an assignation due to priorities can be made, is a far better method of governing, particularly in our fiscal environment.

As to the remarks of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, I am certainly very keen and frequently listen and pay much attention to the suggestions that he and other candidates put forward for discussion. It is one method he is considering. He comes from a strong background as the former finance minister. I am sure he will engage the country in discussions such as this.

As I speak today, the position of the government is as I have described. It is from that position that I respond to the hon. member.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Madam Speaker, herein lies the interesting part of today's debate. It is the fact that the former finance minister has talked about a similar plan, either stealing it or at least borrowing it, and it does not deal with the sustainability element because there are ebbs and flows and a number of different things. The heart of the matter does at least try to acknowledge the fact that there is efficient infrastructure. People cannot get away from that.

In the last budget we have an amount that works out to be about $50,000 per municipality. What can a municipality do for $50,000? Is that sufficient or should more money be put in? When will that happen?

The current finance minister is at least now saying that it is a down payment, a very small down payment, probably about a 5% down payment on a home. The FCM has declared that it needs $57 billion in a deficit. I think under the current budget for the 10 years, it would take until the year 2193 to actually achieve that target.

When will the municipalities receive the proper financial support? It is hard to criticize when at the same time the tools are in front of the government and the member for LaSalle—Émard for 10 years never did give the financial support. When municipalities will receive their fair deal?

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Aileen Carroll Liberal Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON

Madam Speaker, I just finished debating this subject. I advised that the latest investment we have made of $3 billion is toward a 10 year federal commitment. This bring the government's commitment to community infrastructure to more than $12 billion since 1993.

The municipalities are aware of what has been committed. There is therein a stability and not the fluctuation that might occur with the designation from the fuel tax.

As far as questions that hon. members wish to have directed to the member for LaSalle—Émard, I am unable to answer on his behalf. I would say that when the member for LaSalle—Émard is in the House that those questions be directed to him. I am sure he would be more than delighted to answer the member.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John M. Cummins Canadian Alliance Delta—South Richmond, BC

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address this important issue today. It is important for a variety of reasons, and probably for me the most compelling reason is the fact that the municipality in which I live is impacted greatly by transportation problems caused by federally mandated facilities. Let me be more specific.

The first facility would be the Vancouver port at Roberts Bank in the municipality in which I live. This facility has a huge source of truck traffic. The port has grown dramatically in the last few years, especially since the completion of the container port.

When the container port was completed, it was estimated it would take about 10 years before it reached capacity. The fact of the matter is that happened in about three years, and there are now plans on the board to increase the size of the container terminal. With increased size, comes increased truck traffic and that truck traffic goes both ways. Trucks haul containers to the port as well as haul containers away from the port. All that traffic at some point traverses the municipality in which I live.

The second port facility that is worth noting is the Surrey-Fraser docks, located in the western end of the Surrey municipality adjacent to the Delta municipality.

Before I go any further, I should tell you, Madam Speaker, that I will be sharing my time with the member from Edmonton.

The Surrey-Fraser dock facility on the Fraser River is a busy port. Traffic there has grown immensely in the last few years, and all that is business which is good for Canada. Vancouver port officials tell us that every container arriving at the Vancouver terminal brings $1,000 of revenue into Canada. Much of that revenue is enjoyed by the province of British Columbia with a small amount enjoyed by the municipality of Delta. However Canada as a whole does benefit from this trade. The difficulty is the federal government is not paying its share for the roads needed to service these two ports.

In addition to these two ports, it should also be noted that traffic directed to the Vancouver airport, the second largest and second busiest airport in Canada, moves through the constituency of Delta--South Richmond.

These three major federal facilities cause huge traffic problems, not only in the municipality of Delta but also in the lower mainland of British Columbia. The federal government has not come close to paying its fair share of the revenues required to build infrastructure and to service those port facilities. The federal government seems to believe that its responsibility ends at the port gate, but that is not the case. Somebody, somewhere, has to provide the road infrastructure required to allow those ports to continue to grow and the revenue from them to continue to grow as well.

I will give the House an example of the type of problems caused in North Delta. In the area where I live the major road servicing the Surrey-Fraser docks is essentially a residential street but literally thousands of semi-trailers traverse that residential street on Route 2 in any one day. That truck traffic is continuous. They not only carry containers but they may carry dangerous cargo. We do not know. If there were an accident on that road, it is possible that serious harm could befall the residents of the area because the residential area is being use as a major artery to service the port.

The federal government has a responsibility for it. That port is federally mandated. All Canadians enjoy the benefits and wealth that come from the port's existence. In fact we encourage it. It is good for British Columbia and it is good for Canada to have that port, busy as it is, service not only Canada but North America as well.

What is the amount of money that the feds are spending? We are told that federal spending on roads and transfers to provinces totalled $118 million. Two and a half per cent of the amount that the feds collect in gasoline taxes was invested in roads. Only 1.7% of the amount that the feds collect in gasoline taxes and GST is invested in roads. That is a pitiful sum when we consider the revenues that are accruing to the federal government from these ports alone.

There should be federal money dedicated to improving the infrastructure in the lower mainland for the reasons given.

If we look back at 1965, when the Trans-Canada Highway as built, Ottawa paid 50% of the costs. Granted the Trans-Canada Highway was important to national unity. However I suggest that just as important as the highway was to national unity when it was built, an appropriate infrastructure in the lower mainland of British Columbia, which I represent, is just as important if we are to continue to see business develop based on the ports and the airport.

One of the further difficulties is the fact that the gasoline taxes continue to rise. In 1975 when Finance Minister Turner introduced the first federal excise tax on gasoline, it was 10¢ a gallon or 2.64¢ a litre. Today the taxes plus the GST average 14.79¢ a litre. That is 4.6 times the level that was paid when the federal gasoline taxes were introduced.

That is just unacceptable. That is a huge chunk of cash. It is a windfall profit for the federal government but the federal government is ignoring its obligation to make a substantial contribution to the infrastructure which services these federal facilities in my riding.

That is the key issue that has to be addressed. If there are federally mandated facilities, the federal government's responsibility does not stop at the port gate. It does not stop at the entrance to the airport. It must consider the transportation infrastructure that is necessary to allow that federally mandated facility to continue.

We just cannot haul huge rents out of the Vancouver airport or take huge tax dollars out of the Vancouver port without turning some of that money back into the infrastructure.

The money that is collected even now does not find its way into western Canada. In fact, 99% of federal transfers to provinces for road and highway development was spent east of Ontario. We have needs as well. I want to remind the House of our solution.

I want to quote the Leader of the Canadian Alliance. He said:

What we are proposing instead is that the federal government permanently vacate a portion of the federal gas tax, say three to five cents a litre, and allow provinces the option of collecting that revenue. In order to ensure that this money is not used for other purposes, the transfer of these revenues to provinces and on to municipalities would be conditional on signed agreements that these resources would be used for infrastructure.

I think that is a good suggestion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Oak Ridges Ontario

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, the hon. member says that the money from the infrastructure program does not reach western Canada. In British Columbia alone there was $2 million for the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre, as an example, promoting economic support and growth in that area. The fact is that the UBCM, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, has been a long-time supporter of this program.

Yes, one of the difficulties is of course that we have to make agreements with each of the provinces. If the hon. member is not happy with some of these agreements maybe he should talk to the governments of the day, but the fact is that we are getting money into cities and communities because they are municipally driven. We did not propose the Vancouver exhibition. We did not propose to put money in Kitimat or in Kamloops. It was the governments of those municipalities that put forth sewer, water, bridge and other projects that they believe are important.

There is one thing I want to make clear. The opposition continues to say long term funding, and yes, we now have long term funding. We have a 10 year program which the Federation of Canadian Municipalities asked for. We have delivered. We have put our first down payment on this and we are going to leverage that.

I would like the member to respond. How can he say with a straight face that the moneys are not going to western Canada when western Canada has benefited? This is not an east-west or north-south issue. It is a Canadian issue. We have embraced the national infrastructure program. It is only in the last couple of weeks that our friends across the way have even been able to spell the word infrastructure. I am delighted that they have finally come to the table.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

John M. Cummins Canadian Alliance Delta—South Richmond, BC

Madam Speaker, the facts are simple and very direct: 99% of federal transfers to provinces for roads and highways are spent east of Ontario. That is a given. The issues the member mentioned about the piddling amounts for other matters in British Columbia just do not rate on the Richter scale when we look at the amounts of money that are spent elsewhere.

Just as an example, I now have on my desk a stack of announcements by Liberal members from the Maritime provinces, a stack that is so thick, and again, I have only been collecting them since October. These are moneys spent on harbours in the Maritime provinces and yet we cannot get money for dredging in the Lower Fraser River, which is extremely important not only to keep the water flowing in the river but to prevent flooding of a large part of the lower mainland that is protected by dikes. The money is simply not being spent there.

The issues I mentioned, the Vancouver port, the Surrey Fraser docks and the international airport in Vancouver, are federally mandated facilities and all the government does is take money out of those facilities, bring it into the big general pot here in Ottawa and then spend it elsewhere. Some of that money has to come back to support infrastructure in British Columbia. It has to. There is just no question about it. Fairness requires it, but there is also a dramatic need, for a variety of reasons, that this money should be spent in British Columbia where it is earned.