House of Commons Hansard #4 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was municipalities.

Topics

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Bonwick Liberal Simcoe—Grey, ON

Child tax benefit. You're not answering the question.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:50 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

Myron Thompson Canadian Alliance Wild Rose, AB

He is awfully noisy. Maybe he should listen for a second.

Most of the people I know in my riding--the hard-working, tax-paying, pack a lunch and go to work every day kind of guys--never saw it on their paycheques. They never saw it once. Why? Because for every deduction that they have on their income tax, there are all kinds of increases in so many other areas that it is gone.

Those members say, “Oh no, EI is not a tax, it is an insurance program, how dare the member even talk about that”, and as for CPP, this has to be done, and as for the GST, on and on it goes. It is always replaced with something.

This is one thing that frightens me about taking the GST and giving it back to the cities. It worries me. Where is the money-hungry government going to get the money to replace that? Is it going to tax somebody else in another way to get that money back? It has illustrated over and over again that its desire to tax is a great deal higher than it admits.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

11:55 a.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Moore Canadian Alliance Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond in this debate on the Speech to the Throne, specifically in my role as the transport critic for the official opposition. I want to focus specifically on the new deal for cities that is much hyped, with very little delivered, in the throne speech.

In order to understand how this so-called new deal for cities is not very new, it is important to know just precisely how out of step this Liberal government here in Ottawa is, both with our neighbours and with all Canada's provinces, with regard to the spending of gas tax dollars. At the provincial level in Canada, on average 91.6% of all provincially collected fuel taxes is invested into transport related infrastructure projects. In the United States, 84% of federal gas taxes is earmarked specifically for highway and infrastructure improvements.

Ottawa, by contrast, puts fuel excise taxes into the consolidated revenue fund, general revenue, from which it is doled out for various government schemes and projects. We are talking about a huge sum of money. Last year, the federal government collected $4.7 billion in federal gas taxes and, on top of the $4.7 billion in gas taxes, $2.2 billion in GST on the cost of fuel and a tax on the excise taxes themselves. That is a total of $7 billion every single year, or roughly $220 for every man, woman and child in Canada, that is collected at the pump in gas taxes.

If we were to ask the average citizen standing at the gas pump for $220, he or she might want to ask what that money would be going for. In any of the provinces and in the United States, the answer is that the money is used to improve infrastructure and roads in those jurisdictions. However, a Liberal politician would be forced to say that the money goes into the general revenue piggy bank and is spent on other projects, such as the billion dollar, useless gun registry, $161 million in corporate welfare to the current Prime Minister and his company, Canada Steamship Lines, and billions of dollars in corporate welfare, and a mere $4 to $22 is spent on roads and infrastructure respectively.

What the Liberal politician would not tell the motorist but what every Canadian knows is that the closer we get to an election call, the more money Liberals like to spend on roads. According to the throne speech and clarified by the Prime Minister's response to it, I understand that as of February 1, 2004, the GST paid by municipalities will be credited back to them. Rebate cheques are due to start flowing in time for the upcoming federal election. The amount of the rebate is expected to be about $580 million every single year or at the rate of about $48 million every month as an election is just about to be called.

That $48 million must be seen in perspective. In all of 2001-02 Ottawa sent only $118 million to provinces for roads and highway improvement. Now municipalities are promised 40% of their annual amount every single month in the coming three months as we head into an election campaign. It is quite simply a spending spree within 60 days of an election call and within 90 days of election day itself.

There is nothing whatsoever new here. This is simple, typical, Liberal vote buying politics of writing cheques to other levels of government with an IOU expected on election day, which could be as little as 90 days away from today.

Just as there is nothing fundamentally new in this arrangement, there is also nothing new in the deal itself. This is not a new deal. When Canadians think of a deal, they think of a negotiated agreement that leaves parties demonstrably better off. There is no evidence of a new deal. Rather, it is desperate acceptance by municipalities of the small crumbs that are being given to them by the federal government.

Had the cities been in a genuine bargaining position, they would have asked for funding that is reliable, stable, transparent and visible, with low administrative and compliance costs. They would have asked that it be new net money, not simply GST relief. The scheme the government has set up really is innocuous.

The number one problem with the GST in this country is not just that it is simply a tax on Canadians but also the administrative costs associated with the GST. Here is what the government has now said it is going to do, for example, for the city of Port Coquitlam; the mayor of Port Coquitlam is in town this week. Basically what the government has set up is that if a city or a municipality buys new snow removal equipment or salting trucks and so on, they pay GST on it. They do not pay the full 7% GST that everyday Canadians pay; they pay about 4% GST. The federal government is now saying that effective February 1 of this year municipalities will receive a rebate cheque for the GST they are paying on the buying of new equipment or for their expenditures.

What this does is further complicate the GST. It further complicates the tax code. It creates new loopholes that make the GST even less efficient. It puts the federal government again in the position of cutting cheques to other levels of government rather than giving them a new source of funding, a new, stable level of funding. The only way the municipalities get any kind of money at all is if they already spend money.

Specifically, as my colleague from Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar pointed out, rural municipalities, shrinking cities in British Columbia, cities like Port Coquitlam and places that are dealing with urban sprawl do not have new money to spend from which they would get a GST rebate.

There is an overall macroeconomic problem in the country, as per our Constitution and as per the services that Canadians expect. Two-thirds of the services that Canadians are provided with and enjoy from their levels of government are given to them by the provinces, subsequently by the municipalities but overwhelmingly by the provinces. The problem is that the federal government collects roughly two-thirds of the tax dollars that are expended by Canadians. There is a major disconnect.

We believe in honouring the Constitution of 1867 with delegated, enumerated and limited powers specifically to certain levels of government. The fact is that 99% of all roads in the country are engineered, built and maintained by the provinces and municipalities but half the cost of a litre of gasoline is taxes and half of those tax dollars go to Ottawa. This new deal for cities that was announced in the throne speech says nothing about starting the process to go down the road to giving those gas tax dollars to the level of government that is providing those services. This is where we get into the disconnect.

One level of government is responsible for providing services, another government taxes the money away while saying, “We will decide what roads get built, we will decide how it is done and by the way, we will cut the cheques just in time for an election campaign so everyone knows whom to thank and whom to elect in the ridings”. It is a cynical kind of politics that is precisely at the core of the democratic deficit which the Prime Minister preaches against.

Canadians want transparency, accountability and straight lines. If they are taxed for something, they expect it to go to that service. What we see in the throne speech is the further eroding of our tax code, creating huge loopholes that are open to abuse and making the GST even less efficient than it was before, which was already tremendously inefficient. What we are not giving to the municipalities is a new deal.

When a presumptive Prime Minister, when he was running for the leadership of the Liberal Party, stood up and said, “We are going to have a new deal”, that hearkens back to F.D.R. and his grand view of social programs for the United States and the fallout of the 1929 Great Depression with new programs and social programs, establishing the safety net, making sure people do not fall behind, a new deal, a macro big program and a plan to get people going, to get a country ahead. “We have nothing to fear but fear itself”, he said.

A new deal; all that the Prime Minister's new deal has boiled down to is if we buy something, the federal government will give a rebate on some of the taxes but we have to buy it first and we will get some money just in time for an election campaign. It will be nice cheque. There will be a Governor of Canada stamp and it will be accompanied by a signed autographed picture of the Prime Minister just so that everyone remembers who the money was from.

That is essentially what the program is. The municipalities need new and stable funding. Some 85% of Canadians are living in and around cities. The municipalities need the gas tax dollars to make the needed expansions, to do the things they need to do so that they can grow, build and move forward.

The federal government needs to vacate the tax room. Two-thirds of the services are provided by the provinces but two-thirds of all tax dollars are being consumed by the federal government. We need a better equilibrium in that formula. We believe in stepping back, getting the federal government out of that tax room and giving it to the provinces so that Canadians have greater accountability from the levels of government that are providing those services.

We have seen the horror show in health care where the federal government has stepped into an area that is constitutionally provided for the provinces. It gets in there, buttresses itself in there so that it can play politics, look good, provide services and be seen as the compassionate, bleeding heart Liberal government being all things to all people. The average everyday citizens do not care who gets credit for giving programs. They do not care about that sort of stuff. They want services.

In rural Saskatchewan the roads are crumbling. There are gravel shoulders, the roads are unsafe, there are howling winds and there are no runaway lanes for trucks that are out of control. We do not have the basic things that Canada needs. It is the second largest land mass in the world. It is very thinly populated, spread out across the southern border of our country.

We need infrastructure. As per our Constitution that infrastructure is built, engineered and maintained by the provinces and municipalities. They do not have the money they need to get that job done.

The Prime Minister ran for office saying he was going to give a new deal. He has failed to do that in the throne speech. He has failed to sit down. He has failed to honour the House. In October last year we voted, along with the Prime Minister, that the government immediately have negotiations with the provinces and municipalities to do precisely what I have described, to roll back that balance of the two-thirds of the services provided by the provinces and the two-thirds of the taxes going to Ottawa.

He has failed that test. He has failed to honour and respect the House. The Prime Minister's new deal for cities is a sham. It is becoming a new deal for suckers. The democratic deficit which he said he was going to end will be expanding in two ways: by not honouring the vote in the House to give permanent, steady, new funding to municipalities and provinces; and also by failing to give Canadians the overall economic solution of making sure that the levels of government that provide the services are taxing at the appropriate level so citizens can get the government that they want at the price tag they expect. They do not want to see the cynical Liberal shell games that we are seeing with this throne speech of cutting cheques just in time for an election campaign. Canadians deserve better.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:05 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Liberal

Paul Bonwick LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development (Student Loans)

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for a well thought out and passionate speech about supporting smaller communities.

I do not disagree with the premise that the federal government needs to play a larger role in helping to offset some of the costs that municipalities have been asked to bear. I would suggest there are more reasonable ways to do it than simply allowing the provinces to make the decisions as to how the municipalities are going to spend their infrastructure dollars. In that regard the elimination of the GST puts money in their hands immediately.

I would ask the hon. member to take some time and call some municipalities within his own riding. He should ask the treasurers about the financial impact the elimination of the GST will have on some of the smaller communities. To use mine as an example, according to the treasurer of the town of Collingwood it is going to save somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200,000 a year. He said that this is not a huge burden, that there is not a lot of red tape in dealing with it. Wasaga Beach is going to save almost $400,000 a year.

I can only assume that like-sized municipalities in the member's riding are going to save the same kind of dollars. Has the member taken the time to call the treasurers? If he has not, would he make a commitment to the House today to call the treasurers to find out what the financial impact will be?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Moore Canadian Alliance Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, I talked to a Port Coquitlam city councillor yesterday actually and outlined what the government was planning on doing with regard to GST relief, that it would mean immediate money on their purchases on February 1. The city councillor's response was nothing.

The parliamentary secretary opposite has it precisely right. He said the benefit of this program is that cheques will start going out now. Municipalities will get the money right now. However the benefit is more political for the government than money for the cities. The benefit is immediate cheques cut by the government with IOUs just before an election campaign.

Before the member shakes his head and gets flustered, I will say that the benefit of this is that the money does start rolling now and that is fine, but it is not the long term solution. This is not a macro new vision, a new deal.

The Liberal government has been in power for a decade. When the Prime Minister was the finance minister he presented nine budgets. A majority government could have done this at any time. This is not a time crunch. Cities are not panicking. This is not a matter of cities needing money and cheques being cut immediately. The Liberal majority government had a decade to get it done and to rebalance that fiscal imbalance that I talked about. Two-thirds of the services are provided by the provinces. Two-thirds of the tax dollars are being consumed by the federal government. Yet the Liberals want a pat on the back because they are cutting cheques now before an election.

We need systematic, fundamental change and a rebalancing of fiscal federalism in this country so municipalities get steady financing. We do not need these kinds of cynical games.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will note that many of the themes in the Speech from the Throne have a large ticket price to them. Generating new revenue is difficult.

I wonder if the hon. member would share his views with us about what I find to be an outrageous situation. The government is forgoing revenue now by allowing business fines to be tax deductible. In other words, if a business is fined for polluting a river or injuring a worker or even insider trading, it can deduct that fine from its income tax. Estimates are that hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue are lost every year.

Would the hon. member agree with me that not another tax season should go by allowing this outrageous tax loophole where businesses can deduct fines from their taxes?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:10 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

James Moore Canadian Alliance Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary might like my answer to this one. The answer is just to build a bigger economic pie. I am kidding.

There is no question that we do have a serious problem with corporate welfare in this country. We have seen the corporate welfare and have raised it in question period with regard to Canada Steamship Lines and the figure of $137,000 last year which this week ballooned to $161 million. Corporate welfare is a serious problem in this country.

We in the new Conservative Party, the Progressive Conservative Party before that, the Canadian Alliance Party and the Reform Party before that, have always argued that the federal government should be neutral in issuing contracts. It should be open, free and honest tendering. We believe in free markets and open free trade. We believe in transparency and accountability. We do not believe in corporate welfare.

We believe in a thorough examination of all forms of corporate welfare to ensure there is not the kind of buying of businesses and selling things and the kind of corruption that is systemic in a lot of countries. That is going down the road of helping to eliminate the democratic deficit the Prime Minister talks about that we would act on and which needs to be done for this country.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:10 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Liberal

Paul Bonwick LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development (Student Loans)

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments to the address in reply to the throne speech. I should mention at the outset that I will be splitting my time with my distinguished colleague, the member for Oak Ridges.

It is with an incredible sense of excitement that I stand here today and pass along my comments on the Speech from the Throne. It is a very exciting time for Canadians. They are at the leading edge, based on this throne speech. They are embarking on new territory. They are going to witness change that will make the country better. The Prime Minister has articulated a bold, creative, aggressive vision for the country. Canadians expect that because Canadians are bold, creative and aggressive. They expect no less from the government and this is exactly what the government has offered them.

I am going to touch on a number of different topics within the throne speech over the next seven or eight minutes. The first one I would like to touch on is municipalities.

The communities in my riding of Simcoe--Grey need help. We have played a very aggressive and complementary role over the last number of years in helping them address the infrastructure challenges they have had to face. There are a number of different cases. We have invested as much as $5 million in an individual municipality to help it offset the challenges that it faces. Those municipalities rightly expect and deserve more. That is exactly what happened when the Prime Minister in his response to the throne speech outlined how he was gong to do that. It comes in two forms.

One is the GST. I have contacted, not the municipal councillors that do not necessarily deal with the budget directly, but I have taken the time to contact some of the treasurers in my riding. The treasurers are telling me that this cash injection is instant. It provides them and their councils with the flexibility to make the choices they feel are important. It eliminates the federal and provincial governments from telling them what they should be doing versus empowering them to make the choices that the municipalities know are best for them.

It is not a small amount of money. The town of Collingwood will save over $180,000 in this fiscal year. This will be money it can reinvest in roads, parks, ball fields, multi-use facilities, wherever it feels there is a priority. That will be $180,000 now and forever more it will be able to spend on what it thinks is important. It does not have to apply to the province or the federal government, it will have the money in hand to apply to the priorities it feels are important.

Just two days ago I spoke to the deputy treasurer in the town of Wasaga Beach. It will have $400,000 a year. Imagine what that can do to help offset debenture costs if it wants to embark on new roads, waste treatment or deal with some of the environmental challenges it is facing with the Nottawasaga River flowing through the municipality. Four hundred thousand dollars a year in 10 short years will be $4 million that it will be able to invest in its community. There are no strings attached, because the municipal government knows best within its own municipality and this achieves that objective. It empowers municipalities to make the right decisions, the decisions they know are right, the decisions the municipalities have made in supporting priorities.

This is exactly what the mayors asked for. I listened to the rhetoric across the floor about this being a political buy, that we are sending our pictures out. That is rhetoric. It is sheer nonsense. This is what the mayors asked for. We simply provided them with what they asked for.

I might suggest quite frankly that hon. members take some time away from reading the rhetoric and talk to some of the mayors because the mayors are so incredibly positive about this. Mayors all across our great country are saying, “At last, the federal government is stepping up to the plate and is playing a responsible role in supporting our municipalities”.

What is even more interesting is the fact that the Prime Minister is saying that we are not stopping here. The Prime Minister eloquently stated that we were prepared to work with lower tier levels of government, the municipal government, the provincial government, to ensure that there was even more funding to address the challenges municipalities were facing, as we could afford to do so.

It is not simply a one-time deal. The funding from the GST is long term. It will provide them the sustainable cash flows to deal with their priorities. They also have the commitment from the Prime Minister, who is quite frankly unparalleled in Canadian history when it comes to the level of support in the country, to work with them. That is one heck of a powerful statement, and municipalities can take that to the bank.

I would also like to take a few moments to talk about what I would suggest is our most precious resource, and certainly that is not gasoline or roads; it is our children, our youth.

Without doubt, the most aggressive and the most bold statement made in that throne speech, in my mind, was the Prime Minister's commitment in his response to the Speech from the Throne and the throne speech to address access need for post-secondary education. This is not simply universities. These are trade schools, colleges, polytech and most certainly universities as well.

Never in Canadian history have we seen such an aggressive approach to tearing down the barriers to post-secondary education.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, with a special emphasis on the Canada student loan file, my responsibility is to ensure that I hear what the people in the industry are thinking, that I hear some of the solutions that are coming forward, that we do a cost-benefit analysis on these things and that we recognize that lower, moderate and middle income Canadians should not have barriers to post-secondary education as a simple result of finances. My job is to ensure that the Prime Minister knows that and that he is listening.

The fact that so much time was spent in his address on access to post-secondary education provides a bright star for the students in the country, whether they be 18 or 58. As we know, lifelong learning is an integral part of a growing economy.

More specifically, on the Canada student loan program, we are hearing a commitment from the Prime Minister. It should be mentioned that the Prime Minister is the first again in Canadian history to actually designate a parliamentarian to be responsible for access to post-secondary education or to have a parliamentarian responsible for the Canada student loan program. Before, it has been left in the hands of the bureaucrats and the minister who is responsible for so much more. That demonstrates the focus, the drive the Prime Minister will have in supporting access to post-secondary education and lifelong learning in this country. It is unparalleled.

He has looked at ways that are incredibly creative. He has listened to the over 14 associations that I have had an opportunity to meet with in the past few weeks, representing tens of thousands of students, representing colleges and universities and representing faculty. We have heard, we have listened and we have acted.

The Prime Minister has made unbelievable commitment to the students in the country to tear down the barriers that are restricting their access, raising the level for middle income families to qualify for the Canada student loan program, increasing the amount that one can borrow through the Canada student loan program to meet unmet need, extending the terms of repayment so that those coming out of university have some flexibility with respect to repayment, having the debt forgiveness and the interest forgiveness for those who simply cannot afford it and offering a new grant, a new learning bond, for students who need it most in the first year.

These are without doubt the most bold and creative focuses a government has shown in many years in addressing access to education. All parties in the House know two very important things. Our most valuable resources are our children and if we want to be a competitive economy in the 21st century, we better provide them access to education. The Prime Minister has done exactly that.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Oak Ridges, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to comment on the Speech from the Throne.

First, I would like to note that the Prime Minister clearly outlined a vision that Canadians can clearly understand: a compassionate society that invests in young people and technology and at the same time keeps the books balanced, which is very important.

I found it odd that before the Speech from the Throne was read critics on the other side were already denouncing it before it had actually been released. That kind of clairvoyance is something that is rather new. The Super 7 draw is on Friday at $32.5 million. If they could tell us the numbers in advance, I think we would all benefit because they clearly already said there was nothing in the Speech from the Throne.

The Speech from the Throne in fact is not a detailed document. It obviously gives a broad brush to outline the direction that the government wants to take in the next few years. I point out that there were a number of key elements in it.

The first one clearly is on the issue of not going into a deficit, to ensure that whatever plans move forward they are done in a fiscally responsible manner. Canadians expect no less, demand no less and the government has a proven track record when it comes to strong fiscal management. It is important again, with six balanced budgets or better, in terms of paying down the national debt. It is important that when we invest, we do so responsibly.

Some people will argue that we are not back to 1993 levels in some areas. The fact is, if we look back at the financing in 1993, a third of it was borrowed money. We can now say with strict confidence that the moneys that are being allocated and spent are moneys that we have in the bank, and we are not borrowing.

A lot has been said about municipal governments and the new deal. I have many years in municipal politics as the former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I was around at the time arguing for a 100% rebate on the goods and services tax. In 1991 the Conservative government of the day agreed to a 57.14% rebate. I am of the view that municipal governments are like no other governments. It is a government and therefore it should not be taxed, provincial governments to federal and federal to provincial, and the same with municipal.

The Prime Minister announced that a 100% rebate would now be applied. It is estimated to be $7 billion over 10 years. It is a significant infusion and is something that we as a government can do to assist in terms of transit, affordable housing, et cetera.

The point is municipal governments are still, under the constitution, creatures of the provinces. It is important to note that when we had legislation in the House a few years ago on Bill C-10 to ensure that we had timely payments as a federal government to municipal governments in this country, our friends over there, the johnny-come-latelies on the issue of municipal governments in Canada, opposed the national infrastructure in the 1993 program and opposed the issue of payments in lieu of taxes . Now they say we are not doing enough.

It is always easy for the opposition to say that we are not doing enough because one day they want the government to spend $3 billion, the next day they want it to cut $3 billion. The difficulty is it has to be done in partnership and in a responsible manner. The Prime Minister clearly has understood the needs of communities, large and small, and is prepared to work with them.

The issue I think is one of empowerment , so I am very pleased to see the Prime Minister in this Speech from the Throne address those issues and address them because we know that people, whether they live in small communities or large, need to have the proper environment. They need clean water and road systems. We have to ensure we are investing in the people in those communities.

The response of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the mayors is significant. In fact Mayor Miller of Toronto said that it fundamentally changed the nature of the relationship between cities and the federal and provincial governments forever. He said that it was a complete sea change, a breakthrough.

These are people who deal with the day to day issues in their communities. We realize that we cannot supplant the provinces, but we can work in conjunction with provinces, territories and municipal governments.

That is a fundamental recognition because 80% of the people in the country live in urban areas. That was obviously not the case in 1867 when we had about 6%. We have recognized that and are moving forward.

Regarding the issue of empowerment, colleagues across the way often talk about the fiscal imbalance in the country, which is a myth. Provinces have the ability to tax even more so than the federal government. When this government was in a situation where we had a $42.5 billion deficit, we never heard the words “fiscal imbalance” emanate from that side of the House or from the provinces. Now with a much better fiscal situation in Canada, we now suddenly have this fiscal imbalance.

We have to also note in the Speech from the Throne the issue about investing in our social foundations. What could be better than to again provide an additional $2 billion in the area of health care?

The Prime Minister has said we have to deal with the issue of waiting time for elective surgery, et cetera. However, the administration of the health care system is provincial and again we have to have accountability. We have to know that through the health care council Canadians want to know where their moneys are going and want to be able to track that money. Not the federal government, but Canadians need to know. Obviously if money is transferred, it is important because every time we make these agreements, the provinces then come back a few months later and say they need more. As the national roundtable on health concluded a number of years ago, it is not simply about money. It is about how the dollars are utilized. That is extremely important.

The Speech from the Throne talks about R and D investments. Nothing could be more important than ensuring that Canada is on the leading edge of research and development. Again, picking up on the innovation agenda, which we have been working on for the last few years, it is important to ensure that Canadians have an opportunity to do that type of research and development and that the opportunities are there whether they are medical or environmental in terms of R and D in particular.

I am very pleased to see that. I am also pleased because it demonstrates clearly to Canadians the social conscience of this government. It demonstrates that we can do things both in a fiscally responsible manner, but also ensure that there is an investment in families and children and that the Canadian population will benefit because of that.

Also, we have enunciated clearly in the Speech from the Throne our responsibility on the global stage. Again, I applaud the Prime Minister for the invitation to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations to come here. We are a nation that believes in a multilateral approach. We are a nation that has taken on our responsibilities. If we go back to the great war or World War II, volunteers went overseas because they believed in the cause for which they were fighting. We have always responded to our international commitments.

We continue to do that today through our peacekeeping forces around the world. We respond through agencies such as the Canadian International Development Agency. That is important and our response on the issue of HIV-AIDS and the issue of generic drugs. Again, proceeding with that legislation is so important. It shows that we are not simply concerned about our own national interest, but also our responsibility on the world stage. That again outlines the type of compassionate society that Canadians want and expect us to lead as a national government.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:30 p.m.

Simcoe—Grey Ontario

Liberal

Paul Bonwick LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development (Student Loans)

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the very thoughtful and insightful remarks made by my hon. colleague. As my colleague made mention, in his previous life as a municipal councillor and mayor, he was what is affectionately known as the mayor of mayors for Canada.

It is important to mention for the record that in this Parliament and in the previous Parliament I know of no other colleague who has put forward the level of support and encouragement to this federal government to play a more active part in the life of municipalities. For that, I commend him. On behalf of my municipalities, I thank him.

I am interested in knowing what the hon. member's thoughts are with respect to some of the municipalities in his riding and how the elimination of the GST may help them.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Oak Ridges, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments and for his question.

One of the things that is extremely important about this 100% rebate is that it is very visible. It is accountable and transparent because municipal governments buy all sorts of goods and services where there is a GST implication.

The fact is that they will be able to determine and demonstrate clearly the savings to their communities. Whether it is a small community in my riding, such as Whitchurch-Stouffville, which will save moneys in the range of $20,000, or a city like Richmond Hill, which will save millions of dollars.

We can demonstrate that and do it in that manner. Municipal politicians for years have been saying they are an order of government and should be treated as such. One of the ways is not to tax one order of government to another. That is very important.

As the member well knows, because of his own work in his community, there is a role for the national infrastructure program. The FCM called for a national 10 year program for years and the government delivered. Again, an initial down payment of $1 billion and of course we have the strategic infrastructure fund as well.

We are engaged with, not supplanting, the municipal governments. We recognize that, the Constitution notwithstanding, we have a responsibility. The Prime Minister has been so articulate and so clear on this particular issue, recognizing that we have an important collaborative role.

Let us make sure that whether it is Collingwood in the member's riding, Richmond Hill in my riding or wherever it is across the country, we engage those communities. We must engage them because if we make laws which will negatively impact, financially for example, a city, it needs to be at the table to be part of the discussions.

It does not mean we supplant the role and the jurisdictional issues with regard to provinces, but if somebody were to make a law which would impact positively or negatively on a society, the cities need to be part of the process. We do that in our own communities. We talk to our constituents, we hold public forums and we engage them. Why would we not do the same with cities?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Lynne Yelich Canadian Alliance Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have an editorial referring to the levies on property owners. I want to hear what the member thinks about this:

It's tough to quibble with such initiatives as exempting municipal governments from the GST--Ottawa never should have been taxing municipal governments, which are financed by levies on property owners paid with their after-tax income--and even with returning a portion of gas taxes to civic governments to address infrastructure needs that have been neglected for too long.

Government members are talking like that tax is theirs to spend. We pay those taxes. Those taxes are levied on us. Would the member like to comment on this article?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Oak Ridges, ON

Mr. Speaker, the predecessors of the new Conservative Alliance, the Conservative Party of Canada under Mr. Mulroney had an option in 1991. The option was to give 100% rebate on the GST so there would have been no tax in 1991. In fact, it wanted to impose the 100%. Fortunately, through the FCM, we were able to negotiate the 57.14% rebate.

As to the issue of property taxes, it is the most outdated form of taxation I have every heard of. They do not reflect the reality of service provided today. Unfortunately, the issue of assessment in dealing with property taxes, certainly in the province of Ontario, is provincial. I will not try to explain any rule or rationale with regard to property taxes because they do not make a lot of sense. They are certainly outdated, which is why the government has taken such a proactive role in assisting communities large and small across the country.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:35 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Rosemont—Petite-Patrie.

I am extremely pleased to take part in the throne speech debate. I know how much all members want to voice their views on this document, which is short on content. It is probably the longest throne speech on paper since we became elected officials but the shortest on content. Many have commented that it could have been written by the former prime minister and that it probably would not have been much different.

I was particularly struck by one paragraph, on page 5 in English and page 6 in French. In order to understand the true meaning of this sentence, I checked to see if, perhaps, the translation carried a certain nuance. I could hardly believe that this was what the government really meant. It states, and I quote:

Jurisdiction must be respected.

The person who wrote the beginning of this paragraph probably forgot to read the rest of the speech, because this sentence totally contradicts everything else.

If jurisdiction must be respected, then provincial areas of jurisdiction must not be encroached on. However, almost the entire document attests to the fact that the government did just that. Before, there was a formula, the old served with a modern twist; now, it is the new served with an old time twist. That would be a better way to describe this government, which claims to be a new government.

This sentence clearly reflects a thought voiced by the Minister of Social Development and published in Le Devoir on January 21, 2004:

When 81% of Canadians, including Quebeckers, demand that something be done, it is our duty to respond. If one level of government does not want to do it, the other can do it and negotiate.

I have done many things in my life, including negotiate collective agreements. I never signed collective agreements before bargaining. I always bargained before signing. Before collective bargaining, I never publicly announced the details of the UQAR professors' collective agreement. The details are always kept very secret, except to our members, before being made public.

The federal government is in the very bad habit of saying, with its spending power and its usual arrogance, that it will do this or that, it will intervene in parental leave, in compassionate care leave, in health, it will ask the deputy minister to create another new complicated system and then spend money on the structure and officials rather than transfer money to the provinces so that they can provide the best care to our fellow citizens.

Of course, afterwards, there is a qualifier. After clearly stating that “jurisdiction must be respected”, they say:

But Canadians do not go about their daily lives worried about which jurisdiction does this or that.

Of course, if every effort is made to confuse Canadians, they will not be asking who does what. They will take what they can get. A person in need does not look a gift horse in the mouth. You do not bite the hand that feeds you, you take what you get.

They expect, rightly, that their governments will cooperate—

That they will cooperate, not go over people's heads. There absolutely needs to be more cooperation, such as making a simple phone call to the head of the other government requesting a meeting to discuss common interests, not just publicly announcing in the newspapers that the program is in effect and explaining how things are going to work. By then, it is much too late to turn back.

The current government has held three elections and it is getting ready for a fourth. It has held three elections on the backs of workers, each time promising employment insurance reform.

On June 6, 2003, when he was touring Quebec, the Prime Minister met with workers from Charlevoix and promised them that on becoming Prime Minister, he would do something about reforming employment insurance, because, he said, he realized—

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:40 p.m.

An hon. member

Oh. Oh.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC

Mr. Speaker, would you please ask that person to be quiet and let me speak?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member who has the floor has asked the Chair to intervene so that members might be respectful of each other. While one is speaking, please wait to make an intervention under the question and comment period. In that way we could probably proceed in a more respectful manner.

The hon. member for Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC

Thank you , Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister promised he would do something. When the people of Charlevoix, the sans-chemise and the Mouvement Action Chômage read the speech, or heard it read by the Governor General, they said to themselves, “This makes no sense. We have been totally betrayed”. There was not a single word about employment insurance. Not one word.

As a result, they were extremely disappointed. We cannot see things continuing like this. When we in the Bloc are campaigning, we will be asking the people of Quebec to keep in mind that not one word from the Liberal Party of Canada can be believed any more. This is at least the third time they have lied.

They lied when they campaigned on the promise to scrap the GST. Now they have decided to give part of it back to the municipalities, which are the creatures of the provinces. Then, on page 6 of the throne speech in French, page 5 in English, they say, “Jurisdiction must be respected”. Now they want to talk directly with the municipalities, big governments that they are, because they are looking for political allies, of course.

Since there has not been much going on in government between November 10 and February 2, I have had a lot of time for reading. My recreational reading included Jacques Attali's

Le dictionnaire du XXI

e

siècle

, published by Fayard in 1998. On page 68 of this dictionary of the 19th century, there is a definition of Canada. I was curious to see what this might be. It reads:

Canada: Laboratory for Utopia....

As you know, Utopia is a scheme planned for planning for better and for worse. Continuing the definition:

Canada: Laboratory for Utopia. Its future will depend on the future of Quebec.

That is what it says in the dictionary by Jacques Attali, dating from 1998. He understood what the Bloc Quebecois has been explaining here every since 1993: the future of Canada is tied to the future of Quebec, and the future of Quebec is sovereignty. That is what we will continue to tell people. Particularly after a throne speech such as the one we have just had, there is no reason for us to set aside our plan for the future, a plan so dear to our hearts: to have a country of our own, and to have it as soon as possible.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by the member opposite. I somewhat agree with the idea that federal government money should be spent on federal responsibilities. I agree with that. There is a general feeling that, if the federal government spends all kinds of money on provincial or municipal responsibilities, this creates a jurisdictional problem between the levels of government.

I noticed in the Speech from the Throne that the government is proposing to provide the municipalities with full relief from the GST that they are currently paying. I wonder if the member opposite agrees with the idea of having the federal government give federal revenue to municipalities and do so, as we say in English, with no strings attached?

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:45 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very interesting question.

The act of taking the GST and giving it to municipalities is not something I oppose, but I do object to the way it is being done. The municipalities are creatures of the provinces. Tomorrow morning, the provinces could pass a law and say that the cities no longer exist. They could say, “We are managing the citizens directly and creating a different structure”. That is why this government must go through the provinces and say, “Look, we intend to do such and such; what do you think about it?” Because we are partners and collaborators, we must talk to each other before decisions are made. It is not right to present us with a fait accompli. When the first ministers met with the Prime Minister at a football game in Regina, they could have talked about it then.

And as for the portion of the GST they are prepared to give away, perhaps it would be better to give it to the hospitals or the education system. I have been in this House for 10 years and every time we have a day devoted to the problem of illiteracy, we ask that the GST on books be removed. Ignorance is taxed in Canada. We have been asking for 10 years that the tax on books be removed, but nothing gets done about it in the budget.

This is not about getting rid of the GST and giving it back to the provinces; it is about the way it is being done, and the way it is being done without any discussions before decisions are made. If a new way of doing things is announced, we need to see a change accordingly. Things must not be worse than before. If a change has been made, I hope it is for the better.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank my colleague from Rimouski--Neigette-et-la Mitis for her excellent presentation, particularly toward the end. Intellectually, it is very healthy to seek the opinion of a foreign observer, such as Mr. Attali, looking at the evolution of both Canada and Quebec. We heard his opinion. It is a succinct and extremely well-founded opinion in terms of how he sees the future.

I would like to know what my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis thinks of the current reasoning with regard to the way the Canadian federal system works and evolves. It is personified by the new Minister of Social Development, who says that the federal government's role is to respond to the needs. The institution in the best position to respond to the needs of the public must blithely go about its business while ignoring the Constitution.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I thank my colleague for his comments.

The Minister of Social Development must face the fact that she is sitting there because she is the member for Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles and she is from Quebec. She represents the nationalist wing of the Quebec Liberal Party.

She must understand that, just because someone wants something, that does not mean he should get it. Just because a teenager wants a Ferrari at age 18, that does not mean his father will buy him one. Just because 83% of the population wants something, that does not mean the federal government should be the one to provide it. The federal government has to sit down and say, “83% of the population wants this, what can we do together? We are partners in providing it to the public”.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to participate in this debate in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

In the few minutes I have at my disposal, I will focus primarily on matters relating to sustainable development, beginning on page 19 of this week's throne speech.

In so doing, I will be able to demonstrate just how much the government is trying, in an underhanded way, to have us believe that the environment and sustainable development have now become priorities for this government. From now on, the new government, which is really just a rehash of the old one, wants to convince us of its intention to meet its commitments, both national and international, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and invest in green technologies.

The first aspect addressed in the throne speech is the matter of climate change and the Kyoto accord. On page 19, the government states that it “will respect its commitments to the Kyoto accord”, and I emphasize the following:

—in a way that produces long-term and enduring results while maintaining a strong and growing economy.

I would draw the House's attention to the words “long- term and enduring”. Although the Kyoto protocol does not use exactly these words, it clearly clarifies the time frame for states to meet their targets, such as Canada's target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 6%, not as a long-term strategy, but between 2008 and 2012.

Our concern with this throne speech as far as the implementation of the Kyoto protocol is concerned is whether Canada will use its prerogative to renew its commitment to a 6% reduction for the second phase. We know that Canada is already negotiating with some industrial sectors putting off emission reductions until the next phase, that is, after 2012.

What we would have liked the government to do is clarify when it intends to meet its commitments, and that Canada's commitment will respect the greenhouse gas emission time frame, that is a reduction of 6% in the period from 2008 to 2012, precisely so that the Canadian government does not put off its greenhouse gas emission reductions to the second phase, when that time frame is set.

We are also a little surprised to learn that:

It will do so by developing an equitable national plan, in partnership with provincial and territorial governments and other stakeholders.

That plan is to have us believe that, in terms of sharing the efforts toward Kyoto, Canada has chosen a territorial approach to reduction. What we in the Bloc Quebecois want is to be able to tell each of the provinces that they have a reduction target of x % and that they can meet this target any way they want, considering the economic and industrial structure and the realities of the climate, which differs from coast to coast.

Although the government wants us to believe that it has a territorial approach, it has chosen a sectoral approach, negotiating greenhouse gas emissions with each of the industrial sectors.

The proof is that the government is already negotiating greenhouse gas emission reductions with the oil, auto, aluminum and paper industries, while Quebec is still waiting its turn to negotiate with the federal government.

There is a risk for us in Quebec. We were in favour of ratifying Kyoto.

But when we learn that negotiations with Quebec have not yet begun and that secret agreements are being entered into with the oil industry, the risk to Quebec is that we may end up bearing the brunt of the rest of the reductions and having to pay the price for certain industrial sectors' lack of effort in recent years.

The second important aspect concerns the famous environmental indicators. Building on the report by the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy, which presented us with air, water and forest quality indicators a few months ago—and expressed the wish that these be integrated with government decision making—we learn today that the government does indeed plan to incorporate key indicators on clean water, clean air, and emissions reduction into its decision making.

As far as the environment is concerned, the same problem exists as in the provinces in the health sector. People are hired to create indicators, but there are no resources in the field with which to properly assess the situation.

To give one example, I will refer the hon. members to the Canada Gazette for January 31, as reported this morning in the Journal de Montréal . Strange as it may seem, in Quebec, and only in Quebec, 39 of the 54 atmospheric pollution surveillance centres need to be replaced and need new ozone detectors.

There is something not right in Quebec. I stress Quebec—and I encourage you to read the Canada Gazette —because, in all other provinces the detectors and surveillance centres appear to be fine. Strange as it may seem, most of the ones in Quebec are obsolete. This means that the pollution indicators used to inform the people of Quebec and purchased and provided to the Government of Quebec to evaluate such things as atmospheric pollution and ozone, which are the causes of serious public health problems such as asthma and bronchitis, are inadequate.

Why is Quebec not getting its fair share of equipment, to ensure that the commitments in the Speech from the Throne are met and that reliable indicators are available? There is something not right here.

Especially since we know that, on May 19, 2000, in a speech that the environment minister delivered to the University Club of Toronto, he announced that he intended to do the following, and I quote:

We will double our support for the Air Pollution Surveillance Network. We will use the money to update monitoring equipment and manage important air quality information.

Investment was doubled, yet two years later, we realize that, in Quebec, nearly 80% of the equipment and Quebec's monitoring centres are obsolete. Where did the money go? This is money coming from the taxes Quebeckers have paid and are entitled to as part of the additional $1.2 million the federal government gave the provinces. It does not add up. Spending doubled for the monitoring centres and equipment two years ago, but 39 out of 54 centres in Quebec are obsolete.

This means Quebec did not get its fair share in terms of monitoring centres, testing units, air quality and air pollution testing equipment. This means—and it is not insignificant—this is equipment required to fight disorders such as asthma and bronchitis.

In my final minute, I want to add that it must be recognized that the Speech from the Throne is ensuring that, once again, Quebec will not get its fair share, not only with respect to past investments, but also in measures the federal government is about to announce.

We will wait for the budget because, after all, it will tell us what the funding will be for these measures. Rest assured, I will be back in this House and we will be here to make sure Quebec gets its fair share of the budget. We will make sure that funding comes back to Quebec.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

1 p.m.

Scarborough—Agincourt Ontario

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with great interest. I am wondering if my colleague had forgotten to look at the 2003 budget and to read what is now currently in the Speech from the Throne.

I would like to go over a couple of things. On sustainable development, the throne speech states:

Safeguarding our natural environment--in the here and now, and for generations to come--is one of the great responsibilities of citizens and governments in the 21st century.

It goes on and I am sure if my hon. colleague bothers to read it, it is both in French and in English, he will see that we address that.

I would like to go over what we did in the 2003 budget for sustainable development. The 2003 budget committed $3 billion to key environmental initiatives: $2 billion over five years to help implement the Government of Canada's climate change plan, including measures to encourage new environmental technologies and funding for initiatives ranging from renewable energy to alternative fuels where areas such as building retrofits, wind power, fuel cells and ethanol will be considered; and $1 billion for targeting measures including improving air quality and supporting the cleanup of contaminated sites. It goes on and on.

I am sure that if my hon. colleague pays a little bit of attention and reads the text, it is all there. If there are specific problems that are being faced, we will be more than glad to sit down with the member and discuss it. If we need to get the equipment that he needs in Quebec, we will certainly discuss that with him.

Enough of the rhetoric. That party wants to get down to business. We want to govern this country. It is there. It is in black and white. If he needs something specific, let us address it. I am wondering which part of the black and white my hon. colleague forgot to read.

Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech From The Throne

1 p.m.

Bloc

Bernard Bigras Bloc Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did not, in fact, read the most recent budget tabled. If the government wanted to reach its emission reduction targets as set out in the Kyoto protocol, for a 240 megatonne reduction in emissions, how is it that the latest budget allows a reduction of only 20 megatonnes out of 240 megatonnes? If the government has truly adopted a greener approach, it has to show.

There is nothing for green transportation. There is funding only for industries to convert from one fossil fuel to another. There was an expectation, and there is still an expectation concerning the next budget, that, if the government opposite is serious about going green, it will have to give equal funding to the oil and gas industry and to environmental technologies.

Bill C-48, which his government supported, grants $250 million in financial and tax incentives to major oil companies. Is this going greener? Is this a good investment for those who are friends of the system?

Consider tax incentives for renewable energy sources, including wind power, and compare them to those in a conservative state or a country such as the United States. If the government is serious, it will realize that, even in the U.S., tax incentives for wind power are far beyond what is being offered in Canada.

If the government is serious, in its next budget, it will stop funding the hydrocarbon and oil industries. It will give equal funding to renewable energy and wind energy. It will invest in green transportation so that the empty promises and lack of vision in the throne speech are turned into concrete action and funding in the next budget.