Grant McNally

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, our plan calls for ensuring that any money that was dedicated from fuel taxes would not be used for other purposes, and that 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 would suggest to my friend on the government side that the government may want to reallocate dollars from friends to the government that are getting grants and contributions. There are billions of dollars that we have identified across government departments that are simply used to pay off friends of the government. We have seen that time and time again in the last 10 years that we have been here.

Those are low priority items such as fountains in Shawinigan and business development loans to friends of the Prime Minister. We saw $1 billion suddenly disappear in the HRDC situation and hundreds of millions of dollars were used in the advertising grants scandal. Where did those dollars go? They did not go to roads.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague for Elk Island.

I will begin by mentioning a motion that we brought forward in the House not long ago on June 12. Our motion said:

That, in the opinion of this House, Canada's infrastructure needs should be met by aregime of stable funding; and that accordingly, this House call on the government toreduce 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.

That motion failed because members of the government chose to vote against it. Now we have a very similar motion before the House today and the government members tell us that they will support it. We will find out for sure when we have our vote.

However it is interesting to see that repeatedly, over and over in the House, government members have been opposed to the idea of returning a larger portion of gas taxes to the provinces and municipalities so they can put those dollars into improving roads and infrastructure in the communities that need it the most.

In fact we heard in debate today, in speeches brought forward by my colleagues, that other jurisdictions spend a whole lot more on infrastructure and road improvement with the gas tax moneys they collect. I believe close to 92% of all provincially collected fuel taxes are invested into transport related infrastructure projects. The federal government invests about 2.4% of the gas taxes that are collected back into roads.

Think of it as getting 2¢ for every dollar. Imagine that. As a taxpayer, I will send a dollar to Ottawa and Ottawa will then send me back 2¢ for infrastructure services and improvements to roads. Most people would consider that a colossal rip-off.

My colleagues on the other side will say that the other 98¢ goes into general revenues and is spent wisely by the government on health care and priority areas. Over the years we have seen that the government has not done that. It has not used those tax dollars wisely. It has taken the tax dollars of Canadian and wasted them on lots of different things like the billion dollar boondoggle where the Minister of Human Resources Development admitted she did not know where a billion dollars went.

There was the advertising grant scandal that led to the former minister of public works being sent off to Denmark as our ambassador. There are all the things that have been built as tributes to the Prime Minister in his hometown of Shawinigan. Canadians are very tired of this kind of thing. If their dollars were being wisely invested into priority areas, that would be something else. However they see the abuse of their dollars. They pay gas taxes at the pump every couple of days or every week and they see those tax dollars simply go to Ottawa to die. That is not right.

We need a plan in place but I do not think we will get it from this government. We did not get it from the finance minister who will be the future prime minister and is the current leader of the Liberal Party. In fact he was the one who put in place a one and a half cent a litre tax to retire the deficit. When the deficit was retired, he forgot to take off that cent and a half tax. I do not think he forgot. He purposely allowed that tax to stay in place even though the deficit had been retired. When he was the minister of finance, he was sucking out hundreds of millions of dollars more than he needed to and not returning those dollars back to the provinces and municipalities for improvements to roads and infrastructure projects. That is simply not okay.

I mentioned earlier some transportation projects and infrastructure and road projects in my own riding. Dollars could have been used years ago to put a bridge into place across the Fraser River from Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge to Langley. That project has been talked about for close to four decades, but the dollars have not been available. If dollars were returned to the province, that project could have been completed many years ago. It is on the books to go ahead in 2006 with no thanks to the federal government, but with thanks to local municipal governments and the Government of British Columbia.

The Pitt River bridge has had some work done on it, but vast improvements could be made there too if infrastructure dollars were returned to the provinces and to the municipalities as we are proposing. The twinning of Lougheed Highway from Maple Ridge to Mission was also talked about earlier.

Those are key important projects that could have been improved. Safety for the residents in my riding could have been improved. The flow of traffic in goods and services around the lower mainland could have been improved.

We are losing millions of dollars in productivity because of the snarl that we face in our community in the lower mainland because the government has refused to put back dollars it has sucked out of Canadians and British Columbians through fuel taxes. That needs to change.

The Canadian Alliance is suggesting that the federal government permanently vacate a portion of the federal gas tax, about 3¢ to 5¢ a litre, and allow provinces the option of collecting that revenue. In order to ensure that this money is not used for other purposes, as was suggested by our Liberal friends here, 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. The government could do that. We will do that because it is part of the Canadian Alliance policy.

We heard the government trumpet its infrastructure programs in the House today. I remind people who are watching today and listening to this debate that they are “take a dollar give 2¢ back” kind of programs.

We see big signs wherever the federal government is building roads. I encourage people to put up their own signs where roads have not been improved saying that the road has not been improved because the federal government has not returned tax revenue back to their local municipality or to their province. We would see signs like that in a lot of places if individuals chose to point out the fact that the federal government has not been doing its job in returning gas tax revenues to the provinces and to municipalities.

Our plan would provide a reliable and stable revenue source for infrastructure. It would be as transparent and visible as constitutionally possible. It would have zero additional administrative and compliance costs. The provinces already have their infrastructure programs and collect gas tax revenues. Our program would be efficient. Additional resources would be allocated to regional and local priorities. Our program would be equitable.

These revenues would become part of the equalization formula to ensure that all provinces received the same per capita share of gas tax revenues. More important, this approach promises a worthwhile level of funding. We would see a lot of changes. We would see a lot of improvements to the municipalities and provinces in terms of infrastructure programs and roads, and improvements that need to be made.

We know that government members and the former finance minister, the current Liberal leader and future Prime Minister, have said that many cities have suggested that having access to a portion of the revenues generated by the gas tax would be a significant help in making their budgets more reliable and predictable.

How can the people of Canada trust a man who was at the helm for nine years imposing these taxes, had every opportunity to put this kind of plan in place, and who chose not to change this “take a dollar give 2¢ back” program in terms of infrastructure? How can we possibly trust him to now change that and give Canadians the proper amount of infrastructure and road support that the municipalities and provinces need?

That simply will not happen. Canadians can only trust a group such as the Canadian Alliance with a new plan and a new policy.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberal government, under the Prime Minister and the new Liberal leader, the former finance minister, the future prime minister, have sucked billions of dollars out of British Columbia in gas taxes and they have returned precious little to our communities of Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge and Mission. Of federal gas taxes, 2.4% goes back into roads. Imagine someone taking a dollar from us and giving us back 2¢. That is a rip-off.

If the Canadian Alliance policy were implemented, dedicating 3¢ to 5¢ a litre in gas taxes back to the provinces and municipalities, important improvements, such as the twinning of Highway 7, the Lougheed Highway in Maple Ridge and Mission as well as the building of a new bridge from Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge in my riding to Langley across the Fraser River would already have been a reality.

The hon. member tells us that the dollars go into consolidated revenue and that they are wisely spent in priority areas. If that were true, we would applaud the government. Unfortunately, it has wasted billions of dollars. We are all aware of the billion dollar boondoggle, the advertising scandal, the dollars to the Prime Minister's friends in his riding and on and on it goes.

If there were dedicated dollars to infrastructure as we have laid out in our policy, that would be a positive thing. That is what we are asking the government to do. That is what Canadians want to see. The hon. member has no excuse for the fact that the government has only returned 2.4% of gas taxes back into roads across the country. That is just not acceptable.

[Supply, October 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague again about this inequity in the Province of British Columbia.

In my own riding of Dewdney—Alouette, for years there has been a proposed crossing of the Fraser River from the Pitt Meadows-Maple Ridge area over to Langley. Officials have been trying to find dollars for that project. If there would have even been a slight increase in the amount of federal taxes put back into the province for the municipalities, that bridge could have been completed many years ago, as well as the Lougheed Highway that goes from Maple Ridge to Mission. It is sorely in need of twinning.

Again those are some specific projects that could have been put in place if there would have been appropriate levels of infrastructure returned to the Province of British Columbia.

[Marriage, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal government proved that Canadians cannot trust it to keep its word.

In 1999 the House passed a motion promising to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Liberals promised to defend the traditional definition of marriage but instead have done nothing. They have refused to appeal court decisions legalizing same sex marriages, and in 10 years in office they have failed to protect marriage by defining it in law.

Hundreds of my constituents have contacted me to support the traditional definition of marriage during the past several months. They were sadly disappointed last night when the vote on our motion was defeated by the narrowest of margins. Cabinet solidarity was the reason our motion was defeated, and proved that the Liberal government never intended to keep its promise to Canadians.

How can Canadians possibly trust this government to keep any promise? Clearly the choice for Canadians is to replace this government that will say anything to get elected and nothing to keep its promises.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his well-reasoned speech. I do not agree with everything he said but I do agree with the way he laid it out in the recent debate that he made.

I want to say that for some of the same reasons he is going to support the change to the definition of marriage, I am not going to support the change to the definition of marriage. The vast number of constituents who have contacted me by phone, e-mail or letter or who have dropped by the office to have personal conversations have overwhelmingly supported the traditional definition of marriage, unlike the constituents in his riding.

I want to make one point that was alluded to by my friend's colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis. He touched on a very important philosophical point which really has not been mentioned by anybody else and has not been expounded on. It has to do with the intrinsic value of marriage.

He talked about the Ontario court decision laying out the analogy of marriage being the same as criminal law or banking, almost as though he were comparing marriage to the colour of the carpet that we would choose in this chamber. It is very much different from that and my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis was alluding to that, that there is intrinsic value in marriage itself and that by changing the definition of marriage, we do not actually recognize those intrinsic values, the bedrock of marriage as the foundation of our society. I want to quickly quote from the Ontario court decision. At point 129 it states:

The difficulty with the Attorney General of Canada's submission is its focus. It is not disputed that marriage has been a stabilizing and effective societal institution. The couples are not seeking to abolish the institution of marriage; they are seeking access to it. Thus, the task of the Attorney General of Canada is not to show how marriage has benefited society as a whole, which we agree is self-evident, but to demonstrate that maintaining marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution is rationally connected to the objectives of marriage, which in our view is not self-evident. What is self-evident is that marriage is intrinsically good and has provided the bedrock of our society.

[Supply, September 16th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I clearly support the traditional definition of marriage and it is clear that the Liberal government does not support the traditional definition of marriage. It has broken its promise to Canadians by doing very little to protect the definition of marriage. The Prime Minister did not appeal the Ontario court decision and the justice minister has travelled the country promoting same sex marriage.

I want to ask my colleague, how can Canadians possibly trust this Liberal government to honour any promise it makes when it has so clearly broken its promise on such an important issue as marriage?

[Justice, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to know where the government is today on that issue. For Parliament to have the final say on the definition of marriage, the government must appeal the lower court rulings allowing same sex marriages so that Parliament makes the final decision on the issue.

In 1999 the House passed a motion defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. The minister assured Canadians that he would take all necessary steps to preserve this definition.

Why does the minister refuse to take even the first step to preserve the definition of marriage by appealing these court rulings?

[Justice, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Liberal chair of the justice committee broke a tie urging the government to allow same sex marriages. This signals that the government is opening the door to changing the definition of marriage by letting the courts make the law.

Will the Minister of Justice assure Canadians that the current definition of marriage will not be changed by unelected judges but will be decided on by Parliament?

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I just want to make a brief comment and ask my colleague to comment on it.

Does he not agree with me that the Liberals are just sucking dollars out of Canadians' pockets through this gas tax and then not reinvesting it into the infrastructure?

In my communities of Maple Ridge, Mission, Agassiz and Harrison Hot Spring there is a great need for those infrastructure dollars to remain with the province so there can be long term stable funding for infrastructure programs.

Does the hon. member not agree with me that this government just uses these gas taxes to line its coffers and dole out more cash to its political pals in order to buy votes?