Bryon Wilfert

[Supply, September 18th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the time of the House is taken up with this kind of nonsense. This is purely a politically motivated motion we have here. Clearly the member knows there are 1,700 companies that have a similar situation in Barbados. In fact, we have reviewed the Barbados cases since 1995. There continue to be reviews and the member knows that.

The member knows we have over 70 tax treaties with countries around the world, yet this member for some reason is focusing on one particular company, one particular individual. The fact is that there are 1,700 companies in operation. I find it rather ludicrous that the member has the audacity to stand up and talk about something when he knows that since 1995 we have been taking specific steps and in fact currently there is a review of the treaty that continues with Barbados, as there is with other countries.

The fact is that to unilaterally abrogate this treaty, as the member might suggest, would in fact affect 1,700 companies. I do not think that would be in the public interest and the member knows that. I suggest we are listening to nonsense from the other side. It is pure garbage to suggest that some people are not paying their taxes. We have these treaties and the member knows why we have them.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member wants to hear a Liberal on this side address that issue so I will address it head on.

I will quote from the speech by the former minister of finance at the FCM. I want the member to tell me how this is the same as the Canadian Alliance. He said:

Many cities have suggested that having access to a portion of the revenues generated by the gas tax would be of significant help in making their budgets more reliable and predictable.

If access to a portion of the gas tax ends up being the preferred mechanism of municipal leaders, the federal government will be at the table with the provinces offering to vacate gas tax room, provided that:

--which is what they are leaving out--

--the provinces create a way for municipal governments to reap the resulting revenue; and the provinces agree that those funds will be truly incremental to cities; and the full amount that we vacate from the gas tax flows to cities in a way that lets them model that revenue stream five years or ten years down the road.

Clearly, that is not what is in the Canadian Alliance position.

The difficulty I have with the Canadian Alliance members' position is that not only have they just come to the realization that there are infrastructure needs in Canada, but I am surprised to hear that they think the member for LaSalle—Émard, who has had nothing to do with this debate, endorses their position.

Let us look at another fallacy. The hon. member across the way suggests that Alberta is not getting its fair share. In this current program, $508 million will go into infrastructure programs across the province of Alberta, ranging from roads, sewers, tourism, recreation facilities, et cetera. These are all municipally generated. They are not imposed by the Government of Canada, Heaven forbid. It is the cities and the member's own city.

I might point out his own situation. The member may have forgotten this, but under the strategic infrastructure program, the ring roads in both Calgary and Edmonton will be getting $150 million. Who asked for those ring roads? It was not the federal government. The member should check with the mayors in Edmonton and in Calgary. The fact is this is what is being proposed. We thought it would be good, the Alberta government thought it would be good and we proposed it.

Let us get rid of the myth that we embrace the notion where we will just turn over a portion of the federal gas tax to the provinces and they will be really good and do the right thing by the cities. If they had done the right thing by the cities in the first place, we would not have needed a national infrastructure program because they would have taken care of the needs in their own provinces as under the Constitution.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it again goes back to the fact that on the infrastructure programs on a per capita basis moneys are allotted to the provinces based on population. Again we have situations where they are municipally driven. The Kicking Horse Pass is a good example, with $62.5 million to improve the bridge there.

The fact is that moneys are invested. They are invested in communities across the country because they are municipally driven. Again, the difficulty I have with the Alliance motion is the fact that on faith it makes assumptions about the provinces. What about the issue of where the provinces are in terms of their gas revenues? We do not see any issue there with regard to moneys being matched. We do not see anything in terms of that because what has happened is that in some cases the provinces, and I will only use Ontario because that is the one I know, have cut back. It has cut back the municipalities. It has continually cut back.

If it were not for the federal government there would be no infrastructure program. If it were not for the government we would not have the kinds of projects across the country that have benefited British Columbia. That is what is important. Without the program, without the vision, which sat dormant, as I said, for nine years under the Conservative government, we would be in worse shape today than ever, and it is because of the decision of the Prime Minister that we went ahead. I keep hearing about the member for LaSalle—Émard. The fact is that the member for LaSalle—Émard and the current Minister of Finance have continued to support this national infrastructure program and that is where--

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

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.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

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.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to make a comment. With regard to the fact that this government is tax crazy, according to the hon. member, this is the government that brought in a $100 billion tax cut over five years. This is the government that is eliminating the capital tax. This is the government that continues to pay down the national debt, the only G-7 state to do so, and eliminate the national deficit of $42.5 billion.

On the question about what we do with tax dollars, we have made major investments in health care. In terms of infrastructure, even the member would be able to recognize that when we started the national infrastructure program, and now have come up with a 10 year program, and, in fact, brought in the strategic infrastructure program, we clearly have used tax dollars in conjunction with the priorities of the cities, towns and villages in Canada. They are the ones that direct what is going to be done, not the federal government and not the provinces.

The concern I have is that the member would turn that over to the provinces when it should be the cities, towns and villages that are the ones to do it.

The problem constitutionally is how to get a mechanism. I have not been able to get a mechanism established from any of the hon. members of the Canadian Alliance as to how they would do this given the fact that municipalities are corporations created by the provinces.

Therefore, with regard to any revenue sharing programs, we would almost have to go in and get them to come up with some kind of formula for some tax ability at the local level. If the member wants to really do this and empower the cities, the easiest way would be for the provinces, which have the ability, to give the municipalities more taxation power. I agree with that.

I do not understand why members of a party who believe in accountability on taxation, or at least they tell me they do, would rather have one order of government take money that it raised and have somebody else spend it with no accountability. I would like the member to respond to that.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I have to take exception to the last comment made by the hon. member. The national infrastructure program is signed between the federal government and each individual province. I would ask the hon. member, if in fact we such distrust why since 1994 have we had three very successful national infrastructure programs in which we have come to agreements with each and every province?

The only difficulty, I would point out to the member, is that of course in each province the program may vary to a degree based on whatever that province wants, not necessarily what the cities in those provinces want. I can give examples in places like Saskatchewan, and in British Columbia back in the early 1990s under the NDP they had buses showing up in their cities that they had never ordered. I would ask the hon. member if that is not a good example of cooperation in terms of having to sign individual agreements.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

The hon. member obviously already knows the answer.

The problem is that municipalities are corporations that are creatures of the provinces. I do not particularly like that term but that is the term they use. The fact is that any revenue sharing program between the federal government and municipalities would be subject to provincial control of municipalities. Again there is no guarantee the moneys are going to go where we want. In Quebec, for example, legislation prevents municipalities from entering into any direct relationship with Ottawa.

We have no assurance that revenues transferred would in fact go to municipalities, even in agreements. I would point out to the hon. member that we have agreements where we transfer moneys in health care. The difficulty is that the moneys do not necessarily go to regions within provinces where needed.

My own community would be a good example. It is the fastest growing community in Ontario and probably one of the fastest growing in the country and again it is not getting the dollars it needs because when the funds are transferred it is up to the provincial governments and they seem to know best.

I think what the member does want to say, or has said, is that the west wants in. Yes, that is why the government dedicated $65 million to improvements on the Trans-Canada in Saskatchewan and $202 million to Vancouver through the strategic infrastructure fund. I think those are the kinds of programs that get to cities.

Under the strategic infrastructure and national infrastructure programs we know they are municipally generated programs and they get to those cities. How can the member guarantee that they will get to the municipalities under the Alliance proposal?

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I wish it were as easy as the hon. member suggests in terms of being able to do a reduction of a tax and hope that the provinces will in fact buy into it. The problem again is that municipalities--

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices are the purvey of the provinces not the federal government. The federal government is responsible for the issue of competition through the Competition Bureau. If the member is unhappy about prices, he can talk to the Government of British Columbia. We know that in fact that is a provincial responsibility and if it wants to freeze prices, it can.

Often there are other problems with the issue of taxes. The Government of New Brunswick learned this a few years ago when it decided to reduce the provincial tax on gasoline by 2%, it was immediately eaten up by the oil companies which raised prices.

The fundamental problem with the member's argument across the way is that his party wants to dedicate a portion of the tax. We know that municipal governments are corporations. They are created by the provinces. Hence, any revenue sharing program between the Government of Canada and municipalities would be subject to provincial control over municipalities.

This is something, at least on this side of the House, that we do not support. In fact, Quebec has legislation which prohibits municipal governments in the Province of Quebec from entering directly into fiscal relations with the Government of Canada. And again, they need provincial approval.

Clearly, we also have concerns. We have seen other cases with tripartite arrangements, however in this arrangement it would not be tripartite. This is simply an arrangement where the hon. member is asking us to turn over moneys to the provinces and hopefully they would dedicate and direct them for municipal purposes, particularly infrastructure.

I would like to ask the member, how does he reconcile this mechanics problem? There is clearly a difficulty here to deliver something which constitutionally would be very difficult.