Bryon Wilfert

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, to equate the former minister of finance with the Canadian Alliance is so delusional that I cannot understand it. The former finance minister was the one who, in conjunction with the Prime Minister and the government, brought in the national infrastructure program. It is because of the former finance minister, the government, and the Prime Minister that we have a program. Had we continued to languish under the Tories, we never would have had that.

The fact is that the motion says “on an agreement with provinces”. To date, we have not seen one province that is prepared to share that kind of money. I will give an example. In the Province of Manitoba, the city of Gimli wanted to put a 5¢ tax on liquor because it wanted to use it for its police force and it passed a resolution. It is still awaiting an order in council by the NDP government of Manitoba to okay it. The fact is that here was a city in Manitoba that actually wanted to get empowered and got nothing from the Government of Manitoba.

My friend across the way should not be under any illusions. This motion has nothing to do with anything that any member of the government has ever said.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, although I am a bit astonished that a member who has a municipal background, as this hon. members does, would ask such a question.

The reality is that, under the Constitution, the jurisdiction in terms of powers for municipal governments lie with the provinces. I agree that municipalities need more funding powers. How would they get that funding power? The Province of Ontario could give them part of the gas tax if it wished. The provinces could give municipalities the hotel tax. Toronto said it would like to have a hotel tax and the Province of Ontario said no.

If hon. members want to hear the answer, that is fine. If they want to shout, they should audition somewhere else, because when it comes to dumb and dumber, the hon. member should talk to his buddies next to him.

The reality is that when it comes to sewers, water, et cetera, it is a partnership. The federal government will not fill the potholes. That is up to the municipalities. They establish their priorities. The member says that the 10 year program and the initial down payment was not enough. Excuse me, I cannot believe my ears.

He must be in a different world. Members opposite have been clambering for a 10 year program and an initial down payment, but what the member is suggesting is that provinces should be out of the way, that municipalities should continue to say they will not raise any taxes, but that the federal government should continue to be the gatekeeper. It should be the one to fund all these services directly. That is not acceptable.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, one of my Bloc colleagues is complaining over there. Thank goodness that the PQ is now on the other side of the house in the National Assembly of Quebec because it was the PQ that cut back continually on cities in Quebec. The UMQ continually went after the premiers of the day in Quebec and there was no help from the Bloc. Maybe they should take a look at their record in Quebec under the separatists: absolutely useless when it came to infrastructure. Obviously I got their attention, but the problem over there is that they like to talk but they do not like to deliver. They never delivered when it came to those issues.

I want to point out that when it comes to water, sewage treatment plants and rapid transit, this government has been there to invest, and in public libraries as well. All of this is because of the investment that the government has done in conjunction with our partners. We are continuing to do that and we will do more because we are committed to this program.

Let me point out that in 2000 we launched a $2 billion infrastructure Canada program in partnership with provinces and municipalities. This now is funding projects across the country, particularly in the area of water and waste water infrastructure, which I am sure is important to all members in the House. I would also point out that in 2001 we provided $2 billion for the Canada strategic infrastructure program.

What is important is that these are municipally generated programs. This is not the Government of Canada saying, “We know what is best and we are going to tell you what you need”. These are municipally driven. Anyone who has any notion of what municipally driven means knows it means that the cities set the priorities and come to the table with proposals.

Let me give an example. My own region, York region, came forward with a quick start program and put $50 million on the table. We then put $50 million on the table. The province of Ontario languished. In November, it was going to announce with us, then it said no, it had to wait. Then it was going to do it in January. It put that off. We finally and unilaterally announced the money at the end of March. We finally smoked out the Ontario government.

Last week, finally, Ontario put its $50 million on the table. However, we have lost a whole season for construction. That is the Ontario government, which of course says to have faith in the provinces. We could not even get $50 million out of it to match what the private and municipal sectors put on the table with the federal government, because the Ontario government thought it was going to have an election, I assume, and it wanted to do it within that 37 day period. It wanted to play politics. We wanted to put it on the table, and we had it there with our friends and said let us go ahead.

We also have an expansion of convention centres, right here in the city of Ottawa and in Vancouver. There was the cleanup of the Halifax harbour and the expansion of the Red River floodway. These are all municipally generated programs. They suggested them, we looked at them, they made sense and we went forward, again with other participation. Some provinces have been a little more quick to be at the table. I would congratulate the Province of Alberta in that Alberta continually has been very supportive of a national infrastructure program. That has been important.

There also has been recent funding through the border infrastructure fund, which assists projects that improve the flow of goods and services between Canada and the United States. So far, commitments have been made in Windsor, Sarnia and Niagara, and of course I know that the initiative is very important because it also has happened in the lower mainland in British Columbia.

I think we have demonstrated very clearly the work the government has done in the area of infrastructure, but members can rest assured that we are going to go further. Last year the Speech from the Throne committed the government to put in place a 10 year infrastructure program. It is something for which municipal governments have been asking for years and years, because municipal governments need to plan. The way they plan on a capital program is on a five year or ten year cycle. They need to know, so we put an initial investment down with regard to that. That was very important, because again we are looking at leveraging.

A lot of people talk about infrastructure in the House and forget the word leveraging. They forget the fact that the provinces, the municipalities and the private sector also put in money to leverage. For every $1 they put down, they get $2. It makes sense. As I have said, that 10 year infrastructure program will accommodate the long term strategic initiatives essential to competitiveness and to sustainability in terms of growth, which again I will say is part of this government's agenda.

It is important to note that a few months ago we backed up this commitment with a significant down payment of $3 billion as an initial payment toward this. It was very important. As we know, the Canada strategic infrastructure fund is for large projects in large urban areas. I listed a few of them minutes ago. We must keep in mind that the FCM said it wanted to do things with regard to the environment, so it wanted to look at getting a fund that would help in that regard. It proposed the FCM green enabling fund. The government initially put in $150 million. This revolving fund was such a success, and I know the New Democratic Party was pleased about this, that the government put in another $150 million because the fund is doing the kinds of things that from an environmental standpoint and infrastructure standpoint are important in communities across the country.

We talk about stable funding, and this is also important. The fact is that the government has had numerous infrastructure programs in conjunction with our partners. The government sat down and worked with them, again, though, always saying that the premise is that those programs had to be municipally driven. Otherwise, a top down approach is not going to work. We do not support that.

This has been important for communities in the Northwest Territories. It has been important for the City of Yellowknife. I had the pleasure of working for many years with the then mayor of the City of Yellowknife, Pat McMahon, who worked tirelessly to make sure that those federal funds, in conjunction with those of the government of the Northwest Territories, helped improve water, sewer and roads in her community.

There were testimonials from mayors across the country who realized the importance of this. I think that is important to recognize. It is all part and parcel of competitive cities, not only on this continent but around the world.

Our friends across the way are saying it is about faith, that provinces may take the tax room, that we will have an arrangement with the provinces whereby they will take the money and make sure it goes to where it is needed. The difficulty is that sometimes the provinces have short memories.

As we know, often in the area of health care we hear that government is giving x number of cents, but the tax points are forgotten. Tax points of course mean that we vacate and the provinces receive revenue we otherwise would have. Yet the great myth the Alliance always talks about is the 14¢. I think now their myth of what we give on health care is up to 18¢. This is utter nonsense. The reality is that they do not include the tax points and we no doubt would have the same nonsense if we went ahead with this proposed situation.

At the same time, one of the members across the way raised some very important issues with regard to mad cow disease and SARS. If we had the dedicated tax the hon. member wants, we would have no flexibility whatsoever, and emergencies do come along. However, when one is in opposition one can ask for $3 billion one day, ask for a cut of $2 billion the next day, say to raise $4 billion the next day, and tell us to spend, spend, spend. That is not prudent financing.

This government has its fiscal house in order. We have eliminated the national deficit of $42.5 billion. Canada is the only G-7 country paying off its national debt. It has gone from 71.5% of GDP down to 44% and falling. It is because of those initiatives, because of the single minded purpose on this side of the House, that we are able to have the types of programs I have talked about today to help communities across this country.

There are the prairie grain growers, with $175 million over 2001-06 in federal funding; from the agriculture department, $159 million. If one were to listen to members across the way one would think there was absolutely no money going to communities across this country. They should take a look at that. They should take the time to talk to some of their municipal colleagues and find out.

Affordable housing is another good example of what this government has done. There is $680 million on the table and again there is another problem with Ontario. We put money on the table and the province basically said it would not put any money down but would use in kind, put forth by municipalities. It was their money. Essentially Ontario did not come to the table. That is a problem. It is a problem because this country is about partnerships. One of the most effective partnerships this government has discovered is that of working with municipal leaders across Canada and addressing those issues. Again I will refer to the fact that the party across the way is only now recognizing this as an important issue

I would like to point out that it is not simply about roads, bridges and sewers. It is about issues dealing with the environment, making our communities better in terms of cleaner air. Cleaner air is very important. We worked with cities in recognizing what they wanted. I refer back to the green enabling fund and how important that was for projects to move forward.

In April 2000 the Federation of Canadian Municipalities supported 226 initiatives and approved $36 million in funding through the green enabling fund, which has a total value of $134 million. It is an obvious example, not only of stable funding, but of cooperation and partnership. We do not just talk about it, we deliver.

The 2003 budget announced several new environmental initiatives including $3 billion to help cities improve the quality of life for their citizens. That included $2 billion over five years to implement the government's climate change plan for Canada to improve air quality for Canadians, and to ensure that people who suffer from emphysema, for example, could breathe better because of those types of initiatives. The 90% reduction of sulphur in gas, for example, is very important. The fact is that since 1993, discounting provincial, municipal and others, $30 billion has come from the federal government to deal with infrastructure issues. That is $30 billion more than we had in the previous regime.

If the Canadian Alliance were to have its way, until recently I guess, it would have followed in the footsteps of the Conservative Party. It would not have helped the cities. Alliance members have never been on record as supporting cities, except when their leader went to the FCM the other week and suddenly, on the road to Damascus, he saw the light and said “We are going to assist cities on infrastructure”. That is great. We like that because now I will not have to argue with Alliance members about why this is an important issue. We know it is important.

It is unfathomable to me how the Alliance Party can suggest that we are going to simply turn over. We have read the motion. It says that we should do this with the consent of the provinces. Provinces will of course sign on to anything where they think they will get more money. However, one of the comments that I have heard in the House is how the provinces need more money.

Let us check the record because it is very clear. Provinces have the same fiscal capacity to raise money that the government does, but of course they would rather not do that because obviously they do not find it politically palatable. However, they have the same ability to do so.

Bloc members have made a career out of complaining about federal transfers. This was the same party that held up the budget implementation bill earlier when we in fact had put more money into the hands of Quebeckers. However, they would rather complain.

I want to again emphasize that it is because of these kinds of programs that we have that flexibility. We are able to come up with new initiatives, such as the cultural space program for cities, which is very important, as well as affordable housing. However, if we were to tie our hands as the party across the way would do, we would not be able to do that. We would not be able to respond to new initiatives and we would have some cases where money would be over supplied in one area and underfunded in others, and that would not be very useful.

I want to point out again the importance of this program to the government and of the many initiatives that we have taken. I look forward to the continuing debate in the House as the day goes on.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to speak to this motion put forward by the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. In fact, it is a very interesting motion, particularly coming from the Canadian Alliance, which only recently just a few weeks ago started to talk about this issue of vacating tax room for this type of infrastructure program, but as I say, better late than never.

As a former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I am aware of the importance of cities. I am very aware of the needs that all governments have, particularly when it comes to infrastructure. I suppose the reason I am pleased to be able to talk about this issue today is that through the national infrastructure program the government is in fact well on the road to meeting the infrastructure needs in partnership with cities and indeed with provinces across this country.

Let us consider the first line of the motion we have before us: “That, in the opinion of this House, Canada's infrastructure needs should be met by a regime of stable funding”. I would argue that this government, since it came into power a decade ago, is doing just that. When it comes to making municipal infrastructure needs a priority, we can take a great deal of pride on this side of the House in what we have done.

In 1983 the FCM proposed a national infrastructure program to deal with the deficit in infrastructure in cities across this country. It languished until 1994, when this government adopted the first national infrastructure program.

Mr. Speaker, I know this has been a very important initiative in your community, as it has in my community and across the country. Cities are home to 80% of Canadians and account for the largest share of the GDP and personal income. The government made it clear in the Speech from the Throne last September that competitive cities and healthy communities are vital to our individual and national well-being. That is why we are dealing with new partnerships for a new urban strategy. This is the government that has talked about and delivered on urban issues.

Across the way it is nice that they are finally on the same page, approximately, but I remember being in committee meetings where some members on the other side were slamming the national infrastructure program.

Let us put it this way. In May 2001, the Prime Minister created the caucus task force on urban issues and asked us to engage in dialogue with citizens and experts from all orders of government on the opportunities and challenges facing urban regions in this country. As a member of that task force, let me tell members that we issued our final report in November, and I am sure the hon. members across the way would congratulate us for our vision and what we believe we need to do in terms of partnership with cities for the future of this country. By the time the report was released, the Clerk of the Privy Council had created a working group of officials charged with building caucus task force recommendations, building on that and providing further recommendations for the future.

The government's commitment is very important to this issue. It is important because successive budget surpluses and a strong economy have given us the leverage and the opportunity to be able to invest in the Canada infrastructure works program.

I will point out that when we are talking about investments, and I will get into numbers later, we are talking about investments by the Government of Canada leveraged by provincial governments, leveraged by cities and leveraged by the private sector. In other words, it is not simply federal money. Without the federal government, the others would not be at the table. We are at the table. We are there working with our partners on this issue.

I think an unbiased view of our record would show that we are doing exactly what the hon. members are talking about. The fact is that we are funding infrastructure needs and we are doing it in very important ways.

Let us take the opportunity to talk about investments. Since 1993, this government's investment in infrastructure has exceeded $12 billion. That is just federal money. That does not include the other orders of government and private sector partners. Our contribution only begins there, because the investment has stimulated or will stimulate an additional $20 billion in spending by other partners, including the provinces.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, I know the Coquihalla highway very well since my parents used to live in Kelowna. I have driven it many times to Vancouver. It is a wonderful highway and, obviously, not only is it great to drive but from an infrastructure standpoint is quite an engineering feat.

The member talks about vision. I want to indicate to her that when it comes to vision, this government is the first government to say that we will be partners with municipal governments, that we will embrace a national infrastructure program, that we will embrace the strategic infrastructure fund, that we will deal with the green enabling fund, all these things to make our cities better. There are some in the House who were with me, who fought those battles with the FCM against the government of the day. We said that we needed to do this, that we needed to go back to our communities.

The premise of the motion is based on faith that the provinces will do their part. The provinces have not done their part. Ontario is an excellent example of the slash and burn policy of the Harris-Eves government in terms of not delivering moneys to municipalities. In fact they have cut back continually.

Why does the member have such great faith in governments that--

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to acknowledge my colleague's motion today. I congratulate him and the Canadian Alliance on finally recognizing after many years in the wilderness the issue of infrastructure.

For many years that party across the way opposed the national infrastructure program. The Johnny-come-latelies in that party have now decided that this is a politically motivated motion which they are now trying to bring before the House. It is very nice to see. It is better late than never. Obviously they got themselves a new sun dial. Now they realize that this is an important issue. This is an issue that the government embraced immediately in 1993 when it was elected, so it is nice to see that.

I would like to ask the member one specific question. I am sure I will have an opportunity to ask a few questions during the day. How does the member believe, in terms of its structure, if the federal government vacated tax room that we would actually see the moneys vacated utilized by the provinces for the purpose for which the member suggests should be done?

[Finance, June 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the finance committee are free to examine whatever issues they want. I would suggest to the hon. member that I am sure the chair of the committee will take the member's words under advisement and will go from there.

[Question No. 220, June 10th, 2003]

A family living in Newfoundland with three disabled children and a total income of $35,000 would not be subject to an effective marginal tax rate of 85.1% because it would not pay any federal personal income tax. The calculation of the effective marginal tax rate in the example does not reflect the fact that this family would be able to claim the disability tax credit for the children who have disabilities. In fact, a family under these circumstances would not pay any federal personal income tax until almost $43,000 of total income.

Not only would this family not pay any federal income tax, but in 2003 it would receive about $8,500 in federal net benefits through the Canada child tax benefit, the proposed child disability benefit, and the goods and services tax credit.

This being said, it is correct that some low and modest income families may face high effective marginal tax rates as a result of benefit reduction rates applying in addition to income tax rates over some income ranges. Benefit reduction rates arise from the need to income-test benefits to target government assistance to those who need it most. The budget presented in the House of Commons on February 18, 2003, indicates that “going forward, the federal government and the provinces will need to ensure that, as the welfare wall is overcome, low and modest income families with children who realize greater earnings, for example, by taking up better paying jobs--keep more of the extra money they earn. This will include examining the reduction or ‘claw-back’ rates for the CCTB as well as other elements of the tax and benefit structure that may affect incentives to work and earn income for low and modest income families”.

[Question No. 219, June 10th, 2003]

A Manitoba family with three disabled children and a total income of $35,000 would not be subject to an effective marginal tax rate of 85.1% because it would not pay any federal or provincial personal income tax. The calculation of the effective marginal tax rate in the example does not reflect the fact that this family would be able to claim the disability tax credit for the children who have disabilities. In fact, a family under these circumstances would not pay any federal personal income tax until almost $43,000 of total income.

Not only would this family not pay any income tax, but in 2003 it would receive about $8,500 in federal net benefits through the Canada child tax benefit, the proposed child disability benefit, and the goods and services tax credit.

This being said, it is correct that some low and modest income families may face high effective marginal tax rates as a result of benefit reduction rates applying in addition to income tax rates over some income ranges. Benefit reduction rates arise from the need to income-test benefits to target government assistance to those who need it most. The budget presented in the House of Commons on February 18, 2003, indicates that “going forward, the federal government and the provinces will need to ensure that, as the welfare wall is overcome, low and modest income families with children who realize greater earnings, for example, by taking up better paying jobs-- keep more of the extra money they earn. This will include examining the reduction or ‘claw-back’ rates for the CCTB as well as other elements of the tax and benefit structure that may affect incentives to work and earn income for low and modest income families”.

[Canadian Television, June 6th, 2003]

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that somewhere in that question was congratulations to the government on the fact that the government extended the Canadian television fund by $150 million over two years.

He should congratulate the government on the fact that the minister advanced $12.5 million yesterday. The minister was listening to the stakeholders. The minister, within the fiscal framework, has advanced this money. It is good for the industry and it is good for Canadians.