James Rajotte

[Parliament of Canada Act, September 22nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pose a couple of specific questions to the government House leader, particularly as they relate to the appointment of the ethics commissioner. The government is saying that this is a fulfillment of its promise, way back in the first red book, of an independent ethics commissioner, something that government members themselves voted against when the Alliance introduced this motion.

We on this side of the House have some concerns with respect to the appointment of this person. We do not see it being an independent ethics commissioner, particularly as it relates to the consultation that is to take place. Therefore, I would like the government House leader to specify the type of consultation that will take place with the Prime Minister and the other leaders.

Specifically, if the Prime Minister puts forward a name and the Leader of the Opposition disagrees with that name, what then is the process? Will the government House leader answer that question? He knows that it then is a majority vote in the House of Commons to approve the independent ethics commissioner, that is, apparently independent but obviously not. If the Leader of the Opposition disagrees with the name put forward by the Prime Minister, what then is the process? And will the Prime Minister then withdraw the name?

[Question No. 204, September 15th, 2003]

With regard to border crossings between Canada and the United States since June 1, 2002: ( a ) what submissions have been made to the government of the United States; ( b ) what forms did these submissions take--verbal or written or both; ( c ) what was on the agenda at any face to face meetings or conference calls; ( d ) what were the titles of any written submissions; ( e ) what were the dates of the meetings and/or written submissions; ( f ) what correspondence, if any, was sent directly to the President of the United States or, if not, to which departments and/or agencies of the United States government were the submissions made; ( g ) have there been any submissions specifically dedicated to the possibility of a second checkpoint; ( h ) have there been any submissions specifically dedicated to the proposed 24 hour advance notice for commercial trade; ( i ) has there been any discussion and/or memoranda within Canadian departments concerning the possibility of sending a trade team or special envoy to the United States with respect to border crossing, trade and/or trade corridors; ( j ) have Canadian departments received submissions--verbal or written--from Canadian industries concerning problems with the border, and if so, how many; and ( k ) have Canadian departments received submissions--verbal or written--from Canadian exporters concerning a possible decline in trade and/or exports with the United States?

(Return tabled)

[Kyoto Protocol, June 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, in the Liberal leadership debate last Saturday, the front-runner, the former finance minister, told the party faithful that he would have held off adopting Kyoto targets until there was a plan on how Canada could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.

This former minister also told the Edmonton Journal editorial board that:

What they did was to simply ratify Kyoto without a plan, then start to work on it. You see where we are four months later, we still don't have a plan.

What a revelation. The Canadian Alliance has been raising concerns for years that there is no implementation plan.

The industry committee has been studying this issue and has had no details provided to it by the environment minister, national resources or finance.

Canadians deserve answers. They deserve principled leadership. If the member for LaSalle—Émard believes that there was no plan then and there is no plan now, then he should have exercised leadership by voting against Kyoto last December.

The Canadian Alliance will continue to exercise leadership and push the government to start working with Canadian businesses and consumers to reduce emissions and allow our economy to grow.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. When we look at it, the federal excise tax raises about $4.7 billion and the government spends about $100 million or so in infrastructure. If we look at the percentage, 2.5%, according to the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, of the amount that the federal government collects in gasoline taxes was invested into roads. If we add in the GST, it is 1.7%. That is completely unacceptable and a practice that has to be stopped.

The provinces, municipalities and communities need stable funding through a motion. I implore members on all sides of the House to adopt the Canadian Alliance motion and provide those communities with the funding that they need.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question because it highlights a policy difference between this party and the centralist Liberals who think Ottawa knows best on everything.

The facts have shown that the provinces put a higher proportion of their fuel taxes into infrastructure than the federal government has done over the last umpteen years.

I will stand with any province in this country, whether it is Quebec, Alberta, B.C. or Ontario, that they know the infrastructure needs of their own province, their own communities and their own municipalities better than any federal government that has ever existed in the history of this country. That is my position.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am so surprised by those questions and comments from such an intelligent member on the other side of the House that I am not sure where to start, but I will try.

First, with respect to the member for LaSalle—Émard, the fact is that he endorses this policy initiative proposed by Canadian Alliance. At the end of the quote that the former minister of finance put forward are conditions where he can walk away from his policy position later and say that he did not get complete agreement with the provinces on these 10 items of detail, therefore it will not work. That is what it is. However the quote reads:

If access to a portion of the gasoline tax ends up being the preferred mechanism of municipal leaders, the federal government will be at the table with the province offering to vacate tax room...

That is substantially the same as the motion put forward by the Canadian Alliance today.

The basic principle is the following. If we want to fund infrastructure across Canada, we can do it in a couple of ways. We can do it with the government coming along every year and deciding it will spend $100 million this year, $2 billion next year and zero the year after. It will look at all the projects and decide politically which ones are the best, but it will decide about the first infrastructure. There may be some real needs with Anthony Henday Drive in Edmonton, but the government actually thinks money is needed for luxury sky boxes at the Skyreach Centre because that is a determination it makes politically, which is an absolutely wrong decision. That is one way we can do this, which is a completely unacceptable way.

The second way, which is a better way, is for the federal government, which has a taxing power, to provide a stable source of revenue for the provinces and municipalities so that they can address their infrastructure needs which they know best.

The people of Edmonton and the surrounding communities know their infrastructures best, whether it is 23rd Avenue or Anthony Henday Drive, better than the federal government any day of the week, and those are the ones who deserve a stable source of funding, which is what this motion is trying to achieve.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to the motion introduced by the Canadian Alliance. At the outset I do want to compliment my colleague, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, for his work on this issue. He has certainly been a leader in this area. That is why we in the caucus affectionately call him “James the Greater”.

Interestingly, I am also partly responsible for this file as I am the industry critic. The government has actually deemed it necessary to place infrastructure within the industry portfolio, where it is administered by the regional development agencies, frankly something I as the industry critic question since it is once removed from Transport Canada, the decision making body where it should be. Second, these agencies do not have a good record in terms of fiscal accountability and transparency and frankly have a history of wasting taxpayers' money, but that is another debate for another day.

The Canadian Alliance does believe that government has a role to play in funding Canada's infrastructure. We have always believed that. We remain steadfast to that principle. We do, however, believe that responsibility for infrastructure lies primarily with the provinces and the municipalities, those levels of government that are closer to the people and closer to the decisions on infrastructure that have to be made.

The Canadian Alliance would therefore reduce federal gasoline taxes conditional on an agreement with the provinces that they would use this tax room to fund infrastructure in provincial and municipal jurisdictions. We would also continue and expand upon investments in border infrastructure and other areas of primary federal responsibility, for instance in the Detroit-Windsor area where a lot of needs for infrastructure need to be addressed.

I want to present some facts here. Each year Ottawa collects approximately $4.5 billion in gasoline taxes, yet the research that we and other agencies such as the Canadian Automobile Association and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation have done shows that only 5% or less than 5% of the total excise tax on gasoline is returned to Canadians in the form of federal highway funding. This is simply unacceptable. It is a practice that the government must stop if it is going to address infrastructure needs.

In comparison, and this addresses some of the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, just over 75% of the money provincial governments collect from fuel taxes is spent on roads. For example, the Province of Nova Scotia collects approximately $215 million annually from fuel taxes and its annual budget for highways is $180 million, 83% of their fuel tax budget. The federal government collects approximately $130 million in road fuel taxes a year in Nova Scotia, but under the current funding arrangement only 4% of that amount is reinvested in Nova Scotia.

We are currently struggling with the whole issue of tourism in Canada, particularly with the SARS crisis. The better part of tourism and trade takes place via roads. Roughly 90% of all trips between Canada and the U.S. are made by car.

Trade is also an issue. Approximately 65% of Canada's trade with the U.S. relies on trucking, particularly in areas such as Windsor and Detroit. Almost every province, in their submissions to the recent Canada Transportation Act review, cited the importance of border crossings as an integral part of a seamless transportation system and an important part of increasing trade and productivity.

The decline of highway capital expenditure in Canada has been identified as contributing to the Canadian productivity slowdown and the differential between our productivity levels and the productivity levels in the United States. Several western cities have experienced or are experiencing booms in industry and population. Road, sewer and water infrastructure are essential in both stabilizing and sustaining such growth. I can comment on my own riding. In the southern and western parts of the riding, phenomenal growth is occurring. Obviously that puts more demands on the basic infrastructure needs.

I must say that I was quite heartened by the example set by the member for LaSalle—Émard and I was hoping for the Liberal response today to follow it, because he has done one of his flip-flops. Now he has come around and endorsed the Canadian Alliance position. I want to quote from his recent speech to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. He said:

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

It sounds rather familiar, does it not? It sounds like the former minister of finance has flip-flopped again and endorsed another Alliance position.

The former finance minister is not alone in his support of the Canadian Alliance. The member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia stated in the House on December 18, 1994:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the government to give serious consideration to increasing support to our national highway system. Currently of the $5 billion collected as federal fuel tax, only about 10% of the revenue is invested in the Canadian highway system. This is simply not enough.

The Canadian Alliance has consistently supported a policy of investment in infrastructure. We believe in the concept of providing tax room to the provinces in order to upgrade urban infrastructure and provincial highways.

Infrastructure spending was a major plank of the Liberals' original red book campaign in 1993 in which they pledged to create jobs with the $2 billion infrastructure fund. It was and continues to be an invasion of provincial jurisdiction using the federal spending power.

If I can comment on my own province, it was used, frankly, to upgrade luxury boxes at hockey arenas instead of addressing the basic road and sewer needs that Alberta and other provinces desperately needed.

An agreement with the provinces to free up tax room would enable us to reduce our reliance on federal bureaucrats to deliver the current infrastructure program. The funds would instead be directly allocated to the provinces.

I hope all members of the House recognize that the current system is not working, that the percentage of the amount of the fuel tax collected currently by the federal government is far too low. It is unacceptable and needs to be changed and addressed.

Second, this viable alternative put forward by the Canadian Alliance in our motion today by the member from Port Moody is also endorsed by the member for LaSalle—Émard. I have yet to hear a member from the government side explain how the policy position put forward by the former finance minister differs from the Canadian Alliance motion put forward today. In fact they cannot do so.

The current finance minister, in a leadership debate on Saturday, had a very strong policy disagreement with the former finance minister. The former finance minister has changed his position and has now agreed with our position. When he votes on this issue I assume he will be supporting the motion if he follows through on the policy position he has put forward.

I wonder how the other Liberal members will vote based on the fact that a vast majority of them actually support the member.

I hope all members of the House will address the infrastructure needs of the municipalities and communities across Canada, which seek stable infrastructure funding so they can address their needs, by endorsing the motion put forward by the Canadian Alliance today.

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

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

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

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

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

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

[Supply, June 12th, 2003]

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

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

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

[Canada Elections Act, June 10th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, to be bipartisan, I want to state that I share my colleague's wish that this institution will certainly be worthy of the respect of Canadians. That is why I am very saddened by the fact that we are limited in how much we can debate this very important issue of how we finance political parties in Canada because it is a very crucial issue.

After a very limited period of debate on report stage and third reading, the government has invoked closure on this. It is completely unacceptable. Given the importance of the issue, there is no reason why we could not have a longer debate. The purpose of the institution of Parliament is supposed to be a deliberative assembly. When we shut down debate, we eliminate the whole purpose for the institution in the first place.

I want to speak to this motion and to the bill in general as well, since I have not had an opportunity as yet to go on the record. As the member opposite stated, we do not think this specific motion is necessary. We do not oppose increased calls for transparency or accountability. With respect to my own constituency association, we have a very modest level of funds in our account and we would have no problem opening up the books.

Going through the actual bill itself, and the summary of Bill C-24, we are discussing the whole regime of political financing. The first paragraph describes what the bill actually does: introducing limits on contributions made to Canada's electoral district associations, leadership and nomination contestants. We are not opposed to that.

The second paragraph imposes on registered electoral district associations, leadership contestants and nomination contestants the obligation to report to the chief electoral officer on contributions received and expenses incurred. Again, in terms of the general whole issue of transparency, the Canadian Alliance has been at the forefront calling for this.

Our concern, and one concern I can echo, is for those of us who have been involved in local campaigns. Obviously, for those of us with very active local associations, it is a lot easier to find someone who will do the books, the accounting and reporting. However I know, within my own riding, other parties that did not do so well had a tough time finding volunteers who would do all the reporting and be the official agent for the campaign.

I think we want to look at extending and enhancing the bureaucracy we require upon people to be active in political life. We want to ensure obviously transparency but a balance has to be struck to ensure that there is not too much bureaucracy or too many requirements so we prohibit people from entering and becoming active in political life.

I want to address the bulk of my talk to two other points, mainly with respect to the limits on corporate and union donations. This happens in various amendments in the bill. However the bill stipulates contributions to parties, candidates, electoral district associations, leadership contestants and nomination contestants may be made only by individuals who are subject to limits. A limited exception allows contributions of up to $1,000 to be made by corporations and trade unions or by associations for money given by individuals to registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates.

I want to state quite explicitly that we in the Canadian Alliance are very supportive of allowing for greater contributions by individuals in political campaigns and political parties. We as a party are much more dependant on individuals, our supporters and members than other political parties. We think that is where the bulk of this support ought to come from instead of relying upon corporate or union donations.

We have done a fair amount of work as a party in trying to inculcate that within our membership and our supporters that they should, by contributing, take ownership of the party, its apparatus, the ideas and the policy process.

If we look at the statistics from 1996 until 2001 and compare the corporate and individual donations per party, it is very instructive. The Liberal Party of Canada, through those years, raised over $53 million from corporate donations and $32 million from individual donations. If we compare that to what the Canadian Alliance raised, we see that the Canadian Alliance raised just over $13 million from corporation donations and over $34 million from individual donations. Given the fact that we obviously are not the governing party, I think that is a record for which we can be proud.

I should also point out that the NDP does rely to a greater extent on individual donations. It raised over $27 million through individual donations and $1 million through corporate donations, although a large amount of the NDP contributions come from union contributions. The Conservatives are about equal at about $18 million each, but again a higher proportion of their donations come from corporations.

On this point I would like to be clear and state that the Canadian Alliance is supportive of greater transparency and accountability within the system but it is also supportive of ensuring that the contributions by individual Canadians themselves are the greatest. To address the point made by the member who spoke before, we want to ensure that it is individual Canadians whose voices are heard rather than one or another interest group.

The last issue I want to address has to do with the public subsidy of political parties during election campaigns. There are so many things wrong with this that I want to point out a few of them. Obviously what is of concern at this time, given the fact that the government has invoked closure, is that for weeks and weeks the Prime Minister and the government House leader have stated that $1.50 per voter would be enough to balance off the loss in corporate and union donations. They then came back from committee and the government House leader announces today that it was the committee that recommended this.

The committee chairman, in the news reports today, stated that it was the Prime Minister's compromise, that the committee was simply fulfilling the Prime Minister's wish on it, which, instead of $1.50 per voter, has been pushed up to $1.75 per voter. No explanation has been given for this but one has to assume that there is one.

On our side of the House, because we are in opposition and because we have seen the government operate as it has over the past 10 years, we are a little suspicious. One would think, given the comments of the head of the Liberal Party of Canada about the funding shortfall, that the Liberals bumped up the amount from $1.50 to $1.75 to ensure that the Liberal Party would be in a positive position rather than a negative position.

That would be an unbelievable reason to change public policy if it is to ensure that one political party actually receives as much or more than it did in corporate donations. It violates a fundamental principle, a political principle. I actually think the legislation will be challenged in court because it violates a fundamental principle. It forces voters, Canadians, whether they agree with the party or not, to contribute to that political party. We are forcing people who are members of the NDP to contribute to the Alliance and people who support the Bloc to contribute to the Liberals. We are forcing them to do that through this enforced public subsidy and to me that violates the whole principle of political expression.

Political expression is not only the right to participate but the right not to support a certain political party or a certain political organization, and the right not to participate in certain ways of political life. That is the flip side of this issue as well.

I want to go back and talk about the increase from $1.50 to $1.75. We heard for weeks and weeks that the government, particularly the backbenchers, were having a tough time supporting the legislation and that they likely would delay the bill, kill it outright, vote against it or hope it dies in the Senate. There was sort of a collision course between the Prime Minister and his own caucus on this issue.

In order to come to a compromise, and the Liberal Party has been compromising since Confederation on issues, it was agreed that the $1.75 would please everyone or please no one but that everyone would end up voting for it. We in the Alliance think that is a fundamentally bad way to make public policy.

We not only opposed the increase in public subsidy from $1.50 to $1.75, but we opposed the $1.50 in the first place. The basic rule of involvement in political life should be that one supports the political party of one's choice. We should encourage more Canadians to become more active but we should do that in terms of them actually giving money to the party they support. That is the fundamental principle that should guide us and that is why we in the Canadian Alliance oppose the legislation.