Barry Campbell

[Canada-Us Tax Treaty, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a matter we will negotiate with the Americans rather than with the member opposite.

I assure him on behalf of all Canadians that we will find solutions. The tax treaty was designed to prevent double taxation. We will address this problem. We will do it soon with our American counterparts.

[Canada-Us Tax Treaty, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

The minister will be taking up the matter with his American counterpart. We are aware of the matter, the issue of concern and the number of Canadians affected by it. We will be discussing with our American counterparts appropriate solutions in the interests of those Canadians affected.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

And did they get there?

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I will not comment on those specific projections because I have not seen them.

However, looking to the budget documents, taking us to 1997-98, in that year our financial requirements will be 0.7 per cent of GDP, the lowest in a long time. The debt to GDP ratio in that year will be declining. Those two ratios will continue to improve after that.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the budget and in particular the new child support package do contain measures with respect to enforcement.

Contrary to members of the third party who seem to feel we should look to the Income Tax Act to induce spouses to support their children, we believe that responsibility is there regardless of the Income Tax Act. We believe that parents under a court order or who have an agreement to pay certain amounts should meet those obligations. I think we all believe that parents have that obligation whether or not they have a written agreement to that effect. It is one of the fundamental principles of being a parent.

In specific terms we are proposing as part of the program to deal with chronic default, with which the hon. member was concerned, a number of features: a federal licence suspension initiative; extended searches to trace defaulters; broader powers for the diversion of federal pensions; generally supporting those ideas with enhanced consultations with the provinces. To a great extent this is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. We are working very closely with the provinces on this matter which is of interest to all Canadians.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, beginning with the last point on the technical committee, I thought that the opposition members wanted to study business taxation and other taxation issues. What they are saying is that they know exactly what to do right now, so let us just do it. Let us not consult with anybody who disagrees with our opinion. Let us just do what they say. We see things differently. We think Canadians want into the discussion and the process.

As for measures with respect to employment, the budget is right with those suggestions. As the opposition appears to be doing, I would not belittle the investment being made in youth. For instance, let us focus on the $315 million in budget savings which will be put into new employment opportunities specifically created for youth.

Let us not overlook, as the opposition is apparently doing, the technology partnerships Canada program which is laid out in the budget which will bring direct results to the province of Quebec. It has depended to a great extent on the previous DIP for high tech and important jobs for young people.

Let us not overlook, as they seem to want to because they do not want to remind the House, improved funding, increased capital for the Business Development Bank of Canada and the Export Development Bank. That translates into investments and jobs.

Let us not overlook getting the fiscal fundamentals right. That will also contribute to lower interest rates and more jobs.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to lead off the debate for the government on the 1996 federal budget and to share my perspective on how our government views fiscal policy in the context of overriding economic and social priorities. But before I do that, I want to make a number of comments.

Comments from the official opposition reflect a fundamental lack of logic, as Quebecers and other Canadians will see immediately. Perhaps it is only on the opposition benches that you can suck and blow at the same time. Let me give some examples.

We often hear people from the official opposition sounding like Reformers, complaining that we are adding to the deficit. I heard that this morning. Yet two sentences later we hear it said not to cut and certainly do not cut defence in the province of Quebec.

On the one hand they say the rich should pay more income tax but on the other they say it is not fair to take into account the family income, the combined income of rich people.

They cannot have it both ways. They tell us to look at the tax system. We are responding and looking at the tax system but they do not want us to include people in that consultation that do not agree with their opinion.

We hear from the third party the question of alternate budgets. Perhaps the reason that no alternate budget has been presented this year is that when Reform members presented last year's alternate budget they called for massive cuts immediately across the board and the only increase was going to be crime control and prisons. That is the kind of society they saw emerging from those cuts.

This budget is the third mile post on our government's journey to securing fiscal stability and a dynamic competitive economy, an economy that can provide the jobs Canadians need and sustain the social programs we cherish.

The plan announced yesterday consolidates and extends the actions taken in our earlier budgets. Together these implement a comprehensive strategy Canadians can believe in. This is an important point. The ultimate measure of any government's success is its credibility.

All of us here are aware of the disrespect and cynicism felt toward the political system by too many Canadians. There should be no mystery about why they feel that way. Too often they have experienced governments that seemed focused on special and narrow interests and more concerned with private and hidden agendas.

Our agenda is different. It is a public agenda to serve the interest groups that are the real heart of Canada. People who want jobs, who want medicare and social programs sustained; seniors and seniors to be, worried about their pensions; children made vulnerable by

family breakdown; students, young people looking for their first job experience; charities struggling to respond to the needs of Canadians: these are our vested interests. This budget provides them and every Canadian in every region with renewed hope for our future. We should be proud of that.

I am also proud that our new initiatives do not violate the core commitment of getting Canada's deficit under control. We are reallocating funds to keep the trust of Canadians, not digging deeper into the pockets of besieged taxpayers.

Let me underscore our fiscal philosophy. We are tackling Canada's fiscal problem not as a narrow goal in and of itself but rather because it is a fundamental component of national growth, new jobs, economic security and sovereignty. We will keep hitting or bettering our fiscal targets again and again and again. And that is the nightmare of the third party. Our fiscal progress to date and other actions are paying off. Canada's economic fundamentals are strong.

So, let us begin by looking at this budget from a perspective I believe is everyone's concern: employment and economic growth.

As the minister said, the changing nature of work and the evolution of the economy are such that "we are facing a revolution whose scope and depth rival that of the industrial revolution itself".

Canadians know that direct job creation must come from the private sector. But it is incumbent upon the government to make sure the economic context is the best possible and favours the continuous economic growth necessary for job creation.

This requires first of all a reduction of the deficit because deficits keep interest rates much too high. High interest rates hinder investments, employment, and consumption. In a nutshell, they are an obstacle to job creation.

Deficit control requires, among other things, that we keep inflation low. This contributes to reducing pressures on interest rates and helps control the other costs of doing business. This makes Canada more competitive on foreign markets. We can also see the dividends derived from our ability to control the deficit and inflation.

Short term interest rates have diminished by three percentage points since last year's budget. This means a saving of $2,400 a year on a $100,000 mortgage.

Our increased competitiveness means a strong increase in our exports and a record exports surplus.

It is clear that our work is far from over. Much more needs to be done. Continued progress begins with further fiscal improvement and the 1996 budget delivers. With our first two budgets we established rock hard foundations. With these measures our 1995-96 and 1996-97 deficit targets bringing the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP are secure.

The steps proposed in yesterday's budget consolidate and extend our first two budgets and further contribute to economic and financial objectives. We are maintaining our focus on reducing program spending because the debt is a problem created by government and the solution has to focus primarily in our own backyard. That is why of the cumulative fiscal actions we have taken from 1994-95 to 1998-99, a full 87 per cent have been expenditure savings.

Together the budgets will contribute $26.1 billion in savings for 1997-98. This action together with reform of employment insurance will ensure that we hit our new deficit target to reduce the deficit to 2 per cent of GDP in 1997-98. As the minister said the other day in this House: 6, 5, 4, 3, 2. When the Liberals arrived the ratio was at almost 6 per cent of GDP. We are heading toward 2 per cent and beyond. We are getting the job done in a balanced, humane, sensitive, reasonable way.

The combined budget plans will deliver additional savings in 1998-99 of $28.9 billion. This means the deficit will continue to drop. It is very important that the debt to GDP ratio also start to fall.

Let me highlight one important fiscal measure we shall achieve.

It is changing financial needs-new money the government must borrow on lending markets.

When we came to power in 1993-94, the federal borrowing requirement was $30 billion. In 1997-98, thanks to our initiatives, it will only amount to $6 billion, or 0.7 per cent of the GDP. In relation to the economy, this is the lowest level since 1970, which would mean that of all central governments of the G-7, Canada would have the lowest budget variance.

There is a related issue. It is not just that the federal fiscal situation is improving. The outlook for the provinces and the territories is also improving markedly. The provincial-territorial deficit was cut to $12.6 billion in 1995-96 from its peak of $25 billion in 1992-93. That is a drop from 3.6 per cent of GDP to 1.6 per cent.

This year Canada's total government deficit should fall below the G-7 average to second lowest behind the United States. By

1997 the nation's total government deficit should be the lowest of the G-7 based on other members' current plans. I am confident that is hard fact, not rosy rhetoric. The government is making sustained fiscal progress and it is driving the opposition crazy.

However, the 1996 budget goes beyond bottom line calculations. As Liberals we know that financial reform must never be an end in itself. The steps we are taking to get our fiscal house in order are a means to an end. What is that end? It is lower interest rates and better job growth. These steps are a means to ensure that we can preserve the Canada that Canadians want.

Canada's social programs can be preserved while being fiscally responsible. The two are not mutually exclusive. The 1996 budget establishes a long term funding arrangement for the new Canada health and social transfer which was announced in last year's budget. This long term funding arrangement will be stable, predictable and sustainable.

The 1996 budget proposes a five-year legislative funding arrangement for the CHST covering the period 1998-99 through to 2002-2003. At the end of the five-year period total CHST transfers are projected to be $2.3 billion higher than 1997-98. This will mark the first time the federal government has taken action to increase the growth in these transfers since the mid-1980s, contrary to some of the things we have heard in this House which have suggested that we will continue to cut transfers forever. The government is moving in the other direction with the 1996 budget.

Most important, as part of this, framework legislation will be passed which says that cash transfers will never, ever fall below $11 billion. The cash component of the CHST will be maintained. A floor will be set. It may be above that but never below. As the minister stated yesterday, this will assure Canadians that the commitment of the national government in support of health care, post-secondary education and assistance to the poor will be intact and strong.

Measures like these to secure social programs on a macro level are vital, but if any group deserves special focus it is young people, especially those buffeted by family breakdown. This budget speaks to them.

It announces a new child support system, a new strategy which is founded on the principle that children come first. First of all, according to the new system, child support payments will not be included in the income of the custodial parent for tax purposes, nor will they be deductible for the non custodial parent.

Second, the government establishes guidelines for determining levels of child support in a fairer and more consistent manner, in order to reduce conflicts between parents who separate.

There is another element of the action plan. The government will be reinvesting the anticipated revenue gains from the new tax rules in measures to benefit children.

Most Canadians agree it is time to prioritize the saving that are realized. Among other things, the working income supplement of the child tax benefit will be doubled. Beginning in July 1997, the supplement will go from a maximum of $500 to $750 and in July 1998 it will be increased further to a maximum of $1,000.

I have touched on some of the actions the budget will be taking to help children, but there is another vital component of the budget which is new support for the charitable sector.

Past budgets have emphasized the need to look to the non-profit and voluntary sectors, to recognize the fine work they do and have indicated that Canadians will be increasingly looking to the non-profit, voluntary charitable sectors when government has declining resources to do everything it might wish to do. That is why the role of charitable organizations has become more important than ever.

It is not enough for government to talk the talk, to say: "Canadians will have to look to that sector. They do a better job in some respects than government does in any event and it has to pull back". We have to walk the walk. We have to give that sector the tools it needs to get the job done. The 1996 budget does that. It takes an important first step in helping that sector to do more by encouraging more Canadians to be partners with charities.

It has been proposed, among other things, that the annual limit for tax assistance on charitable donations be raised from the current 20 per cent of net income to 50 per cent and to 100 per cent in the event of testamentary gifts, gifts on death. Gifts of appreciated property will also be encouraged through the measures being taken.

I want to stress that these are first steps because over the next year the government will be examining other ways to encourage charitable giving and charitable activities.

This is a budget of wide ranging and dramatic action. No single speech can fairly reflect the scope of its plans: the proposed seniors benefit, plans to boost investment and youth training in technology and trade, the measures that will help young people increase their lifetime contributions to RRSPs and tax measures to encourage sustainable development. My hon. colleagues will be addressing these other areas in detail as this debate continues.

I would like to close on the overall bottom line of this budget.

I think that today's budget reproduces and intensifies the positive messages contained in the speech from the throne, so as to restore hope for Canadians in key sectors.

We are continuing to restore fiscal health, an essential condition for job creation and economic growth. We are rethinking the government's role so that it better serves Canadians and the economy. We are securing the future of social programs, viable and fairer programs which help the most needy. We are investing in the future in order to provide new opportunities for Canadians in key sectors.

When we came to office three years ago, the economic challenges seemed daunting. We have taken dramatic action and as a result the economic and fiscal fundamentals in Canada are strong and improving. We will neither squander that progress nor abandon Canadians along the way.

I urge all hon. members to support the 1996 budget and help us get on with the job of securing Canada's future.

[Toronto, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the greater Toronto area is home to 4.5 million people. The area has been disproportionately impacted by the recession and continues to lag in the recovery, with negative repercussions for the entire Canadian economy.

The Government of Canada spends millions and millions of dollars in the GTA often in ways people do not see directly. My question is for the Minister responsible for the infrastructure program. Will he tell the House how that one program is contributing to economic recovery in the greater Toronto area?

[The Late Phil Givens, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the late Phil Givens, who passed away last Thursday in Toronto at the age of 73.

Mr. Givens personified public service. He served the people of Toronto first as councillor and then as mayor from 1963 to 1966. He served the people of Canada as an MP from 1968 to 1972 and the people of Ontario as an MPP from 1972 to 1977. Appointed to the Metro Toronto Police Commission in 1977, he became its chairman, serving until 1985. Most recently, he served as a provincial court judge. His was truly a life devoted to serving the community.

Phil was also a man of culture. He will always be remembered as the driving force behind bringing Henry Moore's sculpture "The Archer" to Toronto's Nathan Phillips Square. That bold initiative contributed to Henry Moore's later extraordinary gift of sculpture to the Art Gallery of Ontario.

Phil touched many people's lives and will be sorely missed. He is an example to all Canadians. I am sure members of the House will join with me in sending our condolences to his wife Min and his family.

[The Economy, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions. One of the greatest concerns of Canadians during the referendum campaign was economic stability. After last night's vote for Canada, markets have stabilized and the dollar has strengthened.

People expect the federal government to ensure the stability of the financial system. Could the secretary of state tell the House what the government is doing to protect Canadians from the shocks that may arise from unauthorized trading in derivatives?