Jim Peterson

[Special Import Measures Act, November 26th, 1998]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I simply want to congratulate you on your efforts and the progress you have made in French. You are a very good role model, not only for the members of this Parliament, but for all Canadians.

[Special Import Measures Act, November 26th, 1998]

That is a really good idea.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us owe the member for Scarborough East our thanks for a very eloquent and content charged presentation.

I have two questions for the very diligent and eloquent member for Scarborough East. In his experience did any of the other parties in the House of Commons undertake the type of detailed and consultative process for dealing with the issue of the future of Canada's financial institution?

I know the hon. member has done considerable work on the issue of coercive tied selling within the context of financial institutions. Would he care to elaborate on his conclusions?

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to listen to the constructive presentation by the hon. member opposite. He brings to this debate a long record of having worked on behalf of not only his constituents but also small business across this country. He has made a number of very important recommendations. A lot of them are based on the MacKay report.

I would like to ask the member a question on the problem where we do not have a continuity of bank managers. Customers are not dealing with the same person all the time and the individual cannot get to know their character, history, background or potential. They cannot assess whether they are capable of carrying out the business plan they put before them.

How does the member feel the banks could go about changing this? Would it mean paying much more at the branch level? Does government have a role in terms of achieving the goal the hon. member has adumbrated for us?

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 24th, 1998]

moved that Bill C-53, an act to increase the availability of financing for the establishment, expansion, modernization and improvement of small businesses, be read the third time and passed.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the maximum that was cut from annual transfers to the provinces was about $6 billion.

At the same time, one must admit that the provinces benefited from other transfers, including the infrastructure program, the child tax benefit and equalization. Quebec got $1 billion more with equalization, other transfers and lower interest rates. This was a major advantage in that they spent only 13 cents for every dollar in revenue whereas the federal government spent 26 cents for every dollar in revenue.

The member is wrong when he suggests that $42 billion was cut from provincial transfers. This is completely false. We have to be honest with people.

Although transfers were indeed cut, increased funding for other programs aimed at the provinces almost made up for these cuts. Provinces really benefited from our fiscal achievements.

In response to the hon. member's statement that we destabilized provincial economies, allow me to repeat what Bernard Landry said in the National Assembly: “We must take steps to help the country shed the debt we contributed to”.

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow in the vein of the member for Macleod. I believe in his own way he indicated that this is such an important issue that we must all treat it with a sense of responsibility to Canadians, with a sense of the responsibility that we have for looking after the health care of Canadians and the other needs of Canadians from coast to coast. I follow in that same type of non-partisan vein.

It must be recognized that when we came to power five years ago there was a $42 billion deficit.

The national debt exceeded $500 billion. We were forced to take measures to control the deficit and finally start reducing the national debt.

It was not easy at all. For our part, we began by reducing federal spending. It was clear that with $120 billion for all Canadian programs, we would be forced to cup spending, and we did with great difficulty. We cut expenditures by at least $15 billion, bringing them back to the level of spending reached just after World War II for federal programs as a whole.

Some of the cuts we made were to transfers to provinces. We replaced existing programs with the CHST. Of course, the result was that provinces had less money for things like education or health care.

Let us look at what we have done for Quebec. For the last five years, cuts for Quebec totalled $4,6 billion. That is true, but we did lots of other things. We gave an additional $2.1 billion in tax points. Equalization for Quebeckers, $1 billion more. Infrastructure programs, $650 million. Child tax benefits, $200 million. The innovation foundation, $800 million invested everywhere in Canada. There is also the sum of $1,8 billion over five years to raise the floor level of the CHST.

Quebec has not really lost much, and neither did the other provinces. When we dig a little bit deeper we can see the savings in the interest paid by Quebec on its debt. Quebec has really benefited over the past five years as far as transfers are concerned.

As I just said it was very difficult for us to cut transfers and programs for Canadians as a whole. However we have to admit our debt is now at 68% of the GDP.

Our federal debt is 68% of our GDP. Provincial debts on the other hand are only 26%. This means that out of every tax dollar paid to the federal government, 27 cents go to pay just the interest on our debt. At the provincial level this is only 13 cents. So I say, who is better equipped to share with us this necessity to put our fiscal house in order than the provinces?

Moreover, we have to admit that cut in transfers to Quebec was at the most 3% of its expenditures. However the province nevertheless cut its transfers to municipalities by 6%. It is exactly what Bernard Landry was saying at the National Assembly: “We must admit that we must do our share so that the Canada we have helped to put in debt can eliminate that debt”.

It is in this spirit that governments, whether federal or provincial, work for all Canadians. As the Prime Minister, the finance minister and the health minister said, we are going to contribute, in the next budget, to health care services for Canadians. That is the priority set out by our government which will respond to the needs not only of provinces, but of Canadians themselves, because we are talking about health care.

It must be recognized that the vast majority of health care expenditures, totalling about $80 billion a year, are the provinces' responsability. As the federal government, we recognize our obligation to contribute to the health care services for Canadians. That is why one of the first expenditures by our government was a $1.5 billion increase in health transfers.

We announced this would be our goal in the next budget. While we were facing this economic challenge, we increased expenditures in at least 10 or 11 areas of health care.

There is the health services research fund, $65 million; health transition fund, $150 million; Canada health information system, $50 million; national HIV-AIDS strategy, $211 million; Canada breast cancer initiative, $35 million; aboriginal health initiative, $25 million; private health and dental insurance for the self-employed, $200 million over two years; increases to the Medical Research Council, $134 million; hep C, $1.2 billion. That does not take into account the Canadian Foundation for Innovation or the on reserve aboriginal head start programs.

In conclusion, I would say that during this difficult fiscal period, we have made health care a priority. We have put our money where our mouths are. We do care and at the same time by acting responsibly we have been able to restore the fiscal health of Canada.

[Banks, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, concerning the question of the Bank Act, the legalities are not quite as clear cut as the member might let on. There is a question of whether it is the sale of goods or of services. Having said that, we have asked our officials to look into it. I will be very pleased to hear from the House and Senate committees looking into this to see what their suggestions are as to any potential expansion of the powers of banks. I look forward to the members' suggestions.

[Banks, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this issue came to my attention two days ago. I have asked our officials to look into it. I will be pleased to report back to the House as soon as I have an answer.

[Employment Insurance, November 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of EI cuts, let us be very clear about what Reform is advocating.

In its fresh start document, its election platform, it said cut the premiums 28% but for employers only. Last January it told us we could use the surplus in the EI to help pay down the deficit and the debt.

We intend to act responsibly and take a balanced approach. We will continue our program of cutting EI taxes. We will continue our program of reducing personal income taxes. We will pay down the debt and we will invest in health care.