Jim Peterson

[Budget Surplus, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we obviously had to cut transfers in certain areas, on behalf of all Canadians and because of the deficit. But what the Bloc is suggesting is truly irresponsible.

It does not take into account the $1 billion in equalization payments, the $2.1 billion increase in tax points and the $650 million transferred for the infrastructure program. Quebec did not suffer much in net terms.

It is obvious that—

[Budget Surplus, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we obviously have a surplus for the period to date, but there is a great deal of uncertainty about the future. One third of the world is currently in a recession. We will continue to act in a prudent and responsible way. It is our duty and our plan of action.

[Ways And Means, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion respecting the Excise Tax Act and I am also tabling explanatory notes.

I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think as members in this House we have to look forward. We have to look at what will be in the best interests of all Canadians.

For our part the government believes that in looking ahead as we try to build up surpluses, however small they may be and however precarious they may be, we should pursue a balanced approach. The Prime Minister has talked about this, reducing the debt, reducing personal income taxes which we started last year and will continue to do, and investing in the future capacity of Canadians through their economic and social programs to cope with the 21st century.

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of things to say.

First, we will follow the law. Second, as politicians we are called upon to make difficult choices. Is the member saying that he would rather have us reduce EI which is the lowest in the G-7? Or would he rather have broad based tax breaks that go to 100% of the Canadian taxpayers rather than to the 43% who would benefit from a cut in EI?

These are choices all of us are called upon to make. All of us wish that we did not have to be in a straitjacket where we had to get out of a deficit of $42 billion.

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we do follow the law.

The member mentioned personal income taxes. Last year we began the process of continuing personal income tax deductions taking 400,000 Canadians off the rolls and reducing them for 13 million out of 14 million taxpayers. The finance minister and the Prime Minister have announced that we will continue that course of reducing income taxes.

Let me also say that the member knows quite well that the payroll taxes in Canada are the lowest in the G-7.

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is a question of what one's political priorities are.

Unlike the official opposition, we are prepared to adopt for the benefit of all Canadians from coast to coast on all different levels of means a capacity to compete in the future economy of this country to invest in their future. We are prepared to say that the future of this country depends on the quality of education available to our young people. We are prepared to say that a good health system is critical—

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member is mistaken. She is really mistaken.

The minister is one of the strongest and most respected individuals. He enjoys the confidence of all his colleagues and all Canadians.

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is obviously a matter of political choice, and our choice has been the following: balanced policy, including paying down the debt, reducing taxes and investing in the future of Canadians with transfers and social programs for the disabled and for high tech.

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is really a matter of choice—