Tony Valeri

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comments of the hon. member about the actual formation of the crown corporation, having read the bill she knows that the Minister of Transport is ultimately responsible for that particular crown corporation. He is also responsible for making those appointments. She should also know that the industry itself has the opportunity to make appointments to the board. All these appointments are governor in council appointments. What we then have is a mixture of appointments with industry representation on the board. This should give the member some assurance with respect to how it would function.

With regard to the funds that are collected from the security fee, we have said that we are prepared to review this on an annual basis and ensure that they are allocated to the proper areas. We will ensure that safety is uppermost in people's minds. We have an opportunity to review this on an annual basis. We will certainly have a five year review.

Members of parliament will have the opportunity, as they have today, to ask questions, point to inefficiencies if they exist and propose improvements. That is really the purpose of the House. I encourage the member to continue to do what she is doing. At the end of the day, I believe we all have the best interests of Canadians at heart.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since the discussion seems to be on the EI account, I think it is important to point out a couple of facts.

I am sure the hon. member understands that it was the auditor general who required the EI fund to flow into the consolidated revenue fund because ultimately the government backstops the employment insurance account. If there is a deficit, government revenue will pay those benefits for Canadians. A separate fund would not guarantee that money would be there if and when benefits were needed.

Could the hon. member absolutely guarantee each and every Canadian that when they require benefits and there is a deficit in the fund that they will get those benefits? Who will pay out those benefits? If the government is going to pay out those benefits, the auditor general requires the government to include those moneys in the consolidated revenue fund. We cannot have it both ways.

[Business of the House, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties, as well as the member from Don Valley West, concerning the taking of the division of Bill S-14 scheduled at the conclusion of private members' business later this day, and I believe you would find consent for the following motion. I move:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on S-14 all questions necessary to dispose of the motion for third reading of the said bill be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday February 19 at the end of government orders.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I always listen attentively to my hon. colleague across the way. He has been a long time member of the finance committee. I was surprised when he made reference to the fact the bill was proceeding so quickly and that he did not have an opportunity to review it. I know when it gets to committee, he will have another opportunity to look at in more detail, analyze it and, I am sure, make a contribution, as he has in the past.

I would like to make some reference to the comments that he made with respect to the debt and debt repayment. He must at least acknowledge that there has been a $36 billion payment over the last four years. The debt to GDP ratio was 71% when we came to government. Next year it will be below 50%. We have made substantial payments with respect to our debt.

I acknowledge, quite frankly, that we pay an extraordinary amount of money in interest to our debt, so we must continue that debt repayment. In fact, the recent announcement would allow us, in this fiscal year, to put more money against that debt, so I am very happy about that.

The member spent his time talking about what it is that we did not do. Could the hon. member articulate for the House, and for Canadians, what amount he would actually pay down in debt and where he would find that money to pay down the debt? I hope that he would not be cutting programs that amount to millions of dollars when debt repayment requires billions of dollars.

I am looking for some specifics. It is easy to stand and talk about what we are not doing, but it is important to point where this money is coming from and what programs the member would cut to make that greater debt payment that he talks about.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2001, February 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments. He made reference to productivity and innovation yet he made no reference to what the government put forward in prior budgets along with this budget: $3.15 billion in the CFI, the Canada Foundation for Innovation; $200 million to defray the indirect costs of university research; the strategic infrastructure fund, which would help in the productivity of Canada collectively as a country; and the protection of the agreement signed by the provinces and the federal government with respect to health care transfers.

Does the hon. member not believe that his province of Nova Scotia, a beautiful province which I visit often, actually will benefit from some of these initiatives put forward by the government?

[Question No. 83, December 12th, 2001]

With regards to the changes made to the financial services sector by the coming into force of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act, does the government have plans to allow for the acquisition of demutualized insurance companies?

[Prebudget Consultations, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I want to respond to the hon. member's comment with respect to the call by the Bloc that the government should now somehow intervene and stimulate the economy in order to get us through this downturn.

It is also fair to say, and the hon. member should recognize this, that the $100 billion in tax cuts that was announced is now in the pipeline. The tax cuts are now hitting the economy as we move forward. The transfer of over $20 billion to provinces is now coming through the pipeline and that will hit the economy.

The drop in interest rates will create an enormous amount of stimulus. A lot of stimulus will hit the economy as we move through this and it will improve the economy. Going forward, what workers in my constituency want is to ensure that they have the opportunity to work and that their employment is secure.

[Prebudget Consultations, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the hon. member's comment about the infrastructure in British Columbia. When I made reference to the challenges in Ontario I did not do so to the exclusion of other parts of Canada. Clearly there are challenges right across the country.

The point I was making is that we need to ensure a free and efficient flow of goods to our largest trading partner, and certainly there are border crossings in British Columbia that require improved infrastructure. I would fully support the point that we need to embark upon a much broader program and approach to a highway system or a national highway system.

On the matter brought up by the member with respect to the dollars spent versus the dollars taken in by the federal government in terms of an excise tax, that really speaks to a formula for a directed tax whereby a certain amount of money is allocated to a particular area of expenditure.

I have a problem with directed taxes. While I support the need for improvement in infrastructure, the problem with directed taxes is that if we adopt a position of directing tax dollars a number of envelopes are set up right across the bureaucracy and when there is no longer a flow of money we must stop spending in those areas. If we were to find ourselves with a clear need for infrastructure and excise tax dollars that need to be directed actually drop for some reason, we would not have the capacity to find other money. I am much more in favour of recognizing that the area is a priority and that collectively with the provinces we work to resolve it, ensuring that there is federal participation.

[Prebudget Consultations, November 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to have the opportunity today to speak to the prebudget debate and reflect on what I am hearing in my own constituency with respect to the upcoming budget and what types of things the constituents are looking for in this upcoming budget.

Clearly, constituents are asking the government to take steps to ensure that our economy remains stable as a basic hypothesis. However, along with the funding of a security agenda, which is a priority for Canadians, constituents are also asking the government to maintain a balance both financially and in its approach. This means that along with funding the security agenda, we must also continue to invest some dollars in the areas of skills training and research and development which, going forward, would help to continue to build our economy.

I think Canadians and certainly my constituents are looking to the government to lay out some short term objectives and some medium term objectives, given the type of environment that we are in today. It is very clear that the immediate or short term objective is security, meeting the security challenge and ensuring the security agenda is funded effectively. This means an increased investment in CSIS, in the communications security establishment dealing with our policing, and in the RCMP to ensure we prevent the Canada-U.S. border from being held hostage by terrorists as a result of the September 11 tragedy. We must also work with the international community to bring terrorists to justice. All those things involve money but constituents are calling for some increased investment in those areas.

I think what constituents want is to have their confidence and hope restored as we move through this tragic time. We can restore confidence by restoring the free flow of goods and by pursuing an open and fair free trade with our largest trading partner, the United States of America. We can restore hope by investing in people and by ensuring people have access to education and to enhanced skills training.

We must ensure that stakeholders have an opportunity and a say in what kind of training is required in their particular sector. We must help apprentices who need to continue to improve themselves when they are engaged in training.

Those types of investments would send a signal that the government is investing in Canadians so they can improve their skills and continue to remain competitive, and improve productivity.

We also need to continue to invest in research and development if Canada and its economy is to continue to grow and innovate.

I heard directly from a representative of a university in my riding, McMaster University, who made it very clear that a challenge the universities are facing with respect to research are the indirect costs of research. I know the finance committee, in its travels across the country, heard that message. We need to respond to that type of request.

Health care concerns remain very high for the constituents of Stoney Creek. We are committed as a government to the over $20 billion transfer to the provinces. That type of stimulus is what is required as we move forward.

Security, the concept of security, being able to protect ourselves from the threat of chaos, from the threat of terrorism, is the underpinning of a strong economy. Knowing that we have open access to our largest trading partner is critical and security is the key to ensuring we have that open and free access.

Ultimately, what are constituents saying in this period of prebudget consultation? In my constituency they are saying that the major issue this budget needs to address is the issue of borders. It is border, border, border.

As a country we are dependent on trade: 87% of our trade is with the United States and 25% of that trade comes back. It is a two way flow of trade. It is important that we have access. Not only do we need to do work in terms of the international trade area and trade agreements such as softwood lumber, we have a section 201 action on steel. These are issues that we need to resolve and clearly we have a strong case. As a government we cannot for one second hesitate in putting forward a strong Canadian position. I think we have done that and we will continue to do that.

We also have to make sure that we have access to the North American economy through a free and open border. In fact I am told that Ontario's trade with the United States of America is equal to or greater than United States trade with the European Union, just to give members the sense of the size of the trade between this province and the United States.

Therefore the border is the number one economic issue as we go forward. We need more resources allocated along with a co-ordinated plan to co-operate with our largest trading partner. We need to understand those challenges and respond to them and we need to collectively resolve the issue.

Improved border infrastructure is required. Highway infrastructure improvements are needed as we get access to those borders. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you have a number of examples in northern Ontario with respect to highway infrastructure. Let me give the House one example in southwestern Ontario.

I was told today that between Toronto and Miami there are 15 stoplights. Thirteen of those stoplights are in Windsor. As we access the border and emphasize the need to get our products to market in the most efficient way, 13 stoplights is not acceptable. Along with dealing with the border infrastructure required as we respond to the security challenge and fund the security agenda, we must also ensure, in co-operation with the provinces, that we address the highway infrastructure improvements that are required, again focusing on the need to improve that trade flow and ensure open access, ensuring that our companies, those that create jobs for Canadians, can get their products to the United States of America as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

In summary, what are constituents saying? They are saying that the government cannot abandon Canadians' hard won progress. They are saying that the government must balance the budget, as it has, must pay down the debt, as it has, and must reduce federal tax, as it has. We cannot jeopardize the hard won progress Canadians have made in meeting those achievements.

As a government we should not shy away from reallocating, and we should be prepared to reallocate from low priority to higher priority areas where we need to. We should ensure that those high priority areas are clearly financed and properly financed.

Finally, what constituents are saying is this: absolutely no deficit financing.

[International Actions Against Terrorism, October 15th, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, it is certainly no exaggeration to say that the events of September 11 changed the way we look at the world. Terrorism has existed for decades, yet it remained for most of us something we watched on television, something elusive and distant.

The events of September 11 changed all of that in a moment. Terrorism has certainly touched our souls. Canadian lives were lost. Our mourning for them and all the victims continues.

I had at least one constituent fortunate to survive the attacks in New York City on that day. I would like to thank the rescue workers at ground zero and in Washington, D.C. for their determination.

United in our sympathy and concern for the situation, the local community acted in the best traditions of charity and human solidarity. Money was donated in staggering amounts. Planes were diverted to the Hamilton airport, a mirror of the situation in airports across the country. Our hospitals stood ready to accept victims. Blood donations were described as overwhelming, with donors lining up for hours to do their part for those in need.

However, there have been indefensible and senseless acts in my local area as well. Local mosques and Muslims have been targeted for abuse and a sickening attack on a local Hindu temple demonstrated the level of ignorance which was deeply shocking.

In fact, locally people pulled together to support one another in an outpouring of generosity. It was clear that there was no place for this behaviour in Canada. Local building trades will donate their efforts to the construction of a new temple and residents are working to make sure that those affected feel safe and accepted.

It is clear that our perception of the world around us has changed. The question, and what we are discussing this evening, is where do we go from here?

While protecting citizens from terrorism is a fundamental priority and the safety and security of Canadians is a top priority, the process of eradicating terrorism starts at the local level. It started immediately after the attacks and it will continue until we rid the world of this savagery and hatred. I was heartened to see my community united, not just in grief but in resolve and rising to this challenge.

The challenge for western governments, like Canada, is to reduce the space in which terrorists can operate by promoting effective international co-operation between police and intelligence services. We must stop terrorism. All nations must ensure that they have the necessary investigative powers. At the same time, we must support the development of economic, legal and political institutions which cannot only contain and channel dissent, but give individuals a real stake in defending democracy and social justice.

It is a major challenge to which the world's leading industrial nations must respond in a co-ordinated and effective fashion. Canada has a key role to play in this respect and will continue to do so. We have played that role.

The reality of international terrorism demands a comprehensive approach from the government. We have acted on many fronts. We have acted on the legislative front with new legislation introduced this morning by the Minister of Justice. We have acted on the security front at airports and at our borders. We have acted on the financial front, freezing the assets of terrorist groups as a vital step in eliminating their capacity for activity. We have acted on the military front with our most significant contribution since the Korean War, and we join our allies in addressing this aspect of the conflict. I know all members will join with me in supporting our military personnel as they go off and fight terrorism.

We must act as well on the diplomatic front, working with our allies to keep the all important lines of communication open for constructive, positive action between nations. Canada can play an important role here with groups such as la Francophonie and the Commonwealth. We are uniquely positioned to act against terrorism. We have the internal diversity and strength to draw upon our actions moving forward. Our objective must be to guarantee our continued security and stability.

There must be a level of predictability, for without it we have no viable economic foundation for the functioning of civil society, for the freedom that makes Canada such an attractive place to live. The freedoms of religion, assembly or movement, for example, presupposes this very stability.

Living with a sense of security and safety is a necessary first step in getting back to the business of the nation and defeating those elements in the world which seek to undermine our freedom. That is why I am supportive of the government's measures against terrorism.

Law-abiding Canadians have nothing to fear from our specific actions which are designed to root out terrorists and other criminals. Terrorists want to shut down the country. They will not. Our actions, the actions of this parliament, must allow Canadians to get on with their lives.

Terrorists have attempted to smear the Muslim religion. They will not. Islam is about peace; it is not about violence. Terrorists have attempted to pit community against community, faith against faith. They will not succeed.

We as parliamentarians must unite, as Canadians are doing right across the land. We must come together to work and protect our way of life, to ensure that freedom, the freedom of assembly, the freedom to practice our faith, the freedom that we have enjoyed as a result of the Canadians who gave their lives in wars that have come before us, is protected. That is why the government has come forward with a legislative package. That is why we will continue to work to eradicate terrorism. We will continue to ensure that Canadians can play a leading role in the fight against terrorism.

As a government, as parliamentarians, we must ensure that we can protect our way of life. We must ensure that we continue to protect the strong foundation that we have in the country, a foundation which will allow us to continue to build our future for generations to come.