Tony Valeri

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the parties' representatives as they spoke on this motion. With the exception of the mover of the motion and the Reform Party which spent all of five seconds on the particular motion, I do not believe there is very much support in this House for a motion that attempts to gut the equal per capita formula that is in place. That is in fact saying that what we are attempting to do in providing each and every Canadian with an equal amount of transfer from the federal government to the provincial government is somehow unfair. Essentially the Bloc is saying that it is unfair for the federal government to treat each and every Canadian regardless of what province they come from in a manner that is fair and equitable.

What we have done is eliminated the cap on CAP, a program and an initiative which was put in place in 1990 by the previous Conservative government. It limited growth of the CAP payments to Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. Now that our fiscal situation has improved, this government is in a position to correct this inequity, which is what we are doing with Bill C-71.

All provinces, including Quebec, will get the same amount of money per person of the new CHST health money. It is only fair that Canadians regardless of where they live receive equal federal support for health and other social programs.

When the Bloc and the Government of Quebec cry foul, they are really distorting the facts to suit their purposes. The figure they talk about does not in any way include the new funds the Government of Quebec receives under the equalization program. When we count the equalization programs, Quebec will be getting 34% of the total increase in federal transfer payments announced in the last budget. That is quite a bit higher than Quebec's 24% share of the Canadian population.

I find it somewhat disturbing and obviously quite ironic that the Bloc would get up today and ask that members of this federal House support a motion that essentially says to Canadians that we do not want to treat them in a fair and equitable manner, that we do not want the federal government to transfer moneys to each and every province of this federation in a way that reflects their population so that an equal per capita amount of money is transferred. I find that disturbing.

I call upon members of this House to support the bill and to vote against this motion. Members would find it very hard to go back to their constituencies and say that they supported as members of parliament a motion in the federal House that said that we do not want to treat each and every Canadian in an equitable manner.

With that being said, there is not a lot more to say on the motion with one exception. The Bloc member said that there were unilateral changes made to the transfers to the provinces. I must correct that statement with some fact.

I point to the number of meetings over the past couple of years that our finance officials had with the finance officials from the various provinces and their counterparts. They dealt with all questions involving transfers to the provinces. At each of the meetings the subject of the CHST allocation among the provinces was raised.

At a meeting of ministers of finance last June the province presented a document proposing an amended allocation formula, whereby all provinces were to receive an equal amount per capita. Two methods were proposed and the government chose one method that was the fairest to the less well off provinces. The current legislation allows for moving in this direction and removing the disparities completely in the years to come.

I mention the equalization program because it is important to note that along with the technical improvements being proposed to the equalization program again Quebec receives more than its fair share in that respect as well.

I want to turn for a second to each comment made by the various parties so far. The Bloc talked about helping kids but did not feel that a transfer to the provinces was essentially responsible. I am sure members of the Bloc would not at this time be proposing, in their minds at least, that the government intervene in programs of provincial jurisdiction.

Transfers are a method of the federal government providing support to provincial programs, delivering social programs and helping children. I find it ironic the hon. member would say that the government has not been able to assist children in the province of Quebec when it has been increasing equalization payments. There are increases in the CHST allocation over five years. These moneys are within the control of the provincial governments that support and deliver programs which help poor kids in the provinces.

Bloc members also think the equal per capita formula was a gift to Ontario. For some reason they feel that treating each and every Canadian in an equitable and fair manner is a gift. I do not consider it a gift. I do not think many members of the House consider it a gift. I think members believe it is the very least government can do. The expectation of Canadians is that governments will treat each and every Canadian in a fair and equitable manner.

I suspect that motion will not receive very much support in the House, with the exception of members of the Bloc. I do not profess to know how they think. I think that is beyond my ability and probably the ability of most members.

I turn to Reform Party members who indicated that they did not feel anything was wrong with this part of the bill. However they felt other parts of the bill raised some concerns. The Reform member went on to say that big social programs were the focus of the government and made reference to the Prime Minister's remarks in the paper this morning.

I am not sure most Canadians would consider an $11.5 billion transfer to provinces for health care to be a return to big social programs. Essentially we have restored cuts that were made to deal with the deficit. We have indicated our commitment to continue to fund health care and to continue to provide transfers to the provinces. I do not consider health care and education big social programs. I consider them to be at the centre of what the country needs to continue to prosper.

Health care is a very important component of the country, as are education and skills training. Many high tech companies talk about skills training. If hon. members had an opportunity to look at the recent edition of Maclean's , they would see it talked about the recruiting methods of American companies, what Canadian companies need to do, and how Canadian companies need to compete and create that kind of work environment. I agree we need to participate in that domain. As a government we would do what we could.

We continue to say that a balanced approach will continue to provide health care and education, which certainly are priorities of the government, as is the tax burden which Canadians continue to shoulder. We have indicated that we will continue to reduce taxes. We have provided $16.5 billion over the last two budgets. We will continue to do more. However, we will not turn around tomorrow morning and put forward a $10 billion tax cut that will put us back into deficit. Canadians would not support that. We have indicated that we will continue our measured approach.

It is easy for opposition parties to say do it yesterday, but government has a responsibility to Canadians. Our responsibility is to ensure that we do not go back into a deficit and that we do not add to the phenomenal debt we had. We pay an exorbitant amount of interest on that debt. We need to continue to reduce it. We need to continue to reduce taxes. We will do so, but at the same time we will not jeopardize health care and education, which are Canadian priorities.

Very quickly I will turn to what the Conservative Party talked about in terms of EI. When we took office EI premiums were $3.30 per $100 of employment income. We have reduced the EI premium over $5 billion since coming to office. We will continue to provide a very equitable way of dealing with it.

I reiterate that Bill C-71 is crucially important for Canadians. It provides the tax relief for which they have asked. We will continue to do more as we continue to reflect Canadians priorities.

[Taxation, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, again the $16.5 billion is what we have delivered and we will do more.

Let me just reflect for a moment on what the hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla said recently when he talked about the last budget. He said the government increased spending and added $12.5 billion to program spending that was questionable in the first place. Well, the true colours of the Reform Party come out. It thinks that an $11.5 billion increase in health care is questionable.

The only thing that is questionable is how the Reform Party will ever think it will get to this side of the House. Absolutely that is questionable. It will never happen.

[Taxation, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would only look back to the last couple of budgets, we have delivered $16.5 billion in tax reductions for Canadians. We have always said that is the least we can do and we will continue on that track.

Let us not forget that when we took office we inherited a $42 billion deficit. We balanced the books. Tax reduction was the second thing we did. The first thing was reinvestment in health care and that reflects Canadian priorities. That is what the government will continue to do.

[Taxation, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about delay. Let us talk about what we have done.

We have raised the basic exemption by $675 for all taxpayers, removing 600,000 Canadians from the tax rolls. We have eliminated the 3% general surtax introduced by the previous government for all taxpayers. The last two budgets have provided $16.5 billion in tax reduction. That is not all we have done. We have invested $11.5 billion in health care.

The hon. member talks about investment. Let us talk about the increase in health research budgets.

[Taxation, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. This government started cutting taxes a couple of budgets ago and it will continue to cut taxes. There have been cuts of some $16.5 billion over three years and there has been a reduction in employment insurance premiums as well.

If the hon. member wants to talk about what the government is doing, then let us talk about economic policy. Let us talk about balanced budgets, which we have not seen in the country in 50 years. Let us talk about reduction in spending to 12% of GDP, the lowest in 50 years.

This government is on the track of ensuring that the country continues to prosper and we will stay on that track.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 15th, 1999]

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

I do believe we are talking about Bill C-71. I am sure the hon. member will have ample opportunity to talk about other pieces of legislation when they come to the House. I would ask him to go back to Bill C-71, or am I to assume he is in favour of Bill C-71 since he has not said a word about it?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure the hon. member is aware that Bill C-72 provides some substantial tax reduction. In fact it took 400,000 Canadians off the tax rolls and provided $16.5 billion over three years in tax relief. They voted against it.

He talked about not helping young Canadians. The registered education savings plan went from $2 billion to over $4 billion since the announcement was made. It is helping Canadians save for their children to obtain a future education.

As much as I understand the role of the opposition parties is to criticize, I would hope the hon. member would at least point to one or two measures with which he would agree. I know his constituents have. I would ask him to stand and agree.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible. I know the hon. member had a number of things to say but I draw him back to the 1999 Reform budget plan which talks about what the opposition would propose.

The Reform plan does not include any economic prudence. It talks about surpluses of $30 billion to $35 billion. It talks about average GDP growth over the next three years of 5.5%, almost two times the private sector. Reformers want to cut taxes by $9 billion a year. They want to reduce the debt by $9 billion. They want to cut EI premiums by $7 billion for a total bill of $25 billion. It is very important that Reformers tell Canadians and certainly members of the House how they would finance it. We would go back into deficit. What would they cut? Is it health care? Is it research? Is it education?

If we built budgets the way the Reform Party did we would have—

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

The hon. member across the way said that is what we used to do. Canadians expect something more than that kind of heckling from the member opposite. Canadians are looking for progress and the ability to enter the next millennium on a solid basis.

We have balanced the budget. I only point to the member for Medicine Hat, the Reform Party's finance critic, who commented on the 1998 budget which is the bill we are discussing. Perhaps the member opposite could stand up and comment on the comment made by the member for Medicine Hat who said “It does make it hard to criticize. It is a significant financial accomplishment”. That was said by the member for Medicine Hat, the finance critic for the Reform Party.

At least the members opposite could stand up and say although they may not agree with every measure, there are measures in the bill which they feel they can support, and that they can support the general direction of the government which is to ensure that Canadians have a better future.

The member cannot question the ability or the intentions that we as a government and as members on this side of the House will continue to represent constituents in the best possible manner we can. There are elements in this bill that support where Canadians want to go and we will make sure they get there.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to hear the Reform Party. It is the opposition party so its job is to oppose regardless of what provisions come before it.

The Reform Party did provide a prebudget submission. It called for some $25 billion in cuts which essentially would have to be paid for through program and service cuts. We already know the Reform Party would cut $3.5 billion out of the CHST. The hon. member talks about a concern for health care. The CHST goes to support provincial governments in their pursuit of funding post-secondary education. Would he cut research and development or is it the child tax benefit?

It is easy to stand up in this House and say everything the government is doing is wrong and that they can do it better. The challenge comes—