Tony Valeri

[Division No. 96, March 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, this government has supported and will continue to support increasing small business access to financing. However the CRA approach is not the only vehicle under which this can be done.

It is also important to assess the impact this legislation has had in the United States. Overall the legislation has been useful in raising U.S. lenders' awareness of their lending patterns by requiring data reporting and record keeping.

It is also not clear whether a CRA regime would be well suited to Canada. Unlike the regional and highly fragmented banking system in the U.S., we already have a national banking system that transfers resources from savers to borrowers in all regions of this country. My concern is that any policy that requires balancing of lending and deposits within communities could in fact serve to restrict rather than propel economic growth.

It is also important to mention that the House industry committee represented by members of Parliament from across this country has successfully convinced the banks to provide information, without the CRA legislation, on business loans by size, region and industrial grouping. We will continue to monitor this reporting to ensure that the banks continue to do their share in financing of small business.

On the issue of mergers which the member brought up as well, he talks about little reassurance being given by the finance minister and the fact that he calls for cross-country hearings. I would say and we have said time and again that this deal is on hold. It is going nowhere until we have had the opportunity to hear from the task force and Canadians have had their say on its recommendations.

Our bottom line is that in fact until the big questions are answered and unless this deal works for Canadians, it will not work at all. I cannot be any clearer than that.

Once again I thank the hon. member for his interest. I invite him to join the finance committee when in fact we go across the country to hear from Canadians.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 9th, 1998]

The opinions given have been in respect of ongoing litigation and the subject of solicitor-client privilege.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 9th, 1998]

The law firm of Ogilvie & Co. of Edmonton was appointed as agent of the Attorney General of Canada to conduct the litigation on behalf of the Government of Canada and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation; to December 31, 1997 it has been paid $6,154,819.56 for its services. Howard Mackie and Fraser & Beatty have not performed any services on behalf of the Government of Canada or the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation in respect of this litigation. They act for the liquidator of the bank appointed by the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta in the companion litigation brought by the liquidator against, among others, certain former directors of the bank. Any response regarding those firm's charges to the liquidator should be made by the liquidator, but it can be said that the amounts recovered as a result of the settlements achieved to date far exceed the total fees charged by all three law firms added together.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 9th, 1998]

(a) 2,251 projections were prepared by the office of the chief actuary of the Canada Pension Plan since the tabling of the 15th actuarial report in February 1995, for the purpose of developing the federal-provincial agreement on the CPP.

(b) Three full time officials and one half time official were employed by the chief actuary in the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

(c) No private consultants were involved in preparing projections.

(d) None, as private consultants were not involved.

(e) The 2,251 projections were prepared after the February 1995 tabling of the 15th CPP actuarial report and continued to the present.

(f) The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions received $1,375,000 in 1996-97 from the CPP account to provide ongoing actuarial services for the CPP, including the preparation of actuarial reports required by the CPP act and all other actuarial services relating to the CPP. These funds covered all salaries and other goods and services. The office received no additional resources to prepare projections for the review.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened as the hon. member went on and on about how the government was hell bent on creating duplication, overlap and all the rest of it.

Earlier I made a point about what the students of Quebec were saying. They want provincial governments and the federal government to work together to ensure that this program works, to ensure that students have access to post-secondary education and skills training so they can compete for the jobs, and to ensure they have the quality of life we all want them to have.

Over and over again the hon. member made reference to the millennium scholarship fund. It is not about creating a bureaucracy. It is not about overlap. It is essentially about putting money directly into the pockets of students. It is bypassing politicians. It is bypassing institutions. It is bypassing bureaucracy.

The hon. member said that the sole motivation of the government was to ensure there was a flag on every cheque. The sole motivation of the government is to allow young Canadians opportunity and access to skills training.

We saw in the Globe and Mail today that the difference between those that have opportunity and those who do not is education. That is the great equalizer. We want to ensure that every student has opportunity and access to that information.

The hon. member keeps talking about how the government wants to get in the way of the provinces. I disagree wholeheartedly. I believe that young Canadians who want to see access and want to see the millennium scholarship work support it.

I hope the hon. member will say that her motivation is to say that they want Quebeckers, young Canadians and Canadians in all other provinces, to have improved access to education and improved access to opportunity. I hope they will work with us to ensure that in fact will occur.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of points of clarification. I think the hon. member in his speech indicated that the transfers to the provinces were going to continue to go down. I would caution the hon. member that he should read the numbers again.

We have in fact seen a reinvestment in the Canada health and social transfer of $1.5 billion a year. He will also see because of the system of transfers being made up of cash and tax points that transfers to the provinces will continue to increase.

I want to speak directly to the comments made on the millennium fund. What does the hon. member say to the Fédération étudiante universitaire du Québec and the Fédération étudiante collégiale du Québec when they say they would like to see both governments co-operate, to set aside political squabbles and find a formula so they can have access to these funds because they need them?

Essentially the students in Quebec and students right across the country are saying not to get into political squabbles, but to deal with the issues. That is what we have attempted to do with the millennium scholarship fund. There is a vast amount of support for this program by the students. If the hon. member wants to help students he should stand in his place and support this scholarship fund which will ensure that students get the money they need to access education.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of points. I find it somewhat amusing to actually have a member of the Reform Party talk about the fact that this is not a caring government.

I only want to remind the hon. member that some of the documents that the Reform Party has put out talk about reduction in program spending to 10.5% of GDP, which equates to $10 billion, another $10 billion to be found somewhere. The Reform Party talks about spending more on education and health care and reinvesting in Canadians when in fact it does not talk about where it is going to get that money.

The Reform Party offers up a bunch of one time savings that even the auditor general says are only one time savings. It talks about ongoing expenditures. It talks about cutting equalization which will affect the majority of provinces. That is what the Reform Party is talking about. At the same time it talks about caring.

It talks about student loans and that this budget does nothing for students. We spent the last week talking to a number of university students and college students who talked about the investment that this government has finally made in education so that students do have access.

I would like the hon. member to stand up and say that this budget was wrong when it now allows a student to write off the interest cost they incur for their education, just like a business writes off the costs that it would incur to run its business. What is wrong with that?

The member focuses on the millennium scholarship. It is a seven point program. The hon. member should take the time to read what the education package is all about so that he can go out and speak intelligently with the students in his own riding and not just focus on one particular part of the strategy that he does not like. I would submit that Canadian do support it.

[The Budget, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the comments of my colleague opposite. I want to make a couple of points regarding the debt.

The debt is certainly declining. The debt to GDP ratio will decline 63% over the next two years, the largest drop of all G-7 countries.

I want to focus on the stop, look and listen idea put forward by the hon. member. Yes, we have stopped the deficit. We have stopped the rise of the debt. Certainly we will continue to look and listen to Canadians, to reflect Canadian priorities and to ensure that those priorities are reflected in budgets.

This brings me to my comment about this budget. Essentially it is an education budget. The hon. member says that we are doing all these terrible things when in fact we are giving young Canadians an opportunity.

I draw the attention of the hon. member to the Globe and Mail article of this morning. It says quite clearly that the work is going to those who have earned a university degree, a college diploma or some other form of post-secondary educational certificate. If young people can do anything to insulate themselves from joining the unemployed, the data paints a pervasive picture that the answer can be summed up in one phrase: stay in school.

We have reinvested in young people, reinvested in the Canadian priority and provided some vision with respect to education. That is the linkage that provides competitiveness for this great country which will bring us into the next millennium.

We could talk about restoring funding to the granting councils. The member is unequivocally correct that we are restoring funding to 1994 levels. He must realize—and I am sure he does—that Canadians have waited 30 years to balance the budget. We have finally done that. We are reinvesting in Canadian priorities.

How could the member honestly ridicule the budget and say that it does not reflect Canadian priorities? It does. I draw the hon. member's attention to the article in the Globe and Mail . I could pass a copy on for him to read.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, as he was wrapping up his presentation, the hon. member who was just speaking made numerous references to the budget, its benefits and the impact it will have for a number of years as we move forward.

Could the hon. member comment on the Canada education savings grant, which will provide a 20% top up for every dollar up to a maximum of $2,000 per year? Could he provide some indication to this House of what impact that grant will have for his constituents in particular but also for young people right across this country who would like to pursue further education in universities, colleges, vocational schools and technical institutes?

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments to make.

Certainly within the budget, as has been stated over and over again, with respect to provincial jurisdiction, curriculum, buildings, schools, books are the jurisdiction of the provinces. The millennium fund certainly respects that. The federal role in helping people gain access with financial assistance has always been a shared jurisdiction. The millennium fund continues to respect that jurisdiction.

But I am not one bit surprised that the Bloc and the PQ are attacking the fund, because they know this is the single most important way to help students gain access to educational institutions. The Bloc and the PQ are in fact afraid of the positive effect on people's lives.

Why is the member attacking the millennium fund? Is it because he is afraid that the positive effect on people is not coming from the separatist government in Quebec? Is that why he is attacking the fund?