Tony Valeri

[Pensions, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to be here in the House tomorrow at 4.30 p.m. so that she can see what is in the budget.

[The Debt, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, once again as we quite clearly said in the fiscal update, we have made it clear that the contingency reserve will be used to pay down the debt once the deficit is eliminated.

The quickest way to lower the debt is a growing economy. That is why at the same time we pay down the debt, we will invest in Canadians, grow this economy and watch the debt go down.

[The Debt, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on the matter of debt, this government does not just have rhetoric, it has a record. Thanks to our success against the deficit, this government actually paid down $13 billion of marketable debt. We will continue to pay down that debt.

[National Head Start Program, February 19th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, let us understand that whether you are 16 or 60 the Canada pension plan will be there for you when you retire. Those who say otherwise are mistaken and those who wish otherwise are wrong.

Ultimately this is about values. You either believe in the CPP or you do not. The government does. The Reform Party does not. The Reform Party can talk about its plans to destroy the CPP. The government will talk about what we have done to preserve it.

The member for Calgary—Nose Hill has said in recent radio shows that we need to look at perhaps getting some of this unfunded liability out of the general tax revenues.

Paying off the outstanding obligations year by year as they come due would require a $20 billion to $75 billion payment each year over the next 60 to 70 years. Paying off the outstanding obligations over 30 years would require almost a doubling of GST or a 25% increase in personal income tax. Which taxes do the Reform Party want to increase to pay these outstanding obligations?

Canadians have told the government that they want the burden to be spread evenly across generations. If no changes were made, our children and grandchildren would be asked to pay 14.2%. Some claim, as the Reform Party does often, that young people are getting a raw deal from the CPP changes. Young Canadians will get 50 cents for every dollar they invest.

This type of statement is incorrect. The fact is that all CPP contributors, present and future, will receive more from the CPP than they pay in. Young people will receive $1.80 for every dollar of contributions. The return could be higher if we as Canadians were prepared to renege on existing contributions for today's seniors and for those who have been paying into the CPP for years.

The federal government and the provinces as joint stewards of the CPP will honour all commitments made to Canadians in the fairest way possible. The government will not renege on our obligations to Canadians as the Reform Party will do.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member for Kelowna that if he wants to dole out the blame between those two parties he should also stand in the House to say that the Liberal government will balance the books over the next number of years.

The Liberal government takes initiative in terms of reducing taxation for Canadians. The Liberal government invests in the priorities of Canadians in education and health care. The Liberal government will bring the country into the next millennium with stronger fundamentals than there have ever been, with confidence in a stronger economy than has ever been, and with Canadians saying they have greater opportunity than they had between 1984 to 1992.

The member can live in the past if he wants to. I am not patting myself on the back. I am merely stating the facts and ensuring they get on the record, only for the benefit of members opposite.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, while I respect the intervention of the member, to stand and essentially say that all the challenges faced by the country as we move into the next century will be solved by reducing taxes is just not the case.

Right from the beginning the government has said we would continue on a balanced approach. We have done so since we came to office. The Reform Party certainly does not have to worry about our commitment to fiscal responsibility. It is rock solid.

I am sure the hon. member will be here on February 24 at 4.30 p.m. to listen very closely to the budget speech. That budget will certainly be not merely rhetoric or exchanges in the House but a demonstration of the commitment of the government and of the results we have been able to achieve.

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will start off by saying how quickly they forget. How quickly the hon. member for Sherbrooke forgets. Let me remind the House of a few frightening fiscal facts.

In 1985 the government recorded a deficit of over $38 billion. By 1993 it got the deficit down to $41 billion. Over those nine years the total yearly deficits exceeded $290 billion. Just as damning, the interest payments on those deficits totalled $300 billion.

I am not trying to shift the focus of today's debate. The fact is that decade of deficits and the failure of political will which resulted in them is a key reason why Canada's tax burden is so heavy today.

There is no mathematical mystery here. Deficits are like credit cards. The more you use them, the more you have to pay back, principal plus some pretty heavy interest. The only way governments can pay interest, even before they get to the principal, is through taxes. The more the interest grows, the more the taxes grow.

Let us look at the evidence on taxation. I think we will find the fingerprints of the hon. member for Sherbrooke all over it.

In 1985 the former government introduced the high income surtax. It was a temporary measure to help fight the deficit. Then there was 1986 when that government added a 3% surtax on the basic federal tax. Again it was a temporary measure to fight the deficit.

Those surtaxes are still with us because when we came to office the deficit was the highest it had ever been.

If the hon. member wants to condemn a government for our painful tax burden he only has to open his scrapbook. If he wants to thunder about a brain drain crisis he should consider how the two surtaxes which he helped to introduce have added thousands of dollars to the yearly tax bills of successful professionals and scientists.

My purpose today is not just to look at what caused the tax problems Canadians face but to remind the hon. member that when he looks at this government he is also seeing solutions that work.

From the start of our first mandate we made an absolute commitment to deficit reduction and elimination. One of the driving reasons was our recognition that the only way we could start the process of broad based tax relief was to get our finances under control.

Since then we have brought the deficit from $42 billion down to $8.7 billion last year, the lowest level since 1969-70. We have done this without a single increase in personal income tax. Despite our constrained fiscal situation we began a process of targeted tax relief to those who needed it most and where it could do in fact the most economic and social good. These include increasing the child tax benefit by $850 million and measures to help the disabled, low income working parents and Canada's charities.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have made it quite clear that this is only a start. As our fiscal situation improves so that we can act without jeopardizing our fiscal progress and while preserving Canada's cherished social programs, we will certainly widen the scope of our tax action.

There is another area where we have already taken some positive action. I would like to highlight it because it relates directly to the specific problem the hon. member addresses, student debt loads.

Another bit of history the hon. member for Sherbrooke may have forgotten or perhaps would like Canadians to overlook is that during the Tory government era the tax credit which was supposed to help cover basic personal necessities for post-secondary students grew from $50 to $80. That was between 1984 and 1993. Under our government, in just half the time that education amount more than doubled to $200 a month.

Our government understands that in today's work knowledge and education are the keys to economic and individual success and security. We are not only talking the talk, something the hon. member is very good at, I might say, but we also walk the walk. That is why our 1996 budget provided an $80 million increase in direct federal tax assistance for post-secondary education. In last year's budget we increased that support by $137 million through measures whose value will reach $275 million when they mature.

They were complemented by the creation of the Canada Foundation for Innovation which will ensure that post-secondary students have access to better facilities and equipment to prepare for the knowledge based economy of the 21st century.

The other measures include increasing the education credit to $150 per month from $100 immediately and increasing it to $200 per month in 1998 and in subsequent years, allowing students to carry forward all unused portions of the education and tuition credits to be applied against any future income.

As a result of these budget measures a student in full time attendance at a post-secondary institution for eight months with tuition fees of $2,800 and additional fees of $300 will receive over $1,200 in combined federal and provincial tax assistance per year. This is an increase of more than 30% from the $900 in assistance available to students in 1995.

The 1997 budget also announced an important change to the Canada student loans program. To better recognize that some students still may not have the capacity to repay their loans, the budget proposed to extend to 30 months from 18 months the period of time during which students are allowed to defer making payments. Combined with the initial six months after graduation when no payments are required, this means that students will have up to three years of help in dealing with their loans.

I do not want to magnify our actions. We know they are only the beginning of a solution for Canada's students. That is why the Prime Minister has set out a dramatic further advance, the millennium scholarships. He has told Canadians that will be an important part of next week's budget. Let us remember that every dollar of scholarship a student receives—and the Prime Minister has said in his speeches that this will help tens of thousands—is one dollar less debt that he or she must incur.

I could certainly go on reminding members of the House how legislation before us will help tomorrow's students by doubling the annual limit of contributions to registered education savings plans.

While students and the plight of Canadian taxpayers deserve our attention, this motion does nought. There is no doubt the problems it raises are real, but the solutions we are offering are equally real. Starting with the courageous deficit action that eluded the previous government, I am confident that next week's federal budget will prove that our solutions are more certain and more concrete than the motion and the hon. member dares to dream.

I can go on and on about the various initiatives the government has put forward. Let us remember one thing. This party and this member do not own any of the issues of student debt. Canadians and students across the country have continued to communicate with the government and with members on this side of the House who held town hall meetings in their ridings to talk about the plight of students.

We realize that education and skills training will certainly be the cornerstone by which the economy will continue to grow into the next millennium. We have said over and over again in the House that the government is committed to ensuring that students have accessibility to higher education and skills training. We have done it in our past budgets and we will continue to do it in the upcoming budget.

I want to mention something I neglected to mention earlier. I will be splitting my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.

When the member for Sherbrooke decided to come forward with the motion, he conveniently forgot the previous Tory government was in large part responsible for the mess we found the country in. Today he comes to the House merely pointing out the problems and not offering anything in terms of concrete solutions, except to say that a broad based tax cut, irrespective of whether or not the government books are in balance, is the solution.

I would say to the Tory caucus that Canadians disagree.

[Criminal Code, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the government recognizes the importance of Canadians having access to a broad range of services at reasonable prices. The government does not generally regulate the prices that financial institutions charge for their services. We believe consumers are best served in an environment where financial institutions have to compete for business and where consumers have access to sufficient information to make educated choices.

For this reason our focus has been on promoting the clear and thorough disclosure of information relating to service and service charges on an ongoing basis. This helps reinforce the legislative requirements for financial institutions to disclose fee information when a deposit account is opened and when fees are changed.

Consumers can shop around for the account or products that best suit their needs. There are a number of competing financial service providers to choose from which include Canadian foreign banks, trust companies and co-operative credit associations. They offer a wide variety of account packages ranging from low cost no frills packages to specialty premium packages.

However, the government recognizes that on occasion consumers find it difficult to compare charges across institutions. As a result we are working with the banks and Industry Canada to simplify and improve dissemination of fee information. The government continues to monitor this issue to see if there are additional areas in which we can help consumers.

The task force on the future of Canadian financial services will also be examining the issue of interest to consumers of financial services and is scheduled to report back to government in the fall of 1998. At that time this government will instruct a parliamentary committee to consult with Canadians. Unlike the NDP, we will not allow banks to set government agenda. We are firmly in control of this agenda. ATM does not stand for approve the merger with respect to this government. It does stand for approve the merger when it comes to the NDP.

As the minister has said on numerous occasions, we will consult with Canadians at the appropriate time, and we certainly look forward to the interventions by the hon. member at that time.

[Charlotte County Ports, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government's commitment to the economic future of Canadians is clear. Assistance to those who need it in order to prepare for the jobs of the future is the linchpin of our policy.

This year provinces will receive $25.2 billion under the Canada health and social transfer, which covers federal contributions to post-secondary education.

As promised in the recent election, the government will increase cash transfers to the provinces so that over the 1997-98 to 2002-03 period provinces will receive nearly $7 billion in extra cash compared to the previously projected levels. This was only possible because the government had already taken tough decisions on the deficit and the Minister of Finance had met the targets set out in successive budgets.

The 1996-97 budget increased tax assistance to higher education. The measures included the extension of the tuition tax credit, enriched treatment of registered education savings plans, and allowed single parents attending school to claim the child care expense deduction.

By 1998 the average post-secondary student will receive about $1,200 in combined federal-provincial tax assistance each year, in effect an increase of 30% from the $900 received before these measures were put in place.

These are significant changes. In the Chamber hon. members recently heard the Prime Minister announce the creation of the Canada millennium scholarship fund. The fund will provide assistance to Canadians pursuing education and skills upgrading. We will be giving a helping hand to low and middle income Canadians who are eager to meet the challenges of the 21st century labour market.

As I said in the opening remarks, the government's commitment is quite clear. The measures that we have and will put in place will give Canadians the tools to build a better future. We are certainly committed to ensure that Canadians and young people have an opportunity to improve their skills and access to education. We have committed to that before. We will continue to do so as we move forward.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

And you are exactly right. Every measure that this government has taken and every measure this government is considering does not in any way jeopardize the balanced budget we are going to achieve. It does not increase the debt that we have in this country. I only wish the hon. member would go back and check Hansard because over and over again those arguments have been answered.

Any new initiative that this government will undertake will not increase our deficit or increase our debt. Not one. This government will take the balanced approach. It will reduce the debt in real terms and on a ratio basis. It will invest strategically in priorities of Canadians and it will reduce taxes for Canadians. That is what this government will do.