Maurizio Bevilacqua

[Petitions, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners call upon parliament to announce a timetable for the elimination of the 5% surtax.

[Petitions, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.

The first petition refers to a falling debt burden which gives Canadians new economic freedom so that resources can be used to strengthen our health care system, provide tax relief, address social challenges and invest in all areas that will enhance productivity.

Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to ensure that Canada's debt to GDP ratio remains on a permanent downward track.

[Committees Of The House, May 10th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance regarding its order of reference of Tuesday, February 29, 2000.

Your committee has considered Votes 1, 5, L10 and 15 under finance in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001 less the amounts voted in interim supply and reports the same.

[Committees Of The House, April 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance regarding its order of reference of Thursday, April 6, 2000 in relation to Bill C-22, an act to facilitate combatting the laundering of the proceeds of crime, to establish a financial transactions or reports analysis centre of Canada and to amend and repeal certain acts in consequence.

The Committee has considered Bill C-22 and reports the bill with amendment.

I want to quickly take the opportunity to thank the clerk, the researchers, the members of the committee, the witnesses and departmental officials for their excellent work.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I probably would have finished my speech by the time this decision was rendered but having said that, this is another case in point where Canada's productivity rate could have been helped if we had just got down to business instead of wasting a lot of time on that issue.

I want to go back to the point about the Canada tax benefit. I do not want to lose the opportunity to say that this particular measure will extend the number of families that will benefit from it. It will also bring in many more middle class families that have not been able to access the Canada child tax benefit. This will literally help millions of families.

Most of my comments this morning have dealt with the personal side of taxation. We live in a globally competitive economy. Business, commerce, is very much a part of our everyday existence as a nation. Budgets should also take into consideration the important role businesses play in our economy.

It is for that reason the finance committee for example would like to reduce EI premiums by 40 cents over four years. At maturity this would be a $3.1 billion cut. It will reduce the marginal tax rates. It will reduce the amount of profit insensitive taxes faced by business. Workers will also benefit from this cut. We need to begin with some profound reform of the business tax system and we say that.

We also would like to increase the RRSP limit by a total of $2,000 over a five year period. We want to lower the general corporate rate by five percentage points over five years. This will help restore tax neutrality. It will provide our businesses with greater international competitiveness and it will stop penalizing new economy firms.

Other measures in this tax package include increasing the foreign content from 20% to 30%. This will increase returns to retirement savings at reduced risk. We also want to lower the inclusion rate for donation of appreciable property which will promote charitable giving, consider expanding eligible properties for a lower inclusion rate, and as I said earlier, also work with the provinces to establish a common capital tax base.

Given the fact that I am very sensitive to the time I have taken thus far, I would like to say that this $46 billion tax cut package is clearly an indication to the people of Canada and the businesses of the country that this government, or this committee, is very serious about establishing a competitive tax regime, about rewarding Canadians for their effort.

Only because I am mindful of the time, I will end now and say very simply that “Budget 2000—New Era, New Plan”, the report of the finance committee, is an excellent road map. I hope the Minister of Finance will seriously consider its elements.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago when I was first elected, the then Leader of the Official Opposition told me that I should spend the first few years of my political career listening to the people of Canada, travelling the country region by region, understanding the issues and appreciating the diversity of opinion which is expressed daily throughout our country. For the past 11 years I have done just that.

I have been across the country many times and have spoken with thousands of Canadians from every region and every walk of life. For me it has been a continuous national dialogue. In fact, it is their stories and their voices that have inspired me to make a long term commitment to a larger cause, that is, preserving the hope of Canadians that tomorrow can indeed be better than today and more important, that we all have an obligation to make it so.

As we prepare to welcome in a new century, there is much to celebrate about Canada. We have shown the world how to balance freedom with compassion and tradition with innovation, how to provide health care to all our citizens and how to treat our senior citizens with the respect and dignity they deserve. In a world darkened by conflicts that literally tear nations apart, our country has stood as an example of how people of different cultural backgrounds can live and work together in harmony.

There is no question in my mind that Canada's greatest strength is in fact her people, the people who have settled and developed this country. Thanks to their imagination and determination, Canada has always moved forward, going from being an agrarian society to a leading industrial power during and after the second world war.

Our country has continued to push ahead with innovation in the years since, capturing leadership positions in such areas as telecommunications, aerospace and information technology.

All of this does not mean that we have not had our challenges, but what it does mean is that every time we have been challenged as a country the people of Canada have risen to the challenge.

It was not long ago that the international community doubted our ability to remain a player in the global economy. I am sure we all remember in the House in 1994 when the Wall Street Journal compared us to a third world economy. We as Canadians could have given up, but we did not. That is not the Canadian way. Instead, we rolled up our sleeves and we turned our country around. We made an impressive comeback.

Today we have the best fiscal health of the G-7. We have eliminated a $42 billion deficit. We have balanced our books. We are paying down our public debt. We have begun to lower taxes. Our inflation rate is the lowest since the 1960s. Our interest rates are also the lowest in decades and, thanks to a dynamic private sector, over 1.7 million jobs have been created since the government took office in 1993.

What a difference six years have made. Recently the Financial Times of London referred to Canada as the top dog of the G-7. We are doing much better.

In the new global economy there is really not too much time to stop and congratulate ourselves on our success. Canadians know that. That is why they want an agenda that will see them enjoy more opportunity, a higher standard of living and an even better quality of life in the new century. In order to achieve all this, however, we need a clear vision for the future.

There is no doubt in my mind that Canada stands at the threshold of a new century. Within a few days our nation will enter a new era, a new millennium.

This fall marked the sixth time that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance sought the advice of Canadians in advance of the federal budget. It was the third time that I participated as chair of the committee. In a very short time I have seen the mood of the country and Canadians change, becoming increasingly optimistic about the prospects of the future.

The committee's report, entitled “Budget 2000—New Era—New Plan”, is the result of our continuing conversations with Canadians, a national dialogue that has helped us to understand our fellow citizens' values and priorities and how the federal budget should reflect them.

Canadians want an agenda that will see them enjoy more opportunities, a higher standard of living. In order to achieve all this we have put together, through our prebudget consultation report, a road map that will in fact achieve this vision. This plan fosters sound financial management, promotes economic growth and a better standard of living by cutting taxes, makes our economy more competitive and ensures that Canadians will enjoy greater security and expanded opportunities. It is my hope that this plan will inspire Canadians to confidently believe that indeed tomorrow can be better than today.

While conducting our prebudget consultation the finance committee heard from a broad range of witnesses. We listened to organizations representing businesses, children, industry, arts, culture and farmers. We heard from educators, health care workers, economists and individual municipalities. We reached out to every single section of this great country.

The committee crossed Canada and spoke with advocates who said that we need greater support for the homeless, public transportation and research and development. Very importantly, we met with individual Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

At this point I really ought to be thanking the members of parliament who held town hall meetings across the country and who took the time to listen to their constituents, as well as the members of the committee who worked very hard to put the report together.

I also want to say that I firmly believe that this report clearly reflects the values and priorities of Canadians.

Canadians are very happy with the fact that we have ended an era of skyrocketing deficits and public debt for good, that we have brought down back to back balanced budgets for the first time since 1951-52, and that we have put the debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward track. The fiscal turnaround, coupled with low inflation and interest rates, has really helped this country to create over 1.7 million jobs and to bring back prosperity to the people of Canada.

There was also very strong support for measures taken by the government, whether we are referring to the $16.5 billion tax cut that was introduced or the investments we have made in innovation and skills development through the Canada foundation for innovation and the Canada millennium scholarship fund. There was also very strong support from the people of Canada for the extra commitment made by the government to provide an additional $11.5 billion over five years to the provinces and territories specifically for health care.

One of the issues that was raised often and was strongly supported was the national child benefit, not to mention the appreciation of Canadians for the government modernizing the employment insurance program.

The committee is committed to making sure that we are never going to let the nation's finances get out of control again. We will keep the debt to GDP ratio on a permanent downward track.

The committee also introduced a multi-year plan for tax reduction, which I will elaborate later.

The role of government is to continue to create opportunities for Canadians, to access foreign markets and to promote Canada as an ideal place in which to invest.

The people of Canada also called for further investment for lifelong learning to continue to build the most highly skilled workforce in the world, and that is one of the greatest advantages that this country has in the knowledge based economy.

Let us talk about an issue that is extremely important to the people of Canada, that is, the issue of health care. In the 1999 budget, as I said earlier, the government made the largest single new investment since coming to office by committing $11.5 billion over five years. As well, the Prime Minister chaired the national forum on health and implemented key recommendations of the forum, including the health transition fund, the Canada health information service, the community action program for children and the Canada prenatal nutrition program. These programs and the balanced approach by the government to these issues were also applauded by the people of Canada.

One of the greatest resources a country has is its people.

We have the thrust of the Canada opportunities strategy, a comprehensive plan to provide Canadians with greater and more affordable access to education and skills, the millennium scholarship fund, the tax relief on interest payments on student loans, the Canada education savings grant, the work done on SchoolNet, which has connected every public school and library in Canada to the Internet, the first nation in the world to accomplish this, the community access program, which will have public Internet sites connected to 10,000 rural and urban sites by the year 2000, and computers for schools, whose goal is to provide 250,000 computers for Canadian schools by the year 2000, which is 60% complete. These measures taken by the government have certainly been welcomed.

The issue of children and families came up during the prebudget consultation hearings. There was support for the national child benefit. Many referred to it as the most innovative of national social programs in this generation. Many other projects like the aboriginal head start initiative, the Canadian prenatal nutrition program and the community action program for children were also supported.

I will put this debate in its proper context. In my opening remarks I talked about a higher standard of living for Canadians. There is a responsibility on the part of government to use all of its levers to make sure that Canadians will enjoy a higher standard of living and a better quality of life in the new millennium. It is important to have a well set and well thought out strategy to achieve these ends.

The government, as is reflected in the prebudget consultation report “A new era—A new plan”, has those levers. We as members of the committee ask the government to act on these particular issues.

If we want to generate the type of wealth and the type of economic growth required to address all the social issues and challenges we heard about from coast to coast to coast, then there is no question in my mind that the only way we can do that is to put a plan together that speaks to the issue of improving the standard of living for people.

What are the components of this strategy? Where should the government go to make sure that we as individual Canadians will enjoy a higher standard of living?

Let us look at fiscal and monetary policy. If there is one area in which this government has done well, and about which we can say we are heading in the right direction, it is the area of fiscal and monetary policy.

Canadians may ask why it is an important component of the finance committee's strategy to improve the standard of living for Canadians. A stable macroeconomic environment with low inflation brings lower interest rates and boosts confidence. It encourages investment, which enhances productivity growth and boosts employment.

It is very clear that any government, here in Canada or abroad, must get those fundamentals right. As we enjoy the low interest rates and the great boom we have had in employment growth, we must recognize that this is not something we do on a part time basis. We must remain vigilant. We must make sure that the debt continues to go in a downward projection because it is very important not only for Canadians but people throughout the world to recognize that Canada has its economic fundamentals right.

What have been the accomplishments of the government? The deficit has been eliminated. We now have a surplus. This is one of the major reasons we travelled across the country seeking input and asking Canadians what the priorities should be, what were their values as Canadians and where we should make investments.

As I stated earlier the debt to GDP ratio is clearly on a downward path. It is also important to note that provinces have had substantial fiscal progress in the past five years, not to mention that we are benefiting from the low inflation of the 1990s.

What does this mean to everyday Canadians? When Canadians renewed their mortgages they understood the actual meaning. They understood the difference between the theory of fiscal responsibility and the practice. Throughout the country people are happy with the fact that they are finally regaining some financial freedom to make decisions that are right for them and their families.

Another lever the federal government has to deal with is the issue of taxation policy. Everywhere we went throughout the country, whether I was talking with someone in a coffee shop or at my local parish or visiting workers in factories it did not matter to whomever I spoke. Canadians want tax cuts and Canadians deserve tax cuts.

Why is that? It is because Canadians have worked very hard for a number of years to defeat the deficit. It is thanks to the hard work of Canadians that today we enjoy a surplus. It is right for the federal government to help Canadians restore some of their lost disposable income.

With the exception of the past two or three years during which people have begun to feel the impact of federal government policies, they have seen their incomes go up. It is also important to note that for the past 10 years the average disposable income in Canada has gone down. It is our responsibility as members of the House, trusted legislators of the country, to restore some of that disposable income so Canadians can begin to understand that their sacrifices are rewarded.

Tax policy in a country that is dedicated to improving the standard of living of people is extremely important. Taxes can affect the allocation of resources and alter the incentives to work, to save and to invest. I emphasize this point because it is part of the $46 billion tax cut plan the finance committee tabled in the House of Commons. It is important to understand the components of the plan because they take into consideration that tax cuts should not only cater to a section of Canadian society. Tax cuts belong to all Canadians.

What did the finance committee that is reflecting the needs, desires and aspirations of Canadians say about tax cuts? The first measure was to increase the basic and spousal amounts by 15%, raising the limit to $8,200. That is the amount of money people can earn tax free.

Why is this news so great for Canadians? It is because over half a million people will not be paying taxes any more. They will be off the tax rolls as a result of this measure. Is that important? It is. I have spoken to those individuals who are paying taxes on relatively low incomes. It is not who says what that really makes the difference. We have to do what is right for the people of Canada.

When we increase the thresholds by 15%, when we increase them from $29,000 to $34,000 and $60,000 to $68,000, what are we doing? In technical terms we are compensating for inflation. We are reducing marginal tax rates. We are reducing the one earner-two earner tax disparity. What is really important is that it is fair. Canadians will benefit from it. Canadians will have more money in their pockets to realize their dreams and their families dreams.

They also appreciate that if they work hard, take risks and make the necessary effort in a country like Canada then they will be rewarded. When this type of philosophy takes hold and when governments reflect the thrust of the argument I have outlined, I sense that there will be energy within the people of Canada to become more entrepreneurial and take greater risks because they know they will be rewarded for their efforts.

In many speeches in the House we talk about Canada's hard working middle class. We have to put our words into action. For this reason the finance committee recommended that we reduce the middle tax rate by three percentage points to 23% over the next five years. This will lower the taxes paid by middle income Canadians. This point has been raised in every town hall meeting that members of parliament have held across the country.

We must also eliminate the 5% surtax by gradually increasing the threshold. Why does the finance committee want the surtax to be eliminated? There can be tax reform and tax cuts but in this case it is also the issue of governance. The surtax was introduced when we were in a deficit position. Now that we have a balanced budget, now that we have a surplus, we as legislators must get rid of the surtax because it makes great economic sense but it is also a question of governance, of acting on a promise that was made.

Families and children are very important to the social and economic fibre of the country. Any budget that does not address this issue would fail. It is for this reason that the finance committee once again made a recommendation which would lower over a five year period the CTB phaseout rate by one-half to 2.5% for families with more than one child and 1.25% for families with one child.

That is kind of a technical version of this recommendation. What this means in real life is that more families will be helped to raise their children, that more families will have greater disposable income to do what they need to do. They will have more disposable income to get ahead and to make the personal wise investments they need to make.

I also want to be very clear that on these issues I have been talking about the personal side—

[Committees Of The House, December 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to publicly thank the member for Medicine Hat for his work as a member of the finance committee. As the chair of that committee I certainly appreciate his efforts.

On the issue of tax relief, I draw to the attention of the House that the minority report tabled by the Reform Party states: “Outside of partnership and ideological differences, the need for tax relief and tax reform is very real. The official opposition has called for major tax relief. We will outline the size of our proposed tax relief in our January report”.

I draw to the attention of the House the tax package that the House of Commons committee tabled. It is very important to understand its major components. I cite the fact that the finance committee would like the government to adopt the following plan over the next five years. First, to increase the basic and spousal amounts by 15%, which would mean that the basic personal amounts for individuals would rise to $8,200. This measure would take 500,000 Canadians off the tax rolls. It would lower the number of people on welfare and increase attachment to the workforce.

Second, we want to reduce the middle tax rate by three percentage points to 23%. This is in large part because hard-working, middle class Canadians worked so hard to defeat the deficit and give the Canadian government a surplus that they need to be rewarded.

Mr. Speaker, I will not cite the entire passage because you are signalling me to stop.

I want the hon. member for Medicine Hat to tell Canadians whether the figure in the Reform package will be over the $46 billion in tax cuts announced by the finance committee.

[Committees Of The House, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Finance, entitled “Budget 2000 New Era—New Plan”. It is the result of continuing conversations with thousands of Canadians, a national dialogue that has helped us understand our fellow citizens' values and priorities and how the federal budge should reflect them.

Canadians want an agenda that will see them enjoy more opportunity, a higher standard of living and an even better quality life in the new century.

In order to achieve all this, we need a clear vision for the future. “Budget 2000 New Era—New Plan” provides the road map to achieve that vision. The plan fosters sound financial management, promotes economic growth and a better quality of life by reducing taxes.

I would like to thank all the members of the committee and member of staff for their excellent work.

[Committees Of The House, October 29th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate because I think it is necessary for Canadians to understand that we at the committee level actually approved this plan to travel and the hon. member who just spoke agreed to travel with the finance committee.

There are a couple of points that the member raised in his comments which I find quite suspicious. First, he feels that members of parliament ought to go out in their communities and seek input during the prebudget consultation period. That is precisely what our committee has been asking for since 1993. Members of parliament should go into their communities, report to the finance committee and their findings would be incorporated in the finance committee report to the Minister of Finance.

Second, I do not understand how the member can say that the recommendations made by the finance committee are not acted upon by the Minister of Finance. For the interest of Canadians, I want to raise just a few of the recommendations that have been adopted by the Minister of Finance and the Government of Canada.

These recommendations deal with prudent economic assumptions in the formulation of the budget and the issue relating to the contingency reserve and how it should not be used to fund either program spending or tax cuts. The committee recommended: that the federal government establish a long term target for sustainable debt to GDP ratio; that the temporary 3% surtax be completely eliminated; that the basic personal amount be increased; that employment insurance premiums be lowered; that the government increase funding to the provinces for health care; and that the government increase funding for health research because we all understand the importance of that particular issue.

What is interesting is that all of these recommendations came from the people of Canada. They had input in two ways. They had input through the finance committee and also at the community level through those members of parliament who cared enough to do a prebudget consultation through town hall meetings, questionnaires or whatever method they liked to use to consult with Canadians.

If there is something I personally take great pride in, it is the fact that Canadians' input has been seen in every single budget delivered by the Minister of Finance. When Canadians see that the $16.5 billion tax cut has been implemented, they know it comes from the input from the various town hall meetings and from their presentations to the House of Commons finance committee.

When Canadians see that we understand what it takes to build a productive economy and make wise investment in young people and education and health care, they know that is their word being reflected in the budget. That has happened every single year.

When the government inherited the $42 billion deficit and Canadians said that we should make eliminating the deficit a priority, that is exactly what happened.

I have to make these points because I fundamentally believe in the consultation process. I fundamentally believe in the consultation process that was started by the government. It speaks to what is the essential fibre of democracy; that Canadians are given an opportunity to express themselves clearly, to clearly state their points of view and to clearly state priorities. This essentially is what is being denied to the people of Canada who must have an opportunity to express their points of view on a very important issue. The budget is very important and must reflect Canadians' priorities but in order to do that we must be able to seek their input.

The prebudget consultation process, above and beyond the OECD, has also been applauded by Canadians from coast to coast to coast as an innovative method of seeking public input. Therefore, the Reform Party had better be careful because it is infringing on the fundamental rights people have to express themselves.

The hon. member who just spoke is a very active member of the finance committee and that is why perhaps I am very surprised by his attitude. The members opposite had better think twice about doing what they are doing because Canadians recognize how effective the prebudget consultation process has been and how effective their voices have been in making sure the government acts on those priorities which are essential to building a better life, a stronger economy and a more just society.

My question for the member is quite simple: Why the flip flop?

[Petitions, October 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present on behalf of Canadians a petition which states the 1998 and 1999 budgets increased the amount of income that can be earned on a tax-free basis, namely the basic personal amounts.

As a result of the past two budgets, 600,000 Canadians have been removed from the tax roles and $16.5 billion in tax relief have been provided over three years. Therefore the petitioners call upon parliament to further increase the basic personal amounts.