Paul Martin

[Taxation, February 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member telling us that his party does not want to eliminate tax loopholes? If that is the case, it would be totally contrary to what the finance critic of his party has told us.

[Health, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer the member's question, although I think that he himself ought to feel a little ashamed in asking it.

The fact is that I was on the board of Imasco. I joined the board. It is a company which is controlled from abroad. As a strong Canadian nationalist I was asked to join because it was very important that Canadians be represented on that board of directors.

It is a company which is involved in a great number of ventures within this country and is creating an enormous amount of employment in many areas that have nothing to do with tobacco. It also happens to be something that is in the private sector which I thought his party was supposed to understand.

I would not have thought it necessary to stand up in this House and say this. Let me try to say this very clearly and very calmly. Many members have experience in a wide number of areas. One of the tremendous things one would hope is that having all these new members and the ability to create a new atmosphere is that they bring that experience to this House. Some of them may well have experience which conflicts with what the government is doing and things the Canadian people want to see happen. But I would never want to see any member stand in this House and say that someone's experience or background prejudices his or her decision.

Let me state unequivocally that I will act in the interest of the country in everything that I do.

[Health, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House is under no illusion as to the health effects of smoking. Whatever action we take, as has been so well articulated by the Minister of Health, will be taken with a view to mitigating those effects. The government must make sure that smokers in this country understand full well the dangers they are running in smoking and that we will not allow Canadian health to be jeopardized.

Having said this, the only thing I would raise is the necessity for some consistency of view. It was pointed out to me that the member for Calgary North has expressed quite publicly her support for a reduction in the taxes.

I might say to the leader of the Reform Party that some consistency of view from that side of the House would certainly help the Canadian people in understanding where his party is coming from.

[Taxation, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I must say the first time I heard somebody raise the issue of a carbon tax was when it was raised by the leader of the Reform Party.

I would also say that when I was in Calgary I met with groups on that particular issue. I am certainly prepared between now and the date of the budget to meet with other groups.

I would tell the leader of the Reform Party that there have been very strong representations made to me by the members of the Alberta caucus, led by the Minister of Natural Resources.

[The Budget, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of difficulty understanding the thrust of the member's question.

The fact is that virtually everybody-and I said it in my first answer-wants to see more equity in the tax system. In fact that is an essential part of building a strong economy. There was no one out there who said they did not want to have more equity in the tax system. Everybody understood that building more equity in the tax system meant filling in tax loopholes and taking away exemptions from one segment of society that they enjoy that other people do not. That is the kind of system we are going to build.

[The Budget, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there is a consensus across the country on the need to decrease government spending, one that we on this side of the House share very much.

What occurred and was very interesting was that in each and every one of the conferences-in the workshops and in the debate about the nature of the deficit, the necessity of preserving our social programs and rebuilding our economy-virtually everybody understood the necessity of augmenting the revenue side of the governor's p and l statement. I cannot think of a better word; I have not been in this job long enough. More so, no one disagreed with the absolute necessity of building more equity into the tax system.

[Montreal Economy, February 1st, 1994]

The answer is yes, and I will do it together with the Prime Minister of our country.

[Montreal Economy, February 1st, 1994]

I think it was made very clear in the throne speech that our goals and plan of action with regard to the economy in general, and that of Montreal in particular, have been well thought-out, and we intend to keep our word.

[The Budget, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we have now had four very public consultative conferences at which Canadians did not have to stand to ask the Minister of Finance what he wanted them to talk about and at which Canadians set out very clearly the issues as they saw them.

I would simply therefore suggest to the hon. member that if he is indeed looking for direction he might well look to the lines of discussion that took place by Canadians in our conferences.

I would say that I am a little taken aback by the question of the leader of the Reform Party, that he would like me to stand and give rigid direction. Perhaps that is because it applies in his party. In our party we are democratic.

[The Budget, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I consistently miss the applause line.

The answer to the leader of the Reform Party is that we would hope so, but we do not want to foreclose the negotiations with the provinces and indeed the wishes of Canadians as they will be expressed to the parliamentary committee on which his party will be represented.