House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 1997, with 54% of the vote.
Pulp And Paper Companies March 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, this is a strange question, given that the Treasury Board does not have a say as to where companies set up their head offices.
I should tell the hon. member that, in our system, this decision is up to the companies themselves. They are the ones that decide where they will set up their head offices. This is what will happen in this case.
Canada Pension Plan February 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, this government has now put together the tools to be able to choose.
Four years ago we were in a fiscal hole. There was nothing we could do but pay the interest on an increasing debt. Now we have finally stopped that. Within two years our borrowing requirements will be zero. At that point we will have our own money to deal with. We will be able to make the choice of reducing the debt or increasing spending on whatever priorities the Canadian people indicate or even lowering taxes.
Canada Pension Plan February 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, with the reforms we have made, in about 10 years from now there will be an additional $100 billion invested in the Canadian markets in order to produce growth and jobs.
The Canada pension fund will be brought to stand on a firm and sustainable basis and will give security to people who knew that the pension fund was slowly going to dry up. Those among you who believe that this is wrong should perhaps go to see Mr. Klein during his present campaign and ask him what he and Albertans think about it. You will see that they are in favour.
Canada Pension Plan February 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, how would the hon. member know that it is a bad investment? Is it because it is an investment in senior citizens who will now have security for their future? Is it because it guarantees to the people in the Canadian population who are not that rich that they will be taken care of when they reach the age of 65? Is it a bad investment because it shows that we care in terms of the Canadian population, that we are ready to invest in their future?
It is a bad investment only if we are thinking of the rich people who can afford to pay more. It is not a bad investment if we are thinking in terms of common Canadians, of seniors, of those who want to live their old age in peace and security.
Canada Pension Plan February 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times I will have to repeat that the fund is now giving financial security to a large number of people for when they reach age 65.
We have reformed the plan. We have made it sustainable. We have prevented it from going broke in or by the year 2015. What we have done is helping the government to lower interest rates because people now know that we can afford to support our various programs at rates that make sense, at rates that actuaries will agree with, at rates the provinces support and at rates that the Canadian population supports.
Pensions February 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, since when does the creation of investment funds kill jobs? It is the contrary. Look at what the government has done. We have created the lowest interest rates in 35 years. Is there anything that creates more jobs than lowering interest rates, therefore helping investment, therefore creating jobs?
For 20 years we had short term rates that were two points more than they were in the United States. Now they are two and a quarter points below the United States. That is what we have done.
Pensions February 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, investing in seniors is never a bad investment. It is clear that we have reformed, together with the provinces, the Canada pension plan. In order to make it sustainable in the long run we have, together with the provinces, changed the benefits and changed the rates at which people contribute to the fund so that people in the future can count on it.
Our role as a government is not to help only the rich, but to help everybody in this society.
The Budget February 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, if the employment insurance fund is nothing but a source of revenue, why would the Conservative government have increased unemployment insurance contributions from $1.95 to $2.25 in 1990? Because the deficit at that time was $12 billion.
Even if the opposition critic were right, what would the unemployment insurance contributions be replaced with? With higher income tax? Is that what he is asking for? Does he want to raise the other taxes on Canadians?
The Budget February 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the finance critic must realize that employment insurance is itself a fund in which there are deficits some years, which have to be balanced out by surpluses.
A few years ago, the unemployment insurance fund deficit was over $10 billion. Now we have to make sure that we will not be obliged to penalize Canadian workers and employers in a few years by again raising rates to where they were before.
The contribution rate will fall from $3.30 to $2.80 at the beginning of 1998. It is because we are taking into consideration the needs of workers and employers that we are administering this fund as what it is: an employment insurance fund.
Pensions February 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Canada pension plan is run on a long actuarial basis, like most other pension funds.
What is important to remember is that mandatory RRSPs may be good for the rich, but they are not that good for every working Canadian. We are working for every Canadian, whether rich or poor. Our reform deals with the needs of Canadians.