Paul Martin

[Taxation, May 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, gasoline taxes are imposed at both the federal and provincial levels. In many instances the taxes at the provincial levels are higher than they are at the federal level.

The Canadian government has offered to sit down with the provinces. It has recognized that if action is to be taken on this basis it would have to be taken by both levels of government. So far the provinces have not indicated a desire to do so.

[Agriculture, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am having a little bit of difficulty with the hon. member's question. I want to be as general as I can.

The fact is that the money going to the farmers is real money because we understand the needs of Canadian farmers. We understand the need to protect the Canadian farm family. We also understand the terrible competition arising from the disloyal subsidization in France and in the United States. I can tell the House that the Canadian government has demonstrated time and time again, and the minister of agriculture has demonstrated time and time again, that they will—

[Education, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have certainly on a number of occasions in the past met with the Council of Ministers of Education, and one time with the current Minister of Canadian Heritage when she was in a previous post. Within the last year I also met with the current president of the Council of Ministers of Education. I am certainly prepared to continue in that vein.

[Education, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, let us understand that in terms of transfers to the provinces not only is the CHST at an all time high but equalization is also at an all time high.

Specifically in terms of education the 1998 budget a knowledge budget. If we take a look at the help for the research chairs, if we take a look at the investments that have gone into basic post-secondary education, and if we take a look at the help the government has provided to the vast range of educational institutions, we see that the federal government understands its role and its responsibilities and is in the process of exercising them. There is no doubt about the importance of education to the future economy.

[Agriculture, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the surplus at the end of the year one must recognize that it is simply part of what was the total surplus. The vast majority of it was spent through the course of the year on agricultural matters, environmental matters, research and development, health care and a vast range of other things. The only thing that happens at the end of the year is the year end accounting when the final number in terms of debt is understood.

In terms of the importance of Canadian farmers to our way of life and to our economy, there is no doubt the support of the government, the support of the minister of agriculture, the support of—

[Budget Surpluses, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the member has all the tools at his disposal, but the problem is that he does not wish to use them.

First, we have the debate on the estimates, which the member can use. Second, there is a debate here in the House before each budget. It may be that the member does not take part, but we do indeed have a procedure in place. Third, there are always opposition days.

All the member has to do is use the means at his disposal.

[Budget Surpluses, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, the member is well aware that he is quoting the member for Markham out of context and that this sort of approach does nothing to help matters.

Concerning the fundamental issue, we are absolutely prepared to debate priorities. There are two or three days set aside each year for a debate here in the House on the government's options.

The member sits on the Standing Committee on Finance. He is certainly entitled to ask committee members to hold such a debate and, as I said yesterday, I would be prepared to attend.

[The Economy, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about the pernicious effects of inflation. That is why the government signed a five year agreement. It has enabled us to control inflation in the country.

The fact is that as a result of the actions of the government and the Bank of Canada we are now considered around the world as a low inflation country and we are going to stay that way.

[The Economy, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the agreement between the government and the Bank of Canada at 1% to 3%, mid point 2%, the trend rate, which is the most important rate, not in any single month but the trend rate over a series of months, is the core rate and that core rate is at 2.1%.

As to the basic question, I would simply point out to the hon. member that under our system the Bank of Canada is independent.

[The Economy, May 18th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, those tax reductions are 21% on average. That is truly significant. For a family of four with an income of $60,000, it is 18%. A single mother or a single father raising a family and earning a salary of $25,000, he or she will now receive a child benefit of over $2,500. That is significant amount of money going toward helping Canadian families and we are proud of it.