Paul Martin

[The Economy, March 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear that the hon. member has been sleeping for the last 10 years. The fact is that our capital gains taxes are lower than those of the United States. They are much lower than they were 10 years ago. Our corporate taxes are lower than they were 10 years ago.

We have reintroduced indexation of the tax system. Our unemployment is four points lower and two million jobs have been created since that time. I could go on.

The fact is our inflation is low and our interest rates are lower. The fact is we will do better than the United States. That is the fundamental difference between today and 10 years ago.

[The Economy, March 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first, in October we tabled an economic statement that led to the largest tax cuts in Canadian history, the largest amount of stimulus we have ever seen.

If I might be allowed, the organization WEFA which is one of the leading forecasting organizations in the country, one which we have used and one which in fact the Alliance used to look at its own information, said:

Because the economy is expected to be moving at reasonable pace...in the latter part of this year, it is not advisable to reduce taxes beyond the reductions currently scheduled.

[Finance, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that no final decisions were communicated. In fact, among the various tax issues that we consulted on was the flat tax. I can assure the hon. member we had no intention of introducing that particular measure.

What is really at issue here is the issue of openness and transparency in budget making. If the hon. member disagrees with the government and thinks that public policy arrived at openly and in full consultation with Canadians is not a good idea, then quite simply we disagree.

[Finance, March 12th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we were in the middle of extensive consultations on the budget. The hon. member knows full well that all the items discussed there were items that I had raised in speeches, items that had been raised in front of the finance committee, and were all part of the extensive consultation process which continued, I must say, after this meeting with meetings of economists.

The hon. member knows full well that the focus groups are randomly chosen. If he does not understand that, I would suggest he might want to read the letter to the Globe and Mail in which the head of the polling association said that what was recommended by the Conservative Party would have amounted to a serious breach of polling ethics.

[Finance, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Industry did during the election campaign was to state, what has been stated in the House on many occasions, that in fact equalization is one of the principal foundations of supporting our growing economy. It is a way in which individual regions of the country are able to help one another.

It is also, which is what the Minister of Industry has said, under constant review. It is under review by our officials now. We will continue to look at it. We will continue to support the equalization program as an essential foundation, despite the fact that the official opposition has consistently attacked it in its programs. We will not allow that party to prevail.

[Finance, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not correct. What I said when I met with the Atlantic finance ministers is that equalization is under review. Our officials are meeting and it is continuously under review. We are very open, as we always have been, to looking at equalization. I would point out to him that equalization has reached an all time high under this government.

The hon. member is also wrong in his assessment of what happened historically. When equalization was brought in and then amended in 1962, 1963 and 1964, it was at that point that Alberta no longer—

[Employment Insurance, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member ought to simply take a look at the treatment of the fund. We treat it the way the auditor general recommended in 1986. There has never been a separate fund of cash since its beginning. The hon. member ought to know that.

If the hon. member wants to know what has happened as a result of our treatment of the fund, she should look at the fact there have been two million jobs created since we took office. The unemployment rate has dropped from 11.5% to 6.8%. That is what is happening with the Canadian economy.

If the hon. member is sincere in her wishes, I hope she will support the government and the changes to the Employment Insurance Act.

[Employment Insurance, March 2nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister calls it a very important program to sustain Canadians through downturns in the economy. It has in fact done that.

We have substantially improved its benefits. Parental benefits, as an example, are only the most recent indication of what the government has done. The bill before the House is another. I would also say that the accounting treatment of the employment insurance fund is exactly that recommended by the auditor general in 1986.

[The Economy, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the tax cuts represent $17 billion in this year. That is six times greater than the tax cuts contemplated by George Bush.

In terms of improving the country's competitiveness, in addition to the corporate tax cuts and the capital gains tax cuts the government has put unparalleled amounts into research and development, opposed by the Alliance. The government has put major amounts of money into education and into research chairs, opposed by the Alliance.

The fact is that the government has given the Canadian economy a foundation for the future, all of which was opposed by the Alliance.

[The Economy, March 1st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that right from the very beginning I have said that Canada is not immune from a downturn in the United States.

I have also said that is why the prudence in our October statement was so important in protecting the national fisc. It is also why it is so important to recognize that on January 1 Canada brought in more fiscal stimulus to counter that kind of a downturn than has any other industrial country.