Paul Martin

[Employment Insurance, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, $4 billion to $4.5 billion may be pennies to the Reform Party, but it happens to be real money to Canadians.

The real issue is if the Reform Party members are so concerned about low income Canadians, why did they vote against the child tax benefit? Why did they vote against the prenatal nutrition program? Why did they vote against CAPC? If they are sincere in what they are saying, why have they voted against every single legislative measure brought to this House to help low income Canadians?

[Employment Insurance, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the single most important part of any government's policy is job creation.

If the hon. member will take a look, it is low income Canadians who have benefited from the fact that over 1.5 million jobs have been created since 1993, that over 500,000 jobs have been created in the course of the last year. Low income Canadians and high income Canadians are benefiting at the same time.

If the hon. member looks at the policies of the government, the policies of my colleague the Minister of Human Resources Development and the child tax benefit, those are directed to low income Canadians.

[Taxation, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we have cut taxes by $16.5 billion over the next 36 months.

We could have cut taxes more but we did not because our priority in the last budget was health care. That was the priority of Canadians. It was not the priority of the Reform Party. Yesterday Canadians in Windsor—St. Clair told the Reform Party what they thought about its priorities.

[Employment Insurance, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when we took office the EI premiums were at $3.07. They were going to rise to $3.30 in that time period. Since we have taken office they have dropped to $2.55. That is over $4 billion. It is the largest decrease in EI premiums in the history of employment insurance.

Regarding the trip to British Columbia, the people of British Columbia in the ridings of the members opposite were delighted to see me.

[Employment Insurance, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, not only is it out of order, it is totally ridiculous.

I would say to the hon. member that the three commissioners, unanimously, recommended contributions be at the level of $2.55, which the government accepted.

[Employment Insurance, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have already explained to the member that the Government of Canada guarantees employment insurance contributions.

We are a long way from a recession. Should one by misfortune ever occur, the contributions are at an appropriate level. There would be no need to increase them.

[The Economy, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's facts are simply wrong.

Our productivity has improved in the 1990s over the 1980s. Of course we want our productivity to improve more. Of course we must invest in research and development. We must continue to eliminate debt. We must continue to get taxes so that it will increase. The fact is that the 1990s are better than the 1980s and we are going to make sure that the next century is a great deal better than the 1990s. That is what we are about.

[The Economy, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would like us to look at the facts, so let us look at the facts.

This morning the announcement was that retail sales in Canada rebounded strongly in January, gaining 1.7%. Our nominal exports were up 2.1% in January. Our employment, as members know, is up 13,000, an increase of 51,000 a month over the last eight months. The help wanted index increased in February, its third consecutive month of solid growth. Those are the facts.

[The Economy, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear that I agree with what the industry minister has said. What I do not agree with is what the Reform Party has said, that we should take another $16 billion out of spending which would gut health care, that we should take $16 billion out of spending which would gut education, that we should eliminate equalization in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, that we should simply eliminate the middle class in this country.

That is the Reform Party's position in terms of our basic social programs and we sure as heck do not agree with that.

[The Economy, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, there is complete agreement on the front benches and there is complete agreement in the government on this issue.

That is why in the last budget we reduced taxes and in this budget we reduced taxes, $16.5 billion over the next three years. It is also why in budgets to come we will reduce taxes, because we understand the necessity of increasing disposable income. We also understand, which the Reform Party obviously does not, that one has to pay for health care, education and all those other matters that are so important to the Canadian fabric.