Paul Martin

[Points Of Order, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I gave a quote that was taken from a document, yes.

[Taxation, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize and thank the member for the commitment that he and in fact all the Liberal caucus members have shown in support of the needs of families.

The Reform Party would like us to believe that this is a simple problem with a simple solution. It is not. Therefore it is important to examine all of the tools that are available to us, whether they be tax relief or other initiatives in other areas, in order to provide needed relief for Canadian families. That is why I have asked the Commons all-party finance committee through its chairman to examine this issue and to offer its recommendations.

[Taxation, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I may have been citing a lot of nonsense. I cannot help it. I was quoting the Reform Party report—

[Taxation, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to quote a Reform Party report without being unparliamentary. The Reform Party in its statement said “households with similar family structure and income are taxed the same; the family structure is a primary consideration in measuring ability to pay”. The member for Calgary Centre, that is taxing family income. What that says is the Reform Party is against progressive taxation because it is against individual taxation. What the Reform Party is really saying is that we would no longer tax according to ability to pay, we would in fact tax in reverse ability to pay. Reform would tax the poor to—

[Taxation, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if there is any misrepresentation, it arises—

[Employment Insurance, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the reason is that this is the first time in twenty or so years that real disposable income has gone up. It is the first time that the level of unemployment has gone down and the number of jobs has jumped so quickly. It has been quite some time since the Canadian economy has been as strong as it is today.

[Employment Insurance, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what the member is to understand is that, when the economy is doing well, many more Canadians have jobs. This means that average salaries are higher and many more people are eligible for benefits. It is good news, not bad.

[Taxation, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, just think of what the hon. member is saying about this House and about the committee process. What he is saying is that there is no integrity and no sincerity in the process. He may be speaking about his own party's members on the committee but he is certainly not speaking about the government members on the committee.

[Taxation, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member believes that there is discrimination, why did Reform members vote against the care giver credits, against the child tax credit and against prenatal nutrition? The reason they gave time and time again was that they did not want targeted tax treatment. They said there must be broad general tax reductions which would enforce the very discrimination they say exists.

[Taxation, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the hon. member, the fact is that this situation was brought about by certain actions of the U.S. government. The Canadian government as a result of the pressures brought by members of this particular caucus, many of whom are from the Windsor area, sat down with the Americans and renegotiated the agreement.

Yes, there is taxation involved, but the hon. member will certainly agree that all Canadians should in fact pay tax on the same basis. It is the essence of fairness.