Paul Martin

[Taxation, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what in fact happened is that there was a tax treaty that had been signed with the United States. As a result of the actions of a number of the members on this side of the House who brought this matter to the government's attention, we in fact renegotiated the agreement with the United States saving those Canadians an enormous amount of U.S. tax.

[Employment Insurance, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, no.

[Employment Insurance, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have just answered this question twice. In view of Canada's current financial situation and of the financial situation of the employment insurance fund, if there were a recession, Canada would in a much better position to deal with it. That is thanks to the improved state of the public purse.

The member seems to want a recession. From what I see in the projections, there will not be one.

[Employment Insurance, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has always been the guarantor of the fund, the guarantor for employees and employers in times of recession. We have always done this when there was a deficit.

I can assure the hon. member that, if ever a misfortune should occur, the Government of Canada will be there.

[Employment Insurance, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I shall tell the hon. member exactly what I told him last week, that one of the reasons for eradicating the deficit was that now we have a surplus, which will help us get through any bad times that might occur. We do not want to do what the Progressive Conservative Party did, which was to raise contributions during a recession.

Second, Canadians have the guarantee of the Government of Canada, a government now far more stable financially than it was.

[Taxation, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the Reform Party taxation task force said that the family structure was a primary consideration in measuring ability to pay. It is the households with similar family structures that would be taxed.

We should understand what that means. That means that when a lower income spouse decides to re-enter the workforce, that lower income spouse will be taxed at the higher rate. It means that when two people marry the lower income spouse will be taxed at the higher rate. What in fact they are talking about is a disincentive to marry. That is their position.

[Taxation, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, what the committee will be dealing with is a complex problem involving a number of departmental areas, a number of initiatives including taxation.

At the same time those members who would vote against the Reform motion are voting against a motion that would have regressive taxation. They are voting against a motion that would penalize families. That is what they are voting against.

[Taxation, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is why we reduced taxes in last year's budget, why we reduced taxes in this year's budget, and why we will reduce taxes in the next budget.

Let us be very clear what we are dealing with here. The Reform Party in its report on taxation and the member for Calgary Centre in the House said very clearly that the basis for taxation should not be individual income, that it should be family income.

That means that when a lower income spouse goes back into the workforce the lower income spouse would be taxed at the income of the higher spouse and that—

[Taxation, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that we are dealing with an issue which is complex. It is not an issue that will be subject to a simple solution.

The question I would then put to the hon. member is why does she insult members on all sides of the House. Why does she say that she does not want this matter to go to committee? Why does she say that members of the House are not capable of dealing with one of the more fundamental issues?

That is what the members of the all party finance committee were elected to do. It is in fact to make sure that systems, programs and aids to Canadians evolve along with their needs.

[Taxation, March 9th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that is not the issue and that we have asked that this matter be referred to the House of Commons finance committee to deal with it.

Let us understand what the real issue is here, that members of the Reform Party are advocating that family income be the basis for taxation, not individual income. That is the issue they are putting before the House, and that is what all members will be asked to deal with.