Paul Martin

[Health Care, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member understands that social transfers and equalization operate hand in hand. What we have done is reverse a discrimination against other provinces on a per capita basis so that all Canadian citizens, whether they live in Newfoundland, Ontario or British Columbia, are treated equally under the federal provision of health care.

At the same time we have improved substantially the equalization program. There are much larger amounts of money that will be transferred. That has been recognized by the Premier of Newfoundland.

[Taxation, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the example the member raised was a $30,000 family. The fact is we did act. We increased the child tax benefit and as a result that family will now pay no federal income tax.

[Taxation, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have said this matter should be referred to the House of Commons finance committee. Now that we are in a surplus position it makes an enormous amount of sense to us to look at one of the beneficial ways we can improve the tax code to benefit Canadian families. The hon. member ought to be prepared to participate in that process on a constructive basis.

The real issue is why the hon. member is arguing against individual taxation. Why does he believe that higher income Canadians should be taxed at a lower rate than lower income Canadians? That is the issue. Why does he not answer the question?

[Taxation, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear that, just as we have brought in through previous budgets measures to help families, we would like to see the House of Commons finance committee look at the whole issue as to how best government can help Canadian families raise their children. We have already said that.

The issue we are debating here is whether the Reform Party is in favour of progressive taxation. Is the Reform Party in favour of individual taxation versus family taxation? If it is, how does it gibe its approval of that with its questions? The real fact of the matter is that the Reform Party is against progressive taxation. It is against individual taxation.

[Taxation, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member simply does not seem to get it. In the last budget by raising the threshold by $675 and the $300 million that went into the child tax benefit, the tax burden on Canadian families was substantially reduced.

The basic issue is the Reform Party is saying, and if not would the hon. member explain the contradiction, that it would tax somebody at $25,000 at a higher rate than it would tax somebody at $50,000. That simply does not make any sense. That is why we have a progressive tax—

[Taxation, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the preamble to the hon. member's question simply does not bear any relationship to reality. What we have done is certainly outline the number of measures which we have taken to help those families raising children, whether it be the child tax credit, the community action program for children or the prenatal nutrition program.

What has happened in every case is that we have pointed out to the Reform Party that despite its rhetoric in the House it has voted against every one of those issues which will help children. That is the basic debate, how to help children, how to help families raising children.

This government has brought forth a series of measures and the question is why does the reality of the Reform Party's votes contradict its rhetoric?

[Privilege, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my preamble the respect that I have for the member for Calgary—Nose Hill. I certainly accept what the member says. If in fact the quote is not an accurate quote or out of context in any way, shape or form, I certainly withdraw my statement.

[The Budget, March 4th, 1999]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, the member is a bit behind the times. I will merely refer to the 1999 budget.

It provides that by July 2000 a typical single income family will receive $2,600 a year, more than double the $1,200 received by a typical two income family. So the government has already done something.

[Taxation, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member from Mississauga for having raised this issue long before any one of the opposition parties thought about it.

In fact I congratulate our entire caucus that has been working on this matter. As we look ahead toward the possibility of tax relief as a result of the elimination of the deficit, it will be the pioneering work by this caucus that will lead the way.

[Taxation, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the hon. member, a person for whom I have a lot of respect, how she jibes her so-called interest in children and families with her statement which I am quoting from the Toronto Sun . The member for Calgary—Nose Hill said that young pregnant mothers without enough to eat should not count on government help but instead should go to food banks or other charities.