Paul Martin

[Taxation, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, our income tax system works on the basis of progressivity. That means someone earning $25,000 a year will pay less tax, at a lesser rate than someone who is earning $50,000. It also operates on the basis of individual taxation.

Having said that, by what the government has done over the last number of years and certainly now that the budget has been balanced, we have made it clear that we are prepared to have a complete examination of the way in which the government can help Canadians raise their families. We have made that very clear. We would ask the finance committee to work on that very closely.

[Employment Insurance Fund, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the hon. member for Roberval does not grasp how this works.

The problem is that average salaries are on the rise. The average salary is $34,000 and the ceiling $39,000. This raises the average salary and thus raises benefits. It is a sign of a healthy economy.

[Employment Insurance Fund, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition leader should ask his virtual researchers to go back to their drawing boards.

When this government took office, the deficit was $6 billion; it appeared in the books. Today, there is a surplus; it too appears in the books. And fortunately, there is a surplus.

[Employment Insurance Fund, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we are doing.

[Families, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if anybody wants any example of the kind of nonsense that is being spouted by the Reform Party, let us simply respond by facts.

As a result of the 1999 budget, by the year 2000 through the child tax benefit a typical one income family will be receiving better than twice the amount of a typical two income family, $2,600 per year versus $1,200 per year. That is the truth.

[Families, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the measures this government has brought in, whether it be the child tax benefit, whether it be the action program for children, whether it be the prenatal nutrition program, whether it be the wide range of programs involving aboriginal head start, it is very clear that this government values enormously not only the work done at home but the raising of children, family policy. That is an essential part of our values. More important, we do not simply talk about it, we have put it into legislation.

[Taxation, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a bit late. First of all, the secretary of state has already responded to this question numerous times here in the House, and very well too. I myself have also responded.

I can say that I have known the secretary of state for a very long time and that he has always been very much aware of work in the home and outside the home. When he headed the Standing Committee on Finance, he fought very hard for the children of Canada.

[Families, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point we have been trying to make to the Reform Party, that what is really important here are Canadian children.

That is why as a government we brought in the child tax benefit. That is why we brought in increased funding for the community action program for children. That is why we brought in the prenatal nutrition program, all these items. That is why we protected maternity and paternity benefits in the Canada pension plan against the onslaught of the Reform Party, precisely because the end game here is the welfare of Canadian children.

[Taxation, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear, following on the work that has been done within this caucus and within the various departments, that what we want is the finance department this year to work very heavily on those things we can do to help families with children, improvements to the child tax benefit and others.

If the hon. member believes that the solution is not things like the child tax benefit, I simply ask him is he now saying that he no longer believes in progressive taxation? Is he now saying that he no longer believes in taxation of the individual? Does he believe that somebody who is earning $25,000 a year—

[Taxation, March 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is simply wrong. The fact is we brought in a $300 million addition to the child tax benefit which goes directly to middle income Canadians whether their workplace is at home or outside the home.

If the hon. member wants to talk about damage control, it is a fact that on the whim of the Reform, suddenly it decides it is interested in children. For five years it has been against children. For five years it has talked only about the deficit.

While we were fighting the deficit and at the same time protecting kids and protecting Canadian families with children, the Reform Party opposed every single measure.