Paul Martin

[Canada Pension Plan, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first, as I have just mentioned, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has categorically denied that allegation.

Second, let us understand what the superintendent has done. Not only is Mr. Hafeman, who worked under Mr. Dussault, now completing the report, but I will quote again from the superintendent “to provide an extra layer of assurance”, along the lines the member is talking about, “I will be seeking the help of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries. OSFI has been working with the CIA on an important new initiative, the development of a system of practised review”.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the single most important thing in all of this is the integrity of the Canada pension plan.

Neither the federal Minister of Finance nor the 10 provincial ministers of finance, all of whom are involved, would be embarrassed by whatever numbers come out.

Let me again quote from the superintendent's statement of yesterday:

The team of competent professionals who worked under Mr. Dussault remains in place. Mr. Hafeman, who is replacing Mr. Dussault is a competent, experienced actuary—

Then he goes on to say that the superintendent—

[Canada Pension Plan, October 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions today categorically denied that allegation.

I would like to read from the superintendent's statement yesterday:

—there was no political interference in my decision to ask him to leave.

That is Mr. Dussault. It continues:

Not by the Minister of Finance, nor by any other Minister. I am responsible for OSFI, and this was my decision as the superintendent.

[Employment Insurance Fund, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member's idea of Genghis Khan is somebody who in each of the last four years has reduced EI premiums, then what would he call the previous Conservative finance ministers who every single year increased those premiums?

Is it Attila the Hun? Is it Tamerlane? Or is it other things which are equally unparliamentary?

[Employment Insurance Fund, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what I would agree with is that we have to have an important debate in this country. The government has essentially said that health care is important. The government has said that lowering taxes for low income and middle income Canadians is important. The government has said that making sure this country does not go into deficit in the midst of enormous global volatility is important.

I can understand that the Reform Party may not want to debate unimportant social issues; I am amazed to understand that the member from the NDP does not.

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member spent a little more time here, he would know that, last year for example, we put $50 million into helping small and medium sized businesses, to help these businesses with the millennium bug problem. That we have a tax deduction for small and medium sized businesses, from which they benefit, instead of big business.

That, between 1980 and 1987, we lowered employment insurance contributions only for them, and that last year we eliminated contributions for young people, the bulk of whom are hired by—

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 1998]

I understand that the hon. member is brand new, and therefore perhaps not familiar with all the facts.

When we came to power, as the hon. member will learn, contributions were about to be raised to $3.30. We froze them at the $3.17 level, and have brought them down every year since then. Last year we cut them by $1.5 billion.

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, allow me to offer my congratulations, and those of my colleagues I am sure, to the hon. member on his election.

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 1998]

—of other investments in health for the provinces and to help the middle class, or does he want to make empty speeches?

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is no need for the hon. member to get so worked up.

The question is this: Is he in favour of lowering taxes for the middle class and the most disadvantaged members of society? Is he in favour—