Paul Martin

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what I realize is that, by lowering taxes, we will be easing the burden for the elderly, who are living on a fixed income and do not derive any benefit from reduced EI premiums.

There will be a tax decrease for self-employed workers who do not benefit from reduced EI premiums.

I put the following question to the hon. member: Since he has put the two choices on the table, will he have the courage to tell us which he would favour?

[Canada Pension Plan, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat there will be no blockage or obstacle placed in the way of provinces or Canadians dealing with the chief actuary.

Second, I understand that the superintendent of financial institutions has indicated that he will be available to meet with the media later this week to discuss all these issues.

Third, a subcommittee has been struck by the House of Commons finance committee to look at all these issues and the superintendent would be delighted to appear before it.

[Canada Pension Plan, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is no gag committee. Given the changes and the establishment of an independent fund within the Canada pension plan, it is incumbent on the provinces and the federal government to work together to basically determine new ways of operating, ways that are really open to all the provinces.

Let me simply say one thing. There is no doubt that the chief actuary's reports will be available to all the provinces and to all Canadians. There will be no blockages or inefficiencies placed in the way of Canadians or provinces dealing—

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois leader talks about morals. The Bloc wants us to lower employment insurance premiums by $5 to $6 billion. They want us to reduce taxes by $10 billion while at the same time making a massive $11 billion investment in transfers to the provinces. The total cost would be in excess of $25 billion. I wonder what planet these people live on.

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, since coming to office we have lowered employment insurance premiums every year. Last year, we reduced them by 20 cents, for a total of $1.5 billion.

We intend to continue with a balanced approach. This means that we will invest in health. It also means that we will lower personal taxes for Canadians. We will reduce the debt and provide the economic activity and development that our country deserves.

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, government is about choices. The government's choice is to proceed on a balanced approach.

I ask members of the Reform Party if Canadians are entitled to know their position? Are they in favour of health care? Are they in favour of lower income taxes for Canadians? Are they in favour of reducing debt? Are they in favour of reducing EI premiums to the extent we can afford? That is the issue.

Why is the Reform Party afraid to basically say what it wants to do, or in fact do we now know?

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, government is about choices but so is parliament about choices. We ask the Reform Party—

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member saying that employees in Canada are not going to benefit from the protection of the Health Act? Is he saying that they will not benefit from tax cuts? Is he saying that employees in Canada would not suffer should we face another deficit? Is that his position?

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what is the debate the Reform Party is afraid of? Our payroll taxes are substantially lower than those of most G-7 countries including the United States. Our personal income taxes are higher.

Why will the Reform Party not engage in a debate as to the proper allocation of those fundings? Why will the Reform Party not debate the future of health care? Why will the Reform Party not take a proper attitude toward the global economic crisis that surrounds our borders? Why will the Reform Party not deal with the real issues?

[Employment Insurance, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the debate that is required in this country in an era of considerable global volatility when country after country outside our borders is in recession is: Is the government going to give up that area of its financial manoeuvring which prevents us from going into a deficit? Is the government going to maintain a balanced approach? Are we going to reduce debt? Are we going to reduce personal income taxes? Are we going to reduce EI premiums? Are we going to invest in health care?

That is the debate. I would suggest the Reform Party ought to begin to gauge it on that basis.