Paul Martin

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if you want to know the definition of a tax grab it is the 25% personal income tax increase recommended by the Reform Party or it is the doubling of the GST recommended by the Reform Party as a means of paying the unfunded liability.

That is the basic difference between the Reform Party and us, and we are not prepared to engage in a smash and grab tax program like the Reform Party.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, over 75% of Canadians support the Canada pension plan.

The basic difference of opinion that has existed between ourselves and the Reformers has to do with the unfunded liability.

The hon. member in a statement on the weekend that I would like to quote for the first time has announced what Reform would do in terms of the unfunded liability. She said “we need to look at paying this unfunded liability out of general tax revenues”.

I would like to simply tell her that it would require a 25% increase in personal income tax to pay for that unfunded liability.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is a board which is set up by the federal and provincial governments. In fact, there is joint stewardship. It is going to be independently operated in the same way that any other pension plan would be. It will invest in order to earn the highest returns, but it will be totally transparent. All its operations will be available for public scrutiny.

I really think that what the hon. member ought to do is join with the vast majority of Canadians and congratulate the government on what is a very innovative position.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the leader of the Conservative Party for having raised this issue which was discussed in the House almost a month ago.

The fact is the CPP investment board will operate as any other pension fund. It will be totally transparent, reports will be made on a regular basis. As the hon. member knows, certain of its deliberations will be in secret. Obviously there will be confidential matters and because we want it to operate as regular pension fund—

[Canada Pension Plan, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the federal finance minister and the provincial finance ministers very clearly stated at the time it was set up, and I will repeat it now, that there will not be an increase in the premiums beyond 9.9%.

I will now ask if the Reform Party will admit to the Canadian people that it is prepared to renege on the $600 billion liability to Canadians who are currently contributing to the plan.

[Canada Pension Plan, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is no change in the premiums. The hon. member ought to know that actuarial assumptions, economic projections, are updated. It is simply a question of projections and indeed there will be changes in those projections next year. It all depends on what one assumes for interest rates, for mortality and growth.

[Customs Tariff Act, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been an extremely strong advocate for the interests of the auto makers in his riding. I can assure him that the government will not remove the provision that permits duty free entry for auto parts used in vehicle assembly in Canada from the tariff simplification bill.

I can also assure him, as he has asked, that we sent a letter last week to the Canadian Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association confirming this commitment.

[The Environment, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that when a number of us from this side of the House and, in fact, the current head of the Suzuki Foundation went to Rio, we put a great deal of faith in this member when he was the minister of the environment.

However, a number of promises were made that were not kept. When we came into office we found that nothing had been done. In fact, they had engaged in anti-rhetoric. Everything this member said he did not mean.

The Canadian people were tremendously deceived and I was too. When the hon. member was in Rio he should have set commitments—

[The Environment, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, it is nonsensical to speculate on a deal that has not taken place. It is nonsensical to speculate on a series of commitments to be negotiated with a multitude of countries around the world. It is nonsensical to speculate on negotiations which have not begun. It is nonsensical to speculate on fundamental changes that are going to take place over great number of years in a negotiation with a great number of countries.

That is our position. The prime minister has expressed it well.

[The Economy, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned with all of the social indicators that apply to Canadians. The prime motivation for the clean-up of the nation's finances was to put the government in a situation where it can address those things.

I am sure the hon. member knows that Canadians suffered from the trauma of a terrible recession from 1989 to 1992 and it took a long time for us to recover from it. However, as a result of the actions taken since 1993, all of those indicators have either stabilized or they have improved substantially.