Paul Martin

[Education, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, how can the hon. member be accusing us of interference when, a year ago, it was the Bloc Quebecois that was calling upon us to help students finance their debts, which we are now in the process of doing?

Is the hon. member telling us that research and development is not a federal jurisdiction? Is the hon. member telling us that helping parents to save for their children's education is federal interference? I believe it is the duty of a government to help its young people finance their education.

[The Deficit, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member should look at what we did. When we came to office we reduced employment insurance contributions. We prevented them from rising to $3.30 from $3.07, before reducing them to $3.00 and later to $2.90. The Minister of Human Resources Development and myself have announced that, in November, we will lower contributions to $2.80. We are in the process of doing so. Therefore, we reduced employment insurance contributions by $4 billion over a two-year period.

[The Deficit, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should look at what the government did. In June, we decided to give back to the provinces, over a five-year period, an amount of $6 billion for health, education and welfare.

At the same time, my colleague promised another $850 million to help poor families with children. In addition, the Minister of Industry put money into technology partnerships, in order to create jobs.

[Taxation, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let us examine again what Reform would do to pay for those taxes.

It would cut the CHST by $3.5 billion. Middle income Canadians depend on health care which Reform would cut. A lot of those people live in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Reform would cut equalization by $3 billion a year, driving up income tax in those provinces.

Reform would cut old age pensions by $3 billion a year. What would happen to the senior citizens on fixed incomes?

Why will Reform not tell us—

[Taxation, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let us understand the tax plan of the Reform Party. It has said that for a single family with an income of about $30,000 a year it would reduce its taxes by $175. For a family with an income of $250,000 it would reduce its taxes by $4,000 a year.

Let it be very clear. We will reduce taxes for Canadians and we will begin with lower and middle income Canadians.

[Taxation, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, one slight correction in terms of the Canada pension plan. I set out a program not only to preserve the Canada pension plan but to preserve all its qualities. I also set out a premium increase that is substantially less than any independent analysis of the Reform Party program.

One should understand that. I would hope the leader of the Reform Party would take that into consideration. In addition—and I notice I only have five seconds left—we also set out a very clear plan stating that we would reduce taxes when the country—

[Employment, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to tell the hon. member what our jobs policy is.

When his government was in power, 370,000 full-time jobs were lost. Since we have taken office 900,000 jobs have been created.

When his government was in office, real disposable income was down by 8%. Since we have taken office it is going up.

When his government was in office net worth per household was stagnant. Since we have taken office it has gone up by 6.8%.

Their government did not produce; our government has produced.

[Employment, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that when we took office over 200,000 jobs had been lost for the previous three years prior to 1993. Since we have taken office the private sector has created over a million jobs.

Why is the NDP arguing against the very same policy that Labour brought in when the new Labour government was elected in England? Is it because the NDP is back somewhere in the 14th century and refuses to recognize the necessity to evolve?

[Employment, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been in the House long enough to know that he is speaking nonsense.

We have embarked on a very steady process of job creation. The comments of the minister earlier on youth unemployment is something all Canadians can take a great deal pride in.

He also knows that last week long term interest rates and mortgage rates came down to a record level. The monetary stimulus the Bank of Canada has provided over the course of the last four years is paying off.

[Taxation, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member undoubtedly saw this morning that there were in fact 16,000 new jobs created and over 279,000 new jobs created since we have taken office. More important, the vast majority of those jobs have been permanent full time jobs. Not only that, but we have just come through the best four month period of job creation for young Canadians since 1990. This government is creating jobs. Canadians—