Paul Martin

[Taxation, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see this last minute conversion by the member for the Reform Party.

In the last House the great advantage of the harmonized sales tax was that it substantially reduced taxes for small and medium size businesses in Atlantic Canada. That is why the then premier called for it and the other premiers in Atlantic Canada called for it. It was to lower the tax burden on those who were creating jobs. I am delighted to see that the hon. member now recognizes the wisdom of that approach.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as was mentioned, committees make their own decisions. Given that the finance committee hopefully will be involved in the most extensive prebudget consultations that we have ever seen in this country, it makes a lot of sense to refer it to a subcommittee.

I remind the hon. member that there will be the occasion in this House after report stage and at third reading stage to have full and extensive debate.

I also remind the hon. member that there was extensive debate province by province—

[Canada Pension Plan, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the hon. member that he might want to take a look at the legislation.

The board's deliberations will be public. It will report to Canadian contributors. It will be operating the same way as any other pension fund does. It will be an arm's length board from government. It will be subject to exactly the same rules as every other pension plan.

What more does the hon. member want?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would really suggest that members of the Reform Party hire better researchers. If they did, they would know that in terms of the investment board a nominating committee has been put together of members named by the provinces and the federal government. The nominating committee, in turn, will name an arm's length board of experts.

All the hon. member has to do, rather than standing here and making a bit of a dope of himself in the House of Commons, is a little research and he would understand what is going on.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if the NDP members want to preserve the Canada pension plan then why will they not let it go to committee where there can be debate?

Why will they not let the Canada pension plan pass so that we can get on to track two where we can deal with mandatory credit splitting, where we can deal with a number of issues that were raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance? Why will the NDP not attempt for once to be constructive as we head into the 21st century?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear what has happened. I mentioned this in the House the other day.

There are two ways to destroy the Canada pension plan. One is to confront it like the Reform. The other way is to do what the NDP is doing, which is to refuse to recognize the absolute need for change.

The only issue before the House now is why is the NDP walking arm and arm toward the sunset and out of the CPP?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, that is sheer bunk. There will be debate in committee. There will be debate at report stage. There will be debate in the House at third reading. There will be plenty of opportunity for debate.

The Reform Party is afraid to state that its plan does not hold water. Reformers are afraid that Canadians are going to understand the degree to which they are going to let the Canadian citizenry fall.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers, as have his colleagues, to the 9.9%. He says that this is a very large increase and it is. It is however substantially lower than the 13% increase that would arise from the alternative plan.

Since the hon. member will have the opportunity to ask a supplementary question, will he stand in the House now and tell us how much the Reform cost premiums will be? Will they be 13% or will they be higher?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had all night to think about that and if that is the best that he can come up with it is pretty pathetic.

There is only one issue here. We support the Canada pension plan. Reform would destroy it.

[Canada Pension Plan, October 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that debate will be extensive. There will be debate in committee and debate in this House.

The real issue is why is Reform trying to frustrate that debate? Is Reform worried that there will be an examination of its own alternative? Is Reform afraid that the Canadian people will see how the Reform plan will leave the poor and the middle class unattended? Is Reform afraid that we will see how much its plan will gouge the Canadian people? What is Reform afraid of?