Paul Martin

[Taxation, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in the last budget we brought in over $2 billion worth of selective tax cuts, which will take effect over the next three years, for Canadians with disabilities, for students and for low income families. We brought in a series of targeted tax cuts directed where the impact will be the greatest.

Given that the government has reasonably restricted financial resources, that is the option which any reasonable government would take. The alternative recommended by the Reform Party is to bring in a broad based tax cut which would benefit the wealthy of this country. It would be paid for by cutting services which low and middle income Canadians desperately need.

[Taxation, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of answers to the hon. member's question.

I think the hon. member would be interested in knowing that in 1966 the real net worth per household rose 2.7 per cent. What that means is that households have more assets, more money and are better off. Canadians are better off. I am sorry, 1996. When you are talking to the Reform Party you are lucky to get the century right.

Let me simply say that the reason our personal income tax revenues are up is that in the private sector there are 850,000 more Canadians working. That is why, that is the way it should be, and that is good news.

[Taxation, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for eight years prior to our taking office this country had a Conservative government. That was when the decline in after tax income took place. Since we have taken office it has stabilized. If one takes a look at the projections of most economists, it is that it will be going up.

[Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996, April 18th, 1997]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Income Tax Budget Amendments Act, 1996, April 18th, 1997]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in and read the second time.

[Deficit, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has the wrong government in mind. He may be referring to some provincial governments, but certainly not to this government.

The first reason why we are ahead is because we did not have to use our contingency reserve. The second reason is that our revenues are on the rise, because the economy is on rise. The third reason is that our interest rates are lower than expected. Again, this is all good news.

[Deficit, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, when I tabled the budget, I said that the deficit for the current year would not exceed-meaning it will be below-$19 billion, and it is definitely the case.

I also said that we did not have the figures for the months of January, February and March. We still do not have the figures for March. When we get these figures, we will certainly have a clearer picture.

I should also remind the member that, historically speaking, there always are adjustments ranging from $4 billion to $6 billion at the end of the year. Finally, the member should know that the fact that the deficit is going down is not bad news but good news.

[Taxation, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member just outlined, we have made it a priority in our budgets to help charity raise additional funds. A great deal of the leadership for this has come from the chairman and the membership of the finance committee. While we have enhanced the generosity of the system, we have also acted to ensure its integrity.

The suggestion has been raised by the member that a particular measure dealing with loan backed transactions may be too broadly drafted at present. I assure the member the government is consulting with and will continue to work with the charitable sector to ensure the legislation has neither adverse nor unintended consequences.

[Employment, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at what has happened.

Since we have taken office unemployment insurance premiums, which under the Conservatives were supposed to go to $3.30, are now down to $2.90. The last three years the Tories were in power they went up every year. We have brought them down the last three years.

The hon. member wants to talk about tax cuts. How about the tax cuts and the credits that were given to students to enable them to go back to school? How about the tax credits given to disabled Canadians to level the playing field? How about $600 million in new tax credits for poor children to give them a decent shot?

The hon. member objects to the fact that the government's revenues from corporations are going up. He ought to understand that they are going up because business is better and the economy is booming. That is a good thing. It is not a bad thing.

[Employment, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, is $50 million put into the Business Development Bank of Canada to finance small and medium sized business pork-barrelling? Is $50 million put into the Farm Credit Corporation to help with rural diversification pork-barrelling? Is $800 million put into the Foundation for Innovation so that Canadian universities and teaching hospitals can spawn the new economy pork-barrelling? Are tuition credits, helping students to go back to school and helping parents to save for their children's education pork-barrelling?

No. It is the result of sound policy that will build a great country. The Reform Party ought to get on board.