Paul Martin

[Employment, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the ink is barely dry on the two-year-old taxpayers' budget and already Reformers deny it. Is there no policy the Reform Party will stand behind?

The taxpayers' budget is two years old and we reject it. The false start, six months old, we reject it.

Time and time again members of the Reform Party stand up in this House and deny what other members of the Reform Party have said. It is why so many of them have already decided to leave.

Every single policy reform of the Reform Party contradicts itself. The only consistent factor the Reform Party puts forward is its inconsistency.

We will match any one of our budgets against anything that we have said. We stand behind our first budget. We stand behind our second budget. We stand behind our third budget. We stand behind our fourth budget. We look forward to bringing in four more.

[Employment, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member and the members of his party were truly concerned about the plight of the unemployed, they would have supported the government when it brought in the infrastructure program, when it brought in programs to deal with tourism, when it brought in programs to deal with education, when it brought in programs to deal with research and development.

The fact is the Reform Party voted against every single measure, whether youth unemployment or summer jobs. Every measure the government brought in the Reform Party opposed. On the other hand, it is understandable why it has opposed these measures. The

House leader made a reference to what the Reform Party has had to say about its program for the unemployed.

I quote from the taxpayers' budget, which is the Reform Party talking about what it would do: "The short term employment impact of the Reform Party program is negative but manageable". How much unemployment is manageable? How much human suffering is the Reform Party prepared to put up with? How much degradation of families from coast to coast does the Reform Party want to recommend in order to put in place its archaic policies?

[Taxation, April 16th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Windsor-St. Clair is asking a question on behalf of her constituents. She has been very active in this file. It is a question which concerns a number of members in the House.

As the member knows, having worked on this file for some time, what is necessary is for us to set up a system by which we can provide the refunds as quickly as possible. It will take the co-operation of the United States because not all seniors file Canadian tax returns. We have to get that information and then we have to match it to our information.

Setting up the system will take some time, but the commitment I am prepared to make in the House is that if by the time the system is set up it has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate, we will proceed immediately to provide the refunds to Canadian recipients.

[Taxation, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House that the hon. member was given an opportunity to say what her party's Canada pension plan premium or super RRSP premium would do. She did not take that opportunity. Do I now understand that she accepts the number that most economists have said? In fact, it is 13 per cent, 4 per cent higher than what we and the provincial governments have arrived at.

Let me go on. The hon. member wants to talk about tax cuts. She says that her party will bring in tax cuts. Let us take a look at the tax cuts that she would bring in.

The Reform Party will bring in, for a single parent with two children earning $30,000 a tax cut of $175 per year. If people want to know where their constituency lies, under the same program, under the same budget, a one-earner couple earning $250,000 with two children will get a tax cut of $6,700. That is what they are trying to protect.

[Taxation, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must understand that when she stands up and cites numbers in her preamble, she must be prepared to defend them.

She talked about what the government has done in pensions. Let me quote: "In the Reform Party's taxpayers budget it is projected that spending on seniors' benefits in 1997-1998 would be $17 billion". They have come in at $22.3 billion. The Reform Party has recommended a $5 billion cut in seniors old age pensions.

Second, the hon. member has complained about the 9.9 per cent premium that has been arrived at by the federal government and the provinces, provinces representing every region of the country. The hon. member's numbers come out, by almost anybody's calculation, at 13 per cent. If those are not the right numbers, would she stand in the House now and tell us what her premiums will cost?

[Taxation, April 15th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, every time the Reform Party stands up and cites numbers, what it has to do, unfortunately for it, is to go back to the Tory regime. In order to compensate for the good numbers that the government has brought in, it has to bring in the bad numbers that the Tories had. It will not work.

We are responsible for that which happened since we took office in 1993. Since that time, disposable income and family incomes have stabilized. For the three years prior to our taking office they had worsened. We have stabilized them. Virtually every economist in the country now projects that those numbers are going to get better.

It is particularly ironic that the hon. member stands up and talks about seniors pensions, given the fact that her party in their original budget recommended that seniors pensions be cut, that they have fought protecting of the Canada pension plan, that they have fought every measure this government has brought in to take care of our senior citizens. The Canadian people are entitled to a little consistency.

[Criminal Code, April 15th, 1997]

moved that Bill C-82 be concurred in at report stage.

[U.S.-Canada Tax Treaty, April 11th, 1997]

No Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member did not understand the answer.

I said we needed to set up a system in order to have the data required to make these payments. Now if there were some delay in the U.S. Senate and the system is ready to go and we have the data, then we will make these payments. So the delay is not due to a matter of principle on our side but is purely administrative.

[U.S.-Canada Tax Treaty, April 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I previously said that we need to set up a system because of the rather complex administration involved. We have already taken the requisite steps to ensure that, if an agreement is not reached in time for the U.S. Senate to be able to act, we are prepared, once the system is set up, to make payments on an interim basis.

[Financial Institutions Act, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as I have just indicated, I am very open to considering a change. My officials are already looking into it, and I am prepared to meet the companies concerned within a fairly short period of time.

I think the hon. member will agree with me that what counts most is to have Bill C-82 passed as quickly as possible, because it contains provisions that are vital to the industry as a whole.