Paul Martin

[Goods And Services Tax, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is very clear that Quebec is not entitled to compensation because Quebec has not lost any money.

I must point out that Quebec's former Minister of Finance himself, Mr. Bourbeau, indicated very clearly that Quebec did not deserve to be paid in this case because it had not lost any money.

That having been said, Mr. Bourbeau also pointed out that in other areas, such as technology and partnership for example, Quebec has received more than 60 to 70 per cent of all money, that Quebec, with 25 per cent of the population, receives 31 per cent of transfer payments, and more than 45 per cent of equalization payments.

It must be said that, when it comes to federal transfer payments to the provinces, Quebec is receiving its fair share.

[Goods And Services Tax, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member must know that the formula by which only those provinces having lost more than 5 per cent of their revenues are compensated is perfectly normal. Five per cent includes normal fluctuations in a province's revenue from a tax source, in this case the sales tax.

The reality is that Quebec has not lost more than 5 per cent. Furthermore, if we look at the figures for the years since 1990, Quebec has made money by harmonizing and there is no compensation for a province that has not lost money. Nor is there any compensation for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

[Taxation, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it only stands to reason that if 750,000 more people are working, it is quite possible that more people are paying taxes.

It only stands to reason that when loopholes are closed, and the $100,000 capital gains tax exemption is eliminated, more people are paying taxes.

One really is entitled to a higher level of debate from an opposition party. Its members fail to understand that an economy that is growing will give the government more revenues. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.

[Taxation, March 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when the government took office, revenues as a percentage of the economy were substantially higher than they are now. The conclusion of that is very clear, our take as a percentage of the economy has come down.

There are areas where we have absolutely changed the tax act. Tariffs are down substantially. Close to $600 million is being put back into the hands of Canadians. On the other hand, and again if I could quote the Prime Minister: "Yes, there are areas where we have increased taxes," areas where the hon. member has objected to increasing taxes.

We have eliminated the tax advantages for family trusts. Reform opposed it. We took measures to combat the underground economy. Reform opposed it. We eliminated the preferential rate for large corporations. Reform opposed it. We increased the capital tax on financial institutions. Reform opposed it.

I could go on for a long time, but let me tell you those loopholes-

[The Economy, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have defined the fundamentals of the country's economy. It is far broader than interest rates or inflation. It has everything to do with health care, with education and with prenatal care.

For that reason the Minister of Human Resources Development followed the Prime Minister's initiative, met with his colleagues from the provinces and brought forward the initiative of the government.

We will be providing a national child tax benefit across the country. We are bringing in $850 million of new money,$600 million of which was announced in the budget, no later than July 1998. If we can bring it in sooner because the provinces get their act together, we will bring it in as quickly as we possibly can.

[Banking, March 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the importance of private member's bills in focusing the government's attention on matters of great concern to Canadians cannot be underlined too strongly.

There are many examples of it. Certainly one of the best is the private member's bill by the member. In the ensuing debate he brought forth a number of very important reasons the government should allow foreign branch banking. It will help small and medium size business gain access to capital. It will bring greater competition into the Canadian marketplace. It will force the continued modernization of the system.

The legislation will be introduced later this session. I congratulate the hon. member on his initiative.

[Grand Rapids, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Churchill for his question. He has been a very fervent advocate for northern residents on this issue. I have certainly appreciated his efforts and I will continue to listen to him and indeed to the residents.

I should, however, like to provide some history on the topic. The current northern resident reduction was implemented in 1991 following the report of a task force that was set up. It concluded that the original community based approach was unfair and unworkable. It proposed that only residents of broad northern intermediate zones receive tax benefits. These zones were defined using objective criteria relating to both environmental factors and community characteristics.

While I appreciate that members of the community may well be disappointed, they were set up on the basis of an objective system which was regarded to be substantially superior to the old system which was much more subjective.

[Taxation, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a distinctly Canadian problem. There is no doubt that the government is not happy with the level of unemployment. It is for that reason we brought in programs to help youth unemployment, programs to help our exports and programs to help small and medium size businesses.

In terms of the world, and the Prime Minister has said it, outside of the United States, if we look at the G-7, we have stronger job creation than any of those countries. We have done very well.

That does not mean we are happy. That does not mean we will rest as long as there is one Canadian unemployed. This government will work on it.

Where was the Reform Party three years ago, two years ago and one year ago? Every day in the House its members stood and said cut, gouge, slash, burn, ignore health care, ignore unemployment. We on this side said that we would not do that. We will protect the Canadian worker. We will protect the Canadian social fabric. The Reform Party ought to recognize that.

[Taxation, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can stand in this House and spout nonsense all he wants, but it is still going to be nonsense, no matter how much he repeats it.

There has been an increase in the government's revenues. That increase has occurred overwhelmingly as a result of economic activity, which is exactly what anybody should want.

At the same time there has been a tremendous reduction in the cost that consumers have to pay for refrigerators, for houses and for cars. It is estimated by most economists that over $5 billion in additional purchasing power has gone back into the hands of Canadians as a result of the actions of the government. The hon. member ought to recognize that.

There is not much use of me standing in the House and responding to nonsense. What I would really ask is that the Reform Party's researchers go back and come up with the odd question that reflects the economic realities.

[The Economy, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members want to talk values. They want to cut $3.5 billion from health care. We will not do it.

Reform Party members want to talk values. They want to cut $3 billion from equalization. They want to deprive seven provinces of decent public services. We will not do it.

Reform Party members want to cut $5 billion from old age pensions. We will not do it. We will match our values against theirs any day of the week.