Paul Martin

[The Economy, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we reduced taxes in the last budget by $2 billion over the next three years.

The government has set out a very clear and comprehensive plan for job creation. It is, first, to clean up the nation's finances which has led to an unprecedented drop in interest rates.

Second, we have a short term plan for the infrastructure program, which the hon. member had the nerve yesterday to call rinky-dink. He cast aspersions on every mayor and municipality in the country. We have the Prime Minister's trips abroad.

We also have a long-term plan, a reinvestment in education, a reinvestment in research and development. If the Reform Party is sincere about jobs, then it will support the government's budget. It is the most comprehensive plan that has been set out.

[The Economy, March 13th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member's numbers are wrong. He ought to know that since we have taken office the federal government's share, revenues as a percentage of GDP, has dropped.

He ought to know while disposable income dropped substantially under the Reform Party's kissing cousins, the Conservatives, in 1993 when we took office it stabilized.

Third, he ought to know that as a result of the government's actions, massive purchasing power through the reduction of interest rates has gone back into the pockets of Canadians.

[Customs Duties, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond for the three of us. The matter is under consideration. We will make an announcement as soon as we are ready.

[Employment, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, rinky-dink, rinky-dink, the infrastructure program, tell that to every mayor and municipality in this country.

Let us keep going. Rinky-dink, the R and D program for every university and every teaching hospital. Tell that to the teaching hospitals. Tell it to the universities.

Rinky-dink, helping students go back to school, helping workers return to the job market. That is rinky-dink. I will tell you,Mr. Speaker, that is value and we will put our values against Reform values any time.

[Employment, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have now been in this House for a little over three years. We have heard Reform members stand up time and time again talking about the problems of the day.

After the first budget we said that we would have a balanced approach, that we would cut spending and deal with jobs. The Reform Party said do not deal with jobs, cut the deficit further. In the second and third budgets we said exactly the same thing.

What we have is a picture of the Reform Party swallowing itself whole. Reformers stand up and try to defend health care after attacking health care for three years. They stand up and attack the government's economic policy when they said they did not care about jobs.

The hon. member has a chance in his preamble. His leader said in Penticton that jobs were not a priority for the Reform Party. He said that if he brought in his program there would be fewer jobs today than there were three years ago. Does he deny it? Will he stand up in the House and deny what his leader said in Penticton? If

he is not prepared to say that his leader said that, then he should sit down and let the country get on with the job.

[Employment, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first, the leader of the Reform Party ought to know that when the Prime Minister refers to job creation he is referring to net job creation. Those are additional jobs in the economy.

Second, we should also be very clear that the debate is not over whether there should be tax cuts. The debate is what kind of tax cuts should we bring in. In the last budget we brought in over a three-year period more than $2 billion in tax cuts for the physically disabled, students and low income Canadians.

If we want to understand the kind of tax cuts the Reform Party is talking about, under its program a single parent earning $30,000 with two children will get a tax cut of $175. Under the same program a one-earner couple earning $250,000 with two children will get a tax cut of $6,700.

This is not about giving Canadians a tax cut. It is about rewarding Reform's rich friends.

[Goods And Services Tax, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a little trouble understanding how the member can tell me I am hiding figures, when he says his own figures come from my department.

That having been said, I do not know where he has come up with the amount of $12 billion. He may have done some calculations, but unfortunately, as with other calculations, they were erroneous.

When we look at how Confederation is functioning, when we look, for example, at technological partnership, Quebec has received over 60 to 70 percent of the spinoffs to date. Quebec is now receiving 31 per cent of transfer payments, with only 24 per cent of the population, so we can see that Quebec is certainly receiving its fair share, if not more. It would be very detrimental to Quebec if the member were to continue in this vein. It is very clear that Quebec has made money by harmonizing, while the other provinces have lost more than 5 per cent.

[Goods And Services Tax, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, as the member is well aware, when I set the forecasts for this year, there were three months to go, the last quarter. At that time, I said that this year's budget would not exceed $19 billion. There is a possibility that it will be less than $19 billion, as I pointed out. Where does the figure of $12 billion come from? I do not know. I think it was plucked out of thin air.

As far as Quebec's claim is concerned, the member knows very well that Quebec has not lost any money. Under the formula, provinces that lost more than 5 per cent of their revenues were entitled to compensation. Quebec did not lose more than 5 per cent. Quebec is in exactly the same position as Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

[The Deficit, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, as the Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well, when we made structural changes in programs like the employment insurance program, the main objective was not to reduce the deficit but to provide some impetus for job creation. The changes were necessary to update these programs.

Second, I will give you an example of what the Prime Minister just said. The previous government forecast a deficit of $32 billion for 1993, and when we came to power, we found it was $42 billion. As for the $6 billion change last month, changes are always made at the end of the financial year. We have worked very hard to rebuild the government's credibility and that is why we did this.

Something else now. In his first question to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition hinted to the Prime Minister that he should give me a raise, and if he wants to make a habit of this, I wish he would stay.

[The Deficit, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, here again, the member has not asked a question. He has made a statement.

I will simply say that, when you look at the fact that the federal government transfers over $10 billion a year, including 45 per cent of equalization payments to Quebec.

We have to look at the technological partnership my colleague has set up, at the number of aeronautics companies in Quebec that benefited.

It is amazing, but we have now had five questions from the official opposition and its main criticism of the Minister of Finance and of this government is that we have beaten our deficit targets every year. We accept the criticism and we are going to keep on beating our deficit targets.