Paul Martin

[Pensions, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to trust. One should talk about the obligations that a political party has to lay all the facts on the table when engaged in an important debate.

In the world of the super RRSP that Reform recommends, who will protect Canadians who are seriously injured and disabled and no longer able to work? There is $2 billion in the Canada pension plan to provide that money, none of it to be found in the super RRSP.

In the world of the super RRSP who will protect the person who has all of their money invested in the RRSP when the market suffers a major downturn just when they are about to retire?

In the world of the super RRSP who will protect the single parent or the mother who has to take maternity leave or the mother who decides to take some time off?

[Pensions, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the advice that I have from the department dated approximately the same date, within about a month of the date that the member said, is that if the federal and provincial governments move quickly, which we have done, and take the steps that we did to improve the

overall financing and management of the fund, very clearly this, which was not a tax, would not be seen as a tax but as what it really is, a contribution to people's pensions.

The basic question that Reform members have to answer is this. Is it their intention to abandon current seniors and those who are about to retire? Is it their intention to renege on the $500 billion liability in the Canada pension plan? If it is not, how do they justify the 13 per cent increase in Canada pension plan contributions that will result from their plan?

How do they think, in that weird little mind where they do their own arithmetic, 13 per cent is lower than 9.9 per cent?

[Mexico, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the hon. member who has taken a great interest in this in her capacity as vice-chair of the Canada-Mexico parliamentary association.

As she knows, Canada contributed a currency swap facility of up to $1.5 billion as part of the overall international assistance package for Mexico in which the United States and the IMF obviously took a major role.

I am delighted to say that Canada was able to help Mexico when it ran into trouble with the peso in 1994. Our help has paid off. Inflation is down and the Mexican economy is growing again.

I am also delighted to say that Mexico has been able to repay the United States three years ahead of schedule. It is ahead of its repayment schedule to the IMF. And quite some time ago Mexico repaid Canada in full.

This is good news for Mexico, good news for Canada and good news for the world.

[Health Care, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party has not read two documents. The first document is the series of budgets brought down by this government. Subsidies to businesses have been cut by 70 per cent. Crown corporations have been privatized. The Canadian National Railway has been privatized. Air navigation has been privatized. The funding to crown corporations has been cut.

The Reform Party does not seem to understand that when we chose the priorities we put the money back into health care in this budget. We put the money into research and development. We put the money into education.

As well, there is a second document which Reform has obviously not had a chance to take a look at. It happens to be its own fresh start.

Where does the leader of the Reform Party get the nerve to stand up in this House, having recommended over the last three years that old age pensions be cut further, that health care be cut further, that the basic social fabric of the country be cut further and then say that the first thing Reformers would do on taking office is cut the Canadian health and social transfer by a further $3.5 billion. That is what they said. Now stand up and justify it.

[Health Care, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, provinces across the country are cutting in a number of social areas. The fact that it is happening in Ontario is not the result of the reductions in transfers. It is the result of a political decision taken by that government.

At the same time the province of Alberta is declaring surpluses and cutting taxes. He cannot say that it is reductions in federal transfers when Alberta is cutting taxes and declaring surpluses.

The province of Saskatchewan began cutting and closing hospitals before this government took office. The statements of the Reform Party are nonsense and they do not bear any kind of examination.

[Health Care, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when a government is faced with a deficit the size of ours it has to cut. It cannot ignore 20 to 25 per cent of its spending which is transfers to the provinces.

The leader of the Reform Party referred to the $1.2 billion reduction in those transfers to Ontario. What he did not mention was the $500 million reduction in interest cost to that province as a result of the actions that the government has taken. Nor did he make a reference to the $4.5 billion tax cut that will reduce Ontario's revenues, three and a half times larger than the reduction in transfers.

In other words, he should understand that if hospitals are being closed in Ontario it is as a result of a political choice. Tax cuts are being made. I will not dispute them, but they are not the result of a reduction in transfers from the government.

[Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, March 6th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-85, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Health Care, March 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, at the time we took office, transfers to the provinces had been declining for nearly a decade. When we took office we put in place a series of cuts in our own spending that allowed us in the last budget to commit to the provinces that not only were the transfer cuts at an end but that the transfers were now put on a formula that would allow them to increase in the years ahead.

The leader of the Reform Party used words like gouge, scrape and cut. Let me quote from "A Fresh Start for Canadians", Reform's most recent program. The Reform Party has said: "On top of the existing reductions in transfers, the Reform Party, on taking office, will immediately cut three and a half billion dollars from the Canadian health and social transfer". What do you call that?

[Canada Pension Plan, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true.

The main issue we should really address is why, with all of the problems and the opportunities this country has, the Reform Party has taken up all of question period with one goal in mind: to destroy the help that will be given to low income seniors and to destroy the Canada pension plan. What is it deep in the hearts of Reformers that would destroy the social security programs upon which Canadians rely? Why? It has been an hour of basic-

[Canada Pension Plan, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the government by bringing in the new seniors benefit has brought in a benefit that is going to be fully indexed, a benefit that is going to be tax free and a benefit which will benefit 75 per cent of Canadian seniors, nine out of ten single women. It is a benefit that is going to target those who need it most, certainly people who will never vote for Reform.