Paul Martin

[Canada Pension Plan, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just referred to the Canada pension plan as a basket case. One must understand what he is saying. The federal government along with eight of the provinces, provinces which reflect the vast range of the political spectrum in this country, provinces which reflect all of the regions of this country have come together with the federal government to protect the Canada pension plan so that it will be there for young Canadians.

To refer to the Canada pension plan as a basket case could only come if one adopts an extremist view. We understand that is exactly what we are dealing with. The basic difference here is not between Reform and the government. It is between a balanced view of what Canadian society is all about and about a band of extremists who would destroy the values of the country.

[Canada Pension Plan, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let us simply contrast in terms of the CPP premiums with differing tracks between what the Liberals and the provinces have said together versus what the Reform plan is.

Instead of it going up to 14 per cent and then continuing, under the federal government and the provincial plan, the premiums are going to go up to 9.9 per cent and then they are going to level off. We will then have a fuller funded plan. What Reform is suggesting under what appears to be the most real of its options is that there would be an acceleration of those premiums up to 14.2 per cent.

How the hon. member can stand in this House and try to convince people that 14.2 per cent is less than 9.9 per cent can only be done in that weird little corner of the world where Reformers do their arithmetic.

[Pensions, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let us put the debate over the Canada pension plan in perspective.

We have already seen that the difference of opinion between ourselves and the Reform Party has nothing to do with the CPP premiums. We have already seen that on the three basic options put forward by the Reform Party, one of 10 per cent, one of 13 per cent and one of 14.2 per cent, in all cases Reform are recommending higher CPP premiums than the federal government and the provinces. We understand that.

Therefore what we must deal with is what is the fundamental difference of opinion between ourselves and the Reform. It has to do with the values of this country. It has to do with do you believe that Canadians feel a collective responsibility one for the other? Do you believe that Canadians do not think this is a country only for the rich? Do you believe that what this country is all about is providing for Canadians on disability, providing for single mothers, providing for survivors? We do.

[Pensions, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the projections that have been made by the federal government and the provinces are quite prudent. Again I point out that all 10 provinces are joint stewards in the Canada pension plan.

If the Canada pension plan was to earn higher rates, and there is no reason why it should not given the fact that it will be subject exactly to the same investment criteria as any private sector pension plan, then clearly the returns will be higher.

Let us point out some of the fundamental differences the super RRSP will not have. CPP benefits are fully indexed. They are secure. They provide disability benefits. If somebody has an accident under the Canada pension plan they will be protected.

What Reform would do is throw those who have bad luck, who have accidents, on to the market with no help. Let us understand what it means. Under the Canada pension plan survivor benefits will be provided. As well, under the Canada pension plan women having children who have to retire from the workforce for a period of time are protected. Under the Reform plan there is no such protection.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to understand how members of the Reform Party can stand up day after day, swallow themselves whole and bring forward positions that are in total contradiction to what they have stated consistently in House of Commons committees or in this House.

I made a reference to the 10 per cent increase. That was the lowest number that I could see.

Let us look at what Reform has actually recommended. This is a quote from the Reform Party's social security review and the option which it recommends: "The schedule of planned increases to the CPP payroll tax", which they called it, "could be maintained or somewhat accelerated with the excess funds being diverted into contributors' personal super RRSP funds".

What Reform is recommending on paper is the acceleration of the contributions up to a level of 14.2 per cent.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, obviously it takes a great deal to explain to the Reform Party the difference between a tax and pension contribution.

Yesterday I pointed out that what the Reform Party was recommending in its changes to pension contributions was the Chilean model which was 13 per cent, some $500 more than the federal government and provinces have come together on.

I wanted to be fair to the Reform Party. Therefore I went back to see if I could find out whether they had made a lower recommendation. Remember that the provinces and the federal government have agreed to 9.9 per cent. The lowest recommendation I could find from Reform was 10 per cent.

Let me quote from Reform's minority report from Standing Committee on Human Resources Development social security review. It says that in Chile the local version of CPP has been phased out and replaced by mandatory RRSPs, financed by a payroll deduction of 10 per cent. That is the lowest that they have come up with-

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that at the time we took office, there was an enormous amount of insecurity in the country. Canada had come through the deepest and longest recession since the depression of the 1930s. Taxes were going up, interest rates were skyrocketing and there was an enormous loss of confidence among business and consumers.

Three years later, 798,000 more jobs were created in the private sector, consumer confidence is on the way up, business confidence is on the way up and every international organization in the world, the OECD, the IMF and the World Bank, are saying that this is where the economic miracle of the world is taking place.

Canadians are very proud of what is going on here. They really do not like to see people knock the country.

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, who sat in this House with a lot of us under the previous government, knows full well the economic situation in Canada when we took office in 1993. There was no hope. Taxes were going up. Interest rates were going up. Job creation was virtually a thing of the past.

I know he will understand, being a fair person, that looking at Canada today the fact is not only have we created over 700,000 jobs, not only are we being touted as doing better than any other OECD country, but our interest rates are down, our companies are exporting, consumer confidence is up. The foundation is there.

Now, are we satisfied? Absolutely not. Is there pain and suffering out there? Yes, there is. I know the hon. member, unlike those around him, understands and shares that feeling, as do we. We are going to continue to work on this because government is about people. It is about providing them with the sustenance they require and we will continue to do as we have done.

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Tim O'Neil, chief economist, the Bank of Montreal, is forecasting well over 300,000 new jobs this year. Maureen Farrow from Loewen, Ondaatje, McCutcheon Limited international investors whom I talk to every day is looking at Canada as if it had sort of risen from the ashes. It is fascinating because it is the deficit, the debt and the current accounts, the contained inflation environment, the overall competitiveness, the restructuring of the export centre. We have gained enormous market shares across the board in export markets, particularly in the Asian markets, including Japan.

The hon. member talks about people who have Liberal cards. This from Deutsche Bank: "The Canadian economy has enjoyed massive monetary stimulus. We expect GDP growth to be more than doubled to 4.1 per cent this year, more than 1 per cent in excess of the United States, nearly two times greater than the average of the G-7. The longer term prospects beyond 1997 are favourable".

Mr. Speaker, it is a tragedy that you are going to cut me off.

[The Budget, February 19th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, heaven forbid I should speak for the government. Simply let me quote David Crane, one of the more astute commentators on the political scene, referring to the budget. He said the budget can almost be called an investment budget that focuses almost entirely on people, making sure that children get early support to be good learners when they start school; providing more money for parents to raise healthy children; giving more deductions to post-secondary students and boosting innovation in the universities and industry.

That is what a non-partisan and objective commentator has to say about this budget.