Paul Martin

[Pre-Budget Conferences, January 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, what really came out of these conferences was that Canadians with different perspectives sat down at the table. They were forced to make the kinds of trade-offs and have the kinds of discussions that governments and finance ministers have to go through.

The problem with private consultation, the kind that was done before, is that individuals come in and give a single perspective and then walk away, claiming they have made their point. However, they have never had to test it in debate with people from the other side. That was the great advantage which came out of this.

Tomorrow all members of this House are going to have the opportunity to present their views on this debate. I hope that the members will do what Canadians did and what they very clearly did in Calgary. I hope that they will simply not tell us to spend more in their area or to cut into somebody else's, but that they will make the trade-offs. If members of this House do what Canadians across the country did, then I will feel very good about the process tomorrow and very good about the budget we are going to present.

[Pre-Budget Conferences, January 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the $800,000 let me say that the constitutional conferences put on by the previous government cost $7.5 million.

These conferences were put on by these institutes. Let me tell you the food we got was very good but it was not very expensive. Perhaps that is why the hon. member was not there.

[Pre-Budget Conferences, January 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, at these conferences, as would be expected, there were very different points of view, primarily because the institutes invited people not simply representing one very narrow point of view but all points of view. Obviously there were differences of opinion expressed on the panels and within the workshops. Therefore it would be impossible for anyone to square the circle and to simply do what everybody said.

What we did say very clearly was that we were listening, that we understood the common message, the common theme which is the desire to turn this economy around and give jobs back to the people. We said unequivocally that if we were not prepared to follow the suggestions made in any individual instance, we would indicate why that was the case because we take these consultations very, very seriously.

[Taxation, January 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I fully understood the gist of the question put by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. He seemed to be saying that the Bank of Canada should not release this information and should not try to express its views.

I think the Bank of Canada has the right to prepare these studies, and when it does, they should be published. However, as my hon. friend knows full well, we did not always agree with the Bank of Canada when we were in the Opposition, and I believe this study was prepared at that time.

[Taxation, January 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, our position has been very clear. Whether we are talking about different ways to close the loopholes in our tax system or about subsidies to corporations or individuals, the watch word is fairness. And that will be the purpose of this budget.

If the Bank of Canada's report contains some interesting points, we will certainly look at them. However, I believe I already answered the question last week when I referred to the Reform Party's program. I said that I felt their option, which is to cut subsidies and cut government spending on the elderly, was entirely unacceptable to us.

[Taxation, January 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the report of the Bank of Canada was published on October 26, the day after the happy occasion of the federal election.

I can inform him that this was prepared under the aegis of the former government. We will read it. We will look at it. However, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that we have no intention of doing anything at the expense of the senior citizens and the poor in this country.

[International Maritime Organization, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am told by my colleague the Solicitor General that we will certainly be dealing with that and I think that my preamble answers the question.

[International Maritime Organization, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it does not help when you mess up your preamble, does it.

I will take the question as notice and I will certainly speak to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I can assure the member that we are dedicated to reversing a great many Conservative decisions.

[Government Expenditures, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about equity, making sure that one group of Canadians does not benefit more from the system and the services that this country provides than other groups of Canadians. We are trying to build fairness into the system. That is crucial.

I fail to understand the objection of the party opposite to that kind of fairness. However we are going to continue to do it despite the objectives of the party opposite.

In terms of the competitiveness of our system there is no doubt that our airlines, our farmers, the inputs to fertilizers, the interest rates that this country has had to bear over the last five years; there has been a great deal of unfairness in this country and that is why we were elected, to try and make that right.

[Government Expenditures, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, broadening the tax base and filling in the tax loopholes will simply remove inequities in the tax system and make it a great deal fairer. Then Canadians will be far more prepared to support it. That is what we are dealing with.

In terms of export sales we stated unequivocally in the red book that the ultimate aim of any government, certainly this one, must be to reduce taxes. But this party, as the Reform Party certainly claims to be, is also worried about the financial condition of the public finances of this country. We also know that unless we attack the deficit we are not going to get interest rates down. Unless we get interest rates down we are not going to have a competitive economy. If the member would like a lesson on the deficit I would be prepared to give it.