Debates of Dec. 2nd, 1998

Taxation

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the finance minister announced that on January 1 payroll taxes are going up. He is giving back Canadians 15 cents in EI premium cuts, but on the other hand he is adding 30 cents to the CPP payroll taxes, a 15 cent hike per $100 from Canadian workers' pockets. Apparently he thinks that workers are not taxed heavily enough.

He is a pathological tax hiker. He never met a tax hike he did not like. How many jobs does the minister expect to create by hiking payroll taxes?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, again we are dealing with the real agenda of the Reform Party.

Yes, unfortunately, because of the inattention of previous governments, the Canada pension plan premiums, on agreement with the provinces, are going up. But that is not where the difference lies. The difference is that the Reform Party does not believe in the Canada pension plan. It does not believe in sharing the risk. It does not believe that Canadians of all generations and of all income levels are entitled to a decent retirement. We beg to differ.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a decent retirement is in part predicated on having some money to put away.

The minister has raised taxes more than any finance minister in Canadian history. Every year he stands up here and gloats and smiles but every year he raises taxes.

How many jobs does the minister think he could create by raising payroll taxes on January 1?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the results are there: 1.3 million since we took office; over 300,000 jobs created this year alone; and 57,000 created last month.

That is not where the difference lies. The difference lies in the forces of extremism. The Reform does not believe in the positive role of government and we do.

Employment Insurance

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development was all thrilled yesterday to announced his amazing 15 cent reduction in employment insurance contributions.

By stubbornly refusing to improve the program and to make a substantial decrease in contributions, is the minister aware that, between now and March 31 of next year, each and every cent workers see as a deduction on their pay stubs is an unfair tax going directly into the pocket of the Minister of Finance?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques acknowledges how thrilled I was yesterday.

I believe it was an excellent piece of news, that we had succeeded for the fifth year in a row in decreasing employment insurance contributions, bringing them down to $2.55, and that we did so in keeping with the unanimous recommendation of the employment insurance commission comprised of both union and employer representatives, while at the same time succeeding in having a system that puts $2.7 billion into active measures to get the unemployed back into the work force.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is seriously in need of taking Fair Taxation 101.

How can he not understand that making low wage earners, who already contribute too much to employment insurance, foot the bill for general income tax decreases, including those for ministers who do not pay employment insurance, is fiscally unfair and morally unacceptable?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member needs to take Math 101.

I can tell hon. members that there are also seniors who pay no income tax and who would not have benefited from an additional drop in employment insurance contributions either.

What we were seeking was a balance between an employment insurance system that will remain in place for the workers of this country, even if there should happen to be an economic downturn, and at the same time a steady decrease in contributions for five consecutive years.

I believe we have achieved the desired balance.

Social Union

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what a difference a day makes. Yesterday it was no to the social union; today it is a go.

Yesterday one of the Prime Minister's own members described the social union as “a warmed over Charlottetown accord which would give more power to the provinces and weaken the federal government”.

Canadians want to know whether the Prime Minister agrees with the member for Wentworth—Burlington, or does he really support the social union?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. When we speak about the Government of Canada we speak about those who believe in the social union. Canada has one of the best social unions in the world.

Not only is the Government of Canada saying that. Recently Harvard university released a study comparing 150 countries in the world on the capacity of governments to give their citizens good services while respecting their freedom. Canada was ranked fifth. That is not so bad.

[Val Meredith, Reform, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this seems to be the problem: the provinces believe there needs to be change and the federal government thinks everything is A-okay the way it is.

We would like to put the Prime Minister and his government to a test. If they really support the social union, will they commit the government not to initiate any new social programs in the budget unless the provinces agree to them?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the member is not in the best situation to ask for clarification. Yesterday I asked the Leader of the Opposition to say, if he was unfortunately the Prime Minister of Canada, whether he would sign the proposal of the provinces as it is.

He would not say that to Canadians. He never answered. Members of the NDP said that they would not sign as it is. The Bloc said it would sign because it would be a step toward separation. The Tories were unable to say what they would do. Is that the new definition of the united right?

2010 Olympic Games

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that it was because of the direct intervention of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who claimed that she wanted to avoid any political interference, that the Canadian Olympic Association held off announcing its selection of Vancouver as a candidate for the 2010 Winter Olympics until the day after the Quebec election.

By taking this supposedly precautionary step, did the minister not instead send the message that important political considerations were involved in choosing Vancouver over Quebec City?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Bloc Quebecois, the Government of Canada wants to respect democracy—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

—and allow a democratic vote. The decision was made by a majority of the members on the Olympic committee, in two secret ballots.

At least have the courage to respect a majority vote.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we now know that two federal ministers, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Revenue, supported Vancouver's candidacy. Their names appeared on the official list of delegates and lobbyists for Vancouver.

According to the principle of ministerial solidarity, was this not a message—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis has the floor.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

According to the principle of ministerial solidarity, was this not a message that the federal government openly supported Vancouver's candidacy over that of Quebec City?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable that the member is engaging in this sort of speculation when I myself was with Quebec's minister of culture, who spoke out in favour of Quebec's candidacy during the nomination process.

So, if there is any double standard, if ministers from other parts of Canada want to make their views known, at least respect the democratic decision taken by a majority of 72 individuals who—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake has the floor.

Agriculture

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the foreign affairs minister and the agriculture minister went down to Washington, cap in hand, to beg the Americans to stop the unfair subsidies that are partly responsible for destroying our Canadian farms. The trade minister says that the heritage minister is a big part of our trade problems.

Is it not true that the reason the Americans have not backed off on their farm war is the heritage minister's personal vendetta against U.S. magazines?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture went yesterday and made a very strong case in favour of Canada.

I have received word from the Canadian ambassador in Washington that he was very proud of our minister of agriculture.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that. It says a lot about—