Debates of March 9th, 1999

Taxation

[The Speaker]

Order. I ask all hon. members to be very judicious in their choice of words.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to quote a Reform Party report without being unparliamentary. The Reform Party in its statement said “households with similar family structure and income are taxed the same; the family structure is a primary consideration in measuring ability to pay”. The member for Calgary Centre, that is taxing family income. What that says is the Reform Party is against progressive taxation because it is against individual taxation. What the Reform Party is really saying is that we would no longer tax according to ability to pay, we would in fact tax in reverse ability to pay. Reform would tax the poor to—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister, whom I have considerable respect for, knows that is a lot of nonsense. He knows that what we are talking about here is the discriminatory impact of the child care tax deduction which says that people who pay someone else to raise their kids get to claim a $7,000 deduction, while those who give up a second income get to claim precisely zero.

Yesterday the minister for the status of women said that single income families are actually ahead of double income families. Does she not recognize the opportunity costs, the forgone income and the lower standard of living of single income families who do what they think is best by their families?

Will this government tell the finance committee to increase the up—

[The Speaker]

The hon. Minister of Finance.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I may have been citing a lot of nonsense. I cannot help it. I was quoting the Reform Party report—

[The Speaker]

I ask hon. members not to use props in the House. The hon. member for Québec.

Employment Insurance

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even if the minister says the very opposite, the employment insurance program penalizes women who stay out of the workforce for more than two years to care for their children.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. How can the minister explain that women who have left the work force to care for their children have to start from scratch afterward, as if they had never worked, regardless of their contribution to the workforce?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Québec is again providing me with an opportunity to make it clear to the House that women wishing to return to the workforce may indeed do so, unlike the situation under the old act and the old program the Bloc Quebecois wants to bring back, when they did not have access to active employment measures if out of the workforce for more than two years.

We have extended this period to five years. Now, a woman can have access to active measures for returning to the labour market after being out of the workforce for up to five years. This is the reform to which the hon. member for Québec objects.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that women are contributors. They all contribute, but what the minister is not telling us is that seven out of ten women end up excluded.

Is it or is it not true that a woman who worked for ten years, has paid a great deal into the employment insurance fund, and has now been out of the workforce for two years, caring for a child, has to start again from scratch as far as eligibility for employment insurance is concerned, exactly as if she had never worked? Is this true or not?

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

Mr. Speaker, allow me once again to—

[An hon. member]

True or not?

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

—correct the Bloc Quebecois, which spends—

[Some hon. members]

True or not?

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

Change the record. Is it true or not? That is the question.

[Some hon. members]

True or not?

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I would ask the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis to tone it down a little.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once and for all, I would like to remind this House that 78% of workers who pay into employment insurance—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

—and who lose their jobs, or resign—

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

True or not, that is the question.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

—for just cause, are covered by our employment insurance system.

[Some hon. members]

True or not?

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development is now going to finish his reply.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think they have any interest in replies. It seems to me that the Bloc Quebecois members are pretty nervous today, because of the Landry budget, which is going to tell us how the $1.4 billion in equalization payments—