Debates of June 7th, 2001

Jean Chrétien Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, as Deputy Prime Minister he presided over a committee to look at the process of establishing the bids that are out at the moment for people to make submissions.

I cannot believe that the leader of the last party, and he deserves to stay there for a long time, would attack the Deputy Prime Minister who has served the House very honourably for 39 years. He should be completely ashamed of himself for implying that because there is a company in his riding he has a conflict of interest.

Peter MacKay Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, that was a pretty shameful answer. While there is plenty of appetite by the government to split something as complex and controversial as a helicopter procurement project, the government seems completely unable to somehow split a bill that lumps cruelty to animals together with protecting children.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. On the omnibus bill, would the minister put aside her partisan rhetoric, her newfound bombast, and find some way to pass legislation to protect children before we go home this summer?

Charlie Penson Peace River, AB

Mr. Speaker, the industry minister and the HRDC minister are dreaming up new ways to spend taxpayer money to develop Canada's infrastructure for research and development. Funding for science technology is a very worthy cause but business leaders say it is not enough by itself. They contend that Canada's productivity cannot be improved without lowering taxes.

It is obvious that the Liberal government is in denial of its role in the productivity decline in Canada during its reign. When will it realize that it cannot spend its way to productivity in Canada?

Jean Chrétien Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I think that this type of accusation is based on nothing. The incentives for research and development in Canada are the best in the world.

They always talk about taxes. When our program of taxes is in place in 2004 the rate of taxes for corporations in Canada will be lower than in the United States. Today the capital gains taxes in Canada are lower than in the United States. The stock option system in Canada is better than the one in the United States.

We have done a lot. We are better placed than the Americans in these fields at this moment.

Charlie Penson Peace River, AB

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the tax issue the government reminds me of the marathon runner that has just been lapped in the race. It is so far behind it thinks it is ahead.

The government has not even caught up to the tax levels of our major trading partners who are now embarking on another round of cuts. These cuts will leave Canada even further behind. When will the government realize its misguided policies are hurting the standard of living of Canadians?

Paul Martin Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member simply ought to listen to what was just said. The fact is our capital gains taxes in Canada are now lower than in the United States. In the year 2004 our corporate taxes in Canada will be lower than in the United States, including capital taxes.

We have brought in the rollover, the angel provisions, specifically designed to help us in the new economy and we are now ahead of the United States. The hon. member ought to wake up and smell the roses.

Michel Gauthier Roberval, QC

Employment insurance recipients and seasonal workers need the government to follow up on its election promise, because they are not mere statistics, they are people who, more often than not, have families to provide for.

Could the Prime Minister set aside, for a while, his ridiculous answers on Bill C-44, because this is not what is at issue? We are talking about the reforms that must be made to employment insurance. Will the Prime Minister make good on his election promise, for the sake of those who believed him?

Jane Stewart Minister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, Canadians, especially Canadians living in the province of Quebec, know that the Bloc has no credibility on the issue of employment insurance.

When we asked Bloc members to co-operate with us last fall and make the changes in Bill C-2, they denied it. When they had the opportunity to vote on these important amendments in support of seasonal workers this spring, they voted against them. They voted with the Alliance.

The questions they ask day after day are nothing more than a smoke screen. They might as well admit that they were wrong and that they should have supported the government on these important changes.

Michel Gauthier Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, we are telling the minister once and for all that Bill C-44, which became C-2 and which let the government siphon off the employment insurance fund, has been passed. This is not the issue, however. The unemployed need the act to be improved. Your party is in office, we want to help, we want to work with the government on behalf of the people who need these changes.

I say to the minister: seize this opportunity before the House adjourns and work for the unemployed. This is what we want.

Jane Stewart Minister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, we have made changes to the Employment Insurance Act. We have reduced the number of hours required for special benefits. We have repealed the intensity rule. We have doubled parental benefits. On top of that, we appreciate that it is more than just employment insurance that people in Quebec want. They want jobs.

Along with my colleague, the minister responsible for economic development, we are in their communities working with community members to diversify the economy. The fact remains that they voted against these changes and they cannot bear to go home and tell their constituents.