Debates of March 17th, 2010

James Bezan Selkirk—Interlake, MB

Mr. Speaker, this week our government is continuing to implement year two of our economic action plan.

We are continuing to protect today's jobs and to create the jobs of tomorrow, and the Liberal leader cannot stand it.

Last year he bet against the Canadian economy so he could force an unwanted and unnecessary election. Now that the economy is in recovery, he cannot be bothered with our jobs and growth budget. That is why he has set out on his tax and spend road show.

What the Liberal leader really wants to talk about are huge spending promises and higher taxes. However, Canadians know that higher taxes kill jobs, and a March break lecture will not change that.

When the Liberal leader chooses his tax and spend road show over the work of this House, he proves what we have been saying all along, that the Liberal leader is not in it for Canadians, he is just in it for himself.

John McCallum Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, yesterday this House voted to end the practice of allowing members to send free propaganda outside their ridings. We voted to save taxpayers $20 million by eliminating this partisan junk mail.

If the government is serious about reducing waste, it will surely leap at this opportunity to save $20 million.

My question is for the Prime Minister. The Liberals have already stopped their participation in this program. When will the government also comply with the will of the House of Commons?

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his promotion through what appears to be the rapidly dwindling leadership ranks.

Mr. Speaker, as you would know, this matter is under the Board of Internal Economy which you chair. I will just say this, having viewed a few of these Liberal ten percenters, I think the cancellation of the program was a good idea.

John McCallum Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, so I take it that the Prime Minister will indeed comply with the will of the House and save $20 million. I hope that is true.

I now have a question for the Prime Minister, from one economist to another.

As an economist, he surely knows that employment insurance premiums are a tax. As Prime Minister, he surely knows that his government will increase this tax four years in a row. Is it not obvious that he is increasing taxes for Canadians?

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that employment insurance premiums are determined by an independent commission and based on the costs incurred by the program.

This party, the Liberal Party, wants to make astronomical increases to the costs of the program by suggesting a 45-day work year. That will increase the program costs. That is why this government is opposed to these changes to the employment insurance program.

John McCallum Markham—Unionville, ON

Mr. Speaker, we all know that this so-called arm's-length organization is totally under the control of the Prime Minister. If those taxes go up, it is under his orders.

This tax hike will cost a two-earner family $1,200 and will cost 200,000 jobs in this fragile economy. If there is one person from whom Canadians deserve the unvarnished truth, that person must surely be the Prime Minister.

I ask him the very simple question: Will he simply admit what is evident to all in this House, that he is raising the payroll taxes of Canadians?

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, once again, there are some programs of the government that are paid through distinct charges that are set to correspond with the cost of the program. One of those is employment insurance.

Those premiums are determined by an independent commission in line with the cost of the program. That is why on this side of the House we oppose the $4 billion a year idea of the Liberal Party to create a 45-day work year subsidized by the employment insurance program. Those are the kinds of costs and those are the kinds of increases we do not want to see in employment insurance.

Marlene Jennings Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives falsely promised that their 2010 budget would not increase taxes.

The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister to increase financial incentives for neurological research and to help young people find jobs. But the government did the opposite.

Why did the minister break this promise? Why did his government make life more difficult for researchers and young Canadians?

Diane Finley Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, in fact, we have done the opposite. We have invested several millions of dollars to help young people.

This summer, young people will be able to take advantage of the Canada summer jobs program. There is also an internship program for students. We have improved these programs to help young people who have a hard time finding jobs because of the global recession.

Marlene Jennings Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Mr. Speaker, Isabelle Thiffault, from McGill University, received two post-doctoral scholarships. Her research could open the door to new treatments for neurological problems.

Because of the 2010 budget, which limits eligibility for education tax credits, Isabelle will see her taxes increase by $4,000.

Will the Minister of Finance explain to Isabelle why he increased her taxes by $4,000?

Diane Finley Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is ignoring the facts. We have done a lot for students: there are many more scholarships and funding opportunities available.

We have invested in universities and colleges to help them accept students. We have also modified the repayment system to make it easier for students to study.

Stephen Harper Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I answered this question yesterday. The Parliament of Canada passed legislation on harmonizing the GST with provincial sales taxes. It is a provincial decision. We have signed agreements in this regard, agreements that create mutual obligations between the federal and provincial governments. We want agreements that respect our obligations towards the other provinces.

Gilles Duceppe Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Prime Minister to give us a clear answer. One of the two governments will have to manage this money. Under the 1992 agreement, Quebec manages it. In all of the other agreements between the federal government and other provinces, Ottawa manages it.

I simply want an answer. Is this why negotiations have stalled? Is the current government questioning the 1992 agreement? Is it saying that if Quebec wants to receive that $2.2 million, then Ottawa must be allowed to manage the money?

Will Quebec be allowed to continue managing this money, yes or no? The question could not be any clearer.