House of Commons Hansard #62 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was education.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to look at the Speech from the Throne where it was very clear, and in the red book it was very clear.
We will do the right thing for Canada. It is not to be able to put our heads in the sand and not recognize that we have social problems and economic problems which need some government intervention. At the same time we will do something that has not been done for 50 years: a series of balanced budgets.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks about social programs. It is because he has racked up such a horrendous amount of debt over the last 30 years.
The Prime Minister broke a GST promise. Now he has broken this promise for 50% of tax relief and debt reduction. The finance minister said on CBC radio “Oh, well, I am not under any real constraint to keep that promise”.
Was this latest tax promise reneged on just recently, or was it just another GST hoax right from the beginning?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, maybe I have to read again very slowly so that they understand.
We will allocate our budgets so that over the course of our mandate one half, 50% in English, will be spent to improve programs and one half, 50 p. 100 en français, will go to tax cuts and reduction of the debt.
It was exactly the same thing that was in the Speech from the Throne that was presented and voted on by the House of Commons.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of confusion about the government's position with respect to the supreme court reference. There is the position of the Minister of Justice, the position of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the position of the lawyer, Yves Fortier.
I would ask the Prime Minister to tell us what the government's position is. Is it the position of the Minister of Justice, who says that Quebec's sovereignty would create such an exceptional situation that the Constitution would be of no help, or is it that of Yves Fortier, who argued the exact opposite before the supreme court?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, the government's position is very well known. We are saying clearly that the case is before the supreme court right now, that the lawyers are making their arguments, that we are going to let them do so, and that the supreme court will be able to make its decision.
The important thing for us is to ensure that all Canadian citizens comply with the law of Canada.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I see that the Prime Minister is avoiding the issue, while his Minister of Justice is talking about it to the newspapers and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is talking about it just about everywhere.
The Minister of Justice tells us that the court must rule on native rights, while Yves Fortier is arguing quite the opposite.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister from whom exactly in this government is Yves Fortier taking his orders?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, for people who said they were going to ignore the supreme court, that it had no say in the matter, they are taking quite an interest in the court's goings on.
The government's lawyers are explaining the position of the Government of Canada and the other intervenors representing particular groups are explaining their points of view. It will be up to the supreme court to decide. If they want to go and present an argument, let them apply to the supreme court and send a lawyer. They did not even have the courage to go and defend their case before the supreme court.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, the government is getting more and more mired in its contractions every day.
Yesterday, the Minister of Justice said the opposite of what her lawyer was saying in court on Monday. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs then said the opposite of what the Minister of Justice was saying in the newspaper, and today what the Prime Minister is saying does nothing to clarify the government position.
With this reference to the supreme court, does the Prime Minister admit that he has loaded all of us onto a ship over which even he is beginning to lose control?
Anne McLellan LiberalMinister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to clarify yet again, as I did yesterday, the position of the federal government in relation to the ongoing reference before the supreme court.
I want to quote from a statement of clarification that I issued yesterday in case anyone was under any misunderstanding as to where the government stands.
I will quote “The federal government's position is set out in our factum and our reply and was repeated in court on Monday. The federal position is that the constitution applies, and I fully support this position”.
Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, on the reference, Quebec federalists are repudiating the government. The Conservatives and the NDP are repudiating the government. The Canadian Labour Congress is repudiating the government. The Globe and Mail is repudiating the government. Even the Premier of Ontario is gradually moving in that direction.
Is the Prime Minister not beginning to realize that he no longer has anybody on his side in this reference business, and that even his traditional allies are starting to dump him.
Stéphane Dion LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, after the sound and fury of the Bloc has died down, the arguments will still be there, and Quebeckers will hear them.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
I would like to inquire today about the health of the finance minister. Yesterday we saw worrisome signs of amnesia when the finance minister expressed concern about the human deficit. He has forgotten that he is the one who hacked $3.5 billion from health care. He has forgotten that he is the one who slashed $1.5 billion from education.
My question for the Prime Minister is straightforward. Is the finance minister well?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, he is in extremely good shape just like the finances of the nation.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the finance minister can try to put a positive spin on the human deficit but the facts speak for themselves.
How could they be proud of their record when 200,000 more kids are living in poverty than when the Liberals took office, when 48,000 fewer young people are employed than just two years ago, and when tuition fees have risen 41% in the past five years?
How could the Prime Minister be proud of the growing gap between the privileged and everyone else, the prosperity gap that he and his policies have helped to widen?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, every responsible government, including the Saskatchewan and British Columbia NDP governments, are working to balance their books.
We have had to make these very difficult decisions because of the $42 billion debt that we took over in 1993-94. Despite all this, the Canadian economy managed to create a million new jobs in the last four years.
Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, he appeared to finally acknowledge that there was a connection between education and job opportunity. In Canada, students graduate with a very heavy debt load. This country is also faced at this time with a brain drain caused by excessive taxation.
If there must be a millennium fund, I would like the Prime Minister's commitment today to making the solution to two questions his priority: student debt, and the brain drain, by cutting taxes so that our young people remain—
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, student debt is a problem of enormous concern to the government. When we met with the provincial premiers in December, an agreement was reached between all the provincial premiers and the federal government, that the two levels of government would work together to solve this problem.
As for education, we of course believe—and I said so yesterday in my speech—that for young people with a good education, there is 5% unemployment. Those who unfortunately have less education have a 15% unemployment rate.
This means that—
Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Speaker, I want to help the Prime Minister today. He is recognizing that the student debt problem is an extremely important problem. It has been assessed at FMC.
If that is the case and there is to be a millennium fund, will the Prime Minister make a commitment today that the number one priority of his government for students will be student debt and the reduction of student debt?
Will he also commit to stopping the brain drain that we have in Canada today by reducing taxes so we can keep young Canadians at home to work in our country?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we are preoccupied. I invite the leader of the Conservative Party to wait for the budget which will answer many of his questions.
Yes, we will be in a position to do that because after four years we have managed to reduce the $42 billion deficit the Conservative government left us in 1993-94.
Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister announced for about the 15th time his $3 billion monument called the millennium scholarship fund. While he was blowing hot air about his commitment to education, his tax collectors were cracking down on employees who dared to upgrade their education at work.
Yesterday a scientist with Ipsco was hit by Revenue Canada for $30,000 in back taxes because his company paid for specialized training.
How could the Prime Minister brag about his commitment to education when his tax collectors are punishing employees for investing in their own education?
Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, as usual Reform members do not have their facts right. The record of the government is one of commitment to lifelong learning. We have announced a number of measures this time.
With regard to employers providing training, we actually encourage employers to provide training. Assessments on whether it is an expense have to be done on a case by case basis.
The hon. member is wrong when he says that companies cannot expense training. They can and they do. He should get his facts right.
Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, once again the minister demonstrates that he has no capacity in his file. It has nothing to do with writing off the expense. It has to do with Revenue Canada retroactively assessing these training courses as taxable benefits. Yesterday somebody was hit with $30,000 for taking a university course.
The Business Council on National Issues says that millions of Canadians may be hit with high retroactive taxes for their companies having invested in their training.
How could the government square this penalization, this punishment of people investing in their futures, while at the same time brag rhetorically about investing in training and education?
Herb Dhaliwal LiberalMinister of National Revenue
Mr. Speaker, I have been an employer. I have been there. Employers right across the country send their employees on courses.
When it can be shown that it directly benefits the company and not solely the individual, or that it benefits the individual to be more productive and efficient, it is not taxable.
The hon. member should get his facts right and do his research. It is business as usual for the Reform Party: no facts and just trying to make cheap political points.