Debates of Nov. 24th, 1999

Referendums

[The Speaker]

Order, please.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

The Conservatives are very embarrassed, because they have no position on this issue.

When a vote was taken in the House on distinct society, the two Conservative members who were in the House did not support it. And when we voted on a veto for Quebec, again the members representing the Progressive Conservative Party were opposed.

Taxation

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you one thing that is clear across Canada. Everyone thinks they are paying too high taxes and the government should pay attention to that.

Doreen from Manitoba worked overtime and made $53. Income tax and the EI premium took $31 of those 53 bucks. That is 60% that she had to give to the government.

I would like to ask a little question of the tax hungry finance minister. Why in the world does he think he is entitled to 60% of Doreen's paycheque?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about people who are paying too much taxes and who leave the country.

Let me give her an example. The Robarts Research Institute is one of Canada's leading research institutes which receives money and increased money from the federal government. Let us tell the House what it has found: Dr. Arthur Brown returned to London, Ontario, from the Salk Institute in California; Dr. Bosco Chan returned to London from the Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts; Dr. Maria Drangova from Stanford returned to London as a result of the money this government—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Edmonton North.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, well, there we have it, an unbiased source when they get that from the federal government I cannot believe that he would holler about that.

Doreen herself says “thanks very little”. It is pretty hard to be grateful when she takes home 20 bucks out of $50. Doreen and millions of other Canadians are trying to work a little overtime, trying to make a extra dollar or two. Then comes Mr. Scrooge and, as slick as a whistle, just snatches 60% of that right out of their hands.

Who would want to even work one hour of overtime this Christmas when this covetous, curmudgeon finance minister wants it all?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, what would have happened to Doreen if the government had followed what members of the Reform Party wanted? Doreen would have had to pay higher employment insurance premiums because they were not going to cut them for anybody except employers. Doreen would have had to pay higher personal taxes because their cuts would not have come in until the year 2000.

There is one premium that Doreen would not have had to pay if members of the Reform Party had had their way, and that is the Canada pension plan premiums because they were going destroy the Canada pension plan.

Referendums

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Prime Minister intends to change the rules of the game in Quebec's next referendum.

On the evening of the 1995 referendum, the Prime Minister of Canada said, and I quote: “In a democracy the people are always right. Tonight there is only one winner: the people”. On that evening, he recognized that 50.5% was a democratic result.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How does he square what he said on the evening of the last referendum with his plan to unilaterally modify the rules of democracy, which are recognized and accepted worldwide?

Is it only democratic for the Prime Minister if he wins?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is not my wish to change the rules of the referendum. The Government of Quebec can ask whatever question it wishes. But we have an obligation to negotiate and we want the question to be clear.

A clear question would be: “Do you want Quebec to become a country?” That is clear. And I think I would agree with the person who suggested it. This was the question suggested by Bloc Quebecois adviser Jacques Parizeau in the September 3, 1998, issue of Le Devoir . I have no problem with a clear question like that.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's thinking is becoming clearer and clearer. In fact, his suggestion is a very good one.

Can the Prime Minister not understand that his real role is to do precisely what he just did: make suggestions, and leave the questions up to the National Assembly of Quebec and Quebecers?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if they come up with a question as clear as that, instead of talking about sovereignty-partnership or sovereignty-association, if they say that they want to become a separate country, that they want secession—the word used by the supreme court—I have no problem with it.

But do not give us complicated questions. Be honest. Ask a question on the separation of Quebec.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I would ask the hon. members to address their questions to the Chair.

Taxation

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Annalora Horch from my riding of Medicine Hat has just sent me her last two paystubs.

She is a schoolteacher who just received an $83 a month raise, but by the time the tax minister was done with her she had $2 left. In other words the finance minister took $81 of that $83 raise. Would the finance minister care to explain to Annalora Horch exactly why he is ripping off $81 of her $83 raise?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, Reformers abandoned Doreen pretty quickly. The fact is that they are also abandoning Anna because Anna would not have got anything out of the Reform Party.

Her taxes would have gone up because she would not have received tax cuts from the Reform Party. Her EI premiums would have gone up because she would not have received satisfaction from the Reform Party. She also would have lost her Canada pension plan.

That is what this is all about. We will defend our tax policies against those of Reformers any time. They have had—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, those are rantings of a madman.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. It is time to slow it down a bit. I would like the hon. member for Medicine Hat to go directly to his question now.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Of course I meant a taxman, Mr. Speaker.

The finance minister has taken $81 of that $83 raise. If taxes are really going down like he says, why is Annalora being ripped off by the minister?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people are entitled to an enlightened debate on the issue of taxes.

What they have heard from the Reform Party is a tax plan that would call for a $52 billion surplus in three years. That is $40 billion more than private sector economists said the country would have.

What that means is that the Reform Party is saying there will be $40 billion in cuts to our social programs. What will Anna do without a decent education system and without a decent health care system? What will Anna do when the social fabric of the country is gutted by the Reform Party? That is basic issue confronting Canadians.

Child Poverty

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, the public is turning its attention to us, members of parliament, because it was 10 years ago that the parliamentarians of the time passed a resolution to eliminate child poverty. The Liberals have been in office for six years now and they have had ample opportunity to fulfil this mandate from the House.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will you recognize, Mr. Prime Minister, that your government failed miserably regarding the task delegated to it by the parliamentarians of the time, that is to eliminate child poverty?

[The Speaker]

Dear colleagues, again I would ask you to address the Chair.

The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important day for the House, a day for us to contemplate our most important resource, our children. We welcome the work of Campaign 2000 and the report card it has given us in this particular area.

I want to say to the House that in the Speech from the Throne, we laid out a comprehensive vision on how we can continue to work together for the betterment of our children. I do hope that all parties will work with us in that area.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.

In order to meet the expectations of all community groups and of the public, which is concerned about increased poverty, will the Prime Minister pledge to table in the House of Commons a specific, concrete and detailed plan with numbers, and not just idle promises, to help the millions of children and parents living in a state of poverty a society such as ours cannot accept?