Debates of March 2nd, 1999

Millennium Scholarships

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

Mr. Speaker, in his letter, Mr. Legault asked for government to government negotiations based on the right to opt out with full compensation for the Quebec government. What the member for Roberval is saying has nothing to do with that. The Prime Minister himself wrote to Mr. Bouchard to confirm that the legislation makes it possible to meet the resolution's three reasonable objectives.

In a press conference held on January 25, Mr. Monty said he was fully prepared to meet the three objectives and the principles set forth in the resolution. So things are moving along.

Taxation

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has had two days to answer questions from our party about single income versus dual income families.

The fact is that since day one the government has discriminated against single income families. The single income family will pay more than double in taxes what a dual income family making the same income will pay in this year's budget.

Why does the government continue to discriminate against single income families in Canada?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, one thing we have to recognize is that if two members of a particular family are both working, first of all they are putting in twice the working hours.

They also have close to twice the expenses: the work related expenses of clothes and travel and the expenses of not having someone at home doing the housework. There are added expenses with more than one person in a household working.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all the mothers who are staying home looking after their families will be very happy with the minister's remarks.

The fact is women who stay home to look after their families and parents who stay at home work as hard as those who are in the workforce, but the government does not give them one bit of credit for it. As a matter of fact it charges them for the sacrifice they make to stay home to look after their families.

What kind of government has that little respect for stay at home parents?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize there are many reductions that still have to be made to the personal income tax system. These reforms we began from the very first day that we took office.

We have a progressive tax system under which if you earn in a much higher bracket you are naturally going to pay more money. We recognized this in the last budget when we said that for the child tax benefit you pay $13.40 less.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. minister, if he wishes, may finish his response.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. We will hear the minister.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having dealt conclusively with this issue, I feel there is nothing more to add.

Immigration

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a number of regrettable cases of immigrants being threatened with deportation have been brought to public attention by the media.

The fact that the reports provided to the minister are apparently incorrect would indicate that her officials are mocking her.

Should we not be concerned about cases such as the Castillo family case, in which Immigration Canada wants to deport someone who has been living in Canada for over 17 years? Is this not an inhuman, heartless and irresponsible act?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, while I cannot comment on a specific case before this House, let me say that the Immigration Act contains all the provisions necessary to accede to certain applications for humanitarian or compassionate reasons.

When these people live in Quebec, these applications are considered in conjunction with the Government of Quebec. I can therefore provide assurance that all the mechanisms are in place to process this sort of application.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that deportation is the federal government's responsibility.

Instead of repeating her officials' arguments here, should the minister not be more proactive and use the powers she has under the law to take humanitarian action in these cases, in which common sense should dictate her conduct?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, members are surely aware that we have here in Canada an immigration and refugee protection system, which is one of the most generous in the world. It is so recognized internationally.

I repeat. The Immigration Act provides the mechanisms needed to deal with these situations.

Taxation

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for years it has been a mystery to Canadian families why the tax system discriminates against those who make the sacrifice of forgoing a second income to have a parent stay home and raise the children but now, lo and behold, we have found the government's answer.

It believes families that decide to keep a parent at home to raise the kids are not working. Let me tell the secretary of state that stay at home parents work harder than many people who are generating income and they deserve recognition in the tax code.

How can the government continue to justify a tax system that tells stay at home parents they are second class citizens?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, we have from the beginning of the process of individual tax reform recognized very strongly the role that a stay at home spouse can play in a family.

This is why under the child tax benefits we have a $1,340 benefit that is not otherwise available. This is why under our system it is possible for a single worker in a family to contribute up to $13,500 to an RRSP for a non-working spouse. This is part of our philosophy.

[Jason Kenney, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal philosophy is to say to people who decide to keep a parent at home and forgo a second income, to make an economic sacrifice, to do what they think is best by their children, that they will be discriminated against and have to pay more taxes than a family with more income. It makes no sense. It simply is not fair.

The House recognized that in the last parliament when it passed a Liberal member's motion to stop tax discrimination against single income families. When will the government begin to address this gross inequity and level the playing field for families that make sacrifices for their kids?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House recognize that we have further reductions in personal income tax to make. This has been part of our philosophy from day one when we took office. This is why we have targeted it in areas of priority.

We recognize that we do not have unlimited funds to do everything that we might like to do. We have had to be prudent in our tax cuts. We have made many spending cuts, going down to record low levels as the Prime Minister has pointed out. These have been tough choices that we have had to make on behalf of Canadians. We are committed to ongoing cuts to personal income tax and we will make—

[The Speaker]

The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.

Millennium Scholarships

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development told us that Quebec's Minister of Education wrote him on February 15 about the right to withdraw with full compensation.

But nowhere in this letter is there any mention of the right to withdraw with full compensation. What is does contain is the following “I am therefore pleased about this overture and request a meeting with you at the earliest possible date for the purpose of government-to-government negotiations, in accordance with the motion passed by the National Assembly”.

Why has the minister misrepresented the contents of this letter? Why is he refusing to negotiate on the basis of this motion? It is a matter of good faith.

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

Mr. Speaker, I referred to the position taken by Mr. Legault in his letter and in the public statements he made, where he clearly returned to it.

However, I am very pleased that the Bloc Quebecois is moving away from the right to withdraw with full compensation. This is the first time the Bloc Quebecois has admitted that that is not necessarily the route to take.

Yesterday, I was open—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. I would ask members to listen to the answer. It is easier that way. The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development still has some time left.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The minister only has a few seconds left.