House of Commons Hansard #188 of the 36th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we have a record of voting for the protection of the family in this House. It is not only speeches. It is action that this government has provided.
The only marriage that the Reform Party is interested in is the marriage with the Progressive Conservatives, and Joe Clark will not give them bedroom privileges.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, if only it were so easy as to try to explain this. The government's real agenda is that next week it is going to the UN in New York City to argue the tax discrimination against stay at home parents is really okay. The Prime Minister's lawyers will be arguing that tax fairness for stay at home parents would reduce their incentive to work. Maybe he did give the government's position yesterday.
Is the Prime Minister really telling us that he thinks these moms and dads are lazy and that they do not perform any real work?
Jim Peterson LiberalSecretary of State (International Financial Institutions)
Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the House and all Canadians that it was never my intention to convey the impression that a person who stays at home does not work. This was never my intention. This is not what I meant and this has never been my belief.
The role of a partner who works in the home can be even far more demanding than the role of one who has to go outside the house to work.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to clarify my words of yesterday.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Mr. Speaker, that is great. If that is not what he meant and it was just an oops, perhaps he could change the law to make those differences.
This was a stupid, idiotic remark yesterday from a chauvinistic minister. He cannot just explain it away.
TaxationOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. I ask the member to go to her question.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Yes, I surely will, Mr. Speaker. They are saying that stay at home parents and the whole tax fairness issue would reduce their incentive to work.
Why does not the Prime Minister just admit that he honestly feels single income families and stay at home parents should be punished with extra taxes? Who is going to admit it?
Jean Chrétien LiberalPrime Minister
Mr. Speaker, we have a progressive tax system in Canada. I know the Reform Party is not interested in looking into the facts.
We have introduced legislation to help the family. The programs we have introduced are helping those families where one spouse stays home to take care of the children. We have new initiatives for them and the Reform Party votes against them all the time.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, repeatedly, including on October 1 in this House, the Minister of Finance has said that the surpluses in the employment insurance fund are justified in order to offset hard times or a possible and hypothetical recession.
How can the Minister of Finance say that surpluses must be accumulated for rainy days, when the Minister of Human Resources Development said last week that there was no surplus, that they had been spent and that the money did not exist any more?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, first we must look at what this government has done.
When we came to office, employment insurance contributions were $3.07. Today, they are $2.55. That represents over $3.5 billion we are giving to employers, employees and SMBs in Canada.
At the same time, we have to look at the employment figures. The level of unemployment in Canada is 7.8%. That is why things are going well in Canada and why things are going well when we start talking about an economy that works.
Gilles Duceppe Bloc Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC
Mr. Speaker, the minister could have said it is snowing today, because what he has just told me has nothing to do with the question.
If there is no more money, if the fund is empty, if the employment insurance surpluses have been spent, what does the Minister of Finance propose to do in the event of a recession?
Will he return to a deficit situation? Will he again cut benefits to the unemployed or will he increase employers' and employees' contributions to the employment insurance fund? If there is no more money, what solution will the minister choose?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, in the last recession, the fund was running at a $6 billion deficit. Today, it has a surplus, and that is a good thing, because it provides us with a bond for the future.
Deficit and recession were mentioned. Let us look at job creation: over 1.5 million new jobs, including over 525,000 new jobs in the past thirteen months. Canada is creating jobs faster than any other country, and the opposition leader is talking about recession.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the Minister of Finance telling us there will not be a recession, that everything is fine in Canada, that unemployment is going down.
In his last budget, on page 64, the Minister predicts a $1.3 billion increase in employment insurance benefits in 1999-2000.
Since the Minister of Finance is telling us that unemployment is going down, how can he explain such an increase in benefits for this year? Is he going to enhance the program, or is he going to hide surpluses from us once again?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, it is because salaries are increasing, which is the best thing that could happen for Canada.
The hon. member is not pleased by that, but I like to see salaries in Canada increasing.
Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Mr. Speaker, what he is not telling us is that, according to the chief actuary, there will be a 2.5% increase in earnings, while he is increasing employment insurance benefits by 11%. His answer does not hold up.
Is he again telling us that, as in past years, he is again going to conceal the surpluses he is taking out of the pockets of the unemployed?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely obvious that, as salaries increase, as the economy grows, as the work force increases by 1.5 million, inevitably we will also see benefits increase, as there will be far more people in the workforce who could lose their jobs.
This is how we need to do advance calculations. This is the proof of a dynamic economy.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, first it was the unemployment insurance surplus. Now it is the pension fund. The government has never seen a pot of money that it did not want to raid.
The public pension plan was created to pay pensioners, not to pay government. Let us remember that the majority of pensioners are women.
What is the scheme? Government raids the surplus and then raises contributions. Why should these workers have to pay twice for these pensions?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague should understand, because I have said it a number of times and I will say it again, public sector pension plans are legislated that the outcome, which is the payout to employees, is guaranteed by law.
In the past when there were deficits, for instance when the plan was indexed and the liabilities suddenly increased by close to $8 billion, it was the government and the taxpayers who paid for it. Because it is a legislated plan and a guaranteed outcome, every cent of that surplus belongs to taxpayers.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the surplus in the employment insurance fund has disappeared. One-third of the federal employees' pension fund has been spent. The surplus in the Canada pension plan is going up. From whom will the government take money next, after the workers?
Is the government now going to tell retirees that it's “Goodbye, Charlie Brown”?
Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, as I have said on numerous occasions, but will say again, the government pension plan is covered by legislation, and public sector employees have their pension plan benefits guaranteed by law.
All the risks are assumed by the government, and hence by the taxpayers. Every time there has been a deficit in the public service pension plan, the government has made it up. For example, when the plan was indexed, there was an $8 billion deficit and the government was the one that made it up. The surplus therefore belongs to the taxpayers.
Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Canadians were appalled to hear the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions say that two income families are putting in twice the amount of work of single earner families.
If the Minister of Finance genuinely disagrees with the statement yesterday of the Secretary of State or International Financial Institutions that two income families deserve special tax treatment, why does he not give the tax relief that Canadians deserve to all Canadians families?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that is not what I said, but let me repeat it for his benefit. What I said was that I have known the secretary of state for a long time.
If the hon. member would like to go back and look at the transcripts when the secretary of state was the chairman of the House of Commons finance committee, what he will see is a member of parliament, a member of the House and a member of the government who consistently fought for Canadian families, who consistently fought for Canadian children. He did not do it with any help from the hon. member or any of his ilk.
TaxationOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order, please. I would ask all hon. members to be very judicious in their choice of words.
Scott Brison Progressive Conservative Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state probably also said he would abolish the GST when he was in opposition. The fact is that the C. D. Howe Institute has calculated that a two income family with two children will pay $14,000 more in tax than a single earner family in Canada.
If the minister agrees that stay at home parenting is real work, why does he not eliminate his discriminatory tax policy that punishes stay at home parents?