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.

Topics

TaxationOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, if my word was unparliamentary, I apologize. It is very hard to figure out what to say about them.

In essence we have a progressive tax system. If the hon. member does not agree with a progressive tax system, let him stand in the House and say it.

How do we make sure that Canadian children are taken care of and are best protected? That is what the government has worked on. That is why we brought in the child tax credit. That is why we brought in the other measures.

TaxationOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the finance minister that this tax system is regressive for single income families.

This is more than just about the junior minister's foot in mouth disease. The senior minister is not blameless in this whole episode either. Two weeks ago he brought in a budget and entrenched the discrimination against single income families. It actually got worse in the last budget.

What is the minister's excuse? He cannot blame this simply on a slip of the tongue.

TaxationOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, our tax system is based on two principles, progressivity and individual taxation.

If the hon. member opposite does not agree with progressivity and believes in fact that higher income Canadians should be taxed at a lower rate than lower income Canadians, let him stand in the House and say so.

If the hon. member believes that in fact we should be taxing not on an individual basis but on a family income basis, that a lower income spouse should be taxed at his or her higher income spouse's tax rate, let him stand in the House and say that. What is their agenda?

TaxationOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, I believe the government has an obligation to show that it values parenting. It has an obligation to treat single income families like they have some value when they stay home to look after their children.

What is the matter with that? Why can Canadians not be treated fairly so that when they stay home and look after their children the government shows through the tax system that is a good thing?

In budget after budget the government has chosen to discriminate against those families. How can it do that? How can it justify that?

TaxationOral Question Period

2:30 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, it is almost obscene to hear the Reform Party cry crocodile tears about children.

The Prime Minister gave a list. Let us just go on. Why then is the Reform Party seeking to dismantle the maternity benefits and the paternity benefits in the Canada pension plan? Why did members of the Reform Party vote against the way in which we reversed the taxation of child support payments to benefit children? Why do they want to cut welfare payments? Why do they want to cut equalization payments?

The fact is that every single day since the Reform Party was elected along with the government in 1993 it has fought against kids and it is—

TaxationOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

Employment Insurance FundOral Question Period

March 3rd, 1999 / 2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, people have had enough of watching the Minister of Finance tinker with the employment insurance fund, alter the figures and make up new twisted excuses to continue to take more than $6 billion per year from the EI fund, at the expense of workers, businesses and the unemployed.

Does the Minister of Finance agree with his colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, who said on Monday that the Bloc Quebecois proposal to turn the employment insurance fund into an independent fund is an interesting suggestion?

Employment Insurance FundOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, I said that, as a government, we had clearly launched a debate in recent months, and the public is taking part in it. The Bloc Quebecois told us it would like to see an independent fund, such as what they have in France.

I said “there is an interesting suggestion” because it is indeed an interesting idea. But it does not mean it is the only solution.

I also reminded the Bloc Quebecois that when the fund was running a deficit, they never proposed the creation of an independent fund. I also asked them to think about the impact of an independent fund. Should it run a deficit, what would be the position—

Employment Insurance FundOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

Employment Insurance FundOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows that the employment insurance fund paid back to the government all the money borrowed, including the interest, and that this year the fund will have an accumulated surplus of close to $25 billion.

Again, is it not time to remove the employment insurance fund from the hands of the Minister of Finance and of the Minister of Human Resources Development and turn it into an independent fund that would be run by those who pay into it?

Employment Insurance FundOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing: the system that has been in effect since 1986 in Canada remains in effect.

The Minister of Finance pays interest each year on the money that comes from the employment insurance fund, as stipulated in 1986 by the auditor general.

Therefore, all these claims by the Bloc Quebecois to the effect that money is being stolen are utterly false, since we rigorously pay interest on that money, as we must.

TaxationOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the junior finance minister told us that the government does not value the work of parents who stay at home. Let me tell the government that the most important work in the world is done by parents who stay at home and raise future generations.

It was not just a slip of the tongue. I have in my hand a memo from the Prime Minister's Office which says that the assumption that increased tax deductions will encourage parents to quit their jobs and return to the kitchen is naive.

Why does the government perpetuate these kinds of negative prejudicial stereotypes about parents who make sacrifices to do what is best for their kids?

TaxationOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the preamble to the hon. member's question is simply nonsense. The issue is how best can Canadians take care of their children and what is the role of the state.

I have asked the hon. member and his party whether they are against progressive taxation. We have had no answer. I have asked the hon. member whether they are against individual taxation. We have had no answer.

The one thing on which we have had an answer is that the government brought in the child tax benefit and its improvements. These apply to Canadians who work in the home and to Canadians who work outside the home. We know that the Reform Party opposed it.

TaxationOral Question Period

2:35 p.m.

Reform

Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, we are for progressive taxation. Maybe the minister could tell Canadian stay at home parents what is progressive about a system that discriminates against their choice to raise their kids at home.

Maybe the minister could tell us whether or not he will continue to penalize those families by increasing the deduction for child care and not extending it to all families including those who stay at home.

Maybe the minister could tell us whether or not he will allow a free vote for the members of his party when we put forward a supply day motion tomorrow allowing for tax fairness for all families.

TaxationOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

The Speaker

Order. The question of course is out of order but the hon. Minister of Finance may answer it if he wants.

TaxationOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, for well over five years, the essential debates that have taken place in terms of how to protect children have taken place within this caucus, whether it be the member for Mississauga South, whether it be the women's caucus of this party or whether it be our social caucus.

The fact is every progressive idea has come from this side of the House and on that side of the House they have reacted negatively to everything.

To stand up here today with crocodile tears pretending that they are interested in the future of our children is simply not on and it will not be bought by any Canadian.

ImmigrationOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Government of Quebec requested full responsibility over the selection of temporary workers to complement the powers it recently acquired as part of manpower training.

Could the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell us whether she intends to respond favourably to the request by Quebec, which wants to assume the responsibility involved when temporary workers come to Quebec.

ImmigrationOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Westmount—Ville-Marie Québec

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to inform the members of this House that I met all of my provincial counterparts responsible for immigration matters to get their reaction to the new directions the government is taking regarding legislation on immigration and refugee protection.

That said, I also met my counterpart from Quebec, who shared his opinions on the government's policies. Let me say that I was delighted to see that the Canada-Quebec agreement currently in force was very well received. Naturally, we already knew, but it has been praised by the new minister of immigration.

ImmigrationOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Bloc

Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC

Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is a bit tired.

While there is a natural generally acknowledged link between immigration policy and manpower policy, will the minister not agree that Quebec should have control over the validation of temporary job offers, if it is to maintain consistent policy on manpower and the labour market?

ImmigrationOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Westmount—Ville-Marie Québec

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, indeed, those working hard as an MP and a minister can at times become tired. We might wonder about those who do not.

We are open to all suggestions and to reviewing the Quebec-Canada agreement. If the Bloc member is suggesting the agreement be reopened, I would be pleased to look at it, but with the Government of Quebec only.

TaxationOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Reform

Preston Manning ReformLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is in full damage control mode. He has been asked four or five questions about an obviously discriminatory tax position in the government's tax policy and he has not answered. I ask him one more time why did his 1999 budget make things worse rather than better for stay at home parents?

TaxationOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member's question is simply wrong. The fact is we brought in a $300 million addition to the child tax benefit which goes directly to middle income Canadians whether their workplace is at home or outside the home.

If the hon. member wants to talk about damage control, it is a fact that on the whim of the Reform, suddenly it decides it is interested in children. For five years it has been against children. For five years it has talked only about the deficit.

While we were fighting the deficit and at the same time protecting kids and protecting Canadian families with children, the Reform Party opposed every single measure.

TaxationOral Question Period

2:40 p.m.

Calgary Southwest Alberta

Reform

Preston Manning ReformLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, these are the facts. A two income family and a one income family, each with children, each earning $50,000 a year, are taxed differently by this government. The one income family is penalized up to $4,000 more than the two income family.

If the finance minister does not believe in that discrimination, why does he not change his tax policy which is at the root of it?

TaxationOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

LaSalle—Émard Québec

Liberal

Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear, following on the work that has been done within this caucus and within the various departments, that what we want is the finance department this year to work very heavily on those things we can do to help families with children, improvements to the child tax benefit and others.

If the hon. member believes that the solution is not things like the child tax benefit, I simply ask him is he now saying that he no longer believes in progressive taxation? Is he now saying that he no longer believes in taxation of the individual? Does he believe that somebody who is earning $25,000 a year—

TaxationOral Question Period

2:45 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.