Debates of March 4th, 1999

Families

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not discriminate against persons who stay at home to look after their children.

We only have to look at the child rearing drop out in the Canada pension plan to know that. We only have to look at the EI provisions that allow someone to stay at home for up to five years and then be able to get back with training into the workforce. We only have to look at the credit splitting and at the Divorce Act and the money we have put into the child tax benefit to know that we do not discriminate against stay at home persons. We recognize it is a very complex issue.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to try to defend the indefensible. It is not going to fly. Right across these government benches we have seen people stick their foot in their mouth for days now and they are not defending the indefensible because there is no way they can do it.

When we talk about discrimination, is $4,000 more to pay in taxes not discrimination? What about this government which continues to discriminate against parents who stay at home with their kids? When will the Prime Minister make this right and tell these people they are not just taking the easy way out?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad to see that the hon. members opposite have suddenly become interested in women's issues. It is typical of the opportunistic attitude of the hon. members across the floor. They are the ones who have called women a special interest group for a long time.

These are the hon. members who have not supported the concept of equity, understanding that equity is not about sameness. That is why they continue to deal with complex issues in a simplistic way.

These are the members who today and earlier on talked about single income families as if they are only made up of a mother, a father and a house. There is a group of single income earners called single parents—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister should step into the 1990s. Maybe she should know that many men stay at home with children too. Maybe she should know that this member was raised by a single mother with five children. Maybe she should wake up over there and understand that people in this party have many unique experiences, not just unique to the Liberal Party.

I want to know why this government continues to discriminate against single income families. Why do backbenchers in that party take every opportunity to disparage single income families?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)]

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely surprising that with all that experience the hon. members still do not understand the issues.

If they want to talk about single income families, let us talk about single income family working people, 80% of whom are women and 60% of whom are in low income communities. When they earn $20,000 the child benefit will assist that single income earning family. The hon. member's mother would have been helped by that initiative we put in two years ago.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, here is what the government says about stay at home parents. They are taking the easy way out, they are not working, they are elite white women. That is the government's attitude.

We see systemic discrimination every year in the finance minister's budgets, six budgets in a row increasing the discrimination against stay at home parents. Why does he allow that to happen?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if anybody wants any example of the kind of nonsense that is being spouted by the Reform Party, let us simply respond by facts.

As a result of the 1999 budget, by the year 2000 through the child tax benefit a typical one income family will be receiving better than twice the amount of a typical two income family, $2,600 per year versus $1,200 per year. That is the truth.

Employment Insurance Fund

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Human Resources Development told us that the Minister of Finance pays annual interest on the money he takes out of the EI fund. In real life, when one pays interest, it is because one owes money.

Will the Minister of Finance tell us why he does not take the money he owes unemployed workers into account when he is congratulating himself on his balanced budgets?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, in other words, he is saying that he is paying interest on a debt, but he keeps the debt a secret.

This is the era of the Internet; we have a virtual fund, virtual surpluses. The Minister of Human Resources Development tells us there is no longer a surplus. The Minister of Finance tells us he is borrowing on the surplus. It is Alice in Wonderland.

What will the Minister of Finance do if there is a recession? Will he increase premiums? Will he cut benefits? Will he go back to a deficit situation? There is no longer a fund. Where will he get his money if there is no longer a surplus?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition leader should ask his virtual researchers to go back to their drawing boards.

When this government took office, the deficit was $6 billion; it appeared in the books. Today, there is a surplus; it too appears in the books. And fortunately, there is a surplus.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his budget, the Minister of Finance forecasts a marked decrease in unemployment in Canada, yet at the same time he informs us that there will be an 11% increase in benefits.

Yesterday he tried to explain to us that the justification for this was higher salaries. That makes no sense. The rise in salaries will be only 2.5%.

Is the minister not using these figures as an excuse to artificially inflate premiums so as to reduce the surplus, without looking as if this is being done at the expense of the unemployed?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the hon. member for Roberval does not grasp how this works.

The problem is that average salaries are on the rise. The average salary is $34,000 and the ceiling $39,000. This raises the average salary and thus raises benefits. It is a sign of a healthy economy.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there is something wrong here.

The Minister of Finance has just explained that salaries are going up, so premiums are as well, and therefore more money is going into the employment insurance fund. There being less unemployment, less will be paid out in benefits.

I would like him to try to explain to me how this adds 11% to the benefits paid out. It makes no sense. Salaries are higher, people pay in more, and employment insurance pays out less. How does this leave him 11% in the hole?

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

Mr. Speaker, we will go back over Math. 101. This will help the hon. member for Roberval, perhaps.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Might one reply, Mr. Speaker?

I realize it is a bit complicated—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Denis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when salaries increase and a worker becomes unemployed, his benefits are higher.

When 1.5 million more people are working in the Canadian economy, and no longer unemployed, but then they run into a problem and lose their jobs, then that makes 1.5 million more people drawing benefits.

When there is a healthy economy, when people are working more hours, then more of them will become eligible for employment insurance because the economy—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax.

Families

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of we love families more than you love families from Liberals and Reformers.

Supporting families with children requires a lot more than just tax policy. Take unemployment insurance. The government's changes make it harder for parents to stay home with their babies and in many cases impossible.

Will the government now correct this injustice? Will the government eliminate these Reform inspired anti-family UI policies?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the system has been geared to help these people, especially women, to go back into the labour force. We made it on an hourly basis so they could have more flexibility and more opportunity to contribute and to be able to receive UI more rapidly than before.

Changes were created to help women work and to receive the benefits faster if they were unfortunately unable to find work.