House of Commons Hansard #189 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was children.
Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS
Mr. Speaker, the truth is the government's changes have made it harder for mothers to get maternity benefits. Even if they do qualify, the benefits are so low that they cannot stay home with their babies.
Reformers are even more anti-family. If they had their way they would get rid of maternity benefits and unemployment insurance.
If the government really cares about families, why will it not provide better—
FamiliesOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development.
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, let me draw attention to two elements of our EI reform that help families.
We have introduced the family income supplement specifically to help women in low income families with children. With that family income supplement, we have also made measures retroactive for women who have stayed at home with their children, so they can go back a lot further, to help them re-enter the labour market. These are measures—
FamiliesOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are shocked to learn that federal prison wardens have been instructed to boost inmate release by 69% by the end of this year.
CSC commissioner Ole Ingstrup has urged officials to ignore technical parole breaches such as alcohol use and association with criminals and reduce refusals for detention. In a June 1998 memo, Ingstrup calls for a 50:50 quota split for convicts in prison and those on parole by the year 2000. This has become a virus in the justice system.
Will the solicitor general confirm that the Liberal government is promoting a get out of jail free quota system for the release of Canadian prisoners?
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that my hon. colleague would want to try to scare Canadians that we are going to open the prison doors. That is absolutely incorrect. There are no quotas, there never were any quotas and there will never be any quotas.
Public safety is the number one issue of the parole system in this country and it always will be.
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
They are nice platitudes, Mr. Speaker, but Canadians need to know who is running the show. The CSC is bullying the National Parole Board and individual wardens into meeting this quota and implementing a 12-step reintegration program.
The government has a duty to protect Canadians first and foremost. By releasing more prisoners and ignoring the legislative safeguards and early warning mechanisms, Canadians are being put at risk.
The solicitor general must demonstrate accountability and responsibility for this dangerous cost cutting measure. How will the minister explain this outrageous quota system to Canadians who are falling victim to crimes of repeat offenders?
Lawrence MacAulay LiberalSolicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, public safety is the number one issue. The National Parole Board is an independent administrative tribunal. It makes its decisions with public safety as the number one issue. It always has and it always will.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that there is a problem in our tax system involving single income families. In fact one of the government's own members, the member for Mississauga South, said less than a year ago, “The bold reality is that our income tax system does discriminate against families who choose to provide direct parental care”.
I ask the finance minister not to evade and not to disparage but to simply answer the question. Is he prepared to end this tax discrimination against single income families with children, yes or no?
TaxationOral Question Period
The Speaker
Order. I am going to ask the Minister of Finance to respond, but my colleagues, we cannot even hear the questions up close. I would ask you please to lower your voices.
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, our income tax system works on the basis of progressivity. That means someone earning $25,000 a year will pay less tax, at a lesser rate than someone who is earning $50,000. It also operates on the basis of individual taxation.
Having said that, by what the government has done over the last number of years and certainly now that the budget has been balanced, we have made it clear that we are prepared to have a complete examination of the way in which the government can help Canadians raise their families. We have made that very clear. We would ask the finance committee to work on that very closely.
Diane Ablonczy Reform Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is very fortunate because the Reform Party has done that work for him. Today we have proposed a very sensible way to change the tax system to end the discrimination against single income families. Is the finance minister prepared to stand in his place on the vote on today's motion and support the measures that he says need to be put into place?
Paul Martin LiberalMinister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask the hon. member, a person for whom I have a lot of respect, how she jibes her so-called interest in children and families with her statement which I am quoting from the Toronto Sun . The member for Calgary—Nose Hill said that young pregnant mothers without enough to eat should not count on government help but instead should go to food banks or other charities.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Human Resources Development said there should be a public debate on the use the government is making of the EI fund.
Is it not true that the minister is calling for such a debate now because he is beginning to think his colleague, the Minister of Finance, has helped himself to far too much of unemployed workers' money in order to pay down the deficit?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, it is because we live in a democratic society and always want to make the soundest possible decisions.
Canadians should have a say in the finances of the country. I think they have indicated how satisfied they are with the overall direction in which the government and the Minister of Finance have taken those finances so far.
We will make the most judicious use possible of the money with which we have been entrusted and are taking a very balanced approach that clearly meets with Canadians' approval.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, should the proposed debate not be about ways of improving the system or reducing premiums, rather than the sort of debate probably held in cabinet on ways to make unemployed workers think the government was looking out for them while dipping into their fund?
Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouta—Les Basques seems to be against the Canada jobs fund, the very purpose of which is to create jobs in regions or zones of higher unemployment. He is against the youth employment strategy, which helps young Canadians get back into the workforce.
This is what the government is doing with the money entrusted to it, and I would point out that the EI reform, which sometimes has unfortunate repercussions in some areas, is made very necessary by the realities of today's job market.
Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard the finance minister and the Prime Minister distance themselves from the outrageous comments of the secretary of state but we have not yet heard them distance themselves from the remarks of the hon. Liberal member for Vancouver Kingsway who said that most women can combine career and family life but that a lot of times people, that is, stay at home parents, just take the easy way out.
I have a very simple question that could have a very direct response. Does the Minister of Finance believe that stay at home parents are taking the easy way out?
Hedy Fry LiberalSecretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)
Mr. Speaker, it has not yet sunk in with hon. members across the way that this is about valuing the unpaid work so many families do to bring up their children. That is what it is about.
When we talk about valuing the unpaid work, I would like to know why that group has voted against every single initiative in this House. When we talk about looking after children and taking time off to do that, they have called for the dismantling of the CPP, the most important thing for allowing parents to drop out and look after their kids—
Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the minister why we voted against every single tax raising, health care cutting Liberal budget. It is because the Liberals have been reducing the disposable income of Canadian families. Every tax increase, like the $10 billion CPP tax increase, has had a particularly negative effect on single income families. Those are the families that have seen the biggest shrinkage in their disposable income.
My question is very simple. Will this government allow a free vote on this motion for family tax fairness when it comes up next week? Will it allow its members to vote their conscience, yes or no, or will the whip come down—
TaxationOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. Secretary of State for Multiculturalism.
Hedy Fry LiberalSecretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of Women)
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks a lot about why those members voted against things. The single most important thing that single income poor families have in this country is the child tax benefit and they voted against it. They voted against making child support payments tax exempt for recipients. That is important for single income families.
Let us talk about discrimination. I want to quote a most discriminatory line from the member for Yorkton—Melville when he said, “We should try to keep our mothers in the home”. That is where the whole Reform Party platform hangs together.