Debates of March 9th, 1999

Atlantic Theatre Festival

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic Theatre Festival in Wolfville, Nova Scotia has developed a sterling reputation over four seasons of operation as a Canadian leader in quality classical theatre. In recent months a fifth season was in doubt due to financial difficulties.

However, the festival has succeed in overcoming these challenges and will launch a fifth season this summer. The response of the community has been a significant factor in this effort. All levels of government, the corporate sector and the private sector responded to the call for help. Most important, community residents themselves got together and worked hard to ensure the continuation of this great theatre company.

The festival injects an estimated $10 million into the local economy each year. This impact will only grow as the theatre seeks to broaden its activities to ensure that the entire community has access to the facility.

Nova Scotia and Canada look forward to another remarkable season of classical theatre in Wolfville, Nova Scotia. Congratulations to the Atlantic Theatre Festival.

International Women's Week

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is International Women's Week. Canadians across the country are participating in events to mark this special occasion.

In my riding of Kitchener Centre, in partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, I hosted a breakfast featuring author Stevie Cameron and producer Lynda Shulyer who shared their personal experiences and challenges. It was a motivational morning.

History is being written right now. We must ensure that our sisters, daughters and granddaughters have the opportunity to realize their potential, that they are able to contribute to our country and our society in the fullest way possible. We have a responsibility to be their mentors and to guarantee the doors are open wide for them.

Judy LaMarsh, the first female Liberal government cabinet minister, once wrote:

Women will some day be equal in Canada and elsewhere in the western world. Through periods of incredible adversity as pioneer wives and daughters, we have filled the breach in every conceivable way. Each year we inch closer to true quality of opportunity.

Ms. LaMarsh was correct. We have come through great adversity but we cannot stop—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.

1959 Strike At Cbc French Network

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago today, the 75 producers of the French network of the CBC returned to work after 69 days on strike. They would change the course of history.

This strike in fact gave a number of people involved in the dispute the opportunity to appreciate fully Quebec's situation in Canada. They in turn—the Lévesques, Duceppes, Marchands, Pelletiers and Roux—then tried each in their own way to give francophones access to power.

According to journalist Guy Lamarche, who covered this event, René Lévesque would not forget the CBC's indifference toward the French network and the abyss separating the two solitudes.

The end of the strike signalled a great victory. The strikers returned to work with their heads high and paved the way to francophone and Quebecker pride.

Prime Minister

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this weekend a leaked letter from the Prime Minister divulged that he ordered his caucus to let the Senate's request for a 6% increase pass without resistance. The Liberal sheep will probably comply.

This is only the latest in a long string of anti-democratic dictates by this Prime Minister. For example, in the last two weeks alone the number of times this government has closed down debate has reached 49. The Prime Minister ordered his MPs to vote against a motion that would quickly end child pornography in British Columbia. Today he will probably order his MPs to vote against the bill that would correct the injustice of higher taxation for families with one stay at home parent.

What is wrong with this picture? What is wrong is that the Prime Minister considers Liberal MPs to be his MPs and not the representatives of the constituents they are supposed to represent. What do the Liberal MPs do about it? Nothing. After all, it is only the democracy of this country that is being threatened and being destroyed. Obviously they do not believe that is worth fighting for.

Food Banks

[Angela Vautour, NDP, Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, I visited eight food banks in my riding of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac.

To my dismay, I learned that demand has gone up in food banks over the last five years. The reasons are inadequate pay cheques, single parent families and, the biggest reason of all, EI cuts. Thousands of unemployed workers have no choice but to go to food banks.

Moreover, I learned that the Department of Human Resources Development is creating a dependence on food banks in New Brunswick by forcing people to turn to these banks instead of providing them with financial assistance. While this Liberal government continues to help the rich get richer, poor families are falling further and further behind.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate food bank co-ordinators on the wonderful and much appreciated work they do.

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, last week I spoke in the House against the current government practice of paying certain federal public service workers different rates of pay for doing the same work in different regions of our country.

I am now raising the matter again in the context of the ongoing CBC strike. CBC management is proposing to change a national pay system to a two tier system, with workers in Toronto and Vancouver receiving higher rates of pay than CBC workers elsewhere in Canada.

CBC is a national body. Its pay system should not treat workers in Newfoundland as second class.

I call upon the minister responsible to put an end to that practice and help bring about a resolution of the strike at the earliest opportunity.

Taxation

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, tonight parliament will vote on a Reform motion. I will read it:

—the federal tax system should be reformed to end discrimination against single income families with children.

It is pretty straightforward. It will instil fairness, but the Prime Minister has ordered every Liberal MP to vote against it, no matter what. Ministers were even told to cancel important trips abroad because they are supposed to be here to vote no.

Why is the Prime Minister forcing Liberal MPs to discriminate against stay at home parents?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that is not the issue and that we have asked that this matter be referred to the House of Commons finance committee to deal with it.

Let us understand what the real issue is here, that members of the Reform Party are advocating that family income be the basis for taxation, not individual income. That is the issue they are putting before the House, and that is what all members will be asked to deal with.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister thinks he can just shuffle it off to committee, but we have seen more committees get busy in the House and no one across the country knows what they are doing and nothing seems to get accomplished by them.

By sending it to committee the finance minister is simply admitting that he knows there is something wrong in the system. The committee may say one thing but what will happen tomorrow in the United Nations is that the government will defend discrimination against stay at home parents.

Why cannot the government just admit the obvious, that it discriminates against stay at home parents, plain and simple?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that we are dealing with an issue which is complex. It is not an issue that will be subject to a simple solution.

The question I would then put to the hon. member is why does she insult members on all sides of the House. Why does she say that she does not want this matter to go to committee? Why does she say that members of the House are not capable of dealing with one of the more fundamental issues?

That is what the members of the all party finance committee were elected to do. It is in fact to make sure that systems, programs and aids to Canadians evolve along with their needs.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, committees have dealt with this over and over again. The finance minister could have straightened it out in the budget. He has had any number of budgets to correct this and he simply has not done it. We see from every government member that they like to discriminate against stay at home parents.

Mr. Speaker, do not take my word for it. How about the Liberal MP for Durham who in today's Hamilton Spectator said that the whole tax system was discriminatory, that the bottom line was that taxes were too high, period?

If that is true, does the finance minister really think that Canadians will accept more excuses from a committee rather than less taxes?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, that is why we reduced taxes in last year's budget, why we reduced taxes in this year's budget, and why we will reduce taxes in the next budget.

Let us be very clear what we are dealing with here. The Reform Party in its report on taxation and the member for Calgary Centre in the House said very clearly that the basis for taxation should not be individual income, that it should be family income.

That means that when a lower income spouse goes back into the workforce the lower income spouse would be taxed at the income of the higher spouse and that—

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Medicine Hat.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister's actions do not meet his words. He says he is concerned about the state of single income families. Yet tonight he will whip MPs to vote against single income families and in favour of tax discrimination.

Tomorrow at the UN he will sic his pit-bull lawyers on a homemaker who is fighting to eliminate discrimination in the tax system.

How can he deny that sending this issue to a committee is nothing but a farce, designed to hide the tax discrimination against single income families?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, what the committee will be dealing with is a complex problem involving a number of departmental areas, a number of initiatives including taxation.

At the same time those members who would vote against the Reform motion are voting against a motion that would have regressive taxation. They are voting against a motion that would penalize families. That is what they are voting against.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister really wanted to end tax discrimination, he would call off his whips tonight and allow MPs to give that committee a mandate to end tax discrimination. That is what he would do.

He would call back his lawyers from New York and tell the UN that we would end tax discrimination in Canada. Can the minister not see that any other course of action is sheer hypocrisy?

[The Speaker]

I prefer that we not use that word in the House because it just brings retaliation from others.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the Reform Party taxation task force said that the family structure was a primary consideration in measuring ability to pay. It is the households with similar family structures that would be taxed.

We should understand what that means. That means that when a lower income spouse decides to re-enter the workforce, that lower income spouse will be taxed at the higher rate. It means that when two people marry the lower income spouse will be taxed at the higher rate. What in fact they are talking about is a disincentive to marry. That is their position.

Employment Insurance

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has spent the $25 billion in the employment insurance fund in order to balance its budget. There is, therefore, no money left for a rainy day.

Last week, we asked the Minister of Finance if he could tell us what he planned to do if we hit some bad times, or a rainy day, as he put it. Is he going to increase contributions to the employment insurance fund, reduce the benefits paid to the unemployed, or create deficits?

Having had a week to think it over, could the minister give us an answer today?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I shall tell the hon. member exactly what I told him last week, that one of the reasons for eradicating the deficit was that now we have a surplus, which will help us get through any bad times that might occur. We do not want to do what the Progressive Conservative Party did, which was to raise contributions during a recession.

Second, Canadians have the guarantee of the Government of Canada, a government now far more stable financially than it was.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the minister tells us there is a surplus, first of all, there is none in his budget. Second, the Minister of Human Resources Development tells us that it has all been spent.

I ask him again: if there is no more money set aside, if there is nothing in the fund, is he going to raise premiums, reduce benefits, or create deficits? It has to be one of these three. Otherwise, his answers do not hold up. There is no more money left in the fund, and according to him there is apparently a zero deficit and no surplus.

Let him give us an answer, then.

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has always been the guarantor of the fund, the guarantor for employees and employers in times of recession. We have always done this when there was a deficit.

I can assure the hon. member that, if ever a misfortune should occur, the Government of Canada will be there.

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

Mr. Speaker, the chief employment insurance actuary says in his report for 1999 that in the event of a shortage of funds in reserve, the best solution would be to permit a modest cumulative deficit during a recession and then increase contribution rates slightly during the following recovery.

Will the Minister of Finance finally admit that in the next recession, since there is no separate fund for employment insurance, he will be forced to do what the chief actuary has just described?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have just answered this question twice. In view of Canada's current financial situation and of the financial situation of the employment insurance fund, if there were a recession, Canada would in a much better position to deal with it. That is thanks to the improved state of the public purse.

The member seems to want a recession. From what I see in the projections, there will not be one.