Charlie Penson

[Taxation, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I thank him for that information. I guess if I am sleepy, he is dopey.

The former minister of finance increased spending on the federal bureaucracy, excluding defence, by $7.4 billion. On the other hand, health care and other transfers were only increased by $4.5 billion.

Why is this government spending more money on bureaucracy than it is on health care?

[Taxation, February 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like this government is becoming just like the Conservative government before it, in being hooked on the GST. That is what is happening.

The capital tax discourages innovation and investment and the finance minister knows that it is a bad tax for Canada. His predecessor also knew it was a bad tax, but he chose to keep it going even though it was supposed to be a temporary tax to reduce the deficit.

Will the Minister of Finance do the right thing and axe the capital tax?

[Employment Insurance, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Auditor General, a $15 billion surplus would be more than enough to deal with an economic downturn but for years the former Minister of Finance has been fleecing Canadian workers of billions of dollars in order to add to his bottom line.

Would the current Minister of Finance finally leave the legacy of Enron style bookkeeping behind, correct this practice and stop overcharging on EI?

[Employment Insurance, February 13th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Finance built up a $45 billion EI surplus on the backs of Canadian workers and firms. What many Canadians do not know is the EI surplus does not exist in practice. Instead of it building up over the years, the Liberals have spent all that extra EI money. It is long gone.

I ask the current Minister of Finance to stop this cash grab. Will he stop overcharging Canadian workers and firms?

[Gasoline Prices, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the resource sector will be very happy with that answer, but I want to go to something else. Canadians are rightly upset with the high prices at the gas pumps these days.

Thanks to the Liberals and the Kyoto accord, they ain't seen nothing yet. Ten cents out of every litre of gas go to the federal government in taxes. What is more, the former minister of finance increased gas taxes to eliminate the deficit.

Since the rationale for the increase is gone, when will the Liberal government give Canadians some hard earned relief at the pumps by drastically reducing gas taxes?

[Taxation, February 12th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the former minister of finance created higher taxes for the resource sector than any other type of Canadian firm. This resource sector includes forestry, mining, oil and gas and fisheries. This discrimination must stop.

Will the current Minister of Finance pledge to put all corporate Canada on the same tax footing?

[Taxation, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance could start by axing the capital tax.

As the former minister of industry, the finance minister knows the capital tax is bad for Canada. It discourages the exact type of investment we need to boost our lagging productivity. For the second year in a row the finance committee has called for this tax to be abolished.

I ask the Prime Minister again, will he direct the current Minister of Finance to assure the House he will follow through on this unanimous decision from the House of Commons finance committee?

[Taxation, February 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the capital tax is a bad tax because it discourages innovation. It was introduced by the Conservatives as a temporary tax to reduce the deficit. The deficit is long gone, but the capital tax is still here. It is still here because the former minister of finance kept it going.

I ask the Prime Minister, will he direct his current Minister of Finance to axe the tax?

[Curling, February 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to announce that the Alberta Junior Women's Curling Team is here in Ottawa today to compete in the Karcher Canadian Junior Curling Championships from February 1 to 10.

Coached by Heather Moore, the team hails from Grand Prairie Curling Club. The team, with Desiree Robertson as skip, Cary-Anne Sallows as third, Jennifer Perry as second and Stephanie Jordan as lead will be vying for top spot at the competition.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the team on making it this far. I wish them the very best of luck in the days ahead. I know they will do very well.

[Employment Insurance Act, January 29th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-206. My colleague from Medicine Hat has already spoken to the bill. He is the critic for us in this area, but I also want to add my voice.

Bill C-206 is an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act for persons who leave employment to be caregivers for family members. First I want to first congratulate the member for Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore for bringing forward this issue. I believe that every member of the House appreciates the hardship and adversity families face when one of their relatives is diagnosed with a terminal illness. Such families are confronted with very hard choices over how to care for that relative while at the same time providing for themselves and other family members. Those who choose to care for their own relatives are very courageous and deserve support from the state. This was recognized by both Kirby and Romanow in their reports.

Members of the Canadian Alliance strongly believe that the family is the essential building block of society. We therefore find merit in the idea of government assistance to Canadians who choose to leave a paying job to care for a terminally ill family member at home. I must say that this is already done by many people. They may not be leaving a paying job, but this kind of care is done regularly across the country even at this time.

Certainly the proposed legislation would reduce the financial stress for people who find themselves in that situation. In addition, such a program could provide substantial savings for public health care budgets. However, the primary issue is a recognition that the social and emotional benefits of loved ones caring for each other far outweigh placing an individual in institutionalized care.

By tying such assistance to the employment insurance program, however, the bill flies in the face of a Canadian Alliance conviction that the EI system has gone astray from its original objective to be a safety net for laid off workers. When the program was designed, the premiums were supposed to match the payouts. However, since its inception all kinds of new features have been tacked on and the Auditor General has raised objections that the intent of the Employment Insurance Act is no longer respected, particularly in regard to premiums equalling benefits. We in this party believe that EI should be brought back to a true insurance program for job loss.

I understand the desire on the part of some members to attach this initiative to the employment insurance program. The overcharging of employers and employees for this program resulted in a $40 billion surplus at the end of the last fiscal year. This is $25 billion over what is required as a cushion by the chief actuary of Human Resources Development Canada, who says that $15 billion would be adequate to withstand any economic downturn.

Of course we as parliamentarians know that this is a surplus only on paper, because EI funds flow directly into general revenue. The $25 billion extra in surplus has already been spent, mainly to pay off the debt, according to Dale Orr of the economic forecasting firm Global Insight. Even if the EI surplus were just sitting there, the Canadian Alliance believes the solution is not to tack on more spending initiatives to the program. Rather, the federal government should stop overcharging employees and employers and substantially lower premiums to reflect the benefits paid out.

Funding compassionate leave through the EI system has other drawbacks. I think it is important to point them out, because this may be well intended but may not have been thought out by the people proposing the legislation. It arbitrarily screens out those who are ineligible for EI: the self-employed. I do not believe that Canadians would support the disqualification of farmers, small business owners, contractors, consultants and truckers from such a worthy social program. They would be left out in the cold. Also, as the trend in business is toward hiring workers as independent contractors rather than employees, the pool of the excluded would likely increase dramatically over time. The same situation applies to parental leave, frankly, which we in the Canadian Alliance believe should be a separate program and not part of the EI system.

In addition, due to the demographics of an aging population, there is a very real possibility that attaching compassionate leave to EI may in time overburden the system, requiring premium hikes down the road.

In conclusion, I believe the intent behind Bill C-206 is on the mark and I applaud my colleague for his work on this issue. However, the fatal flaw of the legislation before the House today is that it uses the employment insurance system as its funding instrument. This initiative needs to be further studied and debated. In my view, the compassionate leave would be better financed through some joint provincial-federal agreement. I therefore cannot support the bill itself. I certainly believe in the intent, but the bill itself, in attaching it to EI, is not acceptable to the Canadian Alliance.