Jason Kenney

[Taxation, March 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, all this bafflegab about progressive taxation is really quite galling from a minister who brought in a clawback on his much vaunted child tax benefit of 70% for low income families. The C.D. Howe Institute calculates that families between $25,000 and $35,000 in income are facing as high as 70% marginal rates.

When the minister talks about progressivity our objection to the inequities for single income families relates to the child care tax deduction which they cannot claim if they raise their children at home.

How can the minister defend the continued discriminatory effect of the child care tax deduction?

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In so far as there is enormous interest in this debate, I would seek unanimous consent to move that the debate be extended for another hour. I would seek unanimous consent to put that motion.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the member just denied having made those comments in October of 1998. Let us not be silly about the date. The member was there. I was there. The witnesses from Kids First were there.

I quote from the official parliamentary transcript: “Perhaps individually you have low self-esteem for many reasons” she said of the stay at home parents. “Being a single mother I don't quite see. Most women can combine career and family life. We know it is very difficult. A lot of times people just take the easy way out”.

This statement came from a millionaire, the member for Vancouver Kingsway. How can she justify this kind of prejudicial remark? Does the member really believe that stay at home parents are taking the easy way out?

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, at the outset let me say that I have enormous respect for this member who has done as much or more than any member in the House to promote the principles of tax equity for families.

He has done far more work than I have in this regard. I think we all owe him a debt of gratitude as do the advocates of tax fairness for single income families, but—and it is a very big and unfortunate but—I was really disappointed to hear the rationale of the member for voting against the motion before us today.

I could understand the member voting against it on some sound principle but he did not articulate that. I really am embarrassed with the rationale the member provided.

Let me read the motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the federal tax system should be reformed to end discrimination against single income families with children.

It is as general as can be, framed that way specifically so that members such as the member for Mississauga South could feel comfortable to support the principle he has just advocated. None of the specifics about deductions or the basic personal exemption are included in the motion. This is a very general motion. What specifically does he object to in the motion?

[Taxation, March 4th, 1999]

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—

[Taxation, March 4th, 1999]

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?

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the blues show me having made unparliamentary comments this morning. I just want for the record once again to clearly, unequivocally and sincerely retract any unparliamentary language that I used directed at any hon. member this morning.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I did not articulate that word. I will withdraw any comments that I made that are unparliamentary and apologize to any members if they feel I may have uttered unparliamentary remarks, unequivocally.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

You guys are just a bunch of assholes.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

What a jerk.