ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
TAXATION
Hansard (Excerpts) – March 3, 1999
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Secretary
of State for Financial Institutions took a swipe at parents who stay home with their
children. He said they don’t work as hard as parents who work outside the home, that their
expenses are smaller and that that is why the Liberal government discriminates against them
in the tax system. Will the Prime Minister explain to the millions of Canadian parents
who stay home with their children why their work and their financial position are of such
little value to this government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state
explained himself very clearly this morning and I am very surprised to see the Reform Party
raising the question today about support for families. Where was the Reform Party when they
voted against the child tax benefit in this House? They voted against increased funding for
the community action program for children. They voted against increasing funding for the
prenatal nutrition program. They voted against making child support payments tax exempt for
recipients. They wanted to dismantle CPP and employment-
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the Prime
Minister was not listening yesterday. His minister was asked why government tax policy
discriminates against stay-at-home parents and he did not deny the discrimination. Instead,
he justified it by saying, “Well, they don’t work as hard as parents outside the home”. Is
this the reason why the government continues to discriminate against stay-at-home parents
in its tax policies and in its budget?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have known the secretary of
state for a long time. In everything that he has done he has shown an acute sensitivity and
a great appreciation for the work of Canadians whether their workplace be in the home or
outside of the home. Anyone who has any doubt of that only has to look at the transcripts
when he was the chairman of the House of Commons finance committee when time and time again
he fought for the rights of children against the Reform Party.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, whenever the finance
minister starts to bellow like this, I am reminded of the preacher who wrote in his notes,
“Argument, weak here, yell like hell”. I want to ask the finance minister, which weakness
in his budget is he trying to cover. Is he trying to cover the establishment of two tier
health care? Is he trying to cover the highest income tax rates in the western world? Or
is he trying to cover discrimination against stay-at-home parents?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a record of voting
for protection of the family in this House. It is not only speeches. It is action that this
government has provided. The only marriage that the Reform Party is interested in is the
marriage with the Progressive Conservatives and Joe Clark will not give them the bedroom
privileges.
* 1420
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if only it were easy to try to
explain this. The government’s real agenda is this. Next week it is going to the UN in New
York city to argue the tax discrimination against stay at home parents is really okay. The
Prime Minister’s lawyers will be arguing that tax fairness for stay at home parents would
reduce their incentive to work. Maybe he did give the government’s position yesterday. Is
the Prime Minister really telling us that he thinks that these moms and dads are lazy and
they do not perform any real work?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to assure this House and all Canadians that it was never my intention to
convey the impression that a person who stays at home does not work. This was never my
intention. This is not what I meant. This has never been my belief. The role of a partner
who works in the home can be even far more demanding that the role of one who has to go
outside the house to work. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to clarify my
words of yesterday.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is great. If that is not what he
meant and it was just an oops perhaps he could change the law to make those differences.
This was a stupid, idiotic remark yesterday from a chauvinistic minister. He cannot just
explain it away.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I ask the member to go to her question.
Miss Deborah Grey: I will, Mr. Speaker.
They are saying that stay at home parents and the whole tax fairness issue would reduce
their incentive to work. Why does the Prime Minister admit that he honestly feels that
single income families and stay at home parents should be punished with extra taxes? Who is
going to admit it?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have a progressive tax
system in Canada. I know the Reform Party is not interested in looking into the facts.
We have introduced legislation to help the family. The programs we have introduced are
helping those families where one spouse stays home to take care of the children. We have
new initiatives for them and the Reform Party votes against them all the time.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the finance minister that
this tax system is regressive for single income families.
This is more than just about the junior minister’s foot in mouth disease. The senior
minister is not blameless in this whole episode either. Two weeks ago he brought in a
budget and entrenched the discrimination against single income families. It actually got
worse in the last budget.
What is the minister’s excuse? He cannot blame this simply on a slip of the tongue.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our tax system is based on two
principles, progressivity and individual taxation. If the hon. member opposite does not
agree with progressivity and the hon. member believes in fact that higher income Canadians
should be taxed at a lower rate than lower income Canadians, then let him stand in the
House and say so. If the hon. member believes that in fact we should be taxing not on an
individual basis but on a family income basis, that a lower income spouse should be taxed
at his or her higher income spouse’s tax rate, then let him stand here in the House and say
that is his agenda.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that the government has an
obligation to show that it values parenting. It has an obligation to treat single income
families like they have some value when they go home to look after their children. What is
the matter with that? Why can Canadians not be treated fairly so that when they go home and
look after their children, the government shows that through the tax system? That is a
good thing. But in budget after budget the government has chosen to discriminate against
those families. How can it do that? How can it justify that?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is almost obscene to hear the
Reform Party cry crocodile tears about children. The Prime Minister gave a list. Let us
just go on. Why then is the Reform Party seeking to dismantle the maternity benefits, the
paternity benefits in the Canada Pension Plan? Why did the Reform Party vote against the way
in which the government reversed the taxation of child support payments to benefit children?
Why do they want to cut welfare payments? Why do they want to cut equalization payments?
…
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the junior finance
minister told us the government does not value the work of parents who stay at home.
Let me tell the government that the most important work in the world is done by parents who
stay at home and raise the future generations. It was not just a slip of the tongue. I have
in my hand a memo from the prime minister’s office which said that the assumption that
increased tax deductions will encourage parents to quit their jobs and return to the kitchen
is naive. Why does the government perpetuate these kind of negative prejudicial stereotypes
about parents who make sacrifices to do what is best
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the preamble to the hon. member’s
question is simply nonsense. The issue is how best can Canadians take care of their children
and what is the role of the state. I have asked the hon. member, and his party, is he
against progressive taxation? We have had no answer. Is the hon. member against individual
taxation? We have had no answer. But we have had an answer from the government which brought
in the child tax benefit and its improvements and made it apply to Canadians who worked in the
home and to Canadians who work outside of the home. The Reform Party opposed it.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we are for progressive taxation.
Maybe the minister could tell Canadians, stay-at-home parents, what is progressive about a
system that discriminates against their choice to raise their kids at home. Maybe the
minister could tell us whether or not he will continue to penalize those families by
increasing the deduction for child care and not extending it to all families including
those who stay at home. Maybe the minister could tell us whether or not he will allow a
free vote for the members of his party when we put forward a supply day motion tomorrow
allowing for tax fairness for all families.
* 1440
The Speaker: Order. Order, please. The question of course is out of order
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for well over five years, the
essential debates that have taken place in terms of how to protect children have taken
place within this caucus, whether it be the member for Mississauga South, whether it be the
women’s caucus of this party or whether it be our social caucus. The fact is that every
progressive idea has come from this side of the House and on that side of the House they
have reacted negatively to everything. To stand up here today with crocodile tears
pretending that they are interested in the future of our children is just simply not on
and it will not be bought by any Canadian.
…
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance minister
here is in full damage control mode. He has been asked four or five questions about an-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. Order, please. The hon. leader of the opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning: He has been asked four or five questions about an obviously
discriminatory tax position in the government’s tax policy and he has not answered. I ask
him one more time, why did his 1999 budget make things worse rather than better for
stay-at-home parents?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the premise of the hon. member’s
question is simply wrong. The fact is that we brought in a $300 million addition to the
child tax benefit which goes directly to middle income Canadians whether their work place
is at home or outside the home. If the hon. member wants to talk about damage control, it
is a fact that on the whim of the Reform, suddenly it decides it is interested in children.
For five years, it has been against children. For five years, its members have only talked
about the deficit. While we were fighting the deficit, at the same time protecting kids
and protecting Canadian families with children, the Reform Party opposed every single measure.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, these are the facts. A
two income family and a one income family, each with children, each earning $50,000 a year
are taxed differently by this government. The one income family is penalized up to $4,000
more than the two income family.
My question to the finance minister is this: If he does not believe in that discrimination,
why does he not change his tax policy which is at the root of it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear
following upon the work that has been done within this caucus and within the various
departments that what we want is the finance department this year to work very heavily on
those things we can do to help families with children, improvements to the child tax benefit
and others. If the hon. member believes that the solution is not things like the child tax
benefit, I simply ask him: Is he now saying that he no longer believes in progressive
taxation? Is he now saying that he no longer believes in taxation of the individual? Does he
believe that somebody who is earning $25,000 a year…