36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 189
CONTENTS
Thursday, March 4, 1999
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Food Labelling
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1010
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Tax System
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1015
1020
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Procedure and House Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion for concurrence
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Tax System
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1025
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1030
1035
1040
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1045
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1100
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gar Knutson |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
1105
1110
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1115
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dennis J. Mills |
1130
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1145
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1150
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1205
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1220
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
1225
1230
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1245
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1250
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1305
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1320
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1335
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1350
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1355
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NORTHEAST COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Beth Phinney |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CULTURE
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1400
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LIBERAL PARTY OF NOVA SCOTIA
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH CARE
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELECTORAL RULES AND PRACTICES
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE LATE JACK WEBSTER
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DRUNK DRIVING
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1405
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATUS OF WOMEN
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Michelle Dockrill |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE REGION OF PEEL
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PREMIER OF QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1410
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE UNITED ALTERNATIVE
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN MILITARY
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PHARMACY AWARENESS WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1415
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FAMILIES
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
1420
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
1425
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FAMILIES
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRISONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1435
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
1440
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SHIPBUILDING
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1445
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL REVENUE
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GUN CONTROL
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1450
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL REVENUE
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
1455
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PROSTATE CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1500
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1505
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1510
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1515
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Member for Vancouver Kingsway
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1520
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUPPLY
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Allotted Day—Tax System
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
1525
1530
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Jordan |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1535
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1550
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1605
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
1610
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1615
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1620
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1635
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1650
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1655
1700
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Canuel |
1705
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Divisions deemed demanded and deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR HEALTH AND MEDICAL PURPOSES
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Bigras |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1720
1725
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment
|
1750
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
1755
1800
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1805
1810
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Service of Canada
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1825
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
1830
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1835
![V](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 189
![](/web/20061116182243im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 4, 1999
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[Translation]
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to
the House, in both official languages, the 7th report of the
Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association which represented Canada
at the meeting of the NATO parliamentary assembly subcommittee on
defence and security co-operation between Europe and North
America held in Washington, D.C. and New York, U.S.A., January 31
to February 6, 1999.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 59th report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the associate
membership of the Standing Committee on Human Resources
Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
I move that the 59th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary
have the unanimous consent of the House to propose this motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
* * *
PETITIONS
FOOD LABELLING
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have the pleasure to present a petition with 318 signatures on
the subject of genetically engineered foods. The petitioners ask
for parliament to legislate clear labelling on all genetically
engineered foods as well as testing these products to ensure they
are safe for human consumption.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition
signed by a number of Canadians, including from my constituency
of Mississauga South, on human rights.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that human
rights abuses continue to be rampant around the world in
countries such as Indonesia. The petitioners also point out that
Canada continues to be recognized internationally as the champion
of human rights.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to continue to
speak out against human rights abuses and also to seek to bring
to justice those responsible for such abuses.
* * *
1010
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask
that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—TAX SYSTEM
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the federal tax system should
be reformed to end discrimination against single income families
with children.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like the Speaker to know that during today's
debate the members of the Reform Party will be dividing their
time.
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my
time with the hon. member for Calgary Centre, who has done
yeoman's work in fighting for tax fairness for families and I
think he deserves some considerable recognition for his efforts
in this regard.
I am today moving that, in the opinion of this House, the
federal tax system should be reformed to end discrimination
against single income families with children.
It really is unfortunate that we need to put forward a motion
like this in this place today. As the official opposition, we
rise in the House to deal with the gross and inexcusable
inequity, one that undermines the basic unit of any healthy
society, the family. I speak of an inequity which creates
perverse unfairness for struggling, hardworking parents who are
doing the most important work of the nation, raising children,
raising the next generation.
This inequity is a tax code which treats stay at home parents as
though they are second class citizens and which, in the words of
the C.D. Howe Institute, gives children the same level of
economic importance as disposable consumer items.
We bring this motion forward today after years of advocating tax
fairness for families not only as the official opposition giving
voice to the concerns of millions of Canadians but in many other
organizations across the ideological spectrum.
We come here in a particular context, in the context of comments
made this week by the hon. secretary of state for finance who
said, as we know, on Tuesday: “If two members of a particular
family are both working, first of all they are putting in twice
the working hours as stay at home parents”. He furthermore said
that they also have twice the expenses, including the expenses of
not having someone at home doing the housework, that is, having
to pay for maids and nannies, I suppose.
This reflected the views, not just a temporary slip of the
tongue but the fundamental views, of this government when it
comes to justifying the unjustifiable and inexcusable inequities
in the tax code.
It is not an isolated comment. Yesterday I quoted from a memo
that the Prime Minister's office distributed in October 1996
wherein it said of the Reform Party's proposal to increase tax
deductions for children that the notion that this will encourage
parents to quit their jobs and return to the kitchen is naive.
Why is it that the Prime Minister's office believes that parents
who work at home raising their children are “in the kitchen”?
What kind of negative, prejudicial stereotype is this enforcing
about people who are making real economic sacrifices to do what
they believe is best by their families?
Again, this was not an isolated comment. I was at a finance
committee hearing in Calgary in October of last year when I heard
the member for Vancouver—Kingsway say to advocates for tax
fairness for families: “Most women can combine career and family
life but a lot of women just take the easy way out”. The hon.
member for Vancouver—Kingsway, as reported in Hansard, said
that stay at home mothers are taking the easy way out. I say
shame on the member and anyone who would tolerate that kind of
prejudicial remark to these stay at home parents making
sacrifices.
The hon. member for St. Paul's in the same kind of fracas with
these defenders of stay at home parents characterized them when
she said they are perceived—presumably by her—as elite white
women.
She is talking to these individuals who have come before a
finance committee to defend equity and disparaging them as elite
white women?
1015
The member for Essex—Windsor in the last parliament said that
the Reform Party's notion of tax for stay at home parenting was a
nostalgic notion. I ask, not rhetorically but really, what is
nostalgic about the choice made today by a third of Canadian
parents who choose to give up the second car, the bigger house,
the vacation in order to stay at home and raise their kids, and
spend as much time as they can bonding with their children and
raising the future generation? I submit that there is nothing
nostalgic about it. I submit that it is specious to suggest that
these people do not work. They are doing the most important work
there is to be done in our society.
We could dismiss these slips of the tongue in evidence of the
fundamental Liberal philosophy, which is hostile to stay at home
parenting, but these comments reflect the real discrimination
that exists in the tax code. Rather than hearing empty apologies
for these kinds of prejudicial remarks, we want to see this tax
system corrected.
What is wrong with this tax system that we are talking about? I
will tell the House what is wrong. A family with one income
earner who earns $35,000 ends up paying $2,281 more in taxes than
a two income family with the same gross income. That is nearly a
$2,300 differential for a very modest income family. That is
according to federal government budget documents. According to
the C.D. Howe Institute, a single income earning family making
$50,000 pays about $4,000 more than its double income equivalent
or about two-thirds more.
This is not just an aberration. The government made policy
changes in its last budget to increase the child care tax
deduction, one of the principal offending elements of the tax
code in this respect, by increasing it over the last and current
fiscal years. It actually increased the disparity, the inequity,
the unfairness between two income and single income families with
children. That is inexcusable.
People may ask what is the basis for this inequity. First,
there is the child care tax deduction which allows those parents
who pay for third party day care to deduct a substantial portion,
$7,000 per child under the age of 12. That is a deduction which
is not available to parents who raise their kids at home, who
forgo the second income and do assume a cost, called opportunity
cost, the cost of giving up income.
One of the other offensive things this government did was to
raise the age under which parents can claim the child care tax
deduction for minors. It brought in a $4,000 deduction for
children between the ages of 12 and 16. What does this mean? It
means that some parents are claiming this deduction to send their
kids to hockey school and summer camp, while those parents who
are taking care of preschool kids at home get no coverage, no
advantage from the tax system. It is just plain wrong.
One of the other offending elements is the basic exemption
versus the spousal exemption. The spousal exemption is worth
about 20% less than the basic personal exemption. What this says
to fathers and mothers who decide to stay at home is that they
are second class citizens. Their value to society is deemed to
be only 80% of the value of somebody who works outside the home.
We say enough of this kind of second class status for people who
are staying at home to do what is best for their families.
Those are the principal offensive areas of the tax code. Single
income families also end up in higher brackets. They do not get
to claim as much RRSP room as the combined room of two income
families and so forth. Families do not want it this way.
One of the interesting things we see, according to the Vanier
Institute of the Family, is that over the past several years two
income families have seen their after tax income stay relatively
flat, while single income families have seen their incomes since
1989 go down by 10%. The single income families that tend to be
at the lower end of the income scale and that need the help the
most are falling further behind because of these inequities,
while the double income families that tend to be higher up the
income scale are staying at least even with the enormous tax take
of the government.
1020
Families do not want it this way. Eighty-two per cent of
Canadians in a 1998 Compas poll said they wanted the tax code
changed to make it easier for parents with young children to have
a parent at home. Ninety per cent of Canadians feel that taxes
are too high for parents with children and that this is placing a
greater stress on them than it did a generation ago. Eighty-six
per cent of Canadians favour a lot or some priority for families
with a stay at home parent. Ninety per cent believe the family
setting is preferable to day care when asked what is the best for
an infant or preschool child.
In a 1991 Decima poll 70% of the women asked said that if they
had the choice they would prefer to raise their children at home
rather than work outside the home and use day care.
That is what Canadians are saying by overwhelming margins: 70%,
80% and 90%. We do not get that kind of consensus on virtually
any other public policy issue. It is very clear that these
people are falling behind even though they are working harder and
playing by the rules.
What is the remedy? Very simply, we propose to convert the
child care tax deduction into a refundable credit and increase
the value of that credit to $7,900, which would equalize the
playing field. We would also convert the child care tax
deduction into a credit. We would raise the spousal amount to be
equivalent to the basic personal amount.
That is a starting point, but we need to start this national
debate—
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid the hon. member's time
has expired.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I would be grateful if you would seek unanimous consent to return
to motions under Routine Proceedings.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent to
return to motions under Routine Proceedings?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[English]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
the House gives its consent, I move that the 59th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to
the House earlier this day, be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—TAX SYSTEM
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am absolutely sure today that we are going to hear a great deal
about the importance of raising our children and care giving, no
matter what choice is made by parents.
This morning the hon. member raised a couple of issues that I
would like to pose to him. The first issue is the differential
between the basic amount, the non-refundable tax credit for
individuals, which is $6,452 I believe, and the spousal amount,
which I believe is $5,380. One of the recommendations is that we
equalize those because they should not be different.
I wonder if the member would comment on why he did not take into
account the fact that spouses who stay in the home can in fact
earn $538 of taxable income before any of the non-refundable
credit would be eliminated. There is in fact another component
that he has totally missed.
The primary question concerns a problem I have with the motion
itself. The member consulted with me yesterday and I suggested
to him a change which he did not accept. The motion states that
the tax act discriminates against single earning families with
children. One out of six families in Canada are lone-parent,
one-income families. Why is the member excluding single income,
single parent families from the motion?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, we are not. The motion
speaks to single income families with children. Single parents
with children fall under that category. Those single parents
with children who have no income suffer no tax discrimination
because they suffer no taxation. I therefore do not follow the
member's reasoning.
With respect to the question on our proposal to raise the
spousal amount to become equivalent to the basic personal
exemption, this is simply a question of equity. We see no reason
for the current arrangement whereby stay at home parents who do
not generate their own income are told that their contribution to
society is somehow less significant than those who are in the
“paid” workforce. We ought to equalize that.
It is not a convoluted, technical issue. It is simply a question
of principle and a question of fairness.
1025
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to congratulate the member for Calgary Southeast for bringing
this motion forward.
Helping our families through tax relief is an admirable goal for
any government. Certainly the Conservative government in Ontario
has led the way in that regard.
I would ask a simple question of the Reform member. In 1993 Ron
Mix, a Reform candidate in Edmonton North, said this about women
in the workplace. “Women are being forced to work under the
guise that they are being liberated and enjoying the freedoms of
the workplace, when in fact it is bondage”. Meanwhile, in a
100 page paper the Leader of the Opposition quoted from the Bible:
Wives, be subject to your husbands as the Lord, for the
man is the head of the woman.
I ask the Reform member, as this motion deals with ending
discrimination in the tax system, will that member also refute
those discriminatory comments, or does the Reform member support
those comments?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, what I rebuke are the
gutter politics of the member for Markham. Shame on him for
taking an issue like this, an issue of fairness and equity for
families, which he ought to agree with in principle, and taking
it down to the gutter.
That member may not have recognized that the members of my party
have engaged in a form of unilateral rhetorical disarmament with
respect to that party. But as far as that member is concerned,
that ends right now. Let me remind him who started the
inequities for families in the tax code and who tolerated them
for nine years. It was the Mulroney government. It was the PC
Party which he represents which allowed this discrimination to
seep its way into the tax code. It was that government which
de-indexed the tax rate which has cost $11 billion to taxpayers
since then. It has forced 1.2 million taxpayers on to the tax
rolls since then.
Shame on this member for accusing the Leader of the Opposition
of quoting from his scriptural book in a negative way. To bring
a member's personal religious convictions into a policy debate
like this is beneath contempt.
There are all sorts of ridiculous comments that have been made
by members opposite in the last week which suggest a
discriminatory attitude toward single income, stay at home
parents. That is what we ought to be addressing our attention
to, solving the problem which is creating enormous pressure on
Canadian families, enormous economic pressure—
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I was listening to the comments made by my colleague from the
Reform Party. I believe I heard him say that our colleague on
this side was using gutter politics. I believe that to be
unparliamentary.
The Deputy Speaker: I am happy to look into the matter.
I heard the expression. I did not immediately leap to the
conclusion that it was unparliamentary. But at the request of
the hon. member I will certainly have a look at the precedents to
see if in fact such an expression has been ruled unparliamentary.
It is borderline, but my inclination was to allow it. However, I
will look into the matter.
Mr. Jason Kenney: What a jerk.
The Deputy Speaker: Resuming debate, the hon. member for
Calgary Centre.
Mr. Jason Kenney: You guys are just a bunch of assholes.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today we are debating an important motion that has been a long
time in coming to the floor of the House. In fact, too long, I
would suggest.
The motion is that in the opinion of this House the federal
income—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Markham
on a point of order.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the hon.
member for Calgary Southeast retract the statements he just made.
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member could clarify
which statements it is he is referring to. If it is the one I
have taken under advisement, I am sure he will wait until I have
had an opportunity to advise the House of the position of the
Chair. But if there is something else that was said, I am not
sure what it is he is referring to and I wish he would clarify
the matter.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, I cannot repeat what he said.
It is unparliamentary.
The Deputy Speaker: We are on a point of order at the
moment. The Chair has indicated that he will look at certain
words to see if in fact they are unparliamentary. I did not hear
other unparliamentary words.
If the hon. member for Markham feels there was something
unparliamentary said, I will hear him out.
1030
If he does not want to say the words I would suggest he approach
the Chair and we will have a discussion about it; but I am not
prepared to order someone to withdraw something I did not hear
that was unparliamentary.
Mr. Jim Jones: Mr. Speaker, he called us a bunch of
assholes.
The Deputy Speaker: That clearly would be out of order,
but the Chair did not hear such an expression. Did the hon.
member for Calgary Southeast use that kind of language? If he
did, I am sure he will want to withdraw it at once.
Mr. Jason Kenney: 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.
The Deputy Speaker: I think that resolves the matter.
The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche on a point of order.
Mr. Jean Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I heard you say my name quite
clearly and I also heard the comments of the member from the
Reform Party calling us a bunch of assholes, and that is
unparliamentary.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has said that he
withdrew the remark, and that is the end of it.
An hon. member: He didn't withdraw.
The Deputy Speaker: He did withdraw, and that is the end
of it.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, it seems what we thought might
be a fairly calm debate could be a lively one.
We are debating an important motion which has been a long time
coming to the floor of the House. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the federal tax system should
be reformed to end discrimination against single income families
with children.
Single income families have long known that they are
disadvantaged by the Liberal tax policies and it keeps getting
worse. For example, a single income family earning $60,000 will
pay $9,589 in taxes, but a two income family making the same
$60,000 pays only $5,790 in tax.
The single income family pays 65% more taxes in this tax
bracket. It is the same scenario at $50,000. The result there
though is actually worse with 91% more in tax paid by the single
income family. The lower we go, the worse it gets. At $45,000
the single income family pays 136% more, and so it continues.
In addition, the dual income earning family can deduct child
care expenses if children are cared for in institutional day care
programs which would serve to further reduce the tax paid by the
dual income families compared to single income families.
Even after a decade of petitions and lobbying the Liberal
government each year adds to the discrepancy between the tax paid
by single income families and dual income families.
Single income families pay more in tax on the same income. They
also miss out on the $7,000 allowable child care expense
deduction if children are put in institutional day care programs.
To add insult to injury, a parent who is at home is treated as
somewhat less of a person in that he or she receives a basic
spousal deduction of almost $1,100 lower than what every other
working Canadian receives as their basic personal exemption.
A number of other voices are joining with Canadian families in
the call for more equitable tax treatment. The Canadian Council
on Social Development and the Vanier Institute in 1998 noted that
average Canadian family after tax incomes have substantially
fallen in recent years.
The C. D. Howe Institute, the National Foundation for Family
Research and Education, and the Fraser Forum have all now
reported that there currently exists unjustifiable inequities in
the current tax treatment of families. For example, the C. D.
Howe Institute, when referring to the child care exemption
deduction, said:
Reformers have long been aware of the need for fair family
taxation in Canada, specifically in past budgets and again in
this year's budget. Reform proposed an alternative budget.
We detailed a fully costed out proposal that provides substantial
tax relief to all families. In addition, we detailed a fully
refundable tax credit for all parents regardless of how they
choose to care for their children. It is not a tax deduction but
a credit that would be equal in benefit to all parents whether or
not they had taxable income.
1035
We say let us leave the money and the child care choices with
parents where they belong. Reform has long called for the basic
spousal exemption to be equal to the basic exemption. Today the
exemption for a stay at home parent is $1,100 less than for a
working parent.
The financial considerations are important but also important
are the social messages current tax policies send. Let us
examine some of that social messaging. We know that family
situations are dynamic and changing in Canada today. Parents are
doing the best they can. Sometimes parents provide child care at
home. Sometimes an extended family member helps with the
children. Others share their responsibilities with friends or
with local community groups. These and a dynamic variety of
other arrangements occur.
Why does the Liberal government give a $7,000 tax expense
deduction to institutional day care but there is no recognition
of any other type of care? It sends the message that parental or
extended family care has no value. This is wrong. A refundable
child tax credit to all parents leaves the money and the child
care choices with parents where they belong.
What about the message to stay at home parents when the basic
spousal exemption is $1,100 less than everyone else's basic
exemption? For many the message according to the Liberal tax
code is that they are less than complete people, that they are
second class people. This is a wrong message.
Often these same parents have chosen to devote the majority of
their time to the nurturing of their children, Canada's next
generation. Do members not think that is valuable work? Then
why does the Liberal government continue the message to them
through the tax code that what they are doing is less valuable
than the work done by every other Canadian?
Reformers say that the basic exemption should be the same for
all including parents at home. A recently formed national
coalition called the Canadian family tax coalition called on the
government to allow income splitting by families. This would
allow both parents to pool their incomes and divide it equitably
between spouses to reduce total taxes paid.
It would also increase the equity of dual income families. This
is not a foreign or unique concept. This kind of thing has been
done in many other countries including France, Germany and the
United States. Reform supports the examination of joint filing
or income splitting, perhaps through a parliamentary committee
and some public input, to assess the impacts and to advance us
toward more equitable tax treatment of single income families in
line with today's motion.
The C. D. Howe Institute stated in a very recent review of the
family taxation system that the take portion of Canada's tax
system, the revenue raising part, assesses taxes on an individual
basis but the give portion, the many spending programs,
calculates benefits on a family basis. It asked the question
whether this inconsistency was defensible. I suggest it is
designed to raise the maximum amount of revenue and pay the
minimum amount of benefit.
In the same report the C. D. Howe Institute stated that the
Canadian Income Tax Act was no longer about tax policy and that
social policy had become an increasingly integral part. The
institute continued by indicating that, whatever the merits of
that side of the act, social policy considerations had crowded
out legitimate tax policy objectives.
That is our point today. We are calling on every member to use
this opportunity to address the anti-family discriminatory social
policies inherent in the current structure of the tax code.
1040
With that in mind, I would like to move an amendment to
strengthen the current motion on the floor:
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair finds the motion to be in
order. Accordingly the question is on the amendment.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have two questions for the member.
As the member knows, as a result of the tax changes in the last
two or even three budgets a typical one earner family with two
children and an income of $30,000 or less now pays no net federal
tax. He also knows that families with incomes of $45,000 or less
will have their taxes reduced as a result of changes in recent
budgets by a minimum of 10% and, in some cases, by considerably
more.
Also, in the 1998 budget 400,000 lower income Canadians were
completely taken off the tax rolls. In the most recent budget,
another 200,000 were taken off. Therefore 600,000 Canadians are
off the tax rolls altogether.
First, did the member vote for those changes and support help
for lower income families in that case?
Second, with respect to the child tax benefit, which I know the
member opposed, does he support the policy implemented by the
Government of Ontario, with which his party is trying to develop
some sort of united alternative, to deduct from single income
families, the families he is apparently speaking in favour of,
and families on social assistance, an amount equal to the amount
of the child tax credit the federal government has provided in
previous budgets and has added to in this budget?
Does the member support the fact that these poor families which
were expecting an increase through the child tax benefit had that
increase taken away from them by the Government of Ontario, a
government that his party is in bed with?
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of
questions and I will go fairly quickly. Yes, we did vote against
some of the initiatives which this member just raised. Our
proposal detailed how a million low income Canadians would come
off the tax roll. We are asking why those low income Canadians
were ever on there in the first place.
The member has talked about the various budgets they brought
forward to help low income Canadians. As far as dealing with the
motion today, the inequity or the differential between single and
dual income families has only been accentuated by the government
opposite.
In its previous budget of 1998 it actually increased the amount
of money that can be claimed for child care expenses in an
institutional day care. Again it totally ignored the other
arrangements of parents in the best interest of their families.
It only increased the differential.
As far as the child tax benefit is concerned, one of the tragic
points about it is that it is more of a bureaucracy benefit. The
government takes money away from the same families it then pays
the tax benefit to. They give $1 to the bureaucracy and the
bureaucracy burns up 40 cents of the dollar and gives 60 cents
back to Canadians. Why does it not just leave the money with
families in the first place?
A lot of improvements are needed over there. It is a
fundamental rework of the way they approach the whole tax
structure.
1045
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I was looking at the level of incomes. I believe my riding has
one of the lowest levels of average income at $31,000. I have an
interest in a statement the hon. member made in terms of 136%
more being paid on an income salary of $45,000.
Could the member give us the real numbers of what the
comparisons were between single and double income figures? One
hundred and thirty-six per cent more would mean quite a bit more.
I was trying to understand what the actual numbers were in
comparison.
Mr. Eric Lowther: Mr. Speaker, the member is exactly
right. It is quite a bit more. It is more than double. In fact
those numbers that I quoted in my speech and which I do not have
committed to memory came from this Liberal government's budget
book that was released to all of us in the House. Those tables
chart out what single income and dual income families pay. If we
compare the tax paid at the bracket the member talked about,
$45,000, it gets worse when the income is lower, as the hon.
member has mentioned for his riding, and the differential between
the two types of families gets even greater.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take this
opportunity to respond to today's motion and reject the
suggestion that the tax system is consciously and perversely
unfair to one earner families with children. I recognize that the
member for Calgary Southwest who moved this motion has sincere
intentions but I submit that his logic does not stand up.
Simple comparisons like these do not tell the whole story or the
true story. What causes the tax differentials between one earner
and two earner couples is the application of two basic principles
of our tax system: progressivity on the one hand and taxation
that is consistently based on the income of the individual. Let
us look at how the principles work.
Progressivity means that as individuals move up the income
scale, they pay a larger share of their income in taxes. Is the
Reform Party suggesting that we should tax someone who is earning
$50,000 at the same rate as someone earning just $25,000? Should
someone who is earning $1 million be taxed at the same rate as
someone who is earning $10,000? That is patently unfair.
Individual taxation means that someone who goes to work outside
the home pays taxes based solely on their individual earnings,
not on the income of their spouse. That is only fair. It also
means that individuals do not face increases or tax reductions
when they choose to marry. That too is only fair.
If the Reform Party wants to eliminate the tax differentials
between one earner and two earner couples, it has to be prepared
to do away with these basic principles of our tax system.
Today's motion is not an appeal for equity. I submit it is a
Trojan horse hiding its real agenda under the guise of family
values. Does the opposition party object to progressive
taxation, to the idea that more affluence must be accompanied by
more obligations or by certain obligations? Why does the Reform
Party not tell us up front that it wants the tax burden on lower
income Canadians to be the same as the tax burden on higher
income Canadians? That is what this motion leads to.
Do members of the Reform Party want a family based tax system?
Then why do they not make it clear that what they want is for
many women to be taxed at the higher tax rates of their husbands
or vice versa? That is what this motion really does.
Does the Reform Party really believe that a husband and wife
earning $20,000 and $30,000 respectively should together pay the
same amount of tax as someone who earns $50,000? If this is what
the Reform Party wants, it is essentially saying that every
dollar that a spouse earns should be taxed at the 26% marginal
rate.
On the other hand, Reform Party members stand up and pound on
the table and say to cut taxes in half for everyone but not once
do they mention that they would gut pensions, gut equalization or
health care in order to achieve that sole objective of cutting
taxes in half. How would the Reform Party party do it? The hon.
member opposite talked about proposing an alternate budget, an
alternate way of running the country and doing the finances of
the country. The member fails to mention that the Reform Party
in its proposal is also predicting surpluses in the $30 billion
to $35 billion range.
1050
The Reform Party bases its optimistic growth rates at 5.5% over
the next three years. It is almost two times what the private
sector consensus is for growth in nominal GDP, which is the
underlying tax base.
When we talk about these types of motions, in the end the bottom
line is that someone needs to pay for them. In order to do that
we have to be able to plan effectively and ensure that our
finances are in place in order to move forward on an effective
and realistic plan.
The Reform members also assume in their plan that they want to
reduce almost $9 billion in expenditures to existing programs to
provide resources for new initiatives. Perhaps that is how they
are going to cut the tax rates in half, by gutting programs to
the tune of $9 billion or more.
Given the unrealistic surplus projection that they have put in
their program, $30 billion to $35 billion over the next number of
years, basing their revenue growth forecast on an average of 5.5%
for the next three years, almost two times what the private
sector consensus is, by gutting these other programs, cutting
almost $9 billion, or more, we see what this motion is all about.
It is all about gutting the programs that we have in place and
jumping on this hobby horse under the guise of family values.
At the same time, I have no trouble whatsoever making it clear
where this government stands and where I stand, not just as a
member of parliament, but as a husband and a father and as a
citizen of this country. I appreciate and I commend the hard
work and dedication of Canadians who choose to stay home to raise
their children. I commend them. And while I do that, I also
support the underlying principles which form the basis of the tax
system.
I am not standing here talking about my political ambitions,
like members of the party opposite who under the guise of family
values pound on the table. But they have another agenda which I
think is way below what this House really wants to get into.
We stand for a tax system that is progressive. It is only fair
that individuals should pay a bigger share of their income in
taxes as their income rises. I think that is an underlying
principle. I think that if the Reform Party is putting forward
this motion, then essentially it is saying that it does not
believe in that principle. Reform Party members do not believe in
the progressivity of the tax system.
We stand for a system based on individual taxation. I do not
believe that anyone in this House wants to penalize women who
decide to enter the workforce.
The opposition may choose to see someone earning $50,000 as no
different from a couple earning $20,000 and $30,000 a piece. But
if we look at the situation fairly, rather than through this
moral myopia, the fact is that the economic situations of these
two families can often be very different. We have to recognize
that. Recognizing that these differences exist is only fair and
it is only what a responsible government should do and must do.
That takes me to the real bottom line for a responsible
responsive government. It is finding genuine, effective and
equitable ways to help those families and children in real
jeopardy and need. The answer does not lie in the so-called
discrimination against one earner families vis-à-vis dual income
families. It actually does more to obscure the broader debate
about tax fairness than it does to advance it.
The fact remains that some one earner families are better off
than some two earner families and vice versa. This means that
focusing on one earner versus two earner issues misses the point
completely. It certainly does not make for a productive debate
on options for making the tax system fairer and reducing the
burden on low income Canadians. That is why as the fiscal
situation improved we have taken concrete and increasingly broad
action to help reduce the tax burden for all Canadians. But we
have also made it a priority to target what we can do, the
largest share of that relief, to those with low incomes.
The child tax benefit, which the party opposite voted against
and does not think is of any value, has been increased by $2
billion in three successive budgets to provide increased
financial assistance to families with children.
Of the $2 billion, $1.7 billion was targeted to low income
Canadians through the national child benefit supplement.
1055
Our approach to taxation and to families is fair. It makes some
sense. It is delivering relief to families that need it most,
namely low income Canadians, especially those with children. The
opposition may try to reduce difficult social issues to
simplistic arguments of either/or, us against them, but I believe
that the majority of Canadians see more clearly and more openly.
Some parents choose to both work; others have no choice. Some
parents choose to have one spouse stay at home; again, others
have no choice. Each have their special challenges and concerns.
There is no tax system in the world that can give each and
everyone of these individuals their own special treatment and
privileges.
What a responsible government must do is identify basic
fundamental principles and apply them universally, equitably and
reasonably. That is what our national tax system tries to do.
It applies the principles of progressivity and taxation of the
individual. That is the fair way. It is the open way. I submit
that it is the proper way.
It is in support of those values and in the sustaining of
interests of all families and children that I have no hesitation
whatsoever in urging the House to reject today's motion.
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
do not know where to start. That was more of a diatribe on why
he does not like the Reform Party than it was on anything
substantive to do with the motion we are debating today.
There is so much I could dive into, but I want to bring us back
to the actual motion. The motion is talking about the inequities
between a single earner and a dual earner family. One of the key
areas in which his government has continued to make the situation
worse and worse is to continue to increase the tax expense
deduction for parents who choose to put their children in an
institutional receipt type day care situation. It does
absolutely nothing for every other kind of parent out there.
There are all kinds of scenarios. All parents incur costs in the
rearing of their children and the government only respects one
option.
Why will the government not at least look at the inequity that
it builds into the system in ignoring every other kind of
parental care and saying only one kind has value and that is
institutional day care?
Mr. Tony Valeri: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon.
member has a great interest in this particular issue. He is out
there promoting his position.
I often take exception to the fact that the whole basis of the
question and of today's motion is the belief that other members
of other parties in this House do not support the work done by
Canadians who choose to stay home to raise their families. That
is fundamentally wrong. That is the basis I take exception to.
To stand up in the House and point to another member, to a
government, or to a party and say “You do not believe that the
work that Canadians do in raising their children at home has any
value”, I take exception to that. We have taken initiative in
trying to assist those Canadians who choose to stay home.
The hon. member talks about the child tax benefit and says that
it does not in effect assist those Canadians who decide to stay
home or the one earner versus the two earner family. Speaking
directly to the motion today perhaps after I give the response,
Reform members might look at the child tax benefit in a different
light.
The Canadian child tax benefit is targeted on the basis of
family income. A one earner family receives substantially more
money on average from the child tax benefit than a two earner
family when the 1999 budget measures are implemented. If hon.
members would take the time to do the analysis, they would find
that the 1998 and 1999 budget is enhancing the tax position of
one earner families versus two earner families.
1100
I am not sure whether the hon. member across the way has taken
the time to do that.
In the haste to get into this us against them, one earner versus
two earners, they completely ignored the measures the government
has taken to try to provide fairness in the tax system.
Again, is he fundamentally opposed to the progressivity in the
tax system? Underlying the member's motion here this morning is
opposition to that very principle.
The Reform Party, by putting forward this motion and the
arguments I have heard so far, has never once mentioned or
indicated to the House that it supports the progressivity in the
tax system, that those who earn more money have certain
obligations in terms of the tax system.
Could the hon. member across the way speak to that and say that
his party supports the progressivity in the tax system?
Mr. Gar Knutson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you
will find consent for the following. I move:
That at the conclusion of the present debate on today's
opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this
motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and
deferred until Tuesday, March 9, 1999 at the expiry of the time
provided for Government Orders.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased that the Reform Party is giving us an opportunity
to deal with the important issue of tax equity and tax fairness
for Quebec and Canadian taxpayers.
As you probably know, tax fairness has always been a concern for
the Bloc Quebecois. Since the 1993 election campaign, we have
never stopped stressing the need for a personal and corporate
tax system that is based on fairness and equity.
In November 1996, the Bloc Quebecois released a study on
corporate taxation which looked at tax expenditures for
businesses, that is the provisions included in the Income Tax
Act to allow businesses to pay less federal tax.
Less than a year later, we tabled an in-depth report that
reviewed personal income tax and tax expenditures, and in which
we showed the evolution of that tax component since the Carter
report, at the end of the sixties, and the obvious injustices we
found in the tax system, particularly for middle income
taxpayers.
We also proposed corrective measures to the Minister of Finance,
who was favourable to the report when it came out. These
measures are aimed at making the federal taxation system fairer
to middle income earners and a bit less generous for taxpayers
earning $250,000 and up, for instance, or for millionaires and
billionaires.
At the time, we analysed the tax spending of individuals and
concluded that there were $4 billion dollars of tax resources
spent on tax advantages for individuals that were outdated,
exemptions that no longer served the purposes for which they had
been designed.
We took these $4 billion in tax exemptions and reallocated them
within the system. We also generated over $2 billion in savings
that could be put towards tax relief for low and middle income
families and correcting inequities in the system, such as those
denounced by the Reform Party this week.
The Minister of Finance was quite impressed by our analysis and
set up a task force that held closed door meetings for over one
year but apparently looked only at corporate taxation, not
individual taxation, because he did not want to spoil things for
his rich millionaire friends.
1105
This group, headed by Mr. Mintz, an Ontario academic, tabled its
report last year. It has been on the back burner ever since.
This may have been a good idea, because what it contained was
not necessarily what was desired, at least as far as a good
number of the recommendations were concerned.
In response to a very serious need for fair taxation, the
Minister of Finance struck a bogus group that turned out a bogus
report, which led to bogus decisions, for the latest budget
contains no significant personal or corporate income tax
measures aimed at correcting injustices.
There is flagrant injustice as far as the income categories are
concerned. One need only look at the taxation rates by level of
taxable income to see that there is a serious problem. That
problem must be addressed, not ignored or studied by bogus task
forces.
Let us take the example of a family with two taxable incomes of
less than $30,000. Both the man and the woman earn less than
$30,000, let us say $29,500. Their tax rate will be 17%.
On the other hand, for a single earner family whose income is
less than $60,000, that is to say one person who earns under
$60,000, instead of two with a total income of under $60,000,
the tax rate will be 26%. This makes no sense, particularly
since there has been no indexation since 1984.
When I refer to indexation, I do not mean just indexed tax
credits, personal exemptions and other deductions, I mean also
indexation of the various taxation levels.
Since there is none, we find ourselves in a situation where the
17% tax rate this year ought to apply not only to taxable
incomes of $29,590 as it does at present, but to taxable incomes
of $36,918.
In other words, those with an annual single or family income of
between $25,590 and $36,918 ought to have paid only 17% tax this
year, but instead they pay 26%.
Can members see the double injustice here? If we compare a
family with two incomes totalling less than $60,000 and a family
with a single income of less than $60,000, there is a difference
in the tax rates, one being 17% and the other 26%, which is a
blatant injustice.
Moreover, the 17% tax rate would not apply only to incomes of up
to $29,590, but also to incomes of up to $36,918, had full
indexation been in place.
Do members know how many taxpayers are affected by this
situation? If we look at the tax brackets for Canadian
taxpayers, we see that 70% of them are in the under $35,000
category.
This means that if the Minister of Finance had the political
will to correct the gap between families with one income and
families with two incomes, and if he decided to fully index the
tax tables and tax brackets, 70% of all Canadian taxpayers would
benefit from such a measure. This is a lot of people.
However, because the Minister of Finance does not have that
political will, and because of the fact that he has been relying
on economic growth since he took office, the government is
maintaining injustices such as the ones condemned by the Reform
Party and by the Bloc Quebecois since 1993. Furthermore, there
is a lot to be done regarding the tax system.
1110
As I said, we released two in-depth studies on corporate and
personal income taxes, and we found that, in addition to the
injustices being discussed today, the tax system is full of
inconsistencies.
Let us take, for example, the child care expense deduction.
Does it make sense that Canadian families earning over $100,000
save a minimum of $313 in taxes on each $1,000 they spend on
child care, while those earning in the neighbourhood of $30,000
save only $175 for the same $1,000? This is not right.
If the Minister of Finance had done more than just pay lip
service to the Bloc Quebecois' analysis of personal income tax,
he would have corrected this a long time ago. The figures we
provided in 1997 were very eloquent.
We pointed out that 25,000 Canadian couples earning over
$100,000 had reported child care expenses of almost $25 million
in 1993. Their tax savings were $7.6 million.
We are talking about $7.6 million for 25,000 couples earning
$100,000 and over.
If these 25,000 couples had earned around $30,000, their tax
savings on child care expenses would have amounted to only $4
billion, or almost half what those earning $100,000 end up
saving. There is something wrong here.
There are many similar injustices in the taxation system. I am
sure there will another opportunity later on, because we have to
keep bringing these things up, to give other examples of unfair
situations that must be urgently addressed. These injustices
affect low and middle income families and prevent them from
contributing fully to the economic activity of the country.
The government must wake up and take a look at what needs doing
instead of taking advantage of the situation and congratulating
themselves on producing a surplus on the backs of employed and
unemployed workers by dipping into the EI fund. It should be
doing some serious work and not producing the likes of the Mintz
report.
We will be supporting the Reform Party motion and will continue
to work for fair taxes.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this motion has come up in the House over the last couple of
days. The opposition leader yesterday said: “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”.
I believe that is what the member was referring to in his speech
when he compared two $30,000 income earners to one $60,000
earner, the comparative rates.
The member said, if I quote him correctly, that each of the two
income earners earning $30,000 apiece, or just below at $29,950,
the first bracket break, is at 17%. He went on to say, however,
the one income earner making $60,000 is taxed at 26%. I believe
I heard the member correctly. He said $60,000 is taxed at 26%.
Is the member not aware that in our income tax system the first
$29,950 is taxed at 17% and the next $29,950 is taxed at 26% and
anything over $59,000 et cetera is taxed at 29%? Why did the
member suggest to the House that a $60,000 income earner was
paying a federal tax rate at 26% when in fact it is only 21%?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Speaker, I am keenly aware of the
comments and thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to offer
some clarifications on what I have just said.
I know very well that what he has just said is a fact. However,
what I said is that if there are two incomes in a family, both
the man and the woman working, and the family is made up of two
adults and two children, and if the two together earn less than
$60,000, the 17% tax rate applies up to the $29,590 level.
1115
If the income is $59,180, the portion falling between $29,000
and that $59,180 will be taxed at 26%. This is where the
injustice lies. In the first example I gave, a two income
family, the overall tax rate for the two incomes, which together
are under $60,000, will be 17%. If this is one single income,
the part between $29,500 and $59,180 will be taxed at 26%. This
is the first injustice.
There is a second, that I mentioned earlier.
Since there has been no indexation since 1984, not just of
deductions and tax credits, but also of income levels, the 17%
tax rate applies only to $29,590. If there had been indexation,
the amount between $29,590 and $36,918 would not be taxed at 26%
but still at 17%. In other words, a person earning $36,900 for
example would be taxed at 17%, whereas at the present time he or
she will be taxed at 26% on the amount between $25,591 and
$36,900. This is where the injustice lies.
This situation does not affect just a few Canadian taxpayers.
Most Canadian taxpayers earn $35,000 or less. According to
Statistics Canada, 70% of taxpayers earn $35,000 or less. With
just this adjustment to the indexation level, middle income
families would benefit from tax measures.
It would be only fair to them to provide full indexing, as well
as correcting the injustice surrounding the difference between
one family income of under $60,000 and two family incomes
totalling under $60,000.
These two aspects of the tax system must be corrected. The hon.
member should support this, being a member of the finance
committee. With all his talk of fiscal justice, he ought to
support such a measure.
[English]
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion today and to
offer my party's support for it.
We in the NDP are committed to tax reform that is both fair and
progressive. It certainly goes to the root of our party's
philosophy and vision.
We have been long time advocates of tax policies designed to
ease the stress on families and children just as we have been
vocal opponents of policies which discriminate against middle and
low income Canadians and which benefit corporate interests and
the wealthy.
New Democrats have also been aggressive in our support of
children, whether as leaders in the movement to end child poverty
or fighting for a child tax benefit that does not discriminate
against the poorest of the poor or erodes over time because of
deindexation.
We also fully support, for example, the ideas that families
where one parent chooses to work to raise their children should
not be penalized financially for that choice.
That is why we advocate extending the child care expense tax
deduction to all parents, not just those who work away from the
home.
We support that measure because it acknowledges that family
friendly policies, progressive and fair policies, are policies
that focus on children and not necessarily on the working status
of their parents. That is also why we support progress
indicators that are not only focused on the fiscal bottom line.
Current measures of well-being focused solely on GDP ratios do
not recognize the important value of unpaid work to society as a
whole.
By measuring the value of unpaid household work, genuine
progress indicators like the GPI index championed in Nova Scotia
remedy this flaw. Measures like this one allow us more accurate
estimates of our actual growth as a society and should have a
direct impact on social policy and on assessments of our quality
of life and our overall progress as a society.
While the Liberal and Reform parties debate in the House who has
it better, parents who work in the home or parents who work
outside the home, the truth of it is that we are really missing
the point.
The truth gets lost in the platitudes. Even this motion, which
has good points, misses the bigger picture. The truth is that
all Canadian families and kids are under stress. This government
often with the support of the Reform Party has done more to
increase the load than to ease the burden.
1120
There are many reasons for this. For example, incomes are
dropping while time spent on the job is increasing. According to
the recent growing gap report the annual income of the least well
off 90% of families fell in real terms between 1992 and 1997,
most dramatically for the bottom 30% who depend heavily on social
programs and suffer most because of unemployment, while only the
top 10% of families saw a significant increase in income, up
$5,000 to $138,000.
Billions of dollars have been cut from social spending since the
Liberals came to power and increased targeting of programs has
meant that some children are deemed more worthy than others. We
only have to look at affordable day care and decent day care
options to know that this is more and more difficult to find.
Affordable quality child care would ensure that children of
parents who work outside the home are given the necessary early
education and care despite their parents' incomes. High quality
care and early childhood education are critical components of an
integrated strategy to meet the needs of families but
unfortunately the government has chosen to renege on its promises
and it is the children who feel the impact.
We also know that the tax burden for low and middle income
families has also been on the rise. Instead of increasing tax
credits in the last budget for lower and middle income Canadians
who have been badly hit by cuts to social assistance and UI and
the growth of insecure jobs, the finance minister chose to
deliver significant tax relief to high income earners.
Most important, families are under stress and Canadian kids are
suffering because too many government policies and policies the
Reform Party advocate are too narrowly targeted to favour some
families over others. Even Tom Kent, a former Lester Pearson
adviser and one of the architects of Canada's social
infrastructure, blasted the finance minister last week for
failing to better the situation for all Canadian families.
What has been the result of all this targeting and
discrimination that has been designed by public policy into the
system? What has been the result of reducing everything to the
fiscal bottom line? The investment that parents make when they
raise their kids seems to be treated like any other expense and
kids become treated like any other commodity, like a company car
or a business lunch. That was not always the case.
As a society we did not always favour one child over another
because of how parents spend their days. We did not always say
that kids on social assistance did not deserve the same
consideration as kids whose parents were among the growing ranks
of the working poor. We used to have a system tied to
universality where there was a basic understanding within
governments, within public policy, that the responsibility for
raising children was seen as a collective and a community
responsibility as well as a responsibility for parents.
We recognized that the well-being of children has a direct
impact on the well-being of all of us. We used to have a family
allowance for example that was universally accessible and was
tied to support for children, not the working status of parents.
Instead what we are left with in the nineties is a child tax
benefit system that actually discriminates against the poorest in
society because it was designed, not by accident, not to apply to
families on welfare.
People on welfare do not qualify for the child tax benefit.
While the funds will initially be distributed to every child
below a specified income level, provincial governments will
deduct that amount from current welfare payments. That means that
most welfare poor children have gained absolutely nothing from
this plan. It is a system like so many others that is structured
more to reduce welfare rolls and subsidize low wage jobs than to
combat poverty and help children.
Rather than alleviating the poverty of the working poor and the
non-working poor, the benefit is designed to push poor women to
leave welfare and it does not recognize the value of the work
parents do in the home.
Most jurisdictions now have rules forcing single parents on
welfare to look for work once their youngest child has reached a
certain age. Those ages can range anywhere from 6 months to 12
years. This age is actually going down as some provinces become
harsher with people on welfare.
1125
As a result, single parents on welfare are forced to take low
paying jobs even when it is not in their best family interest and
not in the interest of their children. The result is the
percentage of children in low income families has increased from
15.3% in 1989, one in seven children, to a staggering 21% in
1995, one in five children. Since 1989 the number of low income
children has increased by close to half a million or by 45%.
Like the policies this motion refers to, the child tax benefit
is discriminatory. It discriminates against the poor and it
discriminates against an increasing number of children who live
in poverty in this country.
Women who have children are also subject to further
discrimination with maternity benefits. They receive only a
percentage of their salary for the time they take off with their
children, making the economic liability of child rearing that
much heavier to handle. Like any worker, if they do not meet the
stringent demands for hours worked they get nothing.
My colleague for Acadie—Bathurst has advocated eliminating the
new entrant requirement for workers who have left the labour
force to care for children or family members as a first step in
providing fairer coverage for women. Once again it is a policy
that discriminates against some families while favouring others
but in the process does a disservice to all children.
What we need is a much broader approach than the one advocated
by this motion. We need to make children the centre of family
friendly policies that benefit all families in all their
derivatives, be they dual income, single income, lone parent or
extended low income or middle class. We need a plan that
recognizes the importance of all parents, all families, all
children, not just some.
We support this motion because it does deal with one aspect of
discrimination but we must go further. We in the NDP will
continue to advocate for a broader approach hinged on equity and
fairness in our tax structure. We will continue to fight for
plans that do not discriminate some families over others because
they are poor or on social assistance. We will continue to
advocate an approach that recognizes that it is children who are
important, not just the working status of their parents. We will
continue to champion the fact that child rearing is a
responsibility all society must share in.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to the members of the opposition, specifically the
Reform Party and the member of the NDP, I agree with many of the
comments I have heard this morning. Members were talking about
comprehensive tax reform and fixing the inequities in the tax
system.
I find it strange that we are having this debate three weeks
after the budget has been announced. This is like trying to
debate something after it is a fait accompli. The time to talk
about comprehensive tax reform and fixing these inequities was
before the budget.
For three months all we heard from the opposition was gossip on
airplanes, pepper spray, water bombs and other cheap political
tactics. Never once in the three months leading up to the budget
did we have any real solid comprehensive debate on the fact that
our tax act needs serious reform.
Can we count on the New Democratic Party over the next few
months to put a more specific and substantive focus on
comprehensive tax reform, building fairness into the system, so
that we can build toward this for the next budget? On some of
the inequities members are pointing out I tend to share their
views. I think our best hope now for reform is to build toward
the next budget at this time next year.
1130
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
comments. I do not know how often the member has been in the
House to listen to debate. I can say, having been here during
the budget and prior to the budget through all of last year, that
time and time again these issues of discrimination not just
within the tax system but within public policy, policy that has
been developed by the government, have come up in this House for
debate on a continual basis. If the member is asking whether the
NDP is going to continue to raise these issues, whether we are
going to continue to advocate fair and progressive taxation and
an end to discrimination, the answer is absolutely yes.
My question would be when is the government going to listen to
those issues? When is the government going to respond to those
issues by supporting this motion? Will it begin with this one
basic issue that has been identified within the tax system and
then in a progressive comprehensive way say that it believes
there should be child centred policies that support the family
and end discrimination, for example the child tax benefit I
mentioned?
The question really goes back to the other side of the house. Is
the government prepared to listen and take action in defence of
Canadian families?
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the NDP member for her comments. I
appreciated her stating very clearly that we on this side of the
House have talked about this problem over and over again. The
first question was that we have spent too much time talking about
APEC and all of these things. Was it this side of the House that
provided the fuel for all that debate? Did we bring up the
debate? Where did all the fuel for the debate come from?
Ms. Libby Davies: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comments. If we look at all these other issues, whether
it is the scandal around APEC or the role of the Prime Minister's
office, we have to look to the government's actions to know that
members of the opposition from all four parties have had to raise
these issues because Canadians are demanding answers. Whether
it is the scandal to do with APEC and the role of the Prime
Minister's office, or discrimination in our tax system, or
discrimination against poor people, these are issues that demand
to be raised in this House. It is unfortunate the government
member says that we can do either/or. These are all things that
are before the Canadian people.
Today we are debating this motion. Today we are focusing on
this issue and calling on the government to right a wrong. We
are calling on the government to recognize an injustice that
exists. We in the NDP are saying that this has to go much
further. We need to have a comprehensive strategy that says we
believe we need to have child centred policies to promote the
well-being of children in Canada.
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is
with pleasure that I rise to speak on the motion to eliminate the
discriminatory tax treatment of single earner families.
There is no more important fundamental debate about the future
of our country than the debate about the future of the children
of Canada. If one takes the time to review the information that
abounds on this topic, including the Mustard studies, it has been
demonstrated unequivocally that the first three years and the
first six years are the most important years in the development
of a child's cognitive skills and socialization skills. During
that period it is absolutely pivotal that a child have a
stimulating environment in which to develop the type of
creativity and socialization necessary to succeed in an
increasingly complex knowledge based society.
The discriminatory policy against single earner families with
children is one way the government is currently encouraging one
type of behaviour over another.
It is what I refer to as a Pavlovian tax policy which tries to
encourage or push Canadians toward one type of activity and
discourage another type.
1135
Our party believes very strongly that Canadian families should
have the opportunity to make their own choices on these types of
matters and that the government does not have a role in trying to
push Canadian families, for instance in this case to putting
their children in day care when in fact many Canadian families
would prefer one parent to be actively involved and stay at home
to help raise the children.
The C. D. Howe Institute in its recent studies calculated that a
single earner family making $60,000 per year will pay a penalty
of $4,000 per year over what a double income family would pay. A
single earner family at $70,000 would actually pay a $14,000
penalty over what a double earner income family would pay. This
is clearly unfair.
The Liberals point to the child tax credit, and I have heard
this repeatedly over the past few days, as a way to ameliorate
the perverse effects of their tax policy. The fact is that the
tax credit through means testing reduces any benefits to Canadian
families beyond an income of $65,000, actually $67,000. There is
no benefit beyond that. In fact the benefit begins to decline at
the $25,000 level. For the Liberals to point to the child tax
credit as a way to ameliorate or to soften the impact of their
perverse tax policies is absolutely false. It is bogus and is not
reflective of the realities here.
The fact is that on the lower income levels, eight of the 10
provinces are clawing back the child tax benefits from the social
assistance recipients. While the child tax credit purports to
benefit Canadian families and Canadian children directly, it does
not because at the low income level, eight of the 10 provinces
are clawing back the money. Money that was designed to directly
impact the lives of Canadian children is being used to support
provincial bureaucracies. At the middle income levels it is being
clawed back by the federal government so as to not provide that
benefit to families that need it.
Ottawa encourages new parents to put their children in day care.
We believe that families should be able to make these choices. I
think we all know of cases where having both parents working in
professional situations particularly is actually advantageous to
the children. The parents choose to work and they choose to be
self-actualized in a work environment and they choose an
appropriate positive day care environment for their children.
Everyone wins. There is nothing wrong with that.
Some people argue that it is better for a child to have stay at
home parenting. Some recent studies actually demonstrate that
either can work, but it depends on the individual family. It is
important that individual families and parents can make these
choices.
Our party is not advocating a return to some 1950s model of a
Ward and June Cleaver family. This is not what we are
advocating. We are not purporting to know what is best for
Canadian families. But we believe that Canadian families know
what is best for them and what is best for their children and
that they can make those types of decisions.
The tax system should not encourage, in our opinion, either stay
at home parenting or the utilization of a day care system or an
alternative system. We should not be encouraging either. We
should give Canadians the choice. It would be equally pernicious
and counterproductive to have a discriminatory policy against two
income families, because in some cases that may be the best
alternative.
Our position on this has remained consistent from as far back as
August 1996 at our Winnipeg policy conference. I will quote from
a document: “A Progressive Conservative government would
introduce a joint tax return so that single earner households
with dependent children stop paying more tax than dual earner
households with equal incomes”. That was in August 1996.
“Beyond that, a Progressive Conservative government will
introduce a child care tax credit available to parents working
inside or outside of the home to replace the present system of
day care credits”. We have been consistent on that.
1140
I know the hon. member for Mississauga South has worked
assiduously on this issue. “Caring for children is an
honourable profession. Parents who make the sacrifices and
deliver quality care have earned the right to get support”. That
is a quote by the hon. member for Mississauga South who is an
expert in this area and has written extensively on it.
Why does the Liberal government not listen to its own members
who have devoted so much time, research and effort to this cause
and eliminate this discriminatory tax policy that takes choices
away from Canadian families and parents? Ultimately it may
result in Canadian children not having the best possible start in
their lives, particularly in this global knowledge based society
where their cognitive skills and brain power are not only going
to enrich their own lives but will reflect directly on the future
standard of living of Canadians.
This issue currently, and it is argued disproportionately,
affects women. Working women with children, for instance some
argue, are actually paying an incredible cost because not only
are they working hard in the workplace but when they return home,
despite the fact that society has evolved somewhat, they are
still faced with a disproportionate share of work in the home
whether it is with child rearing or other domestic areas. This
is fundamentally unfair but it is a fact that women continue to
share a significant burden both in the homes and in the
workplace.
We have evolved from an agrarian society where men had
significant advantages because people made their livings with
their hands and brute force, to an industrial society where to a
certain extent that may have been reduced but still occurred, to
a knowledge based society today. I would argue that in a
knowledge based society, women will have significant advantages
over men.
On the issue about it disproportionately affecting women, people
should recognize that in an evolutionary sense, in the future
this will not disproportionately affect either sex. Based on the
graduation ceremonies I have been attending over the past several
years for grade 12 and also university, women are winning the
scholarships and the student council presidencies. They are
earning top marks not just in history, arts and English but in
maths and sciences. In the future this issue is going to affect
all Canadians equally regardless of gender.
Some members opposite may say that this motion is some type of
archaic movement by the opposition parties to return Canadian
society to the Ward and June Cleaver family model. I would argue
that from our party's perspective it is a way of effectively
recognizing a societal trend that will benefit all Canadians of
either gender. We also believe that we should start treating all
Canadians fairly and equally and it should start with the
Canadian family. Give Canadian families the opportunity to make
the best choices for their children.
Some will choose for both parents to work and for the children
to have appropriate care outside the home. Some will choose to
stay at home. The best choices can be made closest to the people
affected, the children. Those choices can clearly be made best
by the families of those children.
Let us get away from this ridiculous Pavlovian tax policy of the
government where it believes that it can make the best choices.
Let us return the choices to the people who really should have
had them from the beginning, the Canadian parents and families
for the benefit of Canadian children.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the member for his kind remarks.
I do admit that I have been somewhat preoccupied in my
parliamentary career with families and with children. I agree
with the member that we should not be playing mathematics when we
are talking about the physical, mental and social health outcomes
of children and that parents are in the best position to
determine this.
However, there is a contradiction here because the member does
not like June and Ward Cleaver yet he is advocating choice.
When I think of Leave It To Beaver and that family life, I
am not so sure I have a problem with that choice about a caring
and loving mother and father, about two well adjusted kids, some
friends and a little bit of mischief. I am not sure there is a
problem with that. But I do understand the member and I will not
take him to task on it.
1145
I want to raise with him an issue with regard to the motion
itself to see if he agrees with me. I am personally having some
difficulty with the motion. The motion is so very simple that it
lends itself to having some problems because it cannot cover all
cases.
If the member would consider the situation where two parents
work in the paid labour force and grandma takes care of the kids,
and no payment is made, there is no child care expense deduction.
All of a sudden the mathematics that the Reform Party have thrown
to us fall apart, except for the fact that a one earner family
would pay a slightly higher marginal rate on the amount over
$30,000 versus the two $25,000 of a low income family. If there
are no child care expense deductions and the only other
difference is progressivity, the only way to deal with it is to
advocate a flat tax. The only way we could resolve Reform's
position is by saying that it advocates a flat tax and it
advocates eliminating the child care expense deduction or
extending it to others.
Does the member not agree that the motion is maybe a little too
simplistic and maybe it is a little difficult to suggest to
anybody that it is a solution to anything?
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, I was not attacking Ward
and June Cleaver. Who knows? Perhaps June wanted to work. Maybe
Ward drank a little too much. We do not know what he did outside
of the house. I am not convinced that it was a totally
functional situation. Perhaps it was. But that was television
in the 1950s.
The bottom line is, if June wanted to work she should have had
the opportunity. My point was that choice is fundamental. We
are not advocating a return to the chauvinistic principles and
ideals that may never have existed in the first place.
I believe that this motion is sufficiently vague to represent
the general intent to reduce and eliminate the discriminatory
policy that currently exists toward stay at home parenting.
The hon. member for Mississauga South is an accountant, so I
forgive him for delving into the minutia of the details of
implementation. Perhaps that is why many great ideas that start
with a glistening generality never actually make it to fruition
on the Liberal benches. They become so engulfed in the details
that they never make it happen.
The intent of this motion is clear. The intent of this motion
is sound. And we will be supporting this motion.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was very pleased to hear the hon. member talk about
choice. In my particular case, when our children came along, I
was married to a professional teacher. She was a very
professional mother. We are glad we made that choice.
Would the member not agree that the tax situation we have forces
that parent not to become a professional parent and that they
both have to go out and work simply because of the tax system?
I saw a cute little sign some time ago that I believe belongs on
the other side of the House. I will see if my hon. colleague
agrees: “A woman's place is in the home and she should go there
right after work”. That is the attitude of this government. I
wonder if the hon. member would agree with that.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, after work a woman should
have the right to go wherever she wants to go. That is my
opinion.
With respect to the other issue, the government has clearly
created a tax policy that discriminates against stay at home
parenting.
Further to my point that it should be a matter of choice,
depending on the parents, in some cases it might be better for
both parents to work if the children have appropriate care.
1150
I will give one brief example. My mother and father raised four
children. I am the youngest. Until 1968, for 23 years, they had
a business, a store. My mother was an equal partner with my
father in that store and she worked day and night. The first
three children did not really have a stay at home parent.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
will be splitting my time with the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan.
I thank the opposition parties for supporting our motion and
also for the qualified support of some members on the government
side. I know this is an important issue to many members.
I also want to salute the work of my colleague for Calgary
Centre who has done an outstanding job in supporting families and
bringing light to this issue. It is an extraordinarily important
issue for people across the country. It has not had the light
that it deserves.
In a quick rebuttal to my colleague from Broadview—Greenwood,
many people who have come before the finance committee over the
last several years have pointed to this issue. They have said it
is a problem. The Reform Party has pointed that out in minority
reports. Sadly, it is never reflected when budget time comes
around.
The whole reason this debate is happening today is because the
Reform Party made this an issue. We made it an issue, partly in
response to comments that came from some government members in
the last week, but really because we believe that this issue
simply has not had the scrutiny over the last several years that
it deserves.
We underline the tremendous value of parenting in Canada today.
Reformers believe that the family really is the basic social unit
in society and that we need to find ways to support that unit if
we want to have a strong civil society in Canada. Whether it is
a one parent family, a two parent family, a dual income family or
a single income family, we have to find ways to support those
families. In doing that we end up supporting children and
ensuring that they have a healthy environment in which to grow.
Reformers believe that there is probably no more important job
in the world than being a parent. I have done a lot of hard
things in my life. I have had to get up at four in the morning
to go to work. I have had to hire people and let people go and
do a lot of tough things, but I can say, and I think a lot of
parents would bear this out, that the hardest job in the world is
being a parent. A parent has to know and try so many things.
They have to be a teacher, a health care provider, a bit of an
amateur philosopher, a psychologist, a social worker and the
family historian. A parent has to do a million different things
and there are no guidebooks. It is extraordinarily difficult and
it has always been so.
Today I would argue that it is even more pronounced because
people have to work so extraordinarily hard just to get by.
There are all kinds of polls saying that families are completely
stressed out. Both parents work today, oftentimes not because
they want to but because they have to. One parent has to work
just to pay the taxes because in Canada we punish our citizens
through our tax system. Our taxes are extraordinarily high. They
have to come down. That would help not only single income
families, it would help dual income families as well as
individuals.
I had a young woman phone me today at my office. She and her
husband are both in the paid workforce. She said “Monte, please
make the point that when we go to work we would like to have a
better quality of family life as well, and the way to do that is
to find some creative ways to allow us to spend a bit more time
at home, maybe work from home”. She said that if they were not
taxed so heavily maybe they could work at home. They would not
have to put in as many hours, but they would still have roughly
the same amount of money because the taxes would be lower.
She pointed out that some companies in Canada are doing things
to help people because they recognize that in a lot of cases
women with extraordinary skills are being forced out of the
workforce because they want to spend more time with their
families. In a lot of cases it is women, but not in all cases.
1155
There was an article in Maclean's recently about the Royal
Bank allowing flex time for its employees and Deloitte & Touche
doing the same thing so that they could accommodate the needs of
the people who want to stay at home with their families and at
the same time keep their expertise.
I believe that the government has an obligation to do that.
Maybe it could do that in its negotiations with the public
service. Maybe there are ways to do that for its employees.
A way to help everyone in Canada would be to start cutting taxes
of all kinds. The debate has been a little limited today, but we
need to cut taxes for dual income families. We need to cut taxes
for individuals and, of course, for single income families.
The way this debate arose today, the catalyst for it, were the
remarks that came from the junior minister of finance earlier
this week. Maybe unintentionally, he disparaged the work of
parents who stay at home with their children. He somehow
suggested that they really do not provide a great service. I
would argue that they provide the most valuable service that can
possibly be provided. To raise and nurture children is
extraordinarily important. Any parent or anyone who has been
raised in a family who reflects back on what it was like for
their parents understands how difficult a job it really is.
What do we do about this? The first thing we have to do is
change the attitude that we are seeing from the government. The
minister apologized and I appreciate that, but the minister is
not the only one.
We heard from members of the finance committee last fall in
Calgary. The member for St. Paul's chastised groups who came
forward to argue for fairer treatment in the tax system for
families. She chastised them, saying they were a bunch of elite
white women telling us what to do. She dressed them down.
The member for Vancouver Kingsway said “Being a single mother,
I do not quite see. Most people can combine career and family
life. We know it is very difficult. A lot of times people just
take the easy way out”.
Going home to be with family and to raise children is not the
easy way out. It is the hard way. It is a tremendous sacrifice
to forgo an income to spend time with sick children and to help
children get through the difficult times in their lives. That is
not the easy way out. It is extraordinarily difficult.
Anyone who is a parent will know that if there is something
wrong at home nothing else in the world really matters. When
someone is at work and the children are sick or they are
struggling in school, whatever the problem, nothing else matters.
I say it is a great sacrifice to stay at home to be with the
children. I honour those people who make that decision. Whether
it is the male in the relationship or the female, it is a great
sacrifice.
Let us first change the attitude on the other side. The second
thing we have to change is the system. In last year's budget the
government actually made worse the discrimination against single
income families in the tax system. My friend opposite who has
done a lot of work on the family issue must acknowledge that.
The government increased the child care deduction, but that only
applies to people who make the choice to look after their
children in day care. If they choose to do that, that is fine.
But we are saying, let us give people the choice. If they choose
to use someone else, maybe a relative to look after their
children, or if they choose to look after their children
themselves, they should be treated equitably.
Why is this government making an ideological value judgment that
day care is the best way to go? Let parents make that choice.
Parents know what is best for their families. Let us leave it in
their hands. Let us give them that choice. I think that is
extraordinarily important.
Too often we see the government, the nanny state, saying “We
think it should be done this way, or that way”. We reject that.
Leave the money in the pockets of parents and they will make the
best choices. No one cares more about their families than they
do; not the government, not the heritage minister, the finance
minister or anyone else in government.
1200
We encourage the government to pay serious attention to the
motion which simply asks for an end to discrimination in the tax
system against single income parents with children. It is not a
motion that covers all eventualities, as my friend across the way
has pointed out, but it goes a long way to dealing with a bone of
contention, something that is very important to many people in
Canada today.
I encourage my friends across the way to consider this carefully
and to do what is right for Canadian families.
Mr. Jason Kenney: 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.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened carefully to the member's speech. I thank him for his
kind words. I am not as comfortable with his words which perhaps
attribute or ascribe the views of a couple of people to all. It
is the same kind of tolerance we should demonstrate with regard
to the choices of parents. I will not pit one against the other.
If I disagree with someone I will make my point, but I will make
it affirmatively and not because they are wrong. I take
exception to the yellow part of the speech.
I have presented over 200 petitions to the House since 1993
referring to managing the family home and caring for preschool
children as an honourable profession which has not been
recognized for its value to society and therefore requesting that
the Income Tax Act be changed to reflect equity for those who
choose to provide direct parental care.
I believe all members of this place fundamentally understand
that we are talking about children and we are talking about the
facility of parents to make choices in the best interest of their
children.
I would ask the member a question, however. The aspect of
single parent families or lone parent families is not covered.
There are no child care expenses if both parents work and grandma
is caring for the children. There are jillion other examples
where it is not fair to say to the House that it can done by
fiddling with the child care expense deduction.
Would the member not agree that what is more important is that
we are talking about looking at comprehensive tax reform and not
just tinkering?
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, my friend across the
way points out that many people today pay taxes which makes it
difficult for them to get by. That is kind of what he is saying.
The Reform Party agrees with that. We believe there needs to be
fundamental tax reform and deep tax relief. That is why we have
advocated $26 billion in tax relief over the next three years so
that everyone is better off in the end. We want people, no
matter what their family situation, to have more money and the
ability to go out and carve out the types of lives they want to
live. We want less stress on families and less stress on
individuals. We agree with that completely.
We are not saying that the motion covers every eventuality. We
are not saying that at all. We are saying that this is a
specific matter the government can address. It has the fiscal
wherewithal to do it right now. It has a large surplus. It is a
bone of contention. It cries out for rectifying.
Groups have come before the finance committee year after year
and the hon. member has called for the issue to be addressed. I
say this is a specific thing we can do now. It is within our
grasp.
I call on my friend across the way to embrace the motion and
help make a change. This is his chance to make a change. I urge
him to consider very carefully that now is the time, after all
the petitions and the motions he has brought in, when he can
actually make a change. I call on him to support the motion.
1205
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Madam Speaker, does
the hon. member agree that while we should eliminate the current
discriminatory policy, we should not create another
discriminatory policy which actually favours single income
families?
I was the youngest of four children. My mother was a great mom
and was also a partner in a business for the first three
children. She worked hard as a mother. She raised me as a full
time homemaker after they sold their business. My three older
siblings ended up being very successful and I ended up in
politics. I am not certain we should necessarily be encouraging
one or the other if it has that kind of effect.
Mr. Monte Solberg: Madam Speaker, that really is a tale
of woe. I am sorry about the member's position. I agree we
should treat all people equally in the tax system. That requires
a lot of changes. We need to do a lot of work. We need to have
a real fundamental discussion about how to do that.
The first step could be some of the things proposed today by my
party, by the member's party and others. I encourage the
government to open its mind. There is a huge majority of
Canadians are onboard in this regard and the government would do
itself an immense favour if it voted in support of the motion.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is a real pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak
to the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Calgary
Southeast. I am sure all hon. members of the House would agree
that the motion and the debate today are not just about taxation
but also about the family.
I have a huge stake in the Canadian family. I have eight
children, as I have said before in the House. There is hardly
anything that goes on in the country that I do not have some kind
of opinion on because those eight children usually involve me in
all kinds of things.
In my family of eight children we have two who are now married
and have their own families. One family is a single income
earner family. Another family is a two income earner family. My
wife has been a stay at home mom for a number of years. With
eight children that was very important. I think I know a bit
about the kinds of huge pressures on family life today.
If there is anything we can do as parliamentarians in this
place, it should be to pass legislation that helps the family.
The family is still the essential building block of society. If
we take away the family or damage the family unit in some way, we
damage the country, the nation, the society we all love very
dearly. This is not just about taxation; this is very much about
the family.
Over the past several days and even today a number of hon.
members opposite have talked about the wonderful budget of 1999
that is good for all Canadians. However, there is a group of
Canadians for which the budget is not so good: single income
families.
We have to get the facts before the Canadian public. If single
income families earn $50,000, they will pay almost $4,000 more in
tax than if both parents brought in the same $50,000. The common
sense of the people ought to prevail. Surely we can see this is
not right. It does not make sense.
The Liberals should not only take my calculations in this
regard. They could listen to other authorities in the country
who feel the same way: the C. D. Howe Institute, the Fraser
Institute, the Vanier Institute or Statistics Canada.
According to these authorities and numerous others, the family as
a whole is paying more in taxes and the single income family is
paying more than the dual income family earning the same amount.
1210
What sparked the debate today were the remarks of the Secretary
of State for International Financial Institutions. I do not want
to go back over the words that he said. They have been replayed
on every television channel across the country, but what he said
sparked a huge debate.
Quite frankly I hear from people in my own riding, as I am sure
other members in the House have also heard, that Canadian stay at
home parents are outraged by this kind of statement. Whether or
not the secretary of state meant it in the way he said, it was
said and it has produced outrage.
Is this how little the government cares for Canadian families?
Is it indicative of how little it cares for children? Children
are very much a part of this debate. Is it how little it cares
about changing the burdensome tax system it has created?
Actions always speak louder than words for any of us. If the
government truly wants to change the public perception of the
Income Tax Act in this regard, it has to change it. It has to
produce action.
As I said before I understand these matters quite a bit. My
wife has been a stay at home mom for a number of years. At a
certain point in our lives she made the decision to quit her
registered nursing career and stay at home with our children. We
have fostered for many years and have many children in our home
now because of that.
What did she do when she chose to give up her career, for which
I salute her today? She chose to give up her career as a nurse
in a hospital to be a full time nurse, chef, domestic engineer,
entertainer, chauffeur, counsellor, comptroller and administrator
with a host of other full time duties in order to raise our eight
children. If that is not work, what is? That is work. When my
wife heard the words of the parliamentary secretary we can
imagine the deep groan that came from her.
Mr. Gar Knutson: The Secretary of State for International
Financial Institutions.
Mr. Reed Elley: I know there are probably times when
these families have questioned which is easier: to remain as a
stay at home parent or to stay in the workforce. It is a
decision that many Canadian families have to make. The real
question, however, perhaps should be: Which is more worthwhile
to them personally? How do they want to raise their families?
I acknowledge that many families do not have the option of
having stay at home parents. There are many single parent
families in Canada today, and for these families the parent must
play the part of both mom and dad. They must be the breadwinner.
They must attend to the multitude of needs of their children. In
many other situations both parents need to work outside the house
to make ends meet financially, and I salute these people.
It is interesting to note that if Canadian families had their
way and the opportunity to do what they wanted in this situation,
70% of women have said that they would stay at home if they had
the choice. In a 1994 Angus Reid poll 77% of Canadians said the
individual or family should have the primary responsibility for
child care.
Throughout the budget process we have heard about the need for
equality among Canadians. What we are speaking about today is
not equality; it is inequality. Simply stated, Canadian families
that are able to make the choice of having one parent at home to
raise their family will pay more tax than the family that earns
the same total amount of money through the combination of both
parents. The government penalizes them for wanting to raise
their own families. It is as simple as that. Is that equality?
The government claims that it has balanced the books. The
budget has been balanced at the expense of Canadians, not at the
expense of the government.
Let us look at how the budget has been balanced: 76.7% of the
balancing came from higher tax revenues; 14% came from slashing
health and social transfers; 7.2% came from cutting transfers to
individuals; and a minuscule 2.1% came from cutting federal
spending. This government should be ashamed for even bringing
this budget forward with these kind of statistics. The hon.
members opposite face some very serious questions not only here
in the House but in their own ridings. They will have to answer
to the Canadian public for this kind of juggling of the figures.
1215
If we are to fully grapple with the question of applying tax
equality to all families we need to look at the benefits to
society offered by stay at home parents. We have seen from
previously mentioned reports that this is not the choice of 77%
of Canadian women. The question begs to be asked why they do
return to the workforce. They have to go to work because they
are taxed to death. That is the reason one of the members of our
family circle has had to go back to work. The mother of that
family has had to go back to work because her family has simply
been taxed to death.
That is unacceptable. We must have comprehensive tax reform
that brings equality to all families. The motion today is a
small step along the way to achieving that. I ask all members to
support it.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest as the member spoke on this issue.
This motion talks about discrimination and it is founded on the
concept of discrimination when in fact no discrimination exists.
The member gave the example of a $50,000 single income family
and then compared that to two people making $25,000 each. The
reality is a married couple with $50,000 and only one earner
would always have the potential to send the one at home out to
work. So it is not $50,000 to $50,000, it is perhaps $75,000 to
$50,000 which is the whole premise of his argument. It is idiotic
and the motion is idiotic.
I did the same thing. My wife stayed home during a certain
period of my career. That was a personal choice we made. We did
not come to the Government of Canada and ask if it could
subsidize us somehow. They are really saying that working men or
women are allowed to claim child tax credits and are also allowed
caregiver credits, and they think this is improper.
If the discrimination argument were reversed they would be
saying we should not give those people who are working the right
to claim day care expenses of up to $7,000 per child. This leads
into the last part of his argument that 70% of women would gladly
go back home. I do not buy that. The argument is that women do
not choose to go to work but that they are forced and driven out
of their homes by the taxation system to go to work. There are
many women, and I know thousands, and many in my family, who
choose to work. They want to work and they want to be part of
the workforce. They want to contribute to society in that way.
We all contribute in our own way. Some contribute by staying at
home, others contribute by interfacing in the workforce.
Is the member not really asking if we can get all these women to
go back into the kitchen? He is not talking about
discrimination. He is talking about a way of life he would like
to live that existed a hundred years ago. That is where he wants
us to go. He is a revisionist. I would like the member to give
an answer to that.
Mr. Reed Elley: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his comments but I do not think he is living in the real
world. There are all kinds of families in this country that do
want to see fairness in the tax system for the very reason we are
sharing today.
1220
A recent issue of Maclean's magazine, which he may or may
not have read but should, indicates a sociological trend in our
country where many women who have been in the workforce for a
number of years are now coming to the realization that whether
they want to be out there or whether they were forced to because
of the economy, it is simply more fulfilling for them in many
cases to stay at home with their young children, and it is a lot
better for their children.
Therefore in order to make that choice of going from the
workforce back to the home they are now faced with a
discriminatory tax system that will penalize them for going back
into the home. They have made the choice, and no one has forced
them, to go back into the home and now this taxation system
penalizes them.
The member across the way is not in touch with the reality of
today. Times change, things change and what was good between
1960 and 1970 may not be good today. That is what we are asking
these members to open their minds to and take a look at.
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am delighted for many
reasons to respond to the motion put forward by the hon. member
for Calgary Southeast.
It is really nice to know that the opposition party suddenly
cares about women. This is a party that talked about women as a
special interest group for so very long that I am delighted to
hear that it has suddenly recognized that women exist and have
complex issues to face in our society.
What is intriguing is that, as usual, the party takes what is an
extremely complex issue and puts it into a very simplistic way.
There is a danger in that because when we take complex issues and
deal with them in a simplistic manner we quite often make worse
the disparities that have occurred in a society as a result of
those complex issues. We tend to bring the wrong measures to
correcting things and make them far worse.
We have to look at the complexity of the issue. That is why I
am glad to speak to this today. I would like to inform the
members across the way about the complexity of the issue.
The issue is about valuing unpaid work done in our society. When
hon. members talk about single income families, what they need to
understand very clearly is that single income earning families
come in many shapes and sizes. They are not only the single
income family in which one parent stays at home and looks after
the children and one parent goes to work.
There are single income families that have no choice about going
to work. I would like to inform hon. members that these are
called single parents. They have no choice about going to work.
They go to work because there is no one else to do so. They
cannot afford to stay at home. Eighty per cent of these families
tend to be made up of women and about 60% of them tend to be in
very low income jobs.
These single income families are the ones that are to benefit
most by what this government has done to deal with the issue of
single income families, i.e. the national child benefit. These
single income families earning $20,000 a year will be able to get
$1,800 for their first child and $1,500 for the second child.
That is $3,300 a year, which I think is a fairly good way of
assisting people in supporting their children.
This is not only about families and the complexity of the single
income family. It is also about the issue of ensuring that
children are taken care of. Whether a parent is forced to work
because he or she is a single parent or whether a parent makes
the choice to work in the paid workforce, these are the
complexities of the issues.
I want to make sure members across the way understand the
complexity of the issue before they try to apply the usual
simplistic band-aid solution that they do to everything they
discuss.
The issue therefore is how do we value the unpaid work that is
done in our society mostly by women.
1225
For members who do not know what the government has been doing
about this because they have never cared about women and consider
them to be a special interest group, this government has led the
world, literally, in valuing unpaid work. We were the first
country to put questions in the 1996 census about unpaid work,
the amount of unpaid work in families looking after children,
seniors and those who are ill.
The second thing we have done is a great deal of analysis with
communities living in the real world. There is a group that has
being doing a lot of work on unpaid work in partnership with the
government. It is called Mothers are Women. It tends to want to
look at the issue of unpaid work, which the people across the way
should talk about. Unpaid work is not only done by women. There
are some men who still do some of the unpaid work and stay at
home and look after their children. I hope those gentlemen across
the way would be pleased one day to stay at home and look after
their children. I wonder if this would happen.
What is the government doing for that group? Right now if one
chooses to drop out of the workforce to look after one's children
there is something called the Canada pension plan. I bring that
to members' attention. It is the only insurance that allows for a
child rearing drop out. It allows for the person to get out of
the workforce, stay at home and look after their children. They
do not lose the benefits that accrue to give them a pensionable
income at the end of their lives. This is an extremely
progressive form of assistance.
The other one is when people drop out of the workforce to look
after children they can have up to five years away from the
workforce. Then they can go back and be retrained to get back
into the workforce if they so choose.
This is all about choice. This is all about ensuring that
Canadian families, the complexity of them, the multiplicity of
them, have the choice for any parent to stay at home if they
choose. We also have something called parental leave that
addresses that issue. Either parent can take parental leave to
look after their children.
We have the Canada pension plan that gives them the ability to
stay at home and look after their children. Employment insurance
gives up to five years of leave. We also have the national child
benefit that values single, low income earner parents in the
workforce to get up to $3,300 for two children. Those are some
things the government is doing.
The issue is how do we talk about the income tax system which
the hon. members have been talking about. Let us look at what
happens when we have a two parent, one income family with two
children making about $60,000 and a two parent, dual income
family making about $60,000. Hon. members across the way are
absolutely right. If all we do is look at how the income tax
system treats these parents, the single income, dual parent
family does a lot worse than the dual income, dual parent family.
We are back to choice. There are some families that cannot
choose to have both parents stay at home because they need to
work to bring up their children and do some of the things they
want to do to give their children a better chance in life. In
those families, other than the income tax, when we factor in
payroll deductions, the cost of quality child care for those
children, the dual income family is way behind the single income
family by about $3,500 to $3,800. This is a complex issue. If
we did the simplistic response hon. members across the way would
have us do we would now have made that dual income family worse
off than it is today.
1230
The issue is complex. We need to look at the issue in its
fullness so that we can talk about the complexity of the issue.
The point is that the government has been looking at the issue in
many ways.
In one of the first chances we had we looked at how we valued
the unpaid work that persons do in society. That was when the
Minister of Finance, in his budget of 1998, gave a $400 tax
credit to persons who looked after the seniors and the disabled
in their families. That was a first step.
We are still looking at the issue because it is complex. We
want to make sure when start valuing the unpaid work done by
whomever that it is done in such a way that we do not make worse
the situation of people who are suffering disparities right now.
I want to inform hon. members across the way about the issue in
all its complexity and let them know what we have been doing so
far on this issue and to make them understand that the single
income family comes in many shapes and sizes. It is not only
about one person staying at home while one person goes to work.
We want to talk about the new policy measures we can take as a
government to encourage the connection between non-paid and paid
work. Forty-five per cent of women today are in the paid
workforce. We know that these same people have to go into the
communities, do their paid work and come home and do the unpaid
work as well. These are the kinds of things we want to look at.
How do we value the unpaid work? We are talking about choices.
The statistics prove the incontrovertible evidence of one of the
great achievements of the century now drawing to a close. Women
know more now about freedom, flexibility and choice. They can
decide to pursue a career in the paid workforce or to dedicate
themselves to raising their children or to volunteer within the
community. That is another area of unpaid work that is being
done. In fact, some women in Canada do not just one but all
these things.
Let me make very clear that the government recognizes the
valuable work being done by women and men in the home. In
today's debate I hope that both sides of the House will send a
strong signal across Canada to all women that we respect and
support the decisions they make, whether they choose to go into
the paid workforce or whether they choose to stay at home. It is
about respecting choices, not about forcing people to do one
thing or the other.
The Government of Canada is measuring and valuing unpaid work.
As we create public policy our role as government is to ensure
that government is a force for good, that government makes good
public policy, not just policy because we want to throw a
band-aid at the issue or not simplistic policy as the hon.
members across the way would have us make. We want to make good
public policy that will eventually ensure that as time goes on,
and very soon within the next century, men and women will be able
to make the choices they want about going into the workforce or
not.
The reality remains that we do not have the resources to do
everything we can to provide Canadians with the kinds of
initiatives which would help families to ease their burdens
whether they are engaged in paid or unpaid work. The government
knows that this is a challenge and that more has to be done.
We are committed to doing it as resources permit. We are not
committed to doing what hon. members across the way would have us
do. They would have us increase the disparity which now exists
within families that go into the workforce and between dual
income earning families and single income earning families in
spite of their complexities.
Let us look at the real cost of providing for one's family. Have
hon. members taken into consideration how much money a dual
income earning family or a lone parent earning family has at the
end of the week for day care needs? When other factors such as
that are taken into consideration, dual income earning families
as we know have very much less after tax disposable income than
single income earning families with two parents.
I want to make a distinction between single income earning
families with two parents and single income earning families with
only one parent, the worker in the paid workforce and the unpaid
worker, at the same time.
1235
If we treated the single income earning two parent families
equally, it would not achieve equity. I repeat that we can treat
people equally and not achieve equity because it is a very
difficult idea for hon. members across the way to get their heads
around. It is very complex.
There is a difference between treating people equally and
achieving equity. The government is committed to equity. In
spite of the different barriers that people face, we are
committed to achieving equity regardless of whether barriers
exist because it is a single income earning one parent family,
because it is a dual income earning two parent family or a single
income earning two parent family, or whether they are disabled or
their race, culture or language are problems in the workplace. We
are talking about equity. That is something I want that group to
understand. One size does not fit all.
Perhaps the hon. member's solution would be to eliminate paid
child care as a cost of employment in the tax system. Are hon.
members across the way talking about eliminating paid child care
as a tax deduction? That would surely equalize things. It would
create equality as they see it. It would, however, increase the
disparity to no end between parents who must go out into the
workforce, single income earning or not.
That would be another way to apply the illusion of equality in
the system. It is all about illusion; it is all about smoke and
mirrors across the way. It is all about pretending to care. It
is all about talking about complex issues in a very simplistic
manner that will make it worse for families with children.
The Canada pension plan recognizes non-financial contributions
to families, as do the child rearing dropout benefits, the
maternity and parental benefits, and the divorce law. I suppose
hon. members did not even factor them in. They were just looking
at one small component of transfers and how families have net
incomes. It is not just the income tax system that deals with
the income of families. It has to do with benefits, with pension
plans and with transfers to individuals. It is very complex.
The divorce laws should be brought into this debate. I want to
talk about when a family breaks up and how the children are cared
for in the family. In that family there may be still be only one
income earning parent who is no longer living in the home. How
does that parent ensure there is income in the home for the
children. The divorce law looks at that and divides the pensions
equally so that the spouses who do not go out to work and look
after the children have something in the end when they retire.
It is complex. It has to work in the progression of the life
cycles of Canadians. We cannot simplistically look at one spot
in the life cycle of Canadians. Any policy affecting unpaid work
must be guided by the principles of equity and fairness. It must
recognize the different situations of women and men who may be
full time homemakers and women and men who work for pay and at
the same time provide care to dependants.
I reiterate that in spite of what we hear today from opposition
members, Canada is a recognized leader in how we measure and how
we value unpaid work. Everyone talks about how Scandinavia has
been doing very well, and it has. The Scandinavian countries
have done a great deal to look at the issue, but they are not
world leaders in looking at the issue of valuing unpaid work. We
are. They are getting their information and analytical stuff
from us so that they can start looking at how to make good public
policy.
Our efforts are ground breaking. They are varied and they will
continue. Hon. members across the way may scoff, but they scoff
because they are ignorant of the issue. Because they believe
women are a special interest group they have never bothered to
look at the issue, never even bothered to consider it or analyse
it in the great policy analysis they do. Women do not figure in
their policy analyses.
Let us not forget they do not know so they can scoff: ignorance
is bliss and 'tis folly to be wise. I can never accuse hon.
members opposite of being too wise.
1240
This is the first time in Canada that we have been looking with
the provinces at economic gender indicators. We measured the
time spent doing unpaid work whether or not one was in the paid
workforce. It was the time spent and the value received. The
provinces worked together very closely in that regard. Canada
hosted an international symposium on the issue last year. We
attended and conducted workshops.
I do not think hon. members opposite have anything new to teach
the government. In fact they might learn from us. I would be
pleased to give hon. members a briefing any time they wish.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am one of the hon. gentlemen across the way. I hardly
know what to say about such a shameful diatribe from the
secretary of state.
I would like to say something in defence of my brother who is at
home right now looking after an infant and a toddler while his
wife works as an occupational therapist. I noticed the minister
has a stereotype that it is only women who choose the option of
household arrangements to look after their children. I remind
her that is not the case. There are families that make choices
for their children and for themselves in a variety of ways.
I was a single income parent after the death of my husband.
Somehow for the last speaker to suggest that anyone who talks
about single income families as being exclusive of single parent
families certainly does not respect the life experience I have
had.
I would like to ask the secretary of state a question. She
talked about parents who choose to stay at home as though somehow
they were opting out of life by spending a period of time giving
care, guidance and training to their children, as my brother is
doing. In the same breath she said that we should not force
people to do one thing or another.
If low income families with one or two parents pay $3,000 or
$4,000 more in tax because of child care choice a or save
$3,000 or $4,000 because of child care choice b, how is
that supporting and allowing proper choices and equality of
choices in the country?
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I sometimes think I speak in
a vacuum and that it must echo across the way very hollowly. What
is interesting is that I reminded hon. members opposite that some
men stay at home, look after their families and do the unpaid
work. I clearly said that. Maybe the hon. member was asleep at
the time.
If the hon. member understands so well that some stay at home
parents or some single income parents happen also to be single
parent families, she should explain that to her members because
they have been mixing up the words single income family and stay
at home mom in their speeches all morning. As far as those
members are concerned, those words can be substituted for each
other. Maybe the hon. member might want to tell members opposite
the truths of life.
I also think the hon. member talked about making judgments.
It is the opposition members who make judgments. I think
families should be able to make choices, whatever their choices.
1245
Staying at home and looking after the family is a valid choice.
It is a good one to make. That is why this government has been
doing the groundbreaking international work on unpaid work in
this country. We do understand there is a lot of unpaid work
done by men and women. The reality is that the majority of it is
done by women, but men do it too. We are interested in doing the
right thing.
The hon. member talks about paying $4,000 for child care versus
not paying $4,000. I do not know where she is because people
cannot pay $4,000 a year for child care any more if they want to
have someone look after their child properly. It costs about
$1,000 a month. It costs about $800 a month minimum for a child
in this country. Let the member do her math: 12 times $800
equals $9,600 a year. That is a lot of money. That is not
$3,000. That certainly is not all deducted within the income tax
system.
That is what it costs a dual income earning family when they go
out to work. That is, in terms of treatment, what puts them
behind the single income earning two parent family. That is what
I took pains to repeat. I thought I was repeating myself too
much, but it is obvious I did not say it over and over enough
times. I do not know the number of times it would take to get the
information across.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
very much appreciate the comments of the Secretary of State for
the Status of Women.
An important point which stuck with me is the complex family
structures we have these days. There is no single tax burden or
initiative that is going to make everything equal and equitable
for everyone. We have to look at it in the context of tax
measures and non tax measures as well as other social policy and
economic initiatives. I congratulate the Secretary of State for
the Status of Women.
The secretary of state is responsible for the status of women.
This morning in the Globe and Mail I read a piece that
concerned me a bit and I hope she will be able to help. I am
sure mothers have read this and I am sure that Mothers Are Women,
Kids First and other groups have read it. It quotes a report from
the status of women. I do not know who wrote it. It says that
any new measure targeted only at parents who stay at home to
provide care to children would only further reinforce barriers to
employment by reducing the incentive to engage in paid work.
This says to me that what we have now represents incentives to
go to paid work and if we do anything for those who choose to
stay at home, that incentive would be a negative.
I need some help from the Secretary of State on the Status of
Women on this issue.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, that was a very good question
the hon. member asked.
First and foremost, the sentence is taken out of context. It
was the Government of Canada's response to the United Nations on
the issue.
There are many people who have never been attached to the
workforce who have stayed at home to look after their children.
When they want to go into the workforce they would like the
ability to have incentives to get the training they need. We
also must be careful as we balance the incentive and the
disincentive that we do not go so far as to create a
disincentive.
That is simply what that means, that we must be very careful
that we make sure choices are equitable and do not counterbalance
it in one way or another. There is a risk of doing that if we
only look at the income tax system as the way to deal with
transfers to individuals in our country. That is what it means.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to follow up on this last exchange. There is a point I need
clarification on.
It is quite clear that the secretary of state indicated that the
incentive was to encourage people to enter the workforce. That
of necessity says if we are going to give an incentive, we are
going to put money, presumably with a tax break, a direct credit
or whatever, toward helping people leave their families so they
can go to work.
1250
To me, it looks as if the government, if not forcing people to
go to work because of economic constraints, is directing economic
benefits to those who do in order to somehow achieve this goal.
I have a problem with that. I would like her to clarify exactly
what she means by this.
Hon. Hedy Fry: Mr. Speaker, I thought I just did. I
thought I answered the hon. member's question.
It is not about incentives, it is about disincentives as well.
We must be careful in very complex situations to make sure that
we balance incentives and disincentives so that there is not a
higher focus on one. We do not want to create disincentives for
people to enter the workforce if they choose. Why would any
thinking group want to do that? Nor would we want to create
disincentives for people to stay at home if they choose. It is
about making sure that we have disincentives and incentives which
do not counterbalance each other. If someone wants to go back
into the workforce, and we know there are lots of single parents
who stay at home or parents who say they do not want to go into
the workforce afterward, we need to give them incentives to do so
when they choose to do so.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, certainly there seems to be a great deal of
defensiveness on the part of the government about a very simple
concept of ending discrimination. I always thought that we would
have a great deal of support on the Liberal benches for any
attempt to end discrimination. Apparently not. Apparently this
has generated all sorts of resistance.
The motion today is very simple. It is not simplistic, but
simple. The tax system should be reformed to end discrimination
against single income families with children. I am at a loss to
understand why there would be such resistance and such anxiety on
the other side.
I notice that on the other side when the position is
indefensible, members opposite will misrepresent the position of
their opponents and then attack that rather than try to defend
their own position or even put forward, God forbid, a
constructive alternative. No, what they do is misrepresent and
then they attack the misrepresentation and they are the heroes
again.
It is an old tired tactic. It is not going to work in this case
because there are thousands and thousands of families in this
country who at one point or another decide that the best
household arrangement they can make is to have one of the parents
care for the children of the family. They want some value
attached to that choice. What they do not want is for that
choice to be penalized, to be discriminated against.
Members of the government can protest all they like, but this is
precisely what they are doing and have done for years and are
refusing to stop doing, in spite of the fact that parties like
our own have spent a great deal of time bringing this
discrimination to the attention of government, to the attention
of those who structure our tax system. We are simply asking for
fairness, for an end to discrimination for people in our society
who choose to spend a period of time for whatever reason caring
full time for the children of a family.
It seems to me to be a concept that should be readily supported
by the members opposite, but instead we hear some very, very
strange language over there. We just heard a member talking
about the workplace. Excuse me, but how many parents do not
think that the place where they care for their children is a
workplace? One works when one is caring for children. It is a
workplace. It is time we recognized that it is a workplace and
that that choice of work, if not being paid, should at least not
be penalized.
1255
The secretary of state went on at some length about all of the
international work that Canada is doing to give value to unpaid
work, which is very nice. What puzzles me is why we would put so
much effort in that direction but fail to do the simple ordinary
things that can be done through our own tax system at least not
to penalize the people who are engaged in very important choices
in our society.
The parliamentary secretary said that treating people equally
does not mean equity. Is that not an interesting concept? How
much discrimination in our society in the past has been justified
by just such a specious argument as that?
If we are going to end discrimination against choices, if we are
truly going to allow and validate free choice in our society
about the best way to spend one's work time, particularly if that
involves our own children, then surely ending discriminatory tax
arrangements would be our number one priority. However, here we
see the Liberal government members tying themselves in absolute
knots trying to avoid the issue that we are laying on the table
today.
I would like to mention that this has been an issue for
Canadians for a long period of time. In 1994 a group of
Canadians very close to this House, in the riding of
Lanark—Carleton, raised an issue through the political process
of my own party, the Reform Party. The issue concerned a young
family in that riding.
The family had made the decision that one of the parents would
work in the home full time giving care and guidance to the
children in the family. Because of that work choice, the family
felt very naturally that it should be given the same value as a
choice of work would be given to any other Canadian. They made
an arrangement whereby the parent caring for the children would
be paid a salary from the other parent and the tax deductions and
arrangements were claimed on that basis.
To the intense chagrin, disappointment and sorrow of this young
family, Revenue Canada denied this arrangement and won the court
case, a case which cost the family money it could ill afford but
brought to make the point. The family then sought to redress the
situation through the political process. They went to their
local constituency association, explained the discrimination they
had experienced and asked that policy making be put in place that
would redress the situation.
The constituency association drafted a resolution and submitted
it to the policy making process of the Reform Party assembly. The
resolution was very simple. Often there is nothing complex about
these issues, in spite of the protestations of government which
seems to find complexities wherever it does not want to find
solutions. The resolution stated, “The Reform Party supports a
revision of the federal income tax regulations to end
discrimination against parents who provide child care at home”.
This resolution went forward from the Lanark—Carleton
constituency association. It was one of mine that was put
forward. This went to all the other constituencies taking part
in the assembly. The constituencies then ranked the resolutions
that came forward. Three of the Lanark—Carleton resolutions
made it to be debated, discussed and voted on at the assembly.
One of those three resolutions from Lanark—Carleton was the one
I just read.
From 600 resolutions that started at the constituency level, 40
reached the floor of the assembly by having levels of support
suggesting that members of our party decided that they were
important enough to debate. This resolution was passed at our
assembly and is now part of Reform Party policy and has been
since 1994. I will read it again. The Reform Party supports a
revision of the federal income tax regulations to end
discrimination against parents who provide child care at home.
This has been part of our policy and part of our election
platform. Through the tireless efforts of people like the hon.
member for Calgary Centre this issue continues to be raised and
will not go away. There can be all kinds of rhetorical evasions
on the other side. There can be all kinds of misrepresentations
and purple prose and trying to invoke the ghosts of old
stereotypes but the fact is our party lives, as all Canadians do,
in the society we have today where there are, as the hon. member
for Mississauga South just mentioned, a variety of family
arrangements. What we are proposing today is that these
arrangements should not suffer any undue discrimination.
1300
What kind of discrimination do they suffer? Perhaps hon.
members will listen again to this. Federal tax, prebudget, paid
by one earner families of four with a total income of $50,000 was
$7,116. Post-1999 budget it was $6,464. The bottom line is one
earner families paid 91% more tax after this budget than a two
income family. It is unfair. It is discriminatory. We ask
members to support us in putting an end to it today.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
when I first spoke today I suggested we would hear some unanimity
or some consensus in the House on how important it was to provide
quality care for our children regardless of how parents chose to
provide that care.
I am working out some numbers. For someone who makes $25,000 a
year, after doing the full tax return here I find that they pay
$4,469 in income tax. They have also paid CPP and EI. Their net
cash in pocket from a $25,000 a year job I calculate to be
$19,168. It is a lot of money. It is insulting to suggest with a
child care tax deduction which for a $25,000 a year person would
give them a benefit of about $1,700, federal and provincial about
25%, that their decision to provide direct parental care is
driven by $1,750. I cannot in my heart believe it.
I believe that parents who choose to provide direct parental
care do it because it is their family value. They believe it is
their choice in the best interest of their children that they
provide direct parent care because they believe it has a direct
impact on physical, mental and social health outcomes of children
and what we are really talking about are the outcomes of children
here, not about taxes.
I ask the member whether she would not agree that the tax
consequences we are talking about here are really minor when we
consider the net income a $25,000 a year job would generate, that
the economic sacrifice being made is far greater than the impact
of a tax deduction.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I find it a little sad
that the member would suggest that if parents really believe in
this it does not really matter if there are financial penalties
applied because they are doing what they believe so that is a lot
better than money in the bank.
I am sorry, that certainly is not good enough. Parents also
value being able to put a roof over their children's heads, feed
them milk, clothe them and make sure they have opportunities to
develop their skills and abilities through training, through
recreation, through the kinds of things we do in society.
1305
If the member is on the track that discrimination in the tax
system is fine because they have the intrinsic emotional reward
of doing what they think is best, surely he is joking.
We have a government that unfortunately does take this attitude.
For example, the government starts clawing back the child tax
benefit when income exceeds as little as under $26,000. The CCTB
supplement is phased right out when the family income exceeds
just under $21,000. Imagine trying to raise a family on $21,000,
but this government seems to feel we do not need this child tax
benefit supplement, which it is so proud of, if we earn over
$21,000.
The member who just asked the silly question about the reward of
looking after children being far bigger than something financial
said on July 22, 1998: “The bold reality is that our Income Tax
Act does discriminate against families that choose to provide
direct parental care”. This same member proposed that Ottawa pay
parents who make this choice $50 a week. Clearly he does not
believe his own rhetoric that somehow there is no financial
dimension to this choice. I suggest he abandon that nonsense
right away.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to first respond to an assertion made by the
member for Mississauga South. I sort of agree with his line of
thinking. He said that families choose to have a parent stay at
home for reasons other than tax benefits, in particular family
values and decisions they have made about the worth of having a
parent stay at home. I absolutely agree with the member if that
is what he believes. I am sure the member for Calgary—Nose Hill
agrees with that. It is not a tax driven decision when parents
make that decision. We can agree on that.
I want the member to also agree with me given the clear evidence
in his tax policies that once a family has made the decision to
have a stay at home parent in a single income family that the tax
system of this Liberal government, the member's government, then
penalizes it for that decision. That is what it is about. It
is about the penalty the Liberal tax regime imposes on two parent
families that choose to have one parent working in the workplace
at home raising the kids because of values and decisions and one
parent out working in the general workplace outside the home.
The government penalizes them for that decision.
Let us agree on that. We can agree that it is a decision made
by the family in the best interest of the family. We can all
agree on that. If we can agree on that then we have to agree,
given the evidence in the Liberal tax policies, that a family of
four that chooses to have one parent stay at home with a single
earner income of $55,000 a year is penalized to the tune of some
$4,000. That is the whole point of this.
Let us not be confused by all the rhetoric we heard from the
Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women
who I believe is completely out of touch with the ambitions, the
goals and the dreams of the average Canadian family. She
verifies that statement every time she stands to speak in the
House.
1310
My personal opinion, although I know it is shared by many
Canadians, is this tax discrimination, this tax penalty does not
stand alone as sort of a single thought. I believe it is part of
an overall scheme of social engineering that began back in the
mid 1960s with the hero of these Liberals, Pierre Elliott
Trudeau. No other person in this country set out to purposely
destroy the family as we know it as Pierre Elliott Trudeau did.
He alone was the driving force that has fuelled the Liberal
government's scheme to initially drive the second parent out of
the household, to separate that second parent from the
responsibilities and the ability to nurture and guide their
children in the values that made this country strong in the first
place.
It is far more than this penalty. This is a continuation of a
social engineering plan put in place by the Liberal government
under Trudeau back in the mid 1960s. This government is carrying
on that social engineering plan very well.
Why does it not want a parent at home? If there is not a parent
at home, if both parents are working, it takes away from the time
the children have with their parents to look to them for
guidance. It takes away from the strength of the family. It
takes away the togetherness of the family unit, the strongest
building block we have in our society. At one time we had far
more building blocks, far more family units than we have now.
The member from Mississauga South agrees with us. He knows
families with a stay at home parent on a single income are
discriminated against by the government. I will tell the House
how he knows it. He said it. He agreed with us. He said on July
22, 1998, and he will remember this: “The bold reality is that
our Income Tax Act does discriminate against families that choose
to provide direct parental care”. His Liberal colleagues are
all shaking their heads saying how could he make such an
outlandish statement. I believe that if the member from
Mississauga South looks into his heart he knows about the value
of the whole part of our argument. He knows we are right.
The problem is with the majority of his colleagues. I say
majority because there are some members who do not because of
their beliefs hold positions of any great authority in that
government. If there are free thinkers in the Liberal caucus, if
there are members who cling to some traditional values, they do
not get very far in that government. I congratulate the member
for Mississauga South, even though his talk is a little confusing
today, and probably a half dozen or more in that government who
have had the courage to stand up for their deepest held
convictions. Mr. Speaker, you know the value of standing up for
your deepest held convictions. I know you appreciate those few
members in that party who do as well.
The real nut and bolt in this thing is the tax penalty, the
fine, the levy, the increased tax burden placed on two parent,
single income families.
That is the whole point of it.
1315
There is a severe penalty to pay if any Canadian family makes
the decision to have one parent in the workplace and one parent
at home. There is a single income. There is a severe penalty to
pay.
It seems to every logical, common sense, grassroots, ordinary
Canadian to be a travesty, to be an injustice in this country
that this government would lay that upon a family which makes the
decision to have a parent stay at home to raise the kids while
the other parent is out earning a living.
Just think of the sacrifice that parents make when they make
that choice. There could be two parents who are capable of
earning, say, $50,000 a year each because they have gone to
school. They have an education. They have training. That is
$100,000 in gross income they could be bringing into the
household. But they say no because the nurturing, the guidance,
the care of their children is more important. One of them will
stay at home. That is a tremendous sacrifice they make from a
financial point of view.
Then they find, after they have made that decision, that the
Liberal government imposes a penalty on them on top of what they
have already given up. I cannot believe the insanity of whatever
weird logic the government used in that decision.
I cannot and I will not, when this motion of ours comes to a
vote, understand any government member who votes against it. I
will not understand the logic of any member of parliament in this
House who votes against this motion.
Our party and this member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley will
stand up for Canadian families in this House now and forever.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for Prince
George—Bulkley Valley for his comments. Being from B.C. at one
time, I have travelled through his riding quite extensively. It
is a beautiful spot in Canada.
One thing he keeps mentioning, and I have heard it on several
occasions, is that a person who stays at home has made a terrific
sacrifice. On an economic level, he is correct. When my wife
and I made the decision to have children and to have one of us
stay at home, we never considered that a sacrifice in terms of
the economy, we considered it an investment in the raising of our
children.
I thank the Reform Party for bringing the motion forward today.
I can stand here quite proudly and say that I wholeheartedly
support it.
We know the Liberals discriminate when it comes to pay equity
for their own workers. We know they discriminate when it comes
to regional rates of pay. Why does he think it is any different
to discriminate on a tax basis?
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the
hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for reminding me—and I
certainly agree with him—that it is not only a sacrifice, but
there is real value and reward in having one parent stay at home
if a family can make that sacrifice.
I agree with the other points that he made as well. The fact
is, today we are talking about the Liberal government and the
penalty which it has imposed, the levy it has heaped upon
families who choose to have one parent stay at home and a single
income. That is the motion today.
The other comments that he made I am sure we will deal with as
this parliament goes along. I thank him for his support of the
motion.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think the member was right in his assessment on where my heart is
on parents who choose to provide direct parental care.
However, one of the things I have learned is that one does not
pit one group against another. We should not make judgmental
calls on people's choices. We should be promoting flexible
options and letting parents make the choice.
When I started in this place I pushed on the discrimination
side. I continue to deliver on behalf of my constituents and
Canadians from all provinces who want me to table petitions on
discrimination against stay at home moms.
1320
But the member will know that one of the major changes made in
the last couple of federal budgets was the increased investment
in the Canada child tax benefit of $1.7 billion. It is fully
available to those making under some $25,000, and in fact people
earning up to over $60,000 are still getting some benefit. It
was primarily directed at those families who had lower and middle
incomes. The value of that, as the secretary of state laid out,
is very significant. In fact it is greater than the value of the
child care expense deduction.
I believe the member should look more carefully at not just what
happened in the tax act, but what has happened since to other
non-taxable benefits. He will find that the attitude of the
government has been to put the interests of children first
because, according to our commitment to the UN on the rights of
the children, children have the first call on the resources of
the nation.
I ask the member to be very judicious in suggesting that somehow
I do not agree with one item. I put it in the whole context and
say that kids are being treated fairly.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the values of
the member for Mississauga South, but unfortunately he has chosen
to do what every single Liberal who has spoken today has done.
They have not been prepared to address the direct thrust of this
motion. They have talked all around the whole system as it
pertains to families, but they have carefully avoided the very
particular part of the tax system that our motion refers to.
The hon. member for Mississauga South knows very well that in no
part of my presentation did I attempt to pit families against
each other because of their choices to have both parents in the
workplace or one at home.
The Liberals themselves since 1965, since Mr. Trudeau, have
deliberately pitted themselves against Canadian families,
particularly against single income, two parent families. The
Liberals have done the pitting.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for
Mississauga West.
I am delighted to speak to this issue as a mother who works
outside the home and as a very proud mother of three wonderful,
talented, brilliant, charming and intelligent children, ages 17,
14 and 9.
The diverse and changing nature of working family life in Canada
poses ongoing challenges to policy makers. With limited
resources, government priorities have placed an emphasis on
assisting families in greatest need.
The government has taken direct action to help low income
families with children through the Canada child tax benefit which
provides a special supplement of $213 per child under the age of
seven for families that do not claim child care expenses.
Thanks to the 1999 budget, by July 2000 a typical one income
family will be receiving better than twice the amount of a
typical two income family for the Canada child tax benefit. The
figures show $2,610 per year versus $1,270 per year. Indeed with
the measures announced in the last three budgets the Canada child
tax benefit will be enriched by $2 billion by the year 2000.
Canada provides a range of income tax in children's benefits,
but our tax system is based on individual taxation and a
progressive tax rate. Moreover, when the real cost of child care
in dual earner and lone parent families is taken into account,
these families have relatively less after tax disposable income
than single earner couples.
If paid child care was not recognized as a cost of employment to
the tax system it would constitute a serious barrier to women's
employment.
With regard to pensions and retirement, parents who stay at home
to care for children are recognized in several ways. Parts of
the retirement system provide a basic benefit for all residents
and an income tested guaranteed minimum income.
1325
There are also provisions for an income-earning spouse to
contribute to a private registered retirement savings plan for a
stay at home spouse.
The Canada pension plan also has specific provisions for parents
who care for children at home. The child-rearing dropout
provision, for example, ensures that parents who are able to
contribute little or nothing to the plan while caring for a child
under seven are not penalized when future benefits are
calculated.
Employment insurance benefits in Canada provide temporary income
replacement to individuals who qualify. To qualify for benefits
a parent must have been engaged in insurable employment prior to
the birth or adoption of their child. Maternity, parental and
adoption benefits do, however, provide income replacement for
mothers and fathers who temporarily withdraw from paid work,
including part time work, to care for their infants.
In addition, parents who stay at home after their benefit period
has ended are eligible for up to five years to access a range of
measures to help them return to employment if they should so
desire.
Our government also continues to assist Canadian children and
youth through a variety of programs. I am very proud to speak
about the community action program for children and the Canada
prenatal nutrition program which are jointly managed by the
federal, provincial and territorial governments and which provide
the kind of support that families need to help their children
have a good start in life.
The 1997 budget announced increased funding for these programs
of $100 million for the next three years. In the 1999 budget the
Canada prenatal nutrition program was further enhanced. It
received an additional $75 million over the next three years to
reach many more high risk pregnant women. This is a program of
which many constituents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park are
beneficiaries. The community action program for children and the
Canada prenatal nutrition program benefits the women's health
centre and the Parkdale Parents Primary Prevention Program, which
is known affectionately as the “five Ps”, and which works
out of St. Joseph's Health Centre in my riding. It is a
wonderful program and has assisted many, many young children and
pregnant women at high risk.
We should also remember that we have Canada student grants of up
to $3,000 a year which are available to both full time and part
time students in financial need who have children or other
dependants.
Let us look at the Liberal government's tax principles. The
Liberal government's tax is based on three fundamental
principles. First, our tax system must be fair. Tax reductions
must benefit first those who need them the most, low and middle
income Canadians.
Second, broad based tax relief should focus initially on
personal income taxes. That is where the burden is the greatest.
Canadians should pay taxes consistent with their capacity to pay.
We have a progressive tax system in Canada.
Third, because of our debt burden, broad based tax relief should
not be financed with borrowed money. The elimination of the
deficit in 1997-98 allowed the government to introduce measures
providing for broad based tax relief. Targeted tax reductions
into critical social and economic concerns are our first
priority. Our government has put in place a responsible fiscal
policy that has allowed us to preserve the valued programs that
matter most to Canadians. Targeted tax relief has been provided
for students, for charities, for persons with disabilities and
for the children of parents with low incomes.
The Liberal approach has been based on results. With an
improved fiscal situation over recent years, the Liberal
government has been able to offer targeted tax relief where the
need was the greatest. With the budget balanced, the government
is in a position to do even more, and not on borrowed money.
The 1998 and 1999 Liberal government budgets will provide tax
relief of $3.9 billion in 1999-2000, $6 billion in 2000-2001 and
$6.6 billion in 2001-2002, for a total of $16.5 billion over
three years so that all Canadian parents, those who stay at home
and those who work outside the home, have more money in their
pockets.
As the financial resources permit, general tax relief will
continue to be provided, the priority being personal income taxes
for middle and low income Canadians. Families with incomes of
$45,000 or less will have their taxes reduced by a minimum of 10%
and in some cases more.
Typical one-earner families with two children and incomes of
$30,000 or less will pay no net federal tax.
Families with incomes of $45,000 or less will have their taxes
reduced by a minimum of 10% and in some cases even more.
1330
As a result of the 1998 budget, 400,000 lower income Canadians
no longer pay any federal income taxes. The 1999 measures will
ensure that an additional 200,000 lower income Canadians will no
longer pay federal income taxes. That brings to 600,000 the
total number of taxpayers removed from the tax rolls due to both
budgets.
We welcome a debate but we will not exploit it as a way to
divide Canadian parents and Canadian women whose top priority, be
it at home or outside the home, is giving their children the best
future they possibly can. Let us start on that debate now.
Let us look at the disadvantages of dual earner families, people
who have to pay for child care, people who do not have the
ability to stay at home. We have talked many times about looking
at having the whole child care benefit totally tax deductible.
As we want to encourage women to export abroad they will be away
from home more. We need to make sure that we have in place the
good care givers and that those expenses can be deductible and
have the same position as the cost of a secretary or the cost of
janitorial staff.
Let us open the debate on what else we can do. Let us look at
what we can do to make sure that we have in place all the things
that are needed to provide the best for our children.
I would say one thing to the members of the Reform Party. I
welcome this opportunity to look at all the ways we can best
assist our society in making sure that our children are taken
care of.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, certainly family issues have been a big concern of mine
since I was elected in 1997. They are a big concern for my
riding.
My riding is not particularly wealthy. There are many people
with average or lower incomes. Child poverty has been brought to
my attention many times over and over, both through the school
system and by individual parents. People have also brought
forward the unfairness of the tax system that is in favour of the
two income families and discriminates against one income
families. Does the member not appreciate and agree that if this
discrimination was removed, child poverty would be lessened in
Canada?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question about child poverty.
As a mother who works outside of the home, I have always felt
that as legislators, as policy makers, when we look at questions
of child poverty or abuse against women and children, we have the
duty to do everything we possibly can to ensure that we foster an
environment to promote the economic independence of women. When
we can foster the environment where women can walk away from
abusive situations, it will be the children who will benefit. It
will be those children of single, dual or whatever parent who
will benefit. I again would welcome how we do that as a
government through our tax policies.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, one of my favourite backbenchers of the Liberal Party is
speaking again today. I do appreciate the fact that being a
mother of three she has a great concern for this particular
subject.
My question is very simple. She admitted that we have to work
more. We have to find new solutions to help not only dual income
earners but also the single income earner with a family. Why then
did her government break its 1993 promise for day care facilities
across this country to help those people who are in poverty and
in tight situations? Why did her government break the day care
promise which was the red book platform?
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question.
When we talk about child poverty and our promises, we promised
that we would put in the Canada child tax benefit. The Minister
of Human Resources Development yesterday in the House spoke about
how consultations were made on how to best deal with child
poverty.
The answer was $850 million in the child tax benefit. In the
following budget there was another $850 million, totalling $1.7
billion. In the 1999 budget we have another $300 million.
1335
I would say to the hon. member not only are we honouring our
promises to combat child poverty but we have done it in every
single budget we have looked at in the last three years.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I think the
member missed the question so I would like to rephrase it. The
question was, why did the Liberal government promise day care
spaces in the 1993 election campaign and then break that promise?
That was the specific question. I would like to know the answer.
Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had answered
the question.
We were talking about dealing with child poverty. We have put in
place many things to assist parents who want to go back to work.
We have Canada student grants as I indicated. I do not understand
why the opposition does not acknowledge the tremendous benefits
of the Canada child tax benefit. Perhaps it is because the
Reform Party voted against it time and time again, but now the
Reform Party is coming out as a saviour of children.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it appears that we have another day in la-la land with the Reform
Party motion. Somehow it has arrived on the road to Damascus to
some great revelation that it has compassion.
The Reform Party will recall that yesterday the Minister of
Health announced a new policy to allow for the medicinal use of
marijuana on a pilot project basis. I am curious if the Reform
Party caucus might not be one of the first pilot projects.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am listening very carefully to the comments of the
member for Mississauga West and I am trying to see how marijuana
has any relevance to the topic before the House. The member is
not addressing the—
The Deputy Speaker: I know that there is always some
latitude allowed in debate. The hon. member for Mississauga West
has only had the floor for 40 seconds. I think it is
understandable that perhaps he has not quite reached the topic he
is going to address which is the motion before the House. I know
he will.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, their strategy to rise on
some nonsensical point of order in an attempt to disrupt the flow
of my speech will not work. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, will
rule them out of order as they continue with this frivolity.
The point is what this motion is about. The member for Calgary
Southeast is trying to put forward a softening image. Perhaps he
is trying to launch his campaign for leadership of the Reform
Party. He is trying to show that he is compassionate man. For
the member for Calgary Southeast to be giving advice on whether
or not people should stay home with their children is not unlike
a Catholic priest giving marital counselling. I would suggest
the member should talk to people who have actually walked the
walk and talked the talk. Any attempt to try to define the
Reform Party as compassionate will be seen as nothing more than
an oxymoron which is exactly what it is.
An hon. member: Moron is a great word.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Moron, or maybe we should delete oxy,
I am not sure.
We know for a fact that the Reform Party's policies would hurt
children in this country. The Reform Party has consistently
voted against measures announced and taken by this government
that benefit children. And Reform Party members chirp on.
Normally what we see on opposition day from the Reform Party are
motions to cut this or cut that, to spend this or spend that. I
do not know how Reform Party members would pay for the tax cuts
they talk about when in fact their tax position would benefit a
family earning $215,000 in exactly the same way that it would
affect a family earning $15,000.
The Reform Party's tax policies would benefit the rich. Reform
members know it. It is flat line.
Of course that is fitting with their flat earth mentality.
1340
We understand that they do not understand a progressive tax
policy that benefits people who need it. Child care, day care,
child tax credits; they vote against all of them; they talk
against all of them. For them to all of a sudden arrive in this
place and try to tell us and Canadians that they indeed are
kinder, gentler, more caring and softer does not add up.
Members opposite have proposed in the past that 50% of what they
refer to as a surplus should be used to reduce debt. Another 50%
should be used to reduce taxes. A third 50% should be used
toward health care. Another 50% should be used to cut defence
spending, to cut the heritage ministry, things that they get on
as their hobby horses. Now they are trying to perpetrate what
amounts to a fraud that they somehow care about children.
And here we go with a point of order.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I could handle the hon. member's lack of knowledge of
mathematics, but I cannot accept the word fraud to be used in
reference to my party.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that word has been used
quite a lot and I have real difficulty ruling that one out of
order. I think that perhaps we have to be a little tougher in
our thinking, but I have heard it used in relation to many
parties in the House, including that of the hon. member for
Prince George—Bulkley Valley and the government party and some
of the others. I do not think the point of order is well taken.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, in that case do I have your
approval to use the term stable waste when referring to the items
in his speech?
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member will not want
to get into that discussion.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, whatever it is, it is
probably on the hon. member's boots. I would have a look. In any
event we know where they spend most of their time and what
certainly clouds their thinking.
Let me share if I can some of the other so-called progressive
tax policies the Reform Party would try to sell to people during
an election campaign. The Reform Party opposed all positive
initiatives by the government, everything that we have introduced
to enhance the lives of children.
Reform Party members voted against the child tax credit. Why
would they do that? They voted against funding a community
action program for children. Unbelievably they voted against
funding for prenatal nutrition care. Yet today, as I say, they
somehow miraculously have arrived at this wonderful position that
they are the saviours for stay at home parents and their kids.
Who do hon. members think might have faced the brunt of a $3.5
billion cut to the social assistance program? Might it just be
children in need? I suspect it might. That was a policy of the
Reform Party. Maybe the Reform Party has cancelled that policy.
It is one of those “we have got principles and if you do not
like them we have got others”. Maybe Reform has done that.
Maybe the Reform members have made that shift, but I have not
heard it in terms of anything they have said in here.
How would Reform Party members propose to cut $1 billion in
equalization payments to the have not provinces and another $1
billion to aboriginal programs? Does it occur to them that
cutting $1 billion out of aboriginal programs might have a
trickle down impact on aboriginal children, some of whom are the
most needy children in this country?
One of the Reform Party's basic principles, as I said before,
would give the same benefits to a family earning $215,000 as one
earning $15,000. How can Reform members possibly justify that
and then stand here as if somehow they have a plan that will help
families and it will save taxpayers?
The Reform Party in putting this motion forward is calling for
$26 billion in tax cuts, $19 billion to pay down the national
debt and an additional $2 billion for health care, yet it wants
to eliminate government revenues. If Reform members had it their
way, as those of us who had the wonderful privilege of being at
the united alternative conference saw—and I see the member for
Markham who was with us—they would simply turn everything over
to the provincial governments.
The opening keynote speaker for their wonderful conference was
the Premier of Alberta. Guess what. He thinks Alberta should
run the country. It is quite clear this is a provincial
parochial minded group of politicians who only want power for the
provinces. They think that the federal government should be
eliminated.
1345
Who do they think would be harmed by user fees and two tier
health care? If families with three kids have to go to emergency
they pay user fees. Alberta tried to bring in user fees and this
government said it could not do that. It was this government
that said it was violating the Canada Health Act and that
Canadians would not stand for it. It was this government that
made Alberta retract that decision.
Who would be hurt? Might families with three kids, with or
without stay home mothers, be under some duress if they had to go
to hospital and fork out money for user fees?
They want to take a balanced, progressive tax system and turn it
on its ear because they have come across an idea they think is
politically sexy and politically attractive. It is not based on
party principles. They did not hear it discussed at the united
alternative conference which clearly failed because they could
not take two rights and create a wrong. That will not work, but
that is what they tried to do.
They did not hear this kind of moderate social policy at the
conference. They did hear Premier Klein try to convince members
in the united—
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Would you clarify for the House whether this member is hopefully
sharing his time?
The Deputy Speaker: He has a 10 minute speech and has a
minute left in his time.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I have only one minute
left. I know they will be disappointed.
I am attempting to point out what I think most Canadians
understand. They cannot say cut, slash and burn on one side of
the coin and then somehow try to pretend that they are a new
image, that they are softer, kinder and gentler. We know better.
Some 30 years ago my wife and I made a very difficult decision
that she would stay home with our kids. It was a good decision.
I have three young men of whom I am very proud. I believe that
by my wife's staying home for many years in their formative
years, with great assistance from me, actually helped raise what
I consider to be a pretty darn good family.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Deputy Speaker: In view of the enthusiasm we will go
with one minute questions and one minute answers.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am our party's social policy critic. The last speaker
chose to parrot the misrepresentation put forward yesterday that
the Reform Party was not supportive of the national child benefit
and other programs and voted against them.
I have two question for the member. When did we vote against
programs that we agree with? That never happened. He also said
something about the Reform Party cutting social assistance
programs. What happened to the cuts his government made to the
health and social transfer which supports welfare programs in the
provinces?
How can he accuse other parties of doing something which they
have not done and defend the cuts that his government has made to
social assistance?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I did something really
radical. I read the blue book, the policy book. Some of them
should. I hate it when people actually read the stuff we put out
and expect us to stand behind it! It is really difficult.
In their policy program in the last election campaign were $3.5
billion in cuts to social assistance. The member can deny that
her party voted against the child tax credit, the prenatal
program or any of this.
The facts speak for themselves. Members of that party simply
vote negatively the minute they get out bed every morning without
any thought of the consequences and the impact on children and
families.
1350
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I am quite taken aback by the fact that the hon. member
said it was a difficult decision to raise his own children. My
wife and I decided to raise our own children and it was not
difficult to make that decision. It was an honour and a
privilege we had raising our own children.
I did some reading as well. I read the 1993 red book of the
Liberal Party. My question was not answered before by the member
from Parkdale so I would like this member to answer it now. Why
did the Liberal government break its promise on day care
facilities for Canadian families?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, talk about
misrepresentation. Let us be clear. The difficult decision that
my wife should stay home with our children was a financial one.
It simply meant that we had to make sacrifices financially. I
say that it was the right thing to do and a good thing to do.
The member should not try to pretend, as NDP members often do,
that they sanctimoniously have that particular market cornered.
Many of us on this side have made decisions like that to raise
our families. There is no question they are tough decisions. It
is easier to just stick to the income side of it.
On the issue of what the government has done, the government has
realized that we cannot function with a $42 billion deficit. The
government came into office and realized that we owed it to
Canadian families and Canadian children to be able to afford to
provide day care programs, to be able to afford to provide social
assistance, to be able to put money back into health care as we
did in the last budget to which members opposite are opposed.
We have to make tough decisions in government, unlike members
opposite who will never find themselves in those difficult
decision making positions.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I sat here and listened to the hon. member's speech. He
talked eloquently about the caring, sharing aspect of the Liberal
government when it comes to families.
Let us look at their tax situation right now. Let us look at
what it has created. It has created child prostitution. It has
created children being out on the streets. They are called
latchkey kids.
Let us talk about the caring, sharing member over there who
turned down help for hepatitis C victims and who turned down our
motion to stop child pornography. It is dead against families;
that is all the government has ever been since I have been in the
House.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see
that at least I am raising a bit of passion although it might be
somewhat misplaced. The government has put the ship of state in
the right direction. We have built a financial foundation that
will serve Canadian families for years and years to come.
When the member attempts to do what others have suggested, that
is misrepresent the position of the government, he knows it is
nothing more than hyperbole and nonsense. The government is
committed to families, to children and to this great country.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is time to educate the member across the way. It is
the Reform Party that stood for fiscal responsibility because
fiscal responsibility is social responsibility. We ended the
decades of Liberal fiscal overspending that compromised social
programs.
The Reform Party prefers the national head start program which
will have one of the biggest positive effects on children that we
have ever seen. The Reform Party is defending aboriginal women
by voting against Bill C-49. The Reform Party wants to scrap the
Indian Act because it is racist. The Reform Party wants to
decrease taxes for the poorest in the country because they are
the most compromised.
Those are the facts. The member should put that in his pipe and
smoke it.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a
question, but I am delighted the member used the word racist
because I would not want to use it. The member failed to point
out that, if given a chance, his party would have cut a billion
dollars out of the aboriginal budget.
It would have slashed those programs.
1355
Many of those members represent communities with many aboriginal
Canadians living in them. They stand here unashamedly and try to
perpetrate a fraud, as I said before, on Canadian people that
somehow they are responsible and compassionate. I do not buy
that and neither do Canadians.
The Deputy Speaker: I think we can call the debate
concluded at this point.
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very brief
point of order. I think the words “perpetrating a fraud”
crossed the boundary of parliamentary language.
The Deputy Speaker: I heard the hon. member very directly
say “try to perpetrate a fraud”. I see quite a difference
there. We have heard this word several times in the House over
the years and I do not think I will rule it out of order today.
We will call the debate to a conclusion and move to the other
proceedings that normally take place at this time of day.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NORTHEAST COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Northeast Community Health Centre in Edmonton North opened on
January 27, 1999. It is an example of the great things that can
be done when people work together to provide better health care
services for the 21st century.
This centre is unique because it provides many services in one
location. These services presently include doctors for
pediatric, child, adolescent and family care; nurses and other
health professionals for immunization and well child clinics;
preschool speech and language services; pre and post-natal care;
mental health therapists; laboratory collection sites; and a
dietitian, social worker and addictions counsellor. Soon a
24-hour emergency room will open as well with more specialized
clinics for women and seniors.
Congratulations to the volunteers and staff who had the vision
and who worked for over 15 years to plan and build this modern
and innovative Northeast Community Health Centre. Once again
Edmonton leads the way in providing a new generation of health
care services for a new millennium.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
following our government's commitment to health care funding in
the budget, the health minister was recently in Vancouver to
announce two innovative projects in health care.
The Minister of Health supported the establishment of a centre
of excellency for prostate cancer research in Vancouver. In
total, $15 million has been committed to this research in Canada.
Minister Rock also announced the government's support of $2
million for Rick Hansen's neuro-trauma research which will
benefit Canadians with spinal cord injuries.
The Speaker: I remind hon. members that we do not use
each other's names in the House; just our titles.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians will join the world next Monday, March 8, in
celebrating International Women's Day which grew out of women's
struggle for better working conditions in the mid-19th century.
Women organized protests over low wages, long working days, lack
of equal pay and inhuman work environments. Along with protest
came progress and the realization that the battle for equality
must continue.
In 1977 the United Nations passed a resolution calling for
countries to celebrate a day for women's rights and international
peace. Since that time women all over the world have come
together to celebrate International Women's Day.
This day is a celebration of ordinary women as makers of history
and is rooted in the centuries old struggle to participate in
society on an equal footing with men.
As we celebrate international women's week in our workplaces,
communities and homes, let us reflect on the challenges that we
face before women reach full equality in our society.
* * *
CULTURE
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the United States is the most influential exporter of
culture and attitudes in the world.
1400
Historically, culture and commerce are linked. When Washington
exalts free enterprise, the rights of the individual to do
business can override government authority.
While this ethos is central to American culture and lifestyle,
the widespread availability and eager incorporation of American
values by other cultures can be destabilizing. Reaction against
American cultural imperialism is building. UN sponsored
conferences on preserving national cultures are proliferating.
Canada is not alone in standing its ground to protect our
definition of cultural industries. France and Mexico are
examples of nations initiating measures as well.
Amid the disorientation that can come with globalization,
countries need cohesive national communities grounded in history
and tradition. It is a recognition of this necessity—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Egmont.
* * *
LIBERAL PARTY OF NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this weekend
in Halifax hundreds of Nova Scotia Liberals will come together to
hold the annual general meeting of the Liberal Party of Nova
Scotia.
Run by Premier Russell MacLellan, grassroots Liberals from
across the province will engage not only in mundane
organizational business, but in a program designed to provide
input into the programs and policies of the Liberal Government of
Nova Scotia.
This democratic exercise will allow the party to renew and
re-energize itself before the upcoming session of the
legislature. A jam-packed agenda will provide a forum for
everyone in attendance to not only make their personal
contributions, but to avail themselves of the experience and
expertise of their fellow Liberals.
This will be especially true for young Liberals since a major
focus of the convention is directed toward youth.
On behalf of my colleagues in the House of Commons and the
Senate, I want to congratulate Premier MacLellan, party president
Lloyd Campbell and co-chairs Eleanor Norrie and Claude O'Hara on
their initiative and wish them and their fellow Nova Scotians a
very successful convention.
* * *
HEALTH CARE
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is a crisis taking place in health care that
nobody is talking about and that is the critical shortage of
medical specialists that we are going to have in the very near
future.
Take nephrology, for example. We are losing twice as many
nephrologists each year than we are actually training. The
majority of these kidney specialists are over the age of 50.
Against this backdrop is a massively increasing demand. In fact
the demand is increasing at a whopping 12% per year.
The situation is only going to worsen as our population ages and
the incidence of diabetes increases. This critical shortage of
specialists affects not only nephrology, but also orthopedic
surgery, neurosurgery, general surgery and other medical
specialists, including the nursing profession.
The failure to invest in medical specialist training today will
cause the suffering and death of many Canadians tomorrow. I
implore the federal government to work with the provinces to deal
with this situation today for all Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
ELECTORAL RULES AND PRACTICES
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
allegations of practices that are questionable to say the least
have cast serious doubts on the result of the November 30
election in the riding of Anjou.
According to information recently made public by the media,
Liberal organizers engaged in the fraudulent practice of buying
votes, by paying imposters to cast ballots in the stead of duly
listed voters.
Such actions are unworthy of our democratic values and hark back
to an era we thought was well behind us, raising concerns about
the methods used by certain apparently unscrupulous organizers
to achieve their ends. Such revelations call out for a
crackdown on electoral practices.
Only a public inquiry into this shocking affair will eliminate
the shadow now cast over the election results in certain ridings
and alleviate our concern about similar goings-on during the last
referendum, when a mere 25,000 votes separated the two sides.
* * *
[English]
THE LATE JACK WEBSTER
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Jack Webster, who died on March 2 of heart disease at the age of
80, immigrated to Canada from Scotland in 1949.
He first worked as a reporter for the Vancouver Sun, but
it was later as a radio and television broadcaster that he really
left his mark, pioneering the open line show format and inspiring
a generation of broadcasters.
Ferociously combative but with a colourful imagination and
robust sense of humour, he liked to tilt at windmills and
challenge the status quo. In a real sense he anticipated the new
people's power, the late 20th century emphasis on direct public
participation in community decision making.
* * *
DRUNK DRIVING
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to introduce two very influential Canadians sitting in the
opposition gallery. They are different in many ways.
1405
Ken Roffel is a gentleman with his fair share of life's
experiences. Sharleen Verhulst is a young lady who has many
years to yet experience life. They have one thing in common.
Ken's son Mark was murdered by a drunk driver. Sharleen's sister
Cindy was also murdered by a drunk driver. Both Sharleen and Ken
are here in Ottawa today to save lives. They are presenting
recommendations to parliament's justice committee to change our
drunk driving laws.
Canadians will gain from Sharleen's and Ken's dreadful
experiences. They are speaking for Mark and Cindy and tens of
thousands of Canadians who cannot be with us because of drunk
drivers. Sharleen and Ken are important. They are dedicated.
They are what we are here for. They are an inspiration to us
all.
* * *
STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, next Monday in this House we will see a sure sign that
spring is coming to Ottawa. The Prime Minister will celebrate
International Women's Day by having every woman Liberal MP he can
find stand to sing the praises of the government.
Instead of stage managing the chorus line, this government
should be acting to support women in their right for equality;
acting to ensure fair treatment for older women by abandoning its
plan to raid public service pension funds; acting to keep its
endlessly delayed promise to women in the public service and
deliver pay equity; acting to give women working in the home the
respect they deserve for doing the most important job anyone can
do, raising the next generation; and acting to end employment
insurance rules which discriminate against women.
Canadian women are tired of words. What women want and demand
is action; action that helps them feed themselves and, most
importantly, their children.
* * *
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
his last budget, the Minister of Finance announced an important
measure to help Canadian families.
The child tax benefit means that taxpayers with dependent
children pay lower taxes than those whose income is the same but
who do not have dependent children.
I remind the House that the Canadian government set aside $850
million in assistance in 1997 and that it announced an
additional $850 million in the 1998 budget.
The 1999 budget sets aside another $300 million for the child
tax benefit, which will help two million low- and middle-income
families.
These are some of the things our government is doing to improve
the quality of life of Canadians.
* * *
[English]
THE REGION OF PEEL
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the region of Peel and the Peel regional
police are celebrating their 25th anniversary.
The population has grown from 275,000 in 1974 to over 900,000 in
1999. The diverse ethnic groups represented at every level of
government is clear proof of the community's tremendous tolerance
and compassion.
Year long activities include Brampton Canada Day celebrations
and other community events, such as the publication of a book
highlighting local success stories.
Finally, I would ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating
Peel's professional, financial, religious, educational and
municipal sectors, including the Peel police, for their valuable
contribution toward making Peel's first quarter century a huge
success.
* * *
[Translation]
PREMIER OF QUEBEC
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the inaugural speech by the Premier of Quebec was far from
impressive. In it, he announced that he would step up efforts
to attack the federal government and to sell the concept of
separation.
This sounds more like a speech to a partisan sovereignist group
than a speech by a government.
One would have liked the Premier of Quebec to state his
intention to work in good faith with the federal government in
order to settle some major issues.
One would have liked to hear his proposals for at least
attempting to improve Canadian federalism.
One would have liked to hear Lucien Bouchard telling us whether
he would respect the decision taken by Quebeckers in the last
referendum, as well as telling us that he had properly
understood the meaning of the results of the last election in
Quebec.
Instead, we were treated to the prospect in the months to come
of nothing but disdain and confrontation from the sovereignist
government. A pleasant prospect indeed.
* * *
1410
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Industry likes to portray himself as a champion of productivity.
Sadly, his government is the champion of high taxes and user fees
on the private sector.
Since the Liberals took office in 1993 corporate income tax
revenue has more than doubled. Canada's combined
federal-provincial general corporate income tax rate averages
43%, 4 percentage points higher than comparable rates in the
United States, our number one competitor.
Canada's corporate tax is also 9% higher than the average G-7
country.
The Liberals also did nothing to address their unfair,
competitive and non-productive cost recovery program. In 1996-97
alone the program cost 23,000 Canadian jobs and cut $1.3 billion
from our GDP.
If the Minister of Industry was serious about productivity he
should have fought for a budget that provides tax and regulatory
relief for the private sector. Let us hope the minister's battle
to save the NHL is more successful than his battle to improve
productivity.
* * *
THE UNITED ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week the Reform Party tried to
disguise a party the voters have rejected in the last three
elections. Despite the United Alternative's best efforts to
appear more moderate, from what I saw the convention reeked of
the same old rubbish.
Delegates voted to support refugees and immigrants only where
they were a positive source of economic growth.
They voted down resolutions calling for national standards in
health and education.
They threw out resolutions calling for government to play an
effective role in job training and retraining.
They rejected a role for government fostering an economic
climate that recognizes the need of Canadian youth.
A pollster who made Mike Harris blush asked if they would vote
for a Jew.
It is the same leader, the same discredited policies,
the same extremists. I predict that Canadians will reject—
The Speaker: I remind my colleagues that words we should not
use outside the House we also should not use in here as a quotation
from someone else. I ask you to respect that rule.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, by
taxing single income families unfairly the Liberal government has
placed its ravenous appetite for tax revenues above the
well-being of society.
In some countries governments permit children to be abused
through child labour. Instead of ensuring that children receive
an education, those governments look the other way, forcing
children to punch the clock every day.
However, Canadians believe that a basic education is important
enough to justify staying out of the paid workforce for a certain
period of time.
Likewise, the majority of Canadians believe that the task of
caring for our children, the next generation of Canadians, is
important enough to justify a parent's decision to stay out of
the paid workforce for a certain period of time.
The Liberal government seems to hold the view that if a person
is not taxable, their contribution to society is less valuable.
A vast majority of Canadians reject that view.
* * *
CANADIAN MILITARY
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Progressive Conservative Party and I are very concerned about
the lack of defence spending in the recent federal budget.
An additional $175 million for Canadian forces is next to
nothing when they needed $700 million this year, and that is just
to implement the quality of life study.
This is especially troubling after suggestions in the press that
the Government of Canada is planning on cutting 5,000 people
from Canadian troops.
When SCONDVA made its report on the quality of life in the
Canadian forces, or lack thereof, we made it clear that it was
our first priority. All parties agreed that the additional funds
for the quality of life study should not come from force
reduction.
The 1994 white paper received considerable support. Any troop
cuts below 60,000 personnel would call the white paper into
serious question.
Lastly, the Canadian forces need new equipment, particularly
maritime helicopters.
Does the Liberal government have an interest in the Canadian
military or are they just cannon fodder for the Prime Minister
when he travels abroad?
* * *
PHARMACY AWARENESS WEEK
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the
occasion of the seventh annual Pharmacy Awareness Week I
congratulate all Canadian pharmacists for the valuable
contribution they make every week to the health of Canadians.
Pharmacy Awareness Week provides Canadians with an opportunity
to learn how their pharmacists can help them to maintain and
improve their health.
1415
Pharmacists will be very busy this week highlighting many of the
key aspects of pharmaceutical care that they provide to
Canadians. The theme for this year's campaign is taking your
medicine well. Pharmacists are experts on medication and its
proper use.
[Translation]
I applaud your efforts and wish you a most successful campaign.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
FAMILIES
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the comments just float to the top. Now we have proof again that
the Liberal member for Vancouver Kingsway in committee last fall
told stay at home parents in Calgary that they “take the easy
way out”. The Liberal member for St. Paul's told stay at home
women that they were just a bunch of elite white women. These are
not slips of the tongue.
Is it not true that this is the real family policy of the
government?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if we look at the measures this government has brought
in, whether it be the child tax benefit, whether it be the action
program for children, whether it be the prenatal nutrition
program, whether it be the wide range of programs involving
aboriginal head start, it is very clear that this government
values enormously not only the work done at home but the raising
of children, family policy. That is an essential part of our
values. More important, we do not simply talk about it, we have
put it into legislation.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
this government really loved children I dare say it would not
have allowed child pornography to go through. Is that proof of
loving children? I hardly think so.
We have Liberal backbenchers who are appearing in public with
these attitudes and they are not simply a slip of the tongue. I
quote again. A Liberal member said a lot of times people just
take the easy way out to look after their kids at home. The
member for St. Paul's said it is just your perception as elite
white women. The member for Essex—Windsor said that this is
just for stay at home parents a nostalgic notion.
This is fiction. There are people right across the country who
are sacrificing to stay home with their kids. Why does the
government discriminate against them?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government does not
discriminate against persons who stay at home to look after their
children.
We only have to look at the child rearing drop out in the Canada
pension plan to know that. We only have to look at the EI
provisions that allow someone to stay at home for up to five
years and then be able to get back with training into the
workforce. We only have to look at the credit splitting and at
the Divorce Act and the money we have put into the child tax
benefit to know that we do not discriminate against stay at home
persons. We recognize it is a very complex issue.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is one thing to try to defend the indefensible. It is not
going to fly. Right across these government benches we have seen
people stick their foot in their mouth for days now and they are
not defending the indefensible because there is no way they can
do it.
When we talk about discrimination, is $4,000 more to pay in
taxes not discrimination? What about this government which
continues to discriminate against parents who stay at home with
their kids? When will the Prime Minister make this right and tell
these people they are not just taking the easy way out?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am really glad to see that
the hon. members opposite have suddenly become interested in
women's issues. It is typical of the opportunistic attitude of
the hon. members across the floor. They are the ones who have
called women a special interest group for a long time.
1420
These are the hon. members who have not supported the concept of
equity, understanding that equity is not about sameness. That is
why they continue to deal with complex issues in a simplistic
way.
These are the members who today and earlier on talked about
single income families as if they are only made up of a mother, a
father and a house. There is a group of single income earners
called single parents—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
maybe the minister should step into the 1990s. Maybe she should
know that many men stay at home with children too. Maybe she
should know that this member was raised by a single mother with
five children. Maybe she should wake up over there and
understand that people in this party have many unique
experiences, not just unique to the Liberal Party.
I want to know why this government continues to discriminate
against single income families. Why do backbenchers in that
party take every opportunity to disparage single income families?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is extremely surprising
that with all that experience the hon. members still do not
understand the issues.
If they want to talk about single income families, let us talk
about single income family working people, 80% of whom are women
and 60% of whom are in low income communities. When they earn
$20,000 the child benefit will assist that single income earning
family. The hon. member's mother would have been helped by that
initiative we put in two years ago.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
here is what the government says about stay at home parents. They
are taking the easy way out, they are not working, they are elite
white women. That is the government's attitude.
We see systemic discrimination every year in the finance
minister's budgets, six budgets in a row increasing the
discrimination against stay at home parents. Why does he allow
that to happen?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if anybody wants any example of the kind of nonsense
that is being spouted by the Reform Party, let us simply respond
by facts.
As a result of the 1999 budget, by the year 2000 through the
child tax benefit a typical one income family will be receiving
better than twice the amount of a typical two income family,
$2,600 per year versus $1,200 per year. That is the truth.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Minister of Human Resources Development told us
that the Minister of Finance pays annual interest on the money
he takes out of the EI fund. In real life, when one pays
interest, it is because one owes money.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us why he does not take the
money he owes unemployed workers into account when he is
congratulating himself on his balanced budgets?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that
is precisely what we are doing.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
other words, he is saying that he is paying interest on a debt,
but he keeps the debt a secret.
This is the era of the Internet; we have a virtual fund, virtual
surpluses. The Minister of Human Resources Development tells us
there is no longer a surplus. The Minister of Finance tells us
he is borrowing on the surplus. It is Alice in Wonderland.
What will the Minister of Finance do if there is a recession?
Will he increase premiums? Will he cut benefits? Will he go
back to a deficit situation? There is no longer a fund. Where
will he get his money if there is no longer a surplus?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
opposition leader should ask his virtual researchers to go back
to their drawing boards.
When this government took office, the deficit was $6 billion; it
appeared in the books. Today, there is a surplus; it too appears
in the books. And fortunately, there is a surplus.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his budget,
the Minister of Finance forecasts a marked decrease in
unemployment in Canada, yet at the same time he informs us that
there will be an 11% increase in benefits.
Yesterday he tried to explain to us that the justification for
this was higher salaries. That makes no sense. The rise in
salaries will be only 2.5%.
1425
Is the minister not using these figures as an excuse to
artificially inflate premiums so as to reduce the surplus,
without looking as if this is being done at the expense of the
unemployed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
unfortunately, the hon. member for Roberval does not grasp how
this works.
The problem is that average salaries are on the rise. The
average salary is $34,000 and the ceiling $39,000. This raises
the average salary and thus raises benefits. It is a sign of a
healthy economy.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it seems to me
that there is something wrong here.
The Minister of Finance has just explained that salaries are
going up, so premiums are as well, and therefore more money is
going into the employment insurance fund. There being less
unemployment, less will be paid out in benefits.
I would like him to try to explain to me how this adds 11% to
the benefits paid out. It makes no sense. Salaries are higher,
people pay in more, and employment insurance pays out less. How
does this leave him 11% in the hole?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will go back over Math. 101.
This will help the hon. member for Roberval, perhaps.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Might one reply, Mr. Speaker?
I realize it is a bit complicated—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, when salaries increase
and a worker becomes unemployed, his benefits are higher.
When 1.5 million more people are working in the Canadian
economy, and no longer unemployed, but then they run into a
problem and lose their jobs, then that makes 1.5 million more
people drawing benefits.
When there is a healthy economy, when people are working more
hours, then more of them will become eligible for employment
insurance because the economy—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax.
* * *
[English]
FAMILIES
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we have
heard a lot of we love families more than you love families from
Liberals and Reformers.
Supporting families with children requires a lot more than just
tax policy. Take unemployment insurance. The government's
changes make it harder for parents to stay home with their babies
and in many cases impossible.
Will the government now correct this injustice? Will the
government eliminate these Reform inspired anti-family UI
policies?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the system has been geared to help these people,
especially women, to go back into the labour force. We made it
on an hourly basis so they could have more flexibility and more
opportunity to contribute and to be able to receive UI more
rapidly than before.
Changes were created to help women work and to receive the
benefits faster if they were unfortunately unable to find work.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): 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—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources
Development.
1430
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): 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—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.
* * *
PRISONS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
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?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): 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.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
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?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.): 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.
* * *
TAXATION
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): 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?
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.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): 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.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): 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?
1435
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): 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.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): 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?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): 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.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques,
BQ): 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?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): 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.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): 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?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): 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—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): 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—
The Speaker: The hon. Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism.
1440
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): 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.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.
* * *
[Translation]
SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebec gives tax deductions as a stimulus for shipbuilding,
while at the same time Ottawa taxes these benefits, thus
cancelling out the positive effect of these measures.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Is it not absurd
for the federal government to cancel out the effect of measures
that have been put into place in order to support shipbuilding
in Quebec?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): This is not true,
Mr. Speaker.
We have a taxation system that is highly favourable to
shipbuilding. We have the capacity for an accelerated write-off
for ships built in Canada. We have very high tariffs for ships
built elsewhere and a government purchasing system that favours
Canadian production.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I understand that the question may have taken the minister
unawares, but other responses are needed.
How can we explain to Quebec shipbuilders and shipyard workers
that federal government decisions cancel out provincial ones?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib): Quite simply, it
is not true, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
DND documents received today show that the statement of
requirement for the Sea King replacement was actually completed
over a year ago. However, the contract has yet to be put out to
tender by this government.
The government is sitting on its hands while Sea Kings are
falling out of the sky. This is the worst case of political
interference Canadians have ever seen. Why is the government
delaying?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government is not delaying. We are
moving along expeditiously on the matter. All of the details
have not yet been finalized. As soon as they are, the
procurement strategy will be brought forward. It is recognized
that we have to get on with the replacement of the Sea Kings.
I can assure the House that there is no political interference.
The matter is being dealt with at a staff level to make sure that
we get the right kind of helicopter with the right kind of
equipment to do the operational job that needs to be done.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there is political interference and I will tell the minister why.
It is because the minister does not want to embarrass the Prime
Minister when the fact comes out that the best helicopter for the
job is the one that he cancelled in 1993. This helicopter fiasco
has cost Canadian taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
Will the government stop the political interference today and
put those contracts out to tender?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are going to want to get on with the
procurement as quickly as possible. This procurement will save
us money over that contract which was quite rightly cancelled.
* * *
[Translation]
HEALTH
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Minister of Health told the House that he had asked his
officials to develop a plan with a view to legalizing the
medical use of marijuana.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the government
intend, in the meantime, to support my parliamentary motion and
take immediate action to have the police stop harassing gravely
ill individuals using marijuana to alleviate their suffering?
[English]
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the
minister said that the policy of this government and his policy
as Minister of Health was to try to help those who believe that
the medical use of marijuana can help relieve their symptoms.
1445
He has asked his officials to develop a plan that would include
the establishment of appropriate clinical guidelines, clinical
trials, and deal with the issue of securing safe access. That is
the policy of the government.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of National Revenue has introduced a revised travellers
declaration form for Canadians and travellers to Canada.
Would the minister please tell Canadians the benefits that will
result from the introduction of this form?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. I have to
report to the House on a matter very important to all members of
parliament.
I have made some changes to the travellers declaration form. In
the past when coming into Canada each individual was required to
fill in the declaration, including young children. Now I have
made a change so that one form will suffice for a whole family
thereby reducing the cost to Canadians by half a million dollars
and the paperwork by 37%.
* * *
GUN CONTROL
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Liberals have earmarked millions more in next year's
budget to implement new gun control laws. Taxpayers can add
these millions to the $200 million already spent on the
government's gun registration scheme.
The government said that it would only cost $85 million over
five years. Would the Minister of Justice please explain how her
department could have bungled things so badly?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
no one has bungled anything. In fact the gun registration system
is working very effectively.
Canadians are respecting the law. It is only the opposition
that does not want to respect the law of the land.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Talk
about being misled, Mr. Speaker. While the minister wastes
hundreds of millions on this totally useless project, Statistics
Canada recently reported that the number of police officers per
capita had dropped for seven consecutive years.
In 1998 there were fewer police officers per capita than in
1970. Meanwhile, the number of criminal incidents has more than
doubled since 1970.
Why did the Liberals blow hundreds of millions on a gun
registration scheme when millions are needed to put adequate
numbers of police officers on our streets and highways to fight
this dramatic increase in crime?
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will repeat what I said earlier. Gun registration is working
very effectively. We have had thousands of requests for
registration across the country. The only people working against
the law of the land is the Reform Party.
* * *
THE SENATE
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It is a follow
up to my question about the Senate a couple of days ago.
Some of the senators, who of course are unelected, are now
threatening to delay or even to block some of the work of
parliament because of a dispute over the request for an extra 6%
in their budget on top of 10% last year. Such an action would
thwart the will of the elected member of parliament.
Will the Prime Minister now consult with the premiers in the
provinces and, after that consultation, come before the House and
put the appropriate resolution before the Parliament of Canada to
abolish the Senate?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the
question of the hon. member with regard to the Senate's expenses,
which he appears to be against.
May I remind him that a good portion of those increases are for
the salaries of the employees of the Senate. We know the member
is against many things; I hope he is favour of labour.
The second component of it is the increase in compensation for
members of parliament and members of the Senate, and he voted for
it.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister was about the
abolition of the Senate. No wonder we have cynicism when
questions are not answered.
Fourteen years ago the Prime Minister, speaking in the House,
said “I am appalled by the attitude of the prime minister”,
meaning Brian Mulroney. “He is the prime minister and he wants
to abolish the Senate. He has enough members to do it. He does
not have to play games with anyone in this House and cop out like
that”.
In light of those statements by this Prime Minister in those
days, why does he not now consult with the premiers in the
provinces and put a motion before the House to start the process
of the abolition of the Senate?
1450
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I never proposed the abolition of the Senate. I have
proposed some reforms to the Senate and we voted for some reforms
to the Senate.
I met the premiers many times and none of them have asked me to
make a motion to abolish the Senate. We need to reform it. We
tried to reform it. We tried to make it elected, and of course
the Reform Party was opposed.
He wants to abolish it. When there is a very large consensus we
might act, but at this moment what is important is that the
Senate is doing its job and doing it well.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker,
“parents who make the sacrifices and deliver quality care have
earned the right to get support”. These are the words of the
Liberal member for Mississauga South.
He went further to say that our tax system discriminates against
families that choose to provide parental care. Why does the
Liberal government not listen to a member of its own party and
end its discriminatory tax treatment against single income
families?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I congratulate the member from Mississauga for having
raised this issue long before any one of the opposition parties
thought about it.
In fact I congratulate our entire caucus that has been working
on this matter. As we look ahead toward the possibility of tax
relief as a result of the elimination of the deficit, it will be
the pioneering work by this caucus that will lead the way.
* * *
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
budget brought down with such fanfare by the Liberal government
penalizes single income families.
Parents who decide to raise their children themselves are being
treated like second class citizens by this government.
Will the government undertake today to do something about the
tax inequalities their budget creates for single income
families?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Once again, Mr.
Speaker, the member is a bit behind the times. I will merely
refer to the 1999 budget.
It provides that by July 2000 a typical single income family
will receive $2,600 a year, more than double the $1,200 received
by a typical two income family. So the government has already
done something.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Revenue Canada made a preliminary decision yesterday that
France, Romania, the Russian Federation and the Slovak Republic
were dumping steel products into Canada.
Why was this decision made, and what does it mean to Algoma
Steel and other Canadian steel producers?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House that
on December 3, 1998, the department started a dumping
investigation in response to a complaint of unfair trade filed by
Stelco Incorporated of Hamilton, Ontario.
The investigation reveals significant dumping of the subject
goods from France, Romania, the Russian Federation and the Slovak
Republic. As a result, temporary duties will be levied where
warranted. The investigation is continuing and a final decision
will be made by June 1 of this year.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
most people know today that Canada is a haven for drug dealers
and organized crime.
Mark Applejohn, an RCMP officer, trying to crack the drug
epidemic in British Columbia, is being threatened by immigration
officials for pointing out that the immigration laws are lax and
cumbersome.
Why does the immigration department focus its attack on an
honest, hard working RCMP officer rather than on its own
problems?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact, we are working in very
close co-operation with local and regional police forces,
including the RCMP, precisely in order to eradicate certain
problems in the Vancouver area.
This productive relationship means that we are able to take very
concrete action against individuals who abuse our system and who
have committed crimes in Canada, and deport them.
It is therefore very clear that we are continuing to work with
the RCMP to improve the existing system.
* * *
1455
PROSTATE CANCER
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last week the
Minister of Health announced the creation in Vancouver of a
centre of excellence for prostate cancer.
How can the minister explain spending $15 million in British
Columbia to create a prostate cancer research centre from
scratch when there is already such a centre in existence in
Quebec with an internationally reputed research team?
[English]
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is important is that the
announcement of the minister about the centre of excellence will
build on the expertise at the Vancouver General and B.C. Cancer
Agency in the area of prostate cancer.
The prostate clinic at the Vancouver General Hospital is
considered to be a leader in prostate cancer research,
prevention, diagnosis, treatment and education. It will benefit
all Canadians.
Rather than quibbling about where the centre of excellence
should be located, I would have thought the member opposite would
have applauded the government's decision to establish a centre of
excellence in prostate cancer.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, first
the government makes it next to impossible to collect EI
benefits. Now those who are lucky enough to collect are facing
unprecedented delays in filing their claims or having their
claims processed.
In Manitoba alone there is a backlog of 4,000 cases. Even the
most—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg
Centre.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, first the government has
made it next to impossible to collect EI benefits. Now they are
facing unprecedented delays in having their claims processed.
In Manitoba there is a backlog of over 4,000 cases. Even the
most straightforward claims are taking eight to twelve weeks to
process. Workers cannot wait for two months or more for their
first paycheque. They have rent to pay. They have families to
feed.
What is the minister doing to relieve this backlog and to break
the log jam of this unjustifiable delay in having claims
processed?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first allow me to correct
the premise of the question that we made it next to impossible to
collect EI. Seventy-eight per cent of Canadians workers who have
lost their jobs or left them with just cause are covered by the
EI system. Let us stop the fearmongering from the opposition
backbenches.
In terms of the backlog, I will look into it. I will make sure
that we continue to give the best possible service and that we
have as little backlog as possible.
* * *
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr.
Speaker, the New Brunswick job corps program was a program
designed to employ older workers. In fact there are about 1,000
older workers employed in the program and there is some concern
that the program will be cancelled.
I point out to the House and to the minister that in all
quarters and by any measurement, political measurement included,
this program was a great success. We are concerned that it may
not be renewed.
Could the minister give use some assurances that he is
considering renewing the program for those older workers who
otherwise would not have jobs?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the point
of view of the hon. member who thinks this is a very good program
that our government put in place.
I am well aware of the situation. I know the financing of the
program was to end at the end of March.
However, this is a pilot project that we have found extremely
useful. We have learned a lot of things about how we can best
help older workers with that particular program. We are right
now, with the provincial government, looking at how we can
possibly use this program to help the older workers who
participate in the program.
* * *
1500
TAXATION
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is addressed to the Secretary of State for
Multiculturalism and the Status of Women.
Today the opposition has suggested that income tax alone can
solve all of the problems having to do with all family conditions
for all the different choices they can make with regard to care
for their children.
Does the secretary of state agree with that statement? If not,
can she please clarify?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again this points to the
complexity of an issue for which hon. members opposite only see a
simplistic answer.
There are many incentives which this party across the way voted
against, such as the child tax benefit, the EI parental leave
benefit, child support payments for children of divorce, the
Canada pension plan and its child-rearing dropout, prenatal
nutrition programs for children in low income families, and I
could go on and on. It is too complex for hon. members across
the way to understand.
The Speaker: Colleagues, there is a question of privilege
and three points of order that I am going to deal with.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
QUESTION PERIOD
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, during question period the finance minister attributed a
quote to me which in fact is something I never said. It was one
of those unfortunate misrepresentations from the media and, that
being so, I would ask the finance minister if he is prepared to
withdraw his statement.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I mentioned in my preamble the respect that I have for
the member for Calgary—Nose Hill. I certainly accept what the
member says. If in fact the quote is not an accurate quote or
out of context in any way, shape or form, I certainly withdraw my
statement.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this being Thursday, I would ask the government House leader the
nature of the business for the remainder of this week and for
next week.
I would also ask him, given that we have some victims of drunk
drivers in the gallery, if there will be legislation eventually
in the House, how soon and when, regarding drunk drivers.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously I am going to give the
business statement for the next week, not the projection of
introduction of bills for the next while beyond that.
The agenda for the following week will be as follows.
[Translation]
Tomorrow we shall conclude third reading debate on Bill C-49, the
native land claims bill.
On Monday, we shall resume consideration of the report stage of
Bill C-55, the foreign publications legislation.
1505
[English]
Likely on Tuesday we will commence report stage of Bill C-65,
the equalization bill to transfer moneys to the provinces. It is
our hope to complete all remaining stages of both of these bills
next week.
It is also our intention to call, probably next Thursday, the
following legislation: Bill C-67, the foreign banks bill; Bill
C-61, third reading of the veterans bill; and Bill C-66, the
housing bill.
This is the legislation until the end of the following week.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thought my point of order was a point of privilege as well.
The member for Calgary—Nose Hill actually attributed a quote to
me during question period that I did not make at any time.
The member said that about a year ago the member for Mississauga
West made a statement with regard to this government's tax
policy. I did not and I would ask the member to correct the
record.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know how I could have mixed up the member for
Mississauga West with the member for Mississauga South, but I did
and I regret that. I was referring to the member for Mississauga
South.
STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order with respect to an incident that
happened today at the Standing Committee on National Defence and
Veterans Affairs.
The standing committee adopted a procedure restricting me from
tabling a document because of the official language that I chose
to use.
Moving motions and tabling documents in either official language
is a right granted to members by the authority of the House and
by law. Yet I was denied these rights today at the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
Subsection 4(1) of the Official Languages Act reads as follows:
English and French are the official languages of Parliament, and
everyone has the right to use either of those languages in any
debates and any other proceedings of Parliament.
This subsection defines the right of members of parliament to
speak and submit documents in the language of their choice in
parliamentary proceedings.
The standing orders state:
All motions shall be in writing ... before being debated or put
from the Chair ... it shall be read in English and in French by
the Speaker, if he or she be familiar with both languages; if
not, the Speaker shall read the motion in one language and direct
the Clerk of the Table to read it in the other—
Standing Order 116 states that “in a standing committee the
Standing Orders shall apply”. Standing Order 116 lists some
exceptions, such as the election of the Speaker, seconding of
motions and times of speaking.
I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, of two important
rulings in regards to committees on standing orders of the House.
On June 20, 1994 and November 7, 1996 the Speaker ruled that
while it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters
of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which
go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.
The committee, by adopting a procedure restricting members from
introducing documents in the official language of their choice,
has established a procedure which goes beyond the powers
conferred upon it by the House. This committee is in breach of
our standing orders and the law.
On May 5, 1998 the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca raised a
similar case regarding the Standing Committee on Health. In his
presentation he used similar arguments that I am putting forth
today. Unfortunately this matter was not dealt with. The
Speaker has not yet ruled on that point of order and the matter
of our rights as members of parliament to operate in the language
of our choice, as provided for in the rules of the House and in
common law, still remains unresolved today.
The House should be aware that the Speaker on May 5, 1998 made
the following statement:
It goes without saying that members of this House are free to
operate in either of the official languages.
1510
In conclusion, I remind the Speaker of the recommendation of the
commissioner of official languages in his 1996 report to
parliament:
The Commissioner recommended that the Speaker of the House advise
committee chairs, referring particularly to Subsection 4(1) of
the Official Languages Act, that language should not be an
obstacle to Members of Parliament in the performance of their
duties.
It is obvious that this warning from the Chair is overdue.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for your information,
at that particular committee it was voted unanimously by all five
parties represented that any document or any motion be brought
forward in both official languages. I find it strange that this
is brought up today. As I said, it was voted unanimously that
this be done.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too am
astonished that such a question should be raised.
The gentleman has been a member of this House for six years. I
have always heard it said that committees worked in both
official languages and that documents were tabled in both,
unless there were outside witnesses. When that is the case, we
accept tabling in one language, with a committee commitment to
have it translated into the other, so that all committee members
may have a document in both official languages.
If, however, the document is from an official government agency,
such as CBC or the Canada Council, or from a committee member,
we require them to be in both official languages.
In addition, the committees are totally autonomous in their
rules of procedure, and to my knowledge—and I have a certain
degree of overview of the procedures in all committees because
of the position I hold within our party—it would appear that it
is a universal rule that all documents be tabled in both
official languages, unless they come from outside.
I do not, therefore, see any reason for raising this question
today.
[English]
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
was the acting chair of the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs today when this issue was raised.
This is what occurred at the committee: The member for
Okanagan—Coquihalla was attempting to deal with a document
obtained through access to information that was only in one of
the official languages.
The member for Joliette had some difficulty with that because it
was the first time he had seen the document in English. He had
no previous knowledge that it was coming forward. As a courtesy
to the member for Joliette, as the parliamentary secretary has
indicated, in terms of the previous practice of the committee
which has been dealt with by motion in the committee, we agreed
as a committee that this matter would be deferred until the
document could be translated.
The member indicated that he tried to table the document and
that the chair refused to table the document. That is not the
case. The document was tabled with the committee and will be
dealt with presumably at a later date.
As I indicated, it was solely a matter of courtesy to the member
for Joliette, who is not as functional in English as are the
other members of the committee. It was done as a courtesy.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are two issues. First, a
request has been made by an hon. member that the Speaker should
rule on an issue. I do not want to get into that one. Mr.
Speaker will rule on any previous issue whenever Mr. Speaker
feels it is appropriate for him to do so, if he decides it is
appropriate for him to do so. None of us should question that.
On the matter of the procedure before committee, we went through
this a number of years ago, as the Chair will recall. I believe
some work was done.
1515
If it is necessary to fine tune the procedures we had set
before, so be it. Perhaps the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs should look at that.
However, our general principle would make immanent sense to most
of us. If a government document is to be tabled in committee,
the same rules as would apply to the House should apply. A
government document in the House has to be tabled in two official
languages and I think it should be the same in committee. That
is only logical.
If the speech of a witness comes to the committee obviously the
witness appears with his document and it appears in the way that
it appears. I think that is equally normal.
If a member walks in with a document and would like it made
available to all committee members surely that document can be
given to the clerk to have it translated and then given to the
members. That seems equally logical.
Those are all principles which I do not think are very hard for
any of us to understand. They only refer to what is practical
and what respects the official languages so that all members of
parliament can read what is given to us. I feel that should be
the guiding principle.
If that needs to be refined in any way we have very excellent
staff in the clerk's office that can prepare a document for us to
be fine tuned for the committee on procedure and House affairs
and then used by all committees.
The Speaker: I would prefer that the members of the committee
settle whatever differences they have.
The hon. member can correct me, but did he say he was not
allowed to table the document?
Mr. Jim Hart: Mr. Speaker, the document was not
officially tabled. It was handed to the members of the committee
and the member for Joliette objected to the document.
The Speaker: My understanding, from what the acting
chairman of the committee told me, is that the document was
tabled with the understanding or agreement that this document
would be translated and discussed at the next meeting.
If that is the case then the document was tabled, according to
the chairman, and will be discussed at the next meeting.
However, if hon. members bring committee problems to the Chair,
I would prefer to deal with them when I get a report from the
committee. That is how we usually work it here in the House.
What I am asking the hon. member is that if the information we
heard today is indeed accurate on all sides, if it could be
settled by the members of the committee I would much prefer it,
but I invite hon. members to bring back a report to me. At that
time I will take it under consideration.
MEMBER FOR VANCOUVER KINGSWAY
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to clarify the statements by the hon. members for Calgary
Southeast and Edmonton North by misrepresenting my statement.
I actually tried to encourage Canadian women to combine their
careers and family life if they wished or if they were able to
manage both.
The Speaker: I understand the hon. member but I think we
are coming into debate as to what I meant and what I said. Many
times we use words in here which we attribute to a quote from a
member that appeared in some newspaper or some publication and
sometimes, not always, they are not accurate.
What we have here, I believe, is a dispute of the facts. I am
sure this can be clarified in another way. I am thinking in a
statement.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1520
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—TAX SYSTEM
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to join this debate today on such a
positive motion being brought forward by members of the official
opposition. It is such a pleasure to speak on this topic because
it is a topic that is so dear to my heart.
I am the father of four young children, ages eight, six, four
and two. My wife is working at home raising those kids as am I
when I get a chance to be there. It is hard sometimes with this
job. We know there are some major commitments here as members of
parliament. There are lots of Canadian families making major
commitments to their families. They have made a number of
different decisions. Some families have decided to have one of
the parents stay home to look after their children. Some families
have decided that they need both parents working. There are all
sorts of other arrangements with others giving care to children
in the home.
What is becoming very evident in this debate today is this
government's approach, this government's real attitude toward
families and to parents who choose to look after their children
at home.
This issue was brought to light by the junior finance minister.
We are all well aware of his comments made earlier this week and
his apology for those comments, which is an honourable thing to
do. I think that is a good thing to do but also we must take a
look at what government members are saying and, more important,
what they are doing, what the Liberal government is doing.
The government is purposely discriminating against families,
against individuals who choose to stay at home and raise their
children. It is saying is that there is not real value in that
very hard job of raising families, at least not the same value as
if those individuals, those parents, were outside the home
working.
We have heard numerous statements. We heard the member for
Vancouver Kingsway try to enter in on a point of debate not happy
about what she said. She said 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.
What is that member saying? What is the government saying to
families that choose to have one parent stay home to look after
their children? I think it is an amazing admission of what the
government's real agenda is. It is unbelievable and it does not
stop there.
We heard in question period today and throughout debate as well
another member of the government, the member for St. Paul's,
talking to members who appeared before the finance committee,
saying that your perception as elite white women is not helping
colleagues stay at home, individuals, mothers in this case,
called elite white women. That is reprehensible.
It shows there are members of the government who are bringing a
voice to what the real belief of the government is. It is
becoming evident through debate today what the real agenda of the
government is as it relates to families. That is discrimination.
The government does not have a problem with that.
It does not have a problem about discriminating against families
that choose to have one parent stay home to raise children. In
fact, if government members put action to their empty words about
what they believe they would do something in their budgets about
this discrimination that continues. Year after year the
government has been in the House and it has not addressed this.
Government members will throw out some straw dog arguments about
the child tax deduction and benefit which helps certain
individuals but not all individuals.
They neglect to mention the clawback factor.
1525
The millionaire finance minister believes that individuals who
are making between $30,000 and $60,000 do not deserve the same
amount of benefit as other individuals. He must think those
individuals are rich and that $50,000 is a lot of money to raise
a family.
I can tell the millionaire finance minister that is not a lot of
money. There are a lot of families in this country working
really hard to try to raise their families.
I never intended to get involved in politics. One of the things
that motivated me to get involved was that very fact, the
outrageous amount of taxes the government was taking out of my
family's pocket to subsidize its spending habits that seem to
know no end at all.
My wife is a professional. She is an early childhood educator.
She was a supervisor of a day care. I was a teacher. We made
the decision to have her stay home and raise the children. She
has also worked outside the home. She has worked sometimes
during the summer and I have stayed home to look after the
children.
The minister of multiculturalism made some fairly outrageous
statements earlier about members here, about why we do not just
look after our own children. I will tell that minister that is
exactly what our family is doing. That is exactly what we are
working on and that is what families are working on across the
country.
The agenda of the government is very clear, discrimination
against families that choose to have an individual stay at home
to look after the children. What we are asking for is a choice
and equality for all individuals, for all families, for the
different arrangements people choose to make regarding looking
after children.
Sometimes people choose to stay home to raise children.
Sometimes they need to work outside the home. Why is the
government so against choice? I cannot believe it. It is just
unbelievable.
Members of the government seem to be talking out of both sides
of their mouths. Some of the members say yes, we are
discriminating.
I want to read a question that was asked to the finance minister
by an individual in British Columbia earlier this week. This
mother had chosen to stay home to raise her children. She was
phoning a talk show and these are her exact words to the Minister
of Finance on March 1: “We were hoping to see in this budget
some form of help for families with stay at home moms. We are
under an incredible amount of stress because we have decided for
me to stay home to raise the children. My husband is the single
income earner. We are bringing home less. We are actually being
penalized. The mothers or the care givers going to work and
getting better tax breaks than those of us who are deciding to
stay home and deciding to send one of us out to work. What is
the finance minister going to do about that? Why has he not done
something this year?”
The finance minister did not give the normal rhetoric and spin
he gives in the House of Commons, which was refreshing. He said:
“The fact is that you are right”.
What was the caller right about? The caller was saying that we
are being penalized because we choose to send one of our members
of the family out to work outside the home. The finance minister
admitted that.
He went on to say: “There are anomalies that have been allowed
to build up in the Income Tax Act over the years”. He has been
the finance minister for five years and he has allowed those
inequities to go on and on.
There is discrimination against families, discrimination against
Canadians who choose to have one of the members of their family
stay home and look after their children.
This motion is a positive motion that seeks to end the ongoing
discrimination of the government.
1530
We hope we have unanimity on the opposition benches and that
this positive motion will go forward. We hope that government
members will have an opportunity in a free vote to turn this
around and put an end to this Liberal government discrimination
against families.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I think that we
should limit our questions and comments to one minute in order
that more members can participate in the debate this afternoon.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I want the hon. member to recognize that I think this is a very
serious issue. He has expressed it very eloquently.
To characterize the anomaly, in the finance minister's words,
when we have a tax system and we are implementing policy changes
and regulation changes simultaneously, anomalies happen. To
characterize this as discrimination are we also, with the
progressivity of the income tax act, discriminating against
people who have the skills and knowledge that the marketplace is
going to pay more for? Is that following that argument to its
logical conclusion?
I have a specific question. The Reform Party, rightly sometimes
and wrongly other times, accuses us of not answering but I want
to ask a very direct question.
I spent last week on a very informative tour of eastern Canada
with the heritage committee. The reason I was not at home with
my son is that the committees cannot travel when the House is
sitting because the Reform Party will not sign the pairing sheet.
So the rubber is hitting the road here, guys. If they were
concerned about all families, not just their families, is the
Reform Party willing to agree to sign the pairing sheet so that
we can manage our job and spend more time with our families too?
Mr. Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member
is working hard to raise his young family as well. We are very
much in the same situation in that regard. We all have families
we need to attend to.
I know as a member of parliament he will understand that
committees make decisions about what it is they are going to do.
I do not think it is fair to lay the blame on one individual or
one particular party. This is something which all committees
have to come to an agreement on.
I see the immigration minister who yesterday witnessed the great
disharmony in the committee in the fact that the government would
not allow members of the official opposition to ask the minister
simple questions on whatever topic they wanted. As a result of
that, they have shown their inability to work together. It is
that frustration which leads to having to take other measures, to
even plead with the government to listen to members of the
official opposition on other important issues.
I hope we can all work together. I hope the member will join us
in working together in a harmonious manner.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, again I thank the hon. member and his party for bringing
forward this very important debate. I have a couple of questions
for him.
One is on the national standards for all families, especially
for those who are low income or single parent. Would he and his
party not agree that the Canada pension plan, although we have
difficulties with some aspects of it in terms of the premium
payments, is a good idea for those people with low income so that
they will have some kind of pension in their later years? Many
low income families cannot participate in the RRSP program.
Would he agree that that program as well as national day care
for low income families are good to have on a national basis?
Mr. Grant McNally: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my
colleague's questions.
In terms of national standards and the pension issue, one of the
best ways to solve that problem is to leave more dollars in the
pockets of families across Canada. That would allow individuals
the opportunity to do what they see fit with those dollars,
including investing in pensions in any way they see fit. That
would allow choice in that particular area.
He asked about a national day care program. This is something
the Liberal government promised in 1993. It was in the red book.
I think I heard the member refer to that earlier in debate.
This is another promise the Liberal government broke.
1535
What is it that Canadians need? What more proof do they need
that when the government says something and does not deliver on
it, they should perhaps look at absolutely everything it says to
see whether or not it will deliver.
My mother taught me that actions speak louder than words, and my
father did as well in various ways, but we will not get into
that. I must say that the actions of the government clearly
indicate that it is not willing to make a commitment on many
programs and it is not willing to end the discrimination against
families who choose to have an individual raise the children at
home.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this most important motion.
The objective of the motion is to encourage the government to try
to understand the difficulties that families are facing in
today's society.
It seems obvious to me from listening to the debate that the
government just does not understand the difficult choices
families have to make. We do not have to go too far back to
observe some of the actions of the government and reflect on the
result of those actions to see that that is the case.
For example, the government refused recently to take realistic
action to discourage children from smoking. That is important.
It is a health issue. It is important to try to bring that issue
forward to children yet the government seems to ignore that
concern. Recently it refused to protect children from sexual
predators by not invoking the notwithstanding clause after a
recent unfortunate court decision in British Columbia.
Today the type of issue we are talking about is that the
government refuses to ensure that families are treated fairly
under the tax system. In fact, it denigrates the role that has
been played by stay at home parents.
Much mention has been made today about the comments of the
junior minister of finance. The most unfortunate comments that
he made reflected a real lack of understanding of the important
role that homemakers play. Those comments of the junior minister
are not to be unexpected.
As an example, the Prime Minister's office produced talking
points recently which said that Reform does not understand the
modern family, that parents work for a variety of reasons and
finances is only one of them, and that the Reform platform
assumes that increased tax deductions will encourage parents to
quit their jobs and return to the kitchen. That is a shameful
comment. It comes right out of the Prime Minister's office and
shows a complete lack of understanding of the important job
parents do when they decide to stay home to provide care for
their children.
That disregard for that important role was expressed very
clearly by the member for Vancouver Kingsway who talks about the
low esteem that may keep parents at home. It is low esteem if
one desires to stay at home and look after children. She refers
in that same statement to parents who decide to stay at home as
being looked down upon as misfits. I find it outrageous that
anyone could think those things and then try to suggest they were
misunderstood. The words speak for themselves. Parents, she
says, who stay at home are simply taking the easy way out.
I have a real concern about that because that is simply not the
case. It is not the easy way out. It is the difficult way out
in many respects.
I have a friend. Both he and his wife are well educated people,
both capable of providing an income for the family. It would be a
modest income because we know how the tax penalizes single family
earners.
A few years ago this friend of mine, who as a matter of fact ran
for parliament in 1988, decided that he would stay home and look
after the home front while his wife went out to work. He stayed
home to look after their two young children until they were well
into their elementary school years. It was difficult for him. Not
that many years ago many people did not understand why he would
choose to stay home, because as I said, he certainly was capable
of earning a living. But that was a choice that he made.
1540
My friend is going to be penalized all the way down the line for
that in a financial way. Maybe I will talk a little bit more
about that, about the financial sacrifices that were made by that
family and the sacrifices that will be felt in the years to come
when both parents elect to retire.
Again the sacrifice that people make is ignored. The member
from Essex—Windsor talks about stay at home parents as a
nostalgic notion promoted by the Reform Party. It is an absolute
outrage to refer to a stay at home parent and those who wish to
do that as a nostalgic notion. I am disturbed by that. I am
disturbed by the notion that somehow people who stay at home are
misfits.
My wife was a well-qualified teacher. She chose to stay home
and look after our son many years ago. I think he appreciates
that to this day.
C. D. Howe Institute researcher Kenneth Boessenkool calculated
that a dual earner family with two preschool children and an
income of $70,000 gets more than $14,000 in child related tax
breaks that are not available to the single earner family. That
is absolutely astounding, $14,000. That is over $1,000 a month
in benefits that accrue to a dual earner family, benefits that
are denied to a single earner family.
In fact in the C. D. Howe Institute document, Boessenkool traces
the federal government's tax treatment of families with children
since World War II. He notes that in earlier decades income tax
provided reasonable tax deductions for children to both single
and dual earner families. In recent years however, he notes, tax
benefits have been targeted toward very poor families and dual
earner families. Middle income, single earner families with
children are taxed as heavily as families without children. Let
me repeat that. Middle income, single earner families with
children are taxed as heavily as families without children.
How are we going to prepare ourselves for the future? How are
we going to prepare our children for the future if we are taxing
their parents to death? How are they to pay the high tuition
fees that are required today if they are facing a tax regime
which is that stringent and unmerciful?
Boessenkool notes that it is unfair. The tax system should
accommodate the cost of child rearing whether or not both parents
are working outside the home. He argues further and makes three
points that I want to raise here as well.
First, he says that the tax system no longer recognizes the cost
of raising children in all families. That is true. The facts
are there and are very, very clear.
Second, he notes that to the extent that the tax system has
relieved the burden for middle and upper income families with
children, it has done so disproportionately for dual earner
families through generous child care exemptions. Again, the
discrimination there is built into the tax system and has been
ignored by the finance minister who acknowledges that the problem
exists yet for five years has done nothing to rectify it.
Finally, Boessenkool notes that the combination of clawed back
social policy transfers plus income and other taxes has created
unacceptably high effective marginal tax rates for families
earning between $20,000 and $30,000. I do not think one can live
on $20,000 or $30,000 in the area where I live. I do not know
whether there are many areas in Canada where one is going to be
able to survive on between $20,000 and $30,000.
1545
It is also important to recognize that we are not whistling in
the dark over here or singing a tune alone on this issue. There
is a loud chorus behind us.
An October 1998 Compas poll showed that 92% of Canadians felt
that families with children today were under more stress than 50
years ago, 90% felt that parents were working too hard and too
many hours and 78% felt that not enough respect was given for the
effort parents put into raising children. That is a serious
condemnation of this government's policies. They are out of line
with what the public is saying.
The Vanier Institute pointed out that single income families
with children are 3.8 times more likely to have a low income than
a dual income family.
It is a serious problem and I appreciate the opportunity to
address it today.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
very attentively to what the hon. member has just had to say,
and I find it totally logical and rational.
My congratulations to the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, who
introduced this motion, for we can never do too much to honour
those who stay at home to rear their children, whether fathers
or mothers. I would describe child-rearing as the finest job in
the world, in fact I would call it more than a job, it is the
greatest profession in the world.
I think it is too bad that the father or mother—for it could very
well be a father—who decided to stay at home is penalized for so
doing.
I would even go so far as to say that stay at home parents ought
to have a guaranteed income.
I therefore ask my colleague from the Reform Party whether he
thinks they ought to be guaranteed an income of $14,000 per
year?
[English]
Mr. John Cummins: Madam Speaker, the member's noting that
a stay at home parent is the greatest profession in the world is
something I think everybody in the House should appreciate and
agree with. I know that goes for across the aisle with many
people.
As far as guaranteed annual salaries, it is an interesting
option. However, the issue before us today is the unfair
treatment by the tax system. I think that is the issue we have
to address first.
I know that many people who forego economic opportunity to stay
at home with their children do not mind that. What does bother
them is the unfair treatment by the tax system. They are
prepared to accept a lower standard of living so that they can
enjoy their children more and have total responsibility for the
upbringing of the children.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the member referred to people earning between $20,000 and
$30,000. I have just done the calculation and wanted to put on
the record the calculation of an employee who had earned an
income of $25,000. This person would pay $4,469 in tax, $675 in
EI and $688 in CPP which would mean a net take home pay of
$19,168. The effective tax rate is 17.8%.
Since an income earner making $25,000 a year is paying a 17.8%
tax rate, does the member believe that it should be lower based
on his comments and, if so, how much lower?
Mr. John Cummins: Madam Speaker, to be quite honest, I
find it rather difficult to expect someone making $25,000, the
total family income, to be paying any income tax at all.
1550
In my neck of the woods rent for a modest home is well over
$1,000 a month. Put some food on the table and there is nothing
left. I find it amazing and absolutely incredible that families
earning $25,000 a year are paying taxes. I find that an absolute
outrage.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
we are talking today about an issue that is very important to not
only me but I think to all members in this place. I know that
many members have had initiatives to try to bring focus to this
issue and we should not divide ourselves on whether the spirit
and the intent of what is being discussed here is at all in
dispute.
When I became a member of parliament I wanted to be involved and
the first thing I did was draft a private member's bill, Bill
C-256, to split income between spouses so one could stay at home
and care for preschool children. I was not exactly sure how the
mechanics of all that would work out but members will know that
private members' bills necessarily have to be somewhat simplistic
to have an opportunity to pass.
I was disappointed that it was not votable. I do not want to
isolate anyone for it not being votable but we had an opportunity
to debate it and I knew that there was support in the House.
I also had a bill to amend the Canada pension plan act so that
we could have Canada pension plan benefit entitlements for a stay
at home mom. I thought that would be great. I am not sure
exactly how it would work but I think it makes great sense
because we forgo economic gain but unpaid work is still work and
deserves to be compensated.
I also had a bill to convert the child care expense deduction to
a credit and extend it to all families. I agree with the intent.
I am not exactly sure again about the mechanics but I support
the intent and I wanted to raise it in the House so that we could
discuss the issue.
I also had Motion No. 30, a care giver tax credit for those who
provide care in the home to preschool children, the chronically
ill, the aged and the disabled. Members will know that we passed
that motion in this place 129 to 63. As a result of the intent
of the House and the signal that was given there were
improvements in the disability credits that are transferable to
those who care for them. There was also the introduction of the
care giver credit for an aged parent which is now in place.
We did not quite get that care giver benefit for those who
provide care in the home to preschool children and we are working
on it.
There is a real cost. There is no question. I will not
dispute. I presented a petition over 200 times in the House that
managing the family home, caring for preschool children is an
honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value
to our society. In my view that is one of the most important
outcomes that should be from this debate today, that we are able
to give true recognition to the important contribution to our
society to raising healthy children and families.
Members agree on that. I know they do. I have seen them debate
here. I have seen them vote on issues related to the family. I
know family and healthy children are an important priority for
this place.
There is a real cost. We know where parents choose to have both
working in the paid labour force and they pay for third party
care there is a cost to that care. It includes food, toys,
books, music and infrastructure in a salary, and $7,000 is the
maximum that can be claimed as a deduction. A stay at home
parent also has costs. Child care expenses exist not because
parents work but because children exist. Parents who care for
their children in the home have the books, the toys, the music,
the food, the infrastructure, the place to raise a healthy child.
We have the unpaid work situation and I am not sure if we will
easily be able to resolve that. But a starting point will be to
recognize in this place that there is a value to that unpaid work
and in my view it is the most important job in the world.
1555
I believe no family should have to choose between the job it
needs and the child it loves. It is a very difficult decision
for many families to make. I believe that parents and not
governments should be making decisions as to what is the best
possible care for their children. I agree with the sentiment
expressed by somebody that we should not have significant
incentives or disincentives. We are talking about choice and I
support options, flexibility and choices for parents to choose
the best possible care for their children. We need to value the
contribution of those care givers through economic supports,
which I will deal with at the end of my speech.
We obviously want to give that recognition to those who choose
to provide direct parental care to their children. It is their
family value, it is their social value. They believe that is the
best arrangement for their children. But for some there is no
option because affordable child care may not be available. It
may not even be accessible. We do not all live in urban centres.
It will not always be available. We have so many different
circumstances across this great land that there is no single
solution to solve everybody's problems. That is an important
point for all members to remember.
It is my principle and my view that parents providing direct
parental care provide the best quality of care possible in the
vast majority of cases. I appreciate that many families have
forgone the opportunity to have both parents working, to earn
economic gain, to buy RRSPs, to have those vacations, and they do
it because they love their children and because they want to
raise healthy children and strong families. It is a very
significant contribution being made.
If we have high quality care, we have better physical, mental
and social health outcomes in children. That means we have lower
health care costs, criminal justice costs and social program
costs. All Canadians benefit when we have healthy outcomes for
children. That is the contribution and that is why everyone here
is saying very clearly that we value stay at home parents for
their contribution.
Madam Speaker, I understand I am splitting my time with the
member from Vancouver, which we talked about earlier.
I will not support this motion today and I will present to
members the reason why. I have about seven points to make.
First, the child care expense deduction is only available to the
lowest income earning of the two spouses. As a result it may not
be equitable to treat everybody the same. I do not believe the
child care expense deduction is that.
The child care expense deduction has a problem with it. Members
including the member for Calgary Southeast will know that the
deduction is worth more to higher income earners versus low
income earners which is also discriminatory. I have a problem
with the child care expense deduction, period.
The motion does not address the fact of lone parent families
which are growing dramatically. The family breakdown rate in
Canada is rising to a level above 50%. In 1994 when I came here
lone parent families represented 12% of all families. Stats
Canada now reports that one out of every six families is a lone
parent family and this motion would do nothing to help them. I
want to help lone parent families.
Comparing $50,000 to two incomes of $25,000 is a specious
argument. We really have to start with here is a couple working,
one making $50,000, one making $25,000, and then they have a
child. Now we have to make the decision of should I withdraw
from the workforce and provide direct parental care or should I
engage care and have a child care expense deduction. That is the
debate and that is what has not been put on the table by the
Reform Party. I am sorry, but it is inappropriate for discussion
to have a $50,000 income compared with two $25,000 incomes.
If we were to do that we would have the same situation as in the
United States with a different tax table. We cannot calculate it
on individual tax tables. If they were straightforward and
forthright on this issue they would say that we would adopt the
same situation of joint filing that the U.S. has and also have a
separate tax table for joint filers.
This issue cannot be looked at simplistically and have the
Income Tax Act solve all problems for all family configurations
for all care giver choices.
1600
Other things have to be taken into account such as non-tax items
and the child tax benefit. The government introduced a change of
$1.7 billion which will significantly enhance the position of
stay at home moms.
I want members to know what I want. I cannot just be against
something. I want to eliminate totally the child care expense
deduction. I want to replace it with a caregiver benefit
available to all caregivers so that they can choose how they will
provide it.
I also want to increase the paid parental leave under the EI
program by an additional 27 weeks so that parents can choose to
provide one full year of care for their children during those
first important formative years.
Finally, I want to amend the Canada pension plan so that stay at
home moms can finally have some benefit from our Canada pension
plan.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): 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?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, let me repeat. First, the
child care expense deduction is only available to the lowest
income earning spouse so that parents with part time incomes of a
very small amount cannot make full use of the benefit. It is not
equitable.
Second, the motion does not take into account the case of lone
parents. Lone parents represent one out of every six parents in
the country. They would get no benefit from the motion. I want
to help them.
I do not disagree with the intent of the motion. I think I said
I agree with the intent. I just do not agree with the approach
and because of that I will not leave it there. I explicitly
articulated three ways in which we could improve not only the
fairness but also the equity between incomes and tax benefits for
all families.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I was not planning to rise but the member mentioned EI
and now I want to say a couple of points.
In 1989 one of my predecessors, Mr. Broadbent, put a motion to
the House to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. We have
had four years of Conservative government. We have had six years
of Liberal government, and now child poverty is fourfold in the
country. Also the use of food banks is on a rise. It is
absolutely astounding that the government can stand by and this
member can try to defend Liberal action in any way.
The member mentioned EI. Under the government $21 billion has
been ripped away from the workers and employers, some $7 billion
this year alone. As has already been admitted by the Minister of
Human Resources Development, that money has been spent on other
programs. This money belongs to the employees and employers,
especially working mothers who could stay at home. The rules
were changed. If a woman decided to stay at home and have
maternity leave it was very difficult to achieve that.
Those are the facts of the matter. Would the hon. member
respond to that, please?
Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his
question. The motion that was dealt with by the House in 1989
was to seek to achieve the goal of eliminating and not to
eliminate. I just wanted to point that out for the member.
The issue of poverty is related to this issue because of the
growing number of lone parent families in Canada. They represent
about one out of six families, but they also account for 46% of
all children living in poverty.
The member raised a very important point and we have to do
something about it.
1605
The single largest cause of poverty is family breakdown. Family
breakdown has to do with the significant level of domestic
violence in Canada, with alcohol and drug abuse, and with the
financial stress on couples. These are social problems on which
we have made no progress.
I agree with the member. We have to do something. I do not
know what we will do with domestic violence other than take some
stronger, tough love measures and start reporting more cases,
charging more people and protecting victims. We need to do some
important work in that regard.
I thank the member for raising the issue of poverty. It will be
an important issue for the House for some time.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, our government has introduced its sixth budget. It
provides the health care system, the most fundamental need of
Canadian families and children, with $11.5 billion in new funding
over five years. It also provides over $7 billion in broad based
tax relief that will benefit every Canadian. A large portion of
the relief is to lower income individuals and families.
Now we have a motion by the official opposition before us. Does
it challenge our health care investment? Does it propose a new
tax assistance for those in need? The answer is no.
It is an outrageous idea that a family in which both parents
work at lower income levels may pay less tax than a single
breadwinner who is lucky enough to earn as much as the other two
people combined.
The false logic of this alleged discrimination has been properly
and precisely rebutted by my colleagues in government. I will
step over this red herring motion, or maybe I should say
misleading proposal, and address the underlying issues. The real
agenda behind the motion is to try to suggest that the government
is not taking concrete, committed action on the tax burden
affecting every Canadian.
As the budget made clear, tax reduction plays a key role in the
government's objective to build today for a better future. The
federal government is committed to providing substantial tax
relief in the fairest way possible.
Significant relief was directed at students, charities, persons
with disabilities and the children of parents with low incomes
upon the elimination of the deficit in 1997-98. The 1998 budget
began the process of providing broad based tax relief. For the
first time since 1965 tax relief is provided for every taxpayer
without deficit financing, without borrowing money to pay for it.
In the interest of fairness, the greatest tax relief in the
1998-99 budget will go to low and middle income Canadians. The
1998 budget benefited low income Canadians by increasing by $500
the amount of income they can earn annually before paying income
tax. The 1999 budget increases that amount by $175, to $675, and
extends it to all Canadian taxpayers.
This means that effective July 1, 1999, the basic amount of
income that all Canadians can therefore earn annually on a tax
free basis will rise to $7,131. As well the spousal equivalent
will increase to $655.
1610
Those measures will benefit low income Canadians. In the 1998
budget, 400,000 low income Canadians no longer pay any federal
taxes. The 1999 measures will build on those numbers by removing
200,000 more Canadians from this tax burden, for a total of
600,000.
The 1998 budget began the process of eliminating the 3% surtax
introduced in 1986 by the previous government as a measure to
help reduce the federal deficit. Last year the government
abolished the 3% surtax for taxpayers with incomes of up to
$50,000 and reduced it for those with incomes between $50,000 and
$65,000. All in all, 14 million Canadians received tax
reductions as a result of this measure.
The 1999 budget also builds on previous action to assist
families through the Canadian child tax benefit which is composed
of basic benefits and a supplement for the low income family.
As the finance minister has noted, the tax measures in the 1998
and the 1999 budgets reflect three fundamental principles of the
government's tax policy. First, our tax system must be fair.
Second, broad based tax relief should focus initially on personal
income tax. Third, because of our debt burden broad based tax
relief should not be financed with borrowed money.
Together the 1998 and the 1999 budgets provide the largest tax
reduction at the lowest income level. For example, single
taxpayers earning $20,000 and less will have their federal income
tax reduced by at least 10%. A typical one earner family with
two children and an income of $30,000 or less will pay no net
federal tax. A family with income of $45,000 or less will have
tax reduced by a minimum of 10%, and in some cases even more.
The 1998 and 1999 budgets ensure that 600,000 low income
Canadians will no longer pay any federal tax. As a working
mother I would support whatever help we can give to working
mothers either at home or at work. The government has focused on
helping low income families, providing also for mothers working
at home. It is our purpose to support and help the 600,000 low
income families.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
have been listening with some interest to the member for
Vancouver—Kingsway. She mentions how fair the tax system is,
how wonderful it is and how it treats everybody in Canada the
same, but we have to ask the Liberal member some questions.
Why are Canadians paying $2,020 more in federal taxes today than
they did in 1993? Why over the last decade do more families have
both parents working? In 57% of all families both parents work
now and in 1976 only 34% worked. Why is that if the tax system
is so fair?
I would like to take this member back to an October 8, 1998
finance committee hearing in Calgary where Kids First were
appearing. The member for Calgary Southeast was there to witness
the outrage that these people felt when the member stood and said
“Most women can combine career and family life. A lot of times
people just take the easy way out”.
1615
Is this member telling Canadians that people who stay at home to
take care of their kids are taking the easy way out? Is that
what she meant to say?
Ms. Sophia Leung: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for
his question. Sometimes members like to quote only half of my
sentences and not finish what I said. That is misrepresenting my
statement. Actually, I am trying to encourage—
An hon. member: It is quoted from Hansard word for
word.
Ms. Sophia Leung: You are 10 years ahead of my time. It
is a 1998 correction.
An hon. member: Jason was in diapers then.
Ms. Sophia Leung: He was probably in high school.
I would like to finish my comments to the hon. member's question
regarding my remarks. I was actually trying to encourage mothers
to choose. They can have both, a career and a family. I know as
a working mother that it is very demanding and it is challenging
to combine both. I say that they can have it either way.
If mothers find combining the two is difficult, they have to
know that there are opportunities for them to develop abilities
to meet new challenges in life. I stayed home until my son was
ready to attend grade two. I feel it is perfectly all right to
stay at home.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I want to ask the question again to the Liberal member
because I have not received the answer from any of the other
Liberal members.
In 1993 this government promised day care for low income
families and families across this country. That promise was
broken. My question is why?
Ms. Sophia Leung: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the
member for reminding me that we did make the promise. We are
willing to help working mothers by subsidizing day care.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to work with different
provinces, especially when some provinces do not wish to
co-operate to work out combined support for a day care program.
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): 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?
Ms. Sophia Leung: Madam Speaker, if the member wants to
hear the answer he should not walk away. That is the coward's
way.
If the hon. member wishes to listen to my answer he should stay.
This is the place to listen, to have a good debate. I welcome
that. As a matter of fact, I did not know I was a millionaire.
Where did the member get that idea? If I was a millionaire I
would not have to work here.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, we as parliamentarians must do what is best for our
country. The best thing for our country would be to do what is
best for our children and our families. What is the best thing
for our children? To allow them to have the right to have loving
parents stay at home to take care of them without being penalized
by the state for doing so.
Are they being penalized? Yes. I want hon. members to look at
the facts.
1620
Roughly 82% of Canadians want the tax code changed; this
according to the C. D. Howe Institute's latest report:
Current Canadian tax policy affords no universal recognition of
children. In effect, it treats children in middle- or
high-income families like consumer spending, as if parents had no
legal or moral obligation to spend money on their care. This
treatment is indefensible.
That is a quotation from the C. D. Howe Institute's November
1998 report.
They go on to say that federal tax, pre-1998 budget, paid by one
earner families of four earning $60,000 was $10,319. That was
the tax paid by a family of four. Federal tax, post-1999, for
this same family was $9,589. The federal tax, pre-1998 budget,
paid by two earner families of four earning $60,000 was $6,410
and after the 1999 budget this family paid $5,790.
Therefore, the C. D. Howe Institute points out that the one
earner family paid 60.98% more in federal taxes than the two
earner family before the 1998 budget. After budget '99, this
difference jumped to 65.6%. With this latest budget the
discriminatory tax situation increases 5%.
The C. D. Howe Institute goes on to say that at $45,000 these
numbers jump even higher. At that rate the discrimination is
111% and after the 1999 budget it jumps to a difference of 136%.
These are numbers from an external source. These are not
numbers that we have put together. They clearly indicate how
discriminatory this Liberal Party has been against parents who
choose to have one parent stay at home.
They go on to say that federal tax, pre-1998 budget, paid by one
earner families of four with a total income of $50,000 was
$7,116. The federal tax for this family after the 1999 budget
was $6,464. Also, before the 1998 budget the federal tax paid by
two earner families of four earning an income of $50,000 was
$3,716. After the 1999 budget this family paid $3,160. So a one
earner family paid $3,400 more or 91.5% more in federal taxes
than a two earner family before the 1998 budget. After the 1999
budget this difference rose to $3,304, for an increase of 104%.
That is what this debate is about today. These are the facts.
If hon. members go out into society they will find that one of
the greatest irritants parents have is our present discriminatory
tax policy.
We need to allow parents to have the choice without being
penalized. Do not penalize single income households. I have
heard all kinds of rhetoric from the other side where members are
trying to excuse themselves because they have been whipped into
voting against this motion. It is a motion that is supported by
the vast majority of Canadians. Allow them to make a choice.
Allow parents to stay at home to care for their children without
having to pay a penalty.
The government has had the opportunity to change this
discriminatory policy that favours dual income households and it
has not yet done it after five years.
The first root of the problem is that the government wants to
manipulate society. I ask myself: Why does it not do this? It
wants to restrict people in their choices. Labelling stay at
home parents as child care dropouts indicates how government
members are thinking.
The second root of the problem is that taxes are much too high
and the government does not want to reduce them. It is most
reluctant to respond to the desire of Canadians to have their
taxes reduced.
1625
In fact taxes are so high that these taxes drive parents out of
the home in order to pay the bills. In order to provide the
food, shelter and clothing that are needed, parents today are
forced to supplement their income by having both parents work out
of the home. This limits parents in their desire to do what they
feel is best for those they cherish most, their children.
According to the experts, this restriction on the parents'
desire to directly care for their children has raised costs in
four areas. Costs to society increase because parents are
restricted in their choices. In their desire to spend time with
their children, psychologists have told us that it is absolutely
necessary that they be with their children, yet the social
engineering of the Liberals has raised costs in four areas. These
four areas are education, social costs, justice and health care
costs.
If the Liberals allowed parents to exercise their choice freely
without being manipulated by the tax system we could lower our
level of taxation in this country. Why? Because education costs
could be reduced. Health care costs could be reduced. Justice
costs could be reduced. All of those social costs could be
reduced. What would appear as maybe a loss of income to the
government would actually have the opposite effect.
The accusation was thrown at us by the Liberals that we would
like to remove paid child care as a tax deduction. We have never
said that. We would not oppose a tax reduction for parents. But
we do object to the fact that parents who stay at home to care
for their children are not treated equally. The parent who stays
at home is not allowed to reduce their taxes accordingly. The
government does not give equal treatment to parents who choose to
stay at home. That is the main point of this motion. That is
what we are going to be voting on. We need to look at the intent
of this motion. Many of the speakers on the opposite side have
avoided the intent of this motion.
In conclusion, let me talk a little about the brain drain and
how that is affecting families. Canada is one of the most highly
taxed nations in the world. According to the Fraser Institute,
the total tax rate runs at 49%. High taxation is driving our
young people out of this country. A single person would have 38%
disposable income in the United States. In Canada they only have
22%. That is a huge difference.
What effect does that have on the family? Grandparents who
would like to see their grandchildren are unable to do that.
Grandparents have an important role to play. This government
makes it more difficult to have extended family relationships
because our young people are forced to leave to go to the U.S. to
find jobs.
Not only are we incurring huge costs educating young people,
young people who could contribute to our quality of life and our
economy, we are forcing them to leave the country. We are also
harming extended family relationships. That is very serious.
If we thought through the tax policies of the government we
would see how it has completely disregarded the pleas of
Canadians for tax reduction and fairness in this area.
An hon. member: Some Canadians.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I hear a member opposite saying
some Canadians. Look at what people think. Over 70% of mothers
in the workplace would prefer to be at home with their children.
Over 80% of Canadians, mothers and fathers, feel that the
government is discriminating in the area of taxation against
parents who would like this choice. That is very serious. That
is what this debate is about.
I have heard all the rhetoric on the other side, the waffling
and the excuses because they are not allowed to vote freely. I
think we should put politics aside and do what is best for the
children and for the families of this country.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, Public Service of
Canada; the hon. member for Mississauga South, Health; the hon.
member for Winnipeg North Centre, Health.
1630
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I agree with sentiment and the spirit of the member's comments as
I think he listened to my speech earlier. He will know that I
have some difficulties not with the intent of the motion but
rather based on the speeches that were given with the approach to
dealing with it.
I say that because the child care expense deduction which
appears to be the foundation of the debate is only available to
the lowest income earning spouse. It is also worth more to a
higher income earner versus a low income earner. It is
problematic. Given that it is only available to the lowest
income earner it does not do justice or equity to parents where
one of them may have some part time income because that parent
would be the only one to claim the child care expense deduction
against a low level of part time income. Also not taken into
account would be someone who has interest income as a second
earning. A stay at home mom with interest income would have to
claim the child care expense deduction and could not transfer it
to the higher income earning spouse. It would not benefit them.
The third situation would be lone parents. They either work or if
they do not work, they will have no income to deduct the child
care expense deduction against.
I argued and I ask the hon. member whether he would not consider
that if the child care expense deduction in itself is technically
flawed and is not apparently an instrument that can be inclusive
of the different kinds of configurations of families and income
situations of families, maybe we should just scrap it and replace
it with a care giver benefit.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, I respect the member
opposite. However, he is trying to change the subject. He is
trying to find an excuse not to support the motion. Look at the
intent of this motion. Do not start going off on some tangent. I
submit that if this motion had been introduced by the finance
minister he would have stood up and supported it. He is going
into all kinds of extraneous details that are not in the motion
and which could be debated when the legislation is introduced but
the general principle is what we are talking about today,
fairness and equality in our tax system for parents who would
choose to stay at home and do a very valuable job.
We have had everybody support the intent of that. They are
doing a very valuable job and yet that is the problem we have
here. The question I would like to pose back but cannot is why
he is not supporting the intent of this motion. If it were
introduced over there he would be supporting it.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to quickly put a question to my colleague.
What we are doing here is asking that a system be set up so we
can look to end this discrimination. My colleague knows
very well that there are many people opposite who want to end
this discrimination.
When does my colleague think the whip came down and said “no,
we will vote against it” and for what reason? Can the member
think of any reason they would defeat a motion that is so
fundamentally clear and honest?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, it is impossible to
answer that question. I cannot get into the heads of the people
on the other side. I have asked myself many times the question
of what makes them tick, why they knuckle under to the whip and
why they do not use their heads when it comes to debating and
looking at the legislation. This flies in the face of democracy.
What we should be doing in the House is listening to the
legislation and the motions being debated. That is our job as
legislators, as parliamentarians, to listen to the pros and cons
of a debate and vote accordingly. That is not happening. This is
the most undemocratic place we can imagine because of the system
that has developed here.
1635
That has to change and unless we change this system, we will not
change much else in the country. Our parents will still be
discriminated against if they choose to take care of the children
because of the system that exists here, where members of
parliament are not allowed to vote freely on this. How they are
kept in line is up to speculation.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a disgrace and I am ashamed that we even have to
talk about this as we are about to turn the millennium, that we
discriminate against parents who choose to stay home and raise
their children.
I will get into specifics. This all boils down to just one
issue as I see it that we have to decide on. Will we recognize
that parenting is one of our most important occupations that any
Canadian can do? I suggest it is.
My wife stays at home. She works 14 to 16 hours a day raising
our children. There is not one other occupation I can think of
that is more difficult, more demanding and is more of a
cornerstone of the fabric of our society than that.
Before I get into specific examples out of their own documents
to prove this, I will relate something that is even more
insulting, more disgraceful. Members opposite, instead of giving
tax fairness to stay at home parents are more concerned about
providing tax relief to NHL franchises, to NHL hockey players who
are earning millions and millions of dollars. That is what they
are focusing on. That is insulting. That is a disgrace to all
these parents who stay at home.
I do not disagree that they are probably overtaxed but if the
government is to give out one thin dime and a tax free
certificate it had better give out 30 million of them.
I will get to the specifics. I have a document, a child care
expense deduction form for 1998, form T778. That is what any
Canadian will have to fill out to claim a child care deduction
for this year. I will use myself as an example.
My wife has a university degree. She was a director of
information services at a local college. She can speak four
languages, is well educated but she chose to give up her career
because she felt it was so fundamentally important to stay home
with our children while I went out to work.
I have another example. My sister is a school teacher in
Invermere, British Columbia. He husband James chose to put his
career on hold and stay at home with their three daughters until
they started school. He felt it was important that one parent be
there. He put his career on hold and stayed at home.
For either James or my wife or anybody else in similar
circumstances, if they wanted to get the same tax deduction as
two working parents there is one way they could do it. I am
looking on the tax form, part C. If they ticked off the box that
they are mentally or physically incapable of raising children
they would be eligible for the same deduction.
This one is even more amazing. Let me read word for word from
the government's tax form:
Is so they would be eligible for that tax deduction.
That is not rhetoric. That is fact. It is an insult to every
single man and woman who chooses to stay home and look after
their children and it is absolutely shameful that we are
discussing that as we go into the next millennium, that we can
discriminate. I plead to the members. I am telling straight
facts.
There is one other way that they could get this deduction. My
wife and I would have to separate. If we are living separate and
apart we would get the deductions.
It is an insult that we are promoting that. I know seniors who
have come to me and said the only way they could get tax fairness
is if they were to get a legal divorce. That is another whole
issue.
The issue we are talking about today is whether we recognize the
role of parents who choose to stay home and raise their children.
The question is whether we recognize that as the most important
occupation in society.
The government puts zero importance on it. It discriminates
against it. They are not entitled to it.
1640
In fact, one of the Liberal members point this out to me. I am
appalled. These are the facts. I challenge any member on that
side to come to talk to me personally or stand up in the House
and I will provide him or her with this document. They can get
it from any post office. These are the facts.
They keep coming up with all these other arguments on everything
they have done. Some of these came in with the Tories but we are
not discussing those because those are available to everybody. We
are talking about the one deduction that is available.
Another issue that has been raised is how a two parent family
each earning $25,000 is better off than another two parent family
that has only one person earning $50,000. The family that
believes it is important to stay home and nurture and raise
children is discriminated by $4,000. This is on top of the the
child care issue which I was just explaining.
My children are four and five. They go to preschool for
my wife's benefit so that she can get a few hours out of each
week to do the things she needs to do. It is also, I argue, a
benefit for them and very good for them. However, we are not
entitled to that tax deduction because my wife is not a criminal,
she has not spent two weeks in jail and we are not separated.
These words are right off the form:
It is insulting to these people.
I have another example which takes me back four or five years
going to law school. This goes on to part D. We had our
children when I was going to school. My wife gave up her career
while I was in law school. If the circumstances had been the
same as they are today, we would not have been entitled to put
them in a day care and claim that deduction even though the
family income was only for three or four months a year around
$16,000.
If both the parents are not working they both have to be going
to school to claim that deduction in part D. This is right off
the government's tax forms. I encourage members to look at them.
I read these and I am appalled.
I then listen to other comments made by members in the House and
the insults get deeper and deeper and the wounds become deeper
and deeper.
Let me talk about the member for Vancouver Kingsway. She was
sitting on a committee in Calgary along with my hon. colleague
from Calgary Southeast who explained to me the outrage of the
people she was addressing. These people were just disgusted.
There is a quote in Hansard which she laughs and sneers at
when she is questioned in the House. She said perhaps
individually you have low self-esteem for many reasons but you
cannot say this applies to all women at home. They are not being
looked down upon as misfits.
I would argue that my wife is not a misfit. She has a degree and
is fluent in four languages, written and spoken, but she chose to
place her priority on our family. We believe that it is very
important to stay at home and raise our children. She is also
fully aware of the sacrifices she has made. She wants to go back
into the workforce when our children start school. We are facing
those choices now. She took five years out of her career because
she felt it was so important. We discriminate against those
people. There are hundreds of thousands of those kinds of people
across this country.
She also said most women can combine career and family life. It
is not about that. It is about making choices. I find this
absolutely outrageous. That the government will give the tax
deduction to a criminal who spends two weeks in jail, somebody
who is separated or somebody who is not capable of raising their
children but the person who chooses to stay at home is not
entitled to that same deduction is outrageous. How can the
government insult Canadians?
1645
There is an opportunity to correct this by standing and voting
in favour of this motion. We can do what is right, put politics
aside, rise above party labels and do what we believe is right
for Canadians. I will give members this document and they can
read it for themselves and make the choice.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member has expressed the sentiment of all members who spoke
today and I think of all members of the House of the important
contribution families make when they choose to provide direct
parental care.
The issue of discrimination continues to be part of this
dialogue. The member will know that in the Income Tax Act there
is a lot of discrimination. In fact policy by its very nature is
discriminatory.
We discriminate in favour of seniors because we give them an age
exemption and pay OAS. We discriminate in favour of aboriginals
because of the special programs and benefits. We discriminate in
favour of high income earners because they can deduct larger
amounts in RRSPs. We discriminate in favour of low income earners
because they have a lower tax rate than others. We discriminate
in favour. All of the tax measures that were put in probably
were done in response to a particular situation.
I do not think anyone in this place will disagree with the
spirit and with the intent. But the member will know that the
child care expense deduction is not inclusive enough. It does not
deal with the benefit available to someone with part time work or
just non-earned income work or with lone parent situations.
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, in those comments the hon.
member has acknowledged there is discrimination. We are talking
about discrimination against parents who choose to stay at home
and raise their children. My family is one of those. I have
siblings who have made those choices, along with hundreds of
thousands of Canadians.
Let us recognize the value that they contribute to this society,
the very fabric and what will be the future of our society. They
have such a fundamental important role. Let us fix that
discrimination the member talks about. It is right here in the
tax forms. Why would we give a deduction to a criminal who goes
to jail for two weeks? Why do I have to separate from my wife
for 90 days to be eligible for a deduction?
Can we not recognize the value that they give to society, that
it is the most important occupation we have in this land? It is
not about some of the comments that have been made that other
people have to work hard.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is an element of holier than thou in this debate.
I have sat here quietly for the last three hours and I have heard
the Reform Party opposite constantly ask why did the finance
minister not do something on this issue, that since 1993, for
five years this government has not moved on this issue.
The opposition party has an opportunity to present an opposition
motion every week or so. I would like to ask the member opposite
why has it taken five years for that party to bring this motion
forward in this House?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, we have to prioritize. We
have had to bring motions forward to try to provide some relief
for hepatitis C victims. We have had to bring motions forward
for debate in this House on offering protection to children in
this country against pedophiles and pornographic materials.
Those are the priorities on which we had to make choices to bring
to this House.
Let us stick to the facts. The facts are on the government's
own tax forms. It is discriminating. We are not recognizing the
importance of parents who choose to stay home to raise their
children. Let us give them the fairness.
We are not asking for anything that is not fair. We are only
asking that they be treated the same as everyone else, that they
be treated equally. We are not asking for special privileges for
them, but just to be treated as equal, not to be talked down to
as so many government members have done. That is all we are
asking.
We are asking them to put their political labels aside and do
what in their hearts they know is right. This is an issue for
which we have fought for a long time and we will continue to do
so.
1650
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to acknowledge at the outset that I will be splitting
my time with the hon. member for Wentworth—Burlington.
I hope that in this debate I can offer some constructive
suggestions with respect to the motion at hand. I will
diligently attempt to stay away from gender politics and all of
the nonsense that goes with it.
Supply days in this House are a little like playing paintball
with a blind man. If you shoot often enough, after a while you
hit a target by accident. Under serendipitous circumstances
somehow or another you finally hit the mark.
To any great credit of the Reform Party it actually hit on an
anomaly in the Income Tax Act which bears some review and is a
point worth debating. I cannot say that has been often true from
the opposition parties as the points frequently raised from the
other side seem to bear no relevance to reality and are not worth
debating.
When I went to law school I took income tax. I hated the
subject. I would do everything to avoid the course. I then went
on to bar admission and had to do it again. Again I would try to
do everything to avoid the course. I wondered why I really
objected to the Income Tax Act. The essential reason was that
when I thought I had a solution to a particular problem, suddenly
the solution evaporated in my hands.
This motion is similar to that. It appears to be a good idea.
It seems like a good idea. Who could be against discrimination,
or for discrimination as the case may be? It makes no sense
whatsoever.
After 22 years of practising law, I have frequently been asked
questions with respect to the Income Tax Act. I have had enough
courage to say to clients that I know that I do not know a great
deal about the subject. I dare say that such candour seldom is
experienced by members opposite.
Income tax is extremely complicated. The act is complicated.
It is understood by very few people in its entirety. There is an
argument to be put that almost no one in Canada actually
understands the act in all its complexities. Any time one plays
with a certain part of the act, there are implications in the act
that one probably does not anticipate.
Notwithstanding that, we are not being asked so much to deal
with the act as we are dealing with the values that underlie the
act. In that respect, the motion has merit. The motion reads
“that, in the opinion of this House, the federal tax system
should be reformed to end discrimination against single income
families with children”. I am somewhat disappointed in the
drafters of the motion having chosen somewhat inflammatory
language such as discrimination.
As the member for Mississauga South pointed out, the act tries
to address a number of inequities in family living situations
such as people who split up, such as people with certain
disabilities. Every time one tries to favour one group in that
respect, one almost necessarily appears to discriminate against
another group. I would rather use the word that it is an anomaly
and address it as an anomaly.
Every time we use the word discriminatory we start to vision the
charter of rights and freedoms. We start to get into definitions
as to whether this is or is not discrimination and whether it is
justifiable in a free and democratic society. Knowing members
opposite, particularly the proponents of the motion, I know that
is not where they intend to go with their motion.
I do not pretend to go into a legal analysis on this matter but
I would like to address a family that is earning about $60,000 as
a family income. Clearly the numbers do not add up. If one is
married or living common law and earning $30,000, spouse one and
spouse two, the total family tax is about $11,600. If however
only one of the spouses is earning the $60,000, the tax burden is
about $16,000.
1655
The inequity is apparent. It is about $4,300. That inequity is
further exaggerated if one is also a single parent, although when
one gets into various spousal equivalents it gets somewhat
closer. Clearly there is about a $4,000 discrepancy between the
two situations.
What does the tax system do to exaggerate the anomaly or to
minimize the anomaly? I point out to members opposite that the
child care deduction has an approximate value of $4,000 to
$7,000. This goes to the spouse who has the lowest income. Of
course the premise is that the spouse who has no income will not
be able to benefit from that child care deduction. That actually
exaggerates the anomaly rather than minimizes it.
Are there aspects which actually reduce the anomaly? The most
obvious is the child tax benefit which by anyone's standards is a
significant initiative on the part of this government. It is
approximately $2 billion.
The problem with arguing on the basis of the child tax benefit
is that it applies both to single family incomes and families
that have double incomes. That in and of itself does not help to
reduce the anomaly.
The real issue as I see it is that it is a values decision. This
government has made an attempt to minimize the effects of the
Income Tax Act on those most vulnerable and most in need. If
that is the damning indictment of a government, then I stand with
the government to try and reduce the impact of the tax on those
most vulnerable and most in need. This is something I support.
I have to say that in that respect the government has done a
reasonable job. Over the past two budgets, the government has
taken about 600,000 taxpayers off the rolls and that, regardless
of where we sit in this House, is a considerable accomplishment.
I am aware that as employment improves, there will be more
taxpayers added to the rolls. Again those are results of
government policies which can only bring more fairness into the
system.
It seems to me that the government has made the right decision
in this area to attempt to reduce the effect of the income tax on
anyone below a certain threshold. Frankly, again I cannot
imagine how members on any side of the House would argue that is
anything other than a good thing.
As the threshold rises, it has benefits to all families,
regardless of whether they are a single parent or have both
parents, whether they have a single income or a double income.
The additional and obvious benefit has been to move up the
threshold by $675 which means that an individual is going to have
to have a taxable income in excess of $7,000 before there is
going to be any tax at all.
Another area in which the anomaly can be reduced is in the
spousal credit. This goes somewhat toward the reduction of the
anomaly by about $1,000 in our example.
An additional area where the government has attempted to address
the inequity is through the Canada child tax benefit. This
provides a special supplement of $213 per child under the age of
17.
These are, I would argue, modest attempts to reduce the
anomalies. The 1999 budget should be credited for doing that.
In addition there was an introduction of the Canada child tax
benefit which has a value of $2,600 for a family that has one
income versus $1,270 for a family that has two incomes. Again if
we put those benefits together, the spousal credit and the child
tax benefit, we have reduced the anomaly somewhat which still
leaves it in the range of approximately $3,000.
The final point I would like to make with respect to the
reduction of the anomaly is that the increase in deductibility
and the removal of many people from the tax rolls is an enormous
benefit that is not factored into the motion.
The final issue with respect to this is whether—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but I
must interrupt. The hon. member did say that he was splitting
his time.
Mr. John McKay: Yes, I did.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Well, this is the
time that he is going to have to start splitting.
1700
Mr. John McKay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your
splitting of hairs. The hon. member is well aware of how hairs
get split in the Chamber.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I will try to be brief. The member for Vancouver
Kingsway said that they had difficulty with the provinces
establishing a day care to fulfil the Liberal promise of 1993. I
have the 1993 promise right here and I should remind the House
that provincial leaders do not run for federal politics. Only
governments do and the five political parties.
This Liberal government ran in 1993. Its promise was to create
50,000 child care spaces in each year following a year of 3%
economic growth, to a total of 150,000 over three years. It also
said that for families which need two incomes to survive and for
single parents who want to get off welfare and other social
assistance and get jobs, access to quality child care was a must.
Nowhere in the promise of 1993 does it say that the government
would co-operate with or even discuss with the provinces. This
was a federal Liberal promise which was broken by this
government.
Once again I ask this member of the Liberal Party why they made
the promise and why they broke it.
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows,
any initiative in this area, any amendments to the Income Tax Act
or any separate freestanding act with respect to this issue, has
to be done in conjunction with the provinces. If we cannot get
provincial co-operation we simply cannot succeed in that area.
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member referred to the discrimination of the
Liberal government's tax policy as an anomaly. He would prefer
if we would use the word anomaly. I bet he would prefer for us
to use the word anomaly because it does not sound near as bad as
the tax discrimination of the government against families that
have one of their members remaining at home to look after the
children.
On Monday a caller in Vancouver asked the finance minister this
very question. In response the finance minister used the same
terminology of an anomaly. The caller said that her family was
being penalized by the regressive tax policies of the federal
government and the finance minister, and the minister said that
she was right.
The finance minister admitted this was a regressive taxation
policy that clearly discriminated against families. He would
like us to believe that it just kind of happened, that it was an
anomaly which has built up over the years. The finance minister
has been here for five years and has done nothing to change the
law to address this discrimination.
Does my hon. colleague on the other side not agree with the
finance minister? If this is an anomaly, as he likes to say,
rather than blatant discrimination, why has the finance minister
done nothing over five years to address these serious inequities?
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, we are not arguing whether
this is an anomaly or an inequity. The issue is that it is
acknowledged by the finance minister that it is an inequity, an
anomaly.
If the member were listening, and I know he was listening to
everything the minister was saying, he would have heard the
finance minister's answer in the House today that it was being
referred to the finance committee. It is an issue that has been
circulating in this caucus a great deal. I do not see that the
finance minister has been anything other than straightforward
with the House in terms of addressing that issue.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will be
very brief. I would just like to ask a short question.
The Liberals opposite have a policy of helping the rich get
richer and the poor get poorer.
I do not understand my colleague when he says that they are
sympathetic. Why could this not be resolved quickly? Everyone
agrees that it makes no sense, that it is discriminatory, but
they have done nothing about it. My colleague said earlier that
they have been in office for five years, more even, and have
done nothing about it.
Why could this not be resolved quickly?
[English]
Mr. John McKay: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon.
member has been doing in the House for the past number of years,
but if we look at the initiatives on the part of the government
with respect to children, I do not think we need to stand down to
anyone. Two billion dollars as a Canada child tax benefit is a
huge amount of money by anyone's standards.
1705
To speak to the member's issue with respect to child care, the
money was put on the table for the provinces to pick up and the
provinces chose not to pick the money up. Those are initiatives
in extreme circumstances that the government was experiencing
with respect to its financial position.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am actually delighted to take part in this debate
because I have been waiting for it for a very long time.
My connection with this problem goes back to my beginnings as a
politician. I ran for the first time as a politician in 1993.
One of the platform planks of the Liberals in 1993 was the
creation of 150,000 day care spaces.
Both before and after I won the nomination I made it very clear
to the press and to all members of the Liberal Party in my riding
that I did not support the creation of 150,000 day care spaces.
That resulted in a telephone call out of the blue from Ottawa. I
picked up the phone. I had never met the man before but he
introduced himself on the other side of the phone as Mr. Martin.
It turned out that this Mr. Martin was one of the architects of
the Liberal platform for 1993. He said on the phone to me “I
understand that you don't agree with the Liberal platform”.
I said “No, no, Mr. Martin. That is not it at all. My problem
is that I do not believe that the creation of 150,000 day care
spaces is the best way to spend money in comparison to possibly
finding a better way, a tax break for stay at home spouses”. I
also said “Mr. Martin, when I win I expect to convince you of
the rightness of what I am saying”, and he said “Well, fair
enough. See you in Ottawa”.
That is just a little illustration that the Liberal Party is an
inclusive party. It permits and encourages dissent on key
issues, but one has to be able to persuade, to convince the
leadership that the suggestion is the right suggestion and should
be given priority.
I was very fortunate after 1993 because I did not have to
aggressively pursue this issue. The member for Mississauga South
took up the issue with a great deal of eloquence. He was
constantly arguing that we should do something to give better tax
breaks to stay at home spouses. He was very good on that issue.
A year ago he became sick when we were in caucus out west and
debating this budget. Because the member for Mississauga South
was unable to attend that caucus, I rose and there was the
finance minister taking suggestions from members of caucus.
I said to the finance minister that I thought in this upcoming
budget it would be a very appropriate and very effective way of
spending money, with such surpluses we might have, to give better
equity to those families that choose to have a spouse stay at
home to look after their children.
I do not need statistics to know that there is merit in the
motion that has been proposed, quite apart from my long history
with the issue. In my riding I have frequent fall and summer
fairs at which I have a booth. It gives me an opportunity to
meet thousands of my constituents.
There is one young couple who always comes to these events. The
first they came they had two children; the last time they had
three. They ask me when I will persuade the finance minister to
adjust the Income Tax Act so that there is at least fairness for
those who choose to stay home to look after their children rather
than go out to work. There is merit on that side of the issue.
The other side of the issue we heard at various times today is
that the government has been very aggressive in addressing the
needs of children, although I have not won so far on the issue of
getting tax breaks for stay at home spouses.
1710
As we have heard today, there have been all kinds of government
programs since the government came to power to try to address the
problem of children in need and to try to give them the best
opportunity in life, including the child tax benefit and various
other programs.
Where it has been difficult to convey the logic and and where
there is some genuine disagreement is on the idea that a stay at
home spouse actually has real monetary value to the state and
that there is justification for supporting a stay at home spouse
through the tax system.
It is clear that we can address money to specific problems, but
it is not so clear to some people, though it is clear to me, that
it is in the state's interest to encourage through expenditure,
which is what a tax incentive is, that some spouses at least have
the choice to stay home if they so desire. That is the other
side.
I can understand why some members on my side will disagree with
the motion and why I have had difficulty in persuading the
finance minister that this is indeed something we should be
doing.
One of the reasons I welcome the motion that has come before us
today is that as a backbench government MP I do not have the
opportunity the opposition has to bring this kind of motion
before us for public debate, so the whole country can debate it.
If I could have put the motion forward years ago, I would have
done it. The problem is that the only option I have is a private
member's motion, which is a lottery and the chances of actually
getting the motion on the floor is very remote.
We heard earlier one Reform member opposite explain that the
reason the Reform Party did not bring the motion before the House
earlier in the five years it has had to do it was that it had
other priorities like chasing pedophiles and dealing with
hepatitis C. It also made choices.
More power to the finance minister. If he did not move on the
issue as fast as I would have liked and as fast as the member for
Mississauga South would have liked, at least the reason he did
not move as fast was that his priorities were looking after
children, providing benefits for children and looking after low
income families rather than trying to bring various criminals to
justice. It is a matter of choice. The priorities demonstrated
by the finance minister are the kinds of priorities I would
prefer to follow.
We have accomplished much by this debate. Regardless of how
members on either side vote on the motion, the finance minister
today in question period said that he felt this was an important
issue and that he would send directions to his parliamentary
secretary to get it on the agenda and hopefully debated in the
finance committee. Finally, the member for Mississauga South and
I will see the initiative to give equality and opportunity to
stay at home spouses come to pass.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.15 p.m., it is
my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith any question
necessary to dispose of the business of supply.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney: 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Calgary Southeast has requested unanimous consent that the time
for the debate be extended by one hour. We will do this in two
stages.
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1715
Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am wondering if we could reduce that time period to the
five minutes of questions and comments for our hon. colleague who
had an opportunity to make a most eloquent speech.
I am asking for unanimous consent that we allow our Liberal
colleague five minutes to extend his comments through questions
and comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have a technical
problem. I had already started to put the question to dispose of
the business pursuant to order made earlier today. Unless we
undo all that we have finished.
Therefore pursuant to order made earlier today all questions on
the motion are deemed put and a recorded division deemed demanded
and deferred until Tuesday, March 9 at the expiry of time
provided for Government Orders.
Mr. Gar Knutson: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find
unanimous consent to see the clock as 5.30 p.m. and that we
proceed to Private Members' Business.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA FOR HEALTH AND MEDICAL PURPOSES
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ) >moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana
for health and medical purposes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be the first elected
member of the House of Commons to speak, not just today in this
debate, but in the history of the House of Commons, on this
vital matter of the legalization of marijuana for health and
medical purposes.
Marijuana has been used medicinally throughout the world for
thousands of years. Today many patients, particularly those
suffering from cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and
other diseases, testify to the marked relief they obtain from
inhaling marijuana.
The therapeutic use of marijuana is, however, still banned by
the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and users are liable to
a six-month prison sentence and a $1000 fine.
With a view to changing this unacceptable situation, I
introduced a motion one year ago in favour of the legalization
of marijuana for health and medical purposes. For me, this is a
matter of compassion toward sick people suffering from nausea,
loss of appetite, vomiting, and other major discomforts which
accompany a number of chronic diseases.
1720
My motion is simple and unequivocal. It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana
for health and medical purposes.
In my opinion, it is unacceptable for a person with a chronic
condition, or a terminally ill AIDS patient, to be liable for
six months in prison and a $10,000 fine for using a medical
treatment recommended by his or her physician.
In this connection, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is
totally devoid of understanding and compassion toward the
chronically ill, who want nothing more than to live in dignity.
This act must be changed as soon as possible, in order to allow
the medical use of marijuana by those who need it.
The Ontario court has already found part of the Narcotic Control
Act to be unconstitutional. Clearly, the ball is now in our
court here in the House of Commons.
We have been elected to fulfil a role as legislators. We have
no right to let the courts decided in our stead. We must now
assume our responsibility as elected representatives by inviting
the federal government to pass concrete measures without delay
that will allow the therapeutic use of marijuana.
At the present time, the only parliamentary approach that can
achieve this is to give solid support to Motion M-381, which we
are debating here today for the first time, and which calls upon
the government to “undertake all necessary steps to legalize the
use of marijuana for health and medical purposes”. The situation
is urgent. For those who suffer, every day counts.
My position in favour of the legalization of marijuana for
therapeutic purposes was not formed yesterday. I was first made
aware of this injustice by my constituents, who urged me to take
a public position in favour of legalizing marijuana for health
and medical purposes.
Last March 6, I publicly supported a proposal along these lines
by young delegates to the Bloc Quebecois youth forum. I am
happy that this proposal was passed unanimously at the time by
forum delegates. The proposal called on the Bloc Quebecois to
take a stand in favour of the therapeutic use of marijuana and
urged its parliamentary wing to follow up.
Delegates were very happy to hear our leader, the member for
Laurier—Sainte-Marie, support their proposal in his closing
address to the conference. Two weeks later, I followed up with
the motion we are debating for the first time today.
This is not a new debate. The media and the courts have been
looking at this issue for some time now. Doctors are discussing
it with each other, and criminologists and patient advocacy
groups are giving it thought.
It is a topic that has been of interest to many people except,
until today, members of the House of Commons. Now, since this
debate will be followed by a vote, each of us here in the House
will have an opportunity to take a clear stand on the issue.
This is, in our view, a simple issue of transparency.
Until now, every time the issue of legalizing the therapeutic
use of marijuana came up, the Minister of Health or the Minister
of Justice tried to duck it. Their answer was always that they
were open to the issue, their officials were studying it, and
they hoped to be able to announce a plan or something more
specific in a few months' time, all the while hoping that the
issue would go away.
1725
They say the same thing the next time the question comes up.
This was what they did last year when an Ontario court judge
ruled that a section of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
was unconstitutional.
It was what they said when an AIDS sufferer from the Outaouais
and his physician asked the government to take action on this
issue. It is also what the Minister of Health and the Minister
of Justice told me when I put the question to them here in the
House one year ago on March 10 and 23, 1998.
Yesterday, it was the usual scenario.
On the eve of the first day of debate on the motion that
marijuana be legalized for medical purposes, the Minister of
Health suddenly feels a need to demonstrate compassion towards
the chronically ill.
What does he do to help? He announces that he will ask his
officials to prepare a plan to draw up guidelines for eventual
legalization of marijuana for medical use. I repeat: he
announces that he will once again ask his officials to prepare a
plan to draw up guidelines for eventual legalization of
marijuana for medical use.
What have the officials the minister asked to look into this
issue last year been doing? What do they have to show for their
research? Only the minister knows.
Yesterday, the Minister of Health took a step in the right
direction, and I said so yesterday. He deserves credit.
He has announced that he will be asking these same departmental
employees to draw up an action plan with a view to legalizing
the therapeutic use of marijuana. Hence we now know the mandate
he claims to have given to his staff.
How can we have any faith in his words when, in the past, the
minister's actions did not fall in line with his commitments?
Why did the minister announce a policy of openness but still no
precise timeframe or concrete measures to achieve the legal use
of marijuana for health and therapeutic purposes? Once again,
his actions denote a lack of transparency.
What is more, this new policy smacks of last-minute improvization
by the minister. He rushed to give his people a mandate just as
the issue was about to be debated.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Not true.
Mr. Bernard Bigras: I hear the parliamentary secretary over
there taking the liberty to react to what I am saying.
The parliamentary secretary ought to be familiar with the
demands by the Canadian AIDS Society. She ought to be familiar
with the position of the Canadian Hemophilia Society, which has
been tabled today. She ought to be familiar with the positions
of Donald Kilby, director of the University of Ottawa Health
Services. And of Réjean Thomas, a leading figure in the
treatment of AIDS. And she ought to be familiar with the case
of James Wakeford, who has made a request under the special
access program. With the cases of Jean-Charles Parizeau and
Terry Parker. But no, the parliamentary secretary does not want
to know.
The minister's new policy smacks of improvization, as I have
said.
He has given a hasty mandate to his departmental employees on
the eve of a debate on the matter, but is unable to give any
details on his policy. In fact, the minister cannot even say
whether his announcement means that he is taking the necessary
steps to legalize the health and medical use of marijuana.
1730
That is exactly what today's motion is calling for. The
minister is still refusing to say whether he will vote for or
against the motion. I hope that we can clarify his intentions
in the course of debate.
If the minister said yesterday that he was prepared to take
steps towards legalization, the only course open to him in June
is to vote in favour. Any move by the government to vote
against this motion will be interpreted by those favouring the
legalization of marijuana for medical purposes as unwillingness
to keep this promise.
I repeat, the government and the minister must demonstrate in
good faith. I grant that he has taken a step in the right
direction, but his actions must suit his words, and he must vote
in favour of the motion.
In fact, the minister is certainly not yet able to tell us what
stand he will take. We are still waiting, and would have liked
an announcement yesterday as to where he stood. But instead we
must wait.
I was in touch by phone as recently as yesterday with patients,
doctors, and associations asking me to continue the fight,
because nothing is a given, because although there was an
announcement yesterday, no timeframe was mentioned. There was
no research protocol.
We know that there is no indication whatsoever that the minister
listens to patients, for instance those who have made
applications under the Health Canada special access program,
which is the minister's own responsibility.
I therefore wish to assure everyone, not only in this House, but
everyone involved in the campaign, the physicians, the patients,
that I will continue the awareness campaign I launched this
morning.
I wish to assure them that this lack of transparency can only
make me step up the pressure so that a majority of MPs here in
this House will be able to vote in favour of this motion. The
government has no excuse whatsoever for taking refuge behind
inaction, as it has so far.
No one disputes the therapeutic effectiveness of THC, or
tetrahydrocannabinol, the principal active ingredient in
marijuana.
Moreover, physicians can already prescribe Marinol tablets, and
have been doing so for some years now. This authorized
medication contains synthetic THC and is already available in
pharmacies. It is prescribed mainly to relieve nausea in
terminally ill patients and to stimulate appetite.
However, taking synthetic marijuana pills is not as effective as
inhalation. According to the prestigious New England Journal of
Medicine, swallowing pills cannot be compared to inhalation,
which rapidly raises blood THC levels and greatly enhances the
sought-after medical efficacy.
What is more, many patients who would be candidates for the
medical use of marijuana are already required to take huge
numbers of pills daily. We are talking of numbers even in
excess of 30.
One can imagine what taking more pills in the form of Marinol
means, then. The precise purpose of marijuana is to help make
the taking of so many pills bearable by relieving nausea.
Obviously, it is better to administer THC for nausea by the
pulmonary route than the digestive route. Many physicians are
therefore campaigning for the possibility of prescribing THC in
the form best suited to their patients. They argue that they
are in the best position to determine what suits their patients
best.
1735
The Canadian Medical Association represents the medical
community in Canada and ensures that the health care system
provides doctors with what they need to deliver quality health
care to their patients. Since 1981, this association has been
arguing that the simple possession of marijuana should be
decriminalized, but it deplores the absence of more systematic
scientific research on the topic.
In 1995, the American Medical Association pointed out the need
to review American legislation on the therapeutic use of
marijuana. The British Medical Association goes even further:
it has called on the British government to take all necessary
steps to authorize the therapeutic use of marijuana, while
respecting all established scientific criteria.
The British Medical Association has also publicly encouraged the
police and the courts to tolerate use of marijuana for
therapeutic purposes. In its report, it says, and I quote:
Some patients are forced to use an illegal drug to relieve
symptoms that are not controlled by existing medication.
The report also says:
These were quotes from a report by the British Medical
Association.
As a result, following a major scientific research study by the
British House of Lords, the British government decided to go
ahead and authorize the first official trials to evaluate the
therapeutic effects of marijuana. The Royal Pharmaceutical
Society is confident that, three years from now, cannabis will
be a prescription drug in Great Britain.
In Quebec and in Canada, well known physicians such as Réjean
Thomas and Donald Kilby have already come down unambiguously in
favour of legalization for medical and therapeutic purposes, as
have some major dailies. So have the Canadian AIDS Society, the
Canadian Hemophilia Society, which wrote me another letter this
morning, and the Coalition des organismes communautaires
québécois de lutte contre le sida. All these organizations are
calling on the government and members of parliament to vote in
favour of Motion M-381.
Today, I ask the men and women fighting for this legalization to
be patient, because I am very confident that they will have all
the support they need in June. Therefore—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt the
hon. member, but his time is up.
[English]
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, as I rise today to participate
in this debate there are several members in the House whose work
on this topic should be acknowledged. I would like to begin by
acknowledging the member for London West for the work that she
has done in this area since 1997. I would also like to
acknowledge the member for Rosemont, the member from
Okanagan—and I regret that I cannot remember the correct name of
the riding—and other members who have spoken to me.
This government is aware that Canadians are suffering who have
terminal illnesses and who believe that using medical marijuana
can ease their symptoms and we in the government want to help
them.
I emphasize that those Canadians who are struggling to find new
and better ways to maintain and improve their health have no
interest in this topic, and to all of those who are healthy I
would say that I hope this is a topic that will never be of
interest to them and that they will never need to come forward to
ask for this product.
1740
The concern we have is that there are those who are suffering.
As the Minister of Health said in the House yesterday, he has
asked his officials to develop a research plan that will include
clinical trials for medicinal marijuana, appropriate guidelines
for its medical use and safe access to the supply of this drug.
This will allow the government to get the information it needs so
it can share that with Canadians. We want a flexible approach
that will help Canadians and protect the health and safety of
Canadians.
In order to truly assess the value of marijuana as a drug it is
essential that we have reliable scientific evidence. We know
there is much anecdotal evidence. We heard the member in his
opening remarks refer to that evidence, but to date there is no
reliable scientific evidence. Therefore, as I have stated, the
Minister of Health has asked his officials to develop a plan that
will include the kind of information gathering, research and
development of clinical guidelines for the appropriate use of
medical marijuana.
What we want to do is facilitate the development of these
guidelines so that those people who are suffering and in need of
help will have access to something that may be beneficial and
that may assist them. Many are terminally ill, many are in pain,
many are suffering from symptoms which they believe, and there is
anecdotal evidence to suggest, could be helped in this way.
We want to get the facts. We want to know whether this is
effective. But we also want to be able to use sections of
existing federal legislation to give those people the opportunity
to have access to a safe supply of medical marijuana that could
be helpful to them.
The interesting thing that most people would not know is that
Health Canada has already explored the possibilities of securing
a medicinal quality source of marijuana for use in its research
projects. As well, it has looked at ways of promoting research
within this country. We would provide patients with access to
medicinal marijuana in a controlled setting as part of clinical
trials.
However, it is important to note, and I particularly address
people who have expressed concern about access to the program,
that the current Canadian drug regulatory framework and
international control framework create a scheme by which medical
quantities of marijuana could be legally available for medicinal
purposes like any other therapeutic drug.
In other words, the distribution of marijuana as a medicine
could already be possible provided that the product, the quantity
and the supply, is of good quality and originates from a legal or
licit licensed supplier as opposed to an illicit supplier. That
is very important. It is also very important under the existing
law that this be used in the proper research context.
The announcement by the minister dealt with the concerns that
have been raised by many in this House: access for those who are
suffering and in need, those who need help, but access within a
controlled clinical environment of research with appropriate
guidelines to ensure quality and safety and to ensure that the
access to the supply of this drug is of good medicinal quality.
I want to state very clearly that physicians would be and must
be very involved in the development of these research projects.
The government wants to help Canadians who are suffering, but it
wants to make sure they have the very best of advice and
assistance.
While we will be developing a research agenda which will include
clinical trials to gather evidence and needed documentation on
both the risks and the benefits of the medicinal use of medical
marijuana, we want a flexible approach that will provide patients
with access to medicinal marijuana at an early stage of the
research and in a setting that includes the support of qualified
physicians. That is very important.
1745
I heard the member opposite use the term legalizing of
marijuana. People should know that we are not talking about the
legalizing of marijuana.
What this does is it creates a research environment where we can
do the research, gather the evidence and in that environment,
just as we would with any other drug, make it available to people
in a research context. During the research setting, people would
have access to the drug. We would also be sure to develop
appropriate clinical guidelines to make sure that it was used
appropriately.
It would allow us to respond in a sensitive and compassionate
way to those who are terminally ill, who are suffering and are
coping with symptoms where the anecdotal evidence would suggest
that medical marijuana might be helpful to them. We want to find
solutions for Canadians who are suffering. We want to help
Canadians. We want to do it in a way that is appropriate.
Therefore, I am pleased to say that I intend to amend the
motion. At the appropriate time I will move an amendment to the
motion. I would like to give members notice of what I plan to
move.
I will be saying that the motion should be amended by deleting
all the words after the word “should” and substituting the
following “take steps immediately concerning the possible legal
medical use of marijuana including developing a research plan
containing clinical trials, appropriate guidelines for its
medical use, as well as access to a safe medicinal supply and
that the government report its findings and recommendations
before the House rises for the summer”.
The member opposite and others have asked are we prepared to put
forward a timeline for this plan that the minister has asked his
officials to develop. I say to members of the House as part of
this debate that it is the government's intention to do this work
on a rapid basis so that we can have in place the plan to develop
the research and give people access as expeditiously as possible.
We know that the House rises for the summer in June. Before
that time the minister is making a commitment. We hope all
members will support the amendment. I know that there is support
in all parties.
In the time I have remaining, I would like to thank all of the
members who have spoken and who will be speaking on this, those
who spoke in private and those who sent notes to the minister
letting him know of their support for this initiative. I want to
emphasize again that this is not the legalization of marijuana.
This is treating marijuana like a drug that may be helpful to
some. We want to find out if it is. We want to provide the
conditions for access in a controlled clinical environment with
appropriate clinical guidelines.
Therefore, I move:
That, the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “should” and by substituting the following:
“take steps immediately concerning the possible legal medical
use of marijuana, including developing a research plan containing
clinical trials, appropriate guidelines for its medical use, as
well as access to a safe medicinal supply and that the government
report its findings and recommendations before the House rises
for the summer.
I have this available in both official languages and will be
presenting it to the chair to further this debate and discussion.
1750
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The Chair will take the
motion under advisement and get back to the House with a ruling
later.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to speak to private member's Motion No. 381 which
reads “That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana
for health and medical purposes”.
I heard the amendment. On the face of it the amendment appears
to be okay as long as this is not a backdoor entry for legalizing
marijuana smoking. As long as a firm guideline is established,
probably it should be supported.
I have only recently undertaken the role of the official
opposition's deputy critic for health. My constituents and my
colleagues are proud to have me speak to Motion No. 381 and
express our compassion for the predicament faced by those
Canadians suffering from the diseases and conditions that cause
them to turn in desperation to marijuana to ease their symptoms.
Looking through the lens of compassion, my efforts on this issue
are dedicated first and foremost toward the thousands of
Canadians who are desperately seeking medicinal therapy for
various illnesses. These Canadians admittedly are frustrated at
being in a situation where the only source of relief from their
illness comes from smoking a substance that carries many
extremely harmful side effects.
With them I seek less harmful alternatives. It is very
important to look through the sympathetic consciousness of
others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it.
Therefore, I will continue to be outspoken on behalf of Canadians
who are sick and seek safe medicine.
Historically, the use of marijuana goes back centuries. The
remains of a woman from the fourth century were discovered. The
woman had died giving birth. There were marijuana leaves found
near her dead body at the site. Apparently she was inhaling
marijuana, relieving her pain all those hundreds of years ago.
To review the pros and cons, let us see how various
professionals look at this issue. Medically, THC, the drug in
the marijuana plant, is known to be helpful to treat symptoms of
cancer, AIDS, glaucoma, epileptic seizures, multiple sclerosis
and migraine headaches.
In the United States there are people who would like to have
marijuana moved from schedule 1 substances where it is deemed to
have no therapeutic use, to schedule 2 substances which are
useful drugs that can be prescribed by doctors. There are people
who would like to see it treated as a herbal remedy instead of a
drug.
Talking of support for legalizing marijuana for medical
purposes, in a national U.S. survey, 50% of cancer therapists
said they would prescribe marijuana if it were legal and 44% said
they are already suggesting it. It is far less addictive and far
less subject to abuse than other drugs used as muscle relaxants,
hypnotics or analgesics, according to the survey.
According to Harvard University, the chief concern about the use
of marijuana is the effect on the lungs of smoking it. Cannabis
smoke carries even more tars and other particulate matter than
tobacco smoke. Water pipes may reduce but cannot eliminate the
side effects.
We are fast approaching the 21st century. We need to look into
more advanced research to reap any benefits the drug can offer
without side effects. Perhaps a technological inhalation of
cannabis vapours could be developed, an inhaler for example, or
something else which could deliver the contents of marijuana.
The question for us to consider is if it is ethical to deny
people who are in pain something that will relieve their pain.
1755
The result of Dr. Corigall's research at the University of
Toronto dealing with the effects of canna-binoids on the brain
predicts that there could be a creation of a synthetic form of
marijuana. In arguments against legalizing marijuana for medical
purposes, Dr. Corigall says that the dosage of marijuana as an
analgesic cannot be regulated and ultimately people should not
resort to smoking it to relieve their pain.
We already know that smoking is bad for us because of all the
carcinogens that come with it.
Again on the negative side of the issue, a retired U.S. Drug
Enforcement Agency official said in 1996 since there are better
medicines with less harmful side effects than marijuana available
for the diseases for which it is touted, medical marijuana is a
cruel hoax. It does not help. It does more harm than good.
In another study, the chairman of the International Drug
Strategy Institute two years ago said, “suggesting that
marijuana be smoked as a medicine would be like proposing tobacco
be used for anxiety and weight loss”.
The National Institute of Health determined that crude marijuana
adds nothing to currently available medicine and indeed creates
increased risk to patients. The U.S. National Institute of Health
also says that a marijuana cigarette contains a complex mixture
of over 400 different compounds, including carcinogens. This
would be a concern for anyone but especially for patients with
chronic disorders or impaired immune systems.
The U.S. National Eye Institute fact sheet on the therapeutic
use of marijuana for glaucoma states that none of the studies
demonstrates that marijuana or any of its components could safely
and effectively prevent optic nerve damage from glaucoma. Also,
there are about 24 FDA approved drugs for the treatment of
glaucoma.
The U.S. National Cancer Institute notes that inhaling marijuana
smoke is a health hazard. It has a long list of agents that are
more useful than marijuana.
We need to look as well at the positions put forward by
different professionals.
Lawyers have said through the Canadian Bar Association that the
government's drug policies are misguided. They are in favour of
decriminalizing marijuana because to continue the government's
approach is doing more harm than good. The damage inflicted by
the legal system seems disproportionate to the offence.
In 1993 the Canadian Police Association recommended making
simple marijuana possession a ticketable offence, similar to
speeding. The Ottawa police chief said that the risk of things
going wrong during marijuana busts are too high.
In 1995, 43,000 Canadians were charged with 62,000 drug
offences, and 71% of them were for marijuana. In the past 20
years, 700,000 Canadians were arrested on marijuana charges.
Since 1995 in British Columbia, B.C. police have been advised to
stop laying marijuana charges because of court backlogs.
Let us look at what the medical community says. The World
Health Organization treats drug abuse as a health issue. In
those countries that treat drug abuse as a health matter rather
than a criminal matter, people are not afraid to seek help. Drug
abuse declines and remains at lower levels in those countries.
Providing treatment for drug abusers makes more sense than
prison terms. The goal is a healthy population.
With these things in mind, we should study using marijuana for
health and medicinal purposes.
In conclusion, I would say what is important to me is
compassion. If nothing else works for the diseases and suffering,
I do not see anything as a barrier.
I would expect to have more research done. Through research and
innovation, harmless methods may be found to benefit from the
medicinal use of marijuana.
1800
Reform is concerned with substance abuse of any kind, whether it
is drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or marijuana. I warn Canadians
that the Liberal government may use this issue of the medicinal
use of marijuana smoking to legalize it through the back door.
As long as it sticks to the amendments and as long as it has a
reasonable plan we will probably be supportive.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The amendment
presented by the member earlier is in order.
[Translation]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the hon. member
for Rosemont for this initiative and for the role he has played
in encouraging the federal government and the Minister of Health
to take steps to allow the legal use of marijuana for health and
medical purposes.
I would like to offer my support for this resolution, which
states very clearly:
[English]
Many of my colleagues in the NDP caucus have also worked very
hard on this issue but I want to acknowledge many in our party
who have come before us and have been quite outspoken on this
matter over the years. All of us in our own ways have tried to
find ways to put pressure on the federal government to act on
behalf of persons who need to use marijuana for medical purposes,
who need to find some relief from pain and suffering or to deal
with the symptoms of chronic or terminal illnesses.
We all know that these people who are speaking out and asking
for action are already in a poor physical state and are being
forced to purchase marijuana illegally and with the risk of
arrest.
We are here today to join with the Bloc and with all members in
the House who support this view to urge the Liberal government
today to take a brave step to overcome the history and
associations of marijuana and recognize its value to the medical
community as a part of legitimate treatment options.
We urge the Minister of Health, in the commitment that he made
yesterday, to work with the Minister of Justice to ensure that
people who use marijuana for medical purposes are never subject
to prosecution.
Today we have before us this resolution from the Bloc now
amended by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
which will require some study and deliberations before we are
prepared to indicate our support for the amended motion. Our
major concern will be whether the intentions of the government,
as stated today, will in any way inhibit access for those people
who are suffering today.
It is one thing for the government to announce a plan of action
to move on this very critical issue.
It is another thing for individuals suffering from AIDS and other
illnesses to wait four or five months before they will know
whether there will be access.
1805
It certainly does not answer the question about all those
individuals who have been charged as a result of possession of
marijuana for medical purposes, nor does it address the question
of whether individuals currently under doctor's orders to access
marijuana will be charged in the first place.
We have many questions that must be addressed. I think for all
of us here today our concern is with trying to find a way to
immediately alleviate the pain and suffering of individuals for
whom marijuana prescribed on a medical basis is an important
solution, an important alternative.
Members of the Reform Party have presented different positions
to us and they are certainly going through a great deal of soul
searching about where they stand on this issue. There are
broader issues to be addressed. I think for today it is
important for all of us to say that we must address this issue
from the point of view of compassion and we must do it on the
basis of a great deal of urgency.
I do not have to repeat the many arguments that have been
presented to the House about the medical value of marijuana. I
think it is important to simply summarize some of the information
that has come from the medical and scientific community.
We know from studies that marijuana has been proven to be
effective in reducing pressure in glaucoma. It has been proven
to be successful in reducing vomiting and nausea associated with
chemotherapy. It has been clearly identified as stimulating
appetite in patients with AIDS wasting syndrome. It has been
found to be useful in controlling spasticity associated with
spinal cord injuries and MS. It has been found to decrease
suffering from chronic pain. It has been found to be useful in
controlling seizures in seizure disorders.
Marijuana is also considered to have a potential for a number of
other conditions such as emphysema, because it dilates the
bronchioles in lungs and in migraines. It has a wide margin of
safety and by all accounts is non-lethal.
The other important factor in all this is that marijuana used
for medical purposes does not have many of the side effects that
so many other treatments entail, side effects that sometimes are
so serious that patients stop using the medications despite their
suffering.
I refer members to a 1997 editorial in the prestigious New
England Journal of Medicine which refers to the parallel
American prohibition as “misguided, heavy handed and inhumane”.
It also states: “To demand evidence of therapeutic efficacy is
equally hypocritical. The noxious sensations that patients
experience are extremely difficult to quantify in controlled
experiments. What really counts for a therapy with this kind of
safety margin is whether a seriously ill patient feels relief as
a result of the intervention, not whether a controlled trial
proves its efficacy”.
Many scientists who are convinced of the value of marijuana in
terms of its medical significance are advising patients to use it
despite the legal risks.
I point to another study quoted in the national news on
September 24, 1998: “Science is assembling convincing evidence
that Queen Victoria was not merely catering to royal whim when
she used marijuana to numb her menstrual cramps. “Researchers at
the University of California have discovered that cannabis
triggers a pain suppressing circuit in the brains of rats, which
demonstrates that the drug is indeed a pain killer”.
The article outlines significant scientific and medical
information to lead us to believe that study and research have
been done on this issue. We may be just delaying the need to act
by talking about clinical trials and further study before moving
as quickly as possible on this matter.
1810
I remind members of the most recent letter from the Canadian
AIDS Society which urged all of us to support the resolution put
forward by the hon. member for Rosemont: “As a result of the
illness facing people with HIV and AIDS individuals often suffer
severe nausea and an inability to eat. Wasting, which is a lack
of body fat and muscle mass, is one of the leading causes of
death for people with HIV and AIDS. Many of the current drug
regimes that individuals are prescribed include strict timetables
of when they can and cannot take the medication as well as
whether the medications need to be taken with food or without.
The side effects of these medications often include nausea”.
There is ample evidence of the benefits of marijuana use on a
medical basis. There have been significant studies and clinical
trials. I think the time is now for action.
What does the amendment put forward by the government today mean
in terms of legal ramifications for people who are either charged
now with illegal possession or are perhaps facing charges? I
suggest to the minister that there is provision now within our
Food and Drugs Act for actually ensuring that under the emergency
relief program we can ensure reasonable and responsible access to
marijuana for treatment in keeping with the requirements of
Canadian law pertaining to the use of marijuana as a new drug
under the Food and Drugs Act and as a controlled substance under
the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
We will study very diligently the amendment of the government
but we strongly support the motion put forward by the Bloc member
and we urge the government to move quickly. We may need more
clinical trials, more studies and more research but we also need
to act immediately to deal with the pain and suffering of many
individuals for whom there is no other reasonable alternative.
Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Madam
Speaker, the debate today really centres around the word
compassion. I want to read the motion so that the viewing
audience has a chance to hear it once again:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
undertake all necessary steps to legalize the use of marijuana
for health and medical purposes.
Those are the key words, health and medical purposes. We are
talking about a compassionate use of a substance which is
illegal.
The debate today could be taking place on any number of
substances used for pain relief in medicine, prescribed by
doctors on a timely basis in cases where they are needed.
Let us imagine for a minute whether we should be debating the
use of morphine. Should we not be talking about the use of
codeine, morphine or heroin? What we are talking about is the
use of a drug to relieve pain in those who are suffering.
I think that is very commendable. We are not talking about the
legalization of the product for recreational or casual use. We
are talking about a drug prescribed by doctors to help patients
deal with the threshold of pain and suffering. In many cases we
are talking obviously of terminally ill patients.
The Canadian Medical Association, which I consulted on this, has
some interesting observations. I think it is worth putting these
on the record as well. It is not cut and dry. Certain
considerations have to be made any time a substance is used for
medicinal purposes. Some of these are outlined very clearly by
the CMA.
I quote a letter to me from the CMA which says the CMA has
advocated the decriminalization of the possession of marijuana
for many years.
I think that position goes back to 1981.
1815
The position of the Canadian Medical Association is:
That the Canadian Medical Association recommend to the federal
government that the jurisdictional control of marijuana be moved
from the Narcotics Act to the Food and Drugs Act and that all
past criminal records related to simple possession be erased.
It has a very strong position on the decriminalization of the
use of marijuana. However, when it comes to the medical use of
marijuana, it is quite ironic that it has concerns, some of which
I will outline.
The CMA is concerned that as a herbal medicine it cannot be
patented. It says that exploitation of research is therefore
precluded.
It is concerned that the chemical content can vary considerably
from plant to plant.
It is concerned that the standardization and reproducibility of
clinical trials is problematic as the plant and its delivery
system is unique and, therefore, it would be almost impossible to
conduct blind trials.
Another reservation is that the delivery system is not reliable
from patient to patient as the dose received depends upon the
delivery technique.
Another concern is that there is almost no independent quality
research available, such as randomized control trials, to guide
decision making on the appropriate and effective medical use of
marijuana or the side effects and risks associated with its
consumption.
I think that everyone in this House would agree with some of
those concerns. Basically, it boils down to the consistency of
the product being used.
We heard from some members in this House as to whether or not it
is really effective. However, if it is working on some patients
and not on others, it is probably not unlike any other drug.
Different drugs have different effects on people because of the
chemistry of the human body. I think that is to be expected.
Part of it, probably from the patient's perspective, is what
they believe. It is like the individual who wears a copper
bracelet for rheumatism or arthritis. I guess if they believe
that it works and they say that it works, it probably does work.
This has been a hotly debated topic. I want to quote from the
transcript of a program by Dr. David Suzuki. I think most of us
from time to time have watched—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid that I
must interrupt the member at this point. However, I wish to tell
him that the next time this bill comes before the House he will
have approximately four minutes if he wishes to use that
opportunity.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired.
Mr. Gar Knutson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think you would find unanimous consent to allow the
member to finish the four minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent for the member to finish?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Greg Thompson: Madam Speaker, the House is being very
generous tonight and I appreciate it because we did start early.
Dr. Suzuki in his program was talking to his listening audience
about marijuana and its use. He was talking about a gentleman
who had a sick son. I want to put this on the record because it
spells out pretty clearly the effects and how positive it can be
when used for the right reasons.
A gentleman by the name of Lester Grinspoon was speaking. He
said:
My son who in 1967 was diagnosed as having acute lymphatic
leukaemia, he was 10 years-old then. By the time he reached the
age of 13, was beginning to get some of the cancer
chemotherapeutic substances which cause severe nausea and
vomiting. He would vomit for about eight hours or have the dry
heaves for eight hours. He would vomit in the car on the way
home from the hospital and just lie in his room with his head
over a bucket on the floor.
1820
That is a very common experience for any of us who have had
relatives and loved ones who were sick and receiving
chemotherapy. It is not unusual for that to happen.
He went on to say that he and his wife were at a dinner party
and a doctor recommended the use of marijuana for this young boy.
He said:
On the way home from that dinner party my wife Betsy said
“Well, maybe we should get some marijuana for Danny”. I'm
ashamed to say it, I said “No we can't do that. It's against the
law and we don't want to embarrass the people at the Children's
Hospital who are taking such great care of Danny”. His next
chemotherapy was due a couple of weeks later and Betsy and Danny
smoked in the parking lot outside of the Children's Hospital. I
couldn't believe what happened because not only did he not have
any nausea but he even asked his mother “Could we get a
submarine sandwich on the way home?” And I then called
Dr. Jaffy who was the doctor who was directly involved in Danny's
care and said to him “Look”, I told him the story, I said “I'm
not going to stand in the way of his using marijuana this time”.
The story goes on in quite a bit of detail. Basically what it
is saying is that it does work under controlled circumstances. I
believe that the House has to consider that.
Again, going back to the very nature of this bill, we are
talking about the word compassion. In relation to other
substances out there let us give it a try under controlled
conditions, under doctor's orders. If we could do that we would
be prepared to support this bill.
Ms. Elinor Caplan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I want to correct the record. The correct name of the
riding I was referring to is Okanagan—Coquihalla.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the
bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
PUBLIC SERVICE OF CANADA
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Madam
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise on behalf of the PSAC
workers, especially the blue collar workers of Nova Scotia and
those across the country. Probably one of the most
discriminatory policies of this current government is its policy
on regional rates of pay.
In 1993 the Liberal government stated “The time to end regional
rates is now and if elected we will eliminate that”. The
government is now six years into its mandate and the President of
the Treasury Board stated that he thinks regional rates of pay is
a good policy.
I would like to read a card that was written in 1995:
In the opinion of this House, the government should seriously
consider abolishing regional rates of pay now enforced for
certain federal government employees, in accordance with its
stated policy of pay equity.
That was from a formal Liberal member of parliament, Ronald
MacDonald.
The current member of the House from Kenora—Rainy River stated:
The motion is a very good one and should be supported by the
government and all members opposite to give people work and pay
based on their abilities, their seniority and their
classifications, not on where they live.
The key part of that statement is “not on where they live”.
In the previous House that member was the parliamentary secretary
to the minister of human resources.
No truer words have ever been spoken. The only problem is that
the government has completely ignored them.
1825
I quote the Ottawa Citizen from March 2:
The Liberal government seems intent on “breaking the back” of
its unions with “hardball” labour policies that have left rank
and file public servants underpaid, demoralized and facing poor
working conditions, says the chairman of the Senate finance
committee.
Terrance Stratton, who headed the committee's year long
investigation into the brain drain in the public service, warns
that the government's hardline position on capping salary
increases at two per cent a year will accelerate the flight of
experienced talent to the private sector. It does not help
matters that, at the same time, senior executives [of the
government] got raises of up to 20 per cent, plus bonuses.
Gilles Paquet, director of the centre of governance at the
University of Ottawa, stated that the committee's report
underscores that the Liberal government has no agenda for its
public service other than the one driven by the finance
department to cut costs and save money: “The government doesn't
give me the feeling that it respects the public service. It
ended the notion of a career public servant and then turned
around and asked them for more and more loyalty. Give them less
and less money and more and more work. It just doesn't add up”.
Again, no finer words have been spoken in such a long time when
it comes to the issue of pay equity, regional rates of pay and
the quality of life and work for our federal public service,
especially the blue collar ones.
The fact is regional rates of pay are discriminatory. Just
because you live in Halifax does not mean you should be paid less
than if you live in Vancouver. Ninety-seven per cent of all
public servants in this country, RCMP, military, members of
parliament, all get paid the same base salary no matter where
they live, whether it is Whitehorse, Inuvik, Vancouver or Sheet
Harbour in Halifax. It does not matter, they get paid the same
except when it comes to the lowest paid workers of the public
service, the blue collar workers, the warehousemen, the
electricians, the plumbers. It is an absolutely discriminatory
policy.
It just does not fly for the Treasury Board president to say
that it is because of provincial legislation and provincial
responsibilities that he does not want to end regional rates of
pay.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am aware that some hon.
members wonder why the Government of Canada does not get rid of
regional pay rates for its blue collar workers and simply pay the
same scale nationally. There are good reasons behind the present
practice, some very good reasons to continue it.
Those who know the history of the House know that regional rates
were put in place in 1922. In those days the Government of
Canada recognized that wages paid to certain trades were
determined by local and regional market realities, realities that
have remained unchanged and realities the Government of Canada
cannot ignore.
I remind the House that in 1962 the Glassco royal commission
recommended regional rates be maintained as a compensation policy
where markets are regional or local. Thus in 1967 the government
set forth its recommendation when it instituted collective
bargaining processes within the federal civil service. If we had
decided to go with a uniform rate rather than a regional rate
that reflected local realities what would have happened? Quite
simply we would have created local inequities in pay scale that
would have engendered instability in local labour markets
especially for private sector employers seeking to hire at rates
that reflected the local market realities.
We must all recognize that incomes vary from place to place as a
function of cost of living and other factors. I remind the
member that representatives of the government and the unions are
currently at the negotiating table. We all hope for a positive
outcome and we value the important work that all members of the
public service provide to the people of Canada.
HEALTH
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
in February 1999 the advisory council on health infostructure
presented its final report to the health minister entitled
“Canada Health Infoway: Paths to Better Health”. Over the
course of 18 months the 24 member advisory council met and worked
with a number of collaborators, including the provinces,
territories and other federal departments and various health
stakeholders across Canada.
One of its recommendations was the subject of a question I posed
last week to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Health. It has to do with report cards on our health system. One
of the key recommendations was that the government support
evaluative analyses and consensus building to develop yardsticks
and fair measures of health care system performance and health
status of Canadians.
1830
These analyses would form a basis of report cards to the public
that will improve the overall accountability of the health care
system.
I would like to repeat the question I posed to the parliamentary
secretary in French, as I tried to do in question period.
[Translation]
One of the main recommendations in the final report of the
advisory council on health infrastructure is the provision of a
public report card so as to improve the general accountability
of our health care system.
Since the Government of Canada is responsible for health
care standards, does the department support this recommendation
and will it undertake discussions with the provinces and
territories with the aim of implementing this method of
accountability?
[English]
Basically Canadians value our health care system and they need
this kind of information. They need to know about how our health
care system is performing. They also need to know that the
dollars that are invested in our health care system are being
used widely in every province and in every territory.
I raised the question with the parliamentary secretary with a
view to getting a little more information about how this would
work, whether or not the government was supportive of it and
whether or not there was more information she could give us on
report cards on our health care system.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the interest of
the hon. member for Mississauga South and thank him. Thirty-five
seconds in question period does not allow for a full answer.
This evening I would like to tell the member that the advisory
council's final report called the Canada Health Infoway: Paths
to Better Health was presented to the Minister of Health and
made public on February 3.
The report contains a number of recommendations relating to the
development of a Canada health infoway including protecting the
privacy of health information, empowering the public,
strengthening and integrating health care services, creating
information resources and building an aboriginal health
infrastucture.
The report presents an exciting, positive, future vision of a
Canada's health infoway, a vision which the Minister of Health
and the Government of Canada strongly endorse. The 1999 budget
provided the needed support toward actualizing the vision. We
have committed $328 million over three years for improving the
gathering, sharing and analysis of information about health and
Canada's health care system.
The advisory council acknowledges in its report that developing
a Canada health infoway will require collaborative efforts with
all stakeholders, particularly the provinces and the territories.
In fact, the Canada health infoway is to be built on the
foundation already being designed or implemented by provinces and
territories. Without their participation and support there can
be no Canada health infoway.
Accordingly, the Minister of Health has already initiated
discussions with provincial and territorial counterparts to seek
consensus on how they can move forward together in these
directions and build on current collaborative efforts.
As I said to all members of the House, we believe there needs to
be greater accountability by all governments, not to each other
but to Canadians, and the health infoway will help us to achieve
that goal.
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, on November 30 I raised a concern about the
apparent change in name of the health protection branch to the
management of risks to health branch. It is impossible to find
in any official document from the Department of Health any
reference any longer to the Health Protection Branch. The HPB is
out; MRH is in.
The question for all of us is does this mean anything. It would
seem to me that it does mean something, using the old adage that
if you change the name you change the game. I believe that is
what is actually happening with the government. The health
protection branch was supposed to be responsible for guarding
public health: the safety of the food we eat, the medicines we
take and the toys our children play with. These all depend on
the investigative strength of this important arm of government.
Something has gone terribly wrong. The federal government has
been closing labs. We have the RCMP investigating in terms of
blood and breast implants. We have had scientists appear before
the Senate committee expressing concerns about the approval
process for bovine growth hormone. More recently, we have had
evidence of blood coming from prisons in the United States into
this country without proper regulation.
1835
We have had the minister refuse to take action on scientific
studies showing toxins in bags that contain blood products. We
have had as recently as today officials of the department
promoting a risk management approach when it comes to organs and
tissues. I think we have a critical situation. The whole way of
doing business has changed under this government.
The most important question for all of us, the question that
sets the tone for the entire safety process, has to do with the
burden of proof. Canada's health safety system has always
required the makers of new or questionable products to prove that
their products are safe before they are released to the public.
The public has always been confident in the knowledge that long
before they ate their roast, swallowed their pill or sprayed
their lawn, the makers of those roasts, pills and sprays had to
prove to someone that the product was safe. Someone was looking
out for their well-being.
Now under this government it is all changing. The burden of
proof will be on government regulators at HPB to prove that the
products are harmful. Our system has been successful because it
was based solely and solidly on the precautionary principle. The
government seems to be now sacrificing that for a corporate
friendly system of risk management.
This in our view is intolerable. We will fight it at every
opportunity. Any risk is too high.
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the mandate of the Health
Protection Branch is to protect Canadians against current and
emerging risks to health. These risks come from prescription
drugs, medical devices, consumer products, food and water
contaminants, air pollution, radiation, chemical hazards, tobacco
diseases, and natural and civil disasters.
Risk management is a decision making process for dealing with
health risks. The health protection branch uses a formal method
called a framework that lists all steps in the risk management
process.
I want to tell the member what these steps include: identifying
and assessing risks; developing, analysing and choosing options
for managing the risks; implementing the selected options; and
monitoring and evaluating the results.
This approach is used by provincial, territorial, national and
international health organizations. The risk management
framework was adopted in 1993. It has helped to ensure
consistency and thoroughness in the way that risks are assessed
and decisions are made.
It also results in a more understandable and transparent
process. It promotes the use of best available scientific and
technical information. It clearly identifies roles and
responsibilities. It ensures that those who are affected by risk
management decisions are properly consulted.
The health protection branch is one of the department's
organizations that contributes to the management of risks to the
health business line. I would like to take this opportunity to
reassure the member that the health protection branch has not
been replaced by an entity called the management of risks to
health.
Earlier this year the minister launched a process called
transitions which includes improving the risk management
framework for the 21st century. At the present time this is a
process of review. It is open and transparent consultation which
hopefully will lead to an era in the new millennium so that even
the member will have confidence and stop saying such nasty things
about the renewed health protection branch.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.)