CONTENTS
Thursday, November 21, 1996
Bill C-351. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 6520
Motion for concurrence in 46th report 6521
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 6549
Mr. O'Brien (Labrador) 6554
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6558
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6559
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6559
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6560
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6560
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 6560
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6561
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6561
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6563
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6563
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 6563
Consideration resumed of motion and amendment 6565
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 6576
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 23;Nays, 138 6582
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 23; Nays 138 6583
Motion for concurrence 6583
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 111; Nays, 50 6584
Motion for concurrence 6585
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 111; Nays, 50 6585
Bill C-68. Motion for first reading 6585
Bill C-68. Motion for second reading 6585
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 111; Nays, 50 6585
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the Housewent into committee of the whole
thereon, Mrs.Ringuette-Maltais in the chair.) 6585
(Clause 2 agreed to.) 6585
(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.) 6585
(Clause 5 agreed to.) 6585
(Clause 5 agreed to.) 6586
(Clause 6 agreed to.) 6586
(Schedule 1 agreed to.) 6586
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 6586
(Preamble agreed to.) 6586
Motion for concurrence 6586
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 111; Nays, 52 6586
Motion for third reading. 6587
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 111; Nays, 52 6587
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 6587
Bill C-223. Motion for second reading 6587
6519
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, November 21, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: Colleagues, I am now ready to rule on the point of
order raised by the chief government whip on November 4, 1996
concerning the admissibility of the motion moved by the hon.
member for Crowfoot with regard to Bill C-234, an act to amend
the Criminal Code.
[Translation]
I thank the Chief Government Whip, the hon. member for St.
Albert and the hon. member for Crowfoot for their views on this
matter.
The text of the motion is as follows:
That, no later than the conclusion of Routine Proceedings on the tenth sitting day
after the adoption of this motion, Bill C-234, an act to amend the Criminal Code,
shall be deemed reported back to the House without amendment.
[
English]
The chief government whip challenged the admissibility of the
motion. There are two aspects to the argument that he presented.
First, that the hon. member for Crowfoot did not have the right to
move this motion on the rubric Motions in Routine Proceedings.
Second, that the motion represented an attempt to interfere
improperly with the committee's proceedings on the bill.
[Translation]
In support of the contention that the hon. member for Crowfoot
should not move his motion during Routine Proceedings, the Chief
Government Whip referred to the rulings of May 30, 1928, May 11,
1944, May 2, 1961 and April 28, 1982. I want to assure the House
that, in examining this matter, I have taken these precedents into
account. The Chief Government Whip also referred to Speaker
Fraser's ruling, at page 17506 of the Debates of July 13, 1998, in
which he stated that Routine Proceedings are not the exclusive
purview of the governement. As I noted in my ruling of September
23, 1996, I am in agreement with the view of Speaker Fraser.
[English]
I would like now to turn to the second aspect of the chief
government whip's presentation in which he claimed that the
motion, particularly the words ``without amendment'', would
constitute an improper interference with the proceedings of the
committee and would violate the conditions set down in my ruling
of September 23, 1996.
As members may recall, in my ruling on page 4561 of the
Debates I indicated:
-the Chair may well accept, after due notice, such a motion, on the condition that
it is strictly limited to the terms of the committal of a bill to a committee and that it
is not an attempt to interfere with the committee's proceedings thereon. In so
doing, the House would have an opportunity to determine whether the bill should
remain in committee or be reported back.
[
Translation]
The Chief Governement Whip argued that the motion was a clear
attempt to interfere improperly with the committee's proceedings
on the bill, that it would order the committee to complete its study,
and that the committee could not amend the bill. I must disagree
with the hon. members's interpretation of the terms of the motion.
[English]
The motion as it stands on the Order Paper does not interfere
with the committee's ability to complete its consideration of Bill
C-235 and report it back with or without amendment. The motion
does not require the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs to complete its study of Bill C-234 by a certain time.
The motion moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot in fact
provides the committee with a period of time in which to consider
and report the bill if it so chooses. At the same time, the motion
provides the House with a mechanism to remove the bill, which is
its property, from the committee so that the House itself can take up
consideration of the bill.
[Translation]
In fact, such a mechanism is not unusual to our practices.
Standing Order 81(4), dealing with the referral of the main
estimates to committee, states that the committee shall report, or
shall be deemed to have reported back to the House not later than
May 31.
6520
(1010)
[English]
As the matter now stands, the committee has not reported the
bill. Speaker Francis noted in a ruling at page 3963 in the Debates
of May 23, 1984:
The Chair can hardly be aware of what is taking place in the committee without a
report from the committee.
This is also noted in May's 21st edition at page 500:
The House is not formally aware of the detailed proceedings of any committee
until the bill has been reported.
[
Translation]
The House does not know what has occurred in committee and,
consequently, cannot know what amendments the committee has
made to the bill. Therefore, if the House wishes to, once again, take
possession of the bill, then the inclusion of the words ``without
amendment'' establishes clearly that the House will be dealing with
the text of the bill it adopted at second reading.
This can be the only logical course that the House can follow and
it has been done in the past. I would refer hon. members to the
motion adopted on March 22, 1995, pursuant to Standing Order
78(2), with regard to Bill C-77, an act to provide for the
maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services. This
motion, to be found at pages 1259-60 of the Journals, stated in
part:
-if the Bill [was] not reported from the committee during Routine Proceedings on
March 23, 1995, the Bill [would], at the conclusion of Routine Proceedings on that
day, be deemed to have been reported from the committee without amendment.
[
English]
Finally, I can find nothing in the terms of the motion which
would prevent the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs from reporting Bill C-234 back to the House either before
the adoption of the motion or before the sitting day specified in the
motion, if it were adopted by the House. Should the committee
report the bill before the 10th sitting day after the adoption of the
motion, as currently worded, the House would deal with it in
accordance with our usual practices. The objective of the motion
moved by the hon. member for Crowfoot, that the bill be reported
back to the House, would have been met.
Therefore I find that the motion as it stands on the Order Paper is
in order.
In the discussion on this question it was mentioned that if the
matter is not disposed of, it is transferred to Government Orders. It
was suggested that the Chair intervene in this procedure. The
wording of Standing Order 66, however, is quite clear, as is our
practice. It is not the place of the Chair to interfere in this.
6520
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, under the provisions of
Standing Order 32(2), my colleague the hon. Minister of Natural
Resources and the federal interlocutor for Metis and non-status
Indians and I have the honour to table in both official languages
copies of the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples.
* * *
(1015 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-351, an act to provide for the limitation of interest
rates, of the application of interest and of fees in relation to credit
card accounts.
He said: Madam Speaker, in presenting this bill today, I would
like to pay homage to the member for Simcoe North who is the
father of this bill and its author. He is presently a parliamentary
secretary and therefore is prevented from pursuing the aim of this
bill, which has a threefold purpose.
First, it will limit the amount of interest that financial
institutions and retailers can charge on outstanding credit card
balances.
Second, it sets out a method for calculating interest charges
based on the Bank of Canada rate of the previous month.
Third, it provides a mandatory grace period for partial payments
on all types of credit cards.
Today banks in Canada continue to set record profits. Interest
rates are the lowest in 30 years with the prime rate at 4.75 per cent,
yet Canadian consumers are paying exorbitant rates ranging up to
20 per cent on some retail cards.
On behalf of the public, the government has a responsibility to
regulate when unfair actions damage the public's interest. In
addressing interest rates on credit and charge cards, this bill asks
the government to intervene on behalf of the public interest.
6521
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
move concurrence in the 46th report of the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs that was tabled on November 20,
1996.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to consultations that occurred earlier in the week among
House leaders, I have two motions to propose. The first motion is
in relation to the broadcasting of human rights and status of persons
with disabilities committee.
I move:
That, during the course of its study on new technologies and privacy rights, the
Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be
authorized to broadcast its proceedings from rooms other than room 253-D in the
Centre Block, and that the committee be authorized to broadcast either nationally,
over the CPAC network, or on a regional basis, as the committee may deem it
appropriate.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1020 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
my second motion is pursuant to an Order made by the House on
Thursday, October 24, 1996. I move:
That the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs be
authorized to travel to Nova Scotia to visit Cornwallis Park, CFB Greenwood, MTC
Aldershot and CFB Halifax on February 27 and 28, 1997 and that the necessary staff
do accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
have two petitions today. The first comes from Delta, B.C.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that police and firefighters place their lives at risk on a daily basis
as they serve the emergency needs of all Canadians. They also state
that in many cases the families are left without sufficient financial
means to meet their obligations.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to establish
a public safety officer compensation fund to receive gifts and
bequests for the families of police officers and firefighters killed in
the line of duty.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition comes from Calgary, Alberta.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is
an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its
value to our society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to assist families who choose to provide care in the home
for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to table a petition signed by the constituents
of Lambton-Middlesex and surrounding area duly certified by the
clerk of petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.
The petitioners request that the House of Commons enact
legislation or amend existing legislation to define marriage as the
voluntary union for life of one woman and one man to each other to
the exclusion of all others.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am
submitting a petition signed by 116 people from my riding of
Bourassa, Montreal North and elsewhere.
The petitioners are asking Parliament to start procedures to
abolish the Senate. Their request is based on a number of
arguments, including the fact that the Senate is made up of
non-elected people who are accountable to no one, that its annual
operating budget is $43 million, and that it refuses to account to
House of Commons committees for this money.
The petitioners point out that the Senate duplicates the work
done by members of the House of Commons and, in this period of
economic restraint, they wonder about the relevance of maintaining
institutions that are as costly as they are useless.
[English]
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure to present a petition signed
by 440 Canadians, many of whom are residents of the city of
Winnipeg.
6522
The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that among
other things pornography is widely available in our society and
despite its negative impact it exists in our communities for the
most part unhindered and with impunity. They call on Parliament
to have the present laws on obscenity strictly upheld,
demonstrating a will to protect men, women and children from
pornography's impact.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is appropriate that I rise today during child week,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present my petitions on behalf of
all British Columbians to ask the government to amend the Divorce
Act to include grandparents standing in the courts at the time of a
divorce to ask to continue to have access to their grandchildren.
* * *
(1025 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 83, 84 and 85.
[Text]
Question No. 83-Ms. Meredith:
Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicate: (a) if special
arrangements were made or contemplated at Taiwan, during the recent confrontation
between the governments of China and Taiwan, to authorize the transportation of
prospective immigrants and temporary entrants to Canada who had not been
examined by authorized Canadian personnel and (b) if any such applicants were
permitted to proceed to Canada without properly conducted oral examinations?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): (a) During the recent confrontation between the
governments of China and Taiwan, no special arrangements were
made or contemplated at Taiwan to authorize the transportation of
immigrants and visitors to Canada who had not been examined by
authorized Canadian immigration officials.
(b) No such applicants were permitted to proceed to Canada
without properly conducted examinations by Canadian
immigration officials. However, following normal procedures, an
oral interview of an applicant is only conducted by immigration
officials if there is a need to clarify the admissibility of an applicant
to Canada. If such a determination can be made using written
documentation then an interview may not be required.
[Text]
Question No. 84-Ms. Meredith:
Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration indicate the relative importance
of personal suitability in the selection process under the point rating system and for
the screening of sponsored family members other than spouses and children?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): A maximum score of 10 units for Personal
Suitability is possible under the current points system for
assessment of independent immigration applicants. An
independent applicant must score at least 70 points to pass the
assessment. By comparison, the maximum scores available for the
other selection criteria are:
1. Education 16
2. Specific Vocational Preparation 18
3. Experience 8
4. Occupational Demand 10
5. Arranged Employment or Designated Occupation 10
6. Demographic Factor 8
7. Age 10
8. Knowledge of English and French Languages 15
Since the point rating system is only applied to members of the
Independent and Business Classes of immigrants, neither the
Personal Suitability criterion nor any of the other criteria in the
point rating system are applied to sponsored family members.
[Text]
Question No. 85-Ms. Meredith:
Can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration provide statistical breakdown by
classes, for the last five years ending March 31, 1996, of all applicants who have
been granted entry visas without oral examinations?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Table 1 provides a statistical breakdown by
category for persons granted immigrant visas and/or Minister's
Permits to enter Canada without a selection interview. Figures
cover only applicants processed for permanent residence at
overseas missions. The figures are for the total number of persons,
including spouses and dependent children.
Table 2 gives the number of persons for whom the interview was
waived as a percentage of total persons issued immigrant visas or
Minister's Permits.
No statistics are maintained for applicants for visitor visas,
student authorizations, employment authorizations or returning
resident permits who are issued visas and/or permits without an
interview.
6523
Table 1
Table 2
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
if Question No. 49 could be made an order for return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 49-Mr. O'Brien (London-Middlesex):
For the past two years, which departments, agencies or crown corporations have
(a) contributed funding to UNICEF and (b) in what amounts?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask the government
representative when we could expect an answer to Question No. 9
6524
put by my hon. colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster. It has
been on the paper since February. Normally we would expect a
timely response; I think 45 days is what is expected. That question
has been on the paper for a long time. Does the member have any
idea when we might expect an answer?
Mr. Zed: Madam Speaker, I am sorry I do not have a specific
answer on when that question will be returned to the House. It is a
very large question, a request that goes to all government
departments. I have been informed that it is in the final stages of
being revised. I hope we can have that information soon.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
6524
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide tax fairness for
all Canadian families by extending the Child Care Tax deduction to all families of all
income levels and converting it to a credit, thereby removing the tax bias against
parents caring for their own children.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the first two
speakers from the Reform Party, the members for Port
Moody-Coquitlam and Mission-Coquitlam, will be splitting
their time.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Today being
the final allotted day for the business of supply ending December
10, 1996, the House will proceed as usual to the review and
adoption of a supply bill.
In light of recent practices, does the House agree to have the bill
distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mrs. Hayes: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and
also to split my time with my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam.
My colleague and I share some of the same community. Certainly
that community like other communities across Canada is very
much affected by the decisions of this House and the priorities it
sets. The topic of today is how government priorities affect
children and parents, indeed all people of this nation.
Today, one day after national child day, we want to highlight the
Reform Party's proposal make tax relief for Canadian families a
priority in government policy.
The proposal I will elaborate on today reflects a recognition of
the importance of family units and the importance of choices for
parents in public policy. The greatness of our country today is a
reflection of the legacy of the greatness of the families which have
built it, families both from abroad and those that are Canadian
born. Today we must not forfeit the source of our success as a
country.
Existing government priorities seem only too eager to ignore the
family unit. For instance, there is but a single reference to the word
family in the Liberal red book. This certainly illustrates the reality
of government neglect of this important institution. The years of
sowing the seeds of neglect of the family in public policy are now
yielding a whirlwind of social, economic and judicial
consequences. Our homes, our streets and even the statistics on
youth crime, youth suicide and teen pregnancy all give too great
evidence that government priorities and policies must change in
this area.
(1030)
What are the government's priorities and policies? What is the
Liberal vision of government? Today I would like to remind the
House that we have a government that is wedded to big spending,
high taxes and big government. The Liberal government is addicted
to expenditures exceeding $150 billion a year and it has shown no
sign of changing that philosophy.
The deficit reduction that has been accomplished has been
accomplished on the backs on the Canadian taxpayers, the families
of this country. The reduced deficit is due only to the increase in
revenues.
The Reform vision in contrast is a vision of smaller government,
lower taxes and more choices for the Canadians who must pay
those taxes. We would like to reduce government expenditures by
$15 billion a year. We would like to balance the budget, not just
talk about balancing the budget. That would give tax relief to our
overtaxed Canadian families.
A major plank of the Reform fresh start program will extend the
following child care deduction to all parents, including those who
care for their children at home: $5,000 for every preschool child
and $3,000 for every child seven to 12 years of age. We will make
this as fair as possible for families of all income levels. We will
turn the deduction into a tax credit so that everyone will receive the
same saving.
The Liberal plan that now exists for the child care deduction is
very unfair. It favours parents who choose to have paid child care
over those who choose to take care of their own children. It also
favours rich parents over poor because it is a tax deduction.
6525
How does it favour parents who choose to have paid child care?
The Liberal plan for the child care deduction applies only to
receiptable day care expenses. Therefore it denies the value and the
choice to care for one's own children. It denies the flexibility of the
family to choose to have another family member look after the
children or to have some kind of co-operative arrangement within
the neighbourhood.
This morning in the Globe and Mail there was an article which
described how many children are in step-families. The article
stated that in 1994-95, 32.4 per cent of children under 12 years of
age were in the care of someone other than the parent. In other
words 67.6 per cent were cared for by a parent.
These choices in child care are completely ignored by the
Liberal plan for the child care deduction. The government through
its plan rewards those who would use outside care. The government
discriminates against 67 per cent of parents who want to take care
of their own children in their own home.
This government by its policies denies choice to parents. Also it
denies the value of parenting.
I mentioned that the tax deduction given by the Liberal
government is more valuable for higher income earners. If we look
at a quick example, a tax deduction of $5,000 to a person earning
more than $100,000 could be worth approximately $2,500 at the
end of the tax year. To a struggling Canadian who is making
$20,000 a year, that tax deduction would only be worth
approximately $1,500. It is a discriminatory practice which works
against those who need it most.
For all the puffery of the finance minister, perhaps he would like
to admit that he fails to mention that his rich friends benefit the
most by the present system of the child care tax deduction. That
same minister is also proud of extending day care deductions to
16-year olds from the 12-year old ceiling. These two things
illustrate the misplaced priorities of government policy. Is it not
those who need it most that should be given the greatest attention in
government policy?
(1035)
Earlier I mentioned that the government has no appreciation of
the value of parenting. More and more I see that interest groups,
from day care advocates to affirmative action zealots, all ignore
parents in order to push their own agenda in government policy.
With what this government does and its priority in budgeting, and I
noticed something unique in the government's budgets in that it
recently tripled the budget for the status of women while other
budgets are being cut. What kind of priority does this show to
families?
The priorities of government in budgeting and in legislation are
predicated on other things, not the priorities of the nation's
families. For example, when the finance minister claimed that
doubling the working income supplement helps families and also
stated that our party did not support the bill, he failed to point out
that this provision, that is, the doubling of the working income
supplement, was but a small part of the amendments to the Divorce
Act.
Bill C-41, like so many bills brought by the government to this
House, had some good elements in it. Tragically however the
incidence of divorce, the bitterness of the disputes in a divorce and
the resulting devastation on the children and families will only
escalate given the mindset of the provisions of Bill C-41. It totally
ignores essential elements or provisions that should have been put
in place, such as mandatory mediation, unified family court and
more basically, equal treatment of the parties involved in divorce
so that enforcement of access and support are both looked at by
government.
Divorce hurts children. Single parenthood and broken families
are the surest way to predicate financial needs. It is a cruel joke for
the Liberals to increase the working income supplement and in the
same legislation fuel the number of families that will need that
supplement.
When Reform challenges the Liberal government for its lack of
concern for Canadian families, the only answer is a list of programs
through which increased funding will be given to targeted groups.
The federal government has in place over 25 programs which
specifically target at least a portion of its spending to children, over
25 programs costing billions of taxpayer dollars.
Many of these programs have existed for years, yet the
government over the last decade has never undertaken a thorough
evaluation of them to determine if they are accomplishing the
intended outcome. Using the government's own figures, child
poverty has risen from 15 to 20 per cent since 1989 despite all of
the government spending that took place on behalf of children.
Where is the evidence that more spending is going to reduce these
figures?
This government is clearly not interested in evidence. It would
rather listen to the people who tickle the ears of the Liberals with
cries for help. They like to listen to people who see government as
their source of funds.
Reform makes families a priority. The well-being of our nation's
children cannot be separated from the well-being of our nation's
families. A happy child is not the sum of government programs, but
it is found in the strength of personal relationships that surround
that child. Reform's fresh start seeks to strengthen families with the
basic philosophy that a dollar left in the hands of the taxpayer is
better than a dollar in the hands of any bureaucrat.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member for Port
Moody-Coquitlam for her presentation this morning in the
House. I listened very carefully to her comments. I have a couple of
questions.
6526
She mentioned that government of big spending leads to high
taxes and big government. I think everyone in this House and all
Canadians by this time are well aware that this government has
taken those actions which were demanded by Canadians to reduce
the size of government, to reduce the size of expenditures, to
reduce spending, and to do it in a balanced fashion so that we could
look forward to balancing our budget.
(1040)
As everyone in this House and most Canadians know, the hon.
Minister of Finance took those actions by setting targets which to
date have been either met or exceeded. Economists not only here in
Canada but throughout the world are suggesting that Canada leads
the world, or at least the industrialized countries of the world, in its
actions and meeting its commitments to date. Therefore I wonder
why the hon. member would state that.
All members of this House are well aware that we are not talking
about bigger government. This government made a commitment,
not one that it particularly wanted to do, but one that was necessary
because Canadians said that they wanted to see a smaller
government. The government committed to a reduction of 45,000
positions in the federal government over a three or four year period
which affected every department.
We also know that one of the first steps taken after this
government took office was to reduce the size of ministers' staffs.
Previously junior portfolios had 50 to 60 staff persons and senior
portfolios 100 to 120 staff persons. They are now down to 10 to 15
staff members. That is responsibility.
With respect to deficit reduction we have met or exceeded those
targets to date. I might add that we are on target for the future for
this year and certainly will be for subsequent years. The result has
been interest rate reductions to levels that have not been seen for
the past 30 or 40 years. This has put money in the pockets of
Canadian families.
The hon. member spoke of Liberalism and the Liberal
government not being for the family. I have been involved for a
number of years with the Liberals and I can say that the family is
always first and foremost for all Liberals I have met. They are a
family and they also have the greatest respect for the family. I have
not seen a group of men and women across this country who work
more for the family, for family units.
I would point out to the hon. member for Port
Moody-Coquitlam that this government has taken action.
Obviously in the weeks and months to come further actions will be
introduced in this House that will continue to promote the family.
The hon. member referred to children. There is no question that
children have to be first and foremost on all of our minds.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member for Port Moody-Coquitlam, you have 45 seconds.
Mrs. Hayes: Madam Speaker, that is short work for some
interesting points.
I remind my friend of the red book. If the Liberals are so
concerned with family, why is it just mentioned once?
With respect to government targets and the ability of government
to meet them, it still has no specific goal for deficit elimination. In
terms of that we can talk about money spent here but what about
the record personal bankruptcies that Canadian families are
addressing across this country? We have a 10 per cent
unemployment rate.
Whatever the government is doing certainly it does not seem to
be getting to the people who need it the most. I remind my
colleague that because the government has not addressed its deficit
position, real income in the last three years has decreased for the
average family by $3,000.
(1045)
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is my privilege today to speak on Reform's supply day
motion which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide tax fairness for
all Canadian families by extending the child care tax deduction to all families of all
income levels and converting it to a credit, thereby removing the tax bias against
parents caring for their own children.
Canadians have told us that they want a tax system that is fair to
all families. Let us take a look at the taxes paid by families today.
The average family pays an incredible 46 per cent of its income
each year in taxes, almost half of its income.
High taxes have stripped families of the disposable income they
need to plan for their future and exercise choice in how to arrange
their lives. A Reform government will provide real tax relief for all
Canadians and simplify the tax system to make it fairer for families
at all income levels.
Children are this country's key to the future, but more often than
not the policies and programs of the federal government have a
negative impact on Canadian families. We must give parents
greater freedom to spend time parenting and to succeed
economically while doing so.
That is why Reform will extend the following child care
deduction to all parents, including those who care for their children
at home: $5,000 for every preschool child and $3,000 for every
child seven to twelve years of age. To make this as fair as possible
for families at all income levels we will turn the deduction into a
tax credit so everyone gets the same savings.
These changes are necessary since fiscal burdens and
government intervention both mean that Canadian parents have
fewer choices about how to raise and care for their children. Big
6527
government programs such as universal day care, which the
Liberals promised in the 1993 election campaign, only add to the
burden of government debt and high taxes and contribute to
removing choices away from Canadian families.
The Reform Party believes that parents are the people best
equipped to make these decisions and wants to leave them as much
choice and decision making power as possible. Reform believes
that returning money into the hands of families will provide them
with the choice and the flexibility they need to make the best
decisions for their children.
Reform therefore opposes state run day care, supporting in its
place child care programs that subsidize financial need, not the
method of child care chosen, and that subsidize children and
parents, not institutions and professionals.
These initiatives are important because more parents are
choosing to stay at home to look after their young children.
According to Sherry Cooper, the chief economist for the
Canadian investment firm Nesbit Burns, birth rates are rising in
Canada and traditional families, father working and mother at
home with the children, are growing from a record low of 28 per
cent of all households in the 1980s toward the level of 44 per cent
by the year 2005. Demographic trends, she says, point to the
resurgence of traditional family life. Canadian parents who want to
stay home to raise their children find that government policy
penalizes them for their decision. Consequently many spouses are
forced to work outside the home even if they do not want to.
Given today's unemployment rate of 10 per cent surely the
government would have enough sense to realize more jobs will be
available for the unemployed if working parents can stay home and
raise their children rather than go out to work and take up the jobs
that are in the marketplace.
Consequently Reform supports a revision of the federal income
tax regulations to end discrimination against parents who provide
for child care at home.
How does Reform view Canadian parents? We are convinced
that the majority of Canadian parents are caring, are capable and
are responsible. They know what is best for their own children.
What is more, they demonstrate it every day through the large and
the small sacrifices they make, that the well-being of their children
is their top priority.
In the case of divorced parents we want to see fair and equal
treatment for all parties involved in a support ruling. It is vital in
any child access or custody settlement that the needs of the child
and the parents' ability to pay are the first consideration. This
government constantly puts forth flowery phrases of how
supportive it is of family. Yet its actions makes lies of its words.
Children need the loving care and visits from all family members.
(1050 )
Yet this government, in contradiction to Canada's acceptance of
the convention of the child and of a child's right of access to their
families, voted down the grandparents bill which would have given
grandparents the right to ask the judge at the time of divorce if they
could continue to see their grandchildren.
How could this government do this, knowing that many of our
seniors have already died without seeing their grandchildren in
their later years? How could it be so cruel as to continue to deny
families the right of access?
This government cares about families, we heard the Liberal
member say a few minutes ago. Oh, yes.
What about this government's promise to remove the GST on
reading material and thereby enable families to have reading
material in their homes without paying GST on those essential?
Remember, the Deputy Prime Minister promised that there would
be no GST on books which were as necessary as food.
The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said it would be
undemocratic to put GST on books. Yet Atlantic Canadians are now
paying 15 per cent on books at retail book stores in the Atlantic
provinces. That is not helping families.
Who are the victims in the terrible crimes across this country?
Good law-abiding families have been made to suffer while the
rights of criminals have been upper most in Liberals' minds since
1971 when the Liberals at the time decided that the rehabilitation of
criminals was more important than the victims of crime and the
families of victims.
What did the government do when Mr. Niven, a good family
man, was kicked to death outside a 7-Eleven store just outside my
riding? This government passed Bill C-41 which dealt with
sentencing. It stressed that the murder of a gay deserved a stiffer
sentence than the murder of a family man like Mr. Niven.
The new Bill C-41 deals with punitive measures for support
payments in arrears. Once again this government did not help
families. This government was concerned only with punishment. It
could have dealt with a comprehensive package which would have
included access and visitation rights.
In the American legislation under the Florida statutes its package
was comprehensive. It did deal with all those issues. This
government did not even care about families. What is worse, this
government took the drawing up of guidelines out of the hands of
parliamentarians. It ended up with inflexible and unrealistic
guidelines.
Elected members of Parliament could have ensured that families
were encouraged to make realistic settlements, settlements which
6528
dealt with the needs of the child and the ability to pay and add that
these agreements be considered first by the judge rather than going
first to the inflexible guidelines, which is what that bill instructs the
judge to do at this time. That is a recipe for failure.
In the guidelines there are a number of omissions and additions
that would result in many unfair awards. For example, the lack of
an adjustment of awards for the time the child spends with a
non-custodial parent. However, that is not in there. There is also the
completely different and extreme treatment of joint custody
situations, which is getting very common in our country today.
Mr. Bouchard, co-ordinator of the National Alliance for the
Advancement of Non-Custodial Parents, stated: ``Fair and
equitable guidelines would go a long way to bring some
consistency to support awards''. Support awards must be paid and
it is essential that parliamentarians be responsible and set
guidelines which will help prevent future arrears in these necessary
support payments.
In fact, the Equitable Child Maintenance and Access Society
stated that the federal, provincial and territorial task force was
supposed to deal jointly with the issues of custody, access and
maintenance. This government ignored two-thirds of this mandate
and gave the area of child support preferential and exclusive
treatment.
Studies in the area of divorce show that children suffer more
from the custody and access conflicts and therefore priority must
be given to these areas in conjunction with financial support.
The result is that Bill C-41 is designed to specifically exclude the
paying spouse from the definition of family. The finance minister
brags about all the wonderful things this government is doing for
families.
What about the new tax treatment of child support payments? No
deductions and no inclusions. Who benefits from this set up? It is
not the families, Mr. Finance Minister. It is a major tax grab at the
expense of families. The spouse paying support, usually the higher
earner in family settlements, will now not be able to claim
deductions and consequently will pay higher income tax to the
government, causing him to have less money to look after his new
family and his first family.
In short, by eliminating the deduction inclusion system there is
less money to go around for divorced families and both sides suffer
while government revenues obviously rise.
It is essential that we as parliamentarians put families first. In
this way we do not only help to build character and self-respect in
our children, we also help our literacy rate to rise and help prevent
crime.
(1055 )
By including those parents who are able to stay at home and raise
their children without state run day care and by giving them child
care deductions which can be turned into tax credits, we are also
helping those who are unemployed in our society. After all the
fanfare this government made about supporting families, it seems it
is up to the Reform Party to raise a motion in the House to reinforce
support for families.
It is time to make a fresh start for families. Therefore I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the word ``should''.
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I was truly touched by the
attempt by the hon. member opposite to put a human face on the
gibberish we normally hear from the Reform Party.
I was also struck by the fact that she seemed to be talking about a
different kind of world than most Canadians inhabit.
I wonder if she would share with us her understanding of the
composition of the Canadian family out there today. I hear it
described as if all families are comprised of an Ozzie and Harriet
vision. That is what I heard portrayed across the way.
Also I would like her to comment on the extent to which
Reform's recent budget proposals would adversely impact on
families in this country, no matter how they may defined, whether
in the Ozzie and Harriet world she lives in or in the world in which
real Canadians live. The dramatic changes and the increased cuts
across the board that would be made as a result of that document
would gut this country.
Mrs. Jennings: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
I really wish that members of this House, particularly Liberals,
would stop the insulting remarks. I find it degrading for
parliamentarians. Having been a teacher for 30 years, I abhor this
kind of speech in the House of Commons. I do not wish to hear it
again.
I am very glad that this member was truly touched by what I had
to say.
With respect to the different kind of world, I suggest that the
member should take a moment to think. The Reform members,
apart from one, have all been from the private sector, from the
public sector, but not members of Parliament. Because we have not
been members of Parliament in the past we have been in touch with
real Canadians. We have worked with real Canadians. We have
been teachers. We have been doctors. We have worked in the
resource industries. We have been there. As citizens of Canada we
have been more than aware of the issues that are out there.
6529
The hon. member mentioned some gibberish about Ozzie and
Harriet. I agree that would be a wonderful situation. I am sure the
member agrees that it would be wonderful. Unfortunately, with the
high rate of divorce and the difficult unemployment levels which
the government has helped to create by not lowering taxes, that
situation no longer exists. Reform is the first to acknowledge that.
That is why Reform would introduce child care tax deductions in
the amount of $5,000 for each preschool child and $3,000 for each
child between the ages of 7 and 12.
I wonder if the member knows that over 80 per cent of Canadian
families are comprised of a husband, a wife and children.
I believe that those who are not connected with reality are the
Liberals. Surely common sense dictates that if the Liberals would
lower taxes, and not have 46 per cent of the income of Canadians
going to the tax structure, and leave more in their pockets so they
could employ more people in their businesses it would encourage a
more positive outlook. Perhaps the Liberals should look at the fact
that retail sales are down. They were up at the beginning of 1995 by
about 7 per cent. They have gone down all the way through 1995
and 1996. People are cautious and worried, they are not spending.
(1100)
By my last accounting bankruptcies are over 52,000, up 23 per
cent. This suggests a government that is unaware of what going on
out there. I think the member who asked me to answer a question
spoke a lot of nonsense.
I recently read an article in the September Reader's Digest and
even Mr. McKenna, a Liberal premier, said that duplication in
provincial and federal programs is costing us $5 billion a year.
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Madam Speaker, when I first heard
the supply day motion, I was briefly tempted to congratulate the
hon. member and the Reform Party for raising issues that were
genuinely worthy of consideration.
Improving tax fairness is something the government believes in
strongly. That is why it has taken concrete action in each of its three
budgets to close loopholes and eliminate inequities.
Then there is the action that would benefit children in need. Who
would dare deny the special responsibility the government holds to
use available resources actively and aggressively to protect and
sustain the most innocent and vulnerable of all our citizens. Here
again we have as a government taken concrete action, especially in
the 1996 budget.
These are the issues the motion may appear to address.
Unfortunately it takes only a moment's reflection to see through
the illusion, to recognize that there is actually little or nothing
about equity and nothing about compassion here at all. What is at
work, masquerading in the guise of fairness and family, is an
attempt to buy electoral support. Because underneath the rhetoric
the motion proposes nothing less than a $5 billion tax cut. The
hidden agenda behind the motion goes beyond deception into the
realm of duplicity.
Not only are we being asked to endorse a dramatic tax cut in a
year when the deficit is targeted at about $24 billion, it is a tax cut
that will create unfairness in two ways. First, if the motion became
law it would actually create inequity in the tax treatment of child
care deductions. What is more damning is the fact that the real
beneficiaries of this motion would be the affluent and the wealthy
and their children at the expense of poor Canadians and their
families.
This not so hidden agenda will come as no surprise to anyone
who has studied the philosophy and the rhetoric of the Reform
Party. Theirs is the gospel of comforting the comfortable and
abusing the afflicted. Perhaps that sounds a little intemperate, but
the false logic and perverse pandering of today's motion deserves
no respect.
Let me prove my point by addressing the first aspect of this
motion, the mistaken idea that fairness as enunciated by the
Reform Party requires ``extending the child care expense deduction
to all families of all income levels''. This is in keeping with the
Reform's continuing allegation that the Income Tax Act
discriminates against families that provide care at home for their
children. They ask why working Canadians should be able to claim
a deduction for their expenses when stay at home caregivers cannot
claim the expense they incur.
Mr. Morrison: Do you think they do not work?
Mr. Peters: This is not just a case of apples and oranges logic.
This is apples and sour grapes logic. It is attempting to make night
equal day. In reality, the rationale for the child care expense
deduction is to prevent discrimination and unfairness. It does this
by recognizing for tax purposes the child care expenses that
taxpayers must incur in order to earn income or to study.
(1105)
In other words, the deduction is a way for the tax system to
acknowledge that when both spouses work, these taxpayers
generally have less of a capacity to pay taxes than other taxpaying
families with identical incomes that do not have these child care
expenses. That may sound a little bureaucratic but it is not.
Of course families with a stay at home spouse has child care
expenses. That is why in addition to the regular child tax benefit of
$1,020 for each child, the tax system also provides a supplement to
6530
help modest income parents who choose to remain in the home to
raise preschool aged children.
The fact is when both spouses work they will have higher child
care expenses than families where one spouse stays at home. Those
additional expenses will include day care, work transportation for
two people and other costs incurred in earning income.
This takes me back to the bottom line. Despite Reform's
implication, the child care expense deduction is not anti-family
social engineering. It has nothing to do with providing a benefit or
acting as an incentive for people to participate in the workforce.
Instead the child care expense deduction seeks to ensure that
families where both partners must work or study do not suffer a
disadvantage by being taxed on gross income when child care costs
mean that they have reduced capacity to pay.
Incidentally, I should point out that the child care expense
deduction parallels the approach applied to business. Firms do not
pay taxes on expenses they incur to generate income but only on
their profits. By the same logic, the child care expense deduction
does not tax-up to a certain limit-the expenses incurred when
both parents must work to generate income.
I have established that this motion clearly fails to recognize the
real purpose and process of the child care expense deduction. That
purpose is to deliver neutrality, in effect, real fairness, within the
tax system.
I will address the more fatal flaws of today's proposal: fiscal
irresponsibility and rewarding affluent Canadians at the expense of
those in real need. The motion seeks to extend the child care
expense deduction to all families of all income levels and convert it
to a credit.
This raises an obvious question which the hon. member has not
answered. What is the cost? Assuming we use the current structure
of the deduction, which is $5,000 for children under seven years of
age and $3,000 for children between seven and fourteen, the cost in
lost revenue will probably be in the vicinity of $5 billion. That
compares to about $400 million under the existing deduction
system.
That $5 billion can only come from one of three places: adding
$5 billion to the yearly deficit, not just this year, not just next year,
but year after year after year; or raising other taxes by the same $5
billion; or cutting federal spending by a further $5 billion, which
would be on top of the most dramatic government spending cuts in
Canada's post-war history. Inevitably that would require new cuts
to transfers to provinces for social assistance and health care.
Who would be the real beneficiaries? There would be some
benefits to families with stay at home parents, a group which is less
than 25 per cent of Canadian families. This benefit would have
little to do with real need and the problem of child poverty which
should be the priority issue in family policy.
Let us look at Reform's priority. The simple fact is that under
this motion every professional and executive, people who earn
$75,000, $100,000 or $1 million a year, those who can best afford a
stay at home spouse probably with housekeeping help and a nanny
to boot, would enjoy a nice fat tax break. But this motion adds
nothing for the low income family where both partners must work
or choose to work.
Mr. Morrison: Have you ever heard of a tax credit?
Mr. Peters: There is another damning downside. There is a real
risk that for the less affluent families with a stay at home spouse,
any improvement provided by the revised deduction could easily
disappear. The reason is simple.
(1110 )
As I have pointed out, the $5 billion cost of the so-called Reform
child care expense deduction has to come from somewhere, from
higher taxes, from reduced spending on social programs or a deficit
that puts new pressure on interest rates. Obviously raising taxes to
pay for an effective tax cut is just going in circles so that cannot be
the Reform's agenda, although going in circles seems to be what
they do best.
Cutting social programs is part of the Reform agenda and their
fresh start manifesto makes it clear. It is the needy and the less
affluent who will feel the impact when welfare transfers,
equalization and employment insurance are cut. All are contained
in their fresh start. It should be called a phoney start. The needy and
the less affluent will ultimately pay for Reform's child care break
for the affluent executive.
Or we could let the deficit jump, although that hardly fits the
Reform Party credo. If we did, it is the needy who suffer again
under the pressure of higher interest rates, higher mortgage costs
and a reduction in the business investment that fuels jobs and
incomes.
As a parent and grandparent I share the heartfelt concern of
every member here that there are children in Canada who suffer
real hardship, whose future prospects are dimmed by the burden of
poverty and neglect. As a taxpayer I understand the driving desire
for fairness in the tax system and that we continue to eliminate
inequities and absurdities.
As someone with a background in economics and as a legislator
who understands the importance of the continued battle to reduce
the deficit, I cannot support the Reform's motion today. These
proposals are not based on need. Instead they will shift vital
resources away from those who we as legislators are most obliged
to help, and in order to do what? To reward families who already
enjoy a superior standard of living. This would mean a meaner and
a more inequitable Canada.
In conclusion, the child care expense deduction should be
maintained in its current form because it plays an important role in
recognizing the particular circumstances of working parents. When
6531
both parents work outside the home, additional child care expenses
are a necessary cost of earning income that is subject to tax.
Because of these child care expenses, families with two working
parents have a reduced ability to pay that tax compared to a single
earner family with the same gross income. That is why the
deduction supports a tax neutrality that makes for a fairer tax
system.
The choice is clear. We can support this motion if our goal is a
meaner Canada with a more inequitable tax system, or we can
reject this proposal and by doing so show that we stand for a
country marked by compassion and fairness.
I urge hon. members to vote no because that is what good
conscience and good government demand.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member
stresses that he has a background in economics. I think it must have
been a way back because I have never in my life heard such an
Alice in Wonderland dissertation or so many distortions in one
short speech in this House. It is incredible.
The Liberal and Tory governments have condemned Canadian
families to economic serfdom and now a catch-22. The government
says: ``We are going to make it easier for you to pay your taxes. We
will make it easier for both to go out and work''. What great hearts
the Liberals have.
Study after study show that taxes and taxes alone are the largest
single expense faced by working parents. Did the hon. member
ever consider, or is he capable of considering, the bitter fact faced
by real Canadians, not the strata of society he comes from but real
Canadians, that there might be couples out there who would not
both work, who would like to have somebody stay at home, if it
was economically possible for them to do so. Did he ever consider
that one of the reasons so many couples in the lower income levels
both have to work is that they are paying 46 per cent of their
income in taxes to the three levels of government that there is
nothing left for them?
(1115)
Mr. Peters: Madam Speaker, I am delighted to hear the member
for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia. I have lived in Swift
Current, by the way. I know the real people in Canada. I know the
real people in Swift Current.
Our child care expense deductions treat real people fairly and
equitably, not like the Alice in Wonderland proposals the Reform
Party puts forth. If the Reform Party formed a government it would
be like a Mad Hatter's tea party.
Talk about knowledge of economics. I am appalled at
Reformers' suggestions on economics. I am appalled that they
cannot even mention a $5 billion cost here. They talk about a $5
billion cost and they do not even say where they are going to get the
$5 billion from.
Higher taxes, is that what the Reform Party stands for?
Goodness, Reformers are always complaining about tax levels the
way they are now, yet they are going to give $5 billion more. Are
they going to cut social programs? Yes, they are going to cut social
programs. Yes, they are going to cut unemployment insurance. Yes,
they are going to do the poor in. Yes, that is it: the Reform Party for
the wealthy; the poor can go to the blazes. That seems to be the
Reform Party's sense of economics.
That is not the sense which this party has. That is not the Liberal
government's plan. That is not what this government will be doing.
We do not have the sense that the senior executives get the tax
breaks and the poor get nothing which is exactly what today's
motion proposes. It is not a plan that shows the meanness and the
inequities of the system; it is meanness and inequities that the
Reform Party stands for. It is not fairness, it is not equitable
treatment. It is simply meanness and inequity. That is the Reform
Party's policy and it should have meanness and inequity written on
its banner.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to hear from the secretary of state exactly
how we differ from previous administrations. Exactly how many
increases are there on the record for this House that this
administration has brought forth in personal income taxes since
this government took power?
Could he explain exactly what the advantages have been of
bringing our deficit under control, meeting our targets and bringing
down interest rates to the lowest levels in the past 30 or 40 years?
What has this meant to Canadian families regardless of the
make-up of Canadian families, and how has that put money in their
pockets?
Finally, the question was put forth about when we would have a
balanced budget. It would seem to me with the hon. Minister of
Finance's projections of reaching a deficit reduction of $9 billion
by 1998, that the step subsequent to that would be a balanced
budget in this country for the first time in decades.
Mr. Peters: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has some very
important and interesting questions.
The first one I am not able to answer. He asked me how many tax
increases have we had in personal income taxes. I am not able to
answer that question because there have not been any. There have
been none, so I cannot give him an example. I cannot give him even
one example over the past three years.
The hon. member asked me about deficit reduction and lower
interest rates which have been brought about. When this
government came into power we were faced with a $44 billion
deficit, a deficit that was absolutely shocking in size. We thought it
was
6532
going to be $34 billion. The promise in our red book was to bring
that deficit down to $25 billion or 3 per cent of GDP. However,
bringing it down from $44 billion to $25 billion is a lot different
problem from bringing it down from $55 billion to $34 billion. We
faced up to that problem. We said we were going to do that and we
did it.
(1120)
Our program has not been a single purpose one. It has not been
about setting a target. The previous government set many targets
every year and did not meet any of them. Our program has not just
been to set targets but to meet targets. I would suggest that the
Reform Party has never met a target in its existence. We have not
only set targets, we have met those targets.
The result has been a massive increase in the credibility of the
Canadian government. We are now the darlings of the international
financial community. We were much less than that three years ago.
We have lowered interest rates in this country so that the bank's
prime rate is 3.5 percentage points below the U.S. prime rate. I
cannot remember in all my years, and that goes back a long time,
since we have had interest rates as low as they are now.
I can tell the hon. members across the way who seem to keep
chattering away while I am talking that lower interest rates are a
real boon for Canadians. Lower interest rates lead to lower
mortgage costs and lower credit costs for Canadians. This makes
jobs. It enables industries to bring new plants into being which
creates jobs for Canadians. The results are clear and they will be
coming as we progress in this economic recovery with our low
interest rates. We are already seeing those results in the increase in
the number of jobs this country is producing now and it will be seen
even more so in the future.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I must admit that what I am hearing today boggles my
mind. I listened to the hon. member and most of what he said goes
completely against the facts and figures I have here.
I certainly have some questions to ask him. Before I do, I want to
make a quick comment. He mentioned the expensive tax cuts and
went on about the low interest rates which we now have. Yes, we do
have low interest rates, but we also have a 10 per cent
unemployment rate. That is a scourge on the Canadian population.
If low interest rates create jobs, what happened?
I would also like to put to him that rather than low interest rates
we also need an economy that has a future, that has hope and has
jobs. Tax cuts are what we need in this country more than anything
else. We need tax relief for overtaxed families, overtaxed and
over-regulated businesses. That is where there is a blind spot
within that party.
When the member talks about reverse pandering and who gets
the benefits as to what the programs are, can he tell me, yes or no,
does the child care tax deduction give more benefits to a higher
income earner or a lower one? In the present system put forward by
this government, someone making $100,000 and someone making
$20,000, who would get the larger benefit from the present child
care deduction?
The member also made the point that dual parent families have
less ability to pay their taxes and therefore need added benefits.
Can he tell me which kind of family would pay the higher taxes:
one with an income of $60,000 from two wage earners, or one with
an income of $60,000 from one wage earner? I would like to put to
him that it is the dual earner family that has the benefit in our
present tax system.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
and comment period has expired. I will allow 30 seconds for the
hon. secretary of state to answer.
(1125 )
Mr. Peters: Madam Speaker, first I would like to tell the hon.
member that these are not benefits. The child care expense
deduction is not a benefit. It is an expense deduction. If the
expenses are not incurred, then the deduction is not allowed. So it
is not a benefit and the whole argument has been stood on its head.
Second, we have a 10 per cent unemployment rate and yes it is
far too high. Yes, interest rates are low. What would the Reform
Party do about this? It would raise interest rates and ask whether
that would increase employment. That would increase
unemployment. As usual, the Reform Party's policies are mistaken.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Madam Speaker, before
commenting on the Reform Party's motion, I think it would be
helpful to viewers to repeat the text of the motion, which reads as
follows:
That, in the opinion of this House-and there was an amendment-the
government should provide tax fairness for all Canadian families by extending the
Child Care Tax deduction to all families of all income levels and converting it to a
credit, thereby removing the tax bias against parents caring for their own children.
My first comment takes the form of a question. In the motion, we
are not told whether this deduction will be converted to a
refundable or a non-refundable credit. The motion does not say.
However, if our information is correct, the Reform Party would like
this deduction converted to a non-refundable credit, which means
that a person paying tax could benefit from a deduction, whereas a
person not earning enough to pay taxes would be deprived of this
assistance for child care.
6533
In other words, this could mean that a person or a couple earning
$100,000 a year could be allowed a deduction for child care, but a
couple earning $20,000 a year and paying no, or practically no,
taxes, would not be eligible for a refundable credit.
The question then arises as to who is being helped. Is it those
most in need of child care assistance, or those least in need of it?
That is the first question.
However, if we consider the spirit of the Reform Party's motion,
our conclusion must be that there is indeed a real problem, but we
could still agree with it. There are people who need help, and we
want to help them. The reference is to a policy, a policy on the
family or an anti-poverty policy. Reform members tell us that this
motion is part of their family policy.
At this point, perhaps we should consider the concept of family
as seen by the Reform Party. As far as Reform members are
concerned, a family is a group of individuals who are related and
whose union is recognized by the state. We are therefore talking
about a group of individuals related by blood, marriage or
adoption. Clearly, Reform members, who are ultra-conservative,
are dreaming of a concept that hardly applies today.
(1130)
Some families today are single-parent families, but families
nevertheless. With a concept as obsolete as the one held by Reform
members, obviously their solutions to family problems will differ
vastly from what we might expect of people with a more modern
outlook.
Although we agree that Reform members are addressing a very
real problem this morning, we do not quite agree with the way they
intend to deal with that problem.
First of all, the Bloc Quebecois feels that providing assistance to
families should be strictly a matter of provincial jurisdiction. What
has the federal government done about all the promises it made
during the last election campaign that it would help our families?
The Liberal government promised to spend about $700 million to
create 150,000 new daycare places. What did the Liberal
government do about the promise it made in the red book? What
did the Liberal government try to achieve? A fraction of that
promise. The Liberal government claimed that because no
agreement was reached between the federal government and the
provinces, that was ample justification for the government to
withdraw its commitment.
The Liberal government could at least have taken the money it
had promised to spend and transferred it to the provinces, which
would then have been able to implement the daycare plan or create
spaces for children according to a plan of their own choosing and
adapted to their own needs. The bulk of the responsibility for the
lack of a family policy lies with the federal government, led by the
Liberal Party.
It is also perhaps worthwhile at this point to indicate that,
wishing to make this a provincial responsibility, Quebec and other
provinces have recently been looking at family issues. In the wake
of an economic summit at which this was much discussed, the
Government of Quebec has taken certain steps. It is, I think, worth
mentioning that Quebec's policy puts its children first.
If the federal government acknowledges that this is a provincial
responsibility, it might be worthwhile to look at a picture of the
Quebec family of today. Although the family plays as fundamental
a role in our society as it did in the past, the changes that have
occurred in Quebec society must be taken into consideration, and
this is what was proposed at the summit.
These changes indicate just how necessary a new family policy
is. I am defining the present family situation in Quebec because our
commitment at the time of the election was to work in the interest
of all Canadians, particularly Quebecers.
At this time, there are 1.66 million children in Quebec, one third
of them under the age of six. They belong to 960,000 families, 20
per cent of which are headed by single-parents.
(1135)
Twenty-three per cent of our families have an income of less
than $25,000, while the average family income is $50,000. In 70
per cent of two-parent families with young children, both spouses
work, while 20 years ago the figure was 30 per cent, so that the
family profile has changed significantly. Furthermore, a steadily
increasing number of people are self-employed or work at
non-typical jobs, that is to say, jobs that are unstable, involve
irregular working hours or are strictly casual employment.
These changes oblige us to rethink our policies and adapt them to
the new needs of our society, to make them fair, consistent and
sensible. That is why Quebec's family policy will be revised and
restructured around three central themes, and we hope the federal
government will recognize the relevance of these changes.
The policy's first theme is how we provide services for young
children and includes the following: first, plans for making
full-time kindergarten available to all five-year-olds will be
implemented as of September 1997; second, accelerated phasing-in
of part-time educational services and free daycare for
four-year-olds from disadvantaged families; and the phasing-in
over a six-year period of low cost daycare for all young children
whose parents are either employed or going to school.
6534
Phase one of daycare for four-year-olds will be implemented as
of September 1997, while phase 5 for children under the age of one
will start in 2001.
The second central theme of this program will be to improve
financial support to families as follows: a comprehensive
allowance covering the essential needs of all dependent children of
low income parents, whether they are employed or on welfare. This
new allowance will include the Quebec family allowance and that
part of social assistance payments that is used to cover children's
needs. This will be in addition to the federal tax credit, for the time
being, provided the federal tax credit does not disappear sometime
in the coming months. That may be the case when the next budget
is brought down by the Minister of Finance.
The third component is a parental insurance that will provide,
upon the birth of a child, benefits equivalent to 75 per cent of net
earned income, for a period of 25 weeks. Here is a measure that
will help families and pregnant women who want to look after their
children but still have the possibility of returning, within a short
period of time, to their job outside the family home. This parental
insurance will also provide additional benefits for a period of six
months, starting with the third child. It increases from $39,000 to
$49,000 the ceiling for eligible earnings, and it provides an
insurance fund that will be funded partly by recovering part of the
contributions made by employers and employees to the
employment insurance fund, as provided for under federal
legislation, and partly by collecting additional contributions from
workers who are not covered by the employment insurance
program.
Again, we hope the federal government will co-operate and
allow the Quebec government to take advantage of the federal
provision that authorizes the use of the employment insurance fund
for such purposes.
(1140)
The Quebec government will also provide substantial help to
children and young families. The beneficiaries of this reform are
the people who immediately come to mind: women. For several
years, women's groups in Quebec have been asking for concrete
measures to help women reconcile their roles as mothers and active
members of the workforce, without penalizing them.
The biggest winners of this family policy are the 550,000
Quebec children who are under six years of age, including those
living in socioeconomically disadvantaged environments. Early
childhood services include half-day classes and free child care for
disadvantaged children under four. This is undoubtedly the best
solution to ensure that all children benefit from equal
opportunities, and to prevent teenagers from dropping out of school
in such large numbers.
This policy also promotes a better balance between work and
family. In a society where both parents work, adequate and
available child care services are an absolute requirement.
Educational and child care services are essential in a modern
society, but they are insufficient.
The Quebec government wants to ensure that child benefits are
based on the principle of fairness and constitute an incentive to
work. These premises guided the development of the new
integrated allowance that will better meet the basic needs of all
children from low income families.
Finally, the new policy takes into account the profound changes
that have occurred in the workplace, by proposing the creation of a
new parental insurance program. This new system will be more
accessible and more generous than the system now provided
through employment insurance.
Furthermore, one of the most important indirect benefits of the
new policy is that the rapid growth of day care services will
encourage the development of the social economy, as well as
facilitate the battle against the underground economy. For the
Province of Quebec, as for Ontario and other Canadian provinces,
this has become a very serious problem in recent years.
It must be pointed out that the proposed family policy shows
that, despite a difficult budgetary context, which exists in Quebec
as well as in Canada, we in Quebec at least have shown that we
have the imagination and creativity to remain a progressive society
that puts its children first. It is in this perspective that, in Quebec,
the government has decided to adapt so as to continue to be a tool
for social development and the key to its future success.
We sincerely believe that this is a progressive policy and that it
confirms the dynamic role of the government to which citizens are
so deeply attached. I wanted to highlight these statements by the
Government of Quebec because it is what we would most like to
see happen. The Reform Party motion proposes a very restrictive
and limiting measure, and we feel that this is not the right
approach.
The best chance for finding solutions lies in leaving this
authority with the provinces, who are still in the best position to
decide what is required so that the choices made by the provinces
will better correspond to the real needs of their society, to the actual
composition of their families, and will provide the best future for
their children.
(1145)
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment and then pose a
short question to the member. I thank him for his intervention on
this issue.
6535
He mentioned toward the beginning of his speech refundable and
non-refundable tax credits. I thought I would speak to that for a
moment to clarify the issue.
I believe that most people, certainly those who look to fairness
and equity within the system, would agree that the present system
of a child care tax deduction is not equitable and not fair to
Canadian families. In fact, the benefit of that system goes to the
more wealthy who pay the greatest amount of income tax.
The reverse of that would be a tax credit which would give an
equitable benefit to all Canadians no matter what their income
level might be.
A non-refundable tax credit could be used to reduce the amount
of federal tax a person pays. However, it could not be used for a
refund. For example, if someone were required to pay a tax of
$2,000 and a credit were determined to be $2,500, that taxpayer
would not receive a refund nor would they be taxed. The tax would
be eliminated and they would not receive a refund. However, if the
tax credit were deemed to be refundable, they would have a tax
levy of zero and they would receive a payment of $500 in addition
to that. That is the difference between a non-refundable tax credit
and a refundable tax credit.
In our proposal we have not specifically said what kind of credit
we would put forward. We are looking at the issue of a refundable
versus a non-refundable tax credit. Assuming this is accepted by
the House, we would lean toward a refundable tax credit for
Canadian families. Indeed that would be our preference.
Either way, refundable or non-refundable, the issue of a tax
credit over deduction would certainly be the choice of Canadian
families.
My question to the hon. member is quite specific. Could he tell
me what he feels is more important? In his speech he mentioned
that he thought it more important to provide more day care for
families. He thought this was a priority in the province of Quebec.
Would he think it more important to provide day care spaces for
families or to provide a choice for families as to whether they want
day care or whether they want to stay at home with their children?
Which would be the more important policy that a government
should look at, simply providing day care or providing choice for
parents?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for
providing me with the opportunity to clarify the comments I have
just made.
What is important for the members of the Bloc Quebecois in this
issue is to ensure that all families, and all women, have an equal
opportunity to raise their children. I mean all families, all women,
all men, all couples. Whether families are poor or not, whether
there are one or two parents in the home, what we want is for no
one to be at a disadvantage for deciding to stay home, or to work
outside the home.
(1150)
No mother ought to be penalized because she has made one
choice or the other. This is a fundamental freedom of choice we
acknowledge for women, or for men who might be in the same
situation.
We feel that rearing children must come first. We also feel that
mothers, while providing this child-rearing, must also have access
to the fundamental freedom to realize their potential by working
outside the home or within the home.
We would not like to see a government policy which favoured
one choice over the other. What we want is to see the fundamental
policies designed and implemented in such a way as to ensure that a
person is not penalized for having made a free choice. We would
not like to see government policies advocating practices or
programs that would encourage or discourage one or the other
choice. We would like to see the individual's most basic rights
respected.
[English]
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I was very pleased to hear from
the hon. member opposite. He always has very cogent remarks to
make in the debates in this House. I welcome his comments about
not skewing the system one way or the other but I am confused
about a situation that prevails in his own province of Quebec.
For many years Quebec governments have provided a significant
benefit to parents for having children, indeed an increasing amount
of money. They have expended tens of millions of dollars in this
effort to engineer more births in the province of Quebec and I
understand without much success. I wonder how that program
squares with his comments about equity and not providing unequal
incentives. What about couples who have chosen not to have
children or not as many as the government of Quebec wanted them
to have?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member opposite
wants to discuss the family policies of the federal government and
those of the provincial government, perhaps we should go back in
history and see how the Government of Canada treated the Quebec
government when in Quebec most families had ten children or
more. The hon. member may care to recall what the federal
government did at the time. What kind of choices were made then
to help families?
In Quebec, families were raised without waiting for subsidies
from the government. Quebec couples did not wait for subsidies to
have children. They knew what their responsibilities were, and they
believed in the future of the family. Family policies came much
6536
later, and it was the Quebec government at the time that would have
appreciated more flexibility to be able to help these large families,
which was not necessarily the case in other Canadian provinces.
At a time when Quebec would have liked to see specific criteria
for providing assistance in situations peculiar to Quebec, it did not
get the federal government's co-operation. When we want the
power to deal with our own problems, that is the kind of situation
we are referring to.
Today, Quebec is in favour of a family policy that is in fact quite
unique and quite different from what the federal government had in
mind. We believe that Quebec's needs are different, and because
they are, Quebec needs all the political resources available to meet
those needs.
It always boils down to this: since we have different views on
most of the problems facing us today, we keep asking for all the
powers we need to implement our vision and guarantee the
development of our families as well as our cultural, economic and
social development.
(1155)
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
two of the issues that face families today are high unemployment
levels and taxation. We constantly hear from across the floor the
parliamentary secretary talking about all the jobs that the
government has created. I find it very odd that when the Liberals
came to power there were 1.4 million Canadians out of work and
presently there are 1.4 million Canadians out of work.
It is not low interest rates that are causing the problem. Low
interest rates should fuel the economy-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Resuming
debate, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this supply day motion. It is
always a pleasure to talk about issues involving the family. All of
us here come from a family and so we all have an opinion on it and
a strategy on how we would like to see families strengthened. That
is what this debate is about. It is a pleasure to enter into that.
The Liberal speech from the throne was delivered in February of
this year. It was 13 pages long by my count. It was read into the
record about all of the priorities of the government, the direction it
is taking, the things it wants to emphasize, the promises it says it is
making to the Canadian people. Although the throne speech was 13
pages long and although it emphasized a lot of things within that
text only once in the 13 pages did it mention the word family. Even
at that it was just a passing reference.
The red book, which is the gospel according to the Liberals,
mentions family only on one page in the entire book which is 100
and some pages long. Where it mentions the word family in the
entire red book is on a page where it says that the Liberal
government promises to create thousands of federally run day care
spaces. That is their entire reference to the family.
I hope it is an error of omission and it does not reflect the priority
that they place on the family, but we do notice a disturbing trend. It
is interesting that Parliament has created an auditor general for
finances, an auditor general for the environment, an ethics
counsellor for lobbyists, secretaries of states for various functions
from women to youth and so on. I do not know why but there does
not seem to be anybody who wants to touch this issue of should we
be concerned about the family. The Liberals it would seem do not
want to touch that with a ten foot pole.
A couple of years ago I did bring forward a private member's bill
which would have created a small office called the auditor general
for the family. That office's role would have been similar to the
other auditors general to check legislation that affects the
environment or the finances of the nation and so on.
The office I conceived of would also check on the government to
see how legislation affects families. For some reason that was
defeated. The government did not want to see how legislation
affected families and I to this day do not understand why.
In a town hall meeting today if I give a speech it is something
like this: ``The family today feels burnt out, stressed out and in
crisis''. I go down a list for the crowd which goes something like
this: ``Let me describe your situation for you. You are working two
jobs or more. Both parents are working. You have no time to spend
with your children. Your credit cards are maxed out. You are
worried about your job. You wish you could spend more time
teaching your children to read but you do not have that time any
more. It seems it has been taken away from you. You are working
harder than ever but are not getting further ahead''.
When I make a statement like that a hush comes over the room.
The people just start nodding their heads. They say: ``You are
describing my situation. That's the way I feel. I'm stressed out, I'm
burnt out, I'm working harder than ever, and it doesn't seem like
I'm getting ahead. I'm just not getting ahead''.
(1200)
It is no wonder that in a recent Angus Reid poll, 63 per cent of
people said that the family is in crisis. People are not just stressed
out but they feel that the family is in crisis. No doubt there are a
variety of responsible factors. But the list I went through is part and
parcel of what determines that crisis.
6537
I mentioned how families are not emphasized in this place often
enough. We talk about all other categories of people. We seem to
put them all in little slots. We have royal commissions,
investigations, priorities, auditors general, you name it; but we do
not do the same for the family. That is one of the things that
differentiates the Reform and Liberal parties as we head into the
next election which will likely be in 1997.
The Reform Party has decided on some principles concerning the
family. Those principles are important to the framing of the debate
today as we talk about child tax credits, tax benefits and tax relief
for families.
The first principle could be stated as follows: That the family is
the fundamental building block of our society. It is the primary
institution for the transfer and protection of beliefs, culture and
social stability. The first principle of the Reform Party in the
foundation of our beliefs is that the family is key. The family is key
in crime prevention. It is key in education, in providing financial
benefits to children and in providing for its own financial prospects
down the road.
Study after study proves that the family is the key institution for
passing on attitudes, beliefs, respect for others, educational
opportunities, standard of living, you name it. That is why the
strengthening of the family unit is a cornerstone of our social
policy. I re-emphasize that the state, the government, is not the
fundamental building block of society. It is the family.
The second Reform principle is our belief that parents must have
the primary responsibility and opportunity to nurture and provide
for their children. It must be re-emphasized that the state does not
have that primary responsibility. The state does not bring people
into the world. The state does not form a family. The state is not the
primary building block of society. It is the family. It is not the
welfare worker, although they are important. It is not the teacher in
the school. It is not the legal system. It is not an advocacy group. It
is not the Reform Party of Canada. It is the family that has the
primary responsibility.
The family not only has responsibility and obligation but it also
needs opportunity. It needs governments to move out of its way. As
someone put it, government should be doing for the family only
what the family cannot do for itself. In other words, the
government should fill in where there are cracks. Obviously some
programs are needed to look after people across Canada.
The family needs to be reinforced, encouraged and endorsed,
patted on the back both morally and financially to do the job it does
best if it is to fulfil its role as a primary building block of society.
In exceptional cases the government does need to be involved,
for example, in situations of child abuse or child neglect. We have a
collective obligation to ensure that the least protected in society,
the least able to defend themselves, have the protection of the state.
Obviously we need adequate legal protection and a welfare system
in the country to ensure the well-being of those children who are
being abused.
We have been studying this big problem in British Columbia.
The Gove commission and others have made recommendations in
an attempt to ensure those cracks are not so wide that children fall
right through them. However, those interventions should be kept to
a minimum and not try to impose a national government idea of
what that family should do or how they should behave themselves.
(1205)
I get repeated letters and phone calls from people who are
concerned about the government trend to interfere in the lives of
families. For example, there is a concern, at least at the United
Nations, about the government interfering in a families' right to
exercise fair discipline. Families are saying that how they raise
their children, as long as they are not abusing or physically hurting
them, and how they exercise corrective measures in their home is
their business. I agree with them.
We have had many questions about what is a family. How does
one define a family? For the purposes of government benefits,
which is often what we are talking about, I ask the question: What
is a family?
The Reform Party defines a family as follows: Individuals
related by ties of blood, marriage and adoption. When I was in a
different position here, I had a member from the NDP jump up and
tell me that a family is anybody who is related by close emotional
ties. That was her definition of a family. That is not a family. I have
close emotional ties with many people. I sometimes feel quite
emotional about quite a few things. I can even get quite emotional
about the people at the Table but we are not a family and it is not a
family relationship.
A family is people related by blood, marriage and adoption. Just
so we are clear on that, does that mean a single parent with children
is a family? Of course, they are related by blood. If somebody
adopts children are they a family? Of course they are a family. If
somebody is related by marriage is that a family? Of course.
The definition is important because we are now going to get into
benefits that are offered by the government to those people.
We also need to talk for a few minutes about marriage because I
am going to talk about spousal benefits in a few minutes. What is a
definition of a marriage? The current definition of marriage, which
is used in all existing federal statutes and should be retained, is that
a marriage is a union between a man and a woman as recognized by
the state. It is important to have those definitions in place because
benefits derive from those definitions.
6538
We ought to resist all attempts to redefine marriage. The
Supreme Court of Canada backs up this position in the Egan v.
Canada case in 1995. Justice LaForest stated:
-marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal
tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long standing philosophical and religious
traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly
anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the
unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these
relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live
in that relationship.
We simply agree with the Supreme Court of Canada when it
made that statement a year ago and when it talked about benefits
that this Parliament gives to married couples.
Obviously marriage, by definition, also includes common law
couples. Again, that is recognized by the state. One does not have
to be married in a church, although that is my experience and what
I have gone through, but the state does recognize common law
relationships and church or civil marriages and that is what we
should stick with.
We also agree with the Parliament of Canada. We debated a
private member's bill about whether spousal benefits should be
extended to same sex couples. A private member's bill was brought
before the House. We all spoke to the issue. It was then defeated by
all parties in the House, including the Liberal Party and the front
bench, who said that Parliament was not going to redefine marriage
like that and spousal benefits would not be extended for that. I
think our party voted unanimously against it. The Liberals voted
against it and cabinet voted against it. I also agree with the Prime
Minister. He said in Winnipeg that he does not agree that marriage
should include same sex couples. That is not his idea of marriage.
This is unusual. Parliament, the Prime Minister and the Reform
Party all agree. It has all been debated in the House, voted on,
passed and is a matter of record.
(1210)
Although it is a matter of record, what has transpired since then
is also a matter of record and it has not followed the wishes of
Parliament or the wishes of the Prime Minister. That is why we
know that the definition of marriage is going to come under attack
and has come under attack. The reason is Bill C-33.
The justice minister said in the House that Bill C-33 was not
about entitlements and repeatedly denied that the amendment
would lead to same sex benefits. He said that time and again and
promised it time and again. But what has followed has proven him
wrong.
Just to get it on the record again, in the Montreal Gazette of May
9 he was reported as having said: ``Everyone should be clear on
what this amendment is not about. It does not confer benefits on
same sex couples or on homosexual individuals''. However, it was
reported in a magazine in my end of the country, the Extra West
magazine, a gay magazine from Vancouver: ``If the government
takes the position that you cannot discriminate, it follows as a
matter of logic that you have spousal entitlement to benefits''. That
is what he said outside the House in Vancouver.
The redefinition of marriage and spouse has begun on that side
of the House in contradiction of the wishes of Parliament. I think
that is unfortunate. If Parliament wanted to do that, it should bring
forward a bill, have a debate on it, pass it and let people know
where it is heading and what it wants to do. That is fair and we can
all live with the consequences. I would argue and vote against it.
But when all that was done and the private members' bill
defeated, the government did not listen to the will of Parliament. It
sneaked in its own definition of spouse and marriage through the
back door, and we see the results of that today.
The human rights tribunal has now demanded of the government
a list of all laws that will be changed when the definition of
marriage changes. It is being compiled. I do not know how long it
is going to take because many statutes state the definition of
marriage is the union of a man and a woman as recognized by the
state. The Minister of Justice got into this and got himself into a
mess.
Why then do we need this change in the child tax credit? We
need it because the average family income has dropped $3,100
since 1993. We need it because Canadian families deserve the
option of how to raise their children. In other words, if families
choose to raise children at home, they deserve as much of a tax
break as those who choose to put their children in a day care centre.
Families deserve to see some light at the end of the tunnel, so
that instead of decreasing family incomes and increasing stress and
diminishing their time with their children, they will be able to see
down the road they are going to have more money, more time and
some options.
This motion is about options for families. It means that we
believe that the state does not have the answer for families.
Canadian families should exercise their options and not be
restricted by tax policy to do what the government wants, but that
they should have the freedom to do as they wish. That would
happen if this motion were passed. I urge all members to support it.
(1215)
Mr. Barry Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity
to participate in today's debate.
The motion before us relates to a topic dear to every member of
this House and to Canadians everywhere: the well-being of our
children. Indeed, the matter is so important that we must be
especially vigilant to ensure that we think about it as clearly as we
can. Unfortunately, the motion as proposed tends not to clarify but
rather to obscure some very important points about the purpose of
the child care expense deduction, about genuine tax fairness, about
6539
fiscal responsibility and about the important steps this government
has taken to advance the well-being of Canadian children.
Let me begin with the first point, the purpose of a child care
expense deduction.
As we have already heard, the child care expense deduction is
designed to help modest income families with two working parents
shoulder the child care expenses they must incur in order to earn an
income or to study. In other words it exists to help ensure that the
tax burden of these families is fair compared to those with similar
incomes who do not face these additional expenses.
This leads me to another point that deserves to be emphasized.
The existing system is designed to assist parents with modest
incomes. In these tough fiscal times if not always, it would be
unrealistic and even unfair to use taxpayers' money to introduce
new benefits that would largely go to affluent Canadians.
These are issues that by themselves are sufficient to show why
today's motion does not deserve the support of this House.
There is another important point I would like to turn to now. That
is to remind hon. members of the important steps, the targeted steps
our government has taken to advance the well-being of children,
especially those of families in need.
[Translation]
In fact, despite the austerity we are forced to come to terms with,
the federal government continues to provide significant support,
through the child tax benefit, to low and middle income families
with children. These benefits are tax exempt; they are revenue
based and paid monthly.
[English]
Maximum payments go to families with net incomes below
$26,000 and include a basic benefit of $1,020 per child, as well as
an additional $75 for the third and each subsequent child in the
family.
In addition, there is also the child tax benefit supplement which
specifically helps parents who stay at home to raise their preschool
age children. This supplement provides modest income families
who do not have deductible child care expenses with an additional
$213 for each child under the age of seven.
Beyond this, federal assistance to families with children is
further enhanced by the working income supplement. This
supplement helps low income working families meet some of the
extra costs related to earning employment income. It is important
to recognize that the working income supplement is not just limited
to two income families but also applies to single earner families
where one spouse stays home as the caregiver.
The bottom line for this program is both clear and considerable.
The total annual cost of the child tax benefit including the working
income supplement is over $5 billion.
It is also vital to note that these are not static programs. This
government recognizes that the issue of child hardship and poverty
is of growing concern to us all. That is why we have taken
effective, targeted action to enhance them.
For example, until the 1996 federal budget the maximum value
of the working income supplement was $500 annually. The budget
doubled this benefit to $1,000 to be phased in over two years. Over
700,000 working families will benefit from the increased working
income supplement. The average benefit they will receive will
increase from $350 a year to $700. About 250,000 families will
receive the maximum increase of $500. When this measure is fully
implemented in July 1998, benefits to low income working
families will be enhanced and enriched by $250 million a year. I
would add that about one-third of the families that will benefit
from the increased working income supplement are single parent
families.
(1220)
I would also like to mention another important measure in last
year's budget which will help families with children. In fact it will
help them with one of the most important investments a young
person in his or her family can make for the future and that is
education.
I am referring to the learning package, an additional $80 million
a year in tax assistance to help students and their families deal with
the increased costs of education. Students receive assistance with
their educational costs under two tax provisions: the tuition fee
credit and the education credit. As tuition fees rise, the amount of
assistance provided by the tuition fee credit rises automatically.
In the 1996 federal budget the amount on which the education
credit is based was increased from $80 to $100 per month. In
addition, the limit on the transfer of tuition and educational
amounts, for example from a student to her parents, was increased
from $4,000 to $5,000. Moreover the annual limit on registered
education savings plans contributions was increased from $1,500
to $2,000 and the lifetime limit was raised from $31,500 to
$42,000.
Finally, we have also taken action to improve the child care
expense deduction, the issue at the heart of today's debate.
6540
[Translation]
The 1996 budget broadened eligibility for the child care expense
deduction by allowing single parents studying full time to receive
the benefit and deduct it from all other income. Families with both
father and mother studying full time may enjoy this benefit as well.
Furthermore, and this is a first, the benefit is now available to
parents completing high school. At the same time, the age
determining deduction eligibility has been raised, thus enabling
parents with older children to take advantage of the deduction.
The measures I have just set out have provided considerable
support to many children and parents in Canada, but I am not
claiming that these measures alone are enough.
[English]
Surely there is more that could and should be done but in this
period of limited resources we have to make sure that we are doing
the most good we possibly can do with every dollar we spend. On
this score the measure before this House fails miserably. It is
proposed without regard to cost; incredibly it is proposed without
regard to need and without regard to impact. Everyone agrees that
we must do the very best we can for our children. To that extent I
appreciate the intent of today's motion, but is it really the best we
can do? Would children in need derive the most benefit? I think
not.
What is needed is for better thought out and better targeted
proposals to be brought before this House. But typical of the party
opposite, we have simple solutions offered to complex problems.
[Translation]
However, today's debate and for that matter every issue under
debate in this House would be of national interest only if it were
grounded on clear intentions and proposals of substance, which
must be expressed in clear terms and accompanied by accurate
figures. Today's motion miserably fails the test on both counts.
[English]
The Reform Party claims it is concerned about families, about
family time, about providing a better standard of living and care for
Canada's children, but in its proposals here today and in other
venues it proves conclusively that it places no real priority on child
poverty and has little true understanding about family life in the
1990s.
Families with two working parents exist for a number of reasons.
Financial need is just one. The operation of the tax system might be
another but it is not the sole reason that parents make a decision to
stay home or seek work outside the home.
(1225)
Reform has nothing to offer the majority of Canadian families
who must or choose to have both parents work. Even more
troubling, today's motion dares to suggest that tax fairness would
be enhanced by providing a credit to every family irrespective of
income level. This simply means to a host of families who enjoy
material benefits which low and modest income families can only
dream of that they would benefit even more.
The real agenda here is very clear. Reform has staked out a
policy of a broad national tax cut, a policy that has not won the
hearts of very many Canadians. Canadians see through the cheap
appeal of Reform's tax proposals. Those Canadians are the ones
with real common sense. They will not allow governments to buy
electoral success by promising rapid and wide ranging tax
reductions. Canadians will not be fooled by this phoney reform of
the human face. When communism was collapsing in eastern
Europe we started to hear about communism with a human face.
That is what is happening here. Canadians will not be fooled by this
political cross-dressing.
In closing, there is no politician who would not like to lower
taxes as far as possible. But good government means acting with
constraint and consideration and making sure that today's tax cuts
do not come at the price of increased pain and suffering tomorrow
for those who are most vulnerable. That is why this government has
opted in its three budgets to take targeted action that works within
our fiscal conditions and that serves those who are most in need.
That is what real political leadership and nation building is
about. It is not about picking winners and losers. And because
today's motion does not meet those tests of real leadership, does
not increase real tax fairness and does not focus its benefits on
those most in need, I have no hesitation whatsoever in urging all
hon. members to vote against today's superficially appealing but
essentially misleading motion.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier I addressed questions to the hon. member's
colleague. I would like to repeat them so I can clarify what the
actual answer would be from the Liberal side.
I do want to make a comment before I ask the questions though.
The member mentioned that he does not know a politician who
does not want to lower taxes. I happen to know a bunch of
politicians who do not want to lower government spending and that
is a problem. They sit on the Liberal benches. They refuse to reduce
the size of government and so refuse to allow the relief that
Canadians need and want both in their personal lives and in their
businesses.
Could the member please tell me who benefits the most from the
existing child care tax deduction? Would it be someone earning
6541
$20,000 or someone earning $60,000? Who benefits most from the
present tax system: a dual wage earner family earning $60,000 or a
single wage earner family earning $60,000?
As I may not have time to reply to his answer, I would say that it
is the rich who benefit most from the present child care tax
deduction and it is the dual parent family that benefits most by the
income tax system.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat incredible that
the hon. member opposite would speak about members on this side
of the House not being in favour of reducing government spending.
(1230 )
As the hon. member would know if she had read the last three
budgets, or would recall if she thought about it, we took
unprecedented steps in the three budgets we have presented as a
government to reduce government spending to its lowest level in
many years as a percentage of the gross domestic product; in fact,
soon to its lowest level since the late 1940s.
I know that the hon. member opposite and her colleagues would
like to see government spending go down even more. They have
this small problem of telling us how that would happen without
having an unfortunate negative impact on this country without
leading to the kind of meanness and nastiness that my hon.
colleague, the secretary of state, referred to.
The government will continue to stand alongside Canadians. It is
not going to stand aside and out of the way. We are going to stay in
the game, helping and working with Canadians.
The kinds of spending reductions we have achieved have been
done in a reasonable, realistic and compassionate way, but not
without impact and not without cost.
It is incredible that the members of the third party stand up day
after day telling the government to cut further because it does not
affect anybody.
As to the questions which were asked, I am going to respond in
the following way. The hon. member asked some questions and
then proceeded to answer them. I am going to ask her who would
benefit most from the proposal that is in the motion before us. I
would just note that it is proposed to be a tax credit. There is no
indication that it is a refundable tax credit with the result that
people without income would not benefit and it would not be
available to them.
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, I still did not hear his answer. I
assume from his non-answer to my two questions that he agrees
with my answer, which rather flies in the face of everything we
have heard in question period lately from a finance minister who
rails on other parties and perhaps even casts us as a party that
speaks for the wealthy, when in fact it is his very party in the
present circumstances that gives the advantage to the higher
income earner. That is yet another example of the spin or the
duplicity of some of the comments made in the House. I find it
most notable.
In our fresh start program we have outlined where government
expenditures can be reduced. The government continues to require
in excess of $150 billion a year in order to operate. That figure is
far higher than we feel is necessary. Without undue stress on the
population our fresh start program outlines where the cuts can be
made to government and indeed would put more money in the
hands of the tax paying public and not in the hands of government
bureaucrats.
Again, does the member feel that money is better in the hands of
bureaucrats than in the hands of taxpayers? What we propose
would take approximately $5 billion out of the hands of
government and put that $5 billion directly into the hands of
families across the country.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, very briefly. I find it fascinating
that as we look at the opposition motion today, it is not costed.
I heard the hon. member state a great concern about spending
and cost deficits, which we hear from that side of the House and
which is a concern we share and one which we are acting on. As I
reread the motion, there is no indication whatsoever about what
this would cost. Estimates I have seen range into the billions and
billions of dollars and the suggestion in the fresh start document
that they would have to find only $12 billion would be blown out of
the water. Some would look at the motion and say ``if you do this
along the lines you have been saying, your costs would be
additional billions of dollars''.
(1235 )
I find it really distressing that we are debating a motion of a
party, which consistently is concerned about government spending,
government revenues and taxation levels, which is not costed. It
has offered us no indication today whatsoever about the costing of
this motion.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my simple
question is why does the government continue to maintain the
facade that program spending rather than tax cuts is the way to go.
Chapter 19 of the auditor general's report which was tabled in
September 1996 dealt with the child tax credit in detail. He pointed
out that in many cases the program appears to be spending money
on child tax credits for children who, quite simply, do not exist.
The department does not have the programs and the checks and
balances in place to find out how many dollars are being paid to
families that do not have children and that are not entitled to those
moneys. That is the type of waste and abuse that we find in
program spending, which tax cuts would prevent.
6542
I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell us why program
spending, his vision, is so much better than what we are talking
about, which is tax cuts.
Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked two
questions. The first is why we address the deficit through program
cuts rather than tax cuts The answer is simple: because it is
working.
The second question that he asks is about the auditor general. I
would reply by wondering out loud what the auditor general would
have to say about this House's adopting a motion which is not
costed in this fiscal climate.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, just
following up on the question which I asked a minute ago, which
clearly points out the fundamental philosophical difference
between members on this side of the House and members on that
side of the House, they believe in taxing and spending because
Canadians exist to provide money for the government so it can turn
around and give it back to whomever it wishes and under whatever
basis it feels is appropriate.
This side of the House quite definitely believes that Canadians
work for themselves, that Canadians feel that small government is
important, that government should not be in their lives any more
than it has to be and that they are prepared to pay a small amount of
money toward government to ensure that some services and some
uniformity of programs across the country are provided.
This is the point. Canadians do not exist to create wealth for the
government so the government can turn around and give it back to
them in some form or another. That is a fundamental philosophical
difference.
When this government uses that type of program spending, as
the auditor general pointed out in chapter 19, there is waste, there is
mismanagement, there are bureaucrats to be paid, there are all
kinds of overhead expenses. As I have said before, a tax cut with no
administration cost could be implemented the day it is announced.
That is the type of thing that people want. They want to take charge
of their lives. Taking charge of their lives means they will pay less
tax.
We have laid it out quite clearly in our fresh start program, step
one and step two.
This country is in a financial mess. It is $600 billion in debt. We
are running at almost a $30 billion deficit for the year ending
March 31, 1996. When the Minister of Finance appeared before the
finance committee and announced the results of the figures and a
budget deficit of $28.9 billion, there was applause from the
Liberals on that committee. It was incredible.
It all stems from the philosophy that government should take
money from Canadians because they owe it to the government so
that it can turn around and deliver it back in programs. We say the
opposite.
(1240 )
Our first point is to balance the budget and stop digging
ourselves into a bigger hole. Once we have done that we want to
help Canadians by giving them tax cuts. Step one, get the fiscal
house in order. Step two, start giving back to Canadians control
over their lives.
What are we proposing for families after the budget is balanced?
We are proposing to make families our priority and to ensure that
government policies and regulations are family friendly. That is
from the Reform Party's fresh start booklet published a month ago.
We also said extend the $3,000 to $5,000 child care deduction to
all parents including those who care for their children at home. It is
a valid point and the essence of the resolution we are debating
today. We want to extend the child tax credit of $3,000 to $5,000
which this government is currently giving to families that obtain
day care services outside their homes.
We want to give people the choice. We want to give every
Canadian parent the ability to make the decision of how they want
to raise their child based on their family circumstances and not
based on a tax policy imposed on them by the Minister of Finance.
There is a fundamental and significant difference.
We want to give parents charge of their lives. We want them to
make the choices that are right for their families. We do not want
them to have to make a decision based on the tax policy of the
Minister of Finance. We do not want him to dictate to families in
Canada.
I forgot to inform the Speaker that I will be sharing my time with
the member for Medicine Hat. I will take only 10 minutes.
We go on to strengthen families in other ways. From the fresh
start program for Canadians, we are going to increase the spousal
amount from $5,380 to $7,900 which will level the playing field for
parents who choose to stay at home to look after young children. It
will help families meet the needs of a more demanding economy.
Is that not a wonderful idea, that we help families to keep one
spouse at home to look after the kids? It is better than having a tax
policy that says ``I am going to put my kids next door with the
neighbour, the neighbour will put his kids next door and I will look
after them, and if we do a swap we can meet the requirements of the
Minister of Finance, but if I want to raise my kids in my house and
my neighbour wants to raise his kids in his House, it cannot be
done''. The tax policy says you cannot do that.
Surely it is an incredible statement that you cannot raise your
own kids, you can raise only your neighbours kids. I like to raise
my own children. I believe that every family in this country would
love to raise their own children. Yet the Minister of Finance by his
6543
own tax policy which he is imposing on these families says ``No,
you cannot do that. I do not want you to do that. We are going to
institutionalize your children and put them in day care. We are
going to have them raised by somebody else because we feel that is
the way to go''.
As Reformers we say that is detrimental to families, that is
harmful to families, that causes pressure on families. We have so
much marital break-up and we know that marital break-up is
horribly painful to children. They are the innocent victims of
marital break-up. They are the young and the innocent who are
involved in sometimes messy situations. They are pulled and
dragged by each side. They are in the courts. People go to court to
find out whom the children will be raised by, the mother or the
father. It is a horrible situation.
I am sure the House would agree that anything that can be done
to protect the family, to remove the tax disincentive, to keep the
family together surely must be in the best interests of Canadians.
(1245 )
I cannot stress it strongly enough that we have to help families
rather than thinking we are going to introduce all kinds of policies
and programs to pick up the broken pieces. Let us work
beforehand.
We are not asking for government intervention with a thousand
more bureaucrats and programs across the country. We are saying
to give back to families control of their own lives by removing the
tax policies that want to put the kids somewhere else.
We heard the parliamentary secretary tell us that programs are
the way to do it: tax and spend; take the money from Canadians and
pass it through to the bureaucrats who try to put it back into this
segment or that segment of society. There are programs for
widows, programs for single parents, programs for kids and
programs for businesses. Bombardier was given $87 million. Name
it and there is a program for it. Let us leave people alone and allow
them to make their own decisions without having to worry about
taxes.
I picked up a pamphlet entitled: ``Canadian Families:
International Year of the Family, 1994'' which was produced by the
Vanier Institute of the Family. I am just picking out a few of the
quotes. Under the heading ``What counts in Canadian Families'', it
is stated: ``The desire to spend more time with the family is
unlikely to wane in the years ahead''. Another quote: ``Although
Canadian families experience many problems, for better or worse,
the majority of Canadian marriages do last for a lifetime''.
It is an interesting little pamphlet about Canadian families. The
whole concept behind the pamphlet is to give families the
opportunity to look after themselves and they will likely do the
best job in raising their kids. They will likely do the best job of
looking after their own circumstances.
This is what the Reform Party wants to do. We want to give the
control back to the families. This is only a small start in getting
bureaucrats out of their hair, getting the taxation policy of the
Minister of Finance out of their hair and allowing Canadian
families to do what they do best which is to raise their own kids.
We all know that an institution is no substitute for a family. I
cannot imagine being raised in an institution. My kids would hate
the idea of being raised in an institution. A number of years ago
when my son was in grade three or four, we put him in day care for
one afternoon. It was tax time and I was busy so we had to put him
in day care for a few weeks. We thought he was having a good time
because as an older kid he was helping the younger ones. He still
remembers that we put him in day care for a number of weeks and
he would have preferred to have stayed at home with his mother.
The point is that our motion is concerned about doing something.
It has the right idea. It gets bureaucrats out of the families' hair and
lets them raise their kids. It lets parents love their own kids. This
will help Canadians, Canada and everyone else.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
real pleasure to rise in support of today's motion. I cannot stress
enough how proud I am to be a member of a party that upholds the
traditional place of the family in society as the most important
institution in society, period. It is absolutely the most important
institution in society. That is why I am just thrilled to be standing in
support of today's motion.
I will start by talking about the tremendous importance of
families for a moment. I heard my hon. colleague from St. Albert
talk about his personal situation. There is no question that the
family is the institution which people rely on overwhelmingly to
supply their children with values. Rather obviously, people need to
have good, strong values of some kind in order to be good citizens
and contribute to society. These values come from families.
(1250 )
Families are needed to provide education. I was on the finance
committee and people from the various groups promoting literacy
were there. I made the argument that the most effective, the best
and the most cost efficient institution for providing education in
this country is the family. Only a family can really instil the joy of
learning. Only a family can provide all that knowledge that people
do not necessarily get through their schools. The literacy groups
made the point that the people who do learn in schools are the ones
who get a good grounding in education from their own families. It
is vital for education that we have strong families.
6544
Families provide security for their members. When people for
some reason are thrown out of work, the best place for them to go,
initially at least, should be their families. That is where they not
only get monetary support and other resources but they also get the
moral support they need in a situation like that.
Finally, families provide roots so that people can become part of
a larger community which really contributes to their sense of
well-being and their sense of purpose in life. If people are part of a
strong family and therefore part of a stronger community, they feel
that their life really does have a sense of meaning and a sense of
purpose. It is vital that we have strong families just for that reason
alone.
I want to make the argument that families do not get the
recognition they deserve. If we were able to put a monetary value
on what families contribute to society, it would certainly be a lot
more than what governments at all levels put in in terms of trying
to support families. There is no question that people today in
families no matter how we describe them put a tremendous amount
of value back into society. We must do whatever we can to ensure
that those families are supported, that they prosper and that the
children who come from those families go on to be productive
citizens in society.
It is clear that today's families are under a tremendous amount of
stress. The hon. member for St. Albert spoke about the broken
families. Sociologists and psychologists have pointed to the
negative impact of broken families. One of the reasons there are
broken families today is that there is so much stress due to the fact
that people's finances are tight. People have to work night and day.
Both parents often have to work night and day just to bring home
enough money to provide the basic necessities of life.
Here is how it works: People make their income; the finance
minister gets half and then mom, dad and the kids get the other half
to live on. The finance minister gets half the bowl of porridge and
mom, dad and the kids get to share the other half of the bowl of
porridge. Unfortunately in September, 6,500 Canadians went
bankrupt; they could no longer live on that half a bowl of porridge.
That is one of the big stresses on families today.
As a result of having to work all day and in some cases six and
seven days a week, people simply do not have the time to spend
with their children. I know they regret that very much. I regret how
much time I have to be away from my family to do this job. It
means that I cannot devote the time I would like to to be with my
children, to do some of the things I have talked about: to provide
them with the education that can only come from families; to give
them a sense that they are part of a larger group, a part of a
community and a tradition and a history in our own family; to give
them the security by talking about the big safety net that a family
provides. And of course we have to instil values.
All of that takes time. People come home after working all day
and they are tired. It is extremely tempting to sit children in front of
the electronic babysitter, the TV. It is not a replacement for people
who actually give their children guidance. The family is under
stress today.
(1255 )
I mentioned a minute ago all the debt which people are carrying.
There were 6,500 bankruptcies in September, a 20 per cent
increase. This country has record high levels of personal debt.
Again people feel that they have to go out and work and work and
work to try to pay down their debt.
As a result of the high taxes not only do we have personal debt at
record levels and not only do we have all those bankruptcies, we
have tremendously high levels of unemployment. Unemployment
is about 10 per cent right now in Canada. That does not include the
half a million people who have given up completely looking for
work. It does not include the one in four people who are constantly
worried about being able to find a job. Because of high taxes this
country has a real problem with high unemployment.
We have unfair taxation policies. Not only do we have high taxes
which are unfair, but we have taxation policies that encourage and
have incentives for people to spend even less time with their
children. Families are rewarded for having their children brought
up outside the home as opposed to being rewarded for bringing
them up at home where a lot of people would like to do it.
About a year ago in a Maclean's magazine poll about 70 per cent
of Canadian families where both parents were working said that,
given their druthers, they would have one parent at home. Seventy
per cent. We are not talking about a minority. We are talking about
a majority of families who have both parents working today who
would like to have the option.
The facts are clear. When families have a tax burden that
constitutes 46 per cent of their income, about half of their income,
it is almost impossible for many families, especially low income
families, to have one parent at home to spend time with their
children. It makes it virtually impossible and it is getting worse.
In the last three years, since 1993, we have seen that families
have been left with $3,000 per family less in purchasing power than
when this government came into office. That is $3,000 a family. It
makes it virtually impossible for people who are struggling to get
ahead to be able to ever hope to spend more time with their children
at home, especially in those early years when the guidance of the
parents is so needed. Obviously there is a huge problem in this
country.
I have heard government members today say that they have done
this and they have given them that and they have done this for
families. It is not enough. The problem also is that it comes at it
from a bureaucratic, big government point of view. The
government is saying that it has decided it will give back to parents
money in such and such a form if they conform to such and such a
behaviour. That is not right.
6545
Families make a lot better decisions about how to spend their
own money and about how to raise their own children than a big
bureaucratic bloated government will ever do. Most people agree
with that. It is time to shrink the size of government. It is time that
we gave taxpayers and families more money in their pockets to
decide what to do with their children, to decide how to raise their
own children.
That is what the Reform Party fresh start for families is all about.
That is what today's motion is all about. We want to give Canadian
families that choice. They want that choice. We are not saying that
both parents cannot go out to work. Of course they can.
In my own situation, for years my wife worked in the workforce
along with me. It is not that we particularly wanted to have it that
way but that is how it worked for a number of years, because we
wanted to try to get ahead. People should always have that option,
absolutely.
We are not saying they should not have that option. But we are
saying that they should also have the option to stay home with their
children. We are just asking that people have some freedom.
I heard the hon. parliamentary secretary for finance say that the
Reform Party wants the Ozzie and Harriet approach to child care.
That is a strawman and let us knock it down right now. What the
hon. member is worried about is that this motion is striking a chord
with Canadians. He knows how stressed out families are today. He
knows that people want to have some options. He knows that
people want to have the choice of being able to raise their families
the way they decide, not the way the hon. parliamentary secretary,
the finance minister, the government, the bureaucracy or a bunch of
special interest groups decides. Give families the ability, the
freedom to raise children as they choose. The best way to do that is
to leave more money in the pockets of those ordinary Canadians
who just want government to leave them alone.
(1300)
The question has been raised about how that can happen. How
can that be done? The deficit is $28.6 billion right now. In fact, the
government is going to add about $107 billion to the total debt by
the time its mandate is done. So far it has already added to the
personal tax burden of Canadians approximately $3,000 per family.
What can we do when there is a deficit situation like that? We
have said that we would balance the budget and we would run
surpluses. We would shrink the size of government, get rid of all
the ridiculous spending. We do not need to spend money on
Bombardier. We need to spend it on families. We need to spend it
on health care. We do not need to spend it on CBC television. We
need to spend that money on families to ensure that people get to
keep more money in their own pockets.
Our fresh start for families allows people to keep $2,000 per
family by the year 2000. That is a great start. It gives people some
hope that they will have the opportunity, if they so choose, to stay
at home with their children so that they can provide them the
guidance, education and the protection that many Canadian
families want today.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
before I come to my point, I want to say that I am a father of five
children, a grandfather of four and I am one who strongly believes
that the family is the fundamental building block of our society. I
think that families that are in a position to have at least one parent
home when the children are growing up, especially in the formative
years between the time of birth and when they go to school, are
indeed very fortunate.
In my case, all of our children had the good fortune of having at
least one parent, always their mother, at home in those formative
years before they went to school. So I believe in that very strongly.
It is very interesting to note when looking at polls that only 7 per
cent of women support the Reform Party. One might ask the
question: With a party that is so strongly in support of the family,
why would so few women support the Reform Party? I think I know
the answer, as do most Canadians.
Women, perhaps more than anyone else in the country realize
that if their families do not fit the certain preconceived model of
the Reform Party, they are out. They do not care about them.
Everyone knows that the Reform Party has a particular model in
mind when it comes to the family and if you do not fit that model,
you are nobody. For example, the mother who wants to work
outside the house or who has to work outside because there is a
need for additional income, does the Reform Party place any
emphasis on that parent, on that woman?
I have been listening to the debate and rarely does the Reform
Party ever say anything about the woman who either wants to work
outside the home or who has to work because of financial needs.
That is the reason why women do not trust that party. They have
this funny notion that there is a particular kind of family and if the
model does not fit you, just forget it. Your family is out in the cold.
That is my observation about this party.
(1305 )
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, the member may have been sitting
there, but I do not think he was listening. I used my own family as
an example of a family where my wife went out into the workforce,
partially because she had a tremendous career. She was a very able
person in her chosen line of work and she wanted to pursue it.
Ultimately, of course she brought in income. That enabled us to
provide some of the basic necessities for our family after the
government had taken its half, which it always gets. It is ridiculous
for the member to throw up that red herring.
I feel that I must also point out that we have many people in our
caucus who come from all kinds of backgrounds. We have mem-
6546
bers in our caucus who are single mothers. Maybe the hon. member
was not aware of that. There are people in our caucus who are
divorced. We have people who come from all kinds of
backgrounds. We are sensitive to what goes on out in the real
world. That is why we are offering people complete choice.
If the Liberals do not believe in choice, why do they not just state
it?
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to speak on this opposition motion today.
Members will know that I have had a very active role in the
House on issues dealing with the family. I have advocated many of
the things which members have spoken of today. I am also a
legislator. I have a responsibility to do the job in the best way I can.
My first point is to advise the House that I will not be supporting
this motion. I would like to explain to the House why.
The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide tax fairness for
all Canadian families by extending the child care tax deduction to all families of all
income levels and converting it to a credit, thereby removing the tax bias against
parents caring for their own children.
The first thing that members should be doing is assessing the
motion. This motion says that we ``should'' provide this rather than
the typical wording ``consider the advisability of''. This motion is
an absolute. It says: ``You should do this''. When a motion says
specifically that we should do something, it has to be judged on the
merits of the motion; not on its intent or what the crafters of the
motion were trying to say, but on what the motion says. That is
what is before the House.
I support the concepts of equity and fairness in the tax system.
However, when a motion contains errors or omissions it must be
defeated. The error in the motion is the reference to the child care
tax deduction. In the Income Tax Act there is no such thing as a
child care tax deduction. There is, however, a child care expense
deduction which is available to taxpayers who incur child care
costs outside of the home.
The motion also refers to converting the child care expense
deduction to a credit. There are two forms of tax credits. There is a
refundable tax credit and a non-refundable tax credit. Just by brief
explanation, a refundable tax credit-
Mr. Penson: Sounds like an accountant.
Mr. Szabo: I am a CA. That is right. I think it is important to
explain the difference. It is an important difference. It is important
to the acceptability of the motion.
A refundable tax credit is available even if a person has no
income taxes payable. For instance, the GST rebate is a form of a
refundable tax credit. Even if you have no income, you may file a
tax return and get a refund for the amount of the GST credit.
(1310)
However, there are also non-refundable tax credits which can
only reduce taxes otherwise payable. They cannot generate a
refund. On that basis and by virtue of the fact that this motion does
not even explain who would be able to claim this credit, if it were a
non-refundable credit, a spouse working in the home, managing the
family home and caring for preschool children, who had no income
would not get any benefit from this. This is precisely what I have
been working against.
This motion has twisted the language in such a way that it could
ultimately lead to something even worse than what already exists
today. It could provide even further benefits in other situations and
absolutely no benefit to a parent who chooses to stay at home and
care for a family member.
Typically private members' motions state ``that, in the opinion
of this House, the government should consider the advisability'' et
cetera. As such the House is dealing with a principle without
quantification of the financial implications. That is typically the
private member's motion. It deals with principles. If the principles
cannot be accepted then it does not matter what the dollars are. We
have to first buy into the concept, then we can talk about how we
can implement it.
However, this motion does not say ``consider the advisability''.
It says ``do it. This is what you have to do''. But it does not explain
the detail.
I want to thank the whole House for supporting Motion No. 30
on November 5, a motion which proposed a child care tax credit for
those who choose to provide care in the home to preschool
children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged. That vote
passed in this place by 129 to 63.
If members look at the record they will see that the full cabinet
and almost all of the parliamentary secretaries did not support the
motion. I know why. They could not support the motion because of
the absence of a reference to cost and because of the detail in the
debate.
The intent of Motion No. 30 was not to impose an action on the
government, but rather to ask it to deal with the principle, the
advisability of giving a tax break to families who choose to provide
care to a family member in need.
As a result of that, if the vote were adjusted for those who could
not vote for it because of the technical nature, the vote would have
6547
been something like 129 to 13. No matter how it is cut, on
November 5 the House of Commons sent a very powerful message
to the government that members, on behalf of their constituents, on
behalf of all the people they encounter, knew in their hearts that
investing in families was the right thing to do.
The motion suggests that tax fairness, the removal of tax bias,
can be achieved by making the change it proposes. The National
Forum on Health just issued a dialogue paper to which I will refer.
In its press release on November 12, the national forum states:
``The forum believes that there is an urgent need to invest in
children. The draft proposals include a combined
federal-provincial child tax benefit for low and moderate income
families, a reduction in the tax burden on families with children
and home visiting programs for preschool children at risk''. That is
a tremendous endorsement for Motion No. 30, a motion that was
passed by this place.
It will provide ample support for the argument that the
government must very seriously consider tax reform as it relates to
children and families.
(1315)
Members will know that in the reports just out from the
Canadian Association for Social Development the child poverty
statistics are unacceptable. One in four children is living in poverty
in our country.
The National Forum on Health report is a dialogue paper which
includes their draft proposals and is available for public comment.
The final report from the National Forum on Health will be coming
out in early 1997. I encourage members and Canadians to inform
themselves of this report and to make and to have an input. That is
the kind of thing that makes changes in legislation and tax law that
will affect the family, children and all things important to members
as expressed in their vote on Motion No. 30.
The report states:
We believe there is an urgent need to invest in children. Failure to invest in the
early years of life increases the remedial costs to the health, education, social services
and justice systems. The problems are compounded when a separation or divorce
occurs.
Members will know we just dealt with Bill C-41, dealing with
the terrible situation of family breakdown. That exacerbates the
situation but notwithstanding in addition to a recommendation to
combine the existing child tax benefit which is not taxable, it is
outside the tax system, with current provincial welfare programs. It
means that the federal and provincial governments should be
working together to start to consolidate many of these benefit
programs that are in fact already available to families and children.
The National Forum on Health was started by the Prime Minister
and he is the honorary chair of this forum. From the report I
thought this one paragraph was the most important:
At the heart of pro-child and pro-family policies should be a recognition of social
and familial responsibilities for the well-being of children. Currently, Canada is the
only western country that does not take into account the cost of raising children
when determining how much families with children should pay compared to those
without children. Simply put, families are penalized by the income tax system for
having children. The taxtransfer system could be reformed in a manner which
reduces the net tax burden of all families with children.
That is a very important, major endorsement for Motion No. 30
which this House passed on November 5.
I want to conclude this section of my speech that I am opposed to
this motion for technical reasons. I understand the spirit but as a
responsible legislator I cannot allow a motion which has an error in
it and which has technical limitations, no detail, no specificity. I
know the cabinet could not possibly endorse this. The
parliamentary secretary cannot and I cannot because I want the job
to be done right the first time. I do not want false starts and I do not
want things happening that are going to possibly make the situation
worse.
There is a saying I enjoy quite a bit, that for every complex
problem there is a simple solution. It is wrong. This is a complex
issue we are dealing with. We are dealing with the complexity of
families, with the complexity of addressing the child poverty issue
and we are dealing with the concepts of positive and good health
outcomes of our children. One motion in this form is inadequate in
the extreme to address those serious problems.
We need to work together to seriously consider the broad range
of initiatives that we can come forward with to make a meaningful
and a vital effort to deal with the issues of family breakdown, child
health, child poverty and a healthy country.
I consider this motion to be dysfunctional. It cannot be
implemented in its present form and I cannot support it in this
form. I am glad that so many members have risen in this place to
talk about the family. We can see from the speeches from all sides
there is no question the family is the heart of our country. Strong
families make a strong country.
(1320 )
Members know I have been presenting petitions in this place,
probably ad nauseam. One I have had circulating across the country
since 1994. I am sure members can probably now recite it from
memory. However, I would like to put it on the record once again.
The petition simply states that the petitioners draw to the attention
of the House that managing the family home and caring for
preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been
recognized for its value to our society. The petitioners therefore
pray and call on Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax
6548
discrimination against families that choose to provide care in the
home for preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the
disabled.
I have had a wonderful response from Canadians on that petition.
The reason I frequently presented this petition is when people hear
that and hear the nice reaction it is given by members who are here
to respond to petitions, it gives them hope that there are people who
are actually thinking forward, envisioning the problems, how to
solve them and what is going to make this country even better than
it is today.
I look back at some of the things I have done. Like all members
of Parliament, I keep a little tally on some of the issues I have
worked on. One of the first bills I ever presented was Bill C-256,
splitting income between spouses so one could stay at home and
care for preschool children. That was back in 1994. It taught me a
lot. I received a lot of correspondence from people and had a lot of
members come to me and support this. However, it was not a
votable bill. It involved the expenditure of money and did not meet
the criteria and I understand that.
However, that bill did strike a chord back in 1994 and stills
strikes a chord today. We know there are things we can do. It has to
do with a tax break for families so we can provide more choice,
more flexibility and more options because we have a complex
social structure today.
I look further and I see Bill C-269 which was to provide Canada
pension plan benefits to spouses who work in the home because it
is a real job. Whether it is the man or the woman working in a home
based business or simply managing the home and caring for
children, it is a job and there is a contribution being made to
Canada. We know intuitively that good quality parental care
generates better outcomes for children. They are healthier, socially
better adjusted, less likely to get into trouble with the law and solid
Canadians who have a great start at being good contributing
citizens to Canada.
Let us move down. I have Bill C-240. I love Bill C-240 because
it states convert the child care expense deduction to an
unrefundable tax credit, make it subject to income tax and extend
the same benefit to those who choose to stay home and provide care
in the home to their children. This is precisely the intent of this
motion which has been brought before the House today. This is a
bill which has been there since May. Unfortunately it has not been
drawn for debate as yet.
I want to thank the Conservative Party and the Reform Party for
adopting this in their own policy conventions they held. It
transcends partisan lines. This is not a partisan issue. This is in fact
a Canadian issue that is right. I want all members to know that I
have met with the finance minister and have provided him with a
plan under which we could re-engineer existing tax credits so that
we could fund a caregiver tax credit.
I simply want to conclude my comments by reading a quotation
from Dr. Benjamin Spock. He said children are made to love.
Parents love children because they remember being loved so much
by their own parents. Despite all the hard work, taking care of
children and seeing them grow up to develop and become fine
young people gives most parents their greatest satisfaction in life.
To reflect on children, we see that this is creation. This is our
visible immortality.
I thank all members for speaking on behalf of the family.
Together we will achieve benefits for families that provide care to
their family members.
(1325 )
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend a
sincere compliment to the hon. member. This is the first time today
that we have heard a speech from the opposite side that was not
filled with bombasts and vindictiveness. That is much appreciated.
Since he is a man who clearly espouses family values perhaps he
would consider administering a spanking to the parliamentary
secretary, but in a loving way. We have to avoid any suggestions of
the brutalization of children here.
I have no quarrel with most of his speech. I would disagree that
our motion is not technically feasible. I ask him, if that is his view
and it is technically feasible, if he would join us to try, with his
knowledge, to work out something which he would regard as
feasible which we could then bring forward at a future date,
possibly as a private member's bill.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind
comments.
The member should also understand that the parliamentary
secretary has a role to play and it is a very unfortunate role in this
situation because the purview of the Income Tax Act belongs to the
government, and the details. They are the ones who will have to
determine what we do, how we do it and when we do it.
Simply on the basis of the tradition of this place the
parliamentary secretary on behalf of the government has to oppose
this motion. I am opposed to this motion on the technicalities.
If this motion does not pass that is really not of much
consequence because Motion No. 30 did pass. Motion No. 30, the
caregiver tax credit for those who provide care in the home for
preschool children, the chronically ill, the aged or the disabled, was
embraced by this House. The finance minister now has before him
a recommendation on how to implement that. It includes among
other things converting the child care expense deduction to a tax
credit, making it subject to an income test and extending it to
families that provide care in the home.
6549
That current benefit is worth about $400 million. The spousal
non-refundable tax credit, which is available to one spouse working
where the other one is at home, is worth about $400 million but it
has no relevance whether or not there are children involved here. I
believe that should be made available for this funding of a child
caregiver credit.
The equivalent to married exemption actually benefits families
that split apart more than it benefits families that stay together. It is
worth about $600 million and it should be looked at to see how we
can re-engineer and refocus this.
If we take these items they would be about $2.2 billion of current
government spending or investment in Canadians. They were
brought in a long time ago when family configurations and choices
were clearer.
The caregiver tax credit, including seniors, would cost according
to the finance department only $1.6 billion. I am absolutely sure
that we can direct real dollars to families so that they can have a tax
break, so they can have more choices, more options, more
flexibility. That is already before the finance minister, before my
caucus and before those who are contemplating other policies that
the government can consider.
I am very confident that it is going to get the best consideration
given all other things that are going on. I thank the member for the
question. I think that what the Reform Party is asking for today is
already in process and already has the support of the House.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened very intently to my hon. colleague's
presentation. I certainly want to congratulate him on it. As usual he
is very astute when it comes to families, family relationships and
once again has portrayed that to this House. My compliments to
him.
(1330 )
We hear a great deal about the family today and we know that
over the last number of years there have been changes to what we
considered the traditional make-up of the family.
However, we know that even with all the challenges that our
young people and our students face today, there is a tremendous
opportunity in the future with the education opportunities for our
young people, the changes in the world of technology and their
adaptation to those new technologies. I think it is a tremendous
challenge and a tremendous opportunity for the youth of today to
develop the future of this country. I believe we have a glorious
future when I think of our young people. Quite often we hear a
small percentage of criticism, but it is the 98 or 99 per cent of the
young people who are going to carry the country forward into the
future.
I would ask my hon. colleague to comment on that in his
perspective with regard to the family.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the member makes a good point. We
served on the health committee together and we did a study on
preventive strategies for the good health of children.
Members and Canadians should know that according to the very
best research the first three years in the life of an infant are the
most critical in terms of the probability of positive future outcomes
of the child. In fact, the mental health of a human being is more
than 80 per cent locked in or established by the age of 3. That is
why parents intuitively know that they want the choice to provide
direct parental care during those first three years. If we looked at
the statistics we would find that the demand for child care spaces
for ages 0 to 3 years in Canada is about 270,000 spaces but from
ages 3 to 5 years it jumps up to 524,000 spaces. That means that
after a child reaches the age of 3 years, more and more families feel
they have stabilized the situation.
The member is quite right that we must focus our attention on
the formative years. That is when children get a good start. If we do
that there will be a healthier outcome, lower health care costs,
lower social program costs, lower criminal justice costs and a
healthier country because healthy families and healthy children
make a strong country.
Also the finance minister said that good fiscal policy makes
good social policy and good social policy makes good fiscal policy.
This is very good social policy and it will make good fiscal policy
as well.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak today on this Reform motion, as it concerns
family taxation, an issue of particular interest to me. This is not the
first and certainly not the last time I address the issue in this House,
because we in the Bloc Quebecois have repeatedly demanded, but
to no avail, that the government review its taxation policy.
Despite all the arguments put forward by the Bloc in this respect,
the Liberal Party never followed up by reviewing its family
taxation policy. The ruling party was careful not to do so. It would
rather look after the interests of the wealthy. Witness its policy on
tax shelters.
As for the Reform motion, it purports to ensure tax fairness by
extending the child care tax deduction to all families. There are
several reasons why we do not support this proposal. But before
addressing the Reform motion, I would like to share a few thoughts
with you about the societal value of and the role played by parents,
usually mothers, in the home.
All experts agree that the first three years of a child's life are
crucial to the child's development. Some psychologists contend
they set the foundation for the rest of their lives. This goes to show
how important these first three years and the pre-school years are,
not only for children and their families, but also for the communi-
6550
ties they live in. In this context, there are two views to the role
mothers should play during the first years of their children's lives.
(1335)
I would like to make it quite clear from the outset that I have no
intention of listing the merits of both philosophies. Having said
that, I think it is important to respect the many child care decisions
made by parents.
About the two philosophies, on the one hand, some say that, for
children to develop properly, they need to be in close and constant
contact with their mothers during the first few years of their lives.
In their opinion, close ties between mother and child greatly benefit
the child's development and no one could replace the mother at this
stage.
By contrast, others believe that a healthy and stimulating
environment, whether in public or private child care, largely makes
up for the absence of the mother for a few hours, and that the
relationship between the mother and the child will not be affected,
and neither will the harmonious development of the child.
As I said, I have no intention of getting involved in this debate. I
am simply stating that I respect, and so should the state, the
decision of a woman, whether she decides to put her career on hold
for a few years and devote her energies to raising children, or
whether she decides to be both a mother and a worker.
Governments should not try to influence the choices made by
parents. On the contrary, they should support these choices and
guarantee a degree of tax fairness to both spouses. This is what
today's debate is all about.
I have some reservations about the wording of the motion. I fear
such a measure may be interpreted as an incentive for women to
stay home. Should this be the case, it could kill the small gains
made by women as a result of their hard-fought battle to join the
workforce.
When women study side by side with their male colleagues, they
experience the same fear of failure, the same stress, the same joys,
the same success, the same financial constraints. In short, they
experience the same reality as male students. However, once they
get their degrees, the picture changes. Women then start
experiencing the subtle discrimination which, unfortunately, is still
too common in the labour market.
For example, during an interview, they may be asked if they are
or intend to get married, if they have or intend to have children.
There is no need to elaborate, we all know the story.
The majority of male applicants are not asked such questions. If
the female candidate answers yes to one of these questions, she is
often immediately excluded as a potential incumbent for the
position. Why? Maybe because employers are afraid of children. I
do not think it is true of all employers, of course, but there are
enough of them to make it harder for graduate women to find work
than it is for their male counterparts.
Why are employers afraid of children? Because children may
represent a loss of productivity, of efficiency, of availability, and
perhaps a loss of money. Obviously, I am simplifying somewhat,
but barely. When a female employee becomes pregnant, it means a
maternity leave. It means hiring and training a replacement, and it
also means that the woman will be less available when she returns
to her job. A pregnancy is not necessarily welcomed by all
employers, to say the least.
This is what women have been battling since they first began
pursuing their education in large numbers. As I said earlier, it was
only after a hard fight that they obtained anti-discrimination laws
in the area of hiring and employment. They won maternity leave
that did not penalize them too heavily, day care centres, and tax
regimes that take into account expenses associated with the need to
have day care services for their children.
Women have come a long way, and this is very good. We can pat
ourselves on the back. However, the survival of a society depends
of necessity on its continuation. This is a law of nature to which no
society is immune.
In Canada, as in Quebec, citizens and their governments have
decided to support the presence of children in families and the
presence of mothers in the workforce. The form this support has
taken has been uneven and imperfect, but the support is there and I
think there has to be a consensus.
(1340)
This is the direction that society has therefore taken and very few
people, except perhaps representatives of the Reform Party, want to
change the rules of the game. Everyone wins with this policy:
children, parents and society. Women make a very important
contribution to the workplace. And this contribution depends on
their training and experience, as it does with their male colleagues.
Far from harming our society, women's contribution to the
labour force strengthens diversity. A Statistics Canada article
published in 1994 entitled Declining female labour force
participation indicated that the entry into the labour force of
women with children at home was the most important factor in the
increase in the female participation rate.
Between 1981 and 1993, when the participation rate of women
without children at home remained relatively stable at 50 per cent,
that of women with children jumped dramatically. The
participation rate of mothers of children under the age of six
jumped from 47 per cent in 1981 to 65 per cent in 1993. The
percentage of
6551
women in the labour force with children between the ages of 6 and
15 went from 61 per cent in 1981 to 75 per cent in 1993.
In other words, working mothers are with us to stay. The job now
is to find the best ways of helping them balance their family
responsibilities with their contribution to the labour force.
Governments have adopted this approach, and now they have to do
something, because there is still a pressing need for child care
services.
The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada estimated that
in 1995, three million children needed child care, while there were
only 365,000 recognized spaces.
We know that in their election campaign, the Liberals promised
to create 150,000 new child care spaces by 1996 and did nothing.
One wonders where the money went-$700 million-that was
supposed to be invested in child care. One wonders where that
money is today. From what the minister said, he had no idea; it
seems it disappeared just like that. I would like to remind the
government of its promises in the red book.
So we are way behind, if we compare Canada with certain
European countries. Sweden, for instance, has government funded
child care spaces for about 50 per cent of children under six. In
Denmark, 85 per cent of children between the ages of three and six
are entitled to government funded child care. In France, 25 per cent
of children under three are in child care funded by the government.
If we look at the percentages in Canada, we see that only 12 per
cent of our children are in recognized child care. We know the need
is there. I just told you that in 1993, 70 per cent of parents with
children were on the labour market. When we see inadequate
financing in a child care policy, we wonder how this government
could ever implement a genuine family policy. I may remind the
House that women have demanded and still demand adequate,
quality child care, which is not about to happen overnight, as I just
demonstrated.
Would using the state's meagre financial resources to help
families, as the motion proposes to do, not threaten the funding of
child care services networks developed by the provinces?
Unfortunately, I have to ask the question, but we know perfectly
well that this government has no intention of proposing any kind of
funding so we can really embark on a genuine family policy. So
how can you expect the government to respond to a Reform motion
when that same government has shamefully hidden, I do not know
where, the $700 million which had been promised for creating
150,000 child care spaces? I have my doubts about this
government's political will to implement a genuine family policy.
This motion might not have been debated today if the
government had moved. So I think that, considering the importance
of such a policy, the multiple needs of families and the realities
they are facing, the government has failed to meet the expectations
of the public.
(1345)
Now for the second reason we are against today's motion: the
family is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The federal
government, having gradually and stealthily encroached upon this
field over the years, ought quite simply to pull out and transfer the
equivalent tax points to the provinces. I am not saying abolish the
funding, I am saying transfer it. There is a difference. I do not want
people accusing me of not wanting a family policy, because I am
calling for it to be transferred. There is a difference.
We know, for example, that at the end of the summit on the
economy and employment, Quebec announced the implementation
of a parental leave plan. This is a measure designed to broaden
Quebec men and women's access to parental leave. This
government should transfer tax points so as to contribute to the
efforts made by a province-Quebec, in this case, but it could be
another province-to implement a real policy to facilitate access to
parental leave.
I would like to see this government distribute funds to the
provinces in order to enable them to implement a true family
policy. The Government of Quebec is calling for the transfer of a
portion of the unemployment insurance fund. We know very well
that it is destined to pay off the federal deficit, while the provinces
will be required to provide more and more of the services the
public is demanding.
In the same vein, it is important, within the spirit of
decentralization so dear to the Liberals-in lip service at least, but
we have yet to see it in action-that all tax points corresponding to
fiscal and financial measures for families be transferred to the
provinces. They are the ones in the best position to judge what
policies are necessary for the development of society. I believe that
we will continue to demand such transfers from the federal
government, and we know that this trend is spreading to the other
provinces.
We are well aware at this time, with all the cuts to the Canada
social transfer, that this is another way of preventing the provinces
from providing a true family policy. The least well off families will
be the first to be penalized by cuts in education, in welfare, in
health. I hope that, one day, the federal government will give in to
the demands from the provinces.
Finally, the third reason behind our rejection of the motion is that
its universality is a thing of the past. It is unacceptable in a society
that boasts of wanting to redistribute the collective wealth. In the
present context, the families with the greatest need have to be
helped.
According to the Reform motion, the tax credit would be the
same for all families according to revenue. If we were in fact in a
period of wealth, as we have been in the past, as the federal
6552
government has already stated, if the government had all this
money at its disposal, we might have to consider it.
However, at the moment, when the government cannot even
provide a day care policy, how can it expect to provide a policy on
tax credits for women who have decided to stay home to look after
their children?
I would like ask the government for the umpteenth time to think
about ways to recognize the work women do at home. These
women play an important social role and are totally ignored by this
government. This is why the government must once again review
investments so that, for once, there will be specific measures to
ensure that families may count on government assistance.
It is high time the federal government recognized the fair
contribution of all citizens whatever their role in building Quebec
and Canadian society. I remind the government of the importance
of balance in all its policies, and I invite it to very carefully follow
its plan for balance between the sexes to analyze the impact of
current tax measures on families in Quebec and Canada.
(1350)
The Bloc Quebecois favours a tax system that ensures equal
opportunities for disadvantaged children. This should go even
further, but we have to take the current state of the economy into
consideration. The Bloc Quebecois favours tax policy that takes
account of family needs and of the families with the greatest need.
The proposal by the Reform Party does not do so, because it would
apply to all families including those in the high income bracket.
We would like the government to consider a real family policy.
In my opinion, what we have before us as family policy is nothing.
Fewer and fewer families can count on support from this
government. The wording of this motion is unacceptable. I propose
to the government that it give some thought to a real family policy.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the member's comments on debate. I recall that she spoke
on Bill C-256 with respect to splitting income between spouses and
made a very similar speech, arguing on behalf of the women who
want to have careers.
I would like to mention another point that I failed to mention in
my speech. This motion comes on an allotted day, under supply in
the estimates, and therefore constitutes a motion of non-confidence
in the government. On that basis alone the Reform Party probably
should have realized that this motion must be defeated. However, I
thank members of the Reform Party for raising the issue because it
gives members a chance to talk about the family.
The issue that the hon. member for Quebec raises with regard to
family policy and child care policy are very important. I believe all
members would agree. However, in the province of Ontario the
average income of a trained child caregiver in a day care centre is
about $19,000 a year. That is absolutely obscene when we consider
what is expected of those trained people. As a result of that, the
turnover in the child care industry is extremely high. That says to
me that the security and the consistency of the bonding of a child
with an adult during the period of institutionalized care is not as
good as it would be with a parent. A person could probably make
$19,000 a year working at McDonald's.
I do not believe that anyone is suggesting, and I hope the
member is not suggesting, that there has to be one model and that
women must work. I hope the member agrees that we have a
complex society and complex family structures. We need
flexibility and options more than anything else. If there is a choice,
we should let the families, not the women, but the parents make the
choice.
The member continues to talk from the perspective of women. I
respect that. However, as members of Parliament we must speak on
behalf of families and the parents who are trying to make choices.
The member well knows that under the current Income Tax Act
the lower income spouse must claim the child care expense
deduction. That usually means that the net take home pay after
taxes, child care expenses and the cost of employment is so small
that it is less than $100 a week. That is one of the reasons we have
to make an effort to reform the tax system in order to help bridge
that gap so that the decision is not financial, but a decision based on
a family value, on a societal value and on a parental value.
Would the member at least concede that the important thing is
what the parents want to choose for their children? Should we as
legislators try to provide those options, those choices and that
flexibility so that they can provide the care arrangement which they
feel best fits their family and social values?
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his question. He is in a better position that I am; he is a government
member. He should get his government to act on the decisions
made in terms of family policy.
The advantage is yours, dear colleague, and I urge you to talk to
your government to ensure that women can choose between staying
at home to care for their children or joining the labour force.
(1355)
You are in the best position to do that.
6553
I realize that, ideally, the decision should not be made on a
financial basis. There is also a need to give women the opportunity
to achieve their full potential through employment. And this is no
easy task nowadays. Many women are facing divorce. We know
very well how hard it is for women who are returning to work.
In this respect, I would like to say a word about a policy put in
place by this government with its new employment insurance plan
that will penalize any woman who has been away from the labour
market for any length of time. Women will be required to work
many hours to qualify for benefits under the new Employment
Insurance Act. We all know that the magic number is 910 hours of
work, just to qualify for benefits under the new employment
insurance policy.
I could go on for hours about some government policies that do
not necessarily help women decide whether to stay at home to raise
their children or to re-enter the workforce. Start by implementing
real, equitable measures for women, then raise the issue again for
discussion.
[English]
The Speaker: I will give you half a minute.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, the member just raised the issue of
doing nothing for women. In fact, if the member would look, she
would find under the new EI program wage subsidies and training
allowances that allow parents who take parental leave to get back
into the workforce.
I ask the member again if she would not concede that the
important element of any strategy dealing with families is to
provide choice, flexibility and options for families and not to deal
with it on any basis other than what is the choice and the value of
the family and parents.
[Translation]
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): Again, Mr. Speaker, we know about
the policy that was put in place and how flawed it is. We know full
well that this requirement will exclude community organizations
and that employment must be ensured.
Do not come and tell me that measures are being introduced to
help women decide whether to stay at home to raise their children
or to join the labour force. I suggest my hon. colleague press his
government to put in place real measures to help families.
[English]
The Speaker: As it is about 2 p.m., we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
6553
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to share a
story which shows that Canadians do care for those who suffer
misfortune.
The following story appeared in the London Free Press. Elaine
Pomajba received an emergency liver transplant from the Lung and
Health Sciences Centre's multiple organ transplant service which
saved her life. In gratitude, Ms. Pomajba decided to donate the
proceeds from selling her prize steer at the Royal Agricultural
Winter Fair.
Before selling the steer, the auctioneer recounted her story.
Buyers then bought and sold the same steer seven times. Manuel
Taveres of Dominion Meat started the process and it snowballed
from there. Other buyers included Norwich Packers in the riding of
Oxford; St. Helen's Meat Packers, Expedite Plus, MCI Packers and
Longos Brothers who donated the meat to University Hospital.
Elaine Pomajba donated a total of $13,776 to the transplant centre.
I want to congratulate all who contributed to this heart warming
event.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the days to come, workers from the Kenworth plant in
Sainte-Thérèse, which closed last April, will stop receiving
unemployment insurance benefits.
The Quebec government has been negotiating for several months
with the owner, PACCAR, to have the plant reopen. As for the
federal government, it remains silent on this issue. I am asking the
government to review, with diligence and compassion, the plight of
these 800 workers, whose future depends, in many cases, on their
being retrained. Current negotiations would also be easier if
Ottawa showed some openness and specified how Kenworth can
pay the back taxes it still owes the federal treasury.
If we include the families of these workers, the fate of 2,000
people is at stake, and, in turn, hundreds of local jobs.
6554
(1400)
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is good reason to be concerned about the
government's treatment of former Liberal cabinet minister John
Munro.
In 1991 Mr. Munro was acquitted of charges of corruption,
charges based on allegations that arose while he was a minister of
the crown. The defence of his reputation cost Mr. Munro
approximately $1 million in legal and related fees. Mr. Munro
requested that the government pay his legal fees which would be
consistent with previous policy and practice. In 1996, five years
after he was acquitted, the government rejected his request for
compensation.
In law Mr. Munro is innocent. Yet he has been impoverished
because of the unsubstantiated allegations with respect to his
conduct while a Liberal cabinet minister. In fairness the Minister of
Justice should reconsider the decision to deny compensation to Mr.
Munro or at the very least explain why compensation has been
denied.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, this past
Monday night the PC Party under the leadership of Pat Binns won a
landslide victory and formed the government in P.E.I.
When I was mayor of St. John, New Brunswick I brought in the
Calgary Flames AHL team. Every time one of those boys would
score they would do a ``yes''.
I think all my colleagues on both sides of House should give Pat
Binns and that beautiful blue wave a ``yes''.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Royal Commission on Aboriginal People's report was released
today. The commission outlines some 400 recommendations which
are an attempt to address the serious issues facing Canada today.
The commission's report is not about how to address what has
been called the Indian problem. It is about restructuring the
relationships between federal-provincial-territorial governments
and aboriginal people to redress the current problems which have
been created historically by those same governments.
The Prime Minister has two choices on this issue, shelve the
report or assume real leadership. In 1990 the Prime Minister told
aboriginal people that he wanted ``aboriginal issues to be front and
centre on the agenda of the Liberal government''. Here is the
chance to do it.
The government can begin by immediately establishing a
working special committee of parliamentarians and representatives
of aboriginal people to develop an implementation plan.
* * *
Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to pay tribute to a constituent of mine, Mr. Ben Powell
Sr. Ben was born in Carbonear, Newfoundland. At the age of 15
with only a grade three education as his mainstay he decided to
leave his hometown and head for Labrador where he has lived ever
since.
He has developed a deep love for the land and its people and has
pursued life to the fullest as a fisherman, sawmiller, merchant,
trapper, fishing camp operator and writer. Uncle Ben, as he is
known, has made many outstanding contributions to Labrador.
In 1950 he founded and named the community of Charlottetown,
Labrador. During his lifetime Ben has worked tirelessly for
Confederation. In 1979 Ben became a writer and now has 12 books
about Labrador in print. Ben's desire is that the younger generation
will hold fast to its heritage.
To you, Uncle Ben, I join your family and great friends-indeed
I consider myself to be one of these great friends-in thanking you
for your contribution to Labrador, to Newfoundland and to Canada
as a whole.
* * *
[
Translation]
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to tell the House and all Canadians that November is
osteoporosis awareness month.
[English]
Osteoporosis is a degenerative bone disease that predisposes
individuals to the risk of fractures. It affects 1.4 million Canadians
over the age of 50, most of them women. It is estimated that one in
four post-menopausal women has osteoporosis which often leads to
a substantial deterioration in their quality of life while incurring
considerable costs to the individual, their families and caregivers.
The Canadian MultiCentre osteoporosis study, a five year study
supported by Health Canada and several private sector partners,
provides better insight into this disease, its risk factors and its
prevention.
6555
(1405)
[Translation]
We welcome team efforts such as this one, where many sectors
get together to face a common challenge. The government also
supports community programs designed to inform victims and help
them improve their quality of life.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to emphasize for my parliamentary colleagues the importance of
mining to Canada's economy.
In 1995 the metals and minerals sector accounted for $23 billion
worth of economic activity, an amount equal to 4.4 per cent of
Canada's gross domestic product. These numbers represent
340,000 high quality, high paying jobs of the future. Indeed, over
85 per cent of those working in the mining industry use advanced
technology every day.
Mining pays a higher average wage than any other industrial
sector in Canada and these are not seasonal but year-round jobs.
I applaud all those who are working to promote mining in
Canada, including the mining industry representatives and labour
we saw this week, as well as the Minister of Natural Resources.
I look forward to continuing my work with this industry,
especially in Elliot Lake and Bruce mines, both located in my
riding of Algoma. Each has undertaken important local projects to
preserve and promote Canada's mining history and heritage with
tours, historical sites, museums and the Canadian Mining Hall of
Fame in Elliot Lake.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
and the day before, the House of Commons welcomed a group of
about 20 students from the Université de Sherbrooke, as part of the
parliamentary matching program.
The purpose of this initiative is to match a student with a
member of the House of Commons, preferably one representing the
participant's riding.
This year, the vast majority of trainees were teamed with Bloc
Quebecois members. The program gives these young people an
opportunity to familiarize themselves with parliamentary
procedures, and to see with their own eyes what parliamentarians
do every day.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I congratulate the Université
de Sherbrooke, and particularly Luc Dastous, who started this
program. I personally want to thank the members on both sides of
the House who welcomed a student this year, and I invite all
members to do the same next year.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals are pushing copyright legislation through this House in
their usual ramrod way. Bill C-32 is before committee as we speak.
We have had 190 briefs and 65 witnesses in eight weeks. It is called
legislation by exhaustion.
The Liberals want to charge a blank tape levy on audio tapes that
will hit churches, schools and their shut-in supporters. Why?
Because some tapes happen to be used to copy music. This is tape
tax.
The Liberals will not protect broadcasters in Canada from
vexatious charges by composers and performers for the technical
transfer of music but will hit those same broadcasters with new
performance levies. This is called a performance tax.
However, to show how rushed this flawed copyright bill is and
the lack of prior consultation, consider the archivists and people
wanting to trace their geneology. Unbelievably, the Liberal
legislation would slam the door on tracing family trees and
reviewing property documents. This is typical Liberal legislation,
all image, dangerous in substance, rammed through with minuscule
meaningful input.
* * *
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday was the annual lobby day of keep mining in
Canada, an industry initiative to explain the importance of
Canada's minerals and metals sector to parliamentarians. At the
same time, the new minerals and metals policy was released in
recognition of the importance of the mining industry in this
country.
Mining plays a key role in Canada's economic well-being and
the economic growth of cities such as Timmins, Ontario. It
provides 12.4 per cent of total Canadian exports and employs some
341,000 people. Forty-nine new mines are scheduled to open in
1996 and 1997 with the potential of creating 31,000 direct and
indirect jobs over the next five years. This will make a significant
contribution to this government's jobs and growth agenda.
6556
[Translation]
Thanks to the new policy on minerals and metals, and to other
positive measures taken by the government, Canada will get its fair
share of foreign mining investments.
* * *
(1410)
[English]
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier
this month I hosted the Brampton public forum on justice issues for
concerned constituents in my riding. The purpose of this forum was
to solicit their views on the future direction of Canada's justice
policy.
My constituents came together to produce a number of
constructive policy recommendations which I have submitted to
the Minister of Justice for his review. Their message is clear. This
government must continue its efforts to address pressing justice
issues which we face as a society.
I would like to acknowledge the efforts of my constituents and
the facilitators and recorders who oversaw the functioning of the
workshops. I would also like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Justice, the chief of the Peel regional police, the
crown attorney for central west region and other panellists and
resource people who were so generous with their experience and
knowledge. All these elements came together to make the
Brampton public forum on justice issues a success.
* * *
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the community access
program of Industry Canada.
It is a program that is being offered which a lot of communities
in my riding are adapting well to. It provides Internet access to
schools and community groups so that they can receive all the
power of the Internet and what it has to offer.
Community access is a very important program because it
provides all communities throughout Canada with an equal
opportunity to information. It provides all communities, whether
you live in Quirpon, Cambridge, Victoria or Fogo Island, with
equal access to the resources and to the knowledge of science,
technology, culture and language.
This is an incredibly important program and I would like to
congratulate Industry Canada on a job well done.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the national
conference of the Canadian Council for Refugees is being held
from November 21 to 25 at the Aylmer monastery. Commencing
today, dozens of participants will assess the situation of refugees in
Canada.
The CCR represents 138 associations across the country, all of
which are dedicated to providing assistance to refugees. Since its
creation in 1977, the Canadian Council for Refugees has been
arguing that no individual should be deported to a country where he
may be jailed or tortured.
I fervently hope this conference will produce positive measures
to improve settlement requirements for those refugees who choose
Canada and Quebec as their new home. The government should
draw inspiration from the humane policies put forth by this
organization, which I commend for the outstanding job it has done
over the past 19 years.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this morning the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People's report
was tabled in the House.
This report costs $58 million over five years and consists of
approximately 4,200 pages. Equating that out to roughly $13,000 to
$14,000 a page I do not think very many Canadians will consider
that a bargain.
Also the report itself on the aboriginal people notes that more
than $10 billion is spent for aboriginal peoples at all levels of
government. Yet the royal commission is recommending in the
order of a 50 per cent increase in spending.
There are three levels of government spending money but only
one set of taxpayers. It is time to stop using these billions of dollars
to line the pockets of the Indian industry lawyers and consultants. It
is time to start putting money where it is needed, with the
grassroots aboriginal people.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the PQ minister responsible for international affairs
said yesterday that Canadian embassies had been instructed to limit
Quebec's influence abroad as much as possible.
6557
Right off I must condemn this statement, which is totally false
and unfounded. Second, the minister should admit that, if indeed
Quebec does not have as much influence abroad as it used to, he
has only himself and his cuts to Quebec delegations abroad to
blame.
Sylvain Simard's comment shows that, in the PQ, the more
things change, the more they stay the same. When they do not
know how to explain their difficulties, they blame the federal
government. Quebecers who have travelled or done business
abroad are aware of and appreciate the value and quality of the
services provided by Canadian embassies.
* * *
(1415)
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
November 18, the secretary of state responsible for FORD-Q
announced that the federal government would contribute $2 million
to an initiative aimed at establishing a private company called
Montreal International and providing it with $10 million in
working capital.
These funds will enable the new company will be able to focus
on promoting the greater Montreal area at the international level. It
will, among other things, look for foreign investors and help set up
head offices and international organizations in the greater Montreal
area.
Montreal International will help create a climate that will
promote job creation and enhance business activity significantly in
Montreal. My congratulations to everyone involved.
_____________________________________________
6557
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, after more than five years of hearings, including a two
year extension under the present government, and $58 million of
the public's money, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples
has just tabled a voluminous report of over 4,000 pages on the
situation of native peoples in Canada.
My question is for the minister of Indian affairs. Does he agree
with the royal commission that the solution to aboriginal problems
lies in a royal proclamation followed by a series of legislative
measures by the federal government?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the royal commission tabled a
few hours ago a voluminous series of reports involving 440
recommendations, covering everything from housing to royal
proclamations. It involves just about every ministry in the federal
government and probably every minister of the provincial and
territorial governments.
The royal proclamation is something that the premiers of the
provinces, the Prime Minister and the First Nations will have to
discuss. They will need time to read the report and come up with
whatever recommendations they see fit.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, since a good many aboriginal problems come under
provincial jurisdiction, how does the minister of Indian affairs
intend to proceed in order to respect this jurisdiction, bearing in
mind the recommendations of the Dussault-Erasmus report with its
extremely centralizing approach?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the commissioners and the
commission make it quite clear that on many aspects of the report it
will need co-operation of the provinces and territories and the
federal government.
There are only 89 recommendations where they say the federal
government has the direct right to implementation. In the
overwhelming majority, I think over 200, they are saying it will
require consultation with the provinces, sometimes cities and
sometimes territories.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Finance.
Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether the proposal in the
Dussault-Erasmus report to increase the Indian Affairs budget by
some $2 billion in order to solve aboriginal problems strikes him as
acceptable and realistic?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the absence of a response from
the Minister of Finance is certainly acceptable to me.
[Translation]
The Speaker: Yes, well, if it is another short one like that I will
allow it.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Finance.
6558
Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether the proposal in the
Dussault-Erasmus report to increase the Indian Affairs budget by
some $2 billion in order to solve aboriginal problems strikes him as
acceptable and realistic?
(1420)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pardon me, but I have such faith in my colleague, and he is so
familiar with the numbers, that my attention was elsewhere. As my
colleague has just said, the report is very interesting. We intend to
examine it more closely and I will discuss it with my colleague, the
minister of Indian affairs.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.
Although the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of aboriginal
self-government and the economic development of the aboriginal
community, the creation of a third tier of government, as called for
by the royal commission, strikes us as unrealistic.
Does the Minister of Indian Affairs share the conclusions of the
royal commission, which proposes an aboriginal chamber within
the Canadian Parliament?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of evolution. I
certainly feel that the AFN powers should be enhanced by First
Nations people. We are certainly trying to deal in the provinces of
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia with larger groupings.
At some point that may evolve. How or where, it is too soon to say
but there will be a separate chamber for aboriginal self-government
in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I see that
the minister is not only distancing himself from the report but also
being extremely prudent with his answers.
Does the minister realize that the Dussault-Erasmus report
proposal, in addition to creating some twenty new organizations on
top of all the existing ones, will require an injection of more than
$2 billion in public funds and accentuate one of the fundamental
problems of Canadian federalism, namely the problem of costly
and inefficient duplication and overlap?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the question is, will there be
duplication or overlap? Who can say? I would prefer that there be
less duplication and less overlap.
If we truly mean that we want aboriginal people to be
self-sufficient and self-governing, then we have to trust them and
let them do it. As the Prime Minister said when he had this job, we
made a lot of mistakes on their behalf through the Indian agents. It
is time for them to make a few mistakes on their own.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what an
embarrassing spectacle. We have had the health minister fighting
with the finance minister. We have had the finance minister
fighting with the Deputy Prime Minister. We have had the Liberal
caucus and cabinet fighting with everybody. Meanwhile 30 per cent
more teenagers in this country have started smoking and 45,000
Canadians this year will die because of Liberal inaction on tobacco.
Will the government call a truce in its family feud and bring in
anti-tobacco legislation immediately?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we will bring in tobacco legislation and we will bring it in soon.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while the
Liberals have been fighting, Canadians have been dying.
The Reform caucus supports effective enforceable anti-tobacco
legislation and we will bring that to a conclusion in one day if these
rascals will bring it in. All we need is for the legislation to be on the
table.
When, when, when will the government bring the legislation to
the floor of the House of Commons so that Canadians will not have
to die?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
bientôt.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister is
real good at these cute little answers, but the issue is very, very
specific. There is no excuse to justify the fact that the Liberals have
let personality conflicts and political back stabbing nonsense come
before the lives of 45,000 Canadians.
(1425 )
Shame on the health minister, shame on the finance minister and
shame on that whole caucus for this behaviour. When will the
government bring anti-tobacco legislation to the House of
Commons? When?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
24 hours certainly makes a great difference as it relates to the
Reform Party of Canada. Months ago the same hon. member,
supported by his caucus colleagues, said that legislation was not
necessary, that all that was required was education. Now we have a
spectacle on the floor of the House Commons and the Reform Party
is swallowing itself.
I say to the hon. member that we will bring forward the
legislation as we promised and we will do so soon.
6559
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health as well.
The Minister of Health said a few weeks ago that we should vote
for a party other than the Liberals if they failed to get their tobacco
control legislation passed before the next election. So, yesterday
once again, the minister put off the official announcement of the
tobacco control measures he plans to propose.
How does the Minister of Health explain his last minute retreat?
Could it have anything to do with the numerous leaks about a
possible increase in the price of cigarettes, resulting in speculation
in the tobacco market?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I think the House would really like to know where the hon. member
stands and in particular where the Bloc stands as it relates to
tobacco legislation.
As I indicated yesterday both in the House and outside the
House, we are in the process of finalizing our package. It will be
comprehensive and we will bring it forward soon.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we see a lot
of smoke signals, but the message is unclear.
Does the minister realize that he struck out again, because he has
very awkwardly placed the Minister of Finance in an absolutely
untenable position? Does he realize that?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I accept the premise of the hon. member's question that he is
concerned about tobacco legislation. I would hope that the hon.
member and members of the Bloc would support the government's
initiative which is to reduce tobacco consumption particularly
among youth which causes in this country and in the province of
Quebec 11,000 deaths every year.
I look forward to and thank the hon. member for his support on
the tobacco legislation.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
leak of the government's tobacco taxation measure is an extremely
serious breach of parliamentary convention. When tax changes are
leaked, insiders are given the ability to manipulate the stock
market. In the past the Liberals have called for the resignation of
other finance ministers over similar breaches. This is of particular
concern when it is clear that the boards of directors of tobacco
companies are interchangeable with the Liberal Party hierarchy.
Can the finance minister tell us why this tax measure was leaked,
who leaked it, and what action he has taken to ensure that the
financial integrity of the government is not compromised again?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member, as is his wont, is engaging in idle speculation.
The government will make an announcement when there is an
announcement to be made.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal ties to the big tobacco industry are well known. Yesterday's
actions by the government made it clear that it puts its friends in
tobacco above the health of young Canadians. How ironic that
yesterday was National Child Day. The finance minister needs to
explain to Canadians why he and his government have sacrificed
the health of our children so that his friends in the tobacco industry
are appeased.
Is this legislation being blocked by the finance minister, a former
director of Imasco?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
both the substance and the tone of the question are inappropriate.
The response to the substance of the question is absolutely not.
* * *
(1430)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
In its analysis of corporate taxation presented this week, the Bloc
suggested abolishing the partial capital gains exemption for
businesses and using the money, which represents nearly one half
billion dollars annually, to offer small businesses a tax rebate tied
to their job creation performance.
If the Minister of Finance wants to demonstrate his concern for
fairness and job creation, is he prepared to make a commitment
before this House to eliminate this useless expenditure
immediately and allocate the money saved to tax measures that will
promote employment?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, the hon. member
must be aware that this committee looked into the matter a few
years ago, and at the time, the government made a survey of small
businesses in Canada to find out whether the $500,000 exemption
was helpful in creating jobs, or whether we should find another
way.
All small business associations in Canada, including those in
Quebec, and most small businesses that appeared before the
6560
Standing Committee on Finance or met with government officials
said that this exemption was crucial to maintain fairness, and is still
crucial for creating jobs, and that is our position.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am afraid I was misunderstood. I was not referring to the
capital gains exemption on the first $500,000 but the partial
inclusion of capital gains which consists in taxing only 75 per cent
of capital gains and leaving the remaining 25 per cent fully tax
exempt.
The minister referred to the Standing Committee on Finance. So
far, at the hearings we had in June, July and August, the conclusion
was unanimous: this measure is a very costly one, and there is no
good reason for keeping it. When even the Canadian Bankers'
Association wants to see it abolished, that certainly means
something. So we have $500 million annually that is absolutely
nothing. The purpose of this measure was to avoid double taxation
where there was a wealth tax. Today, the government takes $500
million and just throws it away, especially in the pockets of the
wealthiest in this country.
Will the minister promise to eliminate this unnecessary tax
expenditure and allocate $500 million annually to job creation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
once again, the hon. member is wrong. We have analyzed the
situation. The vast majority of small companies in the high-tech
sector, a very important industry in Quebec, have told us that to
increase their equity, to raise capital, it was very important to have
access to research and development credits.
Some hon. members: No, no.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Yes, yes. Capital gains are
used to raise money. Unfortunately, the hon. member does not
understand. In fact, I can tell you that people with the FTQ
solidarity funds said they agreed with this exemption because it
helped them raise money.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in 1969 the Liberal minister of Indian affairs said: ``The
government believes that its policies must lead to the full, free and
non-discriminatory participation of the Indian people in Canadian
society. It requires that the Indian people's role of dependence be
replaced by a role of equal status, opportunity and responsibility, a
role they can share with all other Canadians''.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell Canadians why the Prime
Minister, the Liberal government and the Liberal Party have
abandoned this equality principle, this common sense approach to
solving the serious problems being experienced by aboriginal
people in this country?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I was sitting here today with the
hope that this member would ask the question.
I just finished watching this member on television. We have to
deal with poverty, with schools, with roads, with social assistance,
with economic development, and this member's idea of equality is
to send $10,000 to each Indian in this country. I just heard him on
television. That is his policy which I have waited three years to
hear. If we do that, then who is going to deal with the poverty? Who
is going to build the hospitals? If that is his idea of equality, then
the Reform Party should go out there and talk to a few Indians.
(1435)
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this morning on television the minister of Indian affairs
could not answer this simple question: Are aboriginal people
equal?
Will the minister promise Canadians that none of the royal
commission's recommendations will be implemented unless they
can pass the test of equality?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for this hon. member I will
answer that question.
The idea of the Reform Party on Indians and equality is to keep
them poor, keep them uneducated and keep them on the reserves. I
have heard the idea of the Reform Party for three years. It thinks
Indians live in paradise. The member who is grinning stood in this
House and said that he knows that aboriginal men burn their wives
with cigarettes. That is ignorance. I do not think anybody in this
country accepts that.
When the leader of the Reform says that Canadians are not
hearing the message of the Reform, they are hearing it and they do
not like it. That is why Reform is sinking.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, a few minutes ago I asked the Minister of Finance a
question. However, either my explanations were not sufficiently
clear, or the minister was a bit mixed up, so I would like to try
again.
6561
There has been partial inclusion of capital gains since 1987; 75
per cent of the capital gain is taxed at the corporate tax rate; 25 per
cent of this capital gain, which is income like any other income, is
completely tax exempt. This 25 per cent is placed in a capital
dividend account and paid to shareholders, not reinvested.
Since there is general agreement in Quebec, and in Canada, that
this partial inclusion of capital gains must be eliminated, that it is
costing $400 to $500 million a year that other taxpayers must pay,
will the minister undertake to eliminate it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the answer to the question is exactly the same one I gave earlier. It
is part of the refundable tax credit. Capital gains exemptions make
it possible for our companies to raise capital and benefit Canadian
shareholders. This is an advantage they have over a company that
must borrow money and pay interest, for example, or an American
company that must raise capital in the United States, but is looking
for Canadian investors.
What we want to do is encourage investment in Canada. That is
part of a sound system. If we make changes here, other changes
will have to be made somewhere else. The fundamental question is
how we are going to help Canadian companies increase their
equity. That is part of the system.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, when a Quebecer or a Canadian earns a dollar, the whole
dollar is taxed, all of it, at a rate that can go as high as, or higher
than, 40 per cent. When a rich shareholder, a rich corporation
holding shares that appreciate in value year after year, is taxed, it is
taxed on only three quarters of the amount at a reduced rate, not the
full 100 per cent.
How is it justified that 25 per cent of this capital gain is handed
back in this ineffective and unproductive manner to the richest
holders of Canadian capital, who do not reinvest in the economy,
when the rest of the population must pay the full amount?
(1440)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member does not seem to understand that we have an equity
problem in Canada. We are having difficulties in Canada compared
to other countries. Our SMEs, our Canadian companies, are having
trouble raising money to establish an equity base they can use for
lending, investing and creating jobs.
There are exemptions for political reasons, for creating jobs or
investing in the future. This is what we are talking about. It is part
of a sound system. We can change it, but if we do, there will be
repercussions elsewhere.
Furthermore, there are many incentives in Quebec, and at the
summit the government decided to keep them for exactly the same
reason: to create jobs and stimulate economic growth.
[English]
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and
Development.
The R and D stakeholders that I met across western Canada as
part of the Prime Minister's task force on commercializing
government science research made it absolutely clear that
effective, public-private R and D partnerships in strategic sectors
of our economy are critical to enhancing Canada's
competitiveness, to bringing our products to market and to creating
jobs.
How will the investment announced yesterday benefit Canadians
in British Columbia, in the west and throughout the country with
Ballard Power Systems, the environmental technology company in
Burnaby?
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development)(Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.
The government believes in developing new technologies in
Canada and building the industries of the future in these new
technologies. One of these new technologies is fuel cells which
produce electricity in an environmentally friendly way from
hydrogen and oxygen. Ballard Power Systems is a company which
holds 83 world leading patents in this area, providing an advantage
to Canada.
The investment yesterday of $30 million through Technology
Partnerships Canada in Ballard Power Systems provides an
example of how the government is working in partnership with the
private sector to create jobs and industries in Canada.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have pulled a CF-18 flip-flop. In
opposition they criticized the tendering process. When they are in
power they have a chance to right a wrong and they refuse to do it.
Like the Tories they awarded Bombardier an untendered $216
million contract. John Turner opposed it. Brian Tobin opposed it.
The current foreign affairs minister opposed it. The current health
minister opposed it.
How can the Minister of National Defence justify this shameful
Liberal flip-flop giving Bombardier an untendered $216 million
contract?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the extension of
the contract for the maintenance of the CF-18s was done in June.
6562
However, there is one thing about which I want to make certain.
As we pursue this line of questioning, which is interesting, I want
to make certain that I understand the position of my friends in the
Reform Party.
Very recently three contracts for Hercules were awarded to CAE
of Edmonton, Alberta, totalling $108 million. It was done on the
same basis. Very recently Computing Devices Canada was awarded
a contract for the land forces communications system on the same
basis. It is worth $90 million.
I want to know if it is a question of cherry picking, a question of
principle or do they know the difference between the two.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
The principle, Mr. Speaker, is quite simple. It is value for money. It
is taxpayers' money.
The only way to ensure that Canadians get value for money is to
put contracts out to tender. If Bombardier is the best, it will win.
Even the Tories put the contract out to tender before they rigged it.
The minister keeps talking about keeping the costs down. If the
minister cares about keeping the costs down, then why did his
department fail to conduct a review of the contract before handing
it to Bombardier? They did not even review the contract.
(1445 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a very thorough
review of the situation is required when a contract like this is
extended. It was the third or fourth contract extension since the
original competed contract was awarded.
The important thing is that even the hon. member in conducting
a review himself or anyone who was interested, would know that
Canadair is the only company in Canada at this time equipped to do
this kind of work.
There are a number of directed contracts. What I want the hon.
member to do is to make sure he addresses the question of the
Hercules contract in Edmonton and also the contract that I referred
to earlier for CAE. Is it just a question of trying to pick the divisive
kind of elements which the hon. member likes to raise from time to
time? Is it a question of principle or is speaking of principles in
matters like this with the Reform Party like talking to an alley cat
about a marriage licence?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday in the official languages committee, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage stated that there was no assimilation of
francophones outside Quebec, despite all of the statistical evidence
to the contrary.
If assimilation does not exist, as the minister claims, what
explanation is there for the fact that, since the adoption of the
Official Languages Act in 1969, the percentage of francophones
now using English in the home has risen from 15 to 24 per cent in
Ottawa, from 55 to 65 per cent in Hamilton, from 17 to 30 per cent
in Sudbury, and from 42 to 52 per cent in Winnipeg and St.
Boniface?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member
refuses to consider is that, at the present time, our young
francophone and anglophone Canadians are the most bilingual
generation in the history of Canada.
It is equally true-another fact he denied yesterday-that,
according to Statistics Canada, up to 99 per cent of francophones
outside Quebec who wish to study in French are able to do so,
precisely because of the constitutional and official languages
policies.
Yes, the statistics were based on francophones outside Quebec,
despite the hon. member's false allegation that they included
francophones in Quebec.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is
the attitude of the Minister of Canadian Heritage not an
embarrassment to the government? She, despite being the person
responsible for the application of the Official Languages Act, is
just about the only one left refusing to see that the assimilation of
francophones outside Quebec continues to progress in leaps and
bounds.
Why does the minister persist in denying such evidence?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member really
wants to combat the problem of anglicization across Canada, he
ought to talk to his Quebec colleague, the Minister of Education,
who has just raised by 70 per cent tuition fees for francophones
from the rest of Canada wishing to study in Quebec. If the hon.
member really wants to ensure the survival of the French language
in Canada, he should talk to his friend, Mrs. Marois, and tell her to
drop this anti-French policy.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a study shows that the inclusion of the new federal sales
tax in all prices will cost millions of dollars. Computer systems
have to be changed and there are the large annual costs of
advertising,
6563
ticketing, warehousing and distribution. All these costs will be
passed on to already overtaxed consumers.
Will the minister stop this new burden on consumers in Atlantic
Canada by withdrawing the required tax in pricing until the federal
sales tax is implemented nationwide? It is a request made by
Canadian retailers and strongly supported by the Reform Party.
(1450 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member knows, the vast majority of retailers have already
incurred the costs of transition. That occurred some time ago when
the previous government brought in the GST. Therefore, the costs
of transition are quite within the bounds of acceptability.
The ministers of finance of the three Atlantic provinces have
agreed to meet with all of the retailers-in fact, that is happening at
this very moment-to work out any difficulties which any retailer
may have. The provincial governments and the federal government
have said to those retailers that we would be quite flexible in
making sure that the transition costs are manageable.
Now that those retailers can take the input tax credits there has
been a substantial reduction in their costs which we expect will be
passed on to the consumer.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, different information is coming from the retailers of
Canada to us and to the minister.
The tax-in pricing policy was recommended by the Reform Party
in its minority report on GST reform, but only in the context of a
nationwide introduction of a federal sales tax. Reform, as well as
national retailers, oppose tax in-pricing when it is applied only in
Atlantic Canada because it costs too much and has already caused
the closing of some retail outlets.
Will the minister stop trying to download on consumers in
Atlantic Canada the costs of his party's indefensible, irresponsible
and politically opportunistic election promise to eliminate the
GST? Do the right thing and scrap the federal sales tax for Atlantic
Canada.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would suggest that my friend is in the process of engaging in a little
historic revisionism of what the Reform Party's position has been
on this issue.
The Reform Party has supported harmonization publicly, not
necessarily in the House, and it has also supported tax inclusive
pricing. I congratulate the Reform Party for that. It is unfortunate
that it now, for political purposes, chooses to forget its original
position.
The hon. member knows full well that this will lead to a
substantial reduction in costs for retailers. There will be a
substantial reduction in costs for consumers.
For the sake of discussion, take a look at Newfoundland, where
the reduction is between 4 per cent and 5 per cent. In Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick it is between a 3 per cent and a 4 per cent
reduction on the vast majority of goods, all of those which were
previously covered by the GST. In fact, this is very good for the
consumer.
Some hon. members: Order.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): Mr. Speaker, I will sit down,
but it really is a tremendous deal for Atlantic Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
A lot of questions have been raised about Canadian corporations
failing to pay their fair share of taxes. Furthermore, a lot of year
end advertising encourages ordinary Canadians to take advantage
of tax shelters.
Could the Minister of Finance tell the House what he is doing to
ensure everyone pays their fair share?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his work on the public accounts
committee in this area. He is well aware that, since forming the
government, we have worked with the Minister of National
Revenue to eliminate abuse of the tax system.
We have made changes to the system that are very effective in
eliminating loopholes. This week, for example, we announced,
among other things, that tax shelters related to corporate funding
would be limited.
Should you be interested, I can provide you with a list of tax
benefits that were eliminated, such as the elimination of the
$100,000 capital gains exemption and the imposition of a
minimum tax on all deductions used as tax shelters. It goes on for
three pages.
* * *
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canada
Post Corporation.
The few measures the minister has taken in response to the
report on the future of Canada Post are totally contradictory. On the
one hand, she denies it the lucrative activity of delivering
advertising. On the other hand, she says the corporation must make
its activities cost effective.
Could the minister tell us clearly whether her intention is not
really to dismantle the Canada Post Corporation, because she is
cutting its revenues and yet asking it to be cost effective?
6564
(1455)
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, we are not talking only about dismantling Canada Post,
which the minister does not seem to consider seriously, but rather
the whole issue of jobs.
Is the minister aware that her decision to force Canada Post to
stop delivering advertising mail will mean a loss of 10,000 jobs?
Ten thousand jobs means ten thousand more unemployed.
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Mr. Radwanski
travelled across the country and everywhere he went Canadians
unanimously told him that they did not wish to have their post
office delivering junk mail. As a result of that we asked Canada
Post to cease delivering unaddressed economy ad mail or junk
mail.
One thing that will happen as a result is that many community
newspapers will be able to stay in business and many other small
businesses will be able to increase the numbers of people they hire.
The work will be transferred to the private sector and Canada Post
will continue to do very well what Canadians expect of it, which is
deliver first class mail.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The Atlantic groundfish strategy, otherwise known as TAGS, is
off the rails and now we know why. This week we learned that the
qualifying rules for TAGS had been ignored and each regional
HRD office was making its own eligibility requirements.
According to an internal department audit, and I quote from that
audit: ``The ignoring of these rules was one of the reasons for
excessive cost over-runs''.
How could the minister allow the gross incompetence which will
deny benefits to legitimate fishermen who really need them?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are fully aware that the new
system, starting with employment insurance, is causing some
disruptions because of the change in the number of weeks of
required employment. I take note of the question and I will look
into it again.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a little late.
The TAGS program was announced in 1994 and it has already
almost spent its entire $1.9 billion.
The minister of fisheries is also culpable in this Atlantic
Canadian tragedy. The audit revealed that one-third of the licence
buyouts by his department, some of which could amount to
hundreds of thousands of dollars, are unsupported by
documentation. Only Quebec files were found to be in order.
This grotesque display of incompetence cost millions of dollars
in over-runs and legitimate fishermen are being denied benefits as a
result.
How can the minister even pretend to care about Atlantic
Canadian fishermen now that we know his political tricks have
backfired in his face?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the insinuations of the member
are totally wrong. When the TAGS program was set up the number
of candidates who would actually require it were underestimated.
That was done by the previous government, as the member knows
very well.
The fact that the number of people who actually need it had been
underestimated caused a funding problem that we are addressing. It
is an important one at this time.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for Indian affairs.
There is a great concern that the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples' recommendations will be shelved and not
taken seriously or acted upon.
I would like to ask the minister if he, along with his government,
would consider the immediate establishment of a special
committee made up of representatives from aboriginal groups and
parliamentarians to discuss and develop an implementation plan of
the recommendations and, second, to encourage the Prime Minister
to call a first minister's meeting in April 1997 to discuss
implementation at that time and also to have the committee report
before then.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the
question. As a matter of fact, these are two of the recommendations
in the report.
(1500 )
As of now, I do not think any of the provinces have seen the
report. It will take them about four weeks to read it because it is
very extensive. However, I believe these are the two issues that
they are going to have to deal with fairly quickly at a first ministers
conference, whether they will hold it, whether it needs additional
work, the committee that the report is suggesting.
I am prepared to support anything that enhances the lives of the
aboriginal people in this country.
6565
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during question period the minister of defence was making some
kind of remarks about alley cats and marriages. It seems to me that
taking advice on principles from a Liberal cabinet minister is like
listening to a pyromaniac talk about firefighting.
The Speaker: I would judge that a point of clarification, not a
point of order.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask today's most important question: What
is the government's legislative agenda for the coming days?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to deliver to the House the weekly business statement.
We continue this afternoon with the business of supply, that is to
say the opposition day motion we are currently debating.
Tomorrow the House shall commence report stage and second
reading of Bill C-63, the elections bill. We shall make this bill our
priority until it has been passed.
We shall follow this with Bill C-42, the Judges Act amendments;
Bill C-62, the fisheries legislation; Bill C-59 regarding passengers
by water; Bill C-29, the MMT bill; and then other bills reported
from committee.
_____________________________________________
6565
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the
amendment.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
third party in this House has taken a curious perspective on how
best to address the needs of children in Canada today and it is one
that surprises me. That party normally has a pretty clear position on
the role of the federal government on social policy issues. Write
cheques and pop them in the mail to provincial capitals sums it up.
It is also a party that prides itself on its commitment to pare
government spending to the bone and probably well beyond.
[Translation]
And here we are today with a motion before us that runs totally
contrary to the broad political policies of the Reform Party. It talks
about a greater role for government and increased government
expenditures.
I do not intend to use the time allotted me today to repeat
arguments already made by my hon. colleagues on the child care
deduction. Rather, I would like to talk to you about certain
initiatives our government has taken to respond to the real
priorities of Canadian children.
[English]
This is excellent day to do this, for while the Reform Party sits
and talks, our government gets up and works. We are working with
our partners, the provincial governments, to tackle the real
children's issue in Canada, child poverty.
A federal-provincial meeting is taking place in Toronto. Our
government is sitting down with the provinces to discuss how we
can build a national child benefit and how we can build it together.
We are talking about how to align our programs and services so that
we can do the most to help children living in poverty.
The idea for this initiative has been around for a long time. It was
discussed during the federal social security reform. More recently,
the issue of a national integrated child benefit was raised in the
ministerial council report last March.
(1505)
Our government responded favourably. It became a shared
commitment of both levels of government at the first ministers
meeting in June. Alberta is the co-chair on behalf of the provinces
while the Minister of Human Resources Development is
co-chairing on behalf of the federal government.
This is an example of the federal government's renewing
federalism and renewing our social union by working with the
provinces. It offers so much more than hollow calls for unilateral
tax policy changes that would only stand to benefit those families
that already have a measure of security, middle to upper class
income families.
The government, on the other hand, is concerned with the plight
of low income families, in particular their children. At a time of
limited finances, this is the direction Canadians are telling us we
should go. Nine out of every ten Canadians say that the level of
child poverty in this country is a problem. They also tell us they do
not want to return to programs that treat rich and poor families
alike. If public money is going to be spent, they want it to go where
it will meet the real needs. That will be the point of a national child
benefit.
6566
A national child benefit is something for the future. But what of
the present? How is this government addressing the needs of
parents and children?
[Translation]
In our opinion, the best way to fight child poverty is to help the
parents find work. I would point out simply that nearly 500,000
people have found work since our government's election.
In fact, between 1993 and 1995, Canada created more jobs than
Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Spain combined.
This is a pretty impressive result, and it benefits our children.
[English]
We recognize that many Canadians work at jobs that offer
relatively low pay. These are people who benefit from the child tax
benefit and the working income supplement. I remind members
that our government doubled the maximum level of working
income supplement in the last budget. Over the next two years it
will go up from $500 to $1,000. That means more financial help for
low income parents to address the extra costs of working.
Helping Canadians get back to work is also the goal of the new
employment insurance system. Despite the criticisms of the third
party in this place we succeeded in passing legislation a few
months ago to build a new system. The key is a set of active
employment measures to help people get the skills they need to
find new jobs.
[Translation]
Another element of employment insurance that benefits the
family and children is the new family income supplement, which
comes into effect in January. It will be available to families eligible
for the child tax benefit and the earned income supplement.
These families will receive an average of $800 a year, and the
children will be the first to benefit.
[English]
More than that, EI claimants who get the family income
supplement will be exempt from the new intensity rule that would
reduce the benefit levels of repeat claims. This is yet another step
that reflects the interests of children in lower income families.
Active measures under EI part II will also help Canadians
develop the skills they need to build stronger careers. Other
measures include grants and loans to students. Here again we have
targeted our assistance.
We recognize that parents can find it very difficult to pursue full
time studies. Last year we introduced a system of grants for part
time students with high financial needs, many of whom are single
parents. In the 1995-96 year we started a process that offers as
many as 10,000 of these students each year up to $1,200 for every
academic year of enrolment. This support will help them get the
education that will enable them and their families to prosper.
I will address the issue of child care. A year ago the federal
government presented a proposal to provinces to expand child care
as was outlined in the red book. Although provinces recognize the
importance of child care to working parents, there was no
consensus on the need to significantly expand child care. The
federal government remains committed to further discussions on
child care if provinces and territories can reach a consensus on an
approach. However, that has not stopped us from taking action
where we can.
(1510)
For example, our government launched the First Nations/Inuit
child care initiative last December. The goal is to bring the quality
and quantity of child care services in aboriginal communities in
line with those of the general population. The result will be some
4,300 new child care spaces and the improvement of 1,700 existing
spaces for a total of 6,000 quality child care spaces. This involves
an investment of $72 million over the first three years of the
program.
Another example is our child care visions program. This is a
research and development fund. It supports studies to help us learn
more about the adequacy, outcomes and cost effectiveness of
different child care practices. In a world where many parents have
no realistic choice but to work, despite nostalgic notions promoted
by the Reform Party, this program helps us learn what kinds of
child care will be best for our little ones.
Then there are the other joint projects that our government has
funded under the strategic initiatives program. For example,
thousands of families with young children are benefiting under an
improved access to child care project in British Columbia. In
Manitoba about 400 lone parents on social assistance are getting
help to put them into the workplace. Federal support for Quebec's
APPORT program is supporting 27,000 low income wage earners
and social assistance recipients.
[Translation]
In all these cases, the children benefit when their parents have
better job opportunities and extra help for quality child care
services. In all these cases, however, the benefit flows from
co-operation between the federal government and the provinces.
[English]
Yesterday on national child day we paid special attention to the
needs of children. What better way to help children in need than by
continuing the commitment to co-operation and action that our
government is showing?
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
hon. member, since she has raised again for the umpteenth time
today the
6567
chestnut that our tax proposals would benefit the well to do rather
than the poor, how she would equate that with the numbers which
we have run past independent analysts who say that 737,000
Canadians who should not be paying taxes now would disappear
completely from the tax rolls if our proposals were adopted.
The analysts state that a working parent in a single parent
environment earning $30,000 would see his or her taxes reduced by
89 per cent. I wonder if she has actually taken the time to sit down
and read our proposals and, more to the point, if she has read any of
the independent analyses of them.
Ms. Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the motion under debate proposes
that the government should provide tax fairness for all Canadian
families by extending the child care tax deduction to all families of
all income levels and converting it to a credit, thereby removing the
tax bias against parents caring for their own children.
At first blush it might appear it is a good idea but after all,
Canada's children are our future and one of our most important
resources. Who can honestly say they would oppose-not me of
all-that we need to come up with something for children?
However, let us take a look and really examine the Reform
Party's motion, which I have done. If we think about this motion
we will note the proposal could mean two radically different things.
First, if the Reform Party plans to convert the existing child care
credit deduction into its equivalent value in tax credits it will
provide about $850 for every child under seven years of age and
$150 for every child between seven and twelve years of age. If this
is what the Reform Party is proposing, it is far from clear that is
what it means, given the clever wording used in the motion. This
motion would hardly provide sufficient incentive or compensation
to allow one parent to remain home and care for their children. As
well, it would not provide much assistance to any families,
especially low income families.
(1515)
On the other hand, if the Reform Party plan is to give $5,000 tax
credit for every child under seven and a $3,000 tax credit for every
child between seven and twelve years of age, then this program
would provide substantial assistance. Unfortunately it would also
break the bank.
In Canada today there are 2,402,027 children age seven to
twelve. At a cost of $3,000 per child the proposal would cost $7.2
billion. As well, there are 2,789,995 children under the age of
seven. At a cost of $5,000 per child the proposal would cost another
$14 billion. In total this proposal if implemented would cost $21.2
billion.
The existing child care tax credit cost $305 million in 1989. This
means the proposal would cost $20.9 billion more than the present
child care tax deduction. I would like to know where this $20.9
billion will come from.
I suppose the Reform Party could double the GST in theory. That
would raise another $18 billion. It could cut off federal transfers for
health care. That would raise close to the $20 billion, although the
money would of course go straight to medical services.
Reform of course projects a cost that is much lower than this.
The total package of tax breaks in its fresh start document is to cost
only $12 billion. However, as we can see, the numbers do not add
up. One might legitimately ask what the Reform Party is really
proposing.
In their speeches members of the Reform Party talked about a
$3,000 to $5,000 benefit per child, but if we look at its budget plan
the figure is much lower. What is the Reform Party proposing the
House of Commons do? By passing this motion are we committing
the government to giving every child under seven years of age $850
or does it mean we are going to give these children $5,000?
The motion is fuzzy and cannot be supported for that very
reason.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to
congratulate my seat mate, the hon. member for Essex-Windsor,
on her excellent speech. It certainly had a lot of information about
our government's doing many concrete things to help Canadian
families, the rich, the poor and the working people of this country.
I also note that the hon. member made an excellent speech in
both official languages, which I believe is the first time I have
shared with that, if I may say that.
I appreciate hearing about employment insurance. There is a lot
of misinformation about the benefits for all Canadians. Today
anyone can fall between the cracks and find themselves in dire
circumstances. There is an allowance there for anyone with an
attachment to the workforce in the last three years who could be
eligible for these benefits, for training and any of the other
attachments.
Does the hon. member have any other ideas and points that she
wants to share with us at this opportunity? I think it is very
important that we hear the correct information on this.
Ms. Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for
his question. There are many points that we could share today on
what we need to do for children in benefits. I would like to restate
that EI claimants who get the family income supplement will be
exempt from the new intensity rule that will reduce benefit levels
6568
of repeat claims. That is very important for all Canadians to know.
People need to know this step reflects the interests of children in
low income families.
I also think people should know that part II will allow them to
develop the skills they need to build stronger careers. Again, in part
II we have targeted our assistance. We also recognize that parents
find it very difficult to pursue full time studies.
(1520 )
It is important to make another point about the child tax benefit.
The child tax benefit right now recognizes the contributions of all
families by providing a basic credit of $1,020 per child per year,
plus an additional $75 for the third child and subsequent children.
It recognizes the cost of young children by providing a supplement
of $213 for each child under the age of seven. It targets the greatest
benefits to families in need by reducing the total benefit by 5 per
cent on family income over $25,921. I believe the current child tax
benefit recognizes the contribution of all parents and at the same
time directs more resources to those most in need. That is good
family policy.
The Liberal government is working with the provinces to
improve this by developing, as I said before, an integrated child
benefit. I believe this would be a better use of scarce and limited
public resources than the Reform proposal. It would provide
greater public benefit to the entire community, while Reform's
proposal would channel more resources to one type of family
regardless of financial need.
Families do want choices, but they want real choices. Reform
talks about choices, but the impact of its policies would only
provide real choices for the group of families who can afford to
have one parent stay at home, and most families do not have that
choice.
Reform based this motion on its proposals in its fresh start
program on the notion that a one income earner family of $60,000
is the same as a two earner family with an income of $30,000 each.
That is not reality. It is not the case.
If a parent earning $30,000 in the Reform plan decides to stay
home, the family might get a tax credit of somewhere between
$2,000 and $4,000, depending on the age of the children. That
would give the household a family income of $32,000 or $34,000.
The family, obviously, would not have the same choices as a
household earning $60,000.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to
speak to the Reform Party's motion today. It is so very rare that one
has the opportunity in the House to address a motion which has
substance, makes sense and has some possible benefits down the
road.
I would like to begin by making a brief comment on the
comments of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor. Her reply to
my question made it very clear that she has indeed not read the
Reform Party's fresh start program, nor has she read any of the
professional critiques of it. She is bemused by whatever they are
telling these people in the inner circles of the Liberal Party. She has
joined other members opposite in their unanimous contention that a
tax break for families is unaffordable. Coming as that does from
her, from a charter member of the very far left side of the Liberal
Party, which historically has believed that there are no limits to
what we can spend on anything, it is rather astonishing.
They keep asking where the money will come from. I will not go
through a long list of cuts on which our fresh start proposal is
based, but I can give a couple of examples. I can do that without
mentioning such obvious and immediate candidates for cutting as
the $87 million to top up the treasury of a Liberal friendly and
profitable corporation or the millions of dollars which have been
spent to give away free flags. Let us talk about the heavy duty stuff.
Part of the source of the numbers in our fresh start program was
the privatization of the CBC, for an annual saving of about $1
billion. Which is more important, Yorkville-centric culture or
giving a break to children?
I am the Reform critic for international institutions. I along with
our researches identified $800 million which could be cut without
taking one penny away from Canadian overseas humanitarian aid.
There would be major slashing in contract work for friends of the
Liberal Party and there would be a turning away from bilateral aid,
with all of its attendant corruption, to providing matching funds for
NGOs who historically have shown they know what they are doing.
If there are any hon. members who would like to go into the point
by point details of the other $13 billion, they should talk to their
friendly Reform Party critics.
(1525)
Let us bury once and for all the slander that we would cut federal
funding to medicare. Those who were around for the 1993 election
campaign know very well that one of our platforms was to stop the
cuts, which were initiated by the Tories and ruthlessly continued by
this government, to the federal contributions to medicare. The
contributions are now down to about 23 per cent of total medicare
costs. So who in the name of heaven are the bad guys, the Liberals
who are doing it or Reformers who the Liberals claim would do it?
It is a false claim.
The Liberals say they have not made specific increases in
income tax rates. Fair enough and whoopee. But they always fail to
mention, very conveniently, that they have increased other taxes,
directly and indirectly, 31 times. Count them, 31. Among others,
they have increased gasoline taxes, park fees and the taxable
portion of income through deindexing, which is a rather sneaky
way of increasing income tax, deindexing the basic deduction. The
6569
government has changed the RRSP rules and it has subjected
maritimers to increased sales taxes through their rather convoluted
changes to the GST rules.
The bottom line is that federal tax revenues have increased by
twenty four and a half per cent since this government took office,
and now this government is crying poor. It does not have the money
to give tax relief to ordinary Canadians.
I will speak more directly to the motion before us that, in the
opinion of this House, the government provide tax fairness for all
Canadian families by extending the child care tax deduction to all
families of all income levels and converting it to a credit, thereby
offering Canadians freedom of choice in caring for their children.
This motion addresses a specific proposal and targets a specific
problem. What is the problem, some might ask. In a survey of
healthy women in Toronto conducted this year by researchers at a
Toronto hospital it was found that the most common health worry
of women was not heart problems, not breast cancer, but fatigue.
When the researchers broke down the reasons why women were
tired they identified these factors: financial worries, lack of
exercise, marital relationship problems, poor sleep, lack of
personal time, care of an ill family member. But the number one
reason why women feel tired today is the combination of home and
outside work which is forced on them in many cases by the
inability to make family ends meet because they are paying so
much money in taxes.
It is not just federal taxes but provincial taxes, municipal taxes.
Forty-six per cent of the average family income is being sucked
away by government. The average family can no longer make it
without two incomes. It is a big treadmill.
In an international Gallup survey which was conducted this year
in Canada as well as in 22 other countries, more than half of
Canadian women believe the country would be better off if one
spouse were able, the key word, to stay home and take care of the
children. But the Liberals through their voracious appetite for
taxes-31 tax increases in the last three and a half years-are
making it impossible for families to have that choice.
(1530)
Families have to work hard. Right now two out three two-parent
families have two or more jobs. Moonlighting families have
increased by 50 per cent over the last 10 years. Sixty per cent of
families now have to have two incomes to make ends meet.
The tax system discriminates against one income families. Two
income families pay $7,000 less in income taxes per year than one
income families, if the net family income is $60,000. The average
family income in real terms has dropped more than $3,000 since
1993. This year the average Canadian family will have to pay
$27,000 in taxes alone.
It is not the desire of the Reform Party and it is certainly not my
desire to force choices on families. What we have now are choices
being forced upon families by the present government. It is the
Liberal government that forces both parents to work to survive. It is
the desire of Reform to increase choices for the family so that
families can care for their children in any way they wish.
One of the Liberals' broken promises, one which was fortunately
broken I would suggest, was the creation of a host of new day care
spaces so that they could further raise taxes and further reduce the
choices of Canadian women. What does subsidized day care mean
to you? I will tell you what it means to me as a country boy. It
means that a professional couple in Toronto can load their child
into a BMW and take it to the Silver Spoon Happy Centre For
Lucky Tots while a Saskatchewan farm woman who lives 50 miles
from the nearest urban centre has to strap her toddlers into the truck
seat beside her while she helps with the harvest because she and her
overtaxed spouse cannot afford to hire extra help.
The Reform Party would reduce spending by $15 billion. We
would balance the federal budget by March 31, 1999. We would
provide smaller less intrusive government because that is what
Canadians want. After the deficit is erased, Reform would increase
spending on health and education by $4 billion a year. I say it is not
a bad suggestion.
A smaller government would enable us to provide tax relief to
everyone. We would increase the spousal amount of the income tax
deduction from $5,380 to $7,900. We would change the $3,000 to
$5,000 child care deduction to a $3,000 to $5,000 credit available
to all parents including those who look after their kids at home.
This would have an enormous effect on a family earning $30,000
which would have its taxes cut by 89 per cent. A dual income
family of four with earnings of $60,000 per year would save 31.7
per cent in their taxes. Altogether 727,000 low and middle income
taxpayers would come off the tax rolls. That would be a real hit
against child poverty in Canada.
(1535)
Giles Gherson, a columnist for the Ottawa Citizen who is
certainly no friend of the Reform Party, calls the Reform platform a
war on poverty. I quote: ``Simply raising the income tax personal
and spousal exemptions-will remove an estimated one million
low income families from the tax rolls, people who never should
have been paying taxes in the first place-the Liberals admit they
are not planning anything nearly so generous-.On the menu at
next year's election: a real and surprising choice in Canada's
stalled war on poverty''.
6570
With policies like the Liberal government's policies, is it any
wonder why the family is in trouble in Canada? It would be so
much more efficient, so much better for the family to lower taxes
and enable parents to do what they want to do with their own
money and to have a better quality of home life. Reform is all about
child care choice and tax relief for families.
I will end on a rather personal note. Unlike some of the fat cat
ivory tower theorists opposite, I have walked the road of single
parenthood and I never even considered the option of day care. My
family helped me out during vacations. I was able to employ an
elderly live-in housekeeper at much less than the cost of day care
for school days. It was not easy. We did not maintain the style of
living as a single parent household that we had as a two parent
household, but we made out. We did not whine to the government.
And I am proud to say that I raised two very well adjusted and very
successful young people.
In case anybody over there is going to be tempted again to throw
the slur across that what we are trying to do is to help out the well
off and damn the middle class and damn the poor, I would like to
put it on the record that this is not the case. Most of us in this
caucus have actually been there, whereas I think it would be a
rather small minority among the Liberal government caucus.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex-Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member asked a question of me earlier and I feel I have to
respond. I forgot to mention the part of the Reform Party plan in the
motion they are making today about the child care credit. I am
wondering if it is going to be refundable.
The statement that it goes to all families implies that it would be
refundable. At the same time the statement that it is a tax benefit
could limit the credit to tax paying families which would leave the
poorest families, unemployed families on social assistance without
any benefit at all. Which is it? Nowhere in the motion does the
Reform Party say that the credit would be refundable. This leaves
me to suspect that it may be planning to exclude the most needy
families who do not pay taxes.
As well, I think there is a mixed conception here. We are talking
about child care options. I do not hear that from the Reform Party
when they talk about day care or taking care of children. We are
talking about options available for families so that if one spouse
wants to stay home, those options are there.
There are no options in the Reform Party platform. There is no
choice either. Reformers do not support any of the measures that
would allow women to combine work and family life, which is
what a lot of women would like to do. The Reform Party does not
support the inclusion of parental leave policies in employment
insurance. It did not support and does not support employment
insurance for part time workers.
In fact the Reform Party would eliminate the CPP provisions
which cover a parent's contributions for any years away from the
workplace. I do not believe and I do not see how that assists
children.
Mr. Morrison: I thank the hon. member for her comments. I am
afraid she misses the point. What we are saying with respect to tax
relief is that if money is left in the hands of individual Canadians or
Canadian families, they will then be able to provide their own
choices.
(1540)
The hon. member seems to think that day care has to be a big
government heavily subsidized entity. That is not true. If the hon.
member shakes her head and says that is not what she had in mind,
then I retract that statement. The point is that when families do not
have money, families do not have choices. When families are taxed
until they squeak, they do not have money. It is a simple corollary.
That is why we say that the taxes must be lowered in order to give
people the chance to make their own choices.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I must say
that the hon. member for Essex-Windsor has given a detailed
response to the motion to which I attach myself very proudly. Her
knowledge of this subject is obvious. She has done a tremendous
amount of homework studying it.
The Reform motion, on the face of it, is quite compelling. The
motion calls for the extension of the child care tax deduction to all
families of all income levels and so on. I will forgive the technical
glitch. It speaks of a child care tax deduction, but it should speak of
something else.
When we examine the motion, the problem is that we begin to
ask questions about what the motion really means. If it means, as
my hon. friend from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia has
said, transferring the $5,000 to a tax credit, then it begins to raise
even more questions.
My hon. friend from Essex-Windsor asked the question: What
would happen if the Reform Party's second chance program were
to come into play and more people were taken off the tax rolls?
That $5,000 tax credit would be available to people who would not
be paying any taxes. What would happen to those people with low
incomes?
One could go on to ask a number of questions like that to get into
the detail of this motion. While the spirit of the motion may be
quite commendable, it is not workable. It is not doable. If the
Reform Party were the government of the day-perish the
thought-it would be introducing something which would have
rather horrendous implications.
My friend from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia spoke
of certain loans that our government has made recently to various
companies. He has attempted to discredit them in the face of the
need for adequate financing for children. He referred to the war on
poverty. Let me make it very clear that the most effective war on
6571
poverty is employment. When people are working and putting
bread on the table, that is the most effective war on poverty.
I would like to respond to the charges about the $87 million
which was lent to Bombardier. It is a repayable loan. It was not
given to the company. It is a loan which is repayable in royalties
when the next new generation of Bombardier aircraft are out on the
line, built and flying.
(1545 )
Actually the aerospace industry, as my hon. friend will
acknowledge, is one of the greatest exports Canada has at the
present time. To bring us into a position where Canada will become
the fourth largest manufacturer of aerospace equipment, aircraft
particularly, it seems to me that research and development
partnerships with industry are a very suitable way to go, especially
in they are in the form of repayable loans.
Recently some money was loaned for the further development of
the tar sands. It was done on a similar basis. Thirty million dollars
was given to a company in Vancouver that is a specialist in fuel cell
production. It represents the vanguard of some of the new energy
utilization we will have in this country.
The Liberal government has always believed in these kinds of
partnerships. This is not done as a handout to industry. It is done in
the spirit of investment because this kind of investment pays huge
dividends.
The hon. member speaks of income declines in recent years. I
wonder if he would pay the same attention to interest rate declines.
If someone has a young family at the present time, it is pretty
common to have a mortgage on a home. If you go to the bank today
to renew your mortgage after five years, you will walk out of there
with $3,000 to $4,000 more in your pockets than you had
previously. The financial policies of the government have been
instrumental in the resulting decline in interest rates-
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Is there a
question in there somewhere or is the hon. member making a
speech on my time?
The Speaker: The hon. member is in fact making a speech but it
is my understanding that it is on his time. There were questions and
comments with you and he now has the floor on debate.
Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member did not
realize that you had called for debate. I am in a very forgiving
mood this afternoon so I will acknowledge that the hon. member
just did not hear it.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not think debate
was called.
The Speaker: Actually I should have done it if I did not because
he is now debating and he has the floor.
Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, it is probably because I am closer to the
Speaker that I heard the word ``debate''.
There is no question that the financial policies of the government
as they relate to economic recovery and renewal are probably one
of the strongest things that can be done for the family. As a result of
policies which have strengthened the dollar, lowered interest rates
and raised export levels to record highs, the country is in a position
where 700,000 new jobs have been created. The country is now in a
position to move on and be one of the strongest, if not the strongest,
economy in the G-7. It seems to me that has a direct impact on the
family.
(1550)
In spite of the fact that Canadians have come through a serious
period of constraint in the last few years and has partnered with the
Canadian people to asked them to bear with it in its attempt to fix
the economy, the government has continued to provide substantial
assistance to low income families and those who need it most.
I give the example of the child tax benefit. It was recognized that
as the economy strengthens that the effort must be increased,
especially the war on child poverty, and to strengthen the
institution of the family as much as possible. We are headed that
way, but perhaps in a little different way than my hon. friend
suggests.
If this country was to adopt the policies put forward by the
Reform Party Canadians would be in a horrific financial situation
because the arithmetic does not add up. Money cannot be given out
here and there on the never, never without some revenue to
compensate for it. That is the direction we are heading under
Reform.
I am very comfortable in declining to support the motion. I have
great sympathy for its intent, and I hope it is not just a populist ploy
but a sincere attempt by the Reform Party. However, in all
conscience I cannot support the motion. I am sure that if the
Reform Party were to introduce something more detailed and a
little more correct in the future, I might consider it at that time.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I could not help
but reply to the member's statement.
He compared the money that is being put into the tar sands in
Alberta with the $87 million no interest loan to Bombardier. He
said, basically: ``Can you not see that we are doing as much for
Alberta and as much for western Canada as we are for central
Canada?'' That is a slap in the face to people who live in Alberta
and British Columbia and who suffered through the $80 billion
rip-off by the government through the national energy program. It
took the money that belonged to those provinces and walked away
6572
with it for the benefit of central Canada and the federal
government.
By throwing a few crumbs back into Alberta in the tar sands
project and suggesting that in some way it is the benevolent
government looking out for the best interests of Alberta, I frankly
find that a bit of a slap in the face.
I do not forget things like that. There are a lot of people in
western Canada who will never forget what the Liberal government
did with the $80 billion rip-off under the national energy program. I
will never forget that.
The Speaker: I know there is a question in there someplace and
the hon. member will find it.
Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I am not capable of living in the past. I
try to live in the present and look to the future. It seems to me that
the $400 million that is going to improve the tar sands is going to
allow the tar sands to develop in a way that is going to be very
beneficial to western Canada.
(1555)
The Speaker: I might have gotten the wrong signal here. I asked
the hon. member for Halton-Peel if he was going to use the full
time and I thought he indicated to me that he was going to use the
full 20 minutes. Is that correct?
Mr. Reed: Mr. Speaker, what I indicated to you was that I had no
one to share the time with.
An hon. member: Yes you do.
Mr. Reed: I am learning something new every minute of this
afternoon. I would be very honoured to share my time with the hon.
member for Algoma.
The Speaker: Colleagues, with your consent may we give the 10
minutes to the member for Algoma?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Algoma has 10 minutes. It
is 10 minutes and 5 minutes.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank my colleagues on both sides of the House for allowing me 10
minutes of comments on an opposition day motion. It is not the
worst motion I have seen from the opposition side but it is certainly
not one that I can support even though they have kindly let me have
a few minutes here this afternoon.
There is a hidden agenda with this motion but I suppose we
should come to expect that from the third party. As much as I
respect individual members of the third party, the total package
from time to time leaves something to be desired. The hidden
agenda I sense in this motion is that the Reform Party is against a
broad based day care, child care, system in Canada.
I would like to begin by relating an experience that I had when I
was a student at the University of Toronto. At that time I was
involved in establishing the first parent co-op day care centre at the
University of Toronto, a day care centre I am proud to say still
exists as the Sussex Parent Co-op Day Care Centre. It is quite an
interesting story and maybe some other time I could go into details.
That experience taught me that there is no one simple solution
for the care of our children. While I accept that the pre-eminent
place of care for children should always be the family, the
circumstances in this present world do not always allow us to have
that circumstance available to everybody.
Single parents need day care whether they can afford to fully pay
for it themselves or whether they need publicly assisted day care.
In some families it is absolutely necessary that both parents work
in order to pay the bills that are part of family life.
To suggest that simply providing a child care tax deduction to all
families of all income levels pretends that there is a uniform
situation for families. I think we tend to fool ourselves sometimes
by talking about the typical family or standard family. There are
many varieties of family arrangements in the modern world and we
cannot try to adapt the social culture to take care of all situations
with the simplistic solution we are offered here today.
The tax system provides a measure of relief for low and middle
income families.
(1600 )
I would be the last one to say it is perfect. In times past, when my
children were younger, I was happily able to take take advantage of
that tax deduction. My children are old enough now that I do not
have to worry about that, but I was sure glad it was there for me at
the time when I was a low to middle income person in my younger
years.
I do not think even well-to-do families would generally agree
they need a tax deduction for which I have seen estimates of
billions of dollars. I ask the Reform Party to take note of these
numbers and do their own arithmetic. I wonder if the arithmetic
might not be better than we have seen in the past.
I will quote from some research notes. If Reform means to give a
$5,000 tax credit for every child under seven years of age and a
$3,000 tax credit for every child aged seven to twelve, the cost of
the program would be approximately $21 billion or far greater than
the figures Reform projects when it says its total package of tax
breaks is worth $12 billion. Even $12 billion is a lot of money. I
wonder whether the upper income families the Reformers may be
thinking about need that kind of tax break at this time.
6573
I am not against targeting tax cuts and tax incentives for needy
sectors of our society at the proper time when the deficit is taken
care of. However this smacks of a broad based tax break from
income zero to income millions per annum and I must object to
that.
The other hidden agenda, besides being against a broad based
community day care system, is that the Reform Party is telling
women to stay home to take care of the children. I accept that a lot
of women would choose that. Some are able to and some cannot
because of life circumstances.
It is an individual decision on the part of the mother. It is not a
decision we as a society should be imposing on any woman. It
should be that men and women are equals in society. I resent the
subliminal message in this Reform motion that women should stay
at home to take care of the children.
The government has already answered-and I admit we have a
way to go-the concerns of families with children. I wish we could
go further right now. In due course I suspect we will be able to. We
should be focusing our attention on the the whole issue of children
and poverty among children in our society.
I do not think this plan which would redistribute tax dollars to
upper income families would allow us to do what is needed to
ensure the poor and the poorest in society have a proper share of
what this great country has to offer.
With great respect to the fine members who are here, I do not
know how Reform Party members can argue on the one hand for
deficit reduction-and I would argue the government is doing a
great job with that program-and then propose a plan that would
cost $10 billion to $21 billion according to our estimates. Perhaps
they could explain that to me as other members participate in the
debate.
As I much as I appreciate it is the privilege of the opposition
members to bring forward ideas for debate, they have missed an
opportunity to bring forward a good idea. They brought forward an
idea I cannot support.
I conclude by saying that there are among other things two
hidden items: that the Reform Party is against broad based child
care and that it is asking women to stay home to take care of their
children.
(1605 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
great deal of respect for the member opposite. He and I shared
some time together on the Standing Committee on Finance. I got to
know him as being an honourable gentleman. Therefore I can only
assume he has not taken the time to understand what the Reform
Party is about.
My wife and I have some very dear friends. When their children
were growing up he was a school teacher and hated his job. His
wife was a dental assistant and loved her job. They decided he
would become a home husband, which we applauded.
The description the member has given of the Reform Party was
completely out of place. The Reform Party is about choice. This is
something that he and unfortunately his Liberal friends do not
understand. The reality is that when he talks about one simple
solution, his one simple solution is some kind of a national child
day care program.
The difference is that the Reform Party is saying we should put
the money in the hands of the people at the bottom end of the scale.
We should give them the opportunity to have a choice, whether
they are single parent families with a man or woman as the parent,
whether they are traditional family units or whether they are in
multiple family arrangements.
Let us assume for the sake of discussion we are talking about a
woman with two or three children. This person is now in a position
where she has a choice. She can do what the Liberals tell her to do,
or not get any support if she decides to use a family member as the
person who would be helping her with the rearing of her children or
somebody she respects in the neighbourhood, perhaps a friend
through some kind of charitable organization or church she belongs
to. The Liberals, NDPers and Conservatives have the simple
solution of some kind of massive child day care program.
Another point I am rather surprised by is that my friend, a very
intelligent person, went along with the $21 billion figure. He seems
to have lost the relationship between a tax credit and a tax
deduction.
The Reform Party is talking about a tax credit. We want to get up
to a million families away from paying taxes. Those million
families would be at the bottom end of the scale and not at all as he
described.
Rather than just reading the notes he was handed by the Prime
Minister's office, which seems to have a good time coming up with
all sorts of interpretations and misinformation of what Reform is
all about, has the member actually taken the time to read the fresh
start document so that he understands the Reform Party is about
giving Canadians a choice in how they choose as parents their
values and how they bring up their children?
Mr. St. Denis: Madam Speaker, with great respect, the hon.
member talks about creating choice if the Reform Party motion
were adopted and implemented. I think it would lead to less choice.
As I understand, it is an income based proposal. The more
money made, the more potential tax credit would be available.
Mr. Abbott: That is dead wrong.
Mr. St. Denis: In a scenario like that one we will be tilting this
significantly toward higher income families in society.
6574
This will lead to a further drain on the funds of the country as
they are tilted toward higher income families, giving the
government less freedom and less flexibility to deal with the real
issue facing many families, the issue of poverty, particularly child
poverty. Regardless of how it is cut I do not see how it is a
progressive suggestion. Our tax system is not perfect. We hope it is
as progressive as it can be, but it is not perfect. I do not see this idea
as being progressive, that the better off we are in terms of income
the more choices we have because there will be more tax benefit.
The choices for lower income families would still be very limited.
(1610)
The Prime Minister promised during the campaign that when the
finances of the country allowed we would deal with the issue of a
national child care program.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate.
I would like to set the hon. gentleman straight on the tax credit.
Reform policy says that it will be at the lowest possible tax rate,
which is about 17 per cent. If I am correct that means about $850
per child, which to a low income family is a lot of money. It would
probably take care of their household needs for a month. For a
millionaire like the gentleman was talking about, $850 probably
does not pay for the car licence for his Mercedes. That is the
difference. That is why we targeted low income families. Nobody
gets a higher rate of tax credit than low income families. That is the
Reform tax credit. It is a very wise decision.
I started farming in 1957. When our family came along in 1962,
$850 bought us groceries for a long time. Even though the cost of
living has risen a lot, to the low income families it still means a
great deal. That is why the motion is so important to farm or rural
communities. If there were this type of tax credit during the years
my wife and I farmed pretty well on our own, it would have meant
our children could have been looked after by someone locally who
wanted to earn a few dollars. That tax credit was not available at
that time. We needed every penny we had to keep our farm
operating.
From 1961 to 1994 the average family saw its before tax income
increase by 768 per cent, which is a tremendous increase. If we
look at the other side of the story we see that taxes grew by 1,200
per cent. If we take that into consideration plus the increases in the
cost of food, clothing and shelter, the family on the farm today is
probably in a lot worse position than it was when I started farming.
We always had enough money to put food on the table without
my wife taking a second job. We always had enough money to pay
our bills and to pay the interest on the money we borrowed to buy
our farm. That is not the case on the rural scene any more.
According to Statistics Canada 48 per cent of net farm income
today comes from off farm jobs. This is very sad and very serious.
We have seen farms increase from a half section to probably two
sections as the average today. The expense and the stress are
unbelievable, as well as mother or father probably having to work
at an off farm job. The extra money will be beneficial to rural
families trying to survive on one income.
In 1971 the average family earned $3,600. Only 39 per cent of
those families had dual income.
(1615)
It was rare if we saw a dual income on the farm in 1957, 1961 to
1970, but today we see that happening on almost every farm. By
1990 the average family income had crept up to $43,500 but 60 per
cent of those families had dual incomes. We can see what has
happened in society and with family income.
As the hon. gentleman explained, it seems that Liberals or
Conservatives in power during those 35 to 40 years had all the good
ideas. I am wondering why we are $600 billion in debt, why our
families today have to pay interest to the tune of almost $45 billion
on money that was never earned during this period but was
borrowed. We are expecting our younger families to take over this
burden and take care of that debt that was made before they ever
had any input into how government should be run.
It bothers me when I see that we want take credit for things that
we really do not deserve credit for. Sure things were tough in the
1950s, 1960s and probably the early 1970s but the communities
were there and they looked after each other. There was a lot of fun
even when we did not have that much money. We had local curling
and skating rinks. Today they are gone. They are in the larger
centres, and farm families and other industries that look after
farmers such as fertilizer dealers drive 40 or 50 miles to take their
kids to hockey games or hockey practises or to music lessons. This
has all disappeared because we had the good idea that we could live
on borrowed money and now it is catching up. I do not want to take
too much credit for making things better on borrowed money.
When I look at the latest statistic that a single income family has
to pay $7,000 more in taxes than a dual income family it really
worries me. That is why things are being geared to a two income
family where one member of that family pretty well works full
time for the government.
With the Reform's fresh start child care policy we are directing
the tax cuts to those families that desperately need it. Under
Reform's plan a single income family of four making $30,000 will
pay 89 per cent less tax. To me that means a tremendous benefit,
that there is that amount of money left to spend on necessities that
this family probably was not able to afford before this tax cut.
People will appreciate this and will take that into consideration in
6575
the next election because it is the family that still drives the nation.
If we do not realize that very soon I think we are in big trouble.
One of the farm papers was mailed to me. In it a gentleman
writer portrays what is happening with this Liberal government. It
is comic: ``You are driving up to Goodale's General Store''.
Whether there is a store like that I do not know but that is what this
writer says: ``Your wife has asked you to pick up a loaf of bread.
You ask the storekeeper for one loaf of 100 per cent whole wheat
but the storekeeper hands you a dozen grade A large eggs. `No',
you protest, `a loaf of bread is what I came in to buy. I do not need
eggs. My wife said we need a loaf of bread'. The storekeeper tells
you this is better for you. He says `believe me, I have been running
this store for three years now and I know what is best for my
customers, including you. When I run across something I do not
know myself my suppliers explain it to me and tell me what to do.
Here are your eggs and that will be $3, please'. Since there is no
other general store in this country you will have to take it and like
it''.
(1620 )
That is what I have seen happening in this political arena for the
last three years. We have a government that thinks it knows what is
best for families. It tells us: ``This is even better for you than you
yourself know. It is better that two parents should be working than
one paying taxes so we can afford some handouts''. I think it is are
dead wrong and I will say why.
When I see that 48 per cent of net farm income today is coming
from off farm jobs, what is left to the rural lifestyle? Not very
much. I must tell this House that not only has the Liberal
government increased taxes over the past number of years, but it
has really decreased farmer incomes by making certain moves
which I believe are disastrous to the farm community.
In 1975-76 when we were told under GATT that we could import
76,000 tonnes of beef, the Liberal government knew better. It
increased that to 119,000 tonnes of offshore beef imports. We had a
beef industry that was already realizing decreases in prices because
of overproduction due to depressed grain prices. This added fuel
and the prices continued to slide.
Yesterday I phoned one of the farm input dealers. We got talking
about what was happening in the farm scene. He said: ``It's sad,
Jake. I have had a number of young beef producers come in
recently and tell me that they cannot afford to pay their bills. With
interest rates at a record low, the lowest in 40 years, the banker is
still telling them to liquidate''. These people who diversified three
or four years ago because of low grain prices are now told that they
should liquidate.
What else has happened to these young farmers? We know we
had to restructure the western grain transportation subsidies. Every
farmer realized that would have to happen. But what did we do?
The entrepreneurial young farmers who went into beef production
because of low grain prices were excluded from these western grain
transportation subsidies because their tame hay farms or silage
corn farms did not qualify. They were not able to get funding out of
that WGTA payout. They got a double whammy. That is very sad.
Just as these young people started to rebuild their lives with the
hope that grain prices would stay low for a number of years, it
backfired. The prices went up. Cattle prices went down. Now they
are told to liquidate with the lowest interest rates we have seen in a
long time. That is not building a country; that is destroying a
lifestyle and a country.
Once agriculture is destroyed there is not much left. It drives the
engine of a country. It is the backbone of a country and we had
better start to realize that.
The marketing of grain prices has also helped to decrease grain
prices. We had record high prices last year from January through
June. Now we find out through Stats Canada that we have a record
carryover of durum wheat and feed grains because of poor weather
conditions. This is depressing prices again while young farmers
who have started in the livestock industry are being told to go out
of business. This means we will need less of these grains when the
product is building up. Again we are going to destroy that type of
industry.
I cannot imagine it. A young farmer from my province, Mr.
McMechan, spent four months in jail because he violated a
customs regulation that said he could not export grain without a
wheat board export permit. This young farmer sold his grain for the
best price he could get, a price that the wheat board was not willing
to pay him. So he went to jail. He is not the only one to be
prosecuted. There are approximately 300 farmers who are being
prosecuted for the same thing. Why? We had record amounts of
grain on hand and the wheat board sold 31 per cent less durum last
year than the previous year when the demand was tremendous.
How is that supposed to build a country?
(1625)
Sure that farmer violated a law, but in a democracy when we are
deprived of selling our product for the best price available, that
industry is not going to survive very long. If we are going to
provide a democracy where nobody gets a price lower than the
next, that is going in the wrong direction.
What are we going to do about this? Are we going to overturn the
system? The agriculture minister is asking western grain farmers to
either defend the wheat board or totally sell under single desk. This
no allowance for an option for people to decide what they want to
do.
There is no allowance for competition between grain companies
and the single desk marketing system. Competition is what keeps
6576
the system fair and honest. But that seems to be something the
government is not interested in doing.
I picked this out of an article in the Ottawa Citizen: ``Canadian
families are more like the Cleaver family of the 1950s television
than the patchwork of mixed families portrayed in the media during
the 1990s. A landmark Statistics Canada survey of 23,000 children
found that 83 per cent of the kids under 12 lived in a two parent
family in 1994. Only 16.5 per cent lived with a single parent.
Moreover, the vast majority of their families were biological
families, not reconstructed by marriage or other means''.
The biggest difference between the TV household of the Cleaver
family where the mother stayed at home is that today in 36 per cent
of the two parent families, both parents have full time jobs. That is
a good thing if the mother wants to work or the father wants to
work. But what is parenting?
Another article states: ``A child's prospects were at least as good
with positive parenting in a single or disadvantaged family as with
negative parenting in a family with two parents or more money''.
That tells me that any advantage we can give to the traditional
family can improve its lifestyle and standard of living will only be
positive for the country. That is what Reform's fresh start family
policy does.
Another thing surprised me in a another article on behavioural
problems. It stated that a single mother, low income family has 34
per cent more behavioural problems than a two parent family; a 13
per cent difference between the same lifestyle or income because of
the parenting. A single mother not in a low income situation has 28
per cent more problems than a two parent family.
(1630 )
Parents are very important in creating good young citizens for
the future.
One thing that really impressed me, and I have said it before in
this House, was when an RCMP officer from northern Manitoba
said: ``Jake, it is so much easier to build a good kid than to fix a
broken adult''. I hope we can do that in this House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Before going
to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing
Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight
at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for
Mackenzie-Canadian Airlines.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to pick up on a sentence that the member delivered
in his speech when he said: ``Any help we''-being the Reform
Party-``can give to the traditional family this party supports''. I
believe that is an accurate phrase from the member's speech. I see
the member nodding in agreement.
I would like to suggest humbly that the Reform Party can talk
about its commitment to the traditional family. I believe the
member is sincere when he talks about that. However, at the same
time, I do not think the Reform Party realizes that its campaign that
has gone on in this House for the last three years plus on cuts in
every sector of government, the lean, mean machine type of
approach to government, in fact not only directly but indirectly
causes a tremendous assault on the traditional family.
It is important, when we have the opportunity to debate some of
these issues, that we realize we have to look not just at the micro
issues but at the macro effect. The Reform Party has not been
sensitive to traditional family values. It would be interesting to see
if the member would say that maybe this is a conversion as we are
heading into an election year or something.
Maybe the member could clarify why the Reform Party now
believes that its campaign on cuts over the last three years has been
an assault on the traditional family and that it is prepared to
reconsider that approach and start looking at a more generous
approach in using government agencies and departments to look
out for the needs of families?
Mr. Hoeppner: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
that question. I am very sincere when I say we need to direct our
help to low income families.
When I started farming in 1957 I think the national debt was
something like $16 or $17 billion. I was able to buy a farm by
borrowing the money. I did not have a cent at that time. I paid 6 per
cent interest at the bank. The government at that time had brought
in a program that gave me 4.5 per cent financing over 29 years.
That is what helped me get started.
I was able to expand. On a half section I grew enough product to
pay my bills and put a few dollars aside for a rainy day if something
went badly wrong because we did not have crop insurance at that
time. I was able to raise my family and still have a fairly
comfortable livelihood.
Then, all of a sudden, we started to live beyond our means. We
needed things we never dreamed we would need. We needed a
pickup truck. We needed a car also. Then all of a sudden we
realized we were losing implement dealerships and we had to go
further and further. Why? Because taxes kept increasing. Taxes
went up, up, up.
(1635)
The amount of taxes that today have to be paid by a young family
running a half section farm is unbelievable. They have to have an
outside job or they cannot survive on a half section farm. They
need at least a two section farm to make it viable.
6577
If you cannot raise half a million dollars today you cannot start
farming because of over taxation, because of all the government
programs.
In 1957 I needed $10,000 to buy a farm which my dad put up for
me. That is all I needed. Today you cannot even buy a garden
tractor for that. Why? Tell me why. We have the same land, we
have the same natural resources but we have lived beyond our
means.
Canada's debt is $600 billion. It will never be paid in my lifetime
or that of my children or my grandchildren. That is debt we
borrowed on the backs of future generations. We must give the
consumer some buying power.
In 1991 a family could buy an average sized car with 28 weeks of
work. In 1996 statisticians tell us that it takes 36 weeks to buy the
same type of car. How are consumers supposed to be able to buy
the products that they need? Sixty per cent of the domestic
economy is still driven by consumer spending.
When the prime interest rate is at 3.5 per cent and consumers
cannot afford to spend, something is wrong in the country. The
buying power is gone to a few elite people. That is why we are
directing this tax credit to the lower income families because an
$850 tax credit to that family buys a lot of stuff for them as
compared to the elite.
The other thing that has happened is that today a lot of high paid
people are running corporations. These multimillionaires do not
pay a cent of tax. They do not even need this tax credit. However,
our $600 billion debt has to have the interest paid on it. Who is
paying it? The middle income earners, the low income earners.
With our new fresh start program we will take almost one
million people out of that tax bracket, or at least lower it for 89 per
cent to give them some buying power. When they have buying
power then the economy is going to start booming again like it did
in the fifties and the sixties.
We have to realize that we have had 40 years of Conservative
and Liberal governments that had a lot of good ideas and we are
bankrupt. If a farmer or a businessman had that debt load compared
to his income as the government has today he would be foreclosed
on.
I see the hon. member wants to ask another question, so I will
give him some time.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, I agree
with many parts of the member's comments. I agree with the
statement that consumer spending is what drives a big part of this
economy. I think the member mentioned that close to 60 per cent of
the economy is made up of consumer spending.
That leads me to ask the member a question about monetary
policy. I personally believe that one of the real challenges we have
in the House is to review the whole monetary policy, in other
words, the management of the distribution of money in this
country. As a member pointed out a couple of days ago, the Bank of
Canada is totally independent of this Chamber. The relationship
with banks is such that they can decide basically on their own what
monetary policy is all about in this country.
(1640)
I would like to ask the member, one of the leaders of the Reform
Party, if he would agree that the issue of monetary policy needs
serious debate in this Chamber.
Mr. Hoeppner: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his question. I happen to agree with him, but I do not have the
answers. I am a farmer. I am not a financial wizard. However, I
know that if I spend more than I make I will get into financial
difficulty.
That is what this country has done. It has spent more money than
it has received in revenue. It has had to borrow. Whether we blame
that on the Bank Act or whether we blame it on the people who run
the government and who should look after the Bank Act is the
question. I believe it is the government who is to blame. It has
allowed the banks to get a crippling hold on us. When you owe
banks money they own you. When we do not owe them money they
come to us to borrow it. That is the big problem. I hope I have
clarified that somewhat.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to be able to speak today on the Reform Party
motion which calls for the child care tax deduction to be converted
to a tax credit.
I was interested in the comments of my colleague, the member
for Broadview-Greenwood, when he asked the Reform Party
member who spoke earlier about this new generosity of spirit as it
relates to social programs. It seems to be a new position which has
been taken by the Reform Party. I thought I heard a hint of increase
in corporate taxes as well.
I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Parry
Sound-Muskoka.
As members have said today, when the Reform Party refers to a
child care tax deduction, I believe it is really referring to the child
care expense deduction. It is a matter of terminology and wording,
but it is a point which should be clarified.
I am firmly committed to child care programs. I support a strong
federal government role in the area of child care support. In fact,
the government is on record as supporting a national child care
program. The obstacle, certainly in the province of Ontario, is
getting the provincial government to agree to cost share the
program. Some would say that if the provincial governments will
not cost share, why does the federal government not move
unilaterally? I believe it would be wrong to do that. I do not see any
rationale, in terms of fiscal policy or public policy, which would
indicate that the federal government should unilaterally move on a
6578
national day care program, even though I feel strongly that we need
one.
Perhaps members of the Reform Party will talk to their
colleagues at Queen's Park. They certainly seem to have their ear
on many issues. Maybe they could convince them that they should
move swiftly to co-operate with the federal government on a child
care program.
Coming back to the specific motion which is before the House
today, not unlike many Reform Party initiatives, it provides no
relief to the individuals in our society who need the help most.
Converting the child care expense deduction to a tax credit benefits
only those who are paying income tax. Members of the Reform
Party can talk about numbers here and numbers there and who
benefits and who does not, but the fact remains that if it is changed
to a tax credit, or even if it is an income tax deduction, it only
affects people who are paying income tax.
I would like to speak about the individuals in my riding who are
on unemployment insurance or welfare. They would not benefit
from what is being proposed in this motion. These are the people
who need it the most. Let me provide a specific example.
(1645)
In my riding in Etobicoke North there are many members of the
Somali community and many single parents, many mothers
separated from their husbands with large families to support and
maintain. In many cases they have no child care support so they
cannot leave their dwelling to learn English. If they could learn
English, they could better integrate into Canadian society. A child
care tax credit with respect will do nothing for these individuals.
There are many other individuals in our society who are in the same
predicament.
Besides this major reservation of mine for this motion, the
motion states that the Income Tax Act currently has a bias against
parents caring for their children. Nothing could be further from the
truth. Our government currently provides nearly $1 billion in tax
assistance to families who provide care in the home for dependants.
This is in addition to the $5 billion that the federal government
provides in child tax benefit assistance.
Let me describe first the assistance the Income Tax Act provides
to both parents and children and to persons with disabilities and
families caring for elderly or disabled relatives. The child care
expense deduction, which has been referred to today by my
colleagues opposite, helps parents with modest incomes with child
care expenses they incur while earning income or attending school
full time or taking an eligible vocational training course.
In addition to the regular child tax benefit of $1,020 for each
child, the child tax benefit supplement helps parents who choose to
remain in the home to raise preschool age children. Assistance is
provided to modest income families who have preschool age
children but do not have deductible child care expenses. The
supplement is $213 for each child six years old or younger.
Some of the Reform Party members earlier spoke of their models
and of consultants who have run the numbers. I can say that the
models I am familiar with indicate that the motion before us today
would really impact beneficially 25 per cent of those people in this
predicament and need.
The working income supplement is another. It helps low income
working class families meet some of the extra costs related to
earning employment income with a non-taxable benefit of up to
$500. Changes introduced in the 1996 budget will double the
supplement to $1,000. The working income supplement is
available to two income families as well as single earner families
where one spouse stays at home as a caregiver.
[Translation]
The Income Tax Act also provides assistance to persons with
disabilities and to families caring for elderly or disabled relatives.
The disability tax credit provides important benefits for persons
suffering from long term mental or physical disabilities. It reduces
applicants' federal tax by approximately $720 and is equivalent to
a tax rate of 17 per cent. The unused portion of the credit can be
transferred to a parent contributing to the support of the disabled
person.
[English]
Additionally we have the medical expense tax credit which
provides tax relief to those with extraordinary medical expenses by
providing a credit for medical expenses up to $5,000 in respect of
part time attendant care expenses. This is specifically intended to
help families caring for elderly or disabled relatives at home by
providing tax assistance for part time or temporary attendant care.
Families who care for elderly or disabled relatives can claim the
unused amounts of the credit.
[Translation]
Persons caring for disabled relatives may also claim a disabled
dependent credit, which was significantly increased in the 1996
budget. The credit reduces the federal tax payable by a maximum
of $400, or the equivalent of a maximum deduction of $2,352 for a
person whose income is in the 17 per cent tax bracket.
(1650)
[English]
The Reform Party motion states that the government should
convert the child care tax credit, meaning I believe as I stated
earlier, the child care expense deduction to a tax credit. However,
there is no discussion of the cost to the government of such a tax
6579
expenditure. I find this most surprising from the Reform Party
because it is supposed to be a fiscally responsible party. Perhaps I
should not be surprised given its recent flip-flop from its focus on
the deficit to its focus on tax reductions.
In the next few weeks I will supporting Bill C-214, a private
member's bill proposed by the hon. member for Durham which
calls for a full disclosure of costs for all legislation introduced into
this House.
I have stated before in this House that the best social policies are
jobs in a healthy economy. When the Minister of Finance brings in
his budget next year I am quite confident he will not introduce
measures such as this one to assist individuals in our society who
do not need help or those who are already benefiting significantly
from benefits already in the Income Tax Act. For this reason, I will
not be supporting the motion.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
suspect that this hon. gentleman, as every other one of the Liberals
who have stood up, have not taken the time to look at the Reform's
actual document, the fresh start for Canadians. In taking a look at it
they would realize that there is a very specific plan.
Let me talk specifically about the fact that we would be
increasing the basic amount of the basic personal deduction from
$6,456 to $7,900.
I have two questions and I will keep them very short. I wonder if
this member and every other member of the Liberal caucus is
aware of this fact. Since 1983-and we always say, Liberal, Tory,
same old story, and the Tories started this-they decided that they
were going to de-index the relationship of the basic personal
exemption from anything to do with inflation unless it exceeded 3
per cent. This was really cute because obviously if inflation only
went to 2.9 per cent, then the basic exemption would not increase.
It was a very subtle and quiet way and one which most Canadians
were not aware of that if there had been full indexing as originally
had been envisioned with the basic exemption, that in fact the basic
exemption today instead of being $6,400 and change would be
$7,800 and change.
It is no coincidence then that the Reform Party is simply giving
back to Canadians that which the Liberals and the Tories have taken
away. When we increase the basic exemption from $6,400 to
$7,900 we change the fact that the people at the low end of the scale
who are earning for the sake of argument, $500, $600 or $1,000 a
month, would suddenly find themselves not paying any tax at all.
That by the way is also part of the story where we are increasing the
spousal amount from $5,380 to $7,900 as well.
I wonder if the member is also aware of the way that he and the
Tories have been very quietly taking money from people. In fact we
have been accused of doing a flip-flop on the $4 billion to be able
to support health care and the Reform Party position is that after we
have achieved a balanced budget we would then proceed to put $4
billion back into health care. It is he and his colleagues over a two
year period who have removed $7 billion from that package, yet
they have the audacity to say that we are the people who are doing
the cuts. It is the Liberals who have done the cuts and the Reform
Party is going to put the cuts back where they should never have
been taken from in the first place.
Is the member aware of the fact that this basic exemption creep
has been happening as a result of the traditional old parties just
taking more and more money out of Canadians' pockets? Is he also
aware of the fact that it is he and his colleagues who have removed
$7 billion from health care funding in Canada?
Mr. Cullen: Madam Speaker, on the first question I would
comment in a couple of ways, first on the indexing of the basic
exemption. I have not seen the member's numbers. Frankly I am
not sure if he is planning to give us the fresh start document as a
stocking stuffer but I would be glad to read it over the holidays.
(1655)
The member opposite was talking about the rate of inflation in
Canada monetary policy. It is clear that inflation has been kept to a
very low level. I would be surprised if those numbers even if
indexing went forward would produce the kind of difference the
member is talking about but I would be glad to look at his numbers.
As a government we would like to implement a lot of things and
do more with tax but our job is to reduce the deficit. It is quite
intriguing that the member talks about the Reform plan to first
balance the budget and then put money into social programs. It was
only six or eight months ago that the Reform Party was talking
about reducing or completely eliminating the national debt. It was
only in the last election that the Reform Party was talking of cuts of
$12 billion out of social programs. In addition to what the finance
minister had in his fiscal plan, now the member is talking about
putting money into social programs. This new approach I find
refreshing but it is a little inconsistent.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in debate on this
motion by the third party.
We can probably begin the debate by certainly agreeing that
everybody in this House and indeed every Canadian in the land
would support the concept that we need to help children in
Canadian society. I do not think anybody would disagree with that.
However the way that the Reform Party has made this suggestion
does not totally provide all of the facts and ramifications to the
Canadian people. It is important that we do just that.
6580
First of all, the actual concept of how this would work is not
spelled out either in the resolution nor is it spelled out that I can see
in the Reform's particular plan. Reform talked about it being turned
into a tax credit. Is it an equivalent tax credit or is it a tax credit for
the amount of the deduction? They are not clear about that and it
makes a tremendous amount of difference on the economic impact
of this item.
Is it going to be a refundable or non-refundable tax credit? Again
not only is that an important concept in terms of the fiscal
ramifications but the way Reform is planning to work this socially
makes a big difference on whether it is refundable or
non-refundable.
Regardless of which way the Reform come at it, and to be fair to
the Canadian people they ought to be saying which way they want
to approach this, this is going to be a tremendous cost to the
Canadian taxpayer. Estimates I have received from various sources
range from $1 billion up to $12 billion. I think that $5 billion to put
this plan in place is probably a pretty good bet. Is it worth $5
billion? Perhaps, but what the Reform Party fails to tell us in the
House and Canadians in general is where it is going to get that $5
billion. What will Reform cut? What is Reform going to take it
away from? How is it going to fund this?
The Reform Party talks about honesty and integrity in
government, yet it makes a major proposal like this one and it does
not clearly identify where that money is going to come from.
Reform ought to do that. I will get to Reform's green book in just a
minute.
The expanded plan is going to deal with 25 per cent of Canadian
families. Those families have a need and a requirement as do all
families in Canada. I have a lot of difficulty when we are putting in
a program like this one. We could very well be introducing it
for-and I have often heard this expression before-these
millionaires who would be able to get tax breaks and so on. There
are going to be those individuals who will benefit from it.
The Reform Party should agree and I think most Canadians
would agree that in a time of limited financial resources we should
use those resources for those Canadians who need it most. That is
why we have a tax system with a child tax benefit built into it
which that. It helps those Canadians who need it most. Quite
frankly we should not be surprised that the Reform Party's proposal
is not well costed or does not make a lot of economic sense. This is
evident when we look at its overall economic policy and the
suggestions in its new fresh start.
(1700)
In summary, the fresh start proposal suggests cutting taxes,
putting $4 billion of new money into health care and balancing the
budget. They will do all this at the same time, starting with the $24
billion deficit we have today. That is the basis of what Reformers
are trying to sell to the Canadian people. However Canadian people
know and basic math tells them that it will not to work.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): It is magic.
Mr. Mitchell: A good word for it.
The party opposite suggests that some things be done for
Canadian families. Reform will reduce our support of health care
so we will only fund core health care services. This means
individuals will need supplementary private medical insurance to
supplement that core.
Reformers would make changes to the EI program and have
talked about eliminating parental leave. That is hardly a policy that
supports family. They will eliminate the Canada pension plan.
They want to replace it with RRSPs. Again individuals will have to
buy into their own plans. It seems the people who will be helped by
this will be the banks and insurance companies that sell RRSPs and
private insurance. Perhaps they are the beneficiaries.
I agree with the party across the way that low income families
will get tax cuts. That is absolutely right. However high income
families will get even bigger tax cuts, and that is not the way we
work in this country. When we have limited financial resources we
make sure Canadians who need the help most receive the most
help.
Several times in today's debate we have heard members opposite
hark back to the good old days of the fifties and sixties. That speaks
volumes. It shows the Reform Party looks to the past. It is not
capable of handling the present and certainly has no vision for the
future.
More than that, it shows the Reform Party does not understand
the basic fabric of Canada. It does not understand that we are more
than individuals, that we are more than just small islands unto
ourselves, or that Canadians form a society. For 50 years we have
recognized that we have a collective responsibility to each other,
that one Canadian helps another Canadian who helps another
Canadian, and that we have the vehicles in government to allow
that to happen.
That is why Canadians support an old age security system paid
for by general tax revenue. That is why they support a public
pension plan so the wealthiest Canadians are not the only ones who
can afford a pension. That is why Canadians support public health
care, to ensure every Canadian has an opportunity for health care
and not just the wealthy.
That is what the fabric of Canada is about. That is what
Canadians support and that is why Canadians elected a Liberal
government and will elect a Liberal government again.
(1705 )
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I love those caring,
sharing Liberals:
6581
``From each according to his ability to each according to his
needs''. I think I heard that before somewhere.
Mr. Mitchell: Come on across.
Mr. Morrison: That was a quote from Karl Marx. It is a pity the
hon. member was not here during the day when all this was being
debated. He would have heard the answers to most of the questions
he raised in his little diatribe.
Mr. Abbott: He has never read his red book.
Mr. Morrison: He should have read the background material,
the fresh start booklet and the independent analysis stating that our
numbers work, that the cuts we have suggested can me made
without, as he says, tearing the heart out of our social programs.
Mr. Mitchell: I never said that.
Mr. Morrison: I am paraphrasing with a little hyperbole. Let us
take one specific example the Liberals love, the false accusation
that the Reform Party is out to destroy medicare.
Which government cut $6 billion out of the transfers to the
provinces in the last three and a half years?
An hon. member: That would not be the Liberals.
Mr. Morrison: I do not think it was Reform. We are not
government yet.
An hon. member: And never will be.
Mr. Morrison: It must have been these caring, sharing Liberals
who gutted medicare, hung the provinces out to dry, cut the total
federal contribution down to 23 per cent and in effect told the
provinces to go out and get it wherever they could find it because
they were through with meeting their obligations.
Would the hon. member comment on that and perhaps tell us
how they can at the same time be caring, sharing and gutting a
national program which incidentally started under a Liberal
government?
Mr. Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I particularly appreciate the last
comment from the member when he pointed out that public health
care was put in place by a Liberal government. He is darned right it
was put in place by a Liberal government and maintained by the
Liberal government all of these years because Canadians wanted it.
The member opposite pointed out something that is very
important, something Canadians understand and, most important,
something the Liberal government understands: that as a
government we have two responsibilities and not just the one of
fiscal responsibility the Reform talks about all the time.
Our record on the fiscal side has been one of achievement. The
deficit has been reduced. When the budgetary plan of the Minister
of Finance flows out it will have been reduced 80 per cent. We will
reach a point with the latest budget plan where we will no longer
need to borrow. It will be the first time in 30 years we have been
able to do that. There have been a 21 per cent reduction in
departmental spending and a 14 per cent reduction in program
spending.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I am sorry but
I would at least like to hear what the member is saying.
Mr. Morrison: But we don't.
Mr. Mitchell: Madam Speaker, the government has done a good
job on its fiscal responsibility. It has made the reductions that were
necessary. It has reduced the deficit without having to raise
personal income tax rates.
In stepping up to that fiscal responsibility, something the
government had not done for 10 years prior to this party coming to
power, we understood we had a social responsibility to Canadians,
a responsibility to make sure that when individuals go to hospital
they are not first asked how much money they have or, if we were
to follow the Reform plan, which insurance company they are
insured with. That is not what Canadians are asked when they go to
a hospital today. They are asked how sick they are and how they
can be helped.
(1710 )
That is the kind of nation we have been able to form because we
understand that government has a dual responsibility. We
understand the government has a fiscal responsibility to ensure that
each and every taxpayer's dollar is spent in the most efficient
manner. We have been doing that as a government. The results are
there for everybody to see. The 94 per cent of Canadians who do
not support the party opposite understand that. At the same time we
understand our social responsibility to individual Canadians and
the basic fabric of this nation that is Canada.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
wonder if the member could help us understand something. He is
very proud of the fact that the Liberal government set up medicare.
At that time the irrevocable promise never to be broken was that it
would always be funded on a 50:50 basis: 50 per cent by the federal
government and 50 per cent by the provincial governments.
Now he turns around and says: ``We are the protectors of
medicare''. They removed $6 billion or $7 billion over the last
couple of years and are down to 20 per cent of the funding, not 50
per cent. This is one of the best kept secrets in Canada. The
Liberals are getting away with it wholesale.
I know the member is a very honourable gentleman. He certainly
would want the Canadian people to know and to understand that it
was he and his colleagues who removed $7 billion from health
6582
care. Only 20 per cent of the funding for health care is covered by
the federal government. He knows that.
Would he be prepared to admit in the smallest way that maybe
some of the Liberal talk about being the protectors of health care is
perhaps a little thin? In actual fact it is the federal Liberal
government that is destroying health care funding, forcing
provincial governments to make very hard and very difficult
decisions, and letting provincial governments take the fall when it
is the Liberals who are short-changing them.
Mr. Mitchell: Madam Speaker, the Liberal government has and
will continue to ensure through the sound fiscal management we
have applied in the last three years that social programs will be
sustained for the future.
It is interesting to look at the questions framed on this issue. As I
said in my speech, where is the vision or where is the view? It is to
the past. It is back to the good old days, whenever those were. The
vision is backward. It is back there, and back there happens to be
right across the way.
They do not have a plan for today. They do not have the fiscal
management tools and plans we have put in place. Even worse,
they do not have a vision for the future because they do not
understand the fabric of Canadian society. They do not understand
that Canadians recognize they are more than individuals, that we
are a society of individuals, that we have a collective responsibility
to each other, and that it is through government we exercise that
collective responsibility, understanding both the need to be fiscally
prudent and the need to exercise social responsibility.
That is what Canada is all about. That is what Canadians are all
about. That is the type of government the Liberal government is
bringing to the country.
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, how does the member feel about
the fact that his party is building up a $10 billion surplus in
employment insurance funds at the cost of jobs to Canadians? His
party is not lowering what has now become a job tax. Does he
support his party's trying to lower the deficit of Canada on the
backs of companies and workers by enlarging the surplus to $10
billion?
Mr. Mitchell: Madam Speaker, yes, I am proud of the fact that
our government has cut the UI premiums three years in a row. They
have been cut three years in a row.
I was pleased to see that we put in place a program to help
companies and encourage them to hire employees. Most important,
I am absolutely glad that we understand as a government the
importance of having a UI surplus so that if the economy goes into
a recession, unlike last time when we had to raise premiums at
exactly the wrong time, we will have a surplus there so increases
will not be necessary and jobs will be protected.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put
forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of
supply.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The question
is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the
members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
(Division No. 172)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Hart
Hayes
Hoeppner
Johnston
Mayfield
McLaughlin
Meredith
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Stinson
Taylor
Williams-23
NAYS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Augustine
Baker
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bélisle
Bellemare
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Catterall
Cauchon
6583
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Dumas
Easter
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guimond
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Ménard
Mercier
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunez
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Peric
Peters
Pettigrew
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
St-Laurent
St. Denis
Torsney
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Whelan
Young
Zed-138
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Boudria
Caron
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Crête
Dubé
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gauthier
Guay
Hubbard
Iftody
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Minna
Murphy
Paré
Patry
Pomerleau
Regan
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Venne
(1740)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House would agree I propose
that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House with Liberal members voting nay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the
official opposition will be voting nay.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Madam Speaker, Reform members present will be
voting in favour of this motion with the exception of those who
wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Madam Speaker, New Democrats in the House
tonight are voting in favour of this motion.
Mr. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I vote with the government on
this matter.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 172.]
(1745)
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion lost.
(Motion negatived.)
* * *
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Vote 37a, in the amount of $19,600,000 under CANADIAN
HERITAGE-Canada Information Office, in the Supplementary Estimates (A) for
the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I think you will find there is
unanimous consent of the House to have members who voted on
the preceding motion recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members having voted in favour.
6584
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, members of the
official opposition will be voting nay.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Madam Speaker, Reform members present will
oppose this motion except for those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Madam Speaker, New Democrats in the House vote
nay to this motion.
Mr. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, do I understand this vote to be a
confidence vote? Then I will vote according to the government's
position.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 173)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Augustine
Baker
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Easter
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Peric
Peters
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
St. Denis
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Whelan
Young
Zed-111
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Bridgman
Canuel
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Frazer
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Hart
Hayes
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Mayfield
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
St-Laurent
Stinson
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Williams-50
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Boudria
Caron
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Crête
Dubé
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gauthier
Guay
Hubbard
Iftody
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Minna
Murphy
Paré
Patry
Pomerleau
Regan
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Venne
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, be
concurred in.
[
English]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House would agree I propose
that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the
6585
previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will be voting no.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Madam Speaker, Reform members present will
oppose this motion with the exception of those who wish to vote
otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Madam Speaker, New Democrats in the House
tonight will be voting no.
Mr. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, when I
voted against the budget in April that was interpreted by some as a
lack of confidence in the government-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Hon. member,
that is not a point of order. We would like to record your vote.
Mr. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I just want the record to show
very clearly that on this matter of confidence in the government I
am voting in favour of the government.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 173.]
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
(1750)
Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-68, an act for granting to Her
Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for
the financial year ending March 31, 1997, be now read for the first
time and printed.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time.)
Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-68, an act for granting to Her
Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for
the financial year ending March 31, 1997, be read the second time
and referred to committee of the whole.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, I believe that you will find
unanimous consent that the members who voted on the previous
motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the
House, with Liberal members voting yea.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, surprise, surprise, the
members of the official opposition will be voting nay.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Madam Speaker, Reform members present will be
voting no with the exception of those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Madam Speaker, New Democrats will also be
voting no on this motion.
Mr. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I vote yes on this matter.
[Editor's Note: See list under division No. 173.]
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion adopted on division. Accordingly, the bill stands referred
to committee of the whole.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went
into committee of the whole thereon, Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais in the
chair.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Order. House in committee
of the whole on Bill C-68.
On clause 2
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Madam
Chairman, I would like the President of the Treasury Board to tell
me if the presentation of this bill is exactly the same as in previous
years?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Madam
Chairman, the presentation of this bill is identical to those
approved in previous years.
(Clause 2 agreed to.)
(Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.)
[English]
Mr. Williams: Madam Chair, I wish you would take a little more
time to go through the clauses so you can record the comments by
the members rather than just rushing through and assuming that the
clauses carry. We have been saying it is on division and it should be
recorded as being on division.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Does the hon. member for St.
Albert have a question on clause 5?
Mr. Williams: On division, Madam Chair. The point I was
raising was not that I have debate on clause 5 but that the vote of
the House be recorded as being on division rather than rushing
through clause by clause without waiting for the response of the
House.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Agreed to on division.
(Clause 5 agreed to.)
(1755)
[Translation]
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
6586
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall schedule 1 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 1 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to.)
The Assistant Deputy Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported.)
Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-68 be concurred in.
[English]
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, if the House would agree, I
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted
on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion
now before the House, with Liberal members voting yes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: Madam Speaker, the members of the
official opposition will be voting nay.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Madam Speaker, I would like to advise you that the
member for Yorkton-Melville has entered the House and will be
voting on this bill. Reform members present will be opposing the
motion except for those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Madam Speaker, New Democrats in the House will
be voting no.
Mr. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes on this
matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: Madam Speaker, I was absent for the first six
votes and I wish to be recorded as having voted with my party. As I
am here for this one, I will vote with my party as well.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 174)
YEAS
Members
Alcock
Allmand
Arseneault
Augustine
Baker
Beaumier
Bélair
Bélanger
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bodnar
Bonin
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Byrne
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Cohen
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cullen
DeVillers
Dingwall
Dion
Discepola
Dromisky
Easter
English
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Graham
Gray (Windsor West/Ouest)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Irwin
Jackson
Keyes
Kilger (Stormont-Dundas)
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest/Nord-Ouest)
McTeague
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien (Labrador)
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Peric
Peters
Pettigrew
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Reed
Richardson
Rideout
Robichaud
Robillard
St. Denis
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Whelan
Young
Zed-111
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Bachand
Bélisle
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
6587
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Frazer
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Guimond
Harper (Calgary West/Ouest)
Hart
Hayes
Hoeppner
Jacob
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Loubier
Mayfield
McLaughlin
Ménard
Mercier
Meredith
Morrison
Nunez
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
St-Laurent
Stinson
Taylor
Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Williams-52
PAIRED MEMBERS
Anderson
Asselin
Bellehumeur
Boudria
Caron
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Crête
Dubé
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Gauthier
Guay
Hubbard
Iftody
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
MacDonald
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Minna
Murphy
Paré
Patry
Pomerleau
Regan
Rocheleau
Rock
Sauvageau
Speller
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Venne
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): When shall the
bill be read the third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Massé moved that Bill C-68 be read the third time and
passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Mr. Kilger: Madam Speaker, you will find that the House would
give its consent that members who voted on the previous motion be
recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with
Liberal members being recorded as voting yea.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: The members of the official opposition
will vote nay.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: Madam Speaker, Reform members present will be
voting no with the exception of those who wish to vote otherwise.
Mr. Taylor: Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote no.
Mr. Nunziata: Madam Speaker, I will be voting yes on this
matter.
[Editor's Note: See list under division No. 174.]
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being six
o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
6587
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-223, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (oath of
allegiance), be read the second time and referred to committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, Bill C-223 proposes to amend the
Citizenship Act and, in particular, to amend the oath of allegiance
which individuals must take when they become new citizens. For
the most part these are immigrants who have been resident in
Canada for at least three years and have met the requirements for
Canadian citizenship. In order to finally become a citizen they must
take the oath of allegiance.
At present the oath of allegiance reads:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I
will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
It is my experience that this oath comes as a surprise to many
new citizens. Many cannot understand why, if they are becoming
Canadian citizens, the principal thrust of this oath is to pledge
allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II who, in their opinion, is a citizen
of the United Kingdom and not truly representative of Canada.
The purpose of this oath and any oath of allegiance is to pledge
allegiance to assure loyalty and to assure good citizenship.
Consequently, one would expect that the principal thrust would be
allegiance to Canada, to assure loyalty to Canada and good
Canadian citizenship and not loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II.
6588
(1805 )
The present oath is ambiguous. It speaks of allegiance to Queen
Elizabeth II, and later asks persons ``to fulfil one's duties as a
Canadian citizen''. This is confusing and ambiguous. At a time
when national unity is under attack there should be no ambiguity
and no confusion with respect to our oath of allegiance. It should be
absolutely clear that our loyalty is to Canada and not,
unfortunately, to the tainted monarchy in the United Kingdom.
As a result my proposed oath, which is in the bill, would read:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Canada and the
Constitution of Canada, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and
fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
That oath is not ambiguous. There would be no confusion in the
minds of new citizens. In taking such an oath they would know that
they were making a serious commitment to Canada.
The present oath refers to Queen Elizabeth II as the Queen of
Canada. It is true that the present Citizenship Act and some other
laws use the expression ``the Queen of Canada'' but it is a legal
fiction. It is not a reality. Queen Elizabeth II is as English as you
can get. She is not a Canadian. She is not representative of Canada.
In recent history there have been several occasions when Canada
disagreed with the United Kingdom and voted against the United
Kingdom at the United Nations. The most flagrant case was in the
Suez crisis, when according to the legal fiction the Queen of
Canada voted against the Queen of England even though she is the
same person.
If we want citizens to be truly loyal to Canada should we use
such an absurd fiction? This proposal to change the oath of
allegiance is consistent with other steps which we in Canada have
taken since the end of the second world war to assert our national
identity and our maturity.
I have in mind first of all the Citizenship Act of 1947. Prior to
1947 we did not have a Citizenship Act. We were merely British
subjects. The first Canadian Governor General was appointed in
the late 1940s. Prior to that we had English Governors General.
Since that time all our Governors General have been Canadian.
In the late 1940s the Privy Council was abolished as the final
court of appeal for Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada was
established as our final court of appeal. In 1964 the present
Canadian flag was adopted as our unique and only Canadian flag.
In the 1980s O Canada was adopted as our national anthem and we
no longer have God Save the Queen as our anthem. Finally in 1981
the Constitution was repatriated to make our Constitution a fully
Canadian document.
Recent studies and polls have supported such a change. Last
summer consultants for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration held 12 sessions with Canadian citizens in various
cities of Canada: Vancouver, Lethbridge, Toronto, Montreal,
Trois-Rivières and Halifax. Strong opposition was voiced in these
sessions by citizens to swearing allegiance to the Queen. Most
preferred an oath which pledged loyalty to Canada.
A similar study was done when David Crombie was secretary of
state in a Conservative government in 1987, but unfortunately no
change was made at that time.
This is not a bill to abolish the monarchy. It is simply to change
the emphasis in our oath of allegiance. The abolition of the
monarchy would require a constitutional amendment and I am not
proposing a constitutional amendment. My proposal is to pledge
allegiance to the Constitution of Canada. It still includes the
monarchy so it is a question of emphasis.
(1810 )
This bill would not abolish the monarchy but is consistent with
other measures taken. It would downplay the role of the monarchy
in Canada as it was when we adopted O Canada as our national
anthem rather than God Save the Queen, when we adopted the
Canadian flag, the Canadian Governor General and so on. I am
proposing that we continue in the same tradition.
This change would not in any way change our role in the
Commonwealth. Several Commonwealth countries like India and
others are republics yet they still remain strong members of the
Commonwealth and accept the Queen as the head of the
Commonwealth, but that is a different matter.
I am proposing an oath which will emphasize Canada rather than
Queen Elizabeth II. I am not wed to the exact words of the new oath
in my bill. If someone in this House or elsewhere can come up with
better words or expressions that have the same goal, to place the
emphasis on Canada, then I would certainly be pleased to accept
such a change.
My goal in doing this is Canadian unity and loyalty to a united
Canada. The people of the United Kingdon are our friends and
allies but they are a separate, independent country and no longer
the masters of Canada. Let us have a made in Canada oath for
Canadians, for Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-223 on the oath of
allegiance, tabled on March 6 by the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.
The hon. member proposes to replace the present oath of
allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and
6589
successors, with an oath of allegiance to Canada and the
Constitution of Canada. The new text would read as follows:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Canada and
the Constitution of Canada, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and
fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
This is the fourth time the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has tabled this kind of bill. The other bills
were introduced in 1972, 1988, 1989 and 1991.
Some of the arguments made by the hon. member in support of
this bill are as follows: the Queen is the head of state of several
Commonwealth countries; it is hard to decide to whom our loyalty
should go, when Canada has a disagreement with other
Commonwealth countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia
or New Zealand.
We note that citizens of British origin, which include the hon.
member, represent only 23 per cent of the Canadian population.
The remaining percentage consists of francophones, native people
and people from many other countries.
As we know, all new citizens must swear allegiance to Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors. Immigrants
come from all over the globe: from China, India, Italy, Portugal,
Poland, Chile, El Salvador, Algeria, Morocco, and so forth. In fact,
more than one third of the Canadian population comes from
countries other than Great Britain or France.
Immigrants come here and after three years' residence, they can
apply for Canadian citizenship. Please note they did not apply for
British or any other citizenship. Some of them are confused and do
not understand to whom they are swearing allegiance. In fact,
according to the present wording of the oath, they swear allegiance
to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. To some people, swearing this
oath of allegiance does not mean much, while others do so
reluctantly. I myself swore allegiance to the Queen in 1978, when I
became a Canadian citizen, and in 1993 before taking up my duties
as a member of Parliament. I felt it was somewhat anachronistic to
have to swear allegiance to a foreign queen.
According to the hon. member, Bill C-223 is entirely in line with
the Canadianization of institutions, symbols and traditions that has
been going on since the end of the Second World War. It is
interesting to note that formerly, governors general were always
British subjects. The Privy Council in London was the court of last
resort. It has since been replaced by the Supreme Court of Canada.
(1815)
Canadian citizenship has been in existence only since 1940.
Before that time, Canadians were British subjects. The flag was
adopted in 1964, followed by a Canadian national anthem.
According to public opinion polls, a significant percentage of
Canadians believe it is time Canada broke its ties with the
monarchy. This percentage is even higher in Quebec.
In 1994, acting on a specific request from the ministers, the
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, of which I
am vice-chairman, started an analysis of the Citizenship Act, one
of the main points of which is the oath of allegiance.
A number of witnesses analyzed the role of the monarchy, since
the oath refers to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Some people
wanted the oath to remain as is, since it reflects the constitutional
nature of Canada, whose head of state is the Queen. Many
witnesses, however, came out in favour of eliminating all
references to the monarchy. They wanted the oath to give pride of
place to Canada as a country. This would better reflect the diversity
that is so typical of our society.
The committee decided to recommend a new version of the oath
which would continue to refer to the monarchy while adding
Canada. In a minority report, the Bloc Quebecois came out against
this version.
Although I agree with eliminating any references to the Queen
and to the monarchy in general, I cannot support the text proposed
by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. This version
favours swearing allegiance to the Constitution of Canada, which
Quebec never ratified. We should recall that Quebec had certain
demands and that despite its refusal to ratify the process, Canada
decided in 1981 to patriate the Constitution. The federal
government ignored the historic rights of the only French-speaking
society in Canada.
In 1994, Australia, another Commonwealth country, removed all
references to the queen in its oath of allegiance, which it calls
``Pledge of Commitment''.
The former Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had
promised to table in the fall of 1994 a bill to amend the Citizenship
Act, a promise the government has so far failed to keep. In 1995,
the Department of Immigration had a meeting in Vancouver with
ten authors and five public servants to revise and draft a new oath,
which reads as follows:
[English]
``I am a citizen of Canada and I make this commitment to uphold
all our laws and freedoms, to respect our people in their diversity,
to work for our common well-being and to safeguard and honour
this ancient northern land''.
[Translation]
The wording is not the inspiration of the century, despite the
$30,000 cost to taxpayers.
Shortly after her appointment in January, the new minister
declared that the country needed a new oath of allegiance.
6590
I have noted that the debate on the oath of citizenship and the
monarchy is often very heated in English Canada, while it is not
important in Quebec. This is another difference between Quebec
and Canada. The Quebec National Assembly has just passed a
motion calling essentially for the abolishment of the position of
lieutenant-governor, as it is primarily symbolic and a hold over
from a colonial past.
For these reasons and especially because Quebec was left out of
the Constitution, I must vote against Bill C-223.
[English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-223 proposed by the
hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. This bill aims to amend
the Citizenship Act with respect to the oath of allegiance.
Currently, new citizens of Canada are obliged to recite an oath
that is for all intents and purposes claimed by many to be lacking in
contemporary elements. They say that the current oath does not
truly represent present day views of the rights and responsibilities
of Canadian citizenship. As new eras come an go we can expect
that certain beliefs, behaviours and traditions will be changed in
some way. This is simply the nature of history as we know it.
(1820)
Before us today is an opportunity to make a change in the way in
which new citizens first experience our country. The new oath
would ask new citizens to pledge allegiance to Canada and the
Constitution of Canada, faithfully observe the laws of Canada and
fulfil their duties as Canadian citizens.
For those who choose to become Canadians, taking the oath
before a citizenship judge is the final step in becoming a Canadian
citizen. With citizenship comes numerous responsibilities for
helping to build a stronger, more vital Canada. These
responsibilities could be better highlighted by emphasizing a
pledge of allegiance specifically to Canada and the Canadian
Constitution and the laws of the land.
The time is right for such an amendment. Changing the oath to
make it more contemporary does not imply that other existing ties
and traditions as described in our Constitution would be
eliminated. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the
matter is that our Constitution explicitly outlines the nature of
Canada's relationship with certain symbols and traditions. These
symbols, traditions and institutions cannot in any way, shape or
form be altered through an amendment to the present oath of
citizenship.
It is much more important in these times of strained national
unity to promote Canada to our new citizens. What better
mechanism could we utilize than the citizenship ceremony and the
oath of citizenship?
We should really take this opportunity to let new Canadians
know that Canadians are not afraid to stand strong and proud for
their country. We should let them know that we are not afraid to
pledge allegiance directly to Canada.
Let us examine more carefully the significance of an oath of
allegiance to one's country. To first generation Canadians as well as
to families that have been here for many generations an oath may
be simply a verbal expression of one's love of one's country. Others
say it is simply a necessary condition of citizenship.
It is more than a verbal expression. I see it as a declaration of
faith, a declaration of trust in all that my country has done, all that
my country is doing and all that my country will do to improve and
enhance my life, the lives of my family members and the lives of
all Canadians.
To the new Canadian it is a declaration of acceptance, accepting
the laws, the rules and regulations of a highly organized and
developed society. It is a declaration of belief and trust in Canada's
people, its governments, its institutions, its laws and all that the
new Canadian perceives about Canada at that very special moment
when the oath of allegiance is stated.
This is done on a voluntary basis. Out of the dozens of choices
available, the new Canadian has chosen Canada. The new Canadian
has faith.
From a very personal viewpoint, as I declare my allegiance to
Canada and all that it represents, I feel that I am making a serious
obligation to commit myself to doing whatever I am capable of
doing to reciprocate for what my country has done for me directly
or indirectly. It is a personal relationship with my country, a sacred
relationship that stirs the emotions. I too have faith.
Speaking of emotions, the citizens of this country recently
experienced services of remembrance for all those who sacrificed
so much during times of international strife. We emotionally paid
special tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
(1825 )
Do we believe for a moment that Canadians who came from
Saskatchewan lost their lives only to protect the citizens of
Saskatchewan? Of course not. Do we believe that the Canadians
from Ontario lost their lives only in the defence of the freedoms the
citizens of Ontario enjoy? Of course not. Do we believe that the
young Canadians from Quebec died so that only future generations
in Quebec could enjoy the highest standard and quality of life in the
world? Certainly not.
6591
All those who served and paid the ultimate sacrifice did so with
one objective in mind: to defend and preserve the democratic way
of life in Canada. They too had faith. They had faith that future
generations would carry the torch of freedom for all Canadians and
this would be revealed through a declaration of allegiance to
Canada.
In my riding of Thunder Bay I receive on a daily basis all forms
of expressions of love for this great and wonderful country of ours.
Not only do the people express it, they also demonstrate it through
their behaviour and their relationships with each other.
My riding is composed of many ethnic communities and they
most vehemently support the Canadian way of life. They are more
than accommodating, more than tolerant of each other. They learn
from each other by sharing and demonstrating their cultural
differences. They certainly are dismayed by any anti-Canada act
performed by individuals, by special single issue groups and by
national or provincial political leaders with overinflated egos who
lust for power and control at the expense of all other Canadians.
Many of the citizens of Thunder Bay and Atikokan are first
generation Canadians who came to Canada because they, like the
rest of the world, saw Canada as a symbol of hope. Canada has
reached a stage in its evolution that no other country can match. It
is a sophisticated civilized society in which societal differences can
survive in harmony.
The path we follow as we attempt to further enhance our
Canadian way of life has many obstacles, but these can be
overcome in a civilized and rational manner. We must have a
beacon to guide us. I firmly believe, as do the vast majority of
Canadians, that the beacon is an oath of allegiance to Canada and
all that it implies.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-223 put
forward by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. His bill
calls for amending the oath of Canadian citizenship.
The current oath reads as follows: ``I swear that I will be faithful
and bear true allegiance to her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen
of Canada, her heirs and successors, and that I will faithfully
observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian
citizen''. Bill C-223 would replace that oath with the following: ``I
swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Canada and
the Constitution of Canada and that I will faithfully observe the
laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen''.
The bill replaces the oath of allegiance to the monarchy with an
oath of allegiance to Canada and the Canadian Constitution.
Although this bill only changes a handful of words, it is actually a
very significant change in the very essence of what it means to be a
Canadian.
I will review what it means to be a Canadian citizen. As every
Canadian schoolchild knows, Canada became a country on July 1,
1867. Many Canadians may be surprised to learn that while Canada
has existed for over 129 years, Canadians have existed for less than
50 years. That is right. There was no such thing in law as a
Canadian citizen until January 1, 1947. We were considered to be
British subjects residing in Canada. When travelling abroad we had
to use British passports. The first Canadian citizenship act did not
exist until 1946 when It was presented in the House. It received
royal assent in July 1946 and came into effect January 1, 1947.
Given this history it is not surprising that many Canadians are at a
loss to explain what it means to be a Canadian citizen.
(1830)
I recall speaking to an immigrant from Pakistan who was proud
to recently become a Canadian citizen. However, he commented
that when he took the oath of allegiance it was an oath very similar
to the one in the country he had left and had very little to do with
his commitment to his new country.
I believe that most Canadians would accept the idea of amending
the oath of Canadian citizenship to include an oath of allegiance to
Canada. The controversy is should that oath be allegiance to
Canada in addition to the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty or
should the oath of allegiance to Canada replace the oath of
allegiance to Her Majesty?
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has chosen the
second option. He has replaced reference to Her Majesty with an
oath of allegiance to Canada and the Canadian Constitution.
However, he does state that it is understood that Her Majesty is an
integral part of the Constitution of Canada. I wonder if most
Canadians would accept that. Do most Canadian accept that Her
Majesty is an integral part of the Constitution of Canada? I think
not.
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce was a member of the
House in the early 1980s when the repatriation of the Canadian
Constitution was drafted and as a member for Quebec is is
painfully aware that the Government of Quebec never consented to
the repatriation of the Constitution, as the members of the Bloc
Quebecois point out on a regular basis in the House.
Would an oath to the Constitution of Canada mean any more to
the average Canadian than the current oath to Her Majesty? After
all, there are 47 different constitutional acts and documents that
relate to Canada. Of these 47 acts and documents, 30 are mentioned
in the schedule of the Constitution Act, 1982. I doubt that very few
of us in the House know which 30 constitutional acts and docu-
6592
ments appear in the schedule of the Constitution, never mind the
average Canadian.
To the average Canadian the Constitution of Canada and the
subsequent Meech Lake accord of 1987 and the Charlottetown
accord of 1992 were all deals made by a few men in back rooms. As
the 1992 referendum on the Charlottetown accord demonstrated,
when the people have a say on constitutional change, it is not
necessarily the same one that the politicians have.
In my riding the vote against the Charlottetown accord was 71
per cent. That was not to say that people were happy with the
current Constitution, but rather that they were unhappy with the
entire process of constitutional amendments.
The Constitution of Canada does not belong only to members of
this Parliament and the provincial legislatures. It should belong to
all the people of Canada. If that were to happen, if we could
develop a Constitution adopted by the majority of Canadian
citizens, then the oath of Canadian citizenship as proposed by the
hon. member from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce would have true
meaning.
For us in the House to change the oath of Canadian citizenship
without consulting with Canadian citizens would be wrong. And I
do not just mean having a few hand picked advocacy groups
appearing before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and
Immigration. I mean letting all Canadians have a say. In true
Reform Party tradition I did that earlier this year.
In a householder survey that was sent out in May, I asked the
following two questions: (1) should the oath of Canadian
citizenship be amended to introduce an allegiance to Canada in
addition to allegiance to the Queen? or; (2) should the oath of
Canadian citizenship be amended to introduce an allegiance to
Canada replacing the allegiance to the Queen?
I asked my constituents that if they agreed that the oath of
Canadian citizenship should be amended, which one of these two
options would be preferable? Almost 95.5 per cent of the 3,209
constituents who responded to my survey said the oath should be
changed. Of that total, 40.6 per cent said there should be an
allegiance to Canada in addition to the allegiance to Her Majesty.
But 54.8 per cent of respondents agreed that an allegiance to
Canada should replace the allegiance to Her Majesty.
I do not know if the majority of my constituents would agree
with the wording of Bill C-223. However, it is clear that the
majority of my constituents agree with the sentiment of the bill.
(1835)
Canadians have a lot to be proud of about our country and our
past, but the fact that Canada existed as a country for almost 80
years before Canadians existed as a people is not something to be
proud of.
Canada has reached the stage of maturity as a nation that we
must now have a new oath of allegiance to our own country.
However, whatever that allegiance is, it should not be left only to
the 295 members of the House and those patronage appointees of
the other place to decide. We need to let all Canadians participate in
determining what Canadian citizenship really means. We have to
trust the common sense of the common people.
I congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce for
putting this important bill before us. It is a shame that it was not
made a votable item. It reflects poorly upon this House that it was
not. Sooner or later, and I hope it is sooner, there should be and will
be an oath of Canadian citizenship in which people actually pledge
their allegiance to this great country of ours.
Mr. Allmand: Madam Speaker, I understand that if there are no
other speakers, as mover of the motion I may close the debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Yes, you may
close the debate. The floor is yours.
Mr. Allmand: Madam Speaker, I simply want to respond to
some of the speeches that were made in the House. They were very
good speeches and very positive.
As I said in my opening remarks, I believe the oath must be
changed to put an emphasis on Canada. I want to assure my
colleagues from British Columbia and from Thunder Bay that I am
not wed to the exact formula that is in my bill.
Unfortunately this is not a votable bill, but I believe the debate
was important to give the minister, who is thinking about these
things, a chance to hear the views of the different parties.
It seems there is strong support for changing the oath to put an
emphasis on Canada. I have proposed that we pledge allegiance to
Canada and to the Constitution of Canada.
I realize that the Constitution of Canada is not always an easy
concept to grasp. In constitutional law we talk about the
Constitution of Canada as including all constitutional documents.
As my hon. friend from British Columbia pointed out, there are 30,
40 or 50 statutes which make up the Constitution, although the two
principal documents are the Constitution Act, 1867, formerly
known as the British North American Act of 1867, and the
Constitution Act, 1981, the act that repatriated the Constitution.
This is not a votable item. However, it appears that there is
consensus among the various parties of the House that a change is
needed. Even my friend from the Bloc Quebecois admits that. He
was on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
He reported to the House that in the hearings before that committee
there was a consensus for changing the oath, although he does not
like the present formulation. He and I have different views on this.
6593
He would not want to pledge allegiance to Canada as a member of
the Bloc Quebecois.
That is one of the reasons I am putting forward an oath of
allegiance. I do not want any ambiguity for our new citizens to be
in the oath. I do not want them to be unclear about what they are
doing. I want them to be absolutely clear on what they are doing. I
want people who come here and become citizens to know what they
are pledging allegiance to. I do not want them to think on the one
hand they are pledging allegiance to a Queen who is principally
British and represents the United Kingdom, although as I said there
is a legal fiction that she is the Queen of Canada, and then on the
other hand to be pledging allegiance to Canada.
(1840)
I think the time has come when we can clarify the oath, make it
absolutely clear that when you pledge allegiance to Canada as a
new citizen you are pledging allegiance to this country and to
nothing else.
I understand the views of the Bloc Quebecois members. They
have been elected to support a movement to separate Quebec from
Canada and to break up the country and they do not want to pledge
allegiance to Canada. As a matter of fact, when we sing ``O
Canada'' in the House once a week they are significantly absent
because they do not want to sing that anthem and they do not want
to give allegiance to our flag either.
It is for those very reasons that I want people to pledge
allegiance to Canada. I think our unity is under attack. Our unity is
being threatened. I want to make clear to new citizens that when
they come here and become citizens of Canada and pledge
allegiance I want that pledge to be meaningful. I want it to be
significant. I want to make sure that their loyalty is with Canada
and not with any other country, that their loyalty is to the traditions,
to the way of doing things in this country.
I thought the approach of the member for Thunder Bay was
emotional. Mine was rather legalistic I thought he made a very
good speech supporting the bill.
In closing the debate, I hope the minister and the government
take notice of this debate and bring in soon a government bill which
will give us a new oath of allegiance which will emphasize
allegiance and loyalty to Canada.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There being no
further members rising for debate and the motion not being
designated as a votable item, the time provided for consideration of
private members' business has now expired and the order is
dropped from the Order Paper.
Do we have unanimous consent to proceed with deliberation on
the motion to adjourn?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
6593
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie, NDP): Madam Speaker, two
days ago I rose to ask some questions about the Canadian Airlines
International situation and asked if the federal government had
done any substantial analysis of that situation and what changes,
regulatory or financial, the government was prepared to make in
face of the potential losses that were described by some analysts on
the west coast.
They had looked at the situation and had shown that if there are
16,400 jobs lost, which is the employment at Canadian Airlines,
another 54,000 indirect jobs would be lost at airports, ticket outlets,
agencies, fuel suppliers, caterers and so on. The total loss in
contributions to unemployment and pension funds would be $314
million.
The total loss to the federal government in income taxes would
be an additional $1 billion. The loss in GST rebates would be $21
million. The loss in fuel, airport taxes and other minor taxes would
be an additional $225 million. The taxes lost to declining disposal
income would be an additional $168 million. For those who are
able to get jobs their income would decline. Unemployment
insurance costs for all workers for one year would be $1.5 billion,
making a total of $2.9 billion in losses to the federal treasury.
If 30 per cent of the employees find work immediately within a
year, that loss is reduced to $2.5 billion. If two-thirds of them find
employment, the loss goes down to about $2 billion, but there is
still a new loss to the treasury for the first year after Canadian
Airlines hits the wall, which is now expected to be the case about
November 30 if nothing else changes.
The federal government will lose between $2 billion and $3
billion. I would have thought the government would have had a
contingency plan available. According to the response I got that did
not seem to be the case. That was strange because in June 1993, just
prior to the last election, the Liberal leader of the day who is now
Prime Minister said that the key features of his airline policy would
be safety, competition and Canadian control. He went on to
promise that he would do something to make the industry more
stable.
This you will remember, Madam Speaker, was about a year after
a previous restructuring of Canadian Airlines International and at
which point the company successfully urged some of the
employees to buy stock in the airline at $16 a share. Those shares
are now worth about $1.80. We do not hear them offering shares
any
6594
more to employees, they are simply offering wage cuts of 10 per
cent. Yet even the Prime Minister has said a loan would not make
this company any more profitable, it just extends the problem a few
more months or years. A 10 per cent cut in wages is equivalent to a
loan.
I think the government, given that it has more than $2 billion at
stake, should do a better job of handling this situation.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is with some regret that I hear
the information given by the member because he takes a position
that is negative from the very beginning and continues that way. I
am sorry because the member opposite is showing a lack of
confidence in the ability of Canadian Airlines to carry out a
successful operational reorganization.
The company has already identified the ingredients it needs to go
forward successfully. The company plan does not include any
government assistance. It also does not include any request for
changes in the regulations. This company wants to make it on its
own.
Those, like the member, who are calling for re-regulation of the
air services sector fail to see how counterproductive such action
would be. Turning back the clock would not be in the interests of
the travelling public. Outlawing seat sales and shutting down
discount carriers will not ultimately save a single job at Canadian
Airlines.
Government policy is serving the interests of the travelling
public. Look at what it has already accomplished. First, an increase
in new routes and services into about 100 transborder markets,
making air travel more accessible for more Canadians. Second, low
discount fares, thanks to the arrival of new air carriers and
increased competition. Third, Canadians are travelling in
increasing number. Domestic travel this year will be up some 10
per cent.
The government continues to follow the situation closely and we
have all the confidence that the management, the employees and
the shareholders will take the action necessary and required for this
company to turn in the right direction.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): 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 6.48 p.m.)