John Maloney

[Petitions, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition to present from constituents in Erie riding. It reads in part:

Whereas a majority of Canadians believe that the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same sex relationships;

And whereas societal approval, including the extension of societal privileges, would be given to same sex relationships if any amendment to the Canadian

Human Rights Act were to include the undefined phrase "sexual orientation" as a grounds of discrimination;

Therefore your petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships-

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 8th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on Bill C-33, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act which will prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The proposals have generated deep, passionate and powerful discussion on both sides of the issue, and a maelstrom of notions of family, religion and entitlement to benefits. There are strongly held views among my colleagues in the House, among my constituents of Erie, among the citizens of this country.

I respect and have considered the views of all who have written letters, placed phone calls to my office and made personal presentations. I am most appreciative of their time, their concerns and their prayers. I listened intently to the differing opinions and approaches of each individual and organization that made presentations to the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. I have thought long and hard on this issue, at times with confusion, at times with anxiety, at times with anguish and finally with resolve.

Now the time has come to take a stand, to cast a vote. In full knowledge of the free vote status of this decision, I have concluded that I will support Bill C-33 for a very good reason: It is simply the right thing to do. Let me explain.

This issue is one of human rights, of dignity, of equality, of the universal principle that no individual should be discriminated against because of who or what they are.

The federal government as well as every province and territory in Canada has human rights legislation. The current Canadian Human Rights Act contains a list of prohibited grounds of discrimination which includes race, colour, religion, age, sex, marital or family status and disability. Canadians are protected whether they are of Italian, Sri Lankan or English stock, black, yellow, brown or white, Jewish, Christian or Muslim, young or old, man or woman, married or single, parent or childless. The act does not create any special group or any special rights. This bill would add the term sexual orientation to that list, no special group, no special rights.

The application of the Canadian Human Rights Act is restricted to employment in and the provision of goods and services by the federal government and federally regulated businesses such as banks, airlines and telecommunications companies. These organizations employ about 10 per cent of the workforce which makes for a very limited application. Most employers such as schools, small businesses and religious and cultural organizations are regulated provincially and would not be affected by the proposed legislation.

There are four basic reasons why sexual orientation should be included in the Canadian Human Rights Act. First, as a matter of fundamental fairness, the amendment will ensure that Canadians cannot be discriminated against in the areas of federal employment, accommodation and access to goods and services solely because of their sexual orientation. This means, for example, Canadians cannot be fired for being homosexual or indeed heterosexual.

Some may say it is not necessary in this day and age. Let me remind the House of the recent intemperate, base and discriminating remarks made against blacks and homosexuals by two Reform members of the House, the highest court in the land. These inexcusable comments sickened me and Canadians everywhere. Some may say it is necessary, very much so.

Second, it is necessary to bring the text of the Canadian Human Rights Act into conformity with the charter. The Ontario Court of Appeal in Haig v. Canada held that the Canadian Human Rights Act would in future be read as though sexual orientation were already a prohibited ground of discrimination. It is already with us. The courts are already setting policy which should be a prerogative of Parliament. It is our responsibility, indeed our obligation, to codify this fundamental right and principle of equality. The courts are telling parliamentarians to do our jobs or they will do it for us.

Third, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously held in Egan and Nesbitt v. Canada that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the equality provisions of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The problem is the charter does not apply to private companies and federally regulated industries. The Canadian Human Rights Act does. Accordingly the Canadian Human Rights Act is being amended to give protection on the basis of sexual orientation to gays and lesbians in the private sector workplace.

Fourth, the proposed amendment will bring the federal act into conformity with eight provinces and territories which have already amended their human rights legislation to include sexual orientation: Quebec in 1977, Ontario in 1986, Yukon in 1987, Nova Scotia in 1991, New Brunswick in 1992, British Columbia in 1992, and Saskatchewan in 1993. The nature of this legislation is not new or revolutionary. We are simply catching up to the provinces.

My constituents are surprised on being reminded that in 1986 the province of Ontario added sexual orientation as a prohibited ground in its human rights legislation. Did this open the floodgates? Not as a matter of course, not automatically. Indeed eight long years later the Ontario government introduced specific legislation, Bill 167, directed at enlarging the definition of spousal

relationships in Ontario, that same sex couples were entitled to the same rights as applied to common law heterosexual couples.

It is interesting to note that the bill was defeated. Let us not lose the logic of this event. Issues such as adoption by homosexuals were separate and distinct and did not automatically follow the adding of sexual orientation to the Ontario human rights legislation. No, we were not consumed by the flood waters.

Let me continue with a brief but most important consideration of what the Canadian Human Rights Act does not do. It does not negatively impact on the traditional family nor change the definition of marriage, family or spouse. This is explicitly reinforced in the preamble where it is stated "-the government recognizes and affirms the importance of family as the foundation of Canadian society and that nothing in this act alters its fundamental role in society".

In fact the Supreme Court of Canada in the Mossop case rejected claims that the term "family status" in the Canadian Human Rights Act includes couples of the same sex. This was the decision of the court then and remains the law now. It is good law that I agree with.

It does not condone nor condemn sexual orientation, neither homosexuality nor heterosexuality. It does not extend same sex benefits to partners of gays and lesbians. Again the Supreme Court of Canada in the Egan case refused to support the extension of pension benefits to same sex partners in its decision that the Old Age Security Act does not violate the charter by defining spouse to apply only to couples of the opposite sex.

It does not legitimize nor legalize pedophilia, which is a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada, whether the perpetrator is heterosexual or homosexual and is not a matter of sexual orientation.

As mentioned, I also took note of submissions by the witnesses before the human rights committee which coloured an overriding element of this debate, the human element. I listened to the opinions of psychiatrists who confirmed that a homosexual orientation was not learned or influenced behaviour but set in the womb by the mysteries of conception and fetal development. I listened to a young female who stood in the top five percentile of the officer rank only to be honourably discharged from the Canadian Armed Forces solely because she was a lesbian.

There was the love of mothers of gay and lesbian children all of whom struggled with their child's sexual orientation, fear, societal rejection and persecution and ultimately acceptance and peace, as well as the wasteful suicides of the many who did not. There were comments and support by the Ottawa-Carleton regional police chief and two officers from the bias crime units who denounced discrimination, intolerance and hate. There were the representations of various religious groups who came down forcefully and convincingly on both sides of the argument.

It is interesting that those who opposed the legislation for religious reasons adamantly affirmed their abhorrence for discrimination but feared the slippery slope which they felt the legislation could lead to. Am I to vote against the basic fundamental human right on fears that it may lead to something else? Is this correct, is this right, especially when one notes the familial interpretation of our courts to date?

I also wish to send a message to members of the homosexual community cautioning them not to chortle with glee on the passage of this legislation. I strongly support the traditional family and heterosexual spouses. I strongly oppose same sex marriages, adoption or measures that advocate a homosexual lifestyle and would vote against legislative initiatives in this regard. Bill C-33 does not fall in this category.

Bill C-33 is not a gay rights bill as its opponents and the media delight in its reference. It is a human rights bill, pure and simple.

Bill C-33 is not about special rights for anyone. It is about equal rights for everyone. All Canadians have a fundamental right to be free from discrimination. It is not enough to be against discrimination. We must act to prevent discrimination.

Let me bring this discussion to a personal level. What parent could argue that a son or daughter who is gay or lesbian should have less protection from workplace discrimination or less access to services than anyone else? Not this parent of five children.

It is often said that a society is judged by how the majority treats its minorities. Canada's world renowned and admirable human rights record speaks volumes of who we are as a people. Bigotry cannot be changed overnight. We must educate, we must learn. The objective of this legislation is to end discrimination, nothing more and nothing less. In all good conscience, who could not support this objective?

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. We have already commenced some of these initiatives. Perhaps I can refer to a few of them. Bill C-37 acknowledged victims' declarations; Bill C-41 amended section 745 to ensure that the victim could take part in deliberations; the Criminal Code which allows for the victim's role in the entire process, victim's statements and so on. There is a whole list of initiatives here which certainly satisfy the suggestions my friend has made. Yes, I agree with him, and yes, we are doing something about that.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, at the outset I wish to advise that I will support this initiative by my Reform colleagues and will vote in favour of it.

I will endeavour to take a different approach in my remarks in support of this position. I am pleased to address the House on this motion for a bill of rights for victims because it is crime that creates victims. I take this opportunity to look at the collective measures all sections of society can take to give further importance to the prevention of crime and victimization.

Crime prevention, particularly through social development and multi-disciplinary approaches, addresses the underlying causes of criminality and victimization and can provide long term safety and security.

In Canada the need to prevent crime meaningfully is mobilizing every sector of society, starting with citizens and the grassroot organizations, service providers, the private sector and all levels of government.

No country or community is immune from crime and its devastating effects. However, a growing body of knowledge is emerging with respect to comprehensive strategies, and this information can assist communities that want to take action. There is knowledge on how to mobilize our institutions and our citizens and develop a partnership effort on assessing social, situational and other factors associated with crime, planning and co-ordinating a multi-disciplinary approach.

For a crime prevention plan to be truly representative and responsive to local crime problems, the community should be involved at all stages and in all aspects. It has been established that the greater the degree of community participation and solidarity in addressing social and crime related problems, the higher the level of urban security.

The need for close co-operation between governments and communities and for the establishment of broad coalitions of all those concerned with crime problems cannot be stressed strongly enough.

A meaningful strategy for the prevention of crime and victimization encompasses four key elements. First, crime prevention through social development consists of a comprehensive approach to systemic crime prevention through social development which targets the combination of social, personal, educational and economical factors which place individuals at risk and contribute to crime.

Our research suggests the various aspects and causes of criminal behaviour share common characteristics such as personal, familial and social breakdown. A social intervention approach, which seeks actions through policies, programs and services already present in the social development field such as social housing, health, education, income security and social services, may lessen the factors which may lead a person to crime.

The second is crime prevention through community mobilization. The involvement of all sectors of the community in the

planning and implementation process of crime prevention strategies must be an integral part of crime prevent. Community safety and crime prevention strategies should address factors associated with the prevention of crime and the needs and priorities identified by their communities.

Third, situational crime prevention strategies or opportunity reduction approaches such as neighbourhood watch, block parents and crime prevention through environmental design have considerable potential for reducing crime in Canada. Most police agencies have established crime prevention units which promote various community based programs aimed at reducing opportunities for a specific crime such as vandalism, theft and break and enter. However, such programs have limits, especially over the long term, as offenders become displaced to other areas or choose to commit other types of crime.

The fourth is effective justice approaches. The maintenance and improvement of a fair and equitable criminal justice system is the foundation to effective crime prevention. Actions such as the control of firearms, the recognition that spousal abuse and child abuse are crimes and that timely responses to young offenders through appropriate and effective legislation and enforcement will help to ensure that crime prevention is a reality.

Crime prevention targeted to the social causes of crime requires a longer term and less visible effort than does catching perpetrators or installing mechanical devices. Their concept requires a new approach, where the belief that it can be done accompanies the commitment to make it happen. More can be done to prevent crime by interceding in practical ways and through social development situations.

Key research on the benefits of crime prevention through social development must be brought to the attention of all concerned citizens, communities and the media. Canada has taken an important step in putting greater emphasis on crime prevention by developing a national strategy on community safety and crime prevention. This took place following a major consultation with stakeholder groups, through an in depth examination by a parliamentary standing committee and through a national symposium.

The national strategy is a broad framework of action which brings together a number of partners and a special focus on the development of information and tools to help communities develop and implement specific measures to meet its needs.

The strategy was developed in close co-operation with stakeholders, including provinces and territories, which are primarily responsible for many aspects of crime prevention and which contribute to individual and community safety, such as education, health, social services and the administration of justice.

Measures implemented on the national strategy by governments and by non-governmental organizations include greater co-ordination and communications, public education and awareness, enhancing knowledge, support to communities, incorporating crime prevention legislation and official mandates and developing innovative funding strategies.

The establishment of a National Crime Prevention Council in July 1994 was a key element of the national strategy. This body is made up of 25 members from a variety of disciplines, including education, social work, police, victims, private sector, criminologists, public health, and so on. It serves as an adviser to governments and a central co-ordination and information sharing structure to unify crime prevention efforts and develop practical solutions for communities.

The mandate of the council is very broad and reflects the fact that Canada is only beginning to understand what can be done to define the prevention of crime and victimization and help communities become safer places.

The National Crime Prevention Council has adopted social development as the most effective approach to crime prevention. Children and youth are their key priorities, as a focus on early prevention is the means to prevent victimization and criminal behaviour later on.

It is developing prevention strategies that address the underlying factors associated with crime, such as poverty, unemployment, inadequate parenting, family violence, lack of opportunities, systemic discrimination. Its members believe that the long term solution lies in targeting services and resources that diminish the effects of hardship and disadvantage and that provide children with the best possible opportunity to fulfil their potential. The positive results from these actions will benefit society in many ways and will assist in reducing the rates of crime and victimization.

The council's work also includes looking at measures aimed at strengthening families to safeguard children at risk. Earlier work has pointed to the need for such measures to be comprehensive and implemented at the national and international levels.

These measures should focus on mitigating the situation of dysfunctional families or families characterized by erratic, absent or excessive discipline, a high probability of mistreatment and a lack of positive role models. Early intervention can help put an end to the cycle whereby child abuse and the delinquency associated with such abuse is passed on from generation to generation.

While the national strategy for community safety and crime prevention and the national council are at early stages, I believe that this work is very promising and that we have taken a decisive

step toward safer communities. This is the type of work that in the long term will prevent victimization.

As I indicated to our Reform colleagues, a positive and constructive initiative such as this can and will be supported by this member and can and will be supported by this Liberal government.

[Energy Price Commission Act, April 29th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address the House on private member's Bill C-220, an act respecting the energy price commission, which was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden. I would like to thank my colleague for the research and effort that was put into Bill C-220, leading to its introduction on March 4 of this year. He is a sincere, hard-working member.

The bill, as drafted, would establish an energy price commission which would confer on the Government of Canada the right and mandate to regulate the price of gasoline throughout the country. As I understand it, the commission would approve wholesale and retail gasoline prices across the country. Indeed, no person could offer gasoline for sale at a price not approved by the commission.

At the outset, I would like to explain that competition in an unfettered market rather than regulation leads to the lowest possible prices, both for the consumers and industrial purchasers of gasoline. Competition is seen as a means rather than an end unto itself. It is only through the process of competition that resources are allocated impartially, with the consequence that the efficiencies derived therefrom lead to lower prices.

This is the current view of the government and the majority of our trading partners. At a time when Canadians are attempting to

improve their competitive position in international markets we must steer away from regulations which, by their very nature, lead to the kind of production and distribution inefficiencies that eventually cause an increase in the price of inputs and in distribution costs.

On the issue of regulation, it is worth noting that at the Toronto economic summit in June of 1988 the G-7 countries first explicitly enunciated the goal of intensifying both individual and collective efforts to remove unnecessary controls and barriers to the operation of competitive market forces and to rely on increased competition to achieve economic efficiency and adaptability.

Reform of the regulated sectors of our respective economies has been in the forefront of economic agendas over the past 10 years. It is widely understood that less rather than more regulation is desirable. Barriers are descending within industries, between markets and across national borders. Trade, directed both north and south and east and west, has thus been encouraged. The potential for increased wealth for Canadians has been augmented.

The purpose of Bill C-220 and the commission is said to avoid unreasonable gasoline price increases. In addition, it proposes to maintain consistent prices for gasoline from province to province, all the while allowing for production and distribution costs. My colleague in his bill would exempt purchasers who enter into supply contracts for the supply of gasoline to their vehicles or to a storage facility owned by these purchasers from the authority of the commission.

From my reading of the bill, the underlying suggestion is that we need to regulate the price of gasoline in Canada. There has been a great deal of attention in this House and in the media about the price of gas in some specific local markets in parts of Canada. Before we decide that federal regulation is the answer to these localized problems, should we not ask if the price of gas has risen significantly and whether or not increasing the regulatory burden on this industry would actually improve the current situation?

In fact, the price of gasoline, in real terms, excluding all taxes, has been on a downward trend since 1990. In addition, there exists no significant differences in the base price of gas, excluding taxes and exchange rates, between the United States and Canada. Given this situation, should we as legislators impose a structure on the industry which would deny to consumers and businesses alike the benefits derived from real competition and retail gasoline markets?

In addition, the introduction of such a bill appears somewhat premature. I am informed by officials of Industry Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute that they are nearing completion of a regional competitive analysis of petroleum products. This report will examine pricing issuesin various urban and regional markets in the context ofdetermining the key factors which derive competitiveness in specific Canadian markets.

I would now like to provide my colleagues with a number of examples of the benefits of competition. Consumers could no longer benefit from the price wars that presently occur in retail gasoline markets, nor could they enjoy the benefits of the entry of a new competitor who would lower their prices to gain a market share.

Prices set by markets rather than governments tend to be lower to the consumer. The decision in July of 1991 by the province of Nova Scotia to discontinue its gasoline pricing regime reflected in part a recognition that such decisions should be left to competitive market forces. When prices were no longer regulated and a new independent entered the market, gas prices fell in Nova Scotia from 58.9 cents to 52.9 cents a litre, a very significant decline.

As is well known, gasoline stations communicate what they charge by posting large signs on their properties. This informs motorists and competing gas stations. Because gasoline is essentially a homogeneous product, motorists see one brand as being more or less identical to another. Gas station operators fear that if they charge a higher price than a competing station they will lose business. For similar reasons, if they charge a lower price they know it will be matched. In the end they make less money selling the same volume of product.

Retailers that monitor their competitors and independently take action that best serves their interests are simply following rational economic logic.

On the larger stage, such a commission would remove the incentive for petroleum producers to be more efficient. Price controls weaken the stimulus for firms to either swiftly adapt themselves to changes in demand or to developing more efficient methods of distribution. It is easier for the firms that have experienced cost increases to ask the regulatory body to increase the controlled price than to attempt to lessen their operating costs.

When prices are controlled at the retail level, retailers in turn may avoid passing on any discounts that they have been successful in exacting from manufacturers to the ultimate consumers for fear of breaking the law. In this manner retailers are constrained in their attempt to aggressively compete.

Competitive markets incur no cost of administration to governments, nor do they impose on the firms involved the cost of compliance with more laws, both of which would be borne by consumers over time.

Turning now to another subject in relation to this bill, I have further concerns with respect to the wisdom of raising yet another issue which impacts on the Canadian Constitution at this stage in our country's history. The regulation of petroleum products falls within the jurisdiction of the provinces. The federal government

does not currently intervene on these matters. This could very well be a fatal flaw in this initiative of my colleague.

I would now like to discuss the Competition Act which is Canada's legislation governing trade and commerce affecting competition. The act is a framework law of general application. It applies, with some exceptions, to all sectors of the Canadian economy, namely manufacturing, resources and services. The law touches on the every day life of all Canadians by maintaining and encouraging competition in the marketplace with the objective of providing consumers with competitive prices and a variety of choices in the goods and services which they purchase.

As the hon. member is aware, in 1994 the Minister of Industry, in response to concerns raised about gasoline pricing, asked the director of investigation and research who heads the Competition Bureau to review the provisions of the Competition Act to determine their adequacy in dealing with anti-competitive behaviour in the petroleum industry.

In response, the director reported that he actively enforces the Competition Act by monitoring developments in the marketplace and reviewing complaints from consumers and those in the petroleum industry to determine whether there is evidence of anti-competitive activity.

While there will always be fluctuations in markets owing to competition and other factors, the director's view is that the provisions of the legislation are adequate to deal with anti-competitive behaviour in relation to gasoline prices.

The director regularly reviews the act and the minister will propose amendments whenever he deems it appropriate. The above mentioned report is public and I encourage concerned members to read it. I also encourage anyone who has information that anti-competitive activity is ongoing to bring it to the attention of the director.

The act is available to deal with any competition problems that develop in petroleum product markets. As a matter of fact, on January 26, Mr. Justice David Dempsey imposed a find of $50,000 against Mr. Gas Limited which was found guilty of having influenced upward, by threat, the prices charged by one of its competitors, Caltex Petroleum Incorporated in September 1992 in the Ottawa area.

It should be noted that contrary to the context suggested in Bill C-220, matters involving anti-competitive pricing are most often treated as criminal offences under the Competition Act and as such proceed through the criminal courts under the auspices of the Attorney General of Canada.

The competition tribunal has to date only adjudicated on matters of a civil nature. A select set of pricing matters which may be brought before the tribunal are usually the result of disciplinary or

punitive action taken by dominant firms in a market rather than those arising from a criminal agreement among competitors.

In conclusion, it remains my view that gasoline prices should be set in the competitive marketplace. Anti-competitive behaviour will be appropriately addressed under the Competition Act.

[Earth Day, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today Canadians celebrate Earth Day with tree plantings and environmental events across our vast country. More than ever before we must as individuals and as a country take responsibility to preserve our planet for future generations.

Allow me to present Erie riding's must list. We must work together to prevent toxic chemicals from entering our air, soil and water resources and to eliminate pollution of every nature everywhere. We must protect our ocean habitats and fish stocks. We must harvest our forests prudently taking care to preserve old growth areas. We must undertake extraction of our mining resources with minimal effect on our fragile ecosystem. We must take all measures necessary to protect our endangered plants and animals. We must use our energy sources wisely and efficiently. Finally, we must contribute to an international plan to reduce global warming.

We have so much to do and so little time. I urge all Canadians to make every day Earth Day.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that my friend makes some startling revelations with those figures. I would be interested to know what those amounts were used for, and whether in fact they were subsidies. If they were, I would agree with him that unless expenditures of that nature can be justified, they should be cut out.

There is no question that there are certain priorities in our spending situations that we have to look at very carefully and address. We have to set our priorities straight and follow them. Certainly seniors are a priority for this government and for this member.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, there is an old adage that it takes a thief to catch a thief. Certainly the accountants have a job to do. They are familiar with the tax system. It is their right and obligation on behalf of their clients to see where a creative approach to the tax laws can provide a benefit to their clients.

Consequently, the same accountants can know where these loopholes are and can plug them. It is a good step to use them. I would agree with my friend that having members of Parliament also on the review is certainly an issue that should be addressed and would be beneficial.

[The Budget, April 16th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured today to have the opportunity to address the government's 1996 federal budget which when combined with the initiatives of our previous budgets continues to move this country forward.

There are many wonderful, well considered and effective features of this legislation. Unfortunately time does not permit me to comment on them all. I would however like to comment in a little more detail on several points which are of significant importance to my constituents in Erie riding.

The seniors benefit is one of these. One legislative foundation of the Liberal government in Canada was the introduction of a national program of retirement support for seniors. With this budget our government is adding a vital new page to that history. We are taking the action necessary to safeguard the public pension system for all Canadians, in particular the young.

This is an issue that has concerned my Erie riding constituents for some time. The system faces a real challenge from the aging of our population. Canadians are living longer, healthier lives and as a result pension benefits are now paid out over a much longer time.

The post-war baby boom is having an even bigger impact. This generation will start to retire in large numbers around 2011. Over the next 30 years the number of seniors will more than double. The difficulty is that there will be fewer working Canadians to support the escalating pension bill. Over the next decade we will see a ratio of about five working age Canadians to help support each person over 65, but by 2030 there will only be three working Canadians for every Canadian of retirement age.

Finally we must take into account that growth in wage and productivity levels has been lower than anticipated when the foundations of the public pension were put in place in the 1960s. This pressure will force the capacity of working age Canadians to finance growing public pension costs. Taken together, these factors will increase the cost of our public pension programs faster than our capacity to pay for them unless we act.

This government is acting. Our government in partnership with the provinces and territories has already launched a major public consultation program on changes needed to the Canada pension plan. With this budget we are taking action on the second pillar of the retirement income system, the old age security and guaranteed income supplement.

It is startling when we consider that these programs by themselves account for one-fifth of federal program spending. This share is projected to grow rapidly over the next 35 years putting further strain on the system itself. It is time we put public concerns about the future of OAS and GIS to rest.

The new seniors benefit to take effect in 2001 helps fulfil our commitment to Canadians to ensure that they have a secure and sustainable pension system into the future. The Prime Minister and this government made a commitment that the OAS and GIS payments for today's seniors will be fully protected and this promise has been kept.

The pension of every Canadian who is 60 and over as of December 31, 1995 and their spouses regardless of age will be fully protected. When the new benefit is implemented in the year 2001, these seniors may choose whichever system is most advantageous to them, either moving to the new seniors benefit or maintaining the OAS-GIS payments.

I would like to review the seniors benefit in a little more detail. As I indicated it will replace the old age security and guaranteed income supplement. The new benefits will be completely tax free and will incorporate the existing age and pension income tax credits. Under the new approach, benefits will be delivered in a single monthly payment.

The seniors benefit will treat couples equally. Payments to couples will be made in separate and equal cheques to each spouse. For couples the amount of the payment will be determined on the basis of the combined income of the spouses as it is now and always has been in the case of GIS. We feel that since the income of low income couples are currently combined to calculate eligibility for additional help, it is appropriate to combine the incomes of wealthier couples to determine their level of government assistance.

The seniors benefit will be fully indexed to inflation. That includes both the benefit levels and the threshold at which benefits begin to be reduced. Seniors will only have to apply for the benefit once, when they turn 65. The level of benefits will be automatically recalculated each year based on the previous year's return.

Because the seniors benefit will begin in the year 2001, everyone under the age of 60 today will have at least five years to prepare. The new seniors benefit will help those who need it most. Recipients of GIS will get $120 more per year. The majority of seniors will be better off. Fully 75 per cent of single seniors and couples will receive the same or higher benefits and 9 out of 10 single senior women will be better off.

The very highest income seniors who already have secure pensions and other incomes will receive no government assistance. For single seniors with incomes over $52,000 and couples with incomes above $78,000 benefits will be eliminated.

It should be emphasized that the savings will come from slowing the rate of growth in program costs, not at the expense of those in need. While the savings at first will be small, they will build year by year to about 11 per cent of the program by 2030.

The seniors benefit is a positive initiative which meets key public goals. That is reducing the long term cost. It will make the public pension system more sustainable. Targeting help to those who need it most is the fairest way to reduce costs. More important, with the new seniors benefit all Canadians, particularly the young,

can be assured that the public pension system will be there for them now and in the future.

I now wish to address the child support reforms of this legislation. The 1996 budget is about the future, about securing a prosperous future for all Canadians. If any group represents the future it is our young people. That is why the government's commitment to fair, sustainable and secure social programs would be incomplete if it did not include action to assist children. That is why a new strategy has been introduced to strengthen protection for children buffeted by separation or divorce and who are often the most vulnerable and in the greatest need.

As the Minister of Finance told Parliament: "The current child support system has added to the uncertainty and anxiety many Canadians feel. Our view is that children should be first in line. Child support is the first obligation of parents. It is not discretionary".

The budget acted on this principle. It announced a child support reform which takes wide ranging action to ensure that the system is based on what is best for children. To start, the government is changing the way child support payments are taxed. Until now these payments have been tax deductible for the paying parent and taxable income for the parent receiving the payments.

The budget proposes moving to a system known as a no deduction, no inclusion. That means custodial parents would not be required to include child support payments in their taxable income and support paying parents would not deduct these payments from their taxable income.

These new tax rules will apply to court orders or agreements made on or after May 1, 1997. Child support paid under a court order made before May 1, 1997 will continue to be deductible by the payer and included as taxable income by the recipient until one of these eventualities happen. This could happen if a support payment is changed by a court ruling or the parties add a clause to their agreement providing that the new tax system will apply, or the payer and recipient will file a joint election with Revenue Canada.

As a second major child support reform, the government is introducing child support guidelines to make support awards fairer and more consistent and to reduce the degree of conflict between separating parents. These guidelines will be used across Canada by the courts, lawyers and parents to establish appropriate support payments. They include payment schedule tables that show the basic amount of support to be paid according to the number of children and the income of the supporting parent.

Next, the schedule amounts can be adjusted to recognize individual family circumstances. Special expenses for the child are health care, education or extra curricular activities and can be added to the schedule amount, provided that these expenses are reasonable and necessary in light of the needs of the children and the means of the parents.

Last, the guidelines will allow the court to alter the award in exceptional circumstances that would cause undue hardship to either parent or the child.

The third aspect of the child support reform strategy will be the enhancement of federal and provincial enforcement initiatives to ensure that benefit from fairer child support awards are paid in full and on time.

We must remember that child support is mainly a provincial and territorial responsibility. Consequently the measures being proposed complement the enforcement efforts and strategies at that level. It should be emphasized that we are targeting parents who are persistent defaulters on their support payments. These strategies include a national public awareness campaign aimed at changing public attitudes toward support obligations.

Provincial enforcement programs will be provided with a new enforcement mechanism. Legislation will be enacted that will authorize the suspension of federal licences, privileges and certificates, such as passports, when someone has demonstrated persistent default.

The federal government will provide up to $13.7 million over five years to help the provinces expand their use of more aggressive enforcement measures and streamline the collection of out of province orders. Improvements to the federal tracing service will allow the release of certain information from designated federal information banks to help locate defaulting debtors.

This will include adding Revenue Canada to the list of departments whose data bases can be searched at the request of provincial enforcement agencies.

We will improve federal pension diversions to ensure that this measure can be applied to persistent defaulters. This can be done even if the defaulter refuses to apply for pension benefits, ensuring that the maximum amount of benefits go to the child.

Finally, improvements to computer systems will allow for the on-line computer access between federal-provincial and territorial enforcement services. This will enhance the efficiency of the garnishment and tracing service and greatly facilitate the exchange of information.

When a persistent defaulter realizes that this is concrete and substantial action, that they can run but cannot hide, they will have no alternative but to comply. The winner will be the children.

In conclusion, good government today must be fiscally responsible as well as socially responsible. We must create the conditions for job creation and economic growth. We must secure the future of our social programs. We must invest in the future, provide new

opportunities for Canada and for Canadians. The creativity of this budget propels us forward to meet these objectives.

[Broadcasting Act, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence and that of my hon. colleagues.

In recent years Canadian producers have proved themselves to be formidable broadcasters, able to compete at home and around the world in the fields of drama and entertainment. Many of these new specialty channels licensed by the CRTC offer excellent programming and would have survived without having to be forced on anyone. However, I am afraid that the consumer backlash did little to enhance the popularity of the new specialty channels.

On January 5, 1995 a major cable company had partially capitulated, apologizing for its mistake in not presenting the new services as a separate discretionary package. It offered consumers the choice of keeping only their current package of specialty services at additional fees. However, the much disputed negative option marketing scheme used to launch the new line-up remained firmly in place, leaving the onus on the consumer to refuse the new package.

This brings me to my role as a parliamentarian and a representative of my constituents in this House. Some would argue this is a consumer rights issue under the jurisdiction of the provinces but provincial consumer laws do not apply to cable companies which are clearly under federal authority.

I do not understand how the protection of the choice of Canadian cable consumers is a matter outside of federal broadcasting jurisdiction, as some have suggested. Section 5 of the federal Broadcasting Act creates an obligation for the CRTC to regulate and supervise all aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system with a view to implementing the broadcasting policy set out in the act. Proposed changes to section 3 of the Broadcasting Act would ban the practice of negative option billing for new programming services.

There is no doubt that over the next decade the cable industry will change drastically. More and more consumers are beginning to demand that they pay only for those channels they want. However, I understand the technology to allow this is not to be realized until the turn of the century. Thus television and the cable industry are currently in a period of transition. Program selection is increasing but the technology to give viewers real choice has not yet arrived.

In May 1994 the CRTC chairman acknowledged that television consumers want more control: "Consumers want, deserve and will increasingly settle for nothing less than the maximum control possible over which services they select and pay for. As a consumer and the CRTC chairman, I agree 100 per cent with this goal".

Cable television services in Canada are distributed either as part of a basic service or on an discretionary basis. Basic cable service is a standard package of services provided to all subscribers within a cable company's service area. It consists of a number of mandatory or priority Canadian programming services, including the CBC English and French network services, local and regional stations, provincial educational services, a community channel as well as various optional services.

The proposed changes in my colleague's bill are timely because commencing May 6 of this year the CRTC will consider licensing more TV channels and all these new channels will be scrambling for an audience. My constituents must be allowed to make a positive choice to obtain these services. Some may not realize a response is necessary or even possible. Some may inadvertently forget. They do not want to have to call their cable company to say stop these extra channels.

I criticize the negative option billing approach used to introduce the new services on the grounds of fairness and consumers' right to choose. Consumers should have the right to select the brand of programming they want rather than having it imposed on them by a paternalistic regulator and monopolistic industry.

Negative option marketing favours corporations and disempowers consumers. The Broadcasting Act is too one sided in requiring the CRTC to protect only Canadian cultural interest, not consumer interest.

As MPs we have a golden opportunity to respond to Canadian consumers who demanded that we put an end to negative option billing for new programming services. Government have long recognized that consumers should not pay for unsolicited goods. No matter what the motive behind negative option marketing, it is an abuse that must be corrected.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.