House of Commons Hansard #14 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was need.
Points Of OrderOral Question Period
The Speaker
The hon. member is probably well within his rights in the give and take of debate, but at this point I cannot see a point of order. It would be a point of debate. I think we should just progress from there.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, since we now have this opportunity, I would like my colleague, the leader of the government, to tell us about the business for the balance of this week and next week.
Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada
Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on the motion for social policy review.
On Friday, as discussed with the opposition House leaders, we will commence debate on second reading of the equalization legislation. When that is completed we will deal with the legislation respecting the implementation of the NAFTA side accords.
On Monday we will have a debate on revitalization and renewal of the rules of the House of Commons.
On Tuesday we will complete debate on the two bills I have mentioned as well as the bill to merge the two wings of the Department of National Revenue, with the idea of completing debate on second reading of those three bills. Any votes that would be required would be taken at six o'clock in the evening on Tuesday.
We will discuss further the business we intend to call for the balance of the week, but it is likely there will be one or more opposition days.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, would the leader of the government inform us about Wednesday's and Thursday's business, because there had been some talk about Wednesday being perhaps an Opposition Day.
Herb Gray Liberal Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is very likely that Wednesday will be an opposition day. I will confirm that with the member as soon as possible.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to check with the leader the agreement that we had regarding consideration of Bill C-3 on Tuesday instead of Friday, since Bills C-2 and C-4 will be considered on Friday. I would like him to confirm if that is still the agreement.
Herb Gray Liberal Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right; that is still the agreement.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Mr. Speaker, as a new member of Parliament it has been very interesting to uncover many of the ideas and directions that seem to permeate politically correct thinking on Parliament Hill and within the news media. Yesterday was a classic example when the minister of immigration stood in the House and told Canadians we were going to be receiving an additional quarter million immigrants in the next 12 months.
I suggest the expressions of concern around coffee tables or living rooms last evening in the homes of many Canadians were not reflected in the minister's quota. It was particularly instructive yesterday when the immigration critic for the Reform Party stood in the House. There were expressions of humour and derision from some of the Liberal Party members when he made the statement that the Reform Party was not opposed to immigration.
We stand for a balanced approach to immigration based on economic need and benefits to Canada. Clearly some of the Liberal members have prejudged that the Reform Party is anti-immigration and therefore found his statement humourous. Of course the concept of prejudging is the root of the word prejudice.
We all judge statements and actions by other individuals in the light of our own experience or sometimes unfounded assumptions. Perhaps an old line party like the Liberals should take instruction from the fate of the other old line party which was decimated in the most recent election.
I make these statements as a preamble to suggest that the old, tired, worn out concepts which have led to a crisis in many Canadian families relating to child care clearly have not been successful. Perhaps government members would be well advised to assume Reform Party MPs and the ordinary Canadians who they represent share the same concerns that they do.
We want what is in the best interest of Canada, for Canadians and especially our nation's children. Do not prejudge our ideas that may be interpreted in so-called code words, because I choose to speak in clear, concise, simple English. There is no other meaning that is contained in these clear, concise words.
The Reform Party supports child care programs that subsidize financial need, not the method of child care chosen and that subsidize children and parents, not institutions and professionals. The Reform Party supports government regulation of day care standards. The Reform Party opposes state run day care.
Reform Party policy is generated through a bottom up, grassroots approach where hundreds of thousands plus of our members have an opportunity, indeed a responsibility, to give direction to their representatives in the House.
There are many Canadians who feel any government subsidies or expenditures by government in support of child care must be balanced and do away with a system that is complex, inequitable and inadequate.
The Prime Minister in a year end interview with Maclean's magazine stated:
Day care is an economic program as much as a social program, because if you have a good system of day care you create more jobs. The people who want to work will be able to do so and the people who take care of the children will have new jobs.
The Prime Minister acknowledges the element of social engineering that drives the economic considerations.
What about those parents who choose to stay home and excel in the job of homemaker? Should we have a taxation and benefit system in Canada that fundamentally forces parents out of their homes? We support parents and those responsible for bringing up children who choose to work outside the home. However I submit we are the only party that equally supports parents who choose the worthy vocation of working within the home as the homemaker.
Following a thorough study I would visualize the Reform Party supporting an increase in the per child personal tax exemption and amending tax rates so that a single income family earning $60,000 annually pays no more tax than a two income family where each parent earns $30,000. This would work to use the tax code to be fair to families that choose to have one income earner rather than two.
Let me express some of the concerns to the House that some Canadians have with respect to institutionalized child care. They cite studies that show children put into day care at an early age having difficulty forming affectionate and trusting relationships later on. I am not stating that there is any conclusive evidence of this, but I am stating it is a concern for many Canadians. My own personal sentiment is that in the vast majority of cases day care is, after all, a poor substitute for a child's own mother or father.
To subsidize state run day care and not give equal subsidy to families that choose alternatives is prejudicial and has the potential of forcing children into a situation that many parents in Canada reject.
We want to promote policies in which single parents who are either forced to work or choose to work outside the home have the option of entrusting the well-being of their children to other family members or close friends. Should their situation not
receive equal subsidy? With government subsidy of only state run day care Canada closes the option of parents exercising their responsibility to choose what they judge best for themselves and for their family.
We are very conscious of the tragic situations such as the situation which has led to the Martensville trial in Saskatchewan. We are aware that there are many other circumstances wherein children are not being properly cared for in unlicensed day care facilities. This is why I restate that the Reform Party supports government regulation of day care standards.
We are also concerned with the impact that unlicensed day care has on the so-called underground economy where there is a reward for not declaring income derived from what is essentially an in-home business. We view with concern the changes that the Conservative government brought to child benefits and other social programs through what has been described as a skilful exercise in the politics of stealth.
Without an informed and open public debate Canadian social policy especially in the area of child care is wandering aimlessly without thorough discussion, study or input from concerned Canadians. It is important that members of the House go out of their way to inform their constituents of details and background on this and many other issues so that concerned Canadians will be empowered to give meaningful input to the political process and indeed to the direction of the government with respect to family issues.
We must listen to our constituents because I believe that the answers to these problems lie outside this Chamber and reside in the homes of our citizens. Discussions in restaurants, coffee shops, living rooms and around kitchen tables should be the source of intelligent direction for this House.
In the government's order for today's debate it requested broad consultation to analyse and make recommendations regarding the modernization and structuring of Canada's social security system with particular reference to the needs of families with children.
As a Reform Party member I am speaking for the ordinary Canadian whose voice is not normally heard in this Chamber or indeed in front of standing committees. I believe there are countless millions of Canadians who are not represented by the vocal special interest groups. They reject the vision of child care that includes state intrusion into the family. Social responsibility, yes; social engineering, no.
Those voices are calling for a balanced system of taxation, regulation and direction from the government which will treat all Canadians, all families, all parents equally. They want social engineering by the government terminated. It has been said, and I agree, that a nation is no stronger than its most basic unit: the family.
Pat O'Brien Liberal London—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, first of all let me congratulate the hon. member for his comments. While I listened with great interest I was glad to see him in the course of his remarks switch from the term day care to child care. In fact as we well know the more relevant term that reflects the reality of our society right now is child care. Many children need that care at various times throughout the day and therefore the traditional term is very much out of place. I was pleased to hear him shift to the appropriate term.
That is simply not a matter of political correctness. It reflects the reality in our society today and the fact that so many children need care outside the home. I say unfortunately because I agree with him that certainly a parent is the best provider of care for one's child, if that is possible.
This leads me to my question. I wonder if the hon. member would support a measure which would, through the Income Tax Act, reflect a credit to a parent? Let us be candid. Usually that would be the mother, but not necessarily always. Would the hon. member support a measure which would give a tax credit to a parent who, in fact, chooses to stay home and provide full-time care for the child?
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question I offer a qualified yes. I say that there must be a balance so that there is the ability for parents to choose what is best for their children. If in fact a child tax credit is the best way to go about doing it or the measure that he had suggested is the best way of going about doing it, I would support it but it is a qualified yes.
My qualification is that at this point I do not believe nor do any of the members of our party believe that the country is in a position to actually take an action like that. If it was revenue neutral I would suspect it would find support within our party.
Karen Kraft Sloan Liberal York—Simcoe, ON
Mr. Speaker, as a working mom who has had two children in day care or child care I really object to the tone of the hon. member when he seems to suggest that my children have had an inferior upbringing. I would like to attest to the fact that my children have proven themselves to be admirable members of their community and have contributed a great deal.
Could the hon. member please give us a precise definition of what social engineering is?
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Mr. Speaker, through our taxation system frequently there are situations where it is beneficial for our citizens to take particular actions. I cite as an example the situation I mentioned in my speech where right now under our taxation it works to a net benefit to a family to have two income earners at
$30,000 rather than one income earner at $60,000 and yet the gross income before taxation is equal.
I suggest that kind of policy forces the situation where people make choices. I am not suggesting for a second that the choice a family may make when two people determine it is in their best interests and the best interests of their family that there should be two wage earners, that that is an inferior decision, not for a minute. What I am suggesting is that by the taxation act as it presently exists it works in a prejudicial manner against those who choose to have one income earner.
Philippe Paré Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short comment. I do not think we have to oppose a daycare system sponsored by the government and daycare services at home.
Ideally, we should have a system whereby parents can choose between two solutions according to their values and the circumstances. I spent my whole life in education, and I can confirm that for some children day care was very traumatic and a source of serious problems. This might have nothing to do with the daycare operation itself, but could be linked to the lack of resources. Clearly, daycare centres do not always offer the quality of service they should. I believe that parents who do not want to send their children to daycare centres should have a choice, although it remains to be determined whether this choice should carry with it social benefits. I think this would be a proof of respect for the parents' values.
Social Security SystemGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
I do not believe this is a question. Does the hon. member wish to comment?
Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that immediately before Question Period the member for Kitchener spoke and if I heard correctly the person in the Chair at that time said there would be an opportunity for five minutes of commentary and questions on his remarks.
I wonder if that is the case.
Social Security SystemGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Thank you for raising that point. In fact I am told that the member you just spoke of was not in his seat at two o'clock. Therefore his 10 minutes of comments or questions expired because he was not here.
Other members might wish to know this too. If you do not show up, you do not get your questions and comments.
Beth Phinney Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are proud of the social programs we have built together. We are proud of our sense of fairness and justice. We care when people are unemployed. We care when people are poor. Together we have built social programs which are the envy of the world, from medicare to the old age pension.
We Canadians are also proud of our common sense. Today common sense tells us that we must rebuild and improve our social programs to meet the new needs and challenges of the 1990s.
We need to reform and strengthen our social system so that we can provide all Canadians with a fair chance to seize the opportunities of the 21st century.
The Liberal Party was the architect of major social reforms in this country. With the assistance and the proposals of all Canadians, the new Liberal government intends to pursue its social work.
We cannot allow nor do we want to allow past successes to prevent us from seeing the need for change. Our goal is to change our income support programs without threatening our values of fairness and compassion.
In the past we have created programs which have substantially reduced poverty among senior citizens. Now we must forge creative programs to reduce the poverty among children. There is really something wrong when in a country as wealthy as Canada over one million Canadian children use food banks every year.
We know that when children live in poverty they get sick more frequently, they do worse in school, they have fewer chances to succeed. We owe it to our children to ensure that all of them have a chance to succeed in life. That is why I welcomed the announcement by the Minister of Human Resources Development that Parliament will hold immediate, wide ranging and open public hearings on reforming Canada's social system. The task before us is mammoth but we owe it to Canada's children to succeed. We need the wisdom and the input of as many Canadians as possible and that is why these public hearings are so vital.
Just as we must act to confront the problems of children living in poverty, so we must act to confront the problems of teenagers who drop out of high school. In the last three years alone the number of jobs held by high school dropouts has decreased by 17.2 per cent. We cannot leave these young people permanently stuck on a dead end street. We need to rethink our apprenticeship programs. We need to rethink our training programs. We need to give young Canadians a chance.
The government's plan to introduce the youth service corps is an excellent start, but we acknowledge that it is only a start. We need to find new ways of guaranteeing that young Canadians
have both basic reading and math skills and also the skills they will need in the knowledge-based industries of the future.
The bottom line is that we have to provide young Canadians with the skills to get off and stay off social assistance. That is the right thing to do both ethically and economically.
As we consider the realities of the 1990s we must remember the plight of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs during the recent recession. There are so many decent, hard-working people who have lost their jobs as a result of massive layoffs. These are Canadians who have been robbed of their dignity through no fault of their own.
We must consider during our public hearings what new hope, what new help, what new training we can provide for older workers who have lost their jobs. How can we help these older workers regain their dignity?
I am not talking about doing favours for people. I am talking about making sure that we tap the talents of all Canadians and allow all Canadians to play a role in building a vibrant and prosperous society.
As we think together about how to improve Canada's social programs during changing times, we must focus on the reality that Canada's population is aging. How do we cope with this new reality? More important, how do we enable senior citizens to remain active and independent members of society? How do we start tapping the invaluable resources that senior citizens provide?
One answer to all these problems is to say that it is just too bad. It is too bad that some kids are poor. It is too bad that a lot of teenagers have dropped out. It is too bad that older workers have no prospects. It is too bad that senior citizens are kept from making a contribution. That is one response, but it is not the Liberal answer and I do not think it is the Canadian answer.
Canadians will solve these problems. We are really concerned with social programs and Canadians will be very happy to have the opportunity to express themselves during these public consultations.
Canadians who are in dire financial straits need help to survive. They also need help to get off and stay off social assistance. Part of the solution lies in greater job creation and the government has already indicated its commitment to this end.
Another part of the solution lies in redesigning our social programs so that Canadians are equipped to fill those new jobs.
In the months and years ahead all of us must work together to reform our social programs so that we can end poverty in this country.
The lessons of the great depression led a Liberal government to introduce unemployment insurance. The need to fuel a post-war economy led a Liberal government to introduce family allowance. The need to offer more people a chance at higher education led a Liberal government to introduce Canada's student loans.
The Liberal government of today is prepared to meet the social needs of the present from child poverty to opportunities for our youth, to laid off workers, to an aging population. We want to strengthen our social system and we want to include the Canadian public in the process.
We believe that the healthiest changes, the best changes, are made when Canadians agree to the changes together.
I look forward to the public hearings on these vital issues in my own riding of Hamilton Mountain and I look forward to hearing the views of Canadians right across our land.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting in the dialogue between political parties that we always seem to end up at the same point.
During the course of this election it was very interesting to me that the Liberal candidate in my riding went out of his way to make sure that people in our constituency felt comfortable with the fact that the Liberal government would not do anything, or had no plans with respect to social programs. We may recall very briefly that during the course of the election the former Prime Minister with the summer job also was really taken on in the area when she suggested that there might be some look at or revision of social programs.
I wonder if the member might not agree that it would have been helpful to the Canadian public if they had been made aware that in fact the Liberals when they became government were going to be doing a complete review; if it might not have been helpful for them to make a judgment based on what appears to have been a predetermined plan.
I suggest that there has been a situation in Canada during this election process where our party told the Canadian people about our plans, though they may be open to question, and that the social program had to be looked at if it was going to be maintained.
Beth Phinney Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
I am surprised that perhaps the hon. member has not read the red book. I thought everybody had read the red book by now. All the way through that red book it explains that we were going to keep the social net; that there would be nobody falling through it; that we would make sure all the protection that has been there in the past will be there in the future, but that there will be changes. There would be consultation. We would bring Canadians in to allow them to express what they felt about the programs and the state that they are in.
I agree with you that the response by the former Prime Minister-and we can appreciate why she is not the Prime Minister now-felt that there was not enough time during the campaign to talk about what she had to say about the social programs. Probably that was more because she did not have anything to say about the social programs rather than because there was not enough time.
Brenda Chamberlain Liberal Guelph—Wellington, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member for Hamilton Mountain has placed such an emphasis on youth as well as our studying of the social programs. I think that is very important.
We know our youth has an unemployment rate of about 20 per cent right now and we know that in the future career changes for youth will be four to five significant career changes. These are real career changes. These are not simply moving up the ladder or sideways, or into something a little bit different. This will be totally different career changes.
This is a really different world and we are all very much aware of that. It is absolutely imperative that we look at all groups but youth is our future. That is why I am particularly pleased that the member for Hamilton Mountain did place such an emphasis on youth.
My question has to do with the apprenticeship program that the red book, now famous of course, talks about. We know that an apprenticeship program is extremely positive and it is a good way to go.
It is my belief from the background that I have had it is really important that when we implement an apprenticeship program we bring in all partners: labour, business, industry as well as education.
Therefore I am wondering if the member for Hamilton Mountain could comment on that and the importance of making sure that those groups are not forgotten.
Beth Phinney Liberal Hamilton Mountain, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is perfectly right.
The apprenticeship programs are very important. We have seen in other countries how much this can contribute to the future of individual youth and also to the country.
One of the problems in the past is that all the people involved in the apprenticeship programs were not consulted, in particular on the needs in a community. Before people were registered in an apprenticeship program or by the time they got through a year and a half of it they realized that they were never going to get a job when they finished the program. They quit and the drop-out rate was about half.
What we are planning to do now is to make sure that those groups, including labour, are consulted and that the courses we offer for apprenticeship programs will mean that youth afterwards can get a job.
Hedy Fry LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, this is my first time to rise and speak on the floor.
I would like to congratulate you on your appointment. I look forward to working with you. I would like to congratulate everyone here for being elected. Obviously constituents felt that members were worthy of that trust and have sent them here.
I would like to apologize to the members across the floor from the Bloc Quebec for not speaking to them in French. It is a sign of respect. I am afraid I do not have the confidence quite yet to attempt to do it. Never mind, I will be doing it soon.
My riding is Vancouver Centre. I do not want to go into the geographical and regional description of Vancouver Centre. What I want to tell members about Vancouver Centre is that it is a microcosm of Canada.
Vancouver Centre represents on the one hand some of the wealthiest people in this country. On the other hand, it represents people who live in abject poverty in one-room hotels in the middle of the riding. I therefore feel that I can speak with some authority on the problems that we are facing today in terms of our economic and social problems.
The reason I lump both of those into one is that they are not single problems. We cannot in any way remove or separate the problem of economic disorder that we have in our country from the problem of looking at our social programs. They are totally and completely interdependent.
A strong social program-I do not like to use the words safety net-a strong sense of social responsibility is very important if we are to look at economic growth. Unemployment has a major impact on our ability to gain revenue. Unemployment drains our coffers of money that we pay for unemployment insurance.
When unemployment insurance expires, our coffers are further drained by helping people who are on welfare. On the other hand, if we have people working and contributing they contribute to the wealth of this country not only economically but in terms of their self-esteem.
I am a family physician and I have yet to meet, in fact the number of people I know is very small who want to stay on welfare and who want to be unemployed. People want to work. It has everything to do not just with money but with self-esteem, a sense of self-worth and a sense of contributing to the growth and future of our country. This is why we cannot separate these two issues.
I would like to speak to the motion because I believe that the motion made by the hon. Minister of Human Resources Development is a very important one. I do not understand how we
could be debating it at all. We should all be saying that we agree with it.
Really all the motion is asking is for us to look at ways in which we could change, modernize and up-date our social system. This needs to happen. We cannot have an inflexible system. We are moving into the 21st century. Our needs have changed. Our economic way of living has changed. We need to look at how we do things to make them not only more efficient but more applicable to the needs of the people and more cost effective.
It does not mean that we are talking about cutting programs. We are talking about making them more efficient. The minister has invited not only all of the members across the floor in both opposition parties, but he has invited the people of Canada, the provinces, the municipalities and non-governmental organizations to work together to find that common ground.
It is not a coincidence that the Liberal Party was elected with a specific mandate to find that common ground. Nor is it a coincidence that when we put our red book forward it contained a total package of a plan for the future of this country. It is in fact because of a strong Liberal tradition and heritage that the Liberal Party has recognized the need for a socially responsible society.
Socially responsible means allowing people the dignity of working, as the Prime Minister has said so often, and allowing them to do so by giving them the skills to enable them to get to that position.
There are always going to be people in our country who will not be able to realize their full potential by working. We will always have among us people who will be disabled in some way. That is the social safety net. However the ability to bring people into realizing their full potential is the Liberal way. That is what this motion does.
This motion speaks to making our system more applicable and more able to move us further into the 21st century so that Canadians can become strongly independent people, recognizing their full potential and able to contribute to this country. That is all the motion states.
The debates I hear are pre-empting the results of that kind of consultation around this country. They have pre-empted it. That is one of the problems that people have always had with our political system. We have never allowed a process of consultation to work. We sit and indulge in rhetoric. We score points on each other by trying to say that this is what we are going to be doing and what we are not going to be doing.
The motion is clear. It asks for our co-operation and our commitment to looking at how we change our system. It asks no more than that. It is a promise that the Liberal government made. It is a promise in the red book. Everyone has heard about the red book. It is not a magic book. It has not some wondrous tone that one has to have a Ph.D. in literature to understand. It is a simple articulation of the core value of the Canadian people, which is what we and our Prime Minister seem to have been able to articulate very well.
It has been two years in the making. We consulted not just with Liberals but with people all across the country and around the world regardless of their political stripe. We brought them in to talk about the need for change, to look at not changing the bottom line, which is a strong sense of fiscal discipline together with social responsibility, but how we can do that differently.
It is obvious that the old ways have not worked. It is obvious that the solutions we used in the past were useless. We are saying: "Let us work together to change this, to make it different".
I do not even know why we are debating this motion, hon. colleagues across the floor and within my own party. It is obvious to me that it is the only course of action we must take. What I would like to ask of members instead is that they come together with us in this endeavour, that they co-operate, that they help to consult and that they help to make the difference.
People have elected us for change. They have elected all of us, the Reform Party and the Liberal Party across Canada, to help move this country forward so that we can be globally competitive and that our individual Canadians can be independent. That is what we would like members to do. Let us do it together so that we can create a country that we can all, regardless of our political stripe, be proud of.
Benoît Tremblay Bloc Rosemont, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member for Vancouver Centre. The Liberal Party had nine years in opposition to consult and we received this little red book. What does the member think the Liberal government can do in nine months? It is not time for a decision.
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I do not understand the member's question very well. He said that the Liberal government has had nine years to consult. Is that the question?
The Liberal government has been in opposition for the last nine years. It has not been a position to set the course for this country. Now that the Liberals are in government it has taken the bull by the horns. We have not sat around and gazed at our navel. We have decided on a plan of action. Let us get on with it. There is a time line to this. We promised to follow a specific time line and we are going to do it. A report will be ready by September 1994 and we are saying, help us to do it.