House of Commons Hansard #208 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was grandparents.

Topics

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

moved:

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 26.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 28.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 29.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Lethbridge Alberta

Reform

Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge

moved:

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-76, in Schedule II, be amended by replacing line 10, on page 47, with following:

"criteria".

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-76, in Schedule II, be amended: ( a ) by replacing line 26, on page 47, with the following: applicant after the payment is received;''; and ( <em>b</em> ) by replacing lines 33 to 44, on page 46, and lines 1 to 4, on page 48, with the following:respect of an outlay or an expense.''

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-76, in Schedule II, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 35, on page 48, with the following: "transition payments; and ( c ) how interim and final transition pay-''.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

moved:

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-76, be amended by deleting Schedule II, on pages 46 to 48.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this part of Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget that was tabled on February 27, 1995.

At the outset I want to say that while we are speaking on a number of sections of the bill we find that this is one of the more regressive pieces of budgetary legislation that this country has ever seen in terms of moving Canada backward into a bygone era. I had hoped that a budget would be brought in to advance the economic, social and cultural agenda of the country. I do not think anyone can say anything other than this will set us back. It is like looking only in the rear view mirror while driving.

The provisions we are looking at under group 3 by and large eliminate the Crow rate benefit from the legislation. It takes the whole matter of the demise of the Crow outside of this piece of legislation. Farmers in western Canada developed their grain industry on the basis of three fundamental pillars and in close partnership with the federal government.

One pillar was a grain transportation system built around the Crow subsidy. I recognize that to compete particularly with the United States which has a whole set of subsidy programs for its western grain producers and the fact that our grain producers were some distance from the coast where the grain would be exported, having some kind of a grain subsidy built into the transportation system made a lot of sense. It enabled us to become a global bread basket as a result.

The second pillar was the orderly marketing system through the Canadian Wheat Board on the basis of equal delivery opportunity and a price pooling system. We could say if people were to evaluate this objectively that over the years this has served this country well.

The third pillar was a grain handling system owned by the farmers through a western Canadian co-operative system.

When I look at this particular initiative of the government, which in a sense is abandoning the Crow rate, it reminds me of a previous Prime Minister who spoke of certain sacred trusts. He said that as a result of these trade deals we would not see any diminution in the quality of our social programs. We know that did not take place. We have seen the erosion of virtually every social program. We have seen the disappearance of social programs as we have moved our social programs to harmonize more closely with those in Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee and east Texas. That is not the kind of Canada we expected.

Prior to the government's taking office it said it did not agree with the provisions of NAFTA either; that unless the provisions of NAFTA were dramatically shifted, altered and amended it would abrogate the deal. That did not take place at all. As soon as it took office there were a couple of little tinkers; it has now become a NAFTA cheerleader like we have never seen before.

I do not think the government has a mandate to proceed with this section of the bill. On May 10, 1993 the present Prime Minister said the following at a press conference he called to unveil the party's election campaign farm policy platform: "As federal Liberal leader, our government would prefer to retain the existing Crow rate benefit method of payment rather than change it as the Conservative government is proposing". That was on May 13, 1993 from page 17 of the Western Producer .

In other words, heading into the election campaign the Prime Minister, articulating the Liberal Party's agricultural policy, in a sense said they want to retain the Crow rate; the Conservatives do not, but they do as a political party. On that basis people, particularly from the Canadian plains, voted Liberal in such sufficient numbers that they were able to form the government. Now they are doing exactly the opposite. They are abandoning the Crow rate provision.

I do not think it take a rocket scientist to figure out if they say their party policy is to maintain the Crow rate and as soon as they become a government they decide to abandon the Crow rate, they seem to be pulling a fast one on the electorate. They seem to be saying one thing and doing another. I do not think it is unreasonable for us to question whether the government actually has a mandate to proceed with this. Strictly on the basis of principle we are suggesting this section be abandoned.

There is another reason we are suggesting this section of the bill should be abandoned. What are the implications of abandoning the Crow system? I know we have differences of views in the House of Commons. Some people feel this is a good idea for all sorts of reasons; others feel this is a bad initiative. Most people

probably wonder about the implications of making this major change to the way the western grain sector is supported.

To my friends on the government side and to my good friends in the Reform Party and in the Bloc, I encourage those endorsing this initiative to articulate what the implications would be of this major change. How will this affect the future of western grain farming?

Before we proceed as Parliament with agreement on this provision we should have a clear understanding of whether this will or will not cause difficulties. My colleagues and I believe very strongly this will not be in the best interest of western grain producers. We will be hearing some of the reasons in detail, particularly from those who represent prairie constituencies.

I appreciate the opportunity to bring forward these amendments in hopes of retaining what I think every grain farmer felt was a sacred trust.

[Translation]

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Yvan Loubier Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the transportation of western grain.

Most of the amendments now being discussed concern the compensation to be paid to western producers since, by the year 2001, the preferential Crow rate applied to the transportation of western grain to the main points of export will be abolished, as will the Crow rate itself.

The government is trying to transform a grain transportation policy which has been in effect since the end of the last century into a western agriculture development and diversification policy. The Crow rate has been an issue for many years. Many attempts were made to abolish that tariff system dating back to the 19th century, but no consensus was ever reached on how to do it.

Eliminating the preferential rate has the effect of triggering a decrease in the price of western grain. Consequently, abolishing the preferential Crow rate on grain exports provides a competitive advantage to western beef and pork producers. According to various studies, that advantage is estimated at somewhere between $8 and $15 per metric tonne of western grain. So, by triggering this $8 to $15 decrease in the price of a metric tonne of grain, the elimination of the Crow rate destroys the competitive balance between the western and eastern economies, which are respectively based on grain and livestock production.

The abolition of this transportation tariff provides a competitive advantage for western pork and beef producers, who will be in a better position to compete with their Quebec, Ontario and even international counterparts.

During the numerous debates that we have had in recent years concerning the Crow rate farmers in Quebec, Ontario, the maritimes and some in the prairies and British Columbia said that they accepted this fact. The accepted the fact that abolishing the preferential rate would have an impact on the local price of grain in western Canada and that it would change the balance.

If my memory serves me well, even in Quebec, the Union des producteurs agricoles was saying in 1982: "Abolish the preferential rate, stop paying hundreds of millions of dollars a year to maintain this rate structure and we are prepared to accept the fact that such a measure will lower the local price of grain and will thereby help increase livestock production in Western Canada". And now, not only will the reduction in the local price of grain help increase livestock production in the west to the detriment of eastern producers, but the government is telling western producers that it will compensate them for the elimination of the Crow benefit, that it will give them $1.6 billion tax free in transition payments, which is more like $2.2 billion.

Not only has the government reduced local grain prices thereby encouraging livestock production in the west, but it is giving western producers $2.2 billion based on the farmland they own, and that goes for grain producers as well as for beef and pork producers. It is ridiculous to abolish a transportation rate structure and, at the same time, to give compensation payments that will serve to subsidize western economic diversification and the development of livestock production.

It makes no sense that this part of the bill provides for the payment to western producers of $2.2 billion, when 24 per cent of this money, which is federal, comes from producers in Quebec. It makes no sense that these subsidies are being handed out so that western pork and beef producers can compete with our producers in Quebec. In any event, there are many who say that that is not how they see the federal regime. It makes no sense at all.

Those who are sceptical about the effect of this approach on the production of pork and beef in Quebec need only look at what happened in Alberta in recent years with the Crow offset, a policy that my Reform colleagues probably know all about. The result was a 10 per cent annual increase in Alberta's pork production with a policy that was almost identical, but that was provincial in scope.

So that is clear. We are saying that this policy is inequitable. It is inequitable because it disrupts the balance between the east and the west and, in addition, gives western businesses a competitive edge over their eastern colleagues, particularly those in Quebec.

If at least some thought had been given to the effects of this subsidy on eastern producers and some sort of compensation considered for eastern producers, had the funds been available, that would already have been a slight improvement. Furthermore, it has been estimated that just abolishing the Crow rate

would have an effect on Quebec's agricultural economy of between $24 million and $46 million. So we were told by the UPA president himself, Laurent Pellerin, when he appeared before the finance committee two weeks ago.

Quebec is offered nothing, even though it is recognized that there is an imbalance that goes back to the end of the last century.

We find it deplorable that this second crop of Liberals are doing exactly the same as the first crop. In 1982 a similar bill was tabled, a bill that provided for compensation to the west. The federal government was not in the financial situation that it finds itself in today, compensation could perhaps have been considered, but no thought was ever given to the negative effect on Quebec producers.

Now, they come back, because that bill was put aside, when Mr. Eugene Whelan was the Minister of Agriculture. At the time, they said: "Since we cannot come to an agreement, we will put it aside".

Today, they come back with this bill, at a time, moreover, when the financial situation is far from rosy, and they want to pay western producers $2.2 billion as compensation for the elimination of the Crow rate, just like that.

The official opposition is strongly opposed to such a decision, because at a time when the UI funds, the transfers for the underprivileged and the transfers to the provinces are being slashed, the government is able to come up with $2.2 billion to meet the electoral needs of the few Liberals out west and to try and win over the Reformers' supporters.

We support the elimination of the Crow rate, but it should be eliminated immediately, without any compensation. We also deplore the fact that the Reform members, who are usually so eager to protest when the underprivileged are subsidized, are keeping quiet, because this compensation is being granted to their own constituents. I find that most deplorable.

What I also find deplorable is not only what the Liberals did, but also what the Reformers did. They did not attend the sittings of the finance committee when we talked about ways to improve or to repeal some of the provisions found in Bill C-76. If I were in their shoes today, I would be ashamed to put forward amendments, since they refused to hear anyone, except for a few witnesses from western Canada who are as far to the right as the Reformers have been since the election.

This is totally unacceptable. The decisions of the government concerning the western grain transportation sector are unacceptable, and the attitude of the Reform members in this House is unacceptable.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, health; the hon. member for Québec-Est, Agusta.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

5:10 p.m.

Lethbridge Alberta

Reform

Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the group 3 amendments before us which affect the Western Grain Transportation Act, the National Transportation Act and the Crow rate for the future of western farmers.

Reformers said it very clearly during the election campaign. We were not like the Bloc Quebecois or the Bloc finance critic who stands up and says that they are going to cut certain things in the House of Commons while back in Quebec they talk about greater and more handouts for the people of Quebec.

There is a continual inconsistency. The hon. member has just spoken as the finance critic for the Bloc Quebecois. He talked about not giving the western farmers anything, that the Crow benefit and the Western Grain Transportation Act benefits should be cut off as such. The Bloc wants to cut it off but not give the western farmers any kind of transitional payment whereby they will then take the responsibility of paying the full amount for the freight rate.

Let us look at Quebec. Let us look at some of the tax expenditures that never get raised in the general public. In committee I raised the tax expenditures for the labour venture capital fund, $360 million in terms of tax expenditures. Three hundred million of that is to the people of Quebec. Other Canadians do not benefit from that tax expenditure. In raising the matter in the finance committee I asked the hon. member what he had to say about that because other Canadians are not getting a fair deal. There is a broad base of Quebecers benefiting from this tax expenditure.

One day the hon. member is against tax expenditure when it supposedly relates to the rich or those who are planning for their estates; the next day when it is in their home political ground, it is a great thing to do. The hon. member should think about that when he talks about the benefits the western farmers are going to get with regard to a payout on the Crow rate.

Let us look at that payout. Most likely, some $2.2 billion will be paid out over a two year period. What does it amount to in terms of the farmers of western Canada? It is not a major amount of money. It will be a one time payout, most likely of $16 to $18 per acre. How much money does that really amount to? What will that do for a farm operation? Not very much when putting fertilizer on irrigated land costs $40 to $60 an acre.

What is $18 an acre? The spray for crops costs $5 to $10 an acre. What does that $18 really mean? In that portfolio farmers will have to pick up the major cost of shipping their produce to the coast by rail. They will pay 100 per cent of that in the future.

Within a year the farmers will not be dependent on the federal government for the transportation allowance. Farmers are willing to buy that and accept that responsibility but it does not hurt government when phasing out a program like that to have some type of transitional support system. It has done that and I commend the Liberal government for taking that specific position on this matter.

Although the Crow benefit, the Western Grain Transportation Act, will have an effect on western Canada, we have to look at transportation on a broader base. The government must give some leadership there as well.

When the free market system goes into transportation, the government will have to assure Canadians and assure the western farmers that they have access to alternate routes by which products can be shipped into a variety of markets in the world. That must be looked at.

I raised the question with the minister of agriculture as to whether there were any impediments that would prevent western Canadian farmers from shipping their grain through the railway system or the port system of the United States. I asked whether we could use the Mississippi River to ship our grain if that were a more expedient, more efficient and less costly way of doing it.

The minister has assured me there are no impediments and that we will be able to do that kind of thing. I ask that the government ensure that will happen because we farmers in western Canada will look at innovative ways by which we can market our produce. We will look at the means by which we can come up with different crops. We will diversify our agriculture. That is a spinoff benefit of terminating the western grain transportation allowance and also the Crow benefit. That is a spinoff benefit which will be there. It will restructure agriculture.

It is unfair for a member of the House to say that western farmers should not have any type of transitional compensation to make the adjustment over the next year or two. It is certainly unfair when that member sits in committee and talks about tax expenditures of over $300 million which are specifically targeted at a group within his province, when other Canadians do not have access to those kinds of tax expenditures. It seems to be an attempt to speak in two different arenas. There is one arena here but there is another arena back home that wants to hear those kinds of political words.

We cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Kamloops. It is a rather traditional approach to what has happened in Canada with respect to transportation. We think changes are needed and we are prepared to support them.

We also oppose vehemently the comments and the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot which ask the government to terminate the benefits to western farmers.

That is where we stand. We believe that under those circumstances we can clearly and with good conscience vote as we feel is right.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put in my two cents worth on the report stage motions. It is not a loonie, it is two cents worth today.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

An hon. member

A double loonie.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

5:20 p.m.

NDP

Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK

The member wants to hear about the double loonie. I am very pleased to have aroused some interest from members opposite. It is a pleasure to know they are listening at such an important time.

The report stage motions before us relate to Bill C-76, the budget implementation bill. The amendment put forward by my colleague from Kamloops, which was seconded by me, proposes to eliminate those sections of Bill C-76 which deal with the government's proposal to remove the Crow benefit. That is the benefit that applies to western Canadian farmers for the movement of their grain from farm gate to port.

I have been engaged in this debate for quite some time. The constituency I represent is rural and relies heavily on agricultural income to survive. The constituency which I have represented for six years has been engaged in the debate over the future of the Crow benefit for quite some time. My constituents have advised me frequently and constantly of the need to retain the Crow benefit.

Through the motion which is before the House today, I ask members to consider eliminating these sections from the bill in order that we can study in greater detail the future implications of this very rash move which the government has undertaken.

The minister of agriculture will recall that at the beginning of this debate I asked the minister to withhold the sections of the bill, the intention to eliminate the Crow benefit, until such time as we did investigate the full implications of this move on the prairies.

I put forward that proposal before this debate began and here we are at report stage, prior to third reading, and the government has not indicated any understanding of the implications of what the elimination of the Crow benefit will mean to the prairie economy.

The argument comes down to the fact that for each elevator point on the prairies those communities will lose $1 million in income currently in those communities. I have previously used Glaslyn, Saskatchewan, a community of about 350 people, a

fairly large elevator market area with a very good, strong delivery point.

Currently $1 million in that community will not be there after August 1 when this bill comes into effect; $1 million from that community, $4 million from the city of North Battleford and millions more taken from rural Saskatchewan as a result of the implications of this bill.

What does that mean in terms of the future of those communities simply because they are growing wheat which is demanded by countries all over the world, countries not paying the freight on that product but expecting our farmers to pay the freight to get it to port position so that it is competitive?

A presentation by the prairie pools to a committee in Ottawa on April 27, 1995 concluded: "The termination of government transportation assistance and the resulting decrease in farm incomes not only threaten the vision but the ability of the Canadian industry to even maintain its current competitive position in the world markets".

These are people who deliver a product to that competitive marketplace telling us very clearly in response to this move on this bill the vision of agriculture as presented by the government enhancing our competitive position is threatened and that our ability to compete is threatened. We should pay heed to some of these experts who have been commenting on this over the years.

I also quote from another presentation made before the finance committee studying Bill C-76. The national farmers union's report concluded that the cuts in the federal budget, which are in addition to the elimination of the Crow benefit and including it, will have an unprecedented impact-

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time has expired for this debate. Unless there is unanimous consent, we will be into Private Members' Business.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the House would agree to allowing the member to conclude his comments. I also think a member of the Reform Party attempted to rise. If the House would consent to adding 10 minutes or so to do that I would have no objection. This would then enable us to finish that clause.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

If members wish to do anything by unanimous consent they can do exactly what they want. Is there unanimous consent to extend the time?

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party would be happy for the hon. member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake to complete his speech and then we should move on to private members' business.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I did not hear the official opposition's opinion on this point. Do you agree?

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Members are giving the hon. member two or three minutes to finish his speech.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

NDP

Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the largesse of the government and opposition members on this matter. I did not request the opportunity to finish my remarks, but I am very happy to do so. I regret cutting into the time provided for private members' business, because to me it is a very important time in Parliament. I will wrap up my remarks very quickly.

When private members' time arrived I was quoting from the conclusion of the presentation made by the National Farmers' Union to the committee. I will start the quote again: "The cuts announced in the federal budget will have an unprecedented impact upon Canada's agriculture sector. These cuts, from the loss in transportation subsidies to the cuts to food inspection, increase producers' costs of production, making us less competitive".

Members will recall that one of the red book promises of the government was to reduce the input costs of farming. These matters have increased the costs of farming. Therefore, the red book promise on agriculture has certainly been broken.

I will finish the quote from the National Farmers' Union: "The Canadian government has cut far beyond the requirements of the GATT agreement, leaving farmers alone to fight the European Union and the United States treasuries. The government should reassess its policy of unilateral disarmament, which leaves Canadians vulnerable in the international marketplace".

This is a very serious matter. We have long term implications to communities on the prairies and to the future of Canadian agriculture in the international marketplace. We should be setting these provisions aside until we have had a full study of everything that has been done. We should not be dealing with it in terms of just balancing this year's budget.

Budget Implementation Act, 1995Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Grand Parents' Day ActPrivate Members' Business

5:25 p.m.

Liberal

Sarkis Assadourian Liberal Don Valley North, ON

moved that Bill C-274, an act respecting a national grandparents day, be now read the second time and referred to committee.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize there are many grandparents in the gallery. I appreciate their presence and I thank them for taking the time to join us in the debate.

It is an honour for me to stand today in the House to speak on Bill C-274, a private member's bill that I introduced on September 27, 1994. Bill C-274 is an act respecting a national grandparents day in Canada. It would set aside the second Sunday in September every year as a national day to honour grandparents in Canada from coast to coast.

It is a pleasure for me to address a generation of individuals who may be older but surely are wiser. They should not be forgotten or left behind.

As I said earlier in the House, we have the honour of having 20 grandparents and members of the growth society, an organization whose purpose is to safeguard the vital grandchildren and grandparents relationship.

I have received numerous letters in support of Bill C-274. I will read part of one letter I received: "On behalf of our grandparents group and all other grandparent groups in Canada, I commend you for introducing Bill C-274, an act respecting a national grandparents day. Many of us will be here in the members' gallery for a debate on your bill. We sincerely hope that you will have the full support of the House and that it will be voted on favourably".

Another letter, sent by the vice-president of focus on the family association of Canada, states: "Thank you for your request for the designation of grandparents day. Our calendar printed by focus on the family U.S. has the second Sunday in September marked as grandparents day. We applaud the effort you have put in to recognize this day in Canada".

I have received numerous letters of support from my riding from seniors groups and organizations in favour of this day to be celebrated in Canada. Ironically tomorrow, June 1, 1995, will also mark the beginning of senior citizens month in Canada.

At this time Bill-C-274, has been deemed not votable by the subcommittee on private members' business. I ask for unanimous consent so that the order be discharged and the subject matter of the bill be referred to the health committee for further consideration.

I did not have the pleasure or the honour of having grandparents. My grandmother passed away when I was very young. I missed that link between a grandson and grandmother or grandfather. I hope that no one will have to miss that link between grandparents and grandchildren anywhere in the country.

Grandparents day would give national recognition to the growing number of grandparents in Canada. I will attempt to raise the emotional conflict of interest drama that grandchildren face when one parent assumes custody and they no longer have the opportunity to see their grandparents. Many provinces and municipalities have already recognized that grandparents do contribute greatly to the family and they are a basic and fundamental element of our society. It is time the federal government recognized this fact as well.

The focus of Bill C-274 on grandparents day will serve a child's best interest and show Canadians that grandparents are a significant part of our family structure. Most important, without grandparents a child will lose a valuable role model and nurturing.

In the United States in many homes of the aged grandparents day was celebrated as a national holiday as far back as 1961 and was officially declared as grandparents day in the U.S. in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. It is the second Sunday in September every year.

Last year in the province of Quebec the Quebec senior citizens federation urged Quebec families to mark the occasion of grandparents day by getting the different generations together. Obviously this is not possible in all cases, especially for those grandchildren who do not live nearby. I am sure they could get the long distance feeling by calling them on grandparents day.

The relationship between grandparents and grandchildren has taken on even greater importance as the result of the number of broken marriages. As we approach the 21st century we see more and more single parent families. Single parent families would be helped a great deal if we have grandparents' recognition and grandparents' connection tied to the younger generations so we can build for a stronger future and face it with more confidence.

Grandparents day was officially proclaimed in 1978. Since then every year the United States observes the second Sunday in September as grandparents day.

I call on my colleagues to accept the bill and refer it to the House committee on health in order to adopt it as soon as we can for the coming September. We have tremendous support. There is no harm in doing it. There is no one who opposes it as far as I

know. Let us go forward and have grandparents day, which will give the proper recognition they deserve.