Debates of Sept. 27th, 1996

Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed in the Bloc member's argument. To use provincial versus federal technical arguments about jurisdiction with respect to an issue which involves the health of all Canadians strikes me as a very dangerous approach.

We are getting close to the end of the debate on this legislation which will effectively ban manganese in gasoline in Canada. I would remind the member opposite that manganese is a heavy metal. It gets into the environment. Once it is in the environment, in the ecosystem, it stays there.

The hon. member says that there are doubts. Very often in scientific studies it is difficult to prove something absolutely conclusively. If there are doubts about something that might be poisoning our children in the same way as years ago there were

doubts about lead, which was in gasoline, and how it affected us and our children, then we should err on the side of safety. Eventually it was proven that lead affects us and our children and legislation was passed, but that was after generations of young people had grown up and their brains had been affected by the lead. Use the precautionary principle and vote for this legislation.

I have spoken twice at some length in parts of this debate and I do not want to repeat all of those arguments. However, I rise now to point out to the member that in my riding of Peterborough we have many workers who work at the General Motors plants in Oshawa. They have come to me and explained very carefully the proven impact of manganese on the on-board emission control systems which are going into the modern vehicles they are producing and which they have to sell abroad competitively.

These automobiles are being produced with $2,000 or $3,000 worth of emission controls and we are filling them up with gasoline which has manganese in it. First of all, we damage these expensive items in our cars and then, because these systems control all the pollutants and not just manganese going into the environment, we damage the control systems. As a result we allow pollutants of all sorts which are in gasoline to get into the environment. This is not the case in the United States.

To the auto workers in my riding I would say this: The Canadian Automobile Association in my riding and nationally, which represents all the motorists in Canada, wants Bill C-29 to go through. The auto parts manufacturers, the people who make the computer-like emission control devices, want it to go through. That is in addition to all the people who are interested in the health of Canadians and to all of the people who are interested in the environment.

I would be most grateful if the member would search her heart and not use these technical, legal matters because of her position with respect to the separation of Quebec in an area which affects the health and environment of all Canadians.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what my colleague had to say with great interest. However, I totally disagree with him when he compares lead to manganese.

I began to study nursing forty years ago, in a pediatric hospital. Forty years, that is quite a long time ago. There were no anti-pollution systems at that time. Forty years ago,children were being admitted to hospitals with lead induced encephalitis. Therefore, lead toxicity was already a recognized phenomenon.

As far as manganese is concerned, at present there is no evidence to show that it poses any threat to public health. Granted, all of the heavy metals are dangerous. Copper is dangerous, but we have some in our system. If we had to remove everything that is dangerous, there would be nobody left on the planet.

The arguments made by my colleague to the effect that plant workers are convinced that the anti-pollution systems are greatly affected by manganese in fuel, are something that I can understand, coming from these workers, but we must also look at rulings, especially by U.S. courts, to the effect that this has nothing to do with deterioration of anti-pollution systems.

Everybody looks to his own interests. In itself, that is not surprising. But I do not think that we should use the excuse of public health to support the interests of powerful lobbyists. I believe that the role of a government whether federal or provincial, is to look after the well-being of its citizens, all of them, and not to privilege one group in particular.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Just as in the case of Bill S-9, the alternative fuels act, we have 295 members of Parliament, most of whom are technological illiterates, attempting to referee between two powerful corporate lobbies. The cabinet is divided, but the government, for whatever reason, is going to persist in ploughing ahead with this legislation.

The red herring of health effects keeps being mentioned. It was brought up during questions and comments after the last speaker.

I would like to quote from the health protection branch of Health and Welfare Canada, which in 1992 issued a paper on the health impact of MMT. It concluded that based on current evidence, experts at Health and Welfare Canada are confident that the risk to human health from MMT derived manganese is extremely small. There is clearly a wide margin of safety between the current intake of manganese from MMT and the lowest concentrations of airborne manganese known to cause any health effects.

Let us be clear. We are not here debating a health issue, we are here debating a dispute between two industrial sectors, the automotive manufacturers on one hand and the petroleum producers on the other. It has absolutely nothing to do with health.

I understand that the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association came to the government requesting that legislation be introduced to ban MMT. It claims it causes problems to its onboard diagnostic systems, which I will hereafter refer to as OBDs.

The government claims it has attempted to negotiate some sort of a settlement between the automobile and petroleum industries. However, the former environment minister, who happened to represent an industrial area in southern Ontario, promised a ban on MMT before any fruitful talks could even take place. Clearly this has prejudiced any negotiations from the outset.

To encourage the government to move forward with legislation the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association informed the government that if MMT is not removed from gasoline its members will void warranties for new model cars, thereby inconveniencing thousands of Canadians who become car owners. And to ensure its point is appreciated and to exert a little bit of blackmail pressure, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association has threatened to charge Canadian consumers an additional $3,000 per car to offset the costs associated with OBD warranty claims.

The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association claims that it can validate its allegation that MMT causes malfunctions of its OBD systems. However, it will not make its research publicly available for review. It is worth noting that a U.S. court of appeals has stated that the automakers evidence, whatever it is, has not come close to refuting the Environmental Protection Agency's claim that MMT does not contribute to or cause the failure of OBD systems.

The claim that MMT negatively affects the functioning of OBDs in Canada has to be questioned given that the automakers have long been experiencing similar problems in the United States where until last year MMT was banned. So in the absence of MMT the car companies in the United States have fingered a very wide and diverse range of culprits for their problems. And these include sulphur in the fuel, which I suspect is probably the major one, cold weather, high altitude and road conditions.

Are we going to have the government taking action on these fronts as well? We could get our national highway system fixed up a bit, and a lot of Canadians would really appreciate a federal ban on cold winter weather.

The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association has also succeeded in creating the impression with some of our hon. colleagues that the failure of OBD systems contributes to increased air pollution. That is false. OBDs are monitoring systems. They have nothing to do with the actual emissions of the automobile. So it has been necessary for the car makers, in order to cover their own failings in the design of their OBDs, to link this problem to the environment because otherwise they would not have got through the doors of the various Liberal ministers responsible. We had Liberal ministers of the environment introducing some very ill conceived legislation.

In theory one would expect that a minister of the environment would have very little in common with automobile manufacturers. After all, what is the leading cause of smog? It is the automobile. If we take MMT out of automobile fuels, we will have more smog. That, at least, is beyond scientific dispute.

On the other side of this issue there is the petroleum industry, which uses MMT to boost octane to make a cleaner burning gasoline, and there are the producers of MMT. They dispute the claims of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association and point to scientific research done in the United States as part of one of the most extensive testing programs to date conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA test results demonstrated conclusively that MMT in gasoline does not cause or contribute to the failure of any emission control device or system.

The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute, which represents the majority of petroleum refining and marketing entities in Canada, has stated that it is strongly opposed to the proposed ban and has made efforts to have the Minister of the Environment see its perspective on this issue.

Here it is, two of the most powerful corporate lobbies in Canada both fighting for the attention of the minister on this issue, both presenting scientific data. We do not know really how much of the scientific data are valid because we have not properly addressed the issue.

The committee is where this should be dealt with. There should be a lot of witnesses coming in. We should not be jumping into this with both feet and playing favourites between these two groups of corporate giants.

The Canadian Petroleum Products Institute wants the Minister of the Environment to allow industry, both parties, to examine the effects of MMT through a facts based joint assessment conducted by impartial scientific observers. The minister has ignored calls for an independent testing program and is still forging ahead with this legislation.

I fail to understand how the Minister of the Environment and his colleagues can justify taking our time to review a situation when what obviously needs to happen is that the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute and the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association should solve their own problems between them. We do not need government intervention on this.

Why does the government, specifically the Minister of the Environment, feel so compelled to get involved in an industry dispute? If the government decided that it did have to intervene, one would at least have expected that it would do so based on scientific facts and not pander to either one political lobby or the other.

If we are going to restrict interprovincial trade, which is very deeply embedded in this legislation, one would have thought that the provinces would have been consulted. Seven provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, are all resoundingly opposed to this bill. Rather than creating green grass, the environment minister

seems to be expanding his turf war with the provinces by pushing ahead with Bill C-29.

I would like to quote briefly from examples of some of the provincial opposition. A letter dated May 14 from Premier Klein of Alberta said: "I am deeply troubled about the unilateral manner in which this issue was decided and implemented. There is a need for strong federal-provincial agreement and co-operation on national environmental issues such as air quality".

On May 1, 1996 the Quebec National Assembly unanimously approved the following resolution: "That the national assembly request the postponement of federal Bill C-29 concerning the gasoline additive MMT as long as environmental studies have not been conducted in a conclusive manner". I might add, not conducted in a properly scientific manner.

About 10 days ago Manitoba and Newfoundland joined with the other provinces in requesting that this very ill thought out legislation be slowed down. It is the provinces that will bear the direct deleterious result of the removal of MMT from gasoline which is the significant increase in emissions of nitrogen oxide. It seems reasonable to think that they should therefore have a voice in this decision.

In fact, the ban of MMT will mean that the provinces will be required to forfeit the most cost effective method of reducing smog causing agents in gasoline, and they will be required to accommodate anywhere from a 16 per cent to a 20 per cent increase in nitrous oxide emissions.

Calls to the government to identify what will replace MMT are still unanswered. No scientific testing is planned and it is difficult to predict what is going to happen next. Surely the government has something in mind to replace MMT.

Clearly all Canadians hope the members opposite will not support this bill without putting forward a credible plan to deal with increased urban smog.

We have made good progress toward reducing our nitrous oxide content of emissions in this country, but with this legislation we run the risk of wiping out those gains and saddling ourselves with increased problems. We are clearly moving in the wrong direction.

Therefore rather than construct environmental policy on speculation and half baked voodoo science, what is needed is some leadership from the government. If we are to address the problem of worsening air quality in Canada the auto companies and the oil companies must work together. It is equally clear that there is a need to have the federal and provincial governments co-operate on environmental issues of this nature.

The way to accomplish this is obvious. Withdraw this bill, do some decent scientific work and come back to this House when you know what you are doing.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is something I would like to make clear right at the outset, because viewers might have the impression that those who care about environment are sitting on that side and those who do not care are sitting on this side. This is an oversimplification.

I want to say right away to people joining us for the debate that it has to do with the fact that the government is proposing a bill seeking a ban on a gas additive, which would have as a major impact substantial adjustment costs for whole segments of industrial sectors, such as oil refineries, without any scientific studies to back it up.

The official opposition, first through its critic, the hon. member for Laurentides, and through successive members, wants to make it clear that, when the environment minister or any other independent third party will be able to table in this House rigorously scientific and conclusive studies showing that this additive called MMT harms the environment or damages antipollution systems in vehicles, the Bloc, as well as the Reform Party surely, will reconsider its position.

It is unthinkable that an environment minister, with a carelessness that is out of keeping with the seriousness of this issue, would ask Canadian members of Parliament to pass legislation that will impose substantial adjustment costs on industrial sectors that are already in difficulty, on the basis of representations made by a auto makers lobby. That is not how things should be done.

I am particularly pleased to take part in this debate because, as you know, I am one of the members from Montreal, more specifically from East Montreal. When I was younger, East Montreal had six refineries. Today there are only two left, because of a number of problems which are international in nature but sometimes have a more national resonance.

I cannot accept, and I fail to understand how the government can do a good job when it asks us to pass a bill that, I repeat, involves considerable adjustment costs for the oil refinery sector, without thorough, scientific and conclusive studies to support its decision.

It does not make sense to have jobs, jobs, jobs as a political mantra when you create problems for those who want to save jobs. In the case of East Montreal, I would like to point out that the two remaining refineries that continue to operate-when I was a kid there were six-employ 4,000 people. I would like to include in my speech a point of view that is typically Montreal and a flavour that is East Montreal by sharing with you two letters I received from

interest groups that represent their community and have a stake in the local economy.

I am not referring to the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society which is our ally on sovereignty. I am not talking about the Mouvement national des Québécois, but about interest groups, the first of which is called Pro-Est. These are businessmen, people who are concerned above all about the economic recovery of East Montreal.

You will recall that in 1984, there was a wave of business shutdowns which led the people of East Montreal to organize. The result was a group called Pro-Est, an authorized pressure group that tries in various ways to give East Montreal a prosperous economy so that people will want to stay there.

Pro-Est is concerned about the subject matter of Bill C-29. I would like to share this short letter with you, and I would like to recommend its contents to the attention of the government side, so they will understand that the reaction to Bill C-29 goes back to what is at stake in the economy of a number of communities, including East Montreal.

The letter says: "Pro-Est wants to express its concerns about the possible adoption of Bill C-29 regarding MMT as an additive in gas". It goes on to say: "In fact, the passage of this bill would have a negative impact on the competitive position of the industry".

The words competitive position really mean something from the economic point of view, and I hope the government side will appreciate that. So the letter reads: "The passage of this bill would have a negative impact on the competitive position of the refineries of East Montreal. The withdrawal of MMT would oblige refineries to compensate in other ways, which would represent an additional cost of seven or eight million dollars annually for the refineries in East Montreal alone".

So seven or eight million dollars annually for the refineries in East Montreal alone, and earlier we heard a figure of about $40 million for the entire petrochemical sector in Quebec.

The letter goes on: "We remind you that the petrochemical industry is one of the cornerstones of economic development on the east side of the island of Montreal. The takeover of Kemtec by Coastal, the high placement rate of graduates of the Institut de chimie et de pétrochimie and the viability of the Petro-Canada and Shell refineries are a good indication of the consolidation of this sector in our region. Because of these important economic spin-offs and the considerable number of secondary jobs, the petrochemical industry is a key sector in the economic recovery of the greater Montreal area".

As you probably know, the environment is an important issue for Pro-Est, and I may point out that Pro-Est is a group that has identified the environmental sector, the whole issue of plastics recycling, as a sector to be developed in this region. So we cannot accuse them of not being sensitive to this problem.

I will continue reading the letter: "Hence, we agree with several other Quebecers who are suggesting to defer the passing of Bill C-29 until independent experts can clearly show that MMT is environmentally safe. We thank you for your interest-", and so on. That letter is signed by Pierre Bibeau, chairman of the Pro-Est group.

I also heard the same thing from the chairman of the chamber of commerce of eastern Montreal Island, Alain Riendeau. When the businesspeople and all the stakeholders who are concerned about economic growth and who want to ensure the communities remain competitive join together to make representations, something they can do within our system, I hope the majority in office is listening.

Earlier, my colleague, the hon. member for Peterborough, said that a few years back no one would have imagined that lead could become such a problem and a health hazard. Again, when studies carried out by independent third parties show that there is cause for concern, that will be the time to take concrete measures. But this cannot be done on the basis of non-scientific allegations and on the basis, finally, of representations by a local lobby, which naturally has the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment who are both Ontario members.

It takes some nerve to come here and tell us that our concern today is for public health. In that case, let us remind ministers that they gave this issue to the wrong minister. If it were a public health issue, if the health of Canadians was really in jeopardy, I would hope that the health minister, the hon. member for Cape Breton-Richmond-East, would stand in this House and explain to us, parliamentarians and, thus, to all Canadians, how this concerns his department and what remedies he intends to take.

Let us go a little further. If this is a toxic substance, why is it that the federal government has not taken any measure so far to ban it and why are imports at issue here? If this substance is a toxic substance, then it is so everywhere. Be it within a province or in interprovincial trade, the toxic content remains the same.

You know, as the last speaker for the Reform Party also said, I think, what we are talking about here are representations by lobbyists, by people who are settled in Ontario and are concerned with the automotive industry.

If auto makers have decisive studies on the operation of anti-pollution systems, and the resulting impact on their competitiveness, that should concern us as parliamentarians, let them make these studies public. In a democracy, the best way to oppose an idea

is to suggest a better one. That is how things can be done democratically.

How accurate was the auto makers' demonstration? What did they contribute to the debate? Not much. They are unable to make a clear and significant demonstration of the dangers that should bring us, as members of Parliament, to ban MMT.

I really want to be very clear about the possible consequences of such a ban in a community like Montreal, where the petrochemical sector has already been under considerable strain for the last ten years. Investments of $7 million to $14 million will be needed to adjust to new production equipment. This is the first reality to keep in mind.

If the Minister is the sensible man I believe he is and anxious to start a dialogue, there is a second reality that should at least be of some concern to him. Right now, there are seven provinces in different regions, with governments of different political stripes, and with different economic bases-that is quite a number of provinces-that have taken a united stand and ask the federal government to review its position and delay the adoption of this bill.

I think the government ought to be impressed by some of the arguments that have been made. If the government cares about the quality of our environment, it will see to it that we make decisions based on accurate and scientifically recognized studies and that we pass legislation based on documentation that is really useful to us in our debates.

I cannot resist temptation. You know how disciplined I am, but sometimes I like to let my imagination go, especially on a difficult Friday such as this one, given the difficlut issue of the referral to the Supreme Court. You know that nothing is simple in this Parliament.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Things will change now.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

I see my colleague from the Reform Party shares my opinion. I would like to share with you a letter that was sent to the government by the natural resources minister in the Bouchard government, François Gendron. Let me draw your attention to one aspect of this correspondence. The minister writes: "I am writing again, on behalf of the minister of state for economy and finance, Bernard Landry, and of the transport minister in charge of Canadian intergovernmental affairs, Jacques Brassard, and on my own behalf, to state the firm position of the Quebec government on the bill being studied".

He continues: "That bill, the Manganese-based Fuel Additives Act, will reach the third reading stage in the House of Commons in just a few months. It seems your government is quite determined to follow through with that bill. That bill concerns the importation and selling of MMT in Canada. It seems the Canadian government wants to pass this bill because the auto makers claim that gasoline containing MMT will cause damage to the pollution control equipment in new cars".

This is getting interesting, it should shake up government members a little. It goes on: "With free trade between Canada, the United States and Mexico, recent developments in the United States and Mexico are pointing in another direction".

What does it mean? You will remember that in the past few years the Environmental Protection Agency has been trying to have the use of MMT banned in the United States. The case was dismissed by a district of Columbia appeal court which ruled that the evidence presented was not conclusive enough.

Not only were the United States defeated, not only was the EPA defeated, but now the regulation banning the use of MMT as a fuel additive in the United States can no longer be enforced, and in Mexico-as you might recall, the Mexican president sat in your chair and made a speech to Canadian parliamentarians-they are faced with the same situation.

So, when we are told that if the bill is not passed, we will no longer be competitive, there is something not quite right with government members' logic, since the production and use of MMT as a fuel additive will now be allowed in the United States, our major trading partner-and you know how strong our commercial ties are with them, especially when it comes to the automobile industry. And not only in the case of the United States, but also in the case of Mexico.

So, this is a situation of ministerial stubbornness. The minister is stomping his feet with a rather childish stubbornness saying we must go in that direction, with some sort of determination that is almost unreasonable, no, I correct my words, that is not reasonable at all.

What must we do, as members of Parliament, to convince the minister? What efforts must we make when seven provinces are opposed, when the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute is opposed, when entire industrial sectors are at risk, particularly in regions that cannot afford to lose jobs if they want to maintain their economic prosperity. Of course, I am talking about East Montreal.

So today, we must send the environment minister a cry from the heart so that, for the sake of rationality, he can go beyond partisan considerations and find a reasonable compromise. And this reasonable compromise can only be the public tabling, for debate, of much more substantiated studies commissioned by third parties and focusing on the potential or not, on the beneficial or deleterious nature, of using MMT in gasoline.

I do not think what we are asking today is unreasonable. I do not think the consensus of the seven provinces, regardless of any partisan leaning, is unreasonable. It seems to me if the Minister of

Environment is concerned with the environmental issue, there are other bills, other problems that should hold his attention.

We have been told about the pollution in the Great Lakes. There would be something there that could be very interesting from a legislation viewpoint.

So why take up the time of the House to deal with poorly defined problems, with untested propositions, on an issue where almost everyone is not convinced by or satisfied with the evidence tabled by the minister.

I intend to take a very firm stand on this. Again, there used to be six refineries in the east end of Montreal. The petrochemical sector used to be prosperous, but with measures such as those proposed today-I have a feeling my time is running out, so I make a last appeal to the minister to use common sense and defer his bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from June 3, 1996, consideration of the motion that, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending the Income Tax Act to provide a Care-Giver Tax Credit for those who provide care in the home for pre-school children, the disabled, the chronically-ill or the aged.

Income Tax Act

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Private Members' Motion No. 30. The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending the Income Tax Act to provide a Care-Giver Tax Credit for those who provide care in the home for pre-school children, the disabled, the chronically-ill or the aged.

The purpose of this motion is to help people who greatly need to be helped. The disability tax credit is a tax measure that exists at the provincial level, at least in Quebec, and at the federal level. It is a non-refundable tax credit.

In 1994, this credit amounted to $4,233. It is to be noted that it was originally established to help those who became disabled during the war. In order to be eligible for the credit, the applicant must submit, with his income tax return, a Revenue Canada form duly completed by a doctor or an optometrist.

There are currently a number of tax measures designed to help families that take care of elderly or disabled people. However, we believe these measures are not enough.

The numerous flaws of the current taxation system make me quite angry at times. How can this government turn a deaf ear to such a motion, while seeking to smother the scandal of family trust assets transferred tax free to the United States? Two billion dollars left the country tax free, while ordinary taxpayers are being taxed to the hilt.

My colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and official opposition finance critic, mentioned recently that Liberals question the qualifications of the Auditor General and his team by refusing to answer his questions, and suggesting that Mr. Desautels has stepped outside his terms of reference.

Liberal members of the finance committee are trying to demean an institution whose main goal is to make sure the government is held accountable.

I am also quite sensitive to the treatment of older people, in my capacity as the official opposition representative for seniors organizations. I have taken the floor many times in the House to uphold the rights of seniors. We should not forget the Canadian population is growing older.

A 1991 survey on aging and self care has shown that nearly one third of Canadians were 45 or older in 1991, with 19 per cent being between 45 and 64 and 11 per cent 65 or older. As the baby boomers grow older, we can expect a rapid increase in the number of seniors.

Projections over the 1991-2001 period tell us that the population growth in the 45 plus group will be almost three times faster than in the general population, that is 32 and 13 per cent respectively.

The well-being of the aged, as measured by their health, their revenue and their degree of integration in society, seems to be strongly related to the quality of housing and the ability to move around in their community. Seniors and the disabled very often prefer to stay in their community with the assistance of a member of their immediate family or another relative.

It appears quite reasonable to give a tax credit to a taxpayer who can work full time and give appropriate care to a dependent person. People who do not have to move into residences run by strangers experience a better quality of life.

Seniors are often seen as a burden in our communities. They are socially dead. But if they remain in their own community, these people can be part of their community and feel more secure, financially or otherwise.

I also rose in this House to have a grandparents' day celebrated every year and also have a grandparents' year designated, to recognize the role these people play in the family unit, especially in child rearing.

These people are often the link between the past, the present and the future. Therefore, you will understand why Motion No. 30 is of particular concern to me and why its implementation raises several questions in my mind.

Today's edition of Le Devoir includes highlights of the report of the Auditor General of Canada, Denis Desautels. It says that Revenue Canada has laid itself open to fraud by not sufficiently controlling or assessing the GST credit program and the child tax benefits, which combined and replaced the old family allowance and child tax credit. These programs cost $8 billion every year.

It adds that among the issues that were raised was the fact that Revenue Canada does not require a birth certificate before granting the tax benefit. The assessment of the applications for disability benefits paid by the Canada Pension Plan is inadequate. The total amount of these benefits has tripled in the last 10 years, increasing from $841 million to $3 billion. In comparison, disability benefits paid by the Régime des rentes du Québec have remained almost stable during the same period.

The report also concluded that a general improvement of government phone services was in order. Too often, the lines are overloaded and the information given by the operators is incorrect. Revenue Canada has a particularly poor performance, in this regard.

How can we not worry about potential fraud, since there are people who abuse the system, unfortunately.

Moreover, if the government gives the tax credit to people who stay at home and take care of preschool children or handicapped, chronically ill or senior members of the family, it could be tempted to reduce benefits, in particular the old age security or the child tax benefit.

To conclude, Motion M-30 brought forward by my colleague for Mississauga-South is valid in principle, but it would require increased vigilance to avoid potential fraud.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here this afternoon to debate this motion tabled by the member for Mississauga South.

The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider amending the Income Tax Act to provide a Care-Giver Tax Credit for those who provide care in the home for pre-school children, the disabled, the chronically-ill or the aged.

It is, of course, a very valid proposal, a step in the right direction, and we can all subscribe to its objective.

The motion proposes that the government augment its existing tax credit system for caregivers. This motion, because it identifies preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged is not unlike some of the proposals I have made in the past. I would be hard pressed not to support my colleague and that is what I intend to do philosophically in the direction in which he is going.

I want to review some of the things we have in place today. There are a number of very laudable programs that not everyone is aware of. These were reviewed by the hon. member for St. Paul's but I want to share some of them briefly with my colleagues.

With respect to the disabled and the aged, the disability tax credit is aimed at benefiting those with a severe and prolonged mental or physical impairment. There is also medical expense tax credit which provides assistance to those with exceedingly difficult medical expenses. This credit benefits families helping to care for elderly or disabled relatives. There is the infirm dependant credit which helps to reduce the federal tax for supporting relatives.

With respect to preschool children the child care expense deduction assists parents with modest incomes with child care expenses. The supplement to the child tax benefit assists those who remain at home to raise their children. It is a form of assistance to families with modest incomes who have to stay at home to care for their young children without utilizing child care. There is the working income supplement, a non-taxable benefit which helps low income working families with child care expenses and transportation costs.

I believe we need to offer credits to assist caregivers. In fact as I indicated previously I have suggested motions which deal with tax credits in the past.

I think the purpose of this motion is very commendable and that each of us agrees, at least in principle, on the necessity of providing such assistance. On the other hand, there may be different ways of dealing with this issue.

In the past I proposed a motion to change the child related tax benefits and child care deductions. I felt that they should be based on need irrespective of care. I also proposed a motion that was aimed at assisting single income families. I thought this was particularly important and I still do so today.

Our tax system is continually evolving to meet the changing needs of our population. Let us look at this motion specifically. Some people have suggested that it may not be specific enough and that the motion may not have sufficient details so that we can deal with it appropriately.

I want to share with my colleagues a couple of observations with respect to experiences I have had recently in dialoguing with fellow Canadians and experts of different disciplines who have a great deal of knowledge about our Canadian population.

I had the good fortune to meet with a number of individuals of diverse backgrounds to discuss the future of government in Canada. We wanted to see how government might operate and how it might respond even more sensitively than it does now to changing needs. Clearly that could be done if we had a better picture of how the Canadian population is changing.

I must confess these discussions have been rather fascinating. A number of themes emerged during this exchange, but one of the common threads that came about was the flexibility of government.

Without this great flexibility, whether it be at the federal, provincial or municipal level, we will have serious problems. Why? Because it is obvious that the needs of the population vary greatly from region to region. It is true that there are common needs, but it is also true that, depending on the population, the needs can vary considerably from province to province, from region to region, from territory to territory.

Interestingly, the discussions have identified numerous support mechanisms, some of which are very innovative. We have to stop thinking that it is only the federal, provincial and municipal governments that can assist citizens. There are a number of organizations out that that do laudable work with very little investment from Canadians, that is very little investment relatively speaking. However, I am targeting that which we refer to as community groups. We need to take a look at that and see what else they might provide in services to improve the quality of life of all Canadians who need special assistance.

When I talk about support I am using the term loosely. I do not say that pejoratively, but in a very broad sense because it can mean a lot of things. It can mean flexibility, which I have already mentioned, in the workplace to allow time, for example, away during difficult periods without the threat of a job loss. It can mean the expansion of health care services to provide better, long term care in the community and elsewhere. It can mean flexibility to the CPP. It clearly could mean tax credits, but these are not the only solutions.

I guess where I am at right now, I would argue that a study would need to be carried out to examine exactly what the $1.4 billion in existing assistance means to Canadians. Do they know that this is happening? Are they sufficiently familiar with these programs? Are individuals currently aware of what credits for which they are all eligible? Is the current system being utilized appropriately? We have talked about some people misusing the system but there are a number of people, which I think has been documented, who are not aware of the systems and programs that exist.

When we look at this holistically, we need to ask where the gaps are. Clearly there must be some. There are weaknesses in the system. What measures are required to fill these gaps and be more responsive to Canadians and their needs? Maybe tax credits are required. Perhaps there are other solutions that need to be explored.

Basically, the point I want to make this afternoon is that it is a good idea as such, an idea we all support. However, before going any further, we should look at all the programs I have mentioned and others in order to determine how well they meet the needs for which they were designed. Then we will be able to determine if the system is deficient, if certain programs need to be strengthened, changed, eliminated or replaced.

What my colleague is proposing is simple, but it is something that we should do only after having reviewed all programs, after having gained a better understanding of the needs of Canadians across the country and after having made sure that future changes in the Canadian population are taken into account in the measures we propose.

You certainly know-if I am not mistaken, we are talking about a population over 65 years of age representing 11 or 12 per cent of the total population in Canada-that the senior population is expected to double over the next thirty years or so. Women, who already live longer than men, are expected to live even longer. And even men will also live longer.

What does that means as it relates to health, entertainment, work? What does it means when we look at this new Canadian population which will be different from what it is today?

Incidentally, I should point out that this solution is not so different from what can be found in a number of European countries.

I suggest that we keep in mind the idea put forward by my colleague from Mississauga South until we have an opportunity to thoroughly review all the programs. We can then look at the shortcomings and determine if changes are required, if some of the

programs should be altered or if the solution proposed by the hon. member is the best alternative.

And this concludes my remarks.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate this important private member's motion. First, I would like to support the idea of the private member's motion. I read a bit of history not long ago and found that in times past Parliament was taken up essentially with motions and bills brought forward by private members.

Over time, this has eroded to mostly government initiated bills and motions. If the government says go for it, then fine. If the government is against it, it would not bring in the bills or motions. Consequently, the legislative agenda is greatly limited.

I appreciate the concept of private members' motions. I sincerely hope that we will not see in this private member's motion the kind of interference from the government side that we did in the previous one earlier this week. I hope, sincerely, that members of Parliament will be able to assess the merits of this motion on its own and to vote freely, without interference from the government side.

Specifically the question is one of taxation. This topic comes up over and over again in the House. It is a problem, I suppose it would be proper to say, that has seized the attention of Canadians.

I was married 35 years ago. I would like to congratulate my wife for having stayed with me for that long. It is a miracle in itself. A friend of ours said recently: "She deserves a medal", and I would concur with that.

When we were first married in 1961, my salary was a little over $400 a month. My income tax deduction was $35 a month, about 8 per cent. On that salary, I was able to provide for my family. At first we had a rented house. We went from that to purchase a house on a single income.

I was able to provide enough groceries. People can see over the years that I, as the representative sample of our family, have not suffered in the starvation department. We have been able to manage quite well.

We are one family who made the choice that, when our children were young, mother would be a full time mother. She would be the manager of the home. She would be there for the children in the morning when they were off to school as they grew older. She stayed with them, of course, full time before they went to school. She was there when the children came home from school in order to give a solid, loving home base to the children as they were growing up. Consequently, we lived on my income only during those years.

Unfortunately, times have changed during these 35 years. To my view, they have changed to the detriment of the family. For most Canadians over half their income is spent for them by politicians and bureaucrats at the three levels of government. No longer do we have an 8 per cent rate of taxation. We now have a 50 per cent rate of taxation, plus GST. People cannot get away from that. No matter where they turn to purchase anything, there is the GST.

I had to buy a part for my vehicle the other day. I ended up paying $10 in GST. The part was quite expensive. I said to myself, why should I pay a penalty of $10 to some federal program that is wasting my money because I have to repair my vehicle so that it will run.

The motion underlines the fact that we are taxed to death. In particular, as families we are being taxed to death. It is no longer true that families have a choice, as we had, to say that one member will stay at home full time. They cannot live on one income. The reason is very simple. So much of a family's earnings are now taken away from it by the coercion of taxation that the amount that it has left is insufficient to provide for shelter, clothing, food, education and then some of those other things that are valued.

It is wonderful if children, as they are growing up, can learn more than what is taught just in the home and in the school. I benefited from piano lessons. My parents sacrificed so that I could learn to play the piano. I love playing O Canada when we go out to some of the meetings in my constituency. I always say: "Make sure there is a piano there so that I can play it". My parents sacrificed for that. More and more families cannot do that.

I spoke recently with parents who said they have no choice but for both of them to work. Otherwise they could not afford to have shelter, clothing and food. They are hard pressed to provide some of those other things which are so valuable in the development and the growth of children.

This motion says there should be a tax credit for those who choose this particular lifestyle. In principle, I agree with it. The principle is that we want to reduce the tax load on families so that they can, with their own earnings, provide the care for their families. That is a commendable goal. In principle, I am in favour of what this bill says.

At the same time I seriously ask the question of whether this is the best way to go. First, governments at all levels should sharply reduce their demands for money to be shipped to Ottawa by the truckload, trainload or however it is brought here. The federal government over spends. There is no doubt about it. Too large a proportion of government expenditures are going to interest.

It is absolutely mandatory that the government reduce not only its annual borrowing so that the debt goes up more slowly, it is far beyond the time already when it should have reduced the deficit to zero. Government should be living within its means, including the payment of interest on the present debt. Members should start looking at reducing the debt which would reduce the amount of interest so that Canadians can be given a tax break. Consequently those Canadians would have more of their own money to spend as they see fit. If parents value the ability to choose that one of them stays home, then they should be able to afford that.

It is true that in the present system the greatest amount of future planning, retirement planning and family budgeting has to do with meeting the tax budget and the tax demands. I attended a seminar some time ago on retirement planning. I was appalled when I realized that about 10 or 15 per cent of the time was spent making wise investment decisions and things like that and about 85 per cent was used on how to either postpone or avoid paying taxes. It points out the fact that taxes are too high.

This bill says let us give a tax credit to those families in which there is only one wage earner. Let us make it easier for families to make that choice. Not long ago there was a poll taken and it showed that fully two-thirds of parents of young children said if they really had the choice they would choose for one or the other of them to stay home full time with the children. They feel they do not have the choice and inasmuch as this motion is a step in the right direction, it would be wise of us to support it.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to Motion No. M-30 which would give a tax credit to home caregivers.

It is particularly a pleasure to speak to this motion because it gives me an opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians who may be interested that we who are members of political parties, be it the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois or the Liberal Party, are not necessarily ideologues, that we do not necessarily follow or hold all the views of our respective parties.

In this case I am referring to the position taken by my own Liberal Party on day care during the last federal election. The Liberals came out very strongly in support of government subsidized day care. The NDP came out even more strongly. If I remember correctly, the NDP promised to spend $1 billion on subsidized day care which the NDP said would create some 70,000 jobs. The Liberals promised much less than that; their program was a couple of hundred million dollars which would create about 10,000 jobs if I recall correctly.

From the outset I was opposed to both concepts in principle. I made it very clear when I ran for election that I did not support everything in the red book, and I certainly did not support the Liberal position on day care. The fundamental reason was that in my mind the promise of 70,000 jobs for $1 billion was a promise of 70,000 marginal jobs basically for women to look after children other than their own. I did not see the practicality of that.

The desire for subsidized daycare has its origins in the socialistic movement of the previous decades, of the 1960s and the 1970s. It was based on two premises. One premise was that parents, particularly women, should not have to sacrifice for their children, for raising families. The premise was that they should be able to have children and also have a worthy job. The other premise, an important one, was that the state could provide some fundamental social caregiving like the family in looking after children.

It has become very clear in the course of the 1980s when we see what has happened to the great totalitarian socialist states like the former Soviet Union and even communist China, that institutionalized family services do not work. In the end they create problems. They create young people who become adults who are not effective citizens.

The services become unmanageable in their actual implementation. Look anywhere in the experiences of the Soviet Union and communist China and lesser so in some of the Nordic states and we will find there have been many problems in trying to successfully implement state run family care. It is not a concept that we recognize as being very successful any more.

The proof of the pudding is in my own riding. When I campaigned from door to door particularly on Hamilton Mountain, a great number of the lower income families obviously had both parents employed. As I went along the streets, I saw that block after block the streets were empty, the houses were empty. The driveways usually had spaces for two automobiles. Most of these parents probably had their children in day care if they were not in school.

As the member for Mississauga South pointed out, the emancipation of the other spouse, be they male or female, basically puts two people in a position of marginal income at the sacrifice of the children. The statistic is basically that a person earning $25,000 with two children in day care makes a net profit of $100 a week. I submit that is not worth the trial, tribulation and even the damage which it inflicts on young children.

In my area there are some subsidized day care facilities. I have visited them as a member of Parliament. What do we do when we enter a subsidized day care facility and see the children playing not on real grass but on plastic grass? Money has been raised to support these day care centres and in someone's incredible wisdom the things which children relate to have been removed; simple things

like real grass and real dirt. In other words, the paid caregivers do not want the children to get dirty. I would say that has the potential of being a traumatic experience for children. I cannot accept it.

I have three children. I have also been the parent who has stayed at home while my wife worked. I have been the primary caregiver. My children were preschoolers. I worked at the Toronto Star . I would come home very late at night. I made a point every night before the children were in school to go directly home to read fairy tales to them. Actually, I can imitate just about every voice in every fairy tale. I can do Pinocchio, I can do the good fairy and all of those voices. Also Long John Silver. The pay off was that my children were capable of reading by the time they were in grade 3. They were reading fluently all the books which they had before them. I submit that was because I was the caregiver who read them those stories.

I have had occasion to go to schools to read to children after school was out. They could not go home because their parents were working. They did not have their own mom and dad to read to them, so they had to rely on a stranger. In this case the stranger was a member of Parliament. It is not the same thing. It is not as good.

What the motion directs us toward is looking once more at where we stand as a country with respect to traditional family values and the importance of the family. The motion is a direction to Parliament to set aside the socialist ideologies of the past and to look to the future, remembering that there are genuine values in the traditional family. As we go into the next century these values are going to be even more accentuated.

We have now entered the computer age. I live in a little village far from Toronto, a remote village in southern Ontario. It does not have a lot of amenities. There is a mother who lives across the street who has developed a tremendous business as a computer troubleshooter. She has one room set aside in her home and she is on the phone with businesses all over the world. She makes a good wage.

That mother is also the primary caregiver. She has three small children. She is able to look after those children. She has a career and a sense of worthiness, a sense of participating in society, and she also has the opportunity to give her children the natural care which they deserve. I do not see any reason for the government not to recognize the value which she is contributing to society by being at home and looking after her children.

The present situation is that when one member of a couple, be they male or female, elect to stay at home, the government gives them nothing. The present tax situation is such that the government encourages both parents to work and as we have seen, it is only to marginal advantage.

Finally, tomorrow I face an audience of about 300 people in one of the largest halls in my riding to discuss the Young Offenders Act. There was a terrible shooting in my riding about two months ago in which a young man was seriously wounded by teenagers with a handgun which fired a hollow nosed bullet. The young man is now paralyzed. This has raised an enormous concern in my riding with respect to possible amendments to the Young Offenders Act.

We will discuss the act. But behind our discussion about changing the Young Offenders Act and increasing the penalties and the opportunities for rehabilitation for young people is the fundamental problem that in the past 20 years we have left the family unit behind and we have failed our young people. I think that shows up in the increased incidents of youth crime.

I support the motion 100 per cent. It is a fine motion and I congratulate the member for Mississauga South for bringing it before the House.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of the hon. member for Mississauga South, which have prompted his Motion No. 30. This motion proposes an amendment to the Income Tax Act to provide a caregiver tax credit for those who provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.

You are, no doubt, aware that women generally invest more time than men in the care and nurturing of children, and this, for many of them, results in increased difficulty in entering the work force and in reduced earnings. During their lifetimes as well, they generally devote more time than men to the care of dependent members of their extended families, the sick, the disabled, or the elderly.

According to Nancy Guberman, in Actes du colloque , the proceedings of a symposium held in Montreal on May 5, 1995, women are responsible for 85 per cent of the assistance provided within families. According to Canadian Social Trends , in 1992 virtually all of the 3.4 million people whose principal activity was caring for the family home were women.

An examination of these statistics clearly shows that the measures in Motion No. 30 would, for the most part, affect Canadian and Quebec women. It is therefore important to compare the demands being made by those most concerned by this with the objectives of the motion we are addressing at this time. But serious attention must also be given in particular to the means which will be used to achieve those goals.

The aim of the motion proposed by the member for Mississauga South is to recognize the child-rearing done by the parent at home. We entirely agree with the member regarding the need for society

to recognize the considerable value of unpaid work performed by women at home, on the farm or elsewhere, whether it be housework, the care and nurturing of children or providing care to the aged.

People who work at home are extremely resentful of the lack of understanding and social respect from which they still suffer today. Changes are therefore necessary in order to attach more value to unpaid work and to the social role that those people play. This is what Motion No. 30 proposes. This why we support the motion of the member for Mississauga South, which responds with good intentions to the legitimate claims of those people.

But, in order to achieve these goals, the government must be guided by two key principles: the search for equity or social justice and the search for an efficient allocation of resources.

We support this motion, although we still have some concerns about its implementation and implications.

It would be unacceptable, for instance, if this motion were to send women back to their kitchens, that is to say encourage them to stay home and discourage those who are working outside the home.

It is important to support women's legitimate aspiration to full participation to society, whatever their place of work.

Women are free to choose to stay home to take care of someone in their immediate family, but they are also have a fundamental right to work. We must recognize that being away from a paid job has long-term consequences, because women who leave the workforce not only have to do without the income but, upon returning to work, they will never earn as much as they would have if they had not left.

Motion M-30 would help make up for this loss of income. In most cases, women work outside the home because they are single mothers, have to supplement their partner's income or because they want to contribute to society the knowledge and skills they have. It is important to support those who work at home, but it is equally important to support women who are in an occupational setting or would like to be.

Our second concern has to do with the adverse effects the changes proposed in Motion M-30 could have if they are not implemented with care. Yes, we should help women working in the home, but it is important to watch out for a tax system that would introduce further inequality and exclusion. We must categorically oppose a system that seeks to realize savings by eliminating jobs, and reducing the demand for daycare places and services. Such a system would be a disincentive to jobs and training, and would limit women to the status of part-time workers or make them dependent on their spouse or the government.

Today, and there are a number of reasons for this, the care and raising of children no longer usually require the full-time presence of the mother in the home for the greater part of her working life. We tend to have fewer children, and our children leave home for school at an early age. The phenomena of separation and divorce, and the increase in single parenthood, have also meant that a woman's ability to earn her living has become the best guarantee of economic security for women and children. But let us never forget that this ability is strongly dependent on academic training and work experience and whether women have sufficiently remunerative work.

Motion M-30 is rooted in a good intention, in wishing to provide a tax credit for those looking after relatives at home. It is a way of promoting the equality and autonomy of these women. But let us take care that measures such as those proposed in M-30 do not lose sight of the fact that women are people in their own right and not dependents of a spouse, or people whose identity is lost in that of the family.

My third reservation concerns the beneficiaries of the assistance proposed in Motion M-30. Such measures must, of necessity, be directed towards individuals working in the home. In the demographic and economic context we are now facing, the tax system and transfer payments must support the movement of women towards economic autonomy, by encouraging them to take training, to acquire relevant work experience and to develop their knowledge and know-how on a life long basis. We must be wary of fixating on measures that force individuals to maintain family solidarity, and remember the importance of basing the tax system on individuals first and foremost. The work of a person providing care in the home for children, the chronically ill, the disabled or the aged must be recognized independently of family income.

Any measures likely to slow down women's participation in the labour market and to increase their economic dependency on their spouse or on the government risk having a high social cost over the long term.

Motion No. 30, I repeat, should not be used as an excuse for confining women to home nor as a justification for removing government commitment, which could reduce the benefits already enjoyed by certain categories of people such as seniors or handicapped people.

It should not be used either to make savings on the backs of workers who could lose their jobs because of a decrease in the demand for services. This is no way to create jobs.

Finally, the Bloc Quebecois reiterates its comments on how important it is for Quebec to give itself a comprehensive family policy, something it cannot do right now within the federal system. Indeed, the existence of two levels of government in many areas affecting women's life is cause for overlapping and duplication of programs and structures and, as a result, a waste of taxpayer money.

As for me, I think the interest of Quebec women would be best served if there were only one decision maker and only one provider of funds. For Quebec, it would mean that it would be possible to give itself a consistent and comprehensive policy dealing with the status of woman and the family.

We are convinced that only sovereignty for Quebec will allow us to reach these goals.

[Ian Murray, Liberal, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today in favour of Motion No. 30 brought forward by my colleague from Mississauga South.

At the outset I would like to say that I have not looked at all of the financial implications of this motion and, from that perspective, we must bear in mind that this is a motion and not a bill. What we are really trying to do is encourage the government to look for ways to fulfil the objectives the member for Mississauga has in mind. I am very pleased to see that there is so much support on both sides of the House for this motion.

I think it is fair to say that there is a growing sense among Canadians that governments at all levels place less value today on the role parents play in raising children. One may argue that it is a personal decision to have children and that society already plays a large role in the development of those children. We can look at health care and education as two examples of general tax revenues being used for the indiscriminate benefit of all of us.

The fact that all taxpayers contribute to the education system demonstrates that society has historically recognized that well educated children and, as a consequence, a well educated workforce and citizenry are good for the well-being of the whole community.

The decision to have children means years of financial sacrifice for parents. There is a further loss of income if one parent stays home to look after the children. I have long believed that income splitting would be the preferred way for governments to recognize the costs involved when a parent stays home to care for a child or children. My colleague from Mississauga South has already introduced a bill which proposes that to the government and I still believe this approach should be looked at by the government when it is looking for ways to help families.

In the past 50 years we have seen a dramatic change in the Canadian family. In 1968 only 30 per cent of families had two incomes. In a 1994 study by Statistics Canada 60.4 per cent of all families were dual earners. Now more often than not both parents work outside the home. One of the reasons for this change often is that both parents have vital careers and want to continue their professional lives.

However, as a recent Angus Reid survey showed, over 70 per cent of parents where both were working and had preschool children said that if they could they would choose to have one parent stay at home to provide for their children. However, this choice is not available to all families. The realities of today's economy force many parents to both work just to make ends meet.

Being a dual earner family causes other problems, in particular the extra expense of child care. This additional child care expense is substantial. For example, when a second spouse is working and earning $25,000 with two children in child care the net pay is less than $100 per week. In many cases it does not justify the family hardships and sacrifices made when both spouses are working.

I would like to read a letter from one of my constituents whom I have spoken with at some length. He has written to me recently again, Mr. Don Bell from Kanata, Ontario. I will quote one paragraph from his letter:

Existing income tax laws provide day care rebates to the lower income earner in a family, rebates which increase as salary increases. This encourages the second wage earner to work full time, even overtime, to maximize benefits. A custodial parent with children finds it easy to obtain welfare benefits after divorce, making marriage break-up financially attractive. What incentives are there for parents to stay home and care for their own children, or to stay married and assume responsibility for each other's care? Sadly, there are none. Dependent child deductions have disappeared from the income tax form. The spousal deduction has been so eroded by inflation that even a small part time income wipes it out, again leading both parents to work and burn themselves out full time.

As the tax system stands now, there are no significant benefits for stay at home parents. Motion No. 30 would help remedy this oversight. By providing a caregiver tax credit, the federal government would be making it possible for many parents to decide whether to work or stay at home.

I would actually go beyond what is in the motion. I would not limit this to preschool children. It is important that we have parents available throughout a child's development through school and try to avoid problems of latch key kids coming home from school when there is nobody home.

I am not sure why this was limited to preschool children. Perhaps this is looked on as the art of the possible, but if government is looking at using the tax system to help families raising children, it really has to look at supporting families right through to the end of high school for children.

One could also argue there would be immediate economic benefits if the government is to adopt Motion No. 30, assuming that it encourages people to stay at home. Those parents who choose to stay at home to raise their children will immediately free many jobs. This would lead to a lowering of the unemployment rate and, in addition, will open more quality child care spaces. This will ensure that the children of dual earner families have professional care givers looking after them. Those child care workers are individuals who have the education and training to make a child's preschool years a rewarding experience.

More important, this motion will have a substantial positive effect on the next generation. As we all know, children are the future of our country and we, as today's parents, have an important influence on the shaping of their character and beliefs.

Study after study shows that the early years of life are instrumental in the development of a child's lifetime character. One of the latest of such studies, published in April 1996 by Dr. Steinhauser of the Caledon institute of Social Policy, concluded with the statement that society needs to develop a system: "designed to help all families better meet the critical developmental needs of their children while increasing their sense of mastery and control of their own and their children's lives. Then and only then can we be confident that the next generation of children will have the good early childhood experiences that will enable them to achieve, for themselves and for society, their potential for personal success and for both human and economic productivity".

This motion does not deal only with the raising of children. It also recognizes the needs of people caring for the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.

We are each aware of people whose lives are affected totally by the demands placed on them by caring for loved ones who are ill or disabled.

In particular I think of an elderly woman who spoke at one of my town hall meetings on health care whose husband has Alzheimer's disease. Essentially this woman, who is not all that well herself, finds herself up all hours of the day and night tending to her husband's needs. She loves her husband and wants to keep him at home as long as she can but she is burning herself out. She feels there is absolutely no recognition of the fact that she is providing this care.

There are many others out there as well. I am involved with the Alzheimer's Society. This is a growing problem. We will continue to see this grow in the future.

If there is any possibility of keeping someone out of a public institution, we should look for ways to support those who are willing to make all those sacrifices involved in looking after somebody 24 hours a day in the home.

This is important for parents to know that society recognizes their contribution. Those who provide care to the ill, the disabled or aged also have this need.

The financial aspect is extremely important but also the fact that society recognizes what people are going through. These are stories we rarely hear about because they are behind closed doors in people's homes. There are tremendous struggles going on out there. We need to in some way let people know we appreciate what they are doing. The demands on our chronic care system are only going to continue to grow over time.

I wish to again congratulate my colleague from Mississauga South on this motion. He is being consistent and persistent when it comes to raising these problems with us. I hope with the goodwill of the House we will have this motion passed when it comes time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I will call for resumption of debate. Seeing that there is a member ready to speak and also in consideration of the time on the clock, I will not put the question because the member for Lisgar-Marquette wishes to speak.

When this business comes back to the House it will be the Reform Party which will have the next opportunity to speak to this motion. With the agreement of the House I will call it 2.30 p.m.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)