Debates of Nov. 19th, 1997

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consquential amendments to others acts, and of Motion No. 1.

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

At this point in the proceedings, we are debating the preamble suggested by Reform Party members. For the party in power, and especially for the member for Malpeque, I would like to read the motion tabled by our friends in the Reform Party.

WHEREAS agriculture is a basic foundation stone of the Canadian economy; and

WHEREAS interprovincial and export trade in grain produced in Canada is an essential element of the agricultural sector of the economy; and

WHEREAS it is necessary to establish an organization to coordinate such trade; and

WHEREAS such an organization will have a very significant effect on the producers of grain and must therefore have the securing of the best financial return to them as its object and first priority and must be accountable to them for its performance;

THEREFORE Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

I was surprised at the speech by the member for Malpeque, who is opposed to such a preamble. This is not the first time a preamble has been discussed. There was talk of a preamble when the notion of distinct society was raised in connection with the Meech Lake accord. There was a preamble in which Quebec was described as a distinct society.

I see the minister from West Island laughing. She lives in my riding. She played an active role in that affair.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

From downtown Montreal.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

The funny thing is that the preamble had no significance back then. Now, as the member for Malpeque sees it, the preamble explains everything, is highly significant, and could mislead the courts if they were called upon to interpret it.

Just recently, a new proposal was made in western Canada, about the unique character of Quebec, something comparable to the Pacific salmon, and it was said that “maybe that could be added to the preamble if a constitutional amendment is made”. Others said “No, it would go at the end”. Regardless of whether it comes before or after, I believe that a preamble has to give a general idea of the legislative text.

Of course, the preamble per se is not a section of the act, but a guide. We know that the members of this new Canadian Wheat Board, or some of them, are MPs who lost their seats in the last election, people who will get their reward from the Prime Minister and the party in power for their contribution to democratic debate on June 2. It might not, however, be a bad thing to remind them in a preamble that their primary authority is the farmers, the producers, not the one responsible for appointing them to the board, particularly when an act like this one is intended to last a good length of time, since it is made to be longlasting, hoping that it is the best possible.

If such is the case, if the government passes this legislation to be in effect for a goodly length of time, hoping to apply it for a long time, it is possible that its buddies who are appointed in this first batch to the Canadian Wheat Board could turn up elsewhere, be promoted to something else. However, its friends or those who could be friends with the others later on have to understand from reading the preamble of the bill governing them that its priority and purpose is to look after the interests of grain producers.

I do not understand why the member for Malpeque always rises here, waving his arms about as if this were a personal issue, as if it were an attack against him personally when we take apart and criticize a bill that he is defending. I do not know why he does not just use a little common sense. There must be common sense in Malpeque too.

The hon. member for Malpeque should drop his habit of leaping up and save his strength for other occasions, of which there are many in political life.

Moreover, I want to say too that the bill does not require the Canadian Wheat Board to be accountable to wheat producers. The bill requires it to be cost effective, but who is going to decide if it is cost effective? It is all very well to say the board will be managed in a way that ensures its cost effectiveness, but who is responsible for ensuring the cost effectiveness of the board? Is it the appointed head of the wheat board, the person who appointed the directors, friends of his political party? Or is it the producers, who may be affected by the sometimes irrational decisions and choices made by the administrators of public funds, decisions that are even less rational because they are not accountable to the people, the producers in this case?

I find the attitude displayed by the member for Malpeque, despite the carryings on of my colleague opposite who is protecting his chum and shares his views on the matter, in so vigorously opposing what we propose to put in the preamble of the bill, is mistaken and leaves that very impression with everyone including the Liberals. A member rose on a point of order saying he had the impression, from the way things were being dealt with, that the members considered him dishonest. That does not come from us. I was seated and had said nothing. If he thinks he is dishonest, it has a lot more to do with his bill.

The time may have come to focus on the bill and suggest that the hon. member for Malpeque stop challenging virtue and peace, order and good governance.

I can understand that the hon. member for Malpeque may want to sell just about anything to anyone; that is his job as parliamentary secretary. He can be made to say anything, that is his job, as he has to protect his minister. But let us try to get across to him what is really being asked by our colleagues in the Reform Party, with whom I seldom agree, but agree with this time. Good common sense ideas can spring from anywhere. I mentioned Malpeque, but they can also spring from western Canada.

I think that they are absolutely right. Without being partisan about this bill, I think it could be a good bill, a bill that does what it is meant to do and a bill that can have a positive effect. There is no need to get carried away and go on opposing the Reform proposal. As a former political figure in Quebec, the late Maurice Bellemare, used to say “What matters is not the size of the sledgehammer but the swing you put in the handle”. He has put quite a bit of swing in demolishing something that stands to reason and is founded in logic and necessity.

I urge all members of this House, especially those who feel as uneasy about this bill as the hon. member who spoke earlier, who feel attacked even though they are innocent—and they all are—, who feel targeted by the bill and threatened by its consideration, to share their feelings with the hon. member for Malpeque, who will inform his minister, who will in turn inform whomsoever he pleases, as long as the end result is that an interesting bill is brought back to us. If justice is not done to grain producers, it should at least appear to be done. That would be better than nothing. We cannot hope for more than that.

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

Madam Speaker, I was not expecting to take part in the debate because agriculture is an area of great expertise. I draw your attention to members opposite who have just asked me to sit down. I apparently in the opinion of some members opposite should not speak because I am not directly involved in agriculture.

One of the reasons I am speaking is that I have sat here for about an hour and a half listening to the debate, especially the comments from the opposite side. Among the things that have been said by those opposite is their suggestion that everyone on this side is a lawyer as if somehow that is something reprehensible and a reason for not commenting on legislation.

At the time that comment was made there were quite a number of Liberal MPs on this side of the House, and I have to say none of them were lawyers including myself.

Another thing I found reprehensible in the debate coming from the other side was the suggestion from one member of the Reform Party that because MPs may not be from the west, may not be from the prairies and may not be directly associated with farmers growing wheat, they somehow had no right to participate in a debate on the bill. It is certainly true that I am from central Ontario—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

Hansard

will disclose that this comment was made.

I feel very strongly that it is a privilege to speak in the House, on either side of the House, on the opposition side or on the government side. We all have a duty to examine legislation whether or not we have special expertise in the area under debate.

The suggestion that only westerners can debate a wheat board bill plays right into the hands of the separatists who would suggest that the only people who can debate the future of Quebec are people who live in Quebec. I reject that and I think most Canadians reject it.

What I would like to contribute to this debate is what little I can contribute to the debate. I would like to talk about the question of preambles.

As I understand it, Motion No. 1 put forward by the official opposition would establish a preamble to the bill. I am not a lawyer and many members on the other side are not lawyers, but if they would care to pick up the telephone and ask for advice, they would discover that preambles do not count for anything in legislation. Legislation begins where it states “Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts”. The legislation follows that.

I have been campaigning on my side of the House to stop government legislatures, bureaucrats, whoever writes the laws, from writing preambles. Preambles are smokescreens. Preambles are when the clauses in the legislation are not sufficiently exact. The clauses do not say and do what the government is convinced they will do.

We have the opposition suggesting that we should pass legislation which carries on a tradition that really got rolling in the 35th Parliament of smoke and mirrors through preambles.

What does it really mean if there is a preamble which states “whereas agriculture is a basic foundation stone of the Canadian economy?” What does that mean? What will it do for a judge? Does it really matter? Will it affect how the law will be interpreted? I suggest not.

It has no force on judges. My colleagues opposite can check it. In the legal profession they call it the pious hope clause. It has no binding implications for what the judge must do. The judge must read after enacts.

There has been debate about the wording accountable to farmers being in the preamble. This is where I will have to accuse my colleagues opposite of not wanting to have a rational debate.

The phrase accountable to farmers sounds noble. I know it will play very well in western Canada, but we are talking about government legislation. We are talking about setting up a federal government body. We are not setting up a provincial body. We are not setting up a farmers union. We are setting up a body that has to be responsible to the federal minister because there is no other way of doing it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

They protest. What they are proposing is unions. That party does not want government in Ottawa. It does not want government in the provinces. It wants some sort of people's parliament that can only translate into a union. As usual, the Reform Part is on the same side as the Bloc Quebecois, wishing to dismantle government institutions in favour of regional institutions. That is an absolute formula for disaster for the country.

Thank heavens you were not going away, Madam Speaker; I was a little worried there.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

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

Instead of the smoke and mirrors of a false debate, of a phoney debate about a preamble that has no force or about accountability that cannot exist, we are talking about a government board that has producers on it. It is accountable in the traditional way that government bodies are accountable. They are accountable to their elected representatives who are represented in turn by the minister.

He, in his wisdom, has set up a board which does have composition with farmers. That is the real debate. If the members of the opposition really want to do something constructive, then by all means they should have a debate that criticizes clauses in the bill.

It is the clauses in the bill that will be ruled on by the courts which actually govern how the bill will operate. Please, a debate about a preamble that everyone knows is meaningless is not really a serious debate at all.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Vegreville—Lakeland.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, you have spoiled my fun. I was looking forward to correcting you on that. The name of my constituency changed from Vegreville to Lakeland and I am quite proud and delighted with this change.

I am also delighted that I can be here taking part in a debate on a motion like this regarding a change to the preamble, which was brought forth by the member for Yorkton—Melville.

I believe by bringing this amendment to the legislation before the House, he has initiated some very important debate on an extremely important issue. We need that and I am proud to be able to represent the farmers of Lakeland constituency and I believe beyond that to some extent on this extremely important issue.

Before I get started on my comments, I would just like to make a comment on the comments of the member for Hamilton—Wentworth. One of the comments he made was that a preamble is needed only if the legislation in unclear. He has got that right. This legislation is unclear.

We have asked for clarification. We have suggested clarification. We have put forth perhaps 30 amendments or more to try to clarify this legislation. Had the government done its job and had its members listened to farmers in the process, we would not have to do that. We would have clear legislation.

Unfortunately we do not, therefore we have to debate this preamble. In fact, one of the changes we called for was a change to section 5 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Section 5 is the part of the act that deals with who the board exists for. Section 5 says that the wheat board exists for the Government of Canada.

We proposed changes under Bill C-72. Bill C-4 is the reincarnation of Bill C-72. We suggested a change to section 5 so that it would clearly state in that section that the wheat board exists for the benefit of farmers.

This government has entirely refused to accept that change. I am upset by that. Farmers in my constituency are upset by that and this is a change we have to make to this legislation before it is passed. We know it will be passed somewhere down the road.

We will do everything we can of course to see to it that this bill does not pass because it is unacceptable. I want to get right to the group of amendments that we are debating here, which is the preamble. It was presented by the member for Yorkton—Melville.

I hear the member for Malpeque across the floor shouting some comments again. I want the record to show that it was that same member for Malpeque who refused an emergency debate on ending the postal strike just a few minutes ago in this House. I think that is intolerable.

We should not have a postal strike in this country, but I digressed. Let the record show that it was the member for Malpeque who in fact refused that this House allow that debate.

Back to the group of amendments that we are debating. What this group of amendments does is state clearly that the wheat board exists to maximize profits to grain farmers in western Canada. That is what this group of amendments will do and that is important because the current wheat board act does not state that.

In fact, it states clearly that the wheat board exists for the pleasure of the Government of Canada. I want to talk a little about that because there are some very important points to be made. We cannot assume that the wheat board will always do what is in the best interests of farmers.

I will go through a bit of history in the little time I have to demonstrate that very clearly.

I will start before the turn of the century. To market grain for our farmers, we had a series of co-operatives spring up. The Grain Growers was the first co-operative which became the United Grain Growers down the road with several amalgamations. The purpose of the growers was to maximize farmers' profits.

Later we had the prairie pools come in, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The purpose of those organizations was a little different. It was to maximize profits but also to share profits equally amongst members, to pool, to do what the wheat board now does. This was the purpose of the first prairie pools, to pool profits. Something else other than just maximizing the individual profit of a farmer came into the situation.

When we look a little farther down, in the late twenties what happened was the prairie pools were getting into trouble with their pooling. At the same time as holding back grain from market, hoping the prices would rise, the pools also speculated on the Winnipeg commodity exchange. Because of that they got into severe economic difficulty and went to the Government of Canada for a bailout. The bailout was the first version of the Canadian Wheat Board. Even the first version of the Canadian Wheat Board was not a monopoly. Farmers had a choice, which is exactly what we are calling for.

One of the important cornerstones of the pools was for farmers to have a choice. There would be no mandatory pooling in any grain or within the members of the co-operative, no mandatory pooling. That was something carried over to this first wheat board.

It was during the war to help with the war effort. I think it was somewhat justified although some people including people who became very important members of the Liberal cabinet later, like Mitchell Sharp, said that it was debatable whether the monopoly should have been put in place. There certainly was debate about that from Mitchell Sharp. In a book he wrote quite recently he condemned the monopoly of the wheat board staying in place after the war. He was somewhat less judgmental of the board during the war. Even important Liberals in the not too distant past have opposed this monopoly for the board.

Clearly the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board during the war was not to maximize profits for farmers. The mandate was to get grain for the war effort at affordable prices. That was clearly the mandate.

Until the end of the war most Canadians, even a lot of farmers, were willing to tolerate that. Farmers care about this country. They were willing to do their share to help with the war effort, more than their share. That is so true.

After the war the monopoly was maintained for five years. Canadian farmers lost hundreds of millions of dollars through the maintenance of this monopoly. They had no choice but to market through the monopoly, and again, it was to help the war effort. Yet the burden was not spread amongst all members. After the war farmers paid a dear price for the board not having the express goal of maximizing profits. That was intolerable.

This monopoly was enshrined in the seventies into the wheat board act. Since then we see that there is nothing that states the purpose of the board is to maximize farmers' profit in the act. That is why this preamble is so important. It is not enough. We need it clearly stated in the wheat board act itself that the reason for the wheat board existing is to maximize profits. This legislation does nothing to help that situation.

I would like to close on a comment on what the debate is in western Canada. The debate is not whether we keep the board or not. A vast majority of Canadian western farmers want the board.

However, they do not want the monopoly. They want the freedom to choose whether they market through the board or around the board through their grain company or on their own to a customer, whether the customer be in Canada or somewhere else in the world. That is the debate. Polls have shown that a majority of western Canadian farmers favour giving farmers a choice in marketing grain.

These polls have been tabled at committee and are available. The proof is there. What we must do with this legislation is amend it so that farmers have that choice, a choice which I think is given to people in all other businesses, and the ability to choose whether they want to market through this government institution or in some other way.

I am looking forward to the rest of the debate on the amendments to Bill C-4.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite a bit older than you are so you probably do not remember The Music Man . I remember in the musical The Music Man , the guy came into town and he was going to help the young people in that town. He quickly identified that one of the problems in that town was the pool hall. I remember the song went “We've got trouble right here in River City and it is because of pool, That starts with p and that rhymes with t and that spells trouble”.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have trouble right here in River City, Ottawa, and the trouble is the power of the government to dictate what Canadians have to do. I would say it starts with power. It starts with p that rhymes with t and that spells trouble.

Let me enlarge on what I am saying here. Here we have western farmers who have not been given a choice to even express themselves. We had this phoney ballot over there in the west where instead of giving the farmers an opportunity to check on the ballot a choice which many of them would have chosen, namely a dual marketing system, that was refused to them by these bureaucrats and autocrats here in Ottawa. Shall I call them the dictators here in Ottawa because that is exactly what happened.

Instead, now the government is spinning this support for the wheat board as a continuation of the unaccountable, autocratic system that is there and that is not to the benefit of farmers.

We are talking here about group one, the first amendment, the amendment to put in a preamble. One of those Liberals over there said “Well, the preamble is meaningless”. I beg to differ. Whenever a court rules, part of its thinking is how to determine the intention of the legislators. If we declare what that intention is in the preamble it can have great weight in a court of law.

I would like to propose that the reason these Liberals do not want this particular amendment to pass and why they will autocratically with their party discipline overrule the common sense of a few of the Liberals over there who might vote for this is because its members must all vote together. It must force this.

Just as a little aside, something which annoys the dickens out of me is that here we are debating a very important issue and yet the decision on whether or not to vote for this amendment is going to be made by a person who, I venture to guess, will not have heard a word of this debate this afternoon. That is wrong.

We have lawyers, non-farmers and people from Ontario and the east who are not even covered by the wheat board. As a matter of fact, I am led to believe that the marketing system of grain in Ontario is by a fully elected board. If that is good enough for the farmers in Ontario why should we say to the farmers in western Canada “Oh, you don't know how to choose your own president of your board. We had better get the minister to appoint him”?

Do members know what I think? I think if the Liberals were to put a preamble here they would say whereas the Liberal government needs a place where it can appoint some of its friends and buddies and whereas the government needs a home for some of the failed Liberal candidates, therefore we should have a wheat board so that we have a place where we can appoint some of these guys.

Whereas we want to occasionally give these board members some money that is maybe higher than what the poor taxpaying blokes in Saskatchewan and Alberta and Manitoba can afford, they want to give these guys some of the big bucks and the big perks. Let's make sure the books stay closed. Let's make sure that the auditor general cannot touch it. Let's make sure that it is totally hidden and it is not accountable.

They would say whereas we want to do that for our buddies, let's make sure the farmers never find out. That is what their preamble would look like. No wonder they are against the preamble, because the preamble that is proposed by our member here is one that would hold them fully accountable. It is a preamble that would say the board exists for the farmers.

They keep saying this board is the best. Let the farmers choose.

I ask you this question, Mr. Speaker. I believe that you have had some business experience. I do not know whether you have had any farm experience, but I happen to have. I grew up on a farm in Saskatchewan. It just so happens that the wheat board covers wheat and barley, but if the quality of that grain is down where it sells for feed, then it does not necessarily have to go through the wheat board. A farmer can purchase or sell the feed grains outside of the wheat board.

This is going to amaze you. It will astound you. The Liberals claim this wheat board is the best thing that ever happened to western farmers, and yet I know of farmers who have taken their high quality grain and voluntarily declared it to be feed quality, the very lowest quality, because selling it as feed they get more for it than if they sold it through the blinking wheat board.

If that wheat board is serving the farmers under conditions like that, then I have a bridge to sell you somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. This is absolutely ridiculous.

The wheat board has to have a purpose for being. Why would there be any objection to having a preamble that says in simple terminology this is the purpose for this wheat board? Why should there be a wheat board without a stated purpose? That is really the debate here and I think the reason that the Liberals are opposed to this is they do not want the farmers to have it explicitly given. The Liberals do not want them to find out the truth about their purpose, motivation and the reason for the existence.

Instead, we need this preamble so that when the farmers of the prairies go to challenge the accountability of this wheat board in court, the judges can look at that preamble and say the purpose of this wheat board is to serve the farmers. The purpose of this wheat board is to maximize their profits, not sell their grain at beneath feed prices, but to get the maximum of profits.

The reason is that farming right now is very competitive. It is difficult to make a living on the farm these days, and I know of what I speak. My brother farms on land which I worked on when I was a kid. He and his boys are farming way more land and they are getting about three or four times the production per acre that we did when I was a youngster. My brother is having a harder time making ends meet than my dad ever did. Why is that with three or four times the rate of production? It is because the farmers do not have the freedom to take what is rightfully their own and sell it where they want to sell it.

If the wheat board is doing its job, the wheat board will get the business. There is no doubt about it. If I am a farmer and I have some grain to sell, I am going to look at the different places where I can sell it. If I get $2 a bushel here and $3 here and $4 here, unless there are some very strange extenuating circumstances, I will pick the one that gives me the best price, the $4 per bushel.

Let us say that there is a case where the farmer is offered by the wheat board maybe $2 a bushel with the hope of a future payment to make up the difference. That is how it works. Let us say that farmer sees another place where he can get maybe $5 a bushel right now, cash.

I challenge the Liberals. There are two or three of them over there who can think for themselves. Will they have the courage to vote against their party and vote for common sense and say yes, if the farmer wants to have the right to sell his grain outside the wheat board he should have the right to do that?

That happens to be in my view almost a human right. Whose grain is it? Who seeded it? Who prepared the soil? Who paid the taxes? Who paid for the fuel? Who paid for the fertilizer? Who paid for the tractors and the machinery? Who worked 18 hours a day? Who prayed for rain? Who prayed for the locusts to go away? If we can get rid of the Liberals and the locusts, the farmers will have it made.

Let me be serious here at the end of my time. I really want to appeal very seriously to the members over there. The people who are making the decision on whether to vote for this are not hearing these arguments. May they please use their heads. May they please be independent in their thinking and vote for what is right.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to rise in the House to speak. I cannot think of a better subject to do it on. It is a subject that I have grown up with all my life and heard about all my life.

Before I get into my speech, I would like to thank the people who helped put me here, the people who worked on my campaign and the people who had enough courage to vote for me. I hope I do not let them down.

It is with a feeling of responsibility that I rise today to address the amendment to the wheat board act, Bill C-4, and in particular Motion No. 1.

This wheat board act historically has been a subject of much discussion in the constituency I represent, the constituency of Lethbridge, and obviously right across the prairies. Quite frankly, it has been a very divisive subject. It has pit rural neighbour against rural neighbour and region against region. It has caused a lot of hardship and a lot of hard feelings among the farm families on the prairies, probably more than any other subject.

There are grain farmers on the prairies who want to see the Canadian Wheat Board completely dismantled. They are fed up with the lack of accountability to the producers. That is what this is all about. It is accountability to the producers, not accountability to the government, and the lack of options that these producers have to market their products.

We seem to be at an impasse here. The government has taken this bill, it has worked with it and brought it back and it is still not acceptable. Either the government continues to ignore the demands of producers, while many grain farmers are inappropriately fined and jailed, or it takes this sorry excuse of a bill back to the drawing board, makes some serious amendments and starts listening to the full scope of recommendations by producers and even its own Western Grain Marketing Panel.

When this government had the opportunity, why did it not change this tired legislation? Why did it choose not to? Why instead did it bring forward a half baked proposal that does not address the critical problems that are facing beleaguered grain farmers today?

If producers did not support the bill when it was Bill C-72 during the last Parliament, then they will not support this one. This government cannot change things just by slapping another number on it.

Sadly enough, perhaps this piece of recycled legislation is the best the Liberals can come up with. Considering that the Canadian Wheat Board controls $5 billion in sales, has approximately 110 producers and that farm group after farm group testified at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food that this is a seriously flawed piece of legislation—I have letters from producer groups in western Canada explaining the problems they see with the legislation and begging this government to make changes—I guess I naively thought that the government would come up with something better, make a more serious effort on it.

In Bill C-4 the government has failed to prove to producers that it is in the grain marketing business. The time is long overdue for grain marketing to be treated with common sense using sound marketing principles in order to bring maximum returns to the producers for their products. That is what this bill should address, maximum returns for the producer. A previous prime minister even went on record in years past to say “why should we sell this grain?”

Monopolies in other industries are rarely tolerated, so why are grain producers exceptions to the rule?

Thousands of grain farmers have spoken and Bill C-4 shows that the government is not listening, which perhaps may help to explain why it is rushed through committee.

The government has not shown producers that it will be responsible to them through a completely producer elected board, insisting instead on appointing the key members of that board. The time has come for government to relinquish its monopoly on grain marketing.

A fully effective board of directors is fully elected board of directors if the voice of farmers is truly to be heard.

Subsequently, if the aforementioned amendment were adopted, section 3.02(4) would be deleted since it would not be necessary to specify equal powers between elected and non-elected directors.

The government has insinuated all the way through the process, and I heard the minister responsible say this, that the expertise to run this board does not exist among the producers. They have to have five appointed members because it is such a large business. I suggest to the government that it look at some of the operations these producers have if it wants to see efficiency in operations. It could learn something and could maybe incorporate some of those practices into the bill.

Just imagine if producers ran their operations like the government does. We do not hear of too many farmers who are running up huge deficits year after year, all the while adding to a huge debtload. If only governments were held to the same degree of accountability as producers.

The government has chosen to cherry pick through the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel, focusing on the recommendations that fit its agenda and ignoring the recommendations that fit the needs of producers. What happened to all the recommendations that producers and the panel supported? Why were the requests for marketing offices producers are asking for ignored? Why is the government so afraid to put some options on the table for producers? Why did the government not resolve the contentious and divisive issue when it had the chance? Where is the transparency that producers are demanding? The auditor general is still denied access to the wheat board operations. This in itself is ringing alarm bells with producer groups across the country.

The Canadian Wheat Board does not have to answer to the Access to Information Act. How can the directors act freely if they are bound by this secrecy? Why will the Liberal government not come clean?

What has the government done in Bill C-4 to address the unbelievable problems in the grain transportation system in this country? Absolutely nothing. This government never even bothered to tackle the Canadian Wheat Board's role in grain transportation anywhere in Bill C-4.

Problems and inefficiencies cost grain producers dearly every crop year, year after year. The nightmare we experienced last year must not become a legacy to the efficiency or the lack thereof in our transportation system.

Why is it always the products of hardworking Canadian grain farmers that sit on rail sidings? Why are the grain cars put on sidings while other products continue to port? Could it be because neither the rail company nor the wheat board is penalized for late delivery? Could it be because the penalty goes directly to the producer, becoming just another transportation tax for producers to pay?

In closing, why when the Liberal government had the chance did it not address these problems? Why when the Liberal government had the chance, and took the time and went to the considerable effort of setting up a panel to make recommendations in producing the bill, did it not put to rest the suspicions of producers in the divisive aspect of the Canadian Wheat Board?

The rural families of Canada and the prairies, families on both sides of this issue, deserve far more.

[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.

Child Benefit

[Diane St-Jacques, Progressive Conservative, Shefford, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should review the level at which the child benefit is indexed.

Mr. Speaker, in September, I moved a motion asking the government to review the level at which the child benefit is indexed.

I am now debating this motion as the spokesperson for the Progressive Conservative Party. I thank the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for recognizing the importance of this issue, which is to help reduce child poverty.

First, let me explain the reasons that led me to table this motion. We are all proud to be Canadians. As we know, to be a Canadian is to be part of a society which is blessed with a quality of life, which is based on fairness, and which enjoys sound economic development. We rely on a Canadian way of doing things that promotes economic development and social justice. We are recognized all over the world as the defenders of tolerance and fairness. However, there is a fly in the ointment. Among all industrialized countries, we come in second place in terms of the number of children living in poverty, right behind the United States.

According to Campaign 2000, the changes that have occurred since 1989, when the government pledged to eliminate child poverty, look like this: the number of children living in poverty has increased by 46%; the number of two-parent families living in poverty has increased by 39%; the number of single parent families has increased by 58%; the number of children living in families where unemployment is chronic has increased by 44%; the number of children living in families on welfare has increased by 6% and, finally, the number of children living in unaffordable housing has increased by 60%. These figures speak volumes. The problem is serious. Today, almost 1.5 million children live in poverty.

I urge all hon. members to join the fight against this lack of equity. At the first ministers conference in June 1996, child poverty was put on the national agenda as a priority. Almost all premiers in Canada have asked their ministers responsible for social services to co-operate with the federal government on a new integrated child benefit.

The Minister of Human Resources Development recently announced this new benefit, and I congratulate him and his government on this initiative. A decision has been made to review the benefit and the respective roles of the federal, provincial and territorial governments in child assistance. The federal government intends to transfer to provincial and territorial governments the responsibility for helping low income working families. This function was filled by the earned income supplement, a program that will be integrated with the child tax benefit.

All low income families in Canada will receive this new combined benefit, whether the parents work or not. Provincial governments will no longer have to pay extra benefits to families on welfare for the dentist, the optometrist and many other services.

As I mentioned, the bill has not yet been announced. We all know it will come into force next July, but nobody really knows what is in it. It should define the role of the provinces. How much are they going to spend to alleviate child poverty, and how are they going to spend it? This undisclosed agreement is already called the reinvestment framework. Why is it called that? Because the federal government promised that the provinces would reinvest as much as the federal government, on a proportional basis of course, that is, the $6 billion invested by the government and maybe the additional $850 million it promised to invest in the next mandate.

The federal government will hand bigger and more equitable cheques to all low income Canadian families. It has defined its own role more clearly, and we look forward to the reinvestment framework that will define the role of the provinces and territories.

Let us just say that this reinvestment framework will be, I hope, of a comprehensive nature because no support measure can in itself solve the problem of poverty. This is a vast problem that has to be addressed from a comprehensive point of view. Children are poor because their parents are poor.

Let us look at the report entitled “Improving Social Security in Canada”. It shows how the Canadian family and its needs are changing. It says, quite rightly, that most social programs were created in the 1950s and 1960s, when the typical family included three children and two parents: a father at work and a mother at home. Today, the average family has less than two children, and both parents work.

Over the last 20 years, we have seen a steady increase in the number of double income couples, the number of working mothers with young children and the number of single parent families. Young parents are more educated, but they have unstable jobs, often part time, and without fringe benefits in most cases.

In 1990, the proportion of couples with school age children and with both parents working was 70%, compared to 30% in 1950.

To have a decent standard of living today, families need a double income. The family is changing, and support measures must change too. Many changes are needed. We need quality child care. We need to make support for the care of handicapped children more accessible. Child care services must be flexible to fit work schedules and work locations.

We have just seen how the social fabric of the family is changing, but everything else around the family is changing too. We must also look at community action programs for children. We must develop general approaches to problems related to children, prioritize new approaches and consolidate the ones that already exist, such as the community action program for children.

With the breakdown of the social fabric and the solitude felt by many people who live as shut ins in their apartments, not knowing their neighbours, we must rely on community organizations to renew the ties that have been lost and to rebuild our social fabric. We must help them, and this help is also part of a comprehensive vision.

There are also prenatal nutrition programs, or assistance to native communities, who are living in worrisome conditions, to say the least. As well, there are parental and maternity benefits. As I told you, the problem is extensive and must be examined in a comprehensive manner, which includes asking ourselves whether we really have achieved equality between the sexes because a legal framework exists, or whether the reality of the matter is something else again. Let us not forget that, of the 15.7% of children living with a single parent, that parent is their mother in 92.8% of cases, and that the vast majority of them, approximately 70%, live in poverty.

The longitudinal survey on children and youth revealed that one child in four is poor in Canada, that the economic disparity between them differs widely from one region of the country to another, that in Newfoundland one child in three lives under these conditions as opposed to one in four or five elsewhere in the country. It is a sorry state of affairs.

How can these children do well in school? How many of them arrive hungry, with no lunch or snack, having left chilly living quarters in clothes as thin as their parents' wallets? How many? One and a half million, one child in four. Under such conditions, neither you nor I nor any of my colleagues would do well.

Finally, we come back to the improved and expanded federal benefit. This benefit will mean that many families will have more money to help them make ends meet, and for many of them the benefit will play a vital role. But even the most generous benefit would not stamp out child poverty, because even in its improved form the benefit will still feel the effects of inflation next year.

I will, if I may, quote the Minister of Human Resources Development, who said recently at a dinner with members of the Laval chamber of commerce that by “putting our fiscal house in order, Canada has regained some leeway and the ability to make choices, important choices for society. And governing is about making choices”.

Later in his speech he said also “There cannot be any real and strong economic union without having also a collaborative and dynamic social union to support it. The national child benefit is the latest example of this dynamic relationship between our social values and the concrete initiatives that are taken. One thing is certain: children who are cold and hungry when they arrive at school are in no condition to learn. This is unfair. In Canada, this makes no sense. Children are our future, the future of our society and the future of our economic development”. And what he says is true.

The mechanism for the benefit is simple: the government will increase the revenue of low income families. As for the provinces, since they will have to pay less for social assistance, they will be able to invest again in programs and services. This is what the minister pointed out when he said “Each province will benefit from greater flexibility. Quebec's flexibility, for example, will increase by $150 million a year”.

But I would also like to point out that the people also need flexibility. Just imagine, if the benefit were indexed to the cost of living, the cost would increase by $170 million a year. That is $170 million the government saves each year, but it is also $170 million less for the underprivileged every year. That is because there is no protection for the child benefit. That is because the benefit is only partially indexed.

Let me explain. The amount of the benefit is adjusted every year, but only if inflation is above 3%. Because inflation has remained under that level for a number of years now, and following the upswing in the Canadian economy, there has never been any increase or adjustment to their benefits.

Children are dependent on what governments decide. If we are giving them something today, it is because we gave them nothing before. We are only catching up. They have to be allowed to keep up with the cost of living. Canadian families are suffering from declining purchasing power, and the underprivileged have trouble meeting their family obligations.

The child benefit could be an important safeguard against the devastating effects of child poverty, but the value of the benefit has constantly declined over the last decade, because it is only partially indexed to inflation.

The federal government spent $4.1 billion dollars in child benefits in 1984, and $5.1 billion in 1994. This represents a 25% increase compared to an increase of some 46% in the cost of living. If the 1984 benefits had really been indexed to inflation, they would have risen to $6 billion in 1994.

We understand that some decisions, such as setting a limit for indexation, were based a a certain context. When this was adopted in 1985 by the Conservative government of the day, the country was emerging from the economic crisis of 1982, and needed to tighten up its administration.

We were heading toward a financial dead end. This was what the right decision had to be. But, as the Minister of Human Resources has said, public finances have been put on a sounder footing. Now we have to make societal choices. To govern is to make choices, as the minister has said, but it is also knowing how to adapt.

According to the Canadian council on social development, if we add up all the 1% and 2% increases in inflation over recent years, the loss for Canadian families represents 13% of total benefits. This now ought to be addressed.

Inflation raises the nominal value of family income. Far more families are moving over the income limit every year by receiving the child benefit, even if the real value of their income has not increased. The cumulative impact is a reduction in the child benefit of some $150 to $170 million yearly. As a consequence, an additional investment in the benefit system merely replaces what has been lost in recent years.

There is a way of counteracting this effect of inflation, and it is to agree to examine the level of indexation, which is why I rise to defend this motion today.

In 1996, the government recognized that the same situation for our seniors' benefits needed remedying. I am therefore asking that we do as much for our children.

I would like to conclude by reminding the House that we must tell our children that they are important to us. We must remind them that the intention in 1989 of eliminating child poverty by the year 2000 still stands. We must not forget, hon. members of Parliament, that we must be fair in the choices we make in society. We must not forget that it is the children living in poverty today who will be turning the wheels of the economy tomorrow. We must not forget to be fair in the way we consider the future.

Now that Canada's economy seems to be back on track, we must remember that we can now look ahead and put social justice in this country back in balance. To this end, we must present all of our children and their families with an honest and a realistic schedule for resolving the problem of child poverty.

We must remind federal, provincial and territorial authorities that, if they do not work together in carrying out their responsibilities and their duties toward those who are most disadvantaged, we will not resolve the problem.

I am not really trying to move them along, but for a number of years we have produced endless reports and studies and I think it is high time to show the million and a half children living in poverty that their country is trying to find ways to improve their situation. Let us give them the means we consider necessary to resolve their situation, and later on they will come to recognize our good intentions.

Let us try to give our children a healthy space to develop. A balance between federal, provincial and territorial governments and getting things in hand in the community will lead to the establishment of effective structures that will put an end to the devastating effect of poverty on children.

I call on the members of this House, therefore, in order to eliminate the negative effect of inflation, to review the level at which the child benefit is indexed, as they did with seniors' benefits. Let us reclaim Canada's title of champion of social justice.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this private member's motion which recommends that the government review the level at which the Child Tax Benefit is indexed.

I am unable to support the motion and in the few minutes available to me I would like to explain my reasons. Before I begin I want to emphasize that the government continues to place a very high priority on making assistance available to families with children, particularly those at the low and modest income levels.

Let me take a moment to explain how the indexing provisions work with respect to the child tax benefit. Under the Income Tax Act the child tax benefit is partially indexed on an annual basis. It goes up each year by the amount the consumer index exceeds 3%. Many of my colleagues will recall that this policy of partial indexation was introduced to help address the severe fiscal problems facing the federal government.

Partial indexation of the child tax benefit is consistent with how other elements of the personal tax system are treated. For example, the basic personal credit, the spousal credit and the tax brackets are all partially indexed. This is a policy which applies broadly across the tax system.

The Income Tax Act has been amended a number of times to allow for the child tax benefit discretionary increases. In actual fact the motion before us today should be considered as a proposal to amend the Income Tax Act and move to full indexation of the child tax benefit base and threshold.

As hon. members know the only realistic alternative to discretionary increases is the full indexation of the child tax benefit. While the government fully supports the broader goal of increasing assistance to families with children, let us not forget that with an inflation rate of 1.6% per year, restoring full indexation of the child tax benefit would cost the federal government about $160 million per year. In addition, it would be difficult to restore full indexation to some tax parameters and not others.

The federal revenue implications of moving to full indexation of all tax parameters are quite substantial, with a cost of $850 million a year. The cost is cumulative, so it means that it will be $850 million in year one, $1.7 billion in year two, and so on. Such revenue losses could threaten the government's program to restore fiscal balance. Because of these potential fiscal costs the government is unable to support the motion.

However, I assure the House that the government will review the policy of partial indexation once our fiscal position makes it possible to do so. In the meantime the government is committed to targeting additional assistance to priority areas like families.

In the last two budgets, for example, the government increased by $850 million the assistance provided to low income families through the child tax benefit. Since July 1997 over 720,000 low income working families have received increased benefits as a result of restructuring and enriching the working income supplement.

Maximum benefits increased from $500 per family to $605 for the first child, $405 for the second child and $330 for each additional child. Next July these benefits will be extended to all low income families as part of the joint federal-provincial initiative known as the national child benefit system.

The national child benefit system has three key objectives: to prevent and reduce child poverty, to improve work incentives and to simplify administration.

Under the national child benefit system the federal government will assume a larger role in providing basic income support to families with children. The provinces and territories will make corresponding reductions to the child component of their social assistance payments and reinvest all the savings in complementary programs and other benefits and services for low income families. For the lowest income families the proposed increases in the child tax benefit represent a 50% increase in federal benefits.

Before closing I remind hon. members the government has promised a further enrichment of child benefits of the same magnitude during its mandate. As I stated earlier, these actions demonstrate that assistance to families with children, particularly low and modest income families, is and will continue to be a priority of the government.

Let me repeat that the government will review the policy of partial indexation once it is fiscally appropriate to do so. For these reasons I am unable to support the motion before the House. I encourage all my colleagues to do the same and not support the motion.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is as pleasure for me to speak today to the motion moved by the member for Shefford, which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should review the level at which the child benefit is indexed.

One can question the brevity of this motion, the strength of its wording or the message to be conveyed, but the fact remains that it is interesting to be able to debate this issue.

This is rather ironic. Members will recall that the present partial indexation was introduced by the Tory government of the day. This partial indexation works as follows. It was decided that as long as the inflation rate did not reach 3%, there would be no indexation. This means that, since 1992, there has been no indexation whatsoever. Therefore, families have been systematically losing money at a higher rate than the real inflation rate, because if the real inflation rate had been taken into account, the child benefit would have been increased accordingly. Right now, there is no indexation. For the families involved this represent a shortfall of $850 million.

What is even more ironic is that the Liberals have been pursuing the same policy.

But in 1992, the current Deputy Prime Minister stated “The government talks about this new child benefit program it has come up with, but let us look at this program. In fact, a family with a $40,000 annual income will only receive $44 more each year. Within three years, this benefit will be reduced by 10% and, in ten years, most families will no longer be receiving any assistance because this benefit is not indexed for inflation”. That is what the current Deputy Prime Minister said in February 1992.

When the Liberals came to power, they picked up where the Conservative government left off. They chose not to change this situation. According to the Caledon Institute, which conducts quality social analyses, the child tax benefit is infected by the partial deindexation virus.

It is a losing proposition for all families. Those that were entitled to benefits lose out on full deindexation, but low income families are much harder hit. In their case, whatever amount is not indexed represents money they cannot depend on for their daily requirements. This is a correction the Liberals failed to make and should have made when they came to office again in 1993. Today, they are being reminded of that fact the motion put forward by the Conservative member.

It will also be remembered that, before 1984, the family policy included family allowance payments, child tax credits and exemptions for dependent children. In 1984, some $6.7 billion was paid out under this family policy.

With the changes introduced in 1997, this amount had gone down to $5.1 billion, which means a $1.6 billion cut in payments made to families over 13 years. So, the $850 million that the human resources development minister said would be put back into the system will only partly offset the cuts made since 1993. That is why we may feel it is very relevant to take a good look at the child benefit indexation rate.

I take this opportunity to remind you of the somewhat prophetic words of Benoît Tremblay, who said in 1992—he was the member for Rosemont at the time—that it was tantamount to giving up on having a real family policy. We are moving away from a family-based policy toward a policy designed to fight poverty, but we are no longer doing so by using an integrated approach that would allow families in Quebec and Canada to enjoy adequate benefits.

Mr. Tremblay said “The perverse effects will be felt gradually”. These perverse effects have indeed become reality. What the Deputy Prime Minister said in 1992 did happen, and now we are facing a situation where, from year to year—because we are not about to see a 3% rate of inflation in the coming years—the same thing will systematically occur.

This means that, at the rate things are going, the $850 million shortfall generated between 1992 and 1997 may well exceed $1 billion by the year 2000. It also means that over an equivalent period in the future, let us say until the year 2002, the shortfall for families will total $1.5 billion.

It is therefore urgent to look at the situation and to make up for this shortfall generated by a decision which was made by the Conservatives and maintained by the Liberals, and which now has a major negative impact on all families in Quebec and Canada.

The hon. member for Shefford is right in saying that the government should review the level at which the child benefit is indexed.

She is right, but I think we should do more than to review the level at which the child benefit is indexed. We should actually look at the possibility of fully indexing the child benefit. The government would then realize that, as far as this House is concerned, full indexation is the solution.

It must be remembered that the 3% rule came into effect following years during which the inflation rate had stood at 10%, 12%, 8%, 6% and 5%. Three per cent seemed very reasonable then. It was truly felt that automatic indexation would take place year after year. But this was not the case.

We have seen inflation rates of 2.%, 2.5% and 2.8%, but it is the general inflation rate that counts. It can happen in a given year that the cost of living for daily necessities increases by more than 3%, but there is no indexing because the general cost of living index is less than 3%. So year after year, families have been absorbing this.

When we ask why there is an increasing number of poor children, why there is an increasing number of families who cannot make ends meet and why we are in the process of building a split society, the answer I would say is that we have been slowly undermining the middle class by eliminating a benefit that allowed people to have an adequate standard of living and reamin above the poverty line.

Therefore, we can say because of all this that we have a policy that discourages families with children, that the family policy has been replaced by the fight against poverty, but this does nothing to further the objective of a true family policy.

The government likes to say that it cares for children and that it wants to fight child poverty, but the $850 million that it is promising to invest will only partially remedy the shortfall. An amount of $1.5 billion was mentioned earlier. So there will still be a lot of room for improvement.

To achieve this, to ensure that the motion by the member for Shefford can be more effective, I will propose an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “review” and substituting the following: “the possibility of fully indexing the child benefit.”

So the final version of the motion would read:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should review the level at which child benefit is indexed.

Therefore, in this period of prebudgetary consultations, the government will be able to determine the figures and make the assessments necessary to ensure fairness once again, to give our families a chance, and to send the message that we want families to take their rightful place and to have the financial means to provide an adequate education for their children. We have to restore full indexation and thus prevent a recurrence of the unfairness we have today, when inflation rates of 1.2%, 2% or 2.5% are depriving families of these benefits.

I will end with this and I would like to submit my amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I believe the amendment is in order.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when there is a debate about the welfare of Canadians, particularly young people, everyone is very interested. I commend my colleague from Shefford for bringing forward her private member's motion which reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should review the level at which the child benefit is indexed.

An amendment has been proposed by the Bloc to bring the level to full indexation.

As we are all aware as Canadians, or at least most of us who have had families, the child benefits payable in Canada have undergone many changes during the past two decades. The 1985 budget, which is about 12 years ago, subjected the entire child benefit system to partial indexing. That is what the member for Shefford is suggesting we need to study.

Benefits increase only if inflation exceeds 3%. Since the Bank of the Canada and the Government of Canada have made a commitment not to allow inflation to go over 3%, what we essentially have is no benefit increases even though there are inflation increases, which means that the value of the benefit is steadily eroding.

This partial deindexing has now been in place for 12 years. It really amounts to an automatic annual tax increase. This is because inflation still erodes the value of the benefit and erodes the value of the threshold at which maximum benefits are paid. There is a double whammy which increases the tax payable for families with children.

Neither the child benefit nor its threshold of $25,921 for maximum payment is fully protected against inflation. The value of the benefit has steadily declined for 12 years.

The Liberal government is doing a lot of breast beating about child poverty and how it will attack it. It is very interesting the government has done nothing about something that has eroded the disposable income in the hands of families who have to look after children.

Unbelievable though it might be, the parliamentary secretary just said “We would like to do things like this but we will oppose the motion because there will be a fiscal cost to this”. He is really saying “We need the tax bucks, so forget it”. This keeps eroding the income of poor families who then produce the poor children the Liberals say they care so much about. Sometimes we do wonder if it is not true that Liberalism simply is saying the right thing but doing nothing.

The partial deindexing of the child benefit like the partial deindexing of the so-called refundable GST credit and the partial deindexing of the personal income tax system is regressive. We use these buzz words a lot, but it really means that it hits poor people more than it hits higher income people. This falls most heavily on the working poor, the very ones with the poor children, the child poverty the Liberals have said they will do so much about.

These tax increases are not transparent. The Liberals can say one thing and do another. It is very easy for them to hide this tax increase. Although it happens every year the tax increase is never debated in the House and most Canadians do not even realize it is going on. It is like the bracket creep we keep talking about. It is the same sort of thing.

One of Canada's leading social critics says that this amounts to social policy by stealth. I find repugnant that this is from a government, from a party that is always talking about compassion for the poor and the downtrodden. It says it will help those most in need and to redistribute the social benefits of the country to those who need them the most.

Yet what do we find? We find policy after policy after policy, including the current increases in the Canada pension plan premium, which fall most heavily on those least able to pay penalizing the families and the children most in need of the extra dollars the government is sucking out.

This erosion of net family income continues in many ways. The child benefit is only one example. It results in higher and higher taxes.

The average Canadian family has suffered a $3,000 drop in real income since the Liberals took office in 1993. If the Liberals had actually said their policies would cost $3,000 more a year by the time they were out of office, how many Canadians would have voted for that?

What did the Liberals get elected on? Jobs, jobs, jobs. They were also to get rid of the GST. They did neither. They dropped the average Canadian family income by $3,000. No wonder there is child poverty. Now the Liberals can ride to the rescue and say that they will certainly do something about it. They caused it, so they should do something about it.

Between 1951 and 1973 real family incomes more than doubled, but since the mid-1970s total family earnings in real dollars adjusted for inflation have actually not improved at all. This in spite of the fact that more and more two people in a family are working. There is less ability for parents to make choices about caring for their own children because they simply need the extra dollars from both of them working.

Despite the rising numbers of dual income families, total inflation adjusted after tax incomes have fallen by $2,733 per worker since 1984. This is simply unacceptable. It is no wonder families do not have enough money to feed and clothe their kids, to pay the mortgage or the rent, and to make sure that their children have the necessities of life. It is because the government thinks it is more necessary for the government to have the money than for the children to have it.

This is incredible. I hope nobody misses this fact. Canadian taxpayers must start paying taxes at an income level of about $6,460. If they make that grand sum of $6,460 per year the government says “All right, guys, start paying up”. Who can live on $6,000? Somehow government thinks that if they make over that they owe the government something.

A family of four at an income level of $11,800 has to pay income tax. It is brutal, absolutely brutal. Under the seniors benefit the government says they do not have to pay tax for a family income of $11,000, but a family of four has to pay tax. No wonder there are poor children and families in the country. Yet every year the government wants more. It takes more and more. I am happy, Mr. Speaker, that you and many other members of the House care about this matter.

The average Canadian family spends more in taxes than on food, clothing and shelter combined. In 1996 Statistics Canada said the average Canadian family spent $21,000 on taxes but only $17,000 on food, clothing and shelter. Government takes more out of us than we have left to look after our needs.

The Liberal government is simply increasing the rate. It has an insatiable appetite for tax dollars. That is why we call the finance minister a taxaholic. That is exactly what he is. One bottle is not enough any more. It has to be more and more every year.

The Reform Party simply says enough is enough. When Canadians make money they should be able to keep the amount necessary to feed their children, to clothe their families and to provide them with shelter and the necessities of life.

The government takes a whole chunk of the money Canadians need to look after their families and then says that it is giving some back. The parliamentary secretary just said they would like to give more if they could afford it. They will someday but in the meantime they cannot because they have fiscal costs. It would cost them too much. They need our money.

We have to start giving Canadians tax relief. Government does not have the right to take more and more money.

We need to give Canadians tax relief. We need to look at things like this indexation.

We support the motion of this member and hope the House will as well.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the child benefit. It is an issue that is very important for children and families in this country. I would like to congratulate the member for Shefford on her decision to move this motion. On behalf of all my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I would like to indicate our support for the motion as amended by the Bloc Quebecois.

This motion is clearly an important one for all of us to be debating in this House. It calls for a review of the indexing of the child tax benefit. It is a very important initiative that should be part—and I add, a part—of a number of changes to the child tax benefit and to a whole range of initiatives dealing with children's needs and children's poverty in this country.

It is clear that the child tax benefit will erode over time if it remains partially indexed. A portion of its gains will be lost to inflation each year. The inflation over 3% formula, in operation for more than a decade, means that the value of child benefit declines in real terms by 3% each year as well.

As the member for the Reform just mentioned, it is in fact “social policy by stealth”, as so aptly put by Ken Battle of the Caledon Institute. As my colleague from the Bloc pointed out, the origin of this problem does rest with the Progressive Conservatives. Let us keep in mind that the Tories introduced this negative feature into federal benefits, into the personal income tax system and the refundable GST credit, and it is the Liberals who have continued this policy.

Without a doubt in our mind, this government, the Liberal government today, must move quickly to reindex benefits to inflation to stop this decline.

As I said at the outset, this is about one benefit, one initiative important to our goal, a goal I believe we all hold in common: to reduce child poverty, but it should be recognized as only a beginning. We must have in this country a comprehensive strategy to reduce child poverty that includes specifically setting targets for reducing unemployment.

How can we have a strategy to reduce child poverty unless we reduce unemployment? In fact, no strategy to reduce child poverty can be complete without a real target for reducing unemployment and a will to meet those targets.

Statistically speaking, it should be noted that for every 1% drop in the unemployment rate, 72,000 children can be lifted out of poverty.

There is another element that must be part of any strategy to address child poverty in this country today. That initiative is something that has been promised so many times over by Progressive Conservatives and Liberals in this country in election after election after election and then put on the back burner. That must be raised again to the forefront of our political agenda, and that of course is affordable child care.

The child tax benefit is structured to impel low income mothers into the workforce without providing funding for quality child care options.

The federal government should be ashamed of its decision time and time again to keep this issue on the back burner despite clear commitments, especially in the 1993 election, to ensure that this country would have a national child care plan to provide quality, affordable, accessible spaces for families right across this country.

There is no discussion initiated at present by the federal government around this issue at all. There is no hint of any plans from the Liberal government to strengthen child care as a complement to the child benefit.

How can we address child poverty? How can we assist families cope in these very difficult times unless we make very serious inroads in the provision of such a valuable service for this country?

The statistics speak for themselves. For all the time the Liberals have been in power and failed to keep their promise on a national child care plan, failed in providing a meaningful social assistance program in this country and failed in so many other respects, in that time 200,000 more children have fallen below the poverty line.

More and more families, especially single parent families headed by women with small children, are struggling on a day to day basis and falling further and further behind.

It is absolutely imperative for this House, for this Parliament to look at the child benefit in a much bigger context. The $600 million in new federal spending announced in the 1997 budget is only a drop in the bucket compared to the billions of dollars the federal government spends on other programs, the additional billions the federal government hands out in tax expenditures and the $7 billion Ottawa has cut from federal social transfers to the provinces under the CHST.

The national child benefit, however important, does not really offer any new gains. It merely substitutes ground already lost. As a result of a decision in the late 1980s to partly remove inflation protection from the existing child tax benefit, its value has been eroding by up to $150 million a year.

The government's announcement of $850 million down payment or $600 million in the new federal spending will only serve to bring poor families closer to where they were when the Liberals took power in 1993.

Many of the provinces today are pushing for a further commitment of $2.5 billion into the fund by the year 2000. Certainly it is our hope and I hope the hope of many other members in this House that this government, the Liberal government, will move ahead with such a commitment.

Without a commitment to a comprehensive anti-poverty agenda, the child benefit is but a band-aid solution that actually acts to depress wages and further marginalize poor people.

Children are poor because their parents are poor. Eliminating child and family poverty will require a concerted effort on all our parts. It will require and demand a comprehensive strategy from the federal Liberal government that would include many essentials, that would include job creation, housing, child care, training and post-secondary education.

We have no hesitation in supporting the motion today, particularly as amended by the Bloc to ensure full indexation of the national child benefit. However, we want to register our concerns about the absence of a comprehensive strategy from the Liberal government and use this opportunity to call on the government to come forward with a meaningful comprehensive strategy.

We must act now in order to put Canada back on track to meeting the all-party goal, members will remember, introduced in this House in 1989 by the then NDP leader Ed Broadbent, a goal that said we must end child poverty by the year 2000.

Well, we are awfully close to the year 2000 and we have only seen child poverty worsen in this country. It is getting more serious with each day that passes because of a failure on the part of our national government to take up this issue and put in place a comprehensive strategy that gets at the roots of the problem.

Let us use this opportunity today to recommit ourselves to that goal to eliminate child poverty from this country as quickly as we can.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to debate the motion of the hon. member for Shefford. I congratulate her for bringing this matter to the House. It is something we are all concerned about and that is the issue of child poverty.

We talked a lot tonight about the issue of inflation and how we need to adjust child tax credits for that. I would like to come at this from a different angle.

It was not that long ago that not all of our legislation, through the income tax system, was totally indexed to the rate of inflation. In fact, we lived in inflationary times. Peoples' wage agreements and various other aspects of their financial lives were tied to the consumer price index.

I suggest that that creates an inflationary spiral. In other words, every time the rate of inflation went up, everybody's income went up, child tax credits went up, everything else went up and it similarly impacted on inflation. I cannot help but impress on the member how devastating that inflationary time we lived in not long ago was to low income families. They are the ones who are less likely to be able to adjust to the dramatic rising costs of living, their rent, food, et cetera.

That is one aspect I want to address on why I oppose the member's motion. I believe that if we move in this specific area of child tax benefits, we will similarly be obligated to do the same thing throughout the whole income tax system. You cannot very well argue that at one point is a necessity and yet at another point it is not.

If you look at it in broad terms you will also see that this would create over $850 million in lost tax revenues. Not only that, it also brings us back into this inflationary economy which will have a tremendous dilatory effect on low income families.

The government is concerned about the issue of child poverty. We did in fact inject $850 million into the envelope of an enhanced child tax benefit system for working income families. As we speak members of both federal and provincial governments are debating the issue of how to deliver this program within provincial envelopes.

I am happy to see that one of the things our government is insisting on is that there be an accountability package that goes with it. In other words, it is not simply money locked into an envelope of a benefit package but there is some way as a country we can measure the success of those programs. In other words, there is some way to measure if child malnutrition has been improved.

These are things that are not so easy to jump up and be in favour of and implement. They take time and effort and dedication.

I am very pleased to be part of a party and a government dedicated to the issue of child poverty, trying to find ways not only to get money out to those families most in need but also to ensure that money gets to those children to alleviate the very problems that some of the members have brought out here today.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order please. It being 6.30 p.m., the period set aside for Private Members' Business has now ended and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

When the House resumes consideration of this matter, the hon. member for Durham will have five minutes remaining in his speech.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to see you in the chair this evening.

I rise today on a very serious issue dealing with impaired driving in Canada. Last October 24, I asked the Minister of Justice if she would table rapidly amendments to the Criminal Code dealing with this serious issue. I also asked her if she would commit to concrete steps on behalf of the government to review the Criminal Code, roadside procedures, and enact a victims bill of rights in unison with an effort to combat drunk driving in Canada.

The minister to date has not committed to either of those requests. One thing that we have seen in the past is that her predecessor and, I would submit, the current Minister of Justice have given lip service to amendments in this area. They have often talked of it and they have appeased, I would suggest, to some degree victims rights groups and those concerned with this issue by giving the appearance of wanting to do something about it, seeming very sincere and genuine in their efforts.

However, to date we have not seen anything concrete either by way of a legislative initiative or even the time spent in talking to these groups.

If there is anything that has become clear over the past number of months in this House on the issue of impaired driving it is that the statistics and the effect on the ground that impaired drivers have on the roads and highways throughout the country and on the lives of Canadians are significant. The statistics are absolutely shocking when one delves into them.

The minister in her answers to the questions indicated that she was waiting for a report to be tabled by the transportation department. As well, she was waiting to meet further with her provincial counterparts. I again suggest that this is a delay because it is very clear that none of these individuals in the Department of Transport or her provincial counterparts can effect an immediate change to the Criminal Code of Canada. That responsibility lies with the minister herself.

I reiterate today what I have said previously. In my mind, the Minister of Justice has an opportunity to do something and to do something quickly.

I want to suggest a few things in the time I have. The statistics I have indicated have been stated time and time again: 4.5 persons killed in Canada every 24 hours, every day of the week, 365 days of the year. Impaired drivers injure or kill over 300 people in Canada every day. In 1995 alone, 519 people were killed across the country by impaired drivers. These are shocking statistics.

It is very clear that alcohol significantly increases the risk every time a person gets behind the wheel, regardless of the level of intoxication.

It is time to do something and quickly. The most effective way to do that is to bring in amendments to the Criminal Code that would strengthen police ability to deal with impaired driving. Nothing has been done to date.

I suggest there are concrete things the government can do today. As a start it would be to lower the blood alcohol concentration that is criminal in this country, to review the Criminal Code with respect to reasonable and probable grounds required by police officers so that they might investigate crash sites involving death and serious bodily harm. That evidence of an accident would, in and of itself, be grounds for police officers to make a demand.

The government could change the language in the Criminal Code to reflect the seriousness of impaired driving accidents involving death and the suggestion would be to characterize it as vehicular homicide. If nothing else, this would emphasize the seriousness of the offence.

The creation of these new standards would also go hand in hand with the enactment of a victims bill of rights which would include and enhance greater participation of victims in the criminal trial process.

If the Minister of Justice is committed to this issue and is prepared to do more than just lip service then these issues will be brought up further in the justice committee and will be acted on rather than simply given fair comment and ongoing debate.

This is something the government must take a leadership role in. The Canadian public has spoken very clearly. Eighty per cent of people in this country want the government to act on these issues.