Debates of Dec. 3rd, 1998

Salaries For Stay At Home Mothers And Fathers

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

It is a free choice.

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

We are very much aware that she has made another career choice. We are pleased to have her with us.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

We would miss her.

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

I think it would be very wrong to send the message “If you are a woman who chooses to stay at home, you will get a salary”. That is not what women are asking for. That is not what the feminist organizations are asking for. And I believe this must be taken into consideration.

It is quite right to say that it is a matter of free choice. I come from a family of five children. I have a twin brother, an older brother, a sister and a younger brother. My mother decided to stay at home. She gave her best for her family—and you can judge the results by what you see before you—but it was a free choice. I am profoundly convinced of that.

There is no question of not addressing the real problems. The real problem is taxation. The real problem is transfer payments.

The provinces are $42 billion short. The province of Quebec is $7 billion short. Family policy ought to be developed at the provincial level. Why? Because of its connection with education and child care. In this respect, I call on the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

You should have seen her in 1994. There was no holding her back from brandishing her little red book. What did that book say? That the government would create 150,000 new child care spaces. There was something about a national child care network. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has not forgotten that, has she?

What is happening? First, funds should have gone to the provinces. Today, five years later, nothing has been done with respect to child care. I have even been told that $650 million earmarked by Treasury Board for this purpose had not been used because the federal government said that the provinces did not want this money.

That is not true. I am convinced that all provincial governments want their own family policies. Had the government given them this $650 million and let them manage their own family policies, they could have used this money according to their own priorities.

Let us be clear, family is an important component of society. It does not always fit the traditional concept of family. We often talk about blended families. Two individuals who choose to live together and raise children form a family. There are all kinds of families nowadays. The traditional, nuclear family is no longer the norm.

The family in which I grew up was made up of two parents who lived together all their lives, with my mother staying at home while my father was the breadwinner, and five wonderful children. This may no longer be the norm, but one must accept such realities.

We would be sending an extremely negative, incomplete and strategically wrong message, and I would like the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik to take that into consideration. I do not think that the status of women council and feminist organizations, which know about and have studied these issues, want the support—

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Hamilton East, ON]

It is a free choice.

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

Is the Minister of Canadian Heritage referring to Quebec City?

A message was delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, The Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-29, an act to establish the Parks Canada Agency and to amend other Acts as a consequence—Chapter 31.

Bill C-52, an act to implement the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty—Chapter 32.

Bill S-16, an act to implement an agreement between Canada and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, an agreement between Canada and the Republic of Croatia and a convention between Canada and the Republic of Chile, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income—Chapter 33.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

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

Madam Speaker, before being interrupted by what half this House considers totally sacred, I was saying I thought that the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik had not addressed the real problem, and I sincerely do not believe that women's organizations, women and their representatives want us to pass a motion that, essentially, would send the message that if women choose to remain at home and are prevented from participating in the labour market, they will be compensated for it.

I close by asking the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, whose influence on this government we know, to ask his government to use its surpluses to restore transfer payments to the provinces for social programs so that the Government of Quebec, the only one permitted to develop a family policy, may do so.

I close by thanking the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, who made us aware of this issue, but we in the Bloc Quebecois will not be able to support his motion.

[Mark Muise, Progressive Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I rise on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford. She is currently attending an international conference on an issue that comes under her responsibility in the Progressive Conservative caucus.

I am pleased to take part in the debate on Motion M-486, which provides that the government should legislate to grant a salary to mothers and fathers who stay at home to care for their children.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik for moving this motion and for his relentless efforts to help Canadian families.

Let me say from the outset that I support any proposal promoting greater parental involvement in the first few years of children's lives. The purpose of this motion is to put these parents on an equal footing with those who work and enjoy tax benefits for expenses relating to child care.

But before getting to the financial aspects of such an initiative, let me talk about those ultimately concerned by this motion, the children.

Numerous studies have shown that the quality of care received during the first few years of a child's life has a decisive impact on their physical and mental health, as well as on their ability to integrate into society. It is therefore imperative, in my view, that the state make a special effort to help children from a financial as well as from a social standpoint.

Like most industrialized countries, Canada is at a crossroads. The choices that we will make over the next few years will determine our ability to participate in the economy of the future, an economy that will be increasingly global and knowledge based.

As we debate the strategic investments we will be required to make during this period of economic and social change, our growth could be impeded by a lack of vision which in turn could diminish the quality of life of Canadians and of children in particular.

If economic growth is favoured at the expense of our social environment, problems could arise. Studies on health and human development have highlighted the importance of investing in children during their critical formative years if we harbour any hope that our society of the future will be populated by well balanced, competent and healthy individuals.

It is now widely accepted that each dollar we spend today on our children will ensure that we save double that amount in future on health care, social and criminal justice programs.

By enhancing support for children and their families during the initial developmental years we will be helping our children gain some self-confidence and learn to adapt more easily. We will be promoting sound learning habits, positive social behaviour and good lifelong health habits.

Investing in our children is therefore essential to ensure the quality of our social and economic life.

At a time when huge economic and social changes are taking place, and when the gap in revenues is getting wider, the pressures on Canadian families increase the risk that parents may have neither the time nor the ability to take good care of their children.

This brings us to today's motion. In light of what I just said, members will agree with me that it is important to give parents the means, the flexibility and the options they need to ensure a good start for their children.

But before getting any further, let us take a look at the preferences of parents when it comes to child care. According to a 1997 poll by Compas Research in Alberta, 95% of respondents thought that it was better for parents to care for infants and pre-schoolers.

An earlier country-wide poll by Decima Research found that 70% of households with young children and both parents working would prefer one of the parents to be able to stay home to care for the children, if they could afford to.

The question is therefore as follows: should parents have to choose between a job that they need and the attention a child needs to become a healthy and responsible adult.

The Norwegian government answered that question with a resounding no. As of August 1998 it is allocating $570 per month per child under three years of age to households where one parent remains at home to provide child care.

Should we broach this issue by focusing on equal opportunity and equality between two income households and households where one parent must provide child care?

In other words, since each taxpayer finances tax benefits, without automatically claiming these benefits, could the current Income Tax Act be deemed discriminatory toward households where one parent stays home to care for the children?

That is a thorny issue, if ever there was one. However, this is the view held by the national forum on health. It maintains that Canada is the only country in the industrialized world that does not take into account in the calculation of income tax expenses incurred by households where a parent cares for children at home. It further argues that households with children are discriminated against in the process.

Some would say that the child tax benefit, which incidentally should be indexed, provides assistance for low income households, and that parents who pay for child care are entitled to a tax deduction of up to $7,000 per child.

But some people fall between the cracks: households that do not qualify for the child tax benefit and do without a second income so that one of the parents can stay home and care for the children.

On April 14, 1997, the Devoir featured an article that tackled the issue head on, and I quote:

What about those who fall between the cracks? The market alone has no answer, and neither do existing social solidarity mechanisms. Another solution must therefore be found. For some time now, people from widely divergent disciplines that rarely have anything to do with each other(economics, philosophy, sociology) are rediscovering the old idea of a universal income. All the proposals focus on the same principle: pay each member of society a basic allowance, with no strings attached.

Why should we reconsider at this time an idea hatched 200 years ago by Thomas Paine, the great English human rights thinker, and later borrowed by 19th century French utopian thinkers and later still, by at least two Nobel Prize winners for economics who hold generally opposing views, namely Englishman James Meade and American Milton Friedman? As far back as the 1960s, they were calling for the introduction of a negative tax. We could give a Keynesian answer to that question: When circumstances change, my position has to change as well.

I am not someone who has ever shied away from exploring new and innovative ideas that could shed new light on our social conditions which no longer meet the changing needs of a modern society.

This being said, I do not wish to comment on or argue the feasibility or even the eventual terms and conditions of a program to financially compensate parents who remain at home, as recommended in today's motion. I will leave this up to those who are qualified to do that.

What I think we should do, however, is offer new opportunities to parents wishing to stay at home to care for their children, which would mean a better start and, ultimately, improved opportunities for this country's most important resource, our children.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must advise the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development that she will have only five minutes since we must give the proposer his right of reply.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address the private member's motion introduced by the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.

Let me say at the outset that I applaud my colleague for his interest in the matter of support for families. Last month we debated his previous motion on this issue.

Few issues matter more to the government than nurturing Canadian children, both for their inherent value and for our collective future. There can be no debate that we need to support all Canadian families if they undertake the important work of raising the next generation of workers, artists, parents and community leaders.

This government shares my hon. colleague's concern for Canadian families and the challenges they face. However, I am not convinced that the best way to address those challenges would be by providing a salary for stay-at-home parents with pre-school aged children.

It is important to recognize that the Income Tax Act already includes a number of provisions to assist parents who choose to remain in the home. The spousal credit reduces income tax when one spouse earns little income and stays at home. This measure allows the taxpayer supporting a spouse to reduce the amount of federal tax paid by $915.

As well, the Canada child tax benefit is based on family income and provides a special annual supplement of $213 for each child under the age of seven for families where one parent stays home. This benefit is provided to three million Canadian families.

There is also the caregivers tax credit which offers a credit of up to $400 to individuals who care for either elderly relatives or disabled children.

The child care expense deduction available to working parents is designed to provide assistance to families who must incur child care expenses. Without this support many would not be able to earn an income, attend school or take a full time training course. Eight hundred thousand taxpayers count on this deduction to help compensate them for the additional costs they must bear for child care.

This debate should also focus on the crucial consideration of the needs of children. While we must ensure that parents receive credit for the task they are doing, our overriding concern ought to be the health and welfare of the next generation.

It is precisely because this government is committed to ensuring a good start for all of Canada's children that we launched the national child benefit system with our provincial partners. It will help millions of low income Canadian families with children, regardless of their child care arrangements.

With the additional $850 million committed in the 1998 budget, there will be a total of $1.7 billion each year in new income support for Canadian families. This is in addition to the $5.1 billion in existing benefits and will bring federal income support for families with children to just under $7 billion.

Our innovative and progressive programs, such as the national child benefit system, will get Canadian children off to a good start in life by improving benefits and helping parents re-enter the job market so they can better meet their own children's needs.

Even though Motion M-486 is obviously well intentioned, our government remains convinced that the best course is to build on the programs we have and that is why I am unable to support this motion at this time.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I would like to tell the hon. parliamentary secretary that there was a mistake in the amount of time allotted to her. If it is her wish to do so, she may conclude her remarks.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is one more point that I would like to make and I will take advantage of this bit of extra time. I am speaking about the point raised by the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve when he suggested that this government wanted to take away Canadian women's maternity rights. I believe if we check Hansard that is what the member said.

I want to assure the member and all Canadian women that this is the last thing in the world this government would ever intend to do. Every woman has the right to be a mother and we would never, ever take away her maternity rights.

I am sure the member can rest easy knowing that we are not trying to change human nature in this country. We are trying to support those women and men who wish to be parents and raise their children.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to be able to speak to this important motion. The parliamentary secretary has assured us not to worry, that the Liberals are in charge and everything will be fine. I guess we should relax easy knowing that the family is protected. Yet I find it rather ironic that while it is undoubtedly true that the Liberals are committed in principle to supporting families and to not undoing the facts of biology, they do indeed tax families much more heavily if those families make the determination that one of the parents is to stay home and look after the children.

I have some firsthand experience with this since my wife has worked as a nanny. The best and most important principle is that parents should be given a free choice as to who looks after their preschool children and their school age children before and after school. Different parents for different reasons make different choices. My wife has done such a great job raising our own three children so I can go on public television and tell all the members in the House that the family that had my wife as nanny probably could not have chosen better, except if their mother could have stayed at home, but she was working and that is her choice.

When our children were young my wife said she would be a full time mom and stay with the children. All our lives we lived on one income. We chose to live on only my income because we thought it was very important for the children to at least have mom home. It would have been wonderful if we both could have stayed. We would have been even more skinny than we are now. That would have been most unfortunate. All those years we paid a penalty for that choice. Had we made the same amount of income between us, with my wife earning some and me earning some, our tax bill would have been considerably less.

I remember teaching night classes. I taught at a technical institute. One of the pleasures of that job was to teach night courses. We had wonderful young people during the day and in the evening the institute filled up with working people who went there in order to upgrade their skills. I taught mathematics and computing. I had a lot of people who wanted to learn how computers worked. You can tell by my age that I was invented about the same time as computers were. They were new when I was a young man giving instruction at the technical institute. I worked Tuesdays and Thursdays. I remember saying back then that I work on Tuesdays for Trudeau and on Thursdays I get to work for my family. That was because even then the marginal tax rate was around 50%. If my wife had been able to earn that money she would have had a lower taxation rate because that is the way the tax structure was.

I always felt that the real solution, not the solution this member is proposing of paying a salary with taxpayer dollars, is simply to arrange our tax system in such a way that families that make that choice are not discriminated against by the tax system. That is something I strongly believe in. It is something I hope this government will very quickly implement. I do not expect it but I would like to see it in the next budget. We are probably only about two and a half months away from the next budget and I would like to see that happen in the next budget.

I wish the Minister of Finance would say, as the parliamentary secretary just said, we value families. I hope he follows that by saying beginning today we will no longer have discriminatory tax practices against those families that choose to have one parent at home. I would be so appreciative. If that happened it would be very persuasive because it is such an important thing, although maybe not enough to make me vote Liberal.

Of course I will not vote Liberal because the Reformers are the ones who thought of this and that is one of the reasons I joined the Reform Party. We are promoting the idea. That is one idea I really wish they would steal. I think it is so critically important.

I remember over the years sometimes it was tough, especially with my working overtime and being involved in a lot of voluntary organization for which I got no extra money. Sometimes I did not get to see my family as much as I wanted. I really wished that there would have been a less discriminatory tax practice even against the parent who was out trying to earn a living so that I would not have had to work as many hours in order to provide for my family.

I strongly urge the government to consider that. Certainly the member who has brought forward this private member's business today has the right principle, to free up parents to make those choices. We just disagree in the detail of how it should be done.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all the members who spoke on this motion. I honestly believe all contributions are important. I want to thank the Liberal member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, who seconded this motion.

I would like to pick up on a few points. The member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve talked about the province of Quebec and mentioned 1994. It is true that, on September 18, 1994, the Premier of Quebec presented the major elements of the government's employment program. This program is aimed at reforming social security and creating a healthy fiscal environment.

He said:

Any contribution to the discussions is welcomed. It is only with everyone's participation that we will succeed in developing a system that is efficient, fair, flexible and affordable and that will meet the existing and future needs of Canadians.

According to the Quebec Commission of Inquiry on Health and Social Welfare, the first official proposal to provide an annual guaranteed income in Canada was made in 1971 by a provincial commission in Quebec, the Castonguay-Nepveu Commission, which proposed an income security program for that province.

Right now, Quebec is part of the Canadian family, that is very important, but I did appreciate what the hon. member said about pay equity. Pay equity is a much talked about issue in the public service. However, nobody talks about pay equity in a family setting, for those who raise children, the mothers who stay home to take care of the children. They too should get a pay cheque and pension for that work.

Pay equity for work done at home is the fight of every Canadian woman and many Canadian parents today. It is a fundamental right. That is my position. We must find a way to help families. Giving more money to the poor will contribute to the eradication of poverty.

In my documentation I read something on Newfoundland income supplement program that was set up in 1993. I quote:

The commission believes that an aggregate guaranteed annual income, however modest, with an income supplement program based on an earnings test can be financed through savings made in our EI program and the replacement of the provincial welfare system, without any new taxes or increased deficit.

Finally, I want to remind the House that we seem willing to grant tax breaks to hockey teams, to all of the Canadian hockey teams and hockey players who are earnings millions of dollars.

Clémence Côté, from Val d'Or, always told me that there is a serious deficiency in the Canadian tax legislation, because it penalizes families with children, in the sense that the Government of Canada does not take into account the number of children a family has.

In conclusion, I think we need to set up, on an experimental basis, a Canadian annual basic income program. This is the only way to assess how a guaranteed income program can help to eradicate poverty.

I have listened to all the members who took part in this debate. The time has come for a new solution, for a commission of inquiry on poverty and the family. As Réal Caouette used to say all the time “A guaranteed annual income would help families out”.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and this item is dropped from the order paper.

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

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, in November I asked the Minister of the Environment to make a commitment to clean up the Marwell tar pit in Whitehorse. It has been designated a contaminated site.

Environment Canada file No. 4186-3-19 of September 1989 provided background information on the contamination on this site. It was a U.S. military refinery during World War II. It was sold and then left. There was an attempt to clean up the pit. However, a large bermed storage tank has been left there.

In 1958 Billy Smith was trapped in the pit and died of exposure because he sank into the tar. In 1970 the land was transferred to the commissioner of Yukon. Contrary to the Fisheries Act, the departmental analysis indicated that hydrocarbons, oil, grease and manganese have been released to or near fish bearing waters. The Yukon River runs almost directly through the area.

Yukon has hundreds of contaminated sites. This is just one of them. In 1994 the Yukon government asked the then ministers of the environment and northern affairs to clean up the site. These letters were acknowledged but never answered. More recently the Whitehorse mayor has asked for the clean-up.

Canada negotiated with the United States $135 million to clean up old U.S. military sites. There is also an abandoned DEW line site in Yukon as well. But this agreement does not address or resolve the mess left by the U.S. military.

Will the government commit to protecting the vulnerable northern environment and start by cleaning up the Marwell tar pit. As well there are Conal road, the Haines highway, the pipeline, abandoned airstrips and another Conal pipeline. It is very critical. The northern environment is vulnerable. It has been over 50 years. Will the federal government take its responsibility and clean up the Marwell tar pit?

[David Iftody, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Yukon on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning contamination at the Marwell tar pit within the city of Whitehorse.

The site is not under the administration and control of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The land has been under the control of the Government of Yukon since 1965-66.

In 1994 the department worked in partnership with both territorial and city of Whitehorse officials to assess the site in question. As part of the assessment process, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development funded two pilot studies investigating the effectiveness and feasibility of each of the two remediation options identified. This work was funded under the Arctic environmental strategy which was established in part to assist communities with issues such as this.

Departmental officials in Yukon have and will continue to offer expertise and assistance to territorial and community officials in assessing and remediating contaminated sites within Yukon. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in conjunction with an established public policy advisory group will address agreed upon priorities within the constraints of available funds.

Finally, the Government of Canada recognizes that the north is a dynamic and important part of Canada. That is why we work closely with our partners in a broad range of initiatives affecting the environmental, political and economic aspirations of northerners. That is why the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will continue in its efforts to address environment issues in Yukon.

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

Madam Speaker, last Tuesday, I asked the health minister, on world AIDS day, about the situation concerning the approval of medication in Canada.

It is acknowledged the approval process for new drugs in Canada is not very competitive, and this is evidenced by the fact that two antiviral agents have been available for a year and a half in the United States, but are not available in Canada.

It has been estimated that the workload of the health protection branch, the unit that approves and market new drugs, is similar to what exists in the United States. However, here in Canada, we have one third of the resources available in the United States. I rose in the House several times to ask the health minister to review the process, to provide resources, and groups have proposed some solutions.

One of these solutions could be a joint approval process for new drugs. There is no rationale for a drug company that has an affiliate in Canada and one in the United States to submit the same research monographs in both countries, and this could be a joint process. This solution was proposed to the minister.

The second part of the solution has to do with the fact that the Health Protection Branch, now called the Therapeutic Products Branch, sees to it that different persons work on the analysis of the files at each stage of the process. With the Canadian AIDS Society and other organizations concerned with these issues, we think that one way to improve the drug products licensing process would be to mandate the same public servants from the beginning to the end of the process.

So I am asking the government to review this process. I would be very happy to work on it in a parliamentary committee, but members must know that Liberals have defeated a motion I put forward in the standing committee on health asking for the creation of a task force and a parliamentary committee on this issue.

So, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice—who is not very knowledgeable in these matters, but very knowledgeable in other areas—will give me some hope.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to give a more detailed answer to the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve about the approval process for AIDS medication.

The Canadian approval process is still one of the most highly respected drug regulation mechanisms in the world. At the present time, 13 antiretroviral drugs have been approved for AIDS therapy in Canada. There are several other medications especially designed to target opportunistic infections and illnesses affecting AIDS victims.

HIV-AIDS drugs submissions are eligible for priority review or fast tracking where there is probable clinical evidence that the drug may provide an important therapeutic gain. A number of HIV-AIDS drugs were reviewed on a priority basis. New drug submissions for HIV-AIDS drugs are generally reviewed within defined performance standards which are comparable to international standards.

Medication for HIV/AIDS that is still experimental, or is not for general sale in Canada, is accessible to Canadians through clinical trials, extended access programs, and the special access program. The latter provides AIDS patients with rapid access to experimental drugs on special authorization at the attending physician's request.

Additionally, with the announcement of the notice of compliance with conditions policy, drugs are permitted to be marketed in Canada when there is predictive rather than conclusive evidence of clinical benefit in the treatment of serious life threatening diseases. Under this policy the drug product manufacturer is required to continue to study the drug in order to confirm its benefit.

Health Canada is involved in several initiatives which ought to simplify the drug examination process. These include development of an electronic drug submission system, harmonization—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary.

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.03 p.m.)