Debates of Feb. 11th, 1999

Ways And Means

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, and I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

These amendments deal with permitting the new foreign bank entry regime for Canada, the so-called foreign branching regime, a long awaited measure. I am also tabling background notes.

Order In Council Appointments

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments which were recently made by the government.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.

National Housing Act

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-66, an act to amend the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Bank Act

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, for Minister of Finance]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-67, an act to amend the Bank Act, the Winding-up and Restructuring Act and other acts related to financial institutions and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canada Post Corporation Act

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-474, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.

Madam Speaker, the operations of Canada Post have been somewhat suspect for a number of years. There is suspicion among people that it is using the money it brings in from regular mail to subsidize other aspects of its operation, for example its courier service and electronic mail, and to drive its private market competitors out. In Calgary we had people who went ahead and had their own mail delivery service called T2P overnight. I think we can deliver better service with Canada Post by allowing competition so people can see what other options there are out there.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Criminal Code

[Deepak Obhrai, Reform, Calgary East, AB]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-475, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breaking and entering).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce my private member's bill in the House today. This bill would establish a minimum two year sentence for second or subsequent convictions of break and enters on dwelling houses. I am proud to state that I have the support of the justice ministers of Alberta and Manitoba. It is my hope that this private member's bill will receive support from my colleagues so we can effectively address this national problem. Canadians view break and enter crimes as more than just property crimes. They view them as crimes against the person.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Program Cost Declaration Act

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-476, an act to provide for improved information on the cost of proposed government programs.

Madam Speaker, this bill is a second attempt on a bill that was brought up in the previous parliament which went as far as the committee stage. This bill attempts to empower the House in the sense that it requires all legislation and new programs introduced by the government to be costed. That costing or the anticipation of that cost is then scrutinized by the auditor general. It essentially allows us as legislators to understand the basic costs of new programs.

More important, it allows us as legislators to go back to our constituents and to explain to them how much new types of government programs are costing.

I do not believe there are very many people in the House or in the country who do not demand greater accountability for government. That is what this legislation would do.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation And Safety Board Act

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-477, an act to amend the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and the Canada Labour Code as a consequence.

Madam Speaker, with the extreme growth that has taken place in interprovincial and international road transport in the last few years, there is a gap in safety regulation with respect to very large vehicles.

Any accident involving them right now is investigated only by the province in which the accident took place unless the provinces makes a special request to the Transportation Safety Board to become involved in the investigation.

This bill would require that the Transportation Safety Board have authority over any accidents occurring with large trucks and buses in interprovincial or international transport.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of a number of Canadians, including some from my own constituency of Mississauga South, on human rights.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that violations of universally accepted human rights continue to be rampant around the world, particularly in countries such as Indonesia.

The petitioners also acknowledge that Canada is internationally recognized as a champion of human rights in the world.

The petitioners therefore call on parliament and the Government of Canada to continue to condemn such violations of universally accepted human rights and to seek to bring to justice those responsible for such abuse.

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Bruce—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present on behalf of the constituents of Bruce—Grey, in particular from the areas of Leith, Chatsworth, Kemble and Owen Sound, a petition requesting a change in the national anthem.

The petitioners would like that the second line read “True patriot love in all of us command”.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Oak Ridges, ON]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the pleasure to present a petition on behalf of many Canadians with regard to access for grandparents to their grandchildren.

The petitioners request parliament amend the Divorce Act to include a provision as supported by Bill C-340 regarding the right of spouses' parents, the grandparents, to have access to or custody of children.

There is currently legislation in several provincial jurisdictions, including Quebec and Alberta, that allows grandparents the right to see their grandchildren.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by many Canadians calling on parliament to amend the Divorce Act to include the provision as supported in Bill C-340 regarding the right of spouses' parents, the grandparents, to have access to or custody of their children.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present today, all on the same subject matter, from Canadians in Pincher Creek, Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta and various smaller communities in the province of Nova Scotia.

All of the petitioners pray that parliament enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act (Prohibited Degrees) and the Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions signed by constituents of Stoney Creek who feel it is the duty of parliament to ensure that marriage, as it has always been known and understood in Canada, be preserved and protected.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

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

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take steps to alleviate the burden of poverty in Canada by encouraging self-sufficiency and self-reliance, and to that end, should increase the basic Income Tax credit to $10,000, index the tax brakets and index the Child Tax Benefit.

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

We have decided today to put a matter of national urgency before the House, a matter that cannot wait any longer. I am referring to poverty.

Barely a few days before the next federal budget is tabled, I consider it entirely appropriate to hold a public debate on this national scourge, which continues to be one of the main obstacles to equal opportunity in Canadian society.

I would like right off to establish the parameters of the debate I am initiating today with the aid of a historic reminder. On November 24, 1989, this House witnessed a rare act of solidarity on a matter of national urgency, the unanimous passing of a resolution expressing a common desire to eliminate child poverty in Canada by 2000.

Despite this desire, clearly and—I said it and I repeat it—unanimously expressed, there are today 564,000 more children living in poverty than there were in 1989. In fact, the rate of child poverty rose from 15% to 21% during this period.

In other words, this means that one child in five is exposed daily to the cruel consequences of misery and poverty. The reason these children are living in such conditions is that their parents are among the 20% of the Canadian population who live below the poverty line.

These alarming figures have moved me on numerous occasions in recent months to beg the Minister of Finance to make children a priority in the next federal budget, among other things by indexing the national child benefit in order to ensure that families receiving it maintain their purchasing power.

I have reminded him of how vital it is to invest right now in the well-being of our children, so that they may develop to their full potential and contribute to Canadian society later on.

Yet every time I have tried to get a commitment from him, or from any other minister of the Liberal government, I have had to settle for a nicely recited litany, always the same one, of nothing but columns of figures. All these statistics are, of course, aimed at singing the praises of this government and how well it has done in improving the economy and creating employment.

Instead of openly admitting the deplorable situation in which some of the children of this country are living, and instead of assuming their responsibilities by putting their shoulders to the wheel in order to correct this national aberration, the members of the government are content to issue glowing reports about the excellent health of our public finances. Yet they cleverly forget to point out that, in order to attain that excellent health, they have given up providing a social safety net for Canadians. They also cleverly neglect to mention that this race toward economic recovery leads to an even more marked deterioration in the living conditions of those whose financial situation is already precarious.

The director of Repas Granby et Région Inc., a social advocacy group in my riding, recently informed me of the dramatic impact this insane pursuit of economic recovery can have sometimes.

When I hear him tell the story of this single mother who must sometimes resort to prostitution in order to support her children or that of a welfare recipient who committed suicide upon learning that her benefits had been cut, I understandably cannot applaud the government's approach to putting its fiscal house in order.

I think therefore that it is appropriate to mention an important fact, which has been overlooked in the government's rhetoric. In its two terms, the government opposite will have chopped more than $10 billion from social transfer payments, yet it continues to portray itself as the champion of the young, the old and the unemployed and of social programs.

However, the Prime Minister was nowhere to be seen yesterday morning, when victims of his so-called sound management rallied on Parliament Hill to condemn his vision of wealth distribution. I was there, along with my leader, the right hon. Joe Clark, and my colleague, the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche. I can tell you that the government's triumphalist statements about its good management of public affairs are not very well received by this bitter and desperate constituency.

On behalf of these and of all Canadians who bear the brunt of this government's economic policies every day, I urge my colleagues not to give up.

These people, who came to Ottawa to express their anger and despair, need our vigilance and support. They are a living reminder of this government's economic failure. In spite of what the Prime Minister and his government colleagues may say, they failed miserably in their most basic duties by letting some of their fellow citizens become so impoverished that they have to do without food and shelter.

I am not the only one who is running out of patience with the government's indifference. The Prime Minister should ask young people if they are happy to wait, to hear nice speeches, to see their debt reach excessive proportions, and to find out that post-secondary education is becoming increasingly inaccessible.

Young people are not any more gullible than us. They know that it is the Liberals who contributed to the gradual and systematic erosion of our public education system. Again, the Liberals' wealth redistribution record has been absolutely dismal.

Since 1989, the year which I used in my introduction as our base year for this debate, average family income in Canada has fallen by roughly 4%. It has gone down, not up. Yet, the Minister of Finance claims that the economic fundamentals are right, that unemployment continues to go down, and that inflation is below 1%. Despite all that and despite the fact that the economy, as the minister says, is doing better, the question is: Better for whom?

It is certainly not better for the average Canadian family, whose income has gone down by 4% in recent years. It is not better for the children I met this morning at a school in the national capital region, where we served breakfast. These children, who were shamelessly abandoned by the state, must rely on charitable organizations to start their day with some food in their stomachs.

It is definitely not better for families on welfare, which must face a daily reality that most of us cannot even imagine.

In my riding, the co-ordinator of the Association coopérative d'économie familiale de Granby recently told me about the anguish experienced by these families toward the end of a month, when the fridge and the cupboard are empty, or when spring heralds the arrival not of flowers and birds but of the letter they will receive from Hydro-Quebec demanding that they pay the arrears accumulated during the winter, otherwise power will be cut off.

This may all be very new for our well-fed and well-lodged ministers, but it is nothing unusual in the lives of a growing number of our fellow citizens.

The proof is in the number of food banks, which have almost tripled in Canada since 1989. According to the Canadian Association of Food Banks, the number of communities relying on this service has risen from 180 in 1989 to 508 in 1998.

I must confess I have long been puzzled by cabinet's indifference to the national tragedy I have just described.

After all, this is the same government that signed the Copenhagen accords in 1995, committing it to take concrete action to improve the living conditions of the poorest of the poor in Canada. I would almost have to conclude that this attitude on the part of government members indicates a flagrant lack of compassion for the more unfortunate members of our society.

That would certainly confirm the popular belief that legislators, the very people with the power to change things, are often indifferent to the basic needs of those they represent. But I am an optimist by nature and I refuse to believe that the government will not listen to reason.

Time is running out. Something must be done. The issue of poverty must be addressed without further delay. Canadians want a proactive government that will get moving and do whatever it takes to put an end to the national disgrace of poverty in this country.

Solutions exist. All that is lacking is the willingness to do something. One of the things the government could do is to remedy the inequality of taxation practices and not tax low wage earners to death. It could also encourage self-sufficiency and self-reliance by increasing the basic income tax credit to $10,000 and indexing the tax tables and the child tax benefit.

On behalf of our society's most disadvantaged members, I call on the government to show leadership and compassion.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the House give its consent to revert to the presentation of reports from committees under Routine Proceedings?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is there unanimous consent to revert to Routine Proceedings?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for Shefford. If my memory serves me correctly, this is not the first time we have debated this issue in the House and I congratulate her for bringing this issue once again before the House for debate.

I have been very concerned about the issue of bracket creep which is more or less what she is talking about. I do not want to play cheap politics, but I was taken aback when she said that she and Joe Clark were outside yesterday with the poor on Parliament Hill. I thought: Where was Mr. Clark in 1984 when legislation was introduced which created bracket creep?

This problem was created by that party. That party, in its wisdom, said it was not going to index anything unless it was over 3 percentage points. She is absolutely correct that since that time low income families of the country have been devastated by a constant erosion of their incomes.

Worse than that, this party has created a poverty trap which people cannot get out of. In other words if someone is making something like $10,000 or $15,000 and wants to make an extra dollar, the marginal rate of tax is 50%.

Her motion talks about assisting self-sufficiency. I agree with her that we have to something about it, but she should not stand and say that she and Mr. Clark were very concerned about the poor people outside this door the other day. Mr. Clark was sitting in these very chairs as a minister when that legislation was passed.

I always hear about the great wonderful things we should do. How much will it cost? Has she done her homework? Can she tell me how many taxpayers dollars it will cost to implement the message she is talking about today?

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

Madam Speaker, I am very sensitive to my colleague's comments, and I also think he is sensitive to the issue of poverty. However, his remarks today concern a period of full blown economic crisis. The federal government did what had to be done at the time.

Since 1993, however, the economy has recovered, and the government still continues to overtax employees at hugely excessive rates. It cut over $10 billion in social transfers. It made bad choices.

We are here today to debate, and not necessarily to toss the ball back and forth. We have to find solutions now. We have to stop talking and find ways to help these people. The things that happened in the past are in the past, and there are reasons why they happened. Today, let us take the time to find ways to help people who are suffering now.