House of Commons Hansard #60 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was budget.
Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from people in the area of Lake Louise, Banff and Canmore calling on the government to do whatever it takes, including invoking the notwithstanding clause, to put an end to this issue regarding child pornography.
I would like to add these names to the already over half a million names on file. I thank these people for submitting it.
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 66. .[Text]
Question No. 66—
John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB
Regarding page 10.6 of the Public Accounts of Canada 1998-1999, Volume II (ii), under the rubric “Payments of Claims Against the Crown—Department of National Defence—Damage to Personal Property—Holiday Inn Harbour View” in the amount of $2.123: ( a ) when did the events happen; ( b ) were DND personnel at the Holiday Inn Harbour View for a sanctioned DND event or was there another event going on; ( c ) what was generally damaged; ( d ) which damaged and/or destroyed items were replaced; ( e ) were those involved with this case reprimanded and/or terminated; and ( f ) was the incident reported to any police force, including military police?
Art Eggleton LiberalMinister of National Defence
(a) September 23, 1998.
(b) A driver from the Department of National Defence, DND, was delivering luggage to DND personnel who were staying at the Holiday Inn Harbour View while on temporary duty in Halifax.
(c) The DND driver backed into the overhang at the front of the hotel.
(d) The overhang was repaired.
(e) The DND driver was verbally reprimanded by his supervisor and placed on remedial training.
(f) No.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Derek Lee LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to be so kind as to call Motion No. P-7.
Motion No. P-7
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of a poll referred to by the Prime Minister during question period on May 5, 1998 in which he stated that “Only 10% of Canadians think the Reform Party members are doing this because they are compassionate but 75% of Canadians think they are doing it for politics.”
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a return to that motion.
Motion For PapersRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House that Motion No. P-7 for the Production of Papers be deemed to have been adopted?
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to be so kind as to call motion No. P-9.
Motion No. P-9
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, correspondence and invoices relating to the Canadian underground economy, the estimated size of this “non-reported” economy in monetary terms, and the estimated amount of federal tax revenue that the government has not collected due to the undergroung economy.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to submit a return to Motion No. P-9.
Motion For PapersRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House that Motion No. P-9 for the Production of Papers be deemed to have been adopted?
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers stand.
André Bachand Progressive Conservative Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We know now that consideration at report stage of Bill C-20 will begin this Friday.
On February 17, as indicated in today's order paper, under Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers, I asked, in Motion P-34, that copies of all correspondence between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments concerning Bill C-20 be tabled in the House.
I would like to make sure, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the parliamentary secretary will table these documents by Friday.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is asking for unanimous consent to table, that would not be forthcoming at this time, but a further consultation might advance the file considerably.
Motion For PapersRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
It appears that there will have to be further consultations. It is not a matter for the Chair to make a ruling on it at this point. I am not sure that it is a good point of order, but I think the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska has made his point. Everyone's position is clear now.
The House resumed from February 29 consideration of the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate on budget 2000, a budget which will translate into a better quality of life for all Canadians.
I want to talk about two issues. I want to talk about health care and I want to talk about the specific budget provision on extending maternity and parental leave to a full year which was announced in the budget. It is something I support very much.
Not too long ago the National Forum on Health did a two year comprehensive study. Experts in the health care system of Canada did a study and concluded that there was enough money in the health care system. They also observed that about $11 billion in the health care system was not being spent wisely. They recommended that we need to spend more prudently and more wisely in terms of our valuable health care dollars.
Ontario Premier Mike Harris has recently gone on a tirade of blaming the federal government. There were cuts which all Canadians took right across the board, including the federal government, and yes there were some cuts in health care. What was the response of Mike Harris? He closed hospitals. He also downsized beds in other hospitals. He spent millions of dollars firing nurses. He created a crisis, just like John Snobelen who said, “We have to create a crisis in education. Then we can try to fix it and then we are going to be heroes”.
Here it is again. Mike Harris on the front page of the newspapers is blaming the federal government and saying that “If we do not get this fixed, and the federal government does not fix it, what are we going to do? We are going to have user fees just like Ralph Klein”.
How is it that in the last budget $11.5 billion was increased in the CHST to the provinces of which $3.5 billion was available to the province of Ontario? How much of the $3.5 billion has Mike Harris taken already that is available to him immediately? Eight hundred million dollars. He still has $2.7 billion that he has not even drawn down in addition to his share of the $2.5 billion which has just been advanced in budget 2000.
What else did he say? He said, “We have a crisis in health care. Everything is a problem and it is all the federal government's fault, but what are we going to do? We are going to spend $4.3 billion on tax cuts and still have a deficit”. Deficits are financing tax cuts and everyone knows that health care is a priority.
Given the analysis of Mike Harris maybe we should suggest that he seek some of that health care, mental health care. But I am not going to suggest that. The reason is that he closed down 10 mental health institutions in Ontario since he was elected as premier. He cannot go to a mental health institution.
In fact 35% of the homeless in Toronto and across the country are people who suffer from mental health problems. He is blaming homelessness on the federal government yet he is the one who closed those institutions. He is the one who decided that health care was not a priority in Ontario. He said it was tax cuts. He created a crisis in health care, but the money is there. Today he is saying he needs money. Well, the money is there. Mike Harris, shame.
I will now move on to something a little more constructive, rather than talk about a premier who is doing a disservice to Canada.
The budget provides that the parental and maternity leave benefits under EI be extended, doubled to a full year. This is a subject I have a lot of interest in because I had a private member's bill some time ago on the same issue. I am very pleased. The best outcome for a private member's bill is to have it adopted by the government and implemented quickly along with the other budget provisions. I do not want to talk about the dollars and the cents. I want to talk about why I wanted to see that in the budget.
I had the opportunity to chair a committee on investing in children and valuing our caregivers. I want to share some of the observations and some of the principles which we would like to follow.
Our caregiver policies should be child centred and promote the best interests of children to the greatest extent possible. We thought we should presume that parents are the primary caregivers. They are in the best position to determine the best possible care arrangements for their children.
We also thought policies should be flexible with the right options and choices and make it feasible for either parent to provide care. We also thought they should be inclusive and responsive to the social realities and circumstances of parents and their children. They should be fair and equitable and neither penalize nor compel specific caregiving choices.
The 1996 National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth found that 25% of Canada's children are entering adult life with significant emotional, behavioural, academic or social problems. In the words of Dr. Paul Steinhauer of Voices for Children, with one in four children entering adult life significantly handicapped, we can look forward to a society that will be less able to generate the economic base required to supply the social supports and services needed by one in four adults unable to carry their own weight.
I wanted to look at this more, so I found a research study which came out of a White House conference in 1997. One of the principal findings was that the neurological foundations for rational thinking, problem solving and general reasoning appear to be established by age one. It also found that at birth the human brain is far from fully formed and it is estimated that about 80% of the lifetime development of the human brain is complete by age three.
This got me thinking that the early years of childhood development are extremely important. Dr. Fraser Mustard, who appeared before the HRD committee described the first year of human life as being dynamite in terms of neural development.
Breast feeding is also an important implication. I came across a study done in April 1998. Dr. Christopher Ruhm of the University of North Carolina published a research paper entitled “Parental Leave and Child Health”. He studied 25 years of population data in nine European countries. He found a 29% reduction in infant mortality where parental leave of at least 50 weeks was taken. This is unbelievable. He is basically saying that when a child gets secure, consistent attachment with an engaged, committed adult during its first year, healthier outcomes do occur.
This was one of the reasons that the committee which I chaired recommended doubling the maternity and parental leave benefits. Parents could then have the option to provide direct parental care during that vital first year.
To follow that up, when we had the debate in the House on taxation of the family, the finance minister asked the finance committee to review taxation of the family to determine whether or not there were some areas to cover. I will not go into the details of the report but one of our three principal recommendations was to extend maternity and parental leave to a full year.
Specifically the budget proposes that the time be doubled to one year. Currently there is a two week waiting period, 15 weeks of maternity leave and an optional 10 weeks for parental leave. When this is taken altogether and an additional 35 weeks of optional parental leave is added, it means parents will have the opportunity to have one of them with their child during the vital first year.
The government also took the advice of the finance subcommittee to reduce the number of hours from 700 to 600 of insurable hours to qualify and it said that if the second parent decided to take some of that time off, the two week waiting period would be waived. This is even more of a benefit.
I was looking at some numbers. People have said to me that they cannot afford to live if they withdraw from their jobs. They cannot afford to receive just the benefits with a maximum of about $413.
It dawned on me when I looked at when both parents are working and they have an infant child, they have to pay for child care expenses. Although there is a child care expense deduction, that deduction is only available to the lowest income earner of the two spouses. It usually means they are only getting a refund or a benefit of about 25 cents on the dollar federally and provincially combined. They also have reduced Canada child tax benefits because that benefit which is payable to them is determined on the basis of family income. There is a gradation as a result of combined family income.
I also thought of this very interesting and important point. When both parents work and the woman chooses not to use a breast pump to get mother's milk, they have to pay for baby formula. Premixed baby formula can cost up to $4,000 a year, which is after tax money. It is the equivalent of getting paid about an additional $7,000 for that family.
I looked at the other side. What if somebody withdraws from the paid labour force to provide direct parental care because they felt their child needed it? All of a sudden there is a higher Canada child tax benefit. The spousal amount comes into play as well. Even if they got the full EI benefits which are taxable, they still have their own personal amount to offset it. They will not not use it all and there will an amount transferable to the spouse who is in the paid labour force which means there will be a further reduction of income taxes. The breast feeding savings alone are a very significant amount and they get the EI benefit for a full year.
The issue for me is not the money. The issue is children and how we invest in our children so that they are physically and mentally healthy. The fact remains that all of the research I have seen indicates that when children get the kind of care they need during that vital first year, they have better physical, mental and social health outcomes. And when that happens, and the national longitudinal survey says that 25% of our children are entering adult life with problems, the percentage of children with problems goes down. That means we have lower health care costs, lower educational costs, lower social program costs and lower justice costs.
One of the things we know is that many children who have problems, including things like fetal alcohol syndrome, run afoul of the laws of Canada and end up in court. I just wrote a monograph on that subject. The Minister of Justice confirmed to me that 50% of youth in the jails in Manitoba and Saskatchewan have fetal alcohol syndrome.
It is time we invested in our children. We can invest in our children by valuing our caregivers and by making sure parents have the very best opportunity to provide the kind of care their child needs.
We have to understand that all parents do not live in urban centres. Child care may not be accessible. It may not be affordable. There may not be another family member, close friend, or neighbour who is able to provide that care for their child.
The provision of extending parental leave is a progressive move. It says to Canadian families across the country that there is another opportunity, option or choice for them to arrange their affairs to ensure that their children get the best possible care particularly in that first year of life.
Myron Thompson Reform Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the member.
It is my understanding that when the health care system began, this project was to be funded 50% by the provinces and 50% by the federal government. I think we are now down to about 16% for the federal government, or somewhere around 15%, and up to 85% and even higher for the provinces.
I also know that in 1993 the government took a healthy chunk out of the transfer payments to the provinces which maintain health care. In Alberta that resulted in about a 35% decrease in funding to provide health care services. It was probably a higher amount in Ontario.
It is amazing that the member would stand and condemn those provinces for trying to do something about the situation that exists in their provinces when it is the federal government that has created the problem by these extremely high cuts that have never come close to being replaced. I would like his comment on what has happened to the 50:50 help.
Knowing the member as I do, I wonder how he feels about the millions and millions of dollars being spent by the government on RCMP investigations at HRDC, and all of the spending going on at the heritage department for films like Bubbles Galore and a committee on seniors and sexuality. Those are a couple of examples of the hundreds of absolutely stupid things on which the government has spent money. I say stupid because that is what they are.
I wonder how he feels about this absolutely idiotic spending that goes on within his government.
Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member got his information, but there was $61 billion spent last year by all governments on health care. In 2000-01, $31 billion will be transferred from the federal government under the CHST, of which $17 billion will be targeted to health.
The member should also know that under the CHST, although it is calculated under health, post-secondary education and the social transfer, the provinces are not bound to spend the money in all of those areas. There are no strings. They have to spend it in that envelope, but it all could go to health, et cetera.
On top of that, $3 billion is directly spent by the federal government on aboriginal health and on health care for the forces. Therefore, $20 billion out of the $64 billion which is spent on health care is funded by the federal government, which equates to 31 cents on the dollar. When we add the $9.5 billion in equalization payments, the total federal transfer is $40 billion.
I am sorry, but the member seems to have his facts wrong.