Susan Whelan

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. There are many points that we could share today on what we need to do for children in benefits. I would like to restate that EI claimants who get the family income supplement will be exempt from the new intensity rule that will reduce benefit levels

of repeat claims. That is very important for all Canadians to know. People need to know this step reflects the interests of children in low income families.

I also think people should know that part II will allow them to develop the skills they need to build stronger careers. Again, in part II we have targeted our assistance. We also recognize that parents find it very difficult to pursue full time studies.

It is important to make another point about the child tax benefit. The child tax benefit right now recognizes the contributions of all families by providing a basic credit of $1,020 per child per year, plus an additional $75 for the third child and subsequent children. It recognizes the cost of young children by providing a supplement of $213 for each child under the age of seven. It targets the greatest benefits to families in need by reducing the total benefit by 5 per cent on family income over $25,921. I believe the current child tax benefit recognizes the contribution of all parents and at the same time directs more resources to those most in need. That is good family policy.

The Liberal government is working with the provinces to improve this by developing, as I said before, an integrated child benefit. I believe this would be a better use of scarce and limited public resources than the Reform proposal. It would provide greater public benefit to the entire community, while Reform's proposal would channel more resources to one type of family regardless of financial need.

Families do want choices, but they want real choices. Reform talks about choices, but the impact of its policies would only provide real choices for the group of families who can afford to have one parent stay at home, and most families do not have that choice.

Reform based this motion on its proposals in its fresh start program on the notion that a one income earner family of $60,000 is the same as a two earner family with an income of $30,000 each. That is not reality. It is not the case.

If a parent earning $30,000 in the Reform plan decides to stay home, the family might get a tax credit of somewhere between $2,000 and $4,000, depending on the age of the children. That would give the household a family income of $32,000 or $34,000. The family, obviously, would not have the same choices as a household earning $60,000.

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the motion under debate proposes that the government should provide tax fairness for all Canadian families by extending the child care tax deduction to all families of all income levels and converting it to a credit, thereby removing the tax bias against parents caring for their own children.

At first blush it might appear it is a good idea but after all, Canada's children are our future and one of our most important resources. Who can honestly say they would oppose-not me of all-that we need to come up with something for children?

However, let us take a look and really examine the Reform Party's motion, which I have done. If we think about this motion we will note the proposal could mean two radically different things. First, if the Reform Party plans to convert the existing child care credit deduction into its equivalent value in tax credits it will provide about $850 for every child under seven years of age and $150 for every child between seven and twelve years of age. If this is what the Reform Party is proposing, it is far from clear that is what it means, given the clever wording used in the motion. This motion would hardly provide sufficient incentive or compensation to allow one parent to remain home and care for their children. As well, it would not provide much assistance to any families, especially low income families.

On the other hand, if the Reform Party plan is to give $5,000 tax credit for every child under seven and a $3,000 tax credit for every child between seven and twelve years of age, then this program would provide substantial assistance. Unfortunately it would also break the bank.

In Canada today there are 2,402,027 children age seven to twelve. At a cost of $3,000 per child the proposal would cost $7.2 billion. As well, there are 2,789,995 children under the age of seven. At a cost of $5,000 per child the proposal would cost another $14 billion. In total this proposal if implemented would cost $21.2 billion.

The existing child care tax credit cost $305 million in 1989. This means the proposal would cost $20.9 billion more than the present child care tax deduction. I would like to know where this $20.9 billion will come from.

I suppose the Reform Party could double the GST in theory. That would raise another $18 billion. It could cut off federal transfers for health care. That would raise close to the $20 billion, although the money would of course go straight to medical services.

Reform of course projects a cost that is much lower than this. The total package of tax breaks in its fresh start document is to cost only $12 billion. However, as we can see, the numbers do not add up. One might legitimately ask what the Reform Party is really proposing.

In their speeches members of the Reform Party talked about a $3,000 to $5,000 benefit per child, but if we look at its budget plan the figure is much lower. What is the Reform Party proposing the House of Commons do? By passing this motion are we committing the government to giving every child under seven years of age $850 or does it mean we are going to give these children $5,000?

The motion is fuzzy and cannot be supported for that very reason.

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the third party in this House has taken a curious perspective on how best to address the needs of children in Canada today and it is one that surprises me. That party normally has a pretty clear position on the role of the federal government on social policy issues. Write cheques and pop them in the mail to provincial capitals sums it up.

It is also a party that prides itself on its commitment to pare government spending to the bone and probably well beyond.

And here we are today with a motion before us that runs totally contrary to the broad political policies of the Reform Party. It talks about a greater role for government and increased government expenditures.

I do not intend to use the time allotted me today to repeat arguments already made by my hon. colleagues on the child care deduction. Rather, I would like to talk to you about certain initiatives our government has taken to respond to the real priorities of Canadian children.

This is excellent day to do this, for while the Reform Party sits and talks, our government gets up and works. We are working with our partners, the provincial governments, to tackle the real children's issue in Canada, child poverty.

A federal-provincial meeting is taking place in Toronto. Our government is sitting down with the provinces to discuss how we can build a national child benefit and how we can build it together. We are talking about how to align our programs and services so that we can do the most to help children living in poverty.

The idea for this initiative has been around for a long time. It was discussed during the federal social security reform. More recently, the issue of a national integrated child benefit was raised in the ministerial council report last March.

Our government responded favourably. It became a shared commitment of both levels of government at the first ministers meeting in June. Alberta is the co-chair on behalf of the provinces while the Minister of Human Resources Development is co-chairing on behalf of the federal government.

This is an example of the federal government's renewing federalism and renewing our social union by working with the provinces. It offers so much more than hollow calls for unilateral tax policy changes that would only stand to benefit those families that already have a measure of security, middle to upper class income families.

The government, on the other hand, is concerned with the plight of low income families, in particular their children. At a time of limited finances, this is the direction Canadians are telling us we should go. Nine out of every ten Canadians say that the level of child poverty in this country is a problem. They also tell us they do not want to return to programs that treat rich and poor families alike. If public money is going to be spent, they want it to go where it will meet the real needs. That will be the point of a national child benefit.

A national child benefit is something for the future. But what of the present? How is this government addressing the needs of parents and children?

In our opinion, the best way to fight child poverty is to help the parents find work. I would point out simply that nearly 500,000 people have found work since our government's election.

In fact, between 1993 and 1995, Canada created more jobs than Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Spain combined. This is a pretty impressive result, and it benefits our children.

We recognize that many Canadians work at jobs that offer relatively low pay. These are people who benefit from the child tax benefit and the working income supplement. I remind members that our government doubled the maximum level of working income supplement in the last budget. Over the next two years it will go up from $500 to $1,000. That means more financial help for low income parents to address the extra costs of working.

Helping Canadians get back to work is also the goal of the new employment insurance system. Despite the criticisms of the third party in this place we succeeded in passing legislation a few months ago to build a new system. The key is a set of active employment measures to help people get the skills they need to find new jobs.

Another element of employment insurance that benefits the family and children is the new family income supplement, which comes into effect in January. It will be available to families eligible for the child tax benefit and the earned income supplement.

These families will receive an average of $800 a year, and the children will be the first to benefit.

More than that, EI claimants who get the family income supplement will be exempt from the new intensity rule that would reduce the benefit levels of repeat claims. This is yet another step that reflects the interests of children in lower income families.

Active measures under EI part II will also help Canadians develop the skills they need to build stronger careers. Other measures include grants and loans to students. Here again we have targeted our assistance.

We recognize that parents can find it very difficult to pursue full time studies. Last year we introduced a system of grants for part time students with high financial needs, many of whom are single parents. In the 1995-96 year we started a process that offers as many as 10,000 of these students each year up to $1,200 for every academic year of enrolment. This support will help them get the education that will enable them and their families to prosper.

I will address the issue of child care. A year ago the federal government presented a proposal to provinces to expand child care as was outlined in the red book. Although provinces recognize the importance of child care to working parents, there was no consensus on the need to significantly expand child care. The federal government remains committed to further discussions on child care if provinces and territories can reach a consensus on an approach. However, that has not stopped us from taking action where we can.

For example, our government launched the First Nations/Inuit child care initiative last December. The goal is to bring the quality and quantity of child care services in aboriginal communities in line with those of the general population. The result will be some 4,300 new child care spaces and the improvement of 1,700 existing spaces for a total of 6,000 quality child care spaces. This involves an investment of $72 million over the first three years of the program.

Another example is our child care visions program. This is a research and development fund. It supports studies to help us learn more about the adequacy, outcomes and cost effectiveness of different child care practices. In a world where many parents have no realistic choice but to work, despite nostalgic notions promoted by the Reform Party, this program helps us learn what kinds of child care will be best for our little ones.

Then there are the other joint projects that our government has funded under the strategic initiatives program. For example, thousands of families with young children are benefiting under an improved access to child care project in British Columbia. In Manitoba about 400 lone parents on social assistance are getting help to put them into the workplace. Federal support for Quebec's APPORT program is supporting 27,000 low income wage earners and social assistance recipients.

In all these cases, the children benefit when their parents have better job opportunities and extra help for quality child care services. In all these cases, however, the benefit flows from co-operation between the federal government and the provinces.

Yesterday on national child day we paid special attention to the needs of children. What better way to help children in need than by continuing the commitment to co-operation and action that our government is showing?

[Crime Prevention, November 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, November 1 marks the start of the 1996 national community safety and crime prevention campaign. The theme of this year's campaign sponsored by the Canada Safety Council is "Choices", the choices that we as Canadians make to help prevent crime, especially youth crime.

To make a real dent in youth crime we have to do something about the means of its production. That involves the serious social problems which often underlie criminal behaviour and how society responds to them.

Everything we improve today, every community problem that we can address before it leads to crime will result in building healthier communities later on. Rehabilitation and alternatives to imprisonment are most important components of the solution. These will help young people to get their lives back on track and become productive citizens.

That is why crime prevention is so central to this government's program for balanced and effective criminal justice reform. To succeed in our efforts to prevent crime and find practical solutions, we must not only work in tandem with our partners in the criminal justice system but broaden our partnerships to include communities and neighbourhoods.

I applaud the efforts of the Canada Safety Council and invite all Canadians to learn more about the choices available for responding to youth crime within their own communities.

[Petitions, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table petitions submitted to me by 3,600 residents of Windsor and Essex county. They are objecting to the mandatory 25 per cent tax being withheld by the United States on their U.S. social

security benefits. These petitioners call upon the Canadian government to renegotiate the Canada-U.S. tax treaty to stop this inequity.

I know the government is working on a solution to this situation. However I urge the government to do it very soon.

[Taxation, October 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

A number of recent articles about the new seniors benefit claim that the new system will impose double taxation on seniors and discourage savings in RRSPs. Can the parliamentary secretary please clarify how the new seniors benefit will affect millions of retired Canadians?

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to participate in this debate. The passing of this bill will benefit all Canadians and fulfils another red book promise made to Canadians.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to the Minister of the Environment for reintroducing this legislation and for pursuing its passage. The Liberal Party agriculture policy paper released on September 24, 1993 stated: "Liberals are committed to banning the use of MMT in Canadian automotive fuels".

The rationale for this legislation is twofold. It deals with the health and the environmental risks and the need for harmonized standards to ensure jobs and investment in Canada that flows from our integrated North American automotive industry.

Everyone in this House must know that the Canadian automotive industry accounts for 465,000 direct and indirect jobs across the country. The industry represents approximately 7 per cent of Canada's GDP and has invested more than $15 billion in Canada over the last decade.

As a result of the North American approach to vehicle manufacturing under the 1965 Auto Pact, more than two million vehicles were manufactured in Canada in 1993, of which 85 per cent were exported for sale in the United States.

In Windsor Chrysler, in partnership with the University of Windsor, recently opened the Automotive Research Development Centre. It invested $20 million and the federal government contributed $4 million.

Initially the centre will conduct a road simulation project, advanced engine design and alternate fuel research, creating 16 jobs for new researchers, placements for up to 20 co-op students as well as ongoing employment for 100 individuals in the design area. MMT will continue to be tested in Windsor.

If Canada is to attract these major research centres and maintain the strong presence we have in the automotive industry, we must keep harmonized sectoral standards.

However, harmonized sectorial standards require MMT free fuel. Contrary to the information others have spoken before us today, MMT is not widely used as a gasoline additive. Until last year Canada was the only OECD country that allowed MMT to be added to unleaded gasoline.

Although a recent narrow technical court ruling in the United States has forced the EPA to grant a waiver to allow Ethyl Corporation to use MMT, it is still prohibited in one-third of the American market, as it is still banned in 37 states including California, which I am surprised my colleague from British Columbia was not aware of, and in many major U.S. cities that require reformulated fuels under the U.S. clean air act.

As well, many of the larger petroleum companies, including Amoco, Anchor Gasoline, ARCO, BP, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon, Hess, Marathon Oil, Mobil, Penzoil, Philips, Shell, Sun and Texaco, have all stated they do not intend to add MMT to unleaded gasoline.

Although emission control equipment and monitors have been designed to perform in real life conditions, they do not function properly if they are exposed to metals and other contaminants in gasoline such as MMT. Experience in Canada has demonstrated that MMT interferes with the engine and vehicle emission systems.

In a recent correspondence to members of Parliament, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturer's Association states:

Automakers' concerns about manganese based gasoline additives, such as MMT, have been supported by third parties. Leading manufacturers of spark plugs, Champion Spark Plug Inc., and Robert Bosch Corp. corroborates vehicle manufacturers' findings that MMT in gasoline causes significant deterioration in the life of spark plugs, EGR valves, oxygen sensors and catalytic converters, which are integral to the advanced emissions control systems on all new 1996 model vehicles and essential to reducing exhaust emissions from cars and light trucks. Ward's Engine and Vehicle Technology Update of February 1, 1996 devoted a recent article to problems associated with MMT use in gasoline: Auto Industry Leery of MMT Gasoline Additive''. Ward's quotes James Kranzthor, a senior product engineer at Chevron in San Francisco, as sayingChevron discontinued use of MMT in our gasoline sold in Canada last year due to spark plug fouling and because of concerns of Canadian auto makers''.

General Motors of Canada Limited has also written:

We would like to be able to offer a new technology, second generation "On Board Diagnostic" system in Canada. This technology, now on all U.S. cars, senses when a vehicle is beginning to demonstrate certain conditions (such a minor misfires) which may lead to higher emissions. This allows the customer to have the vehicle serviced

before there is an emission problem. Unfortunately, MMT impedes the effective operation of OBD-II systems and there is no way we know to design around it.

I am aware that for the first time since 1978, MMT will be allowed to be added to fuel in some U.S. states. However, this was based on a very narrow court ruling on the grounds that as MMT had been used in the U.S. before, MMT could again be employed in the U.S. before long term health risk studies are complete.

However, I would like to point out that in the United States the major auto makers, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler, Honda and Toyota, are now undertaking a $10 million research program with the U.S. EPA to provide the necessary evidence for the U.S. courts to have MMT banned again.

I would also like to quote from the head of the U.S. agency, Carol Browner, commenting earlier this year that the EPA believes that the American public should not be used as a laboratory to test the safety of MMT.

I would like to discuss the health risks associated with MMT. Dr. Donaldson, one of Canada's top neurotoxologists, was one of the scientists selected by the National Research Council of Canada to participate in its mid-eighties study entitled "Manganese in the Canadian Environment". Dr. Donaldson testified to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

I believe that manganese is an age accelerating neurotoxin and I believe this is the answer to manganese's ability to produce biochemically, pathologically and clinically the picture which is very similar but not identical to Parkinson's Disease.

He also explained on CBC Radio on November 23, 1990:

One of the things which attracted me to manganese-was essentially its ability to induce neurological damage almost identical with Parkinson's Disease. And this is why I started to address how this metal line could possibly produce symptoms of Parkinson's Disease and also brain damage which was similar to Parkinson's Disease.

Ms. Ellen Silbergeld of the Environmental Defence Fund served on the EPA peer review panel on the EPA's health assessment document on manganese. She testified:

Regardless of the effects of MMT on emissions control, there is no dispute that manganese is neurotoxic to humans. It is on this basis that EPA should deny this waiver. Particularly since Ethyl has yet again failed to provide evidence on two critical points. One, that the use of MMT will not affect human health and two, that the use of MMT will not measurably add to the environmental loading of manganese in critical compartments directly related to human exposure.

We cannot ignore this evidence. We must act with prudence. I am equally concerned that we must act now rather than regret our inaction later.

Finally, I would like to take issue with the recent action taken by Ethyl Corporation to attempt to file a $201 million claim against Canada, trying to argue that under chapter 11 of the NAFTA this environmental legislation has violated its rights as an investor. This is clearly not the case. The president of the Canadian Automobile Association stated:

Bill C-29 is not about trade and commerce, it is about environmental protection and improvement. It would eliminate manganese based octane enhancers (such as MMT) from gasoline sold in Canada, regardless of their origin. Most gasoline sold in the United States and Mexico does not contain manganese based additives, so Canadian practices will be harmonized with our trading partners as a result of Bill C-29.

Bill Roberts, a lawyer for the U.S. Environmental Defence Fund, stated in reaction to Ethyl's claim:

For Ethyl to ask Canadian taxpayers to pay for lost profits on a product that could cause neurotoxic damage to millions of Canadian citizens is remarkably callous.

Finally, my message to Ethyl Corporation is that this government does not respond to corporate threats and it is the Government of Canada that sets policy in this country, not U.S. corporations.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition from petitioners who argue that a tax on health and dental benefits would have a disastrous effect on the overall health of Canadians.

In tabling this petition I recognize that was not done in the 1996 budget.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in accordance with Standing Order 36 to present a 212 page petition signed by citizens of Windsor and Essex counties as well as representatives from all part of Canada, who request the government to legalize the use of industrial hemp.

These 7,000 signatures request that the government deregulate the authority attended to low THC industrial hemp by the Ministry of Health and that it be placed under the jurisdiction of the federal minister of agriculture.

[Multiculturalism, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Multicultural Council of Windsor and Essex County has just completed its annual Carousel of Nations, celebrating the ethnic and cultural diversity of Canada, this year with the theme of "Art: A World without Boundaries". Every year for two weekends in June this celebration attracts thousands of Canadian and American visitors to the area and provides entertainment, food, a touch of history and the cultural diversity of the various ethnic backgrounds that make up our country.

This weekend, however, was very special. On Saturday, June 15 a new village was inaugurated. With the help of many friends, neighbours and esteemed colleagues, the Canadian Unity Village was opened. This village brought together the special qualities that were demonstrated during the Montreal rally in October. Canada's largest national flag, which highlighted the October rally, was donated to the village by the Windsor Jaycees and provincial flags lent by my colleagues were mounted to give a panorama of our beautiful country.

The Canadian Unity Village was a tremendous success and the celebrations at all the Carousel villages were wonderfully prepared and visited by thousands of tourists in an atmosphere of friendship and communication.

It is events like these that encourage mutual understanding and co-operation, and show why Canada is ranked number one-