Reed Elley

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any rules in war. When we get involved in a situation like this anything can happen. We unleash a terror and an evil in the hearts of men that only ends up in the slaughter of many people. That is the lesson of history.

What Canadians have to decide is whether we as a country really want our troops doing that kind of thing. Is that what we want our troops known for? Personally, as a Canadian I do not want our troops to be known in this way. We have a good reputation as peacemakers. We can fulfill our NATO commitments and be the peacemakers. If the other countries of the world want to be aggressors, let them be, but let us not, just for the sake of going along with the crowd, be like everybody else. Let us be peacemakers the way we have been for years.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Dewdney—Alouette.

I rise in the early hours of this day to speak to the growing troubles that we now see in Kosovo. The subject of war troubles me very deeply. This is not a topic that I nor I am sure anyone else in the House takes very lightly. Not only are the lives of people in those countries on the line, but indeed Canadian lives are also on the line.

I wish to begin by paying tribute to our troops who are over there. I wish for their personal safety and their safe return home to their loved ones as soon as possible. It is perhaps unfortunate that the government motion did not also include the phrase “the safe return of our Canadian forces personnel”. We ought not to forget them at this particular time.

It bothers me greatly, and the Liberal government should be ashamed, that it has taken Canada so far down this path of aggression without any authority from the House of Commons. We are at war and until now have not even debated the issue.

I must ask the simple question: What is our intention in Kosovo? Are we going to attempt to make peace or are we going to be peacemakers when the opportunity arises? Obviously, there is no peace at this time.

Canada has placed the lives of Canadian men and women at great risk. These men and women are prepared to go where we, as the elected officials of their country, ask them to go. Again I must ask the question: What is our intention in Kosovo? What are we asking our men and women to do? When we ask them to do something, are we ensuring that they have the tools to do the job?

The motion that we are debating states:

That this House take note of the continuing human tragedy in Kosovo—

I have no difficulty in adding my voice of support in the recognition of this terrible situation, but what does take note mean? Are we being asked to recognize the plight of the refugees by assisting them through the provision of food and other basic necessities? If so, then of course the government has my full support.

Are we being asked to right the terrible wrongs that are being forced upon the refugees? I have concerns as to how to go about this and, therefore, whether we should go about this or not. In a region that has known hostilities for over 500 years, is it possible for any of us sitting very safely in this House of parliament to fully understand, know and determine the rights and the wrongs of the situation?

The forceful removal of people from their homes is of course never right. Depriving people of their identification and property is never right. The murder of innocent people is never right.

The motion continues to state:

—and the government's determination to work with the international community in order to resolve the conflict and promote a just political settlement for Kosovo—

Like many government motions, this is sufficiently vague enough to mean a lot of different things. If this means sending in ground troops, I am opposed and I have strong concerns. If this means that the Canadian forces will play a role in maintaining the peace, I am willing to support it.

The motion concludes “that leads to the safe return of the refugees”. I am also in support of this. I think one of the biggest questions that must be considered with this is what are the refugees going home to. When will we know that the NATO forces have fully achieved their objective and that it is sustainable? How long do we expect our troops to be in Kosovo?

There was a time when Canadians generally were very proud of our international role in peacekeeping. We sent our troops to some of the most difficult places in the world and we did a good job of keeping warring factions apart; places like Cyprus and the Middle East. We were not involved then in the invasion of a sovereign nation.

However, in the last few years Canadians have begun to view our Canadian Armed Forces in a different light. That is partially due to the inability of the government to clearly articulate to the Canadian people what it believes the military role is.

Because of this indecisiveness, our troops have been underpaid, undermanned and underequipped. They have had to work with obsolete equipment, live in substandard housing and moonlight at other jobs in order to make financial ends meet. Couple this with scandals like the Somalia affair, the treatment of women in the forces and moral is at an all time low.

Throughout this decade and in the midst of all of these circumstances, we persist in sending our troops into no win international situations. Instead of being the peacekeepers of which we can be proud, we are forcing them to be aggressors tainted with the results of killing and wounding innocent civilians.

Let us look at the record. We are part of NATO. In order to fulfill our commitment to this organization, we have been dragged into international conflicts on the coattails of American foreign policy. Let us not make any mistake about it; the Americans are the ones who are pushing these international war operations today. The record is not good.

In the early years of this decade, we sent our airplanes into Kuwait and Iraq as part of the desert storm operation. The goal was to stop Saddam Hussein in his mad long rush to conquer Kuwait and its oil rich territory. However, what really happened? We unleashed all the power of modern warfare against him and when victory was in our grasp and it was possible to eliminate this awful dictator, we stopped on his doorstep, turned our backs and hightailed it home. Now we wait until he builds up his war machine to continue his terror and seven years later go back in and do it all over again. It does not seem to make any sense.

Either these operations must have clearer objectives that will once and for all destroy the war machines of these madmen dictators, or we do not go in at all and we let history take its course.

We now have a similar situation with Serbia and the madman Milosevic. No one condones his ethnic cleansing of Albanians, but this hatred between the races has been going on for centuries. It will not be changed by the dropping of bombs but by a dramatic change in human hearts.

Once again, what is the objective here? Is it to get rid of Milosevic and his henchmen in order to stop the ethnic cleansing? Do we really think this war against a sovereign nation will change anything? Has U.S. foreign policy determined that it will use the NATO disguise to go so far and then back off only to come in another day or year to flex its muscles again? Are Canadian troops being used as pawns in the hands of the Americans in a war exercise that does not seem to have a clear objective?

What exactly is it that we are trying to achieve? I believe these are importance questions that are being asked by many Canadians. We in this parliament deserve to give them an answer.

In the meantime, Canadians are killing innocent civilians, children and young people. We are bombing non-military targets. I know it is unintentional but it still is happening. War is hell and these things will always happen when we engage our troops in it.

We are committing our sometimes under strength, underpaid, ill-equipped troops to a war that I do not think we can win unless we are prepared to pull out all the stops. We all know the risks of that today. In the nuclear age, we are only just one button push away from world war III, its horrors and the possibility of the end of the human race that this would bring.

Is that what we want our Canadians troops involved in? Not this Canadian. Keep our troops for the time-honoured and world respected role of peacekeepers. Do not turn them into aggressors waging war against civilians. Do not send our army or any ground troops for that matter into this conflict in Kosovo. This is not Kuwait. It is a mountainous country where armies can hole up in the hills for ages fighting guerrilla warfare. The second world war proved this. This conflict would be protracted, ugly and covered with blood and could well take us into world war III.

There has to be a better way. Are there no decent Serbians who know the truth about Milosevic? They cannot tolerate him forever. Could we not expect that they would somehow get rid of him and his henchmen; that truth would prevail and that right would win out? There has to be another option.

I do not believe that what we are doing is the answer. Canadians should not be there in their present role. We are not the policemen of the world. Let us always be known as peacekeepers and peacemakers. Our military reputation is already tarnished in the world community.

Along with many Canadians, I long for the day that is described in the Bible, a day when the lamb lies down with the lion, a day when we shall beat our swords into ploughshares and man will know war no more. Until that day comes, we must work for peace. We must be viewed by the world as peacemakers and not aggressors.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I appreciate my hon. colleague's speech, but I would like to know if he has a question.

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Kelowna for that observation and question. I suspect that one reason this has happened in society is the preponderance in government at every level to look upon itself as big brother knows best. This is the philosophy that exists among governments today. When that kind of philosophy gets going through government and starts to permeate society, certain segments of society will naturally become dependent upon government for every aspect of their lives.

Government takes an approach to people which lumps them together in this regard. It is unfortunate because it does not foster the entrepreneurial spirit we need to get us truly working again in every aspect of our lives. We can do this if we start to work at it ourselves. There are agencies and people who will help, but in the final analysis we are the ones who have to do the job, take care of our lives and are responsible for that.

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that observation and question. He is certainly right in terms of getting to the root cause of poverty and displacement in society which makes inadequate housing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem.

I am a strong believer in community action, in local communities taking hold of local problems. Government has a role to play in this but it is not the major player. I do not see, in answer to the member's question, that the bill has any effect upon the particular concern he has raised.

We need to be doing things in our communities, fostering the kind of community spirit that will help people get off welfare and find jobs and take a fresh look at their lives so they do not end up on the streets and move from community to community following free housing.

I appreciate the hon. member's comments and take them under great advisement.

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-66, amendments dealing with the National Housing Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act.

I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Kelowna who this morning so aptly described the history, the background and many of the concerns surrounding this bill and CMHC.

The nature of housing covers a broad range of topics. It would be impossible for any of us to fully cover them in such a short period of time.

It is fair to say that every Canadian needs to have adequate housing. Many people suffer today from a lack of adequate housing. Tragically, many are faced with the prospect of no housing.

Thankfully, there are many private and non-profit organizations. One I have had limited involvement with is the Habitat for Humanity organization which takes resources in local communities through private donations and mobilizes community resources to provide housing for people who probably could not get it otherwise. Although these kinds of organizations do not solve all the problems, they solve many problems. With the right legislation, they probably could solve the majority of housing problems in Canada.

Housing means many different things to many different people. For those who can afford adequate housing, it may mean home improvements, care and pride and working to make their living space better for them. For those who cannot afford adequate housing, the thought of owning a house is just a dream. It puts a whole new meaning to the term dream house, does it not.

Why is it that people are not able to have adequate housing? Is it that we lack the physical resources of building materials? It does take a lot of cement, brick or wood, gyproc and nails, et cetera to build a house. However, we know this is not the major source of the problem.

My riding has a large resource base of timber. There are parts of my riding where we can stand on a mountaintop, look in every direction and see nothing but tree covered mountains. I know that sounds beautiful and perhaps those who are from the east have no idea what that is like. I do miss that kind of view when I am on Parliament Hill.

We know we have the available timber to build houses. There are many loggers and mill workers in my riding who wished everyone was building a lot more houses. They would love to get back to work. Many of them are having difficulties paying for their own houses as they have been idle for far too long. We also know we have sufficient quantities of all the other materials to build as many houses as we need in this country. Neither do we lack expertise or labour force to build them.

What holds people back from finding suitable housing? It most often comes down to one factor: affordability, money, making ends meet.

One of the simplest ways to alleviate this problem is for the government to leave more money in the hands of the taxpayers to begin with. Let us end things like bracket creep. Let us index the tax rates. Let us end the discrimination between single and dual income families in this country.

Those are all things that this government has had a chance to do but has chosen to ignore. Somehow the Liberals think it is easier to ignore the plight of those who have taxes hung around their necks like a millstone than to make fundamental changes in the way government operates to ensure that taxpayers truly benefit.

Canadians want more than just tinkering by this government, yet this government just does not seem to get it. It sends a task force out west to find out why voters do not vote for the Liberals. I want to make a prediction. I predict that when the task force returns, they still will not understand. Canadians are intelligent people. What they simply want is good government.

The public is not looking for interference and intervention by government in their day to day lives. There are models and examples which show that when government gets out of the way of business, business can grow and expand at a rate far faster than the government could have thought possible. When government gets in the way, the public loses.

As an example of government interference, I just have to think back to my home province. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has had a government controlled monopoly on vehicle insurance for many years. What is the result of that? When I moved from Alberta to B.C., what it meant to me was a doubling of my insurance rate. So much for government interference in the workplace.

As a counterbalance, the past several years in Alberta have seen dramatic changes in the ways that the provincial government has extricated itself from many day to day transactions. The net result is that private enterprise now operates many of the services previously under government jurisdiction. My knowledge of this is that the revised system is working, and it is working well. What a concept. How novel. Government that lets the people move ahead with the business operations day by day.

We can break the category of money shortfalls into a couple of different sections.

There are those who although working and bringing in an income are simply not able to finance the type of housing they need. These are the people, perhaps single, perhaps a couple, who work hard but at the end of the month, the extra dollars just are not there.

Another category of people are those who face financial shortfalls. It may be a single parent who is trying to raise children, work a full time job and still cope with life. It may be a family that has faced unemployment for a prolonged period of time and cannot get the needed break. It may be the homeless person we see on the streets of most of our urban centres. These are the people who need some form of assistance that often seems unavailable to them.

While I do not adhere to all of the theories and beliefs of Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs, he made a very strong argument for people and their psychological needs. He theorized that people could not move on to other things in their lives until their physical needs were met. Personally I believe there needs to be a strong spiritual component in order to make life here on earth fulfilling and many people forget that today.

I think I understand what Mr. Maslow was trying to say in this regard. He is saying it is difficult for mankind to grow, mature and contribute back to society if every day is such a struggle that people feel they have to fight their way through daily life. I understand how that can work.

One example I can think of is when we have a loved one who is sick. I do not know about others but I find I am thinking about that person continuously, so much so that some of the other things in life just do not seem to matter as much.

So it is with those who struggle to get adequate housing, always trying to put enough aside to get the down payment and they just cannot seem to make it. The need to find a safe place to sleep and rest will occupy much of their waking moments. Only when that need is met will they be able to move on to fulfilling other parts of their lives.

We ought to be careful here. There is a difference between needs and desires in human life. I believe that those who are living on the street need housing. There are others who would desire better housing but continue to live in their present accommodation.

What can be done for those who are not able to find housing that meets their physical needs yet remain affordable for them and their families? One would hope that a bill such as Bill C-66 might be of some help to them. Let us take a look at some of the attributes of the bill and determine if it meets the needs of this stakeholder group.

As we know, the purpose of Bill C-66 is to redefine the roles and responsibilities of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, particularly in relation to mortgage loan insurance and export and international support. There are a number of things within the bill that should be looked at in this regard.

One of the questions I have with any legislation is whether or not it will be good for the free marketplace. In other words, how will the small business owner in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan benefit by the bill? Or will the bill simply add one more layer of bureaucracy, of administrative nightmare which we will all be faced with as we attempt to find, grow and build our niche in the business world?

The least amount of government in the face of business is always the best. My read of the bill shows that CMHC will enter into competition with the private sector. Is the role of government to compete with the private sector? I sincerely hope not.

There are a couple of clauses that cause me concern in the bill. The first is clause 16 which states:

The Corporation may provide protection against the effects of changes in interest rates for housing loans.

On the face of it, the protection of homeowners against sharp rises in interest rates is admirable. There appears to be a certain amount of ambiguity, however, in this clause with regard to the protection of banks from losses.

I am concerned that the current wording leaves the clause open to potential abuse by financial institutions. There is no indication in the guidelines under which proposed clause 16 would be used. The hows and the whys are always important and they are not outlined in the bill.

My second concern is clause 6 which deals with the ability of CMHC to determine whether or not an approved lender is financially sound. Guidelines need to be in place to prevent CMHC from conducting business with a financial institution that is not financially stable.

In my own life I would not make an investment in a business that I do not think will make it. I would not put my money in a bank that I think will fail. The details of how and when CMHC would be made aware that the lender is no longer financial sound are lacking in the bill.

These concerns are examples of details that are currently lacking. We cannot allow the passage of the bill without these kinds of details being sorted out. Canadians do not want the government to simply sign any more blank cheques.

The question of the federal government dealing in housing is a matter that causes me concern. This is an area of exclusive jurisdiction for provincial authorities. The provinces are in a better position to determine the type and volume of housing necessary for their locales. To add bureaucracy only increases costs with government interference. It does nothing to ensure housing for those who really require it.

Government should not be in the business of competing in the private sector. I have said it before, I say it now, and I would say it again. The housing market is enormous. There are non-public mechanisms in place which could best serve the interest of a broad range of the public. I agree and support the principle that Canadians should have access to affordable financing to acquire housing. I support competition in the private sector for the provision of mortgage insurance.

Yet housing is a severe problem for a portion of Canadian society. For many, the problem would be better solved through less government interference. The biggest form of government interference is the tax grab into so many Canadian wallets. Every Canadian would be better served by having government reduce the tax burden. Surely even members of the government would agree with that.

Let us eliminate bracket creep that has taken billions of dollars out of the hands of Canadians. Let us eliminate the disparity of unfair taxation between single and dual income families. The numbers bear this out. Leaving money in the hands of Canadians is a far better solution to major portions of the housing problem in Canada today.

My hon. colleagues and I have raised a number of very pertinent questions. I would leave the House with one final suggestion. Do the changes introduced through Bill C-66 resolve the questions and issues raised throughout this debate? Unfortunately my answer is that I do not think so. We can do better than what Bill C-66 is attempting to do. Hopefully amendments at committee stage will make it easier to support.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I am very interested in the country's health care system.

The federal government in proposing the universal medicare system a number of years ago did indeed shoulder its fair share of the load. At that point it was contributing some 50% of the moneys for health care. Like many other good things that over the years turn progressively worse, the health care system has deteriorated because the federal government has failed to live up to that initial obligation. The hon. member is quite right. It is down to 13% and less now in terms of actual funding.

In terms of equalization payments, what we have here is another inequitable system that is based on a very abstract and complex way of figuring it out. Over the years it has not done justice to balancing across the nation the need for fairness in our taxation system, in the amount of money that government provides for people and for the health care system itself. I would certainly say that the government and all of us as legislators here in the House should be giving far more thought to the reform of this system.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-65, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.

A long time ago a universal question was asked in the biblical story of Cain and Abel: am I my brother's keeper. The answer from the Bible that permeates the social justice system of the western world is yes. Yes, we are our brother's keeper. We have a social and moral responsibility to see that the poor, the less fortunate and the weak in society are taken care of.

Therefore I would not argue that the equalization program is a valued part of the federal-provincial relationship. We have regions of our country that have found greater prosperity than others. They have long been termed the have and the have not provinces. Typically the have provinces have included British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. The remaining provinces have been given the dubious title of the have not provinces.

As we know, the whole point of the equalization program is to ensure that there is a minimal level of service for all Canadians in all parts of Canada. My time will not be used to refute that premise. While all of us would agree that the premise of equalization payments has long been a part of the Canadian social make-up, the actual process leaves much to be desired.

The minister has shown a complete contempt toward the citizens of Canada, the auditor general and parliamentary procedure. In the auditor general's report the following point was made:

The Department of Finance ... could use parliament more effectively, soliciting advice from a wider circle of interested parties, rather than relying almost exclusively on the advice of a committee of federal and provincial officials.

This has simply not occurred. As my hon. colleague just pointed out, at the initial introduction of the bill there were only three business days in which to review the documents and to prepare for debate. Reform staff had to ask to receive a briefing from finance officials in order to determine the effects of the proposed legislation. This is not good enough if government is to work for the people.

The equalization program makes up 8% of all federal program spending. A program this large deserves more than just a superficial glance.

I would ask that a review of this procedure take place. The House is to be used as a forum for debate that brings in alternative ideas, constructive criticism and allows the Canadian public full access to the parliamentary process. I do not believe this has occurred.

The Department of Finance has had five years in which to prepare for the legislation. Every five years the legislation must come to parliament to ensure that parliamentarians and indeed all Canadians know what transactions have occurred between the federal and provincial governments.

The auditor general's final concluding remark was that the Department of Finance ought to devote more effort to its relationship with parliament. Parliament is the legislator for the program and the body to which the department and the minister are accountable.

He concluded that in their view this relationship could be used to the advantage of the department and for the betterment of the program. Plain and simply, this has not happened.

The Minister of Finance and his departmental officials have simply ignored the report of the auditor general in this regard. It is outrageous to think that a minister of the crown can so blatantly ignore the office of the auditor general.

One has to wonder if there is something else amiss. The Minister of Finance knew that the bill must come before the House for debate and final approval by March 31, 1999. Yet he introduced it only weeks before this deadline. The minister and his department have had five years in which to prepare legislation, and yet the House is now asked to rush it through. Unfortunately this happens far too often in this place.

My second point is with regard to the matter of fairness. Currently the equalization payment is made by calculations of 33 different revenue sources. This is an incredibly complex formula. Few people in government truly understand how it works.

The model looks at 33 tax elements of the economies of five provinces and tries to estimate how much revenue the province can raise in each category. For each tax element it then converts each estimate into a per capita figure, totals them and multiplies them by the number of people in the province to arrive at the equalization payment.

Ten provinces have 10 different methods of calculating property taxes, income taxes, resource values and all other calculations that make up the 33 different revenue values calculated in the equalization payment. Where is the fairness in that?

One of the greatest inequities that affects my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan is the calculation of resources. While it is recognized that the value of the timber harvested in the province of B.C. is greater than that which is harvested in Saskatchewan, the cost of production is not taken into account.

Let us consider the following. According to the Council of Forest Industry the cost of building logging roads in B.C. in 1997 was $715 million. The cost of building logging roads has risen by 171% since 1992. The equalization formula does not take all this into account. This disparity will continue to grow. Simply the system is flawed.

My third major concern is the incentive to change. The way the system is currently structured there is no incentive to move from a have not province to a have province. For a have not province to increase its tax revenues means that it will turn loose a portion of its equalization payment. In general terms it is easier to accept money from outside the province than it is to raise it within the province itself.

The finance minister and his department have escaped much constructive criticism on this important issue by ensuring that the process is not transparent or easily understood. The more complex the system, the fewer the number of people who will understand it. The fewer who understand it, the easier it is for the Minister of Finance to subject it to political manipulation.

When a system is complex it is easy to be inaccurate and ultimately unfair. The system can be made much simpler. One such consideration would be to calculate the payments for the equalization program based upon provincial GDP. This would ensure that individual provinces cannot make internal adjustments and therefore add to the revenues from outside dollars. GDPs are not subject to adjustment.

Equalization payments should go to those provinces that require them the most. As one of the richest countries in the world, it is hard to believe that 70% of Canada's provinces are declared to be have not provinces. This simply boggles the mind.

Our system of equalization payments requires a major review and overhaul. At a time when Canadians are expecting to be rewarded for the pain and suffering endured under this government, and arriving at this stage of a balanced budget, this new equalization program will cost taxpayers an additional $700 million over the next five years. This to me does not appear to be sound fiscal management. This current program pits Canadians in one province against those in another. For all the government says, in reality this program is divisive.

As a whole, Canadians are known to be compassionate, generous and caring for one another. We have seen this time and time again during the past several years with ice storms in Ontario and Quebec and major flood disasters in Manitoba. Canadians all across the country reached out to assist other Canadians in need. They did it without being asked. They did it in their neighbourhoods and from afar because they believe that they are their brother's keeper.

The equalization program does not do this. Surely there are better ways to do business for all Canadians, but the finance minister has chosen an arrogant approach in the handling of this matter. With the inherent problems and inequities that still exist under this legislation, I must oppose it.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments but I do not think he is living in the real world. There are all kinds of families in this country that do want to see fairness in the tax system for the very reason we are sharing today.

A recent issue of Maclean's magazine, which he may or may not have read but should, indicates a sociological trend in our country where many women who have been in the workforce for a number of years are now coming to the realization that whether they want to be out there or whether they were forced to because of the economy, it is simply more fulfilling for them in many cases to stay at home with their young children, and it is a lot better for their children.

Therefore in order to make that choice of going from the workforce back to the home they are now faced with a discriminatory tax system that will penalize them for going back into the home. They have made the choice, and no one has forced them, to go back into the home and now this taxation system penalizes them.

The member across the way is not in touch with the reality of today. Times change, things change and what was good between 1960 and 1970 may not be good today. That is what we are asking these members to open their minds to and take a look at.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

I know there are probably times when these families have questioned which is easier: to remain as a stay at home parent or to stay in the workforce. It is a decision that many Canadian families have to make. The real question, however, perhaps should be: Which is more worthwhile to them personally? How do they want to raise their families?

I acknowledge that many families do not have the option of having stay at home parents. There are many single parent families in Canada today, and for these families the parent must play the part of both mom and dad. They must be the breadwinner. They must attend to the multitude of needs of their children. In many other situations both parents need to work outside the house to make ends meet financially, and I salute these people.

It is interesting to note that if Canadian families had their way and the opportunity to do what they wanted in this situation, 70% of women have said that they would stay at home if they had the choice. In a 1994 Angus Reid poll 77% of Canadians said the individual or family should have the primary responsibility for child care.

Throughout the budget process we have heard about the need for equality among Canadians. What we are speaking about today is not equality; it is inequality. Simply stated, Canadian families that are able to make the choice of having one parent at home to raise their family will pay more tax than the family that earns the same total amount of money through the combination of both parents. The government penalizes them for wanting to raise their own families. It is as simple as that. Is that equality?

The government claims that it has balanced the books. The budget has been balanced at the expense of Canadians, not at the expense of the government. Let us look at how the budget has been balanced: 76.7% of the balancing came from higher tax revenues; 14% came from slashing health and social transfers; 7.2% came from cutting transfers to individuals; and a minuscule 2.1% came from cutting federal spending. This government should be ashamed for even bringing this budget forward with these kind of statistics. The hon. members opposite face some very serious questions not only here in the House but in their own ridings. They will have to answer to the Canadian public for this kind of juggling of the figures.

If we are to fully grapple with the question of applying tax equality to all families we need to look at the benefits to society offered by stay at home parents. We have seen from previously mentioned reports that this is not the choice of 77% of Canadian women. The question begs to be asked why they do return to the workforce. They have to go to work because they are taxed to death. That is the reason one of the members of our family circle has had to go back to work. The mother of that family has had to go back to work because her family has simply been taxed to death.

That is unacceptable. We must have comprehensive tax reform that brings equality to all families. The motion today is a small step along the way to achieving that. I ask all members to support it.