Reed Elley

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak to the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Calgary Southeast. I am sure all hon. members of the House would agree that the motion and the debate today are not just about taxation but also about the family.

I have a huge stake in the Canadian family. I have eight children, as I have said before in the House. There is hardly anything that goes on in the country that I do not have some kind of opinion on because those eight children usually involve me in all kinds of things.

In my family of eight children we have two who are now married and have their own families. One family is a single income earner family. Another family is a two income earner family. My wife has been a stay at home mom for a number of years. With eight children that was very important. I think I know a bit about the kinds of huge pressures on family life today.

If there is anything we can do as parliamentarians in this place, it should be to pass legislation that helps the family. The family is still the essential building block of society. If we take away the family or damage the family unit in some way, we damage the country, the nation, the society we all love very dearly. This is not just about taxation; this is very much about the family.

Over the past several days and even today a number of hon. members opposite have talked about the wonderful budget of 1999 that is good for all Canadians. However, there is a group of Canadians for which the budget is not so good: single income families.

We have to get the facts before the Canadian public. If single income families earn $50,000, they will pay almost $4,000 more in tax than if both parents brought in the same $50,000. The common sense of the people ought to prevail. Surely we can see this is not right. It does not make sense.

The Liberals should not only take my calculations in this regard. They could listen to other authorities in the country who feel the same way: the C. D. Howe Institute, the Fraser Institute, the Vanier Institute or Statistics Canada. According to these authorities and numerous others, the family as a whole is paying more in taxes and the single income family is paying more than the dual income family earning the same amount.

What sparked the debate today were the remarks of the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions. I do not want to go back over the words that he said. They have been replayed on every television channel across the country, but what he said sparked a huge debate.

Quite frankly I hear from people in my own riding, as I am sure other members in the House have also heard, that Canadian stay at home parents are outraged by this kind of statement. Whether or not the secretary of state meant it in the way he said, it was said and it has produced outrage.

Is this how little the government cares for Canadian families? Is it indicative of how little it cares for children? Children are very much a part of this debate. Is it how little it cares about changing the burdensome tax system it has created?

Actions always speak louder than words for any of us. If the government truly wants to change the public perception of the Income Tax Act in this regard, it has to change it. It has to produce action.

As I said before I understand these matters quite a bit. My wife has been a stay at home mom for a number of years. At a certain point in our lives she made the decision to quit her registered nursing career and stay at home with our children. We have fostered for many years and have many children in our home now because of that.

What did she do when she chose to give up her career, for which I salute her today? She chose to give up her career as a nurse in a hospital to be a full time nurse, chef, domestic engineer, entertainer, chauffeur, counsellor, comptroller and administrator with a host of other full time duties in order to raise our eight children. If that is not work, what is? That is work. When my wife heard the words of the parliamentary secretary we can imagine the deep groan that came from her.

[The Budget, March 3rd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk a bit and then ask the hon. member a question about the health component of this budget.

Before the budget came down I had an opportunity in my own riding to sit down with a number of health care professionals. I try to do this on a regular basis with focus groups within my riding to get a sense of where they are coming from.

If anybody knows the state of the health care system in Canada right now it is surely those people who are on the front lines, the doctors, the nurses, the people who run our hospitals particularly. One of the questions I asked was if in the next budget the government puts a lot of money back into the system would this necessarily fix the system. I have to say that those people were very skeptical about an infusion of money going back into the system that would in some way, shape or form fix the sad state of health care in this country.

I went back to those same people after the budget and I asked would this $11.5 billion that the Liberal government intends to put back into this budget over the next five years do what we hope it will do, fix the health care system. These people had not changed their minds. I do not think they are fooled by the rhetoric of the government in trying to make it appear that somehow it is now the saviour of health care by putting this kind of money back into the system.

Does the member think that putting this kind of money back into the health care system will fix the system when indeed his government is responsible for taking $20.4 billion out of the health care system in the last five years and creating the problem we are in today?

[Youth, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize Canada's greatest natural resource, our youth.

What we do in parliament has a lasting effect on the children and youth of today for they are the leaders of tomorrow. Let us not forget this as we deliberate on the matters before us throughout the remainder of this parliament.

As the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, I would like to take this opportunity to make an announcement. With us today is Miss Chanel Rodrigues from Nanaimo, British Columbia. Chanel is only 10 years old but unlike many of her peers, she has an appetite for politics.

Although it will be another eight years before she will be eligible to vote in a federal election, she has taken an interest in the political process now. Chanel has travelled to Ottawa with her mother in order to take part in the great and historic united alternative conference this weekend.

I commend her and would encourage other like-minded youth to become involved in the political process. When we are accountable to voters today, we must remember that we are also accountable to the voters of tomorrow, young people like Chanel Rodrigues.

On behalf of all members I would like to welcome Chanel to Ottawa and encourage all of Canada's youth to become involved in the political process. Welcome, Chanel.

[Health Care, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we are facing a major health care crisis in Canada. This is nothing new to the many people who are waiting for surgery or hospital beds or for the doctors, nurses and hospital support staff.

Since 1995 the Liberal government has slashed $16.5 billion from health and social spending. Now it wants to look like a hero by reinstating taxpayers dollars into the health care budget, dollars it took out.

Heroes do not have to create their own situations to look good. The Liberal government is not a hero when it comes to health care. It is the villain.

Through the Liberals charred earth policy Canada's health care is in jeopardy. In British Columbia patients are being placed not in wards but in linen closets. In my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan the Nanaimo hospital has been suffering greatly. Over the past two weeks it has had a daily average of 50 people waiting for beds.

In one case a 65 year old woman has been cancelled for hip replacement surgery for the third time. Does she have any comfort waiting in her hospital bed? No. She is on morphine waiting in a wheelchair parked in the hallway—

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today, not necessarily to have to speak to a bill like this, but still to exercise my democratic right as an elected representative of the people of Nanaimo—Cowichan to continue the debate on Bill C-55 and the amendments proposed by my hon. colleague.

I want to share why I believe those amendments should be passed and through the passage of those amendments the bill should be entirely wiped out.

This bill has drawn a great deal of controversy and political rhetoric over the past several months. As we all know, what we read and hear from the spin doctors and the political posturing from the government does not tell the whole story.

Part of the government's and magazine industry's story has been that without this bill Canadian culture will be hurt. I have eight children and I do not for a minute think that the passage of this bill will protect the kind of culture with which they grow up. I have a little daughter who is going to be eight tomorrow. I wish her a happy birthday. As a member of parliament I may not be there for her birthday. But I do not expect that she is going to ever have her cultural sensitivities hurt because this bill passes into law.

The government said that not to endorse this bill is somehow unpatriotic and anti-Canadian. This is absolute nonsense.

I believe, moreover, that this bill has the potential to do far more harm than good for Canada. If this bill is approved and given royal assent the heritage minister is willing to put vast portions of the Canadian economy at risk.

The minister may be willing to risk it all but I wonder, are the people who she is affecting willing to risk it all? I dare say that if we asked the logger, the sawyer, the pulp and paper worker in the British Columbia forest industry, we would find that they are not willing to take this risk. They have already paid dearly in the downtrodden economy of British Columbia. They have already paid with layoffs and downturns.

My riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan has traditionally been a large producer of forest products with many people employed in that industry. I can guarantee that they are not willing to put any more of those people at risk through a bill like this.

I wonder if the minister of heritage is willing to ask the farmers across the prairies who have already seen a price drop in grain whether they are willing to risk their livelihood further. Farmers are already facing many natural calamities from drought, frost and hail without built-in disasters that are imposed by their own federal government. Many farmers are already facing a disaster from this federal government by hearing that the cheque is in the mail when in fact it is not.

Perhaps the minister would be willing to listen to the response of the many people who depend upon work in the steel, textiles or plastics industries which stretch across southern Ontario and Quebec.

Many of these businesses have carved their place in the market in spite of major international competition. Are they willing to risk it all based upon the false premises of this bill? I suggest that they are not.

When the heritage minister asks the House to pass this legislation, there are major risks and very real consequences.

The United States has clearly stated its own position on this matter. I do not want to be misunderstood here; I believe in Canadian sovereignty and I strongly believe in national unity. But there are many issues and times that I feel this government has acquiesced to the sabre rattling and scare tactics of our neighbours south of the border.

Overall our U.S. neighbours are good neighbours and I agree they cannot dictate Canadian policy. However, our ambassador to the United States met with me and a group of parliamentarians which incidentally included members of the government in Washington last week. The government members should listen to this. Among other things, we discussed this bill and its consequences to Canadian-U.S. relationships. The ambassador warned us not to get into a situation where a trade war would erupt because when all is said and done, we know who the losers would be. Here is a man who has his ear to the ground in Washington. I really wonder whether our government has been listening to him. I do not think so.

There are other instances. I believe that the minister of fisheries has a lot to account for in the handling of our west coast fish stocks. Where was the nationalism of this government when our west coast fishermen were being stopped from reaping their livelihood and were forced to watch from the sidelines as Alaskan fishermen ran their nets and lines down to pull up our Canadian salmon? It was not found anywhere on the west coast.

Where was the strength of the government when the British Columbia forest industry was facing sanctions and tariffs by the lumber industry of the United States? It was nothing but weak-kneed action that I would see.

This government has a lot of very mixed up priorities. On the issues when the government could have made a difference and truly stood up for national sovereignty, the Liberals were nowhere to be found. On the issues that involve the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of individuals and businesses alike, they are prepared to take enormous risks. This seems to be out of step with what Canadians really desire.

I believe that Canadians want to have opportunities to work, opportunities to move ahead in their lives and to not be faced with regressive and hidden taxes every time they try to make a step forward. This bill does not meet those kinds of objectives.

In doing some rough calculations, the total trade that Canada currently does with the United States is approximately $365 billion, a billion dollars a day. That is a huge number. The annual advertising market that Bill C-55 is designed to address totals about $400 million. This is just over one-tenth of one per cent. In comparison, the value of the goods for wheat, metals, alloys, chemicals, plastics, fertilizers and forest products that Canada exports to the United States totals $76.98 billion.

The heritage minister is willing to risk 21% of our trade with the United States for the sake of this bill. This is a far greater risk than I believe the stakeholders in these industries are willing to take. This bill is fraught with misconceptions and bureaucratic doublespeak.

On Tuesday, February 9 the heritage minister was asked if Bill C-55 was an ironclad piece of legislation that could survive any possible U.S. challenge to the WTO or the NAFTA and to confirm that it conforms with Canada's charter of rights. The minister's reply was that it is the position of the government that this bill respects every one of our national and international obligations.

In fact, the WTO handed down two rulings last year which found the provisions under previous magazine advertising legislation to offend the GATT. We were not receiving a straight bill of goods on these most important questions.

This bill also has possible ramifications for our charter of rights and freedoms. Through the enactment of this bill, Canadian advertisers will be banned from selling their goods and services in foreign magazines. Is the minister telling Canadian advertisers that when it comes to freedom of speech, something we all hold in high favour, that these people are second class citizens? I certainly hope this is not what it will come to be.

We have been told this bill is to protect our Canadian culture. My read of this bill does not show the word culture anywhere in its writings. What this bill has is the workings and markings of protectionism and will likely fail when challenged at the World Trade Organization through the GATT.

We have been told that this bill is intended to protect Canadian advertisers from cheap American advertising dollars creeping into split-run magazines. In fact, Mr. John Tory of Rogers Communications, which owns Maclean Hunter and publishes Maclean's magazine, recently appeared before the heritage committee. At the heritage committee he admitted that magazine publishers' biggest competition for advertising dollars is from Canadians. It does not make sense.

Perhaps the item that causes me the most concern in this bill is the addition of the magazine police. Are we going to have them all over the place? I suspect so if this bill goes through. I believe this legislation is wrong. I do not believe that the Canadian public is supportive of this legislation and I certainly am not.

[Petitions, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 287 constituents, mostly from the town of Ladysmith. The petitioners are very concerned about recent cutbacks by Human Resources Development Canada. The petitioners ask for a full restoration of employment assistance services for the town of Ladysmith.

[Petitions, February 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present on behalf of my constituents two petitions.

The first petition is signed by 51 residents of Vancouver Island who are still very concerned about the introduction of a multilateral agreement on investment. They feel that all Canadians should have the opportunity to have full discussion on such an agreement before it is implemented.

[Supply, February 2nd, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I think the government is on the horns of dilemma here. The dilemma is the ancient story of what came first, the chicken or the egg? In this case it is what came first, the people or the law?

It seems to me that in our democracy the people came first and they made the law. That means the people whom we represent in this House are the ones who decide whether or not the law is being applied correctly and whether it is a law that is just. That is where the real problem lies in this debate. The members across the way have not settled that dilemma.

I ask the member which came first, the people or the law?

[Health, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, someone much wiser than I once said “where there is no vision, the people perish”. That is exactly what we have happening in the country today. There is no visionary leadership coming from the government, especially in the huge matter of health care, and people are literally perishing.

As long as there are 188,000 sick and dying people on waiting lists, as long as wards are being closed, as long as 1,400 plus doctors are moving to the States and as long as nurses are being laid off, people will continue to suffer.

There have been $7 billion in cuts to the provinces. The Liberals cannot blame the provinces. They cannot blame any other party. They must accept the blame. They gutted health care to preserve their precious spending spree.

Now the government tells us that it has a $10 billion budget surplus. Next year is not the time to put this money back into health care. Canadians need that money now. They have been waiting for five years. In that time how many people have perished because of inadequate health care?

[Salaries For Stay At Home Mothers And Fathers, December 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time this evening with the hon. member for Lethbridge.

I rise today to speak to Motion No. M-486 and in so doing to pay tribute to a group of people that go largely unnoticed in our modern society. This group of people is largely made up of women but there are some men also. This group is stay at home parents.

In today's society it is not easy to be a stay at home mom or dad. Career paths are demanding. To step off of that path can often mean various forms of reprisals or discrimination and second class status from many different sources. Fortunately many parents are willing and able to make this commitment to their family. In so doing they raise their children in the manner they think is best.

I would be remiss also if I did not recognize the extremely heavy burden that single parent families carry today. Single parent moms and dads do not have this same option and in no way am I passing my judgment on them.

As we all know, today's society has picked up the pace of living tremendously from days gone by. The cost of virtually everything from groceries and clothing to transportation and other essentials has risen faster than the incomes of most people. This continues to cause further economic strife in many families today. Overall tax relief is necessary for families now, not at some distant time in the future.

One way that some of the economic stress can be relieved is to address how the child care expense deduction is formulated. The current system clearly differentiates between single and dual income families. In addition, the expenses are only allowable if they are receipted, therefore restricting eligibility to institutional daycares.

Parents that choose to stay at home are not eligible for this same tax credit. The discrepancy between single and dual income families is apparent in how the child tax credit applies to them. One example of this is that in dual income families the lower earner must claim the child care expense deduction, thus ensuring that the value of the deduction is minimized.

The member's proposal does nothing to address this disparity and inequity that stay at home parents face under our current tax laws. Specifically I refer to their inability to claim the child care expense deduction. Rather than treat all parents equally, this motion would divide people into a multitude of different camps.

There are at least four alternative options that should be looked at closely and used as a replacement for this motion. These alternative options would better address the inequalities that exist under the current child care expense deduction.

The first option would be to give further consideration for income splitting. The second option would be to give stay at home spouses access to independent RRSPs. While both of these concepts have merit, a further examination is necessary to determine the specific financial and operational considerations of them prior to any implementation.

A third consideration is to make the spousal exemption equal to the personal exemption. In order to provide equity, the spousal deduction needs to be equal to the personal exemption of the primary income earner. In light of a more demanding economy, this levels the field for those parents who are able to and choose to stay at home.

A fourth consideration would be to convert the child care expense deduction into a refundable child tax credit for all children. Currently this is only available to those parents using commercial daycare.

At this time only 16% of families use commercial daycare. Contrary to past doctrines, current psychological and sociological research supports the concept that children become better balanced and more productive citizens when in the care of a family.

As a parent of eight and a foster parent for over 25 years to over 140 children, I strongly believe in the role of the parent and the family institution. However, I believe that Motion No. M-486 does nothing to lessen these pressures, nor does it really address the needs of today's families.