Sue Barnes

[Business Taxation, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to clarify to Canadians that the Government of Canada through Revenue Canada will be paying refunds. The refunds are not the government's decision but are in reaction to and the reality of a court decision, and this government does obey the law in this country.

With respect to the resource allowance refunds it has been nearly a quarter of a century that the mining and oil and gas sectors, very important sectors to our Canadian economy, have needed clarity. It is with the work of the Minister of Finance since 1992 when the court procedure ended and in discussions with these very important resource sectors of our economy we have now in a very proactive manner inserted regulations and legislation that will give certainty that was not there before to an area of the law. This is very beneficial for all the stakeholders.

[Revenue Canada, March 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

Revenue Canada implemented its missing children program in 1986. Customs officers are uniquely positioned to observe children entering Canada and are trained to detect children whose safety may be at risk and to identify suspected child abductors.

In 1991 our program received international recognition and in 1995 Revenue Canada, the RCMP and Citizenship and Immigration Canada collaborated to form an initiative called "Our Missing Children". Each department performs a necessary function in the delivery of this program.

Since the inception of this missing children program we have successfully recovered 450 missing and abducted children.

[Taxation, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Private Members' Motion M-148. It is a motion that asks the government to recognize the onerous burden of taxation on the family and to take immediate measures to provide the family with tax relief, including balancing the federal budget.

Let me start by underscoring that the government fully understands the impact of Canada's level of taxation on many families. Unfortunately, what the hon. member fails to appreciate are the dramatic actions we are taking to put the country's finances in order. And she overlooks the measures we have introduced to provide targeted tax relief for families.

It is because we are acting not with quick fixes but through a strategic approach that will deliver sustained and permanent fiscal progress that I must oppose this well intended but precipitous motion. Allow me to outline how the government is addressing the fiscal and tax burden concerns raised in this private members' motion.

First let us remember not to put the cart before the horse. The fact is that we cannot begin serious tax reduction until the deficit is under control. To cut taxes in any other way would simply mean an even higher deficit and that simply guarantees that taxes would go back up again in the near future because it is the taxpayer who has to pay the interest on government borrowing.

Again, let me make the relationship clear. It is because we have had too many years of high deficits that our tax burden today is so high. We are paying for the borrowing appetite of the past. That is why we have moved on deficit reduction with courage and commitment. But we have not acted in a way that will do more damage than good. That would be the result if we took a slash and burn approach to eliminate the deficit in just a year or two. We would see too many Canadians facing real hardship, too many valid government programs virtually eliminated.

That is not our approach because that is not what the majority of Canadians want. Their choice is for a firm, balanced progress and

that we are delivering. That approach was again emphasized earlier this month when the Minister of Finance delivered his third budget. It is the third step in a comprehensive and determined effort to restore fiscal health to the country.

The budget plan shows that the government is staying on course to eliminate the deficit and put the debt to GDP ratio on a constant downward track. The fact is the government bettered its deficit target for 1994-95 and it is now clear that the deficit target for 1995-96 will be achieved or again, bettered. We are on track to reach our 3 per cent of GDP target for 1996-97. The budget even announced actions to reach a new deficit target for 1997-98 of $17 billion or 2 per cent of the gross domestic product. Indeed, these actions will enable us to move beyond the 2 per cent target toward budget balance.

These actions build on the major deficit reduction measures announced in the government's first two budgets. They include further cuts in federal departmental spending amounting to almost $2 billion. These cuts will take effect in 1998-99. For most departments this means further budget cuts of 3.5 per cent in 1998-99 and for some departments the cuts are even higher.

These measures together with the spending cuts announced in our first two budgets add up to a dramatic decline in federal government spending. In the 1993-94 time period, government spending on programs was $120 billion. By 1998-99, after six consecutive years of absolute spending declines, we will have reduced it to $105.5 billion.

In relation to the size of the economy the scale of this achievement is even more evident. Program spending that accounted for close to 20 per cent of the gross domestic product a decade ago will be reduced to 12 per cent of the GDP. This will be its lowest level in 50 years. These spending cuts will also reduce the amount of new money the government must borrow on financial markets every year.

In 1993-94 Canada's borrowing requirements were $30 billion or 4.2 per cent of our economy. By 1997-98 our actions will have reduced this requirement to just $6 billion, or only .7 per cent of GDP. This represents major progress in tackling our fiscal problems.

In 1997-98 the federal government's borrowing requirements will be at the lowest level in almost 30 years and lower than those projected for the central government of any other G-7 country.

As hon. members know, this government has focused on spending cuts not tax increases to restore the country's fiscal health. Over the three budgets taken together we will have cut seven dollars in

spending for each one dollar in new revenue. Most important, there have been no increases in personal income tax rates.

This should prove that our government is very conscious of the tax burden on Canadians. Indeed our whole program of fiscal measures is designed to achieve two payoffs. The first is to secure the future viability of key Canadian social programs such as medicare and our public pension programs. The second is to reduce taxes for Canadians.

This government believes that it would not be responsible to introduce major tax cuts before the country's fiscal problems are resolved. Nevertheless in the 1996 budget we have been able to provide targeted tax relief to families that most need it. We have not done this though at the expense of progress in reducing the deficit; rather we have reallocated revenues within the tax system.

Low income families with children are a priority concern for our government. In the 1996 budget we introduced several changes to address the needs of these families in particular.

First, we introduced a new child support system that includes guidelines to ensure fairer and consistent child support settlements, measures to help ensure that child support orders are enforced and a change in the tax treatment of child support. The new tax rules apply to new and amended child support awards beginning May 1, 1997.

Under these rules child support will not be included in the income of the recipient for tax purposes, nor will it be tax deductible for the payer. This will ensure that children who need the support most get it. It will also eliminate the need for complex tax calculations and planning by parents. Our approach will treat spending on children the same for separated parents as for intact families.

Second, to increase support for children the budget proposes to increase the working income supplement under the child tax benefit. This supplement assists low income parents to meet work expenses such as child care, transportation and clothing. It also helps to make up for the benefits lost by parents who leave social assistance and re-enter the workforce. The maximum annual benefit will be doubled in two steps. It will increase from $500 to $750 in July 1997 and to $1,000 in July 1998. When fully phased in, it will increase support by $250 million to about 700,000 low income parents.

Third, the budget proposed additional support to parents through an increase in the age limit on the child care expense deduction from 14 years to 16 years. This will be of particular benefit to single parents whose jobs require them to be away from the home at night.

Fourth, the government proposes to provide additional assistance to Canadians who provide in-home care for adult children and other relatives with disabilities. The value of the infirm dependant credit will be increased from $270 to $400 and the income threshold for the reduction in this benefit will be raised from $2,690 to $4,103.

Fifth, the government introduced several measure in the 1996 budget to increase support for students and their families. These measures provide an additional $165 million in support over three years so that students and their families will be better able to deal with the increased costs of education.

The education credit will be increased from $80 to $100 per month. This credit recognizes the non-tuition costs of schooling. The limit on the transfer of the tuition and education credits will be raised from $680 to $850 per year. This will provide a transferable credit against costs of $5,000 per year, up from $4,000 under the current rules. This measure will assist parents and spouses who pay the education costs of students.

Again, the annual limits on contributions to registered education savings plans will be increased from $1,500 to $2,000 and the lifetime limit from $31,500 to $42,000. This will assist parents to save for their children's education.

Finally, single parents attending school full time will be able to deduct child care expenses against unearned income and the deduction will apply to those completing high school. This will assist parents to undertake education or retraining.

In summary, I feel I have demonstrated that this government is taking responsible steps to put the country's finances in order and so provide a sound platform for future tax cuts. At the same time, the government is acting to provide targeted tax relief for families that need help the most.

Accordingly, I urge this House to withhold support for private member's Motion No. 148.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, two economic studies were released yesterday by the Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children in my riding. They put the annual calculable cost of this violence at over $4.2 billion, with health related costs alone at $1.5 billion annually.

I ask the Secretary of State for the Status of Women how knowledge about the cost of violence against women will affect government action on this very important issue.

[Violence Against Women, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on December 1 last year I asked the Minister of Justice what action he was taking to protect women from violence.

Today I ask the Minister of Justice what legislative measures he has taken in the past year to implement the government's plan to deal with the issue of violence against women?

[Criminal Code, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-234, an act to amend the Criminal Code, facsimile advertising. The purpose of the bill is to make it a Criminal Code offence to send unrequested advertisements by facsimile transmission.

The hon. member opposite clearly believes that unsolicited advertisements received by fax can be a nuisance for many people, organizations and businesses, particularly when the advertisements are long, numerous or repetitive. They use up expensive thermal paper and clog up the fax machine which is then not able to send the important messages that need to be sent and so on.

I am sure every member of the House can relate to this and would join in agreement with that problem. However, while unsolicited facsimile material can be a real nuisance, sending it is in my opinion not conduct that should be sanctioned by criminal law.

Bill C-234 proposes to make sending these faxes a criminal act. I cannot agree that making the abuse of a fax machine a criminal offence is an appropriate response. The purpose of criminal law is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society. It has long been recognized that criminal law plays an important role in protecting our social values, but there are other ways of protecting these values.

The abuse of a fax machine and a facsimile transmission is a problem that would be better dealt with using less intrusive, less coercive means and more positive approaches. Although I agree this kind of abuse is a nuisance I cannot get myself to agree this conduct is to be treated with the heavy hand of criminal law.

The past few years have seen a growing concern in the legal community and in society generally with the overcriminalization of our society and of our laws. It may be useful to go back to established principles that may prove to be relevant to the issue at hand. These principles could guide our nation in making a determination as to what ought to be made criminal and what ought to be regulated using less stringent means.

A 1982 report entitled "The Criminal Law in Canadian Society" outlined the policy of the Government of Canada with respect to the appropriate scope and basic principles of the criminal law. A clear statement is included in the report:

The criminal law ought to be reserved for reacting to conduct that is truly harmful-Criminal law should only be used when the harm caused or threatened is serious, and when the other, less coercive or intrusive means do not work or are inappropriate.

With that view, with those lenses and regarding those words of advice and direction, does the act of sending unrequested advertisements by facsimile transmission seriously harm people or organizations? We will all agree it is an annoyance, but is it harmful to the point of requiring this be made criminal with all the attendant consequences like criminal records, problems getting into education and problems obtaining employment? Certainly not in my view. It may be a nuisance or an inconvenience, but I doubt there is ever any serious harm done. Does the act of sending unrequested advertisements by fax so seriously contravene our fundamental values as to be harmful to society? Of course not.

Therefore it seems clear this conduct does not fall within the proper scope of criminal law. If the criminal justice system is to remain an effective mechanism for the protection of social values it is important that it not be overburdened. We all understand that our court system is overburdened today. Caution is therefore appropriate in creating new criminal offences. That caution makes me conclude that it would be inappropriate for the House to use such a blunt instrument as criminal law.

I raise another concern with the bill. It proposes to make the sending of unrequested advertisements by fax a punishable offence. Any person found guilty of committing this offence would be liable to a fine not exceeding $200. At first glance this small fine does not seem to constitute excessive interference with individual liberty and freedom.

However, we must remember, especially in the House and especially today with what we know to be true in the country, that subsection 787(2) of the Criminal Code provides that if one fails to pay a fine the court may order the defendant to be imprisoned for a period of up to six months. In effect, this offence is potentially punishable by up to six months imprisonment. This would be unjustifiable state interference with individual liberty. I seriously doubt that making it a criminal offence to send these faxes is truly necessary to achieve justice and to protect Canadian society.

I must also express my concern with respect to the current wording of the bill. It does not clearly define the limits of the offence. For example, the bill would prohibit the sending of unrequested facsimile communication advertising for sale any goods or service. Unrequested by whom? Do the words "advertising for sale" make it a crime to try to sell something? Is it all right to try to rent something or whatever else? These words remain entirely open to interpretation. It is also unclear who exactly is responsible, the employer, the employee or both.

I repeat my concern. The fundamental principles of individual rights and freedoms demand that criminal offences be very clearly defined. The bill is open to a range of interpretations and yet proposes to create a new criminal offence. Criminal law cannot operate in such an arbitrary manner. The bill as it stands is not

clearly drafted and would make punishable many actions and situations not criminal in nature.

I express my sympathy again with the sentiments of the bill. Most of us have experienced firsthand that receiving unsolicited commercial facsimile transmissions can be a nuisance. However, as I have explained today, the bill raises several fundamental concerns. I am convinced it is inappropriate to create a new Criminal Code offence prohibiting the sending of unrequested advertisements by facsimile transmission to individuals or companies.

Criminal law is not the appropriate instrument to deal with this nuisance. Criminal law must only be used when it is clearly necessary to achieve justice and to protect the full interests of society. It may be possible to identify more appropriate and less intrusive means of dealing with this problem, which I might be able to support, but I cannot support the creation of a Criminal Code offence for the purpose stated in this private member's bill.

[Young Offenders, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

Recently some of our provincial colleagues have been discussing the creation of boot camps, particularly for young offenders. There is much research on the use of boot camps as a correctional tool. Can the minister tell the House what this research reveals about boot camps, youth, and reoffending?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on Tuesday we dealt with the amendment proposed by the member for Mercier, a motion that had nothing to do with Bill C-96. Now perhaps we can move forward.

As I look back over the various statements by members on this bill, it seems to me there are really two basic questions we have to answer. First, does Bill C-96 represent any change in statutory powers that would allow the federal government to interfere with the provinces? Second, is the department created by Bill C-96 the kind of department we want, a department that will provide the best possible service and the right kind of service to Canadians?

We can deal with the first question very quickly. It has been answered clearly by the Minister of Human Resources Development and it is answered clearly by the bill itself. There are no substantive changes to existing statutory powers. The bill itself in clause 6 limits the powers of the minister to matters under the jurisdiction of Parliament, so there can be no intrusion on provincial areas of responsibility.

That really is the end of the discussion. Some people may say otherwise. They may say the bill is a secret plot to invade provincial territory, but saying it is so does not make it so, no matter how many times you say it. In the end we have to base any conclusions on what is really in the bill in black and white, not what is in other people's imagination. What is there in black and white is very clear: There is no interference with the provinces, possible or intended, in Bill C-96.

The second question deserves more comment. Is this the kind of department we want to create?

Fundamentally, this bill draws together all the different elements, programs and policies of the federal government related to human resources development into one integrated, coherent system. It is the basis for a new approach to helping Canadians as they deal with some of the incredible changes in the workplace and in the economy. It also provides a basis for new relationships between the federal government and individual Canadians, between different levels of government, between governments and local communities. As the Minister of Human Resources Development said when he moved second reading:

This is not a defence of the status quo or what it used to be. It is an attempt to provide a new, innovative way of governing-.The old ways are simply not relevant to the kinds of conditions we now face. That is one reason the government has undertaken to provide a new set of instruments, brought together with a single focus on policy.

The minister went on to say that the single focus was there so we can tackle the real deficit problem, which is not just the fiscal deficit, but the human deficit, a deficit as corrosive and undermining to the well-being of individuals as anything we face on the fiscal side.

How can this new department help tackle the problems we have with the human deficit? I say it is by providing a single focal point in the communities across the country, drawing together all the resources of the federal government and the community to help people find and keep jobs. It is by providing the opportunity for working more closely with the provinces to draw all of this country's resources together to help people find jobs. This is the priority of this government. It is the number one priority for Canadians. We know that.

Throughout this debate we have heard many examples of how this approach is already working. We have heard how the department is building a new integrated, decentralized service network moving from 450 to 750 points of service reaching smaller communities 24 hours a day. It is providing four times as many offices where seniors can get service in person. It is using the best technology available to speed up service, cutting UI processing time by two days, cutting old age security processing claims from eight days to one-half day.

We have heard how major changes have made student loans more accessible, flexible and sustainable. This has helped more than 300,000 students this year alone and has provided special grants to more than 13,000 high need students. We have heard how our new youth internships are leading to real jobs for some 24,000 young Canadians and how 130 Youth Service Canada projects across the country are helping young people serve their communities while getting valuable work experience. We know this is essential.

We have heard how the department is building new stronger partnerships with the private sector. There is increased funding for sector councils, partnerships where every federal dollar generates an additional $1.50 from industry to help Canadians adjust to the new economy, and we all have to realize it is here.

We have heard how the federal government is developing new partnerships with the provinces through joint federal-provincial initiatives. This is helping some 60,000 single mothers, older workers, aboriginals and young people to get new skills and new jobs.

We have heard again how this department is reviewing and distilling its 39 programs into a streamlined decentralized set of re-employment tools, tools that respond directly to the needs of Canadians where they live. Decisions can be made in the local communities instead of many miles away in some centralized bureaucracy. The provinces, municipalities, local businesses and organizations can be part of those decisions. They can tailor how federal service will be used to help people in their communities get back to work.

This may sound abstract, so I am going to talk about my city, London, Ontario. In the city of London, Ontario there is a wonderful example of these policies in action. Last month the minister sat down with community groups and political leaders in London to discuss the creation of a new learning and life centre there.

The London Learning and Life Centre will provide a centralized location for employment preparation, skills training and adult education. It will house a job search centre, an interactive lab for computer training and office space for community service professionals. Even an on-site child care service is planned.

An estimated, and I think this is conservative, 8,000 to 10,000 persons will utilize its services annually in London. The centre began as a community initiative, bottom up, not top down and has enormous community support. Its partner organizations include groups representing women, youth, adult learners, aboriginal people, immigrants and educators. Recognizing the real concerns, the real common sense of enabling local communities to work together for social development, the federal government contributed $700,000 to the initial stages of the centre's creation.

We heard the minister make clear commitments to build on the success of this decentralized approach, inviting the provinces to sit down and devise new solutions, new ways of working together. This is what the Canadian public wants. We want governments to work together with communities and individuals, new ways to deliver the best possible services, the most effective services to Canadians where they live, not here in Ottawa. This is clearly the right direction. This is clearly the kind of change and the kind of department that we need as Canada prepares for a new century.

The basic philosophy behind the new department, the vision behind Bill C-96, represents something new and very exciting. It is already making a difference in my community and in the lives of hundreds of thousands of Canadians every day throughout this country.

It is up to this House now to ensure that the department can keep moving forward and that Canadians can count on this government's commitment to provide the best possible help in today's economy. Bill C-96 creates the department that can deliver what Canadians need. It creates the kind of department that can make a difference and the kind of department that makes sense.

We have every reason to move forward, not backward, and to put this legislation in place as quickly as possible.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, one of my favourite poets is Shakespeare. One of the soliloquies from "Macbeth" talks about sound and fury signifying nothing. We have a lot to learn from Shakespeare because talk is cheap and action and hard work are the real tests.

When we talk about being concerned about victims we have to listen to victims when they come before us. This is a day when in the other place we will have a vote on gun control.

I remember as vice-chair of the justice committee the victims coming before us on gun control, the victims groups saying how badly they needed the legislation. I remember the suicide experts coming before us saying how badly this legislation was needed. I remember the women's groups coming before us saying how badly they needed this legislation. There is work to be done.

We have done work in the government. We have talked about balancing rights. We do not put one right above another when public safety is the issue, and that is the issue. It is not whom we rank in order. There is a realistic need to address the problems in society.

The party opposite thinks the way to address problems is to single out notorious, terrible events. These events are terrible and there are great losses. However, there is no ownership on caring for victims in society by any one of the parties in the House. We all care about victims in society.

The difference is that when we care, we roll up our sleeves and do some real work. We look at real facts. We voted for the legislation that puts gun control in place because the victims asked for it. We voted for the legislation on sentencing because it gives an ability for the victims to go to the courts to get compensation. We go and we get victim impact statements at hearings.

The Reform Party can find some little place in these pieces of legislation where they do not care about those bills and they vote them down. The victims count. CAVEAT met this week in Hamilton, a national organization, and where did they rate the provinces that take the attitude that is closest to the third party? They rated them as a d in Alberta and a d in Ontario. Where did they rate our minister? They rated him up there because he has the fortitude to stand behind a bill that will do something for victims. They just do not care.

What you need to figure out here is who is really working. Who is working when we have victims of misuse of firearms? Who is working when we have victims of family violence? I remember comments on December 6 last year from the other side. They have no understanding of family abuse.

We have bills that bring sexual offenders now to the ends of their terms. We have improved the Young Offenders Act and we will do more. We take DNA evidence. They came alongside on that, and that is good. Maybe that is a real vision for the future, looking at a bill and making sure it works and helping us implement it.

The Reform Party did support the drunkenness defence bill, but today they like to forget that we did that bill. That helps victims.

I wish I had 20 minutes, because I have a lot more to say on this issue. Behind the scenes we will do the real work and not just push the trigger buttons.

[National Child Day, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today, November 20, Canadians all over the country will be celebrating National Child Day.

The Government of Canada designated this special day to pay tribute to children and everything they offer us today and in the future.

November 20 also marks the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That convention is important because it deals with every aspect of the life of children and youth. The convention provides a framework to value and respect children and youth as full-fledged human beings.

In this International Year of Tolerance, we encourage all partners to pay special attention to issues such as equality, integration, sharing and understanding, especially when these issues relate to children and youth.

Today I call on all members of the House to join in the celebration of National Child Day. We must listen to our children and youth and treat them with compassion and respect. In doing this we build stronger communities and a prosperous nation.

Remember, children are important because they are Canada's future.