Beth Phinney

[International Day Of Families, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on May 15 we celebrated the International Day of Families.

In celebration of this day, the Prime Minister has asked Canadians to reflect on the important role the family plays in all our lives. In particular he recognized the importance of the family unit for children and young people.

I would like to build on the Prime Minister's words and ask Canadians to reflect on the significant role played by the senior members of our families, our parents. My father, who is with us in Ottawa this week, is an example of the generation that with hard work and dedication made Canada the great country it is today.

We talk of tapping our resources. Our greatest resource is the people who have made this country. These Canadians are truly the foundation of our society.

We must recognize that strong and healthy families create strong and productive societies. Our parents lived through different and sometimes challenging times. We would do well to learn from their experiences and to build upon them.

[Government Appointments, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader.

We all want appointees to government boards and agencies to be fair minded, free of partisan political pressure, and accountable to the public. While we recognize that board members are not employees of the government in the traditional sense, what can the government do to ensure that those who sit on these boards act in the best interest of all Canadians?

[International Children's Games, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on June 16-19, 1994 Hamilton will play host to the International Children's Games, the first time in its 25 year history that these games have been held outside Europe.

The participation age 11 to 15 is ideal for the children to learn the values of competition and fair play and to appreciate the cultures of other countries. The theme of the games "Tomorrow's Dreams" symbolizes the aspirations of all young athletes to develop into tomorrow's future leaders.

Hamilton is understandably proud and excited to be hosting this special event, and we look forward to making these the best International Children's Games ever. To date we have 38 confirmed cities from around the world with a total of 750 children participating, 150 from Canada alone.

All those who have been working to prepare these games are to be congratulated. Hamilton looks forward to giving the youth of the world an opportunity to participate in a multi-sport event in a spirit of friendship and competition.

[Justice, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the draft amendments to the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff Act introduced by the Minister of Justice last week in response to the proliferation of serial killer cards and board games is a clear indication to all Canadians that the justice minister is listening and that he will be acting promptly to bring needed changes to the justice system.

As the justice minister stated, as a society we must protect children and youth from exposure to material which exploits violence, cruelty and horror, while balancing this goal against the important guarantees of freedom of expression contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The government is committed to making our streets, our homes and our communities safer. The threat of violence that pervades our society is intimidating and alarming to most Canadians. By seeking to prohibit the sale or distribution of materials that exploit violence, we do a great service not only to the majority of law abiding citizens, but to the young people who deserve to develop interests and talents free of such negative influences.

[Petitions, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions with several hundred signatures of citizens who want to ban the importing of serial killer cards.

Canadians who are offended by these killer cards will be pleased that the minister has acted so quickly. Today draft amendments to the Criminal Code have been tabled which "would restrict or prohibit the sale or distribution of materials such as serial killer cards and serial killer board games to children under the age of 18". He has suggested that this would go to the justice committee which will be studying it starting next week.

[Product Packaging, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion presented to the House by the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North.

My hon. seat mate has asked us to support Motion M-217. It is worth conserving the words of this very thoughtful motion: "The government should seek to ensure that manufacturers of food and beverages be required to print best before and expiration dates clearly and legibly on the outside of product packaging in a non-encoded format".

What my hon. friend is saying here is that when we go shopping for food products we should easily be able to understand what we are buying and how long that product will be good.

What he is saying is that easy to understand packaging labels should be a right. Canadians are proud that we produce the highest quality food products in the world. We should have labelling standards of an equally high standard.

Today food and beverage manufacturers are only required to place best before dates on products with a shelf life of up to90 days. In fact, no shelf life standards exist and it is the manufacturer's decision to determine the appropriate shelf life period for its products and label them accordingly. That is just not good enough.

It shifts an unreasonable burden on to consumers to make the purchasing decisions with no fair basis for making these decisions.

It puts manufacturers with rigorous standards at a disadvantage. It does not meet the highest possible standards that Canadians expect of our food products.

It is really quite extraordinary that we require all kinds of nutritional information to be printed on food packages but we fail to say when the food was produced and how long it retains its quality.

According to the Grocer Products Manufacturers of Canada's own survey 97 per cent of Canadians are interested in knowing the shelf life of products. The current lack of standards is not meeting consumer demands and quite frankly I think most Canadians would be astounded to learn how lax our formal standards really are.

The Consumer Association of Canada supports the extension of date marking to all food.

What we need, as my hon. colleague pointed out, is basic information presented in a straightforward manner. We need easy to read, easy to locate labels on all foods to give consumers the facts they need to make informed decisions.

There are complicated encoded messages on products so that manufacturers can determine their sales figures and inventory information. Why should information not be provided to consumers so they can know vital information about the same food products? If it is good enough for manufacturers to know the information why is it not good enough for consumers?

As we move to produce environmentally friendly products surely we can move to produce consumer friendly labelling on the most essential of all our products, our food.

Knowledge is power and consumers do not have all the knowledge they need. We all know that more and more people are stocking up on many foodstuffs through bulk purchases. Indeed all major supermarkets are encouraging consumers to do so through advertising and marketing strategies. Consumers have a right to know how long those products are good for before they stock up these bulk purchases.

Another major trend in modern society is the move to foods purchased without packaging. We have all seen and used the bulk bins in our local groceries to scoop out bulk amounts of literally anything from soup to nuts.

Should there not be labels on these bins to tell consumers when the items were prepared and how long they retain their maximum quality? Should those foods not have some kind of durability date? Should products produced on totally different dates be mixed in the same bin? Surely what we need are some basic labels to give real meaning to the phrase health food.

This issue is not a philosophical debate; this is a completely practical matter. To see how modern our standards are, just last evening I walked through a local supermarket and examined the most primary foods to see which products had packaging dates and best-before labels. I do not want to name names or blame anyone. The problem is the lack of any uniform standards. While I was walking around last night I looked at the chicken and the hamburger packaging. They had labels which had both date packaged on the top and best-before written on the other corner. Somewhere between these two expressions was a date, but I had no idea what date it was: the date it was packaged or the best-before date. Not only that, the date that was on there was

yesterday's date. Were those goods packaged yesterday, or was this the date when they were no longer any good?

Since all the meat packaged in that area had yesterday's date on it, I had to assume that was the day they were packaged but maybe I assumed wrongly. Maybe if I had bought those things today they would be past their best date.

On the major canned food goods in the store that I walked around which families stock up on for emergencies, there was almost no best-before dates. There was one major exception: sardines packaged in New Brunswick had very clear labelling and I salute the manufacturers for that. Some jars of peanut butter had best-before labelling and some did not. Some jams said to refrigerate after opening and some did not. Frozen foods had no best-before labelling at all.

I might have made some errors and I might have omitted some products, but this was when I was casually walking through the store and arbitrarily picking products up and checking. I also had somebody check each one if I could not find it on the label. We both may have missed it, but we both tried to find the best-before dates. In fact walking around the store last night I noticed that no packaged foods had any information about how long the product retained its quality once the seal was broken.

I am not claiming that the standards I found are typical of all products or all grocery stores. I am saying that there is no way of knowing what to expect precisely, because we lack something as simple and as important as a expiry date and a best-before date on many foods and beverages. They should be marked clearly and legibly on the outside of product packaging.

I have heard the argument that if people do not like the labelling standards on food at their local supermarket they should just shop somewhere else. I am afraid that many senior citizens in my riding of Hamilton Mountain would find it extremely difficult travelling from supermarket to supermarket to find easy-to-understand packaging. We are not talking about standards for luxury items. We are talking about standards for food, the most essential of all the goods we package.

Canadians should be entitled to know when the food they eat was prepared and how long the food they purchase maintains its freshness. We need such basic information about the food we consume.

I commend the member of Parliament from Winnipeg North for presenting this important motion to the House of Commons and I support him fully.

[Auditor General Act, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House on Bill C-207, an act to amend the Auditor General, proposed by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.

This bill will among other things allow the Auditor General to report to Parliament on various matters of interest throughout the course of a year. Under these proposals the Auditor General would have the opportunity to bring his reports to the attention of parliamentarians as his work on a particular audit is completed or he could report to Parliament at a time he judged appropriate on matters of urgency or pressing importance. He would no longer be limited to one annual report.

These are most interesting and constructive ideas. They are not new concepts. I know that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier proposed them in the previous government and I believe deserve thorough consideration.

However as part of our study of these proposals I believe it is important to review carefully the existing system: what are its basic precepts, how is it working, does it allow the House to benefit to the fullest extent possible from the work of the Auditor General and his staff?

First let us examine the current system and how it is functioning. Currently legislation requires the Auditor General to audit the accounts of Canada, including those related to the Consolidate Revenue Fund and to report annually to Parliament on his findings.

This annual report relates to the publication every year of the public accounts. It facilitates consideration of these accounts by Parliament which of course also operates on an annual expenditure cycle. This procedure ensures regularity in the reporting process. It makes it possible to compare one year's performance with the next.

Once tabled in the House the annual report is then examined in detail by the public accounts committee. This committee, chaired by a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, looks closely at the issues raised each year by Mr. Desautels and his staff. The committee members look carefully at how government departments and agencies are running, respond to the Auditor General's suggestions for improvements, his request for information from Parliament and for the public.

They call before them senior officials of government departments. When their work is complete the committee gives the government the benefit of its findings.

I agree with the member for Ottawa-Vanier who believes that the Auditor General's role and responsibilities are of a paramount importance for MPs and senators, for the government and the Canadian people. Moreover, I am convinced that the present system is a good one.

This year's report is a case in point. The Auditor General and his staff made a valuable contribution to a better understanding of the many complex issues faced by government. When this year's report was tabled in February it quickly became clear that the government shared many of the Auditor General's preoccupations. I am pleased to report that we have already acted on and publicly set out our plans for addressing many of the areas of concern that he highlighted: more information for Parliament

and a more open budget process, a bigger role in policy making for members of the House.

These are only some of our shared concerns. In addition, of course, we agreed on the need to review existing programs and policies to ensure they continue to meet the needs of Canadians.

Specifically, the Auditor General has consistently advocated the need for better reporting of financial information for Parliament. This year was no exception. This year Mr. Desautels devoted an entire chapter of the report to his view that better information is required on the debt and deficit.

To address this need the finance department has issued two publications that will help Canadians understand the debt and the deficit. A short booklet entitled "Basic Facts on Spending" summarizes spending as it is presented in the federal budget and public accounts. It will help Canadians better understand the federal government's budgetary spending. In addition, a longer background document called "Federal Spending" provides more detail.

As a member of Parliament it is a matter of personal satisfaction for me that the public accounts for the year ending March 31, 1993 were accepted without reservation by the Auditor General.

Their fundamental purpose is to provide information to Parliament and through Parliament to all Canadians. Their purpose is to facilitate understanding of the full nature and extent of the financial affairs and resources for which the government is responsible.

It is the Auditor General's job to examine them. Last year the Auditor General said that in his view: "The government's financial statements would be more understandable if they were presented in a comprehensive but succinct annual financial report". What Mr. Desautels was calling for was a financial report similar to the annual reports published by corporations in the private sector. The government has done just that. To make the financial statements of the Government of Canada more understandable to the public we added a new section to the 1993 public accounts.

For the first time, we gave a summary of this year's economic developments, a review of our financial situation and a set of consolidated financial statements. The new graphs and organization charts present complex financial data in a way that is easy to understand.

In his remarks to the Canadian Club, Mr. Desautels specifically lauded the new section in the public accounts which he said included a number of indicators that should help Canadians gain a better appreciation of the government's financial condition. On the same occasion the Auditor General gave the government good marks for beginning the process of improving information about deficits and debt and for opening up the budget process.

This government made great strides in opening the budget process through pre-budget consultations. The Minister of Finance met hundreds of Canadians and heard from them directly what they felt had to be done to turn the economy around and create jobs and to restore Canadians' faith in the future.

In conclusion, I have emphasized the importance of the contribution the Auditor General makes to a better understanding of the issues facing the government. There is no doubt that the Auditor General's work is an important stimulus to constructive action.

However would this stimulus be any greater if Mr. Desautels reported to Parliament several times a year? We have a system now that is working well to the benefit of all Canadians. Would we lose more in coherence, comparability and impact than we would gain? These questions deserve the most careful scrutiny.

[Petitions, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add these petitions and the thousands of signatures to the over 2.5 million signatures that I have already presented in the House in the last two years.

The petitioners feel there are serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system, that there are many vulnerable persons who have little protection under the current system; women, children and disabled persons are at particular risk.

The petitioners request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against the person are serious and abhorrent to society and amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.

[Income Tax Act, March 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, for many Canadians the taxation of child support payments remains the great divide between their responsibilities as caregivers and their capacity to meet these obligations.

As members of the House of Commons, we will have to face this inequality and to bring in fairness.

Current tax laws state that child support payments paid by the non-custodial parent are considered as tax deductible, while the payments received by the custodial parent are lumped into his or her taxable income. On the face of it this law runs against the grain of decades of Liberal policies designed to support families and children.

Let me offer the House some of the history that fosters the current state of injustice. Present tax laws concerning child support payments were enacted in the 1940s. Society and government have been radically altered since then, but tax laws have not been altered. There is no question that the time has come to bring these laws up to speed with the modern era. We as a government must take action to modify these laws not only to bring about greater fairness but to reflect the needs of custodial parents today and in the coming years.

It is no exaggeration to say that the unfairness of the federal income tax system is driving custodial parents into bankruptcy and depriving their children of thousands of dollars in support payments.

The Income Tax Act actively discriminates against custodial parents by forcing them to pay tax on the support they receive from estranged spouses.

Across Canada there are almost one million single custodial parents. Of this number more than 750,000 are women. This issue like too many others involves the continuing suffering of disadvantaged women and children. We cannot remain unmoved by the adversity imposed on these Canadians by our tax regime.

The Income Tax Act much be changed to reflect the needs of women heading single parent families in this country.

Nations the world over have decided to make absent parents more responsible for their children. Foreign governments have taken the initiative to change their child support tax laws so that the parent who has left the home has a greater financial responsibility to the custodial parent and child.

When we look at our neighbours to the south we do not see the inequities encountered in Canada. In fact, the taxation laws concerning child support payments in the United States are the reverse of our own.

In the United States child support payments are deemed to be non-taxable income for both the payers and the recipients. If I may say so, this seems to be a more logical and equitable way to handle the issue.

In Britain the child support tax laws have only recently been changed and the government intervention has only recently moved to lessen the plight of single mothers. Nearly all absent parents have been tracked down in England and forced to pay an amount derived from an originally applied formula. This formula makes child support a top financial priority, placing great emphasis on the parent's income and the cost of raising the children while sanctioning few excuses for delinquency.

The British system emulates that of the United States by not taxing child support payments. Britain's approach to this issue has emerged as one the world's toughest. This government must join the worldwide march toward tougher child support laws and take immediate action.

In 1991 Statistics Canada revealed that there had been a 34 per cent increase in lone parent families in the previous ten years. By comparison, the number of two parent families with children rose by just 6 per cent over the same period. The end result is that lone parents accounted for 20 per cent of all families in the year 1991, up from 17 per cent in 1981.

One child in five resides in a single parent household. Moreover, these statistics clearly show that children are hit the hardest by the obsolescence of tax laws concerning child support.

The facts are plain and simple. Female lone parents remain consistently less likely than other parents to be employed and there have been sharp drops in employment levels of lone parent women during the recessions in the early 1980s and the 1990s.

Lone parent families have lower incomes than two parent families. In 1990 the average income of female headed lone parent families at $22,000 was just 38 per cent of the $57,000 earned by dual parent families with children.

These numbers demand action by this government. When we are struck by the appalling state of the current child tax laws we must ask ourselves why this issue has not been dealt with before.

It is clear that the current tax laws have created inequities between the payers and the recipients of child support. The tax treatment of child support payments makes a very complicated issue out of one that should be as straightforward and simple as possible. No other country treats the taxation of child support the way Canada does.

We know who the victims of the current state of child support tax laws are. It is a statistically proven fact that single women and their children are being financially devastated and socially marginalized.

They are the ones who bear the economic consequences of divorce and separation. If the current policy is not changed it is the children of single parent families who will go on paying, not just in some cases and not just by misfortune, but by our deliberate failure to recognize the problems with our existing tax laws.

Modernizing our primitive treatment of child support payments is an issue that must be remedied through the tax system. Better child support guidelines and enforcement mechanisms are essential and must be addressed within the justice system.

We must acknowledge the problems of current legislation and pass the measures necessary to improve the situation.

Let me now introduce some of the proposed improvements to the current tax law. We should remember that the combined impact of income tax and child support policies must be measured by its impact on the standard of living of the affected family.

There are a number of changes that could be affected through federal legislation and policy measures. The avenues this government needs to explore are several. The Income Tax Act could develop child support guidelines that reflect the cost of raising children and that are compatible with revamped tax treatments of child support payments.

This act would support the efforts of lone parent families in Canada, specifically the single mother. We could follow the lead of the American tax system and not include child support payments in the calculation of our taxable income. This would treat child support costs in the same manner for tax purposes for custodial and non-custodial parents. This would also result in equal treatment of child support costs in families in which parents live together and in those in which parents are separated or divorced.

As insurmountable as these problems may appear, we must attempt to reform the existing tax on child support payments which, quite frankly, is the government's punishment to those women who, for whatever, reason have separated from their spouses.

The current law is extremely limited as a means of distributing tax relief for the benefit of children and in most cases it is detrimental. Women and children are its victims. I hope all members will join the women and men in this House who hope to right this injustice.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the part of the hon. member's speech where she was comparing our system with the American system.

I have spoken to a lot of American congressmen and women in the last five years. I have often talked to them about the size of their constituencies.

The hon. member mentioned the American constituencies were about five times larger than ours. They are about 500,000 on average compared to our 100,000. What the hon. member failed to mention is that the size of their staff ranges from 18 to 25 workers. One will find that is an increase of 5 per cent.

In making a comparison therefore we should be comparing the whole picture. Sure their constituencies are larger in that they have 500,000 to our 100,000, but the size of their staff is five times larger as well. It is fair to mention that also. Maybe we could add that to the bill when we are considering it a bit later. Perhaps the member has something to say on that.