Marlene Catterall

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I notice the Reform members always get up and say that without ever saying where they are going to cut or who they are going to hurt.

We know perfectly well in the analysis of their three-year deficit reduction plan that it tabled during the election campaign that that could not be done without hurting 1.5 million children in this country who live in poverty, without hurting senior citizens who depend on their pensions, without hurting single parents, two-thirds of whom live in poverty with their children. Their plan was not realistic. Their plan would have destroyed the social fabric of this country. Their plan would have destroyed any sense of justice in this country.

The member opposite has said there were not cuts. From the moment our government took office we have been reducing unnecessary expenditures. The Prime Minister was the first to set an example by getting rid of his limousine. Members know the actions that have been taken to cut the use of-

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member came in late, if he was not listening, if he was too busy talking to his colleagues over in the corner or if he has not read the estimates that he is now preparing to vote on later this evening. Had he and had he been listening since he walked into this House in January he would have seen our government tackling virtually every one of the issues he just mentioned and many more.

We are not looking at saving money by the millions. We have looked at saving money by the billions. The member really should know that if he has been paying attention. I do not know if he is attempting to mislead people. He knows very well that the matter of MPs' pensions is in the hands of a commission established specifically by law after every election for that purpose and that report will be coming back and we will be taking action on that report.

He also knows perfectly well that I said very clearly that the finance minister in tabling his budget said this is a two-stage budget. This is step one. We have done more cutting in this budget than in previous budgets. We have also closed some tax loopholes and he knows that very well. We paid attention to that side of the ledger as well by making sure that there is some increase in revenue and that tax breaks that certain people were getting are no longer there. However, we have done five times more in cutting expenses than we have increasing revenues through closing those tax loopholes.

The member knows perfectly well that these estimates on which he is voting today represent billions of dollars of cuts in government expenditures. I think he should be saying that honestly to the Canadians who are listening to us tonight.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak about the main estimates for budget year 1994-95.

These estimates represent the fulfilment of the government's commitments to Canadians. They also represent a balanced approach to promoting economic growth in jobs while taking steps to reduce the deficit.

These estimates reflect the fact that there are no quick and easy solutions to the financial issues which confront Canada. It is essential that Canadians understand this in order that they may be able to make with us the difficult choices which lie ahead. I am therefore pleased to have the opportunity to talk about some of the highlights and significance of these estimates.

First it is important to set these estimates in the context of the government's fiscal plan. When the minister tabled his budget in February of this year he said that it represented the first stage of a two-stage budget. That budget has set the country on the road to economic recovery, but there is still a great deal of work now being done to prepare for the second stage of the budget.

As we promised, the government has launched a number of initiatives and reviews which will enable us to accelerate our progress down that road to economic recovery.

It is important that the government take action but it is also important that the government take the time to take the right action.

For example, the President of the Queen's Privy Council and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal is reviewing the programs of every department. He is also reviewing the structure of every commission and federal organization. Moreover, he is co-operating with the provinces to find ways to reduce overlapping and duplication. These measures will ensure more efficient and affordable government services to Canadians.

As for the Minister of Human Resources Development, he is currently conducting the most comprehensive review of the social security system in Canada since that program was put in place. It should be clear to everyone that the government intends to do what is necessary, and to do it in a responsible way, from a financial point of view. The results of these reviews and other initiatives will be made public as early as this fall, so that they can be discussed in the most open budget process ever put in place by a government.

Canadians will have a say in the critical decisions which will have to be made. At that point, we will have reached the second stage of the budget.

As the President of the Treasury Board said in the House when the main estimates were tabled in February, the estimates set out the details of $160.7 billion in planned expenditure for this fiscal year. Overall program spending, which is total spending less debt service charges, is increased by just 0.7 per cent.

Spending on most government programs has been reduced. The operating budgets of government departments have been reduced by $400 million, with further reductions of $600 million to come in the next two years. Defence cuts total $745 million this year alone, with more to come. Grants and subsidies to business have been substantially reduced. The government has frozen the wages of public servants for a further two years. This action has reduced the cost of providing necessary services

while making it possible to protect jobs and meet job security commitments to our employees.

At the same time as taking these necessary reduction measures, the estimates provide for $700 million for the implementation of the national infrastructure program. This is a key element in fulfilling our red book commitment to create jobs. We know there are two sides to the ledger. There is the expenditure side and there is the revenue side. With so many Canadians out of work the revenue side of our ledger book is not in good shape either. We are paying attention to both sides of the ledger book.

It was the Prime Minister who launched the infrastructure program in his December 1993 meeting with the premiers. Within eight weeks agreements had been signed with every one of the provinces in Canada. In spite of those who said it could not be done, a three-level program was put together in a matter of weeks. The municipalities have found the money to participate and all three levels of government are working co-operatively.

Furthermore the federal government came up with its $2 billion share of the program without increasing the deficit. As we promised, funds were reallocated from other less productive, less high priority federal programs.

I take this opportunity to say that we expect 80 per cent of the project funding will go toward core infrastructure such as water and sewer systems, roads and bridges. We are committed to funding projects with the municipalities that are their priority. Some of these projects are non-traditional but nevertheless are innovative and worthwhile.

When the budget discussions take place this fall it is important that Canadians understand where their tax dollars go, what benefits and services are provided and who receives them. It is important because I believe that many Canadians have been given the impression that with a few minor changes here and there, a bit of tinkering we could balance the budget and live happily ever after and nobody would be hurt.

This is nothing but a fairy tale. We can and we will return to full economic health but difficult choices lie ahead and making the right choices requires that the public be fully informed and involved.

When the main estimates were tabled in the House in February both official parties in opposition predictably expressed their disappointment and claimed that the budget did not go far enough to eliminate waste in government.

We recognize that we must constantly find more efficient ways of delivering services to Canadians and we are doing that. The Treasury Board secretariat is pursuing a variety of initiatives to improve efficiency, including a number which take advantage of the exciting potential of new information technology. These initiatives promote responsive and affordable government services.

In one of many examples 18 government departments are together establishing 10 Canada business service centres, many of them with the participation of the provinces and local authorities. These centres reduce complexity and overlap for business clients and provide one stop shopping with no increase in costs.

A wide variety of initiatives to improve service and reduce costs is described in part I of the estimates. It makes good reading for those want a current picture of what the government is really doing to improve efficiency.

I certainly recognize that, in a parliamentary system, the role of the opposition is to oppose government's measures. Moreover, it may be that the two sides truly disagree as to which policies would best serve our country. However, we are not doing Canadians a service by implying that the deficit could be reduced overnight if only someone had the courage to take the bull by the horns.

Last February, the hon. member for La Prairie said that there was some fat and some waste in the government operations, and that billions of dollars could be saved if only the government eliminated waste and poor management practices. The fact is that if these simple measures were enough to solve the problem, we would already have taken them.

As the main estimates show, the cost of operating the entire Government of Canada, excluding defence, is just 12 per cent of the total expenditures of $160.7 billion, about $19 billion. If the government were to shut down all of its operations, cancel every one of its programs, fire every one of its employees, there would still be a deficit of more than $20 billion.

There would be no food inspectors of course, no air traffic controllers, no prison guards, no scientists working for Canadians in the fields of health and the environment, and no tax collectors either. Some of us might like that, but then the deficit would be even higher. That there would still be a deficit without any government operation assumes of course that there would be somebody to write cheques for the other 88 per cent of government expenditures.

The other levels of government receive transfer payments of almost $29 billion, most of it going to health care, to social services, to post-secondary education and the equalization payments which ensure that from coast to coast to coast in this country the less wealthy provinces have an opportunity to provide comparable services to their citizens.

There is another $20 billion that the Minister of Finance perhaps would need some help in writing cheques for if we had no public service, no government operations; $20 million to Canadian seniors for old age security and the guaranteed income supplement as well as another $19 billion to the unemployed.

Perhaps people who complain about fat and waste could tell us how we can possibly solve the deficit problem by getting rid of the government.

Canada has just recently been rated by the United Nations once again as the best place in the world to live. This is something all Canadians should be proud of. It has not happened by accident. It has not been achieved without a cost either. We have been borrowing to finance our programs, programs which many Canadians have come to view as a right of citizenship.

The public accounts of Canada show that in the 10 years from 1984 to March 1993 the debt of the federal government has more than doubled to just over $500 billion. As a result this year's main estimates provide for interest charges of $41 billion or 25 per cent of the budget on that debt.

If we add another $11 billion for defence and $5 billion for crown corporations we begin to get a picture of where the money goes. We spend money on what Canadians want and need and that is what these estimates are all about. That is also why we have a deficit.

Part I of the estimates provides a comprehensive overview of the government's expenditure plans. I recommend it to all Canadians who want to know how their money is spent. I recommend it to all Canadians who want to participate in a meaningful and positive way in the budget consultations that will take place this fall.

So it is not being honest to tell taxpayers that we only need to cut some fat to alleviate the tax burden, or that it is possible to significantly reduce spending with no one feeling any real adverse effect.

To try to make Canadians believe that there is a quick fix and that the government is not prepared or able to apply it, undermines the confidence of Canadians in their democratic institution. When they hear about these so-called quick and simple solutions, Canadians are less apt to realize that some hard and vital decisions must be made.

My comments may sound somewhat like propaganda, but I want to tell this House that the government intends to ask members from all parties, as well as the general public, to participate in a comprehensive discussion on the importance of the budget. To that end, we must question the very nature of government spending. I would like to conclude, for the benefit of those who might still be sceptical, by referring to some comments made by the Auditor General.

In his 1991 annual report the Auditor General said that he had an impression that a dedicated, competent public service is dealing with complex problems that have developed over the years. He also stated: "The deficit is not a result of bureaucrats burning the taxpayers' money but rather the reasons for the deficit are profound, complex and difficult to solve. I sense that there are few easy fixes".

In his 1992 report he went on to say that the reality is that governments alone do not create deficits. International forces beyond our control and the needs and demands of the electorate also contribute to deficits.

I would like to conclude with a final piece of advice from our Auditor General also from the 1992 report: "There is a need today for full and frank discussion about deficit, debts and related public policy choices".

I invite members of the House today to begin that frank, honest, open discussion and I assure Canadians that this government will give them the opportunity to be part of that debate as well, well before the budget for 1985-96 is prepared, well before the tabling of the next version of these estimates.

[Education, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Speaker drew the attention of the House to a special group of young people who were sitting in the gallery.

These students of Ridgemont High School are participants in the work experience program called "Partners in Change". This program had its start back in 1986 due in large part to the hard work of one of my constituents, Ms. Patricia Mainwaring.

Ms. Mainwaring is a teacher at Ridgemont High School who specializes in helping students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. She saw the potential of her students to contribute in a whole variety of ways to our work here in the House of Commons.

With the help of their volunteer buddies, they have been learning how to do all sorts of things and also learning a new independence and pride in themselves.

When I taught at Ridgemont High School 30 years ago, these students would not even have been part of our school environment. Now they are part of our environment here in Parliament in governing the country. I congratulate Ms. Mainwaring for her work.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have to respond with a comment on what I have just heard. I have to make it clear to the Leader of the Official Opposition, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, that he does not respect my vision of Canada.

My vision of Canada includes Quebec. My vision of Canada includes Jacques Cartier and Samuel de Champlain who went up this river only feet from where we sit today. It includes the voyageur and the coureurs des bois who opened up the west and the north of this great country. This is my Canada. I say that I will fight in any way I can if you try to destroy that.

My Canada includes Quebec City. It includes the north of Quebec. For me, my Canada includes the ability of Quebecers to feel that the Rocky Mountains belong to them, that the Pacific coast belongs to them, that Halifax belongs to them and that the rocky shores of Newfoundland belong to them.

My Canada is not two Canadas. That is your Canada. My Canada is one Canada. There is not an English speaking Canada and a French speaking Canada. There is a Canada where people who live outside Quebec and are francophone, a whole million of them, can express themselves, live and be served by their government in their own language just as francophones in Quebec can, and just as anglophones in Quebec can.

I realize we have a serious difference of opinion about the country. However I have an opinion, not about its parts, not about those things that divide us. For my children I want the history and the contribution of those great men and women who came from France, who were the original settlers of my Canada, to be part of their tradition and their future.

We are stronger together. We are a more vibrant nation together than we would be as 10, 11 or 20 or even 2 pieces. I do not believe we can end up as two pieces. I believe that the heart is

ripped out of the country if Quebec leaves and I believe the rest of the country will fall apart. I will not let you do that.

[National Student Commonwealth Forum, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the approximately 100 students who participated in the National Student Commonwealth Forum in Ottawa on May 13 of this year.

The delegates from across Canada gathered to express their knowledge and views about issues facing Canada and the world.

Miss Julie Richard lives in the riding of our colleague from Ottawa South. Representing Sri Lanka, she received the award for the most outstanding delegate. Mr. Sachit Mehra of Winnipeg, representing Antigua and Barbuda, received an award for his exceptional performance. The best delegation was that of Singapore, represented by Benjamin Thwaites and Ryan Lawlor of St. Andrew's College in Toronto.

Forums such as this encourage Canadian youth to learn about different cultures and countries, international issues and the role that Canada plays in the world.

I congratulate all delegates and the volunteer forum planning committee for a job well done.

[Partnership Walk, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, May 29 I had the privilege of attending, along with my colleague from Ottawa South who was the guest of honour, an event that was truly a tribute to our country's commitment to creating opportunities for people in the developing world.

Sixty thousand Canadians in 10 cities across this country participated in the 10th anniversary of Partnership Walk as sponsors and walkers in a tremendous show of support for all the people of our global village. Partnership Walk is an initiative of the Aga Khan Foundation to create an understanding about development and show the world that Canadians do indeed care about improving the lives of those in developing countries.

This year's project was especially interesting, being about women in development. Women for as little as $5 or $10 loans are starting businesses and raising themselves and their children out of poverty.

My congratulations to all the volunteers who helped make this year's Partnership Walk happen.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised that the hon. member remembers so well what happened during the last Parliament and especially the salary freeze introduced in this House by the government he, his leader and many several other members of his party were part of. At that time, I would have liked to hear the hon. member say what he just said.

I would like to correct some of the statements the hon. member made. I am sure it was a mistake and that he did not intend to misinform public servants, but he did say that public servants would not get a salary increase even if they accepted a new position. That is not true.

I do not mind if the hon. member takes part in this debate, but I want him to stick to the truth. I want to remind him that it was the government which he, his leader and many members of the Bloc were part of that maintained the tax exemption for family trusts for another generation. It was not a decision made by this government, but we are trying to find a way to right the wrongs for which the previous government is responsible.

Of course, my government and I are not happy about the tough measures we have to take, but these decisions have to be made if we want to give our employees the assurance that they will not lose their job or see their salary decrease. We know this is a tough measure for civil servants to accept, but it is also necessary for their job security.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to say a few words today on this important legislative measure.

When this government came to office late last year, the economy was stagnant and the public purse was burdened by a deficit exceeding $40 billion. The government reacted, especially in the recent budget, by opting for a balanced solution to turn the economy around, reduce the deficit and introduce social reform.

Our goal is to substantially reduce the deficit in the current fiscal year while promoting an economic recovery.

The bill we are discussing today, the budget implementation act, 1994, represents some measures the government believes it must take if we are to remain optimistic about the economic future of Canada.

We believe immediate measures are necessary to reduce the deficit. It imposes severe constraints on economic recovery and growth. It imposes severe threats to programs that are important to all of us as Canadians: unemployment insurance, social programs and health services among others.

It is fair to say that all Canadians realize we cannot blindly spend our way out of the financial problems facing us but rather we must do better with what we have. They and we realize that government leadership to create the climate for job generation is an important factor in balancing our books.

With that in mind, I would like to focus particularly on measures affecting Canadians who work for the Public Service of Canada, the RCMP or the Department of National Defence.

Bill C-17 extends the public service wage freeze currently in effect for a further two years. It suspends pay increment increases for a two-year period and enables payments to be made to full time employees of national defence who are retiring under a civilian reduction program.

Solving our fiscal problem required taking more restraint measures in operating budgets. Public service salaries account for a major portion of federal expenditures. The total compensation cost of the government including the military and the RCMP amounts to some $19 billion. Any measure to control the deficit must therefore take these costs into account. Freezing salaries and pay increments will contribute $1.5 billion in savings over the next three years.

We know the debt and deficit problem will not be solved only by cuts to the public service. The entire cost of operating the Government of Canada is $20 billion out of total government expenditures of approximately $168 billion. The compensation cost of the public service employees who run that government is $12 billion, considerably less than 10 per cent of the budget of Canada.

Given this morning's clippings, I would like to comment on the report of the C.D. Howe Institute. It has identified further cuts to public service wages and government operating costs as a major candidate for government reductions. I must admit I am confused. Not long ago the Conference Board of Canada was telling Canadians that a freeze on public sector wages at the federal level would have a dampening effect of 1.5 per cent on economic recovery that would be even further intensified if the example was followed by provincial governments and the sectors at other levels.

As I said, we realize the debt and deficit problem cannot be resolved only by cuts to the public service. Therefore we have implemented many other cuts in an attempt to achieve the deficit target we have set for ourselves.

Many have questioned why pay increments were suspended in addition to the wage freeze. The answer quite simply is fairness. Increments were frozen because it is important that all public service employees be treated equally in this difficult time. It did not seem to us to be fair that some people working for the public service were seeing their salaries rise while others were not.

I know very well that some consider these measures to be severe, but it is important to place them in their proper context. The government is committedto maintaining job security for its employees. In its opinion, extending the salary freeze and suspending pay increments are better ways to control public spending that forced leave, wage reductions and layoffs. In addition, this approach will minimize the impact on our ability to offer quality services to Canadians.

I recognize there is concern over potential job losses. While there have been layoffs and wage rollbacks in the private sector and in other public areas, our government is committed to maintaining a high level of job security in the public service. Despite these measures, our government is taking a number of steps to rebuild a positive and constructive relationship with the public service.

We believe that our best allies in controlling government expenditures while maintaining the delivery of quality services to the people of Canada are the people who work for the Government of Canada. That is why in the budget we committed to undertake an efficiency review in co-operation with the unions. Any efficiency savings in government operations identified through this process will be used to shorten the period of the wage and increment freeze.

These discussions have begun and are addressing longstanding concerns of our employees, such as contracting for service and the use of temporary employees from outside the government. Already we have been able to show that under the previous government while departments were being downsized, while Canadians were being told that costs were being reduced in this manner, the cost of contracting actually increased at a rate 43 per cent higher than other government expenditures.

The efficiency review is not limited to these two areas, although they are certainly a prime concern to our employees. We are prepared to consider any area of government spending that the unions, our employees, our managers, or indeed members of this House of Commons believe should be looked at in terms of their efficiency in delivering quality services to Canadians.

This is a new process and naturally enough, there is some apprehension on both sides as to how successful it will be. A great deal of time and effort is needed on both sides to ensure that a relationship of trust is built up so that we can work together on this.

In addition to a close examination of contracting as part of the efficiency review, the President of the Treasury Board has asked a committee of Parliament to undertake a full review of contracting and to prepare a report to the House. Throughout government as well, deputy ministers have been asked to work closely with the unions representing their employees and indeed with their employees at all levels to find the necessary means of meeting their operating cost reductions.

I believe that by working together we will be able to identify those savings that will not affect the delivery of services to Canadians but will allow the period of the wage and increment freeze to be shortened. It will allow us to assure Canadians that we are working to get the best possible value for the dollars they pay in taxes.

This is the first opportunity employee representatives have had to work with the government, to work with their employer, to help manage the difficult economic situation we face and the changes it necessarily entails.

The unions have correctly made the point that the pay increment freeze will affect proportionately more women than men employees. At the same time I should indicate that for our lowest paid employees earning under $30,000 proportionately more women than men have benefited from reclassifications and promotions which have improved their earnings, even during the period of the wage freeze. Nonetheless it is the case that approximately two-thirds of employees at the lowest salary

levels are women. It is of course at these levels that a wage freeze has the greatest impact.

That is one reason I am proud to say the President of the Treasury Board has already initiated discussions with the two largest unions representing those employees in female dominated categories of work to explore ways of resolving the pay equity issue. For many years outstanding pay equity complaints have been making only slow and painful progress through the human rights tribunal process. We would like, if at all possible, to work with the representatives of the employees to settle these complaints by negotiation, thereby improving the economic status of more than 60,000 employees in female dominated groups in the public service.

For the first time, public service unions were involved in prebudget consultations, as were many other Canadians. We realize the period of time for these consultations was short. We realize the amount of impact they could have on the budget was limited because of that. We will in fact be conducting those consultations much earlier in the process for the 1995-96 budget.

Many proposals made to us in these consultations by the public service unions and by others were implemented in this budget or are being reviewed for possible implementation in the 1995-96 budget. It is worth mentioning a few.

Corporate profits transferred out of Canada that were not previously subject to taxation will now be subject to taxation in Canada. The capital gains tax exemption is being removed. Tax deductions for business meals and entertainment have been cut to 50 per cent. Operating budgets were reduced to reflect our government's red book commitment to reduce spending on contracting for professional services.

As far as items proposed by our unions and by others to be reviewed for possible inclusion in the next budget, among them I include such things as RRSPs and their role in providing for the future of Canadians, and the taxation of family trusts.

The other message we got very loudly and clearly from the unions representing government employees was do not roll back wages, do not enforce unpaid leave, do not lay off. That is why this government has renewed its commitment to the workforce adjustment policy.

This policy was negotiated with the unions and has been in effect. The previous government threatened to legislate this policy out of existence. We have said quite clearly that we are committed to the workforce adjustment policy. Changes we might want and changes the unions might want are now being negotiated. Any changes will be subject to agreement at the bargaining table.

This government recognizes and values the important role members of the public service play in the governance of the nation. Without them, no law, no policy, no program we approve in this Parliament can be implemented. They keep our food, our skies and our borders safe. They perform needed research, provide rescue operations at sea and deliver pension cheques to millions of Canadian seniors.

Our government intends to restore the relationship of mutual trust with the public service. Both unions and managers will be involved in the broadest possible dialogue on matters of concern to them as our employees and as our partners in delivering quality, efficient and cost-effective services to Canadians.

In closing, I would like to emphasize that this government recognizes these measures are difficult but are necessary as part of a number of measures to control public spending. They are necessary to maintain both employment security for our employees and quality service for Canadians.

Recovery must start somewhere and these measures are only part of that recovery. If we are to meet our objective of a deficit which is no more than 3 per cent of GDP by 1996-97 then all Canadians, public service employees and ourselves included will have to realize that our future prosperity depends on the action we take today.

[Income Tax Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of the motion of my colleague, the member of Parliament for Nepean, and to compliment her on bringing this issue to the House for debate.

In her motion the member is addressing a crucial factor contributing to the poverty of women and children in Canada. That is the tax treatment of support payments in cases of divorce or separation.

Twenty years ago I first heard a woman who had been through the experience deliver the warning that any woman is one husband away from poverty. In 1994 the situation has not changed much. The most recent report of the Vanier Institute confirms that the majority of women who walk out of a marriage walk into poverty. The actual figure is that two-thirds of women whose marriages break up end up in poverty, along with their children.

When Statistics Canada conducted its recent comprehensive survey of women's experience of violence, it learned that 45 per cent of women had experienced violent abuse during a previous marriage; 15 per cent reported being victims of violence in their current marriage. These figures indicate that women do leave abusive marriages in great numbers, but to escape the danger of a violent marriage they must be prepared to accept the abuse of poverty.

When single mothers are poor, their children are poor. Since this Parliament unanimously adopted a resolution to end child poverty by the year 2000 the situation has become worse, not better. At that time one in six Canadian children lived in poverty. Now that ratio has grown to one in five, an increase by 20 per cent of the number of poor children in one of the wealthiest countries in the world.

As we promote better education and training, we ignore the single greatest factor in children dropping out of school: poverty. A poor child is four times as likely to leave before completing high school.

As we try to address the challenge of maintaining a universal, accessible health care system while containing its costs, we are failing to address a significant factor adding to the demands on our health care system: poverty. Poor children are many times more likely to be seriously ill, to have serious accidents and yes, to die than non-poor children.

The treatment of family income on the breakup of a marriage is the significant factor in the poverty of women and children. Report after report has shown the impact of both inadequate support payments, the failure in 75 per cent of cases to pay the support as ordered and finally, the taxation of support payments in the hands of the custodial parent.

Let me mention just a few of these reports from the last few years. The Federal-Provincial-Territorial Family Law Commission and its report on Financial Implications of Child Support Guidelines, May 1992. The Ontario Fair Tax Commission Report on Women and Taxation, November 1992. The Status of Women Canada, Analysis of the Tax Treatment of Child Support Payments, January 1993. Le rapport du Protecteur du citoyen de la province de Quebec on Child Support, Proposals for Reform, November 1993.

All these reports have said the same thing: the tax treatment of child support payments needs to be changed. It is hurting women and it is hurting children. All these reports identify the taxability of child support payments in the hands of the custodial parent as a major contributor to the poverty of women and children. Canada is the only country in the world that taxes child support payments in this way.

Most recently the Thibaudeau court decision has called the tax policy discriminatory on the basis of marital status because tax treatment for a couple supporting children is not the same as for two separated people supporting children. Our government has appealed this case in order to avoid the chaos of cases in the thousands coming before the court to vary orders which were established under the existing law and which some will argue took into consideration the tax treatment of support payments.

The big losers again would be the custodial parents, most of whom are women, and their children. Most of them do not have the resources to ensure their interests are well represented before the courts.

Our government is committed to achieving an orderly transition from the present system to a better way. Our goals generally are to increase the value of child support awards, to simplify the process, and to create a more equitable system.

We realize the vast majority of single mothers in Canada receive no support payments at all for their children and that the vast majority of support orders are not obeyed. This represents not only a burden to that majority of single parent householders in this country, but to all of us as the responsibility for caring for these families is often assumed by our social security system.

Our goal as a government is to achieve concrete results by the end of this year, including reform to the tax system, legislating child support formulas and finding ways of working with the provinces to enforce support orders.

We know there are no easy answers. That is why an important part of this process of finding solutions is listening to the experience of people on the ground. That is why we have set up a task force to consult with Canadians, to consult with those involved with this most unfair system and to find those solutions.

I want to congratulate my colleague from Nepean for bringing forward this issue. With her motion she has ensured that at last Parliament and not the courts will address the inequities of the current tax laws. She will have to her credit what is all too rare in our system: an action by an individual member of Parliament that rights a wrong, that will potentially improve the quality of life and the future prospects of over one million Canadians. I congratulate her.