Grant McNally

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

Madam Speaker, I that know time is brief so I will try to make my points very quickly here.

It is a pleasure to enter into this debate for a number of reasons, the first one being that this whole area of equalization is an important area, something that we support. We do not support the way the government has gone ahead with this bill and the way it has introduced it. The government has had five years, imagine, to deal with this issue and in three days it has brought it forward without consultation. It is another example of the top down arrogant style of governance we have seen from the Liberal Party of Canada over and over and over again. It is reflected again here with the introduction of this bill.

It reminds me a little bit of a comic strip we are all well aware of. In the Charlie Brown comic strip there is a character named Lucy. She would pull the football away from Charlie Brown every time he tried to kick it. Charlie Brown kept coming back to try to take another kick at the ball and every time Lucy would pull that ball away and Charlie Brown would lie flat on his back.

That is the way the Liberal government approaches legislation. In fact it is the way the Liberals approach governance in this country. We could substitute whomever we would like to for Charlie Brown, whether it be the hardworking Canadian taxpayers who fork over dollar after dollar after dollar to the government, or in this case the provinces which are treated in that same way. They come back in good faith, yet the government continues to pull the ball away from them, to take away the goodwill they bring to the table over and over and over again.

That is the way this Liberal government deals with Canadians and with the provinces. And the Liberals wonder why they need to send out a task force to western Canada to find out what the problem is, why they have only a few members of parliament when there is approximately 100 seats in the west. Perhaps the Liberals will be sending a task force to other regions of the country as well to figure out why people are not voting for them. It is very simple. Canadians are not voting for the Liberals in those parts of the country because the Liberals are not listening. They do not get it. They do not understand.

Those comments were made clear by a member of the government, the member for Broadview—Greenwood just a few short minutes ago when he said he was an interventionist. “Do not worry, people of Canada. The federal government will solve your problems. Send us your bucks and we will take care of you”.

That simply is not working. It is not the truth and it is not the reality of the situation. And the Liberals wonder why they have to send a task force out to western Canada and other parts of the country to find out why people do not support them. They just do not get it. They do not understand.

The member for Broadview—Greenwood mentioned that he cannot understand why people in western Canada are upset with a government that says it has basically taken care of them. “We have put all this money into this program and that program. Why do you not support us?”

People of western Canada and other regions of the country do not support the government because it does not listen. Government members think they have the answers.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if we could reduce that time period to the five minutes of questions and comments for our hon. colleague who had an opportunity to make a most eloquent speech.

I am asking for unanimous consent that we allow our Liberal colleague five minutes to extend his comments through questions and comments.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to the discrimination of the Liberal government's tax policy as an anomaly. He would prefer if we would use the word anomaly. I bet he would prefer for us to use the word anomaly because it does not sound near as bad as the tax discrimination of the government against families that have one of their members remaining at home to look after the children.

On Monday a caller in Vancouver asked the finance minister this very question. In response the finance minister used the same terminology of an anomaly. The caller said that her family was being penalized by the regressive tax policies of the federal government and the finance minister, and the minister said that she was right.

The finance minister admitted this was a regressive taxation policy that clearly discriminated against families. He would like us to believe that it just kind of happened, that it was an anomaly which has built up over the years. The finance minister has been here for five years and has done nothing to change the law to address this discrimination.

Does my hon. colleague on the other side not agree with the finance minister? If this is an anomaly, as he likes to say, rather than blatant discrimination, why has the finance minister done nothing over five years to address these serious inequities?

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's questions.

In terms of national standards and the pension issue, one of the best ways to solve that problem is to leave more dollars in the pockets of families across Canada. That would allow individuals the opportunity to do what they see fit with those dollars, including investing in pensions in any way they see fit. That would allow choice in that particular area.

He asked about a national day care program. This is something the Liberal government promised in 1993. It was in the red book. I think I heard the member refer to that earlier in debate. This is another promise the Liberal government broke.

What is it that Canadians need? What more proof do they need that when the government says something and does not deliver on it, they should perhaps look at absolutely everything it says to see whether or not it will deliver.

My mother taught me that actions speak louder than words, and my father did as well in various ways, but we will not get into that. I must say that the actions of the government clearly indicate that it is not willing to make a commitment on many programs and it is not willing to end the discrimination against families who choose to have an individual raise the children at home.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member is working hard to raise his young family as well. We are very much in the same situation in that regard. We all have families we need to attend to.

I know as a member of parliament he will understand that committees make decisions about what it is they are going to do. I do not think it is fair to lay the blame on one individual or one particular party. This is something which all committees have to come to an agreement on.

I see the immigration minister who yesterday witnessed the great disharmony in the committee in the fact that the government would not allow members of the official opposition to ask the minister simple questions on whatever topic they wanted. As a result of that, they have shown their inability to work together. It is that frustration which leads to having to take other measures, to even plead with the government to listen to members of the official opposition on other important issues.

I hope we can all work together. I hope the member will join us in working together in a harmonious manner.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join this debate today on such a positive motion being brought forward by members of the official opposition. It is such a pleasure to speak on this topic because it is a topic that is so dear to my heart.

I am the father of four young children, ages eight, six, four and two. My wife is working at home raising those kids as am I when I get a chance to be there. It is hard sometimes with this job. We know there are some major commitments here as members of parliament. There are lots of Canadian families making major commitments to their families. They have made a number of different decisions. Some families have decided to have one of the parents stay home to look after their children. Some families have decided that they need both parents working. There are all sorts of other arrangements with others giving care to children in the home.

What is becoming very evident in this debate today is this government's approach, this government's real attitude toward families and to parents who choose to look after their children at home.

This issue was brought to light by the junior finance minister. We are all well aware of his comments made earlier this week and his apology for those comments, which is an honourable thing to do. I think that is a good thing to do but also we must take a look at what government members are saying and, more important, what they are doing, what the Liberal government is doing.

The government is purposely discriminating against families, against individuals who choose to stay at home and raise their children. It is saying is that there is not real value in that very hard job of raising families, at least not the same value as if those individuals, those parents, were outside the home working.

We have heard numerous statements. We heard the member for Vancouver Kingsway try to enter in on a point of debate not happy about what she said. She said most women can combine career and family life. We know it is very difficult. A lot of times people just take the easy way out.

What is that member saying? What is the government saying to families that choose to have one parent stay home to look after their children? I think it is an amazing admission of what the government's real agenda is. It is unbelievable and it does not stop there.

We heard in question period today and throughout debate as well another member of the government, the member for St. Paul's, talking to members who appeared before the finance committee, saying that your perception as elite white women is not helping colleagues stay at home, individuals, mothers in this case, called elite white women. That is reprehensible.

It shows there are members of the government who are bringing a voice to what the real belief of the government is. It is becoming evident through debate today what the real agenda of the government is as it relates to families. That is discrimination. The government does not have a problem with that.

It does not have a problem about discriminating against families that choose to have one parent stay home to raise children. In fact, if government members put action to their empty words about what they believe they would do something in their budgets about this discrimination that continues. Year after year the government has been in the House and it has not addressed this.

Government members will throw out some straw dog arguments about the child tax deduction and benefit which helps certain individuals but not all individuals. They neglect to mention the clawback factor.

The millionaire finance minister believes that individuals who are making between $30,000 and $60,000 do not deserve the same amount of benefit as other individuals. He must think those individuals are rich and that $50,000 is a lot of money to raise a family.

I can tell the millionaire finance minister that is not a lot of money. There are a lot of families in this country working really hard to try to raise their families.

I never intended to get involved in politics. One of the things that motivated me to get involved was that very fact, the outrageous amount of taxes the government was taking out of my family's pocket to subsidize its spending habits that seem to know no end at all.

My wife is a professional. She is an early childhood educator. She was a supervisor of a day care. I was a teacher. We made the decision to have her stay home and raise the children. She has also worked outside the home. She has worked sometimes during the summer and I have stayed home to look after the children.

The minister of multiculturalism made some fairly outrageous statements earlier about members here, about why we do not just look after our own children. I will tell that minister that is exactly what our family is doing. That is exactly what we are working on and that is what families are working on across the country.

The agenda of the government is very clear, discrimination against families that choose to have an individual stay at home to look after the children. What we are asking for is a choice and equality for all individuals, for all families, for the different arrangements people choose to make regarding looking after children.

Sometimes people choose to stay home to raise children. Sometimes they need to work outside the home. Why is the government so against choice? I cannot believe it. It is just unbelievable.

Members of the government seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths. Some of the members say yes, we are discriminating.

I want to read a question that was asked to the finance minister by an individual in British Columbia earlier this week. This mother had chosen to stay home to raise her children. She was phoning a talk show and these are her exact words to the Minister of Finance on March 1: “We were hoping to see in this budget some form of help for families with stay at home moms. We are under an incredible amount of stress because we have decided for me to stay home to raise the children. My husband is the single income earner. We are bringing home less. We are actually being penalized. The mothers or the care givers going to work and getting better tax breaks than those of us who are deciding to stay home and deciding to send one of us out to work. What is the finance minister going to do about that? Why has he not done something this year?”

The finance minister did not give the normal rhetoric and spin he gives in the House of Commons, which was refreshing. He said: “The fact is that you are right”.

What was the caller right about? The caller was saying that we are being penalized because we choose to send one of our members of the family out to work outside the home. The finance minister admitted that.

He went on to say: “There are anomalies that have been allowed to build up in the Income Tax Act over the years”. He has been the finance minister for five years and he has allowed those inequities to go on and on.

There is discrimination against families, discrimination against Canadians who choose to have one of the members of their family stay home and look after their children.

This motion is a positive motion that seeks to end the ongoing discrimination of the government.

We hope we have unanimity on the opposition benches and that this positive motion will go forward. We hope that government members will have an opportunity in a free vote to turn this around and put an end to this Liberal government discrimination against families.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very brief point of order. I think the words “perpetrating a fraud” crossed the boundary of parliamentary language.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am listening very carefully to the comments of the member for Mississauga West and I am trying to see how marijuana has any relevance to the topic before the House. The member is not addressing the—

[Citizenship Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am trying to hear the comments of the hon. member. I am having difficulty understanding how his comments relate to Bill C-63. Could he address those comments?

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has spent a great deal of time in politics. He is very wise in the area of looking at a system and seeing the problems and then looking for solutions that would make the system better. I too had the opportunity to go to Vancouver and witness the kinds of things he mentioned.

I know the parliamentary secretary and the government do not really want to hear today about the problems with the system. That has been shown in their attitudes here today. I would not mind hearing from my colleague what it is that he believes the minister should be focusing on rather than this particular piece of legislation.