Bonnie Brown

[Income Tax Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak in support of the private member's motion put forward by my colleague from Nepean. Her initiative provides an opportunity for this new Parliament to address not just one issue but three recent phenomena which Canadians are not happy about.

The motion specifically addresses the taxation of child support payments, but more broadly asks us to examine the distribution of wealth in the country, the growth of child poverty and the cohesion between the values of Canadians and the policies of government.

First let us look at the distribution of wealth. If you put all the families in Canada together and then divide them into five equally sized groups, you see some interesting numbers. The 20 per cent at the top level of income receives 40 per cent of the income paid out. The lowest 20 per cent receives only a meagre 6 per cent of the income.

If we go further and combine the two lowest groups of 20 per cent and form a new group that represents 40 per cent of all Canadian families, we will find that this substantially sized group receives and lives on only 18 per cent of the total income. Compare this idea of the bottom 40 per cent living on 20 per cent of the income with the top 20 per cent living and spending 40 per cent of the income.

The remaining two groups in the middle receive 18 per cent and 24 per cent respectively, hovering close to the 20 per cent figure that the group represents.

I ask the House whether as representatives of Canadians we are satisfied with this situation? I know it is a large question but I think it is appropriate to ask it in the early stages of a new Parliament because today's debate is the first opportunity to begin to consider it and keep it in mind as we discuss tax reform and the 1995 and subsequent budgets.

Personally I am not satisfied with the fact that 20 per cent of our families struggle to exist on 6 per cent of income because I know that in those families live children who are not getting their fair share of the wealth of their country.

Second, let us look at this phenomenon of poverty of children in Canada. Statistics Canada reports that 1.2 million children under the age of 18 live in poverty. The effect of poverty on their health is particularly significant, given that poverty at the earliest stages of life has a lasting impact on health status that extends into adulthood.

This is further illustrated by the fact that the infant mortality rate of children in poor neighbourhoods is almost twice as high as that in rich neighbourhoods. In 1992, 900,000 children needed to use a food bank and about one in eight families were living in substandard housing.

I am not satisfied with these statistics either. They remind me of a situation in an emerging nation where a few live like kings and the many struggle to exist. They even bring to mind the word oligarchy where a powerful few are in control and are accepting of and tolerant of the sight of hungry children.

Canadians reject the idea that such a system is acceptable. Canadians question the appropriateness of obscene salaries for certain chief executive officers. In Maclean's magazine this week Allan Fotheringham in his column writes about a Canadian CEO who was paid $6.9 million last year and asks the question: ``Is anyone worth $6.9 million for one year's chores''?

Many Canadians are suffering, food banks are blooming but somehow there is enough spare change in the system to pay one person $6.9 million. This is offensive to Canadians who value fairness and dignity for all. It is offensive to a people committed to peace, order and good government.

This is the context in which we address the question of the taxation of child support payments. Today on breakup of a marriage one parent usually gets custody of the children and the other parent is ordered to make regular payments. The money received by the custodial parent is considered to be income and is taxed as such. The non-custodial parent is allowed to deduct the amount transferred over the course of a year from taxable income on the annual tax form.

I believe that from the outset this is unfair compared to the situation of intact or two-parent families who file income tax returns. In a two-parent family both parents spend money on their children's welfare all year but neither of them is able to add it all up and then subtract it from taxable income.

Today we are actually rewarding the non-custodial parent by providing a tax break not enjoyed either by single custodial parents nor by the two parents who stay together.

Why did we ever do this in the first place? It was thought that if income tax was paid by the custodial parent, usually the mother who was in a lower tax bracket, that less money would go to the government and there would be more for the children. This idea was obviously developed by people who had never been divorced and who thought that the concept of the original family including mutual support and nurturence continued beyond the date of the divorce.

It ignored several realities, the reality that divorce is adversarial and usually leaves in its wake revenge and bitterness, the reality that divorce requires the maintenance of two households with accompanying costs, and ignored the reality that the non-custodial parent embarks on a new lifestyle with new demands and unanticipated costs. It ignored the reality that the family which remains loses one adult worker to share housework, home maintenance and child care. It ignored the reality that the custodial parent inherits the work, the worry, the emotional and intellectual strain of maintaining a home and being on duty 24 hours a day for the children.

Our tax system rewards the parent who leaves and penalizes the parent who stays.

Some would say that amounts to be paid are the business of the courts and that judges and lawyers today are calculating all these facts when they gross up support payments. But some of these decisions are 10 to 15 years old and not only are the amounts paid totally inadequate but no gross up ever occurred in the original calculations.

Some would say then it is time to go back to court for a change of circumstance review. I would say those who give such advice have never been divorced either, or at least have never lived the life of a single parent. Single parents are usually poorer than their peers who are still married. They are often exhausted because of the burden they carry.

Picture a single mother of three teenagers who has been divorced for 10 years. Chances are she has already been back to court several times attempting to secure arrears owed to her, or perhaps she has registered with the provincial system designed to chase the non-custodial parent for arrears owing. Neither system has served her or her children well.

The result of these systems that do not work on the members of a single parent family is a feeling that they are less valuable to society, that they are marginalized in their struggle to survive. The temptation is to give up.

When poor single parents read in the paper that 61 per cent of single parent families live in poverty at an average of $9,000 per year below the poverty line it confirms to them the reality that they are living every day. It is not encouraging to them.

I and the other members of this new Parliament have inherited a country where over the last nine years the free market and government inaction were supposed to enhance the economic wellbeing of all but Canadians have come together to agree that that system did not deliver the results they were looking for.

They are expecting us to shake off the political paralysis and to shed the philosophy of inaction. They are asking us to unleash the political will for changes that will restore a sense of fairness to all Canadians.

Amending the Income Tax Act so that child support payments are no longer considered taxable income for the recipients is admittedly just one piece of a much larger puzzle but this motion before us tonight is the first chance we have had to demonstrate that we too are appalled by the statistics on the poverty endured by children in single parent families and that we are committed to restoring hope to those children.

Our support of this motion sends a message that we are not timid. We are not afraid to challenge the status quo. Rather it says that we who formed this government reflect the deep held values of Canadians and that we do have the political will to make the changes necessary to reinstate fairness as the hallmark of Canadian society.

[The Economy, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last week I listened to an hon. member of the opposition speak with sadness about the unfavourable conditions in his riding. There was a lack of hope in his voice. Let me assure the House that all the news is not bad and the economic recovery is beginning.

In Oakville-Milton more than 1,500 jobs have arrived since election day. Ford has increased its workforce by 1,100 and Lear Seating has hired 455 persons. Polywheels has expanded into a larger facility, thus expressing confidence in its future. Derlan Aerospace has secured the contract to retrofit the Lynx helicopters made in Britain, thus ensuring the employment of 300 workers in Milton.

This good news is being highlighted by the media and is reinforcing the climate of confidence which underpins new investment and economic growth.

My hope is that we will all begin to feel this confidence, rekindle our optimism and together rebuild the national economy.

[Winter Olympics, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the eve of the Winter Olympics to pay tribute to our Canadian athletes who will represent us there.

Over the next two weeks these men and women will bring great pleasure to our citizens who will watch them on television and experience the thrills and disappointments of the competition.

I want to praise our athletes for their beauty and grace, their self-discipline and determination, and wish them a personal best in their performances.

However, the entire team did not go to Lillehammer. The real team reaches back in time to the volunteer coaches, referees and judges who launched these young athletes years ago and taught them to love sport and to compete fairly. It includes their parents and those athletes who over the years provided the competition against which they tested their skills and grew in competence.

On this occasion, on this eve, it is the entire team I wish to acknowledge and thank.

[Social Security, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage members of the House to play a major role in the reform of Canada's social security system.

The speech from the throne set out the government's ambitious two-year schedule to complete the modernization of our national social security system and to make it more responsive to the economic and social realities of the 1990s and beyond.

Our system was first put in place decades ago. It has served us well but times have changed. Canadians will not accept and we must not accept double digit levels of unemployment, signs of a lost generation of youth and rising levels of child poverty. Canadians realize that reforms are necessary. They also want hope for a better future for themselves and their children.

I have already heard many excellent ideas from my constituents and I hope others will come forward. I know the minister has been consulting widely with provincial representatives, social policy organizations, business and labour representatives, academics and Canadians from all walks of life.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House tonight and to have you in the chair. In spite of late hours we have certain colleagues still here with us.

May I say that I believe it is truly appropriate that the first special debate of this Parliament is on peacekeeping. I think it appropriate for several reasons.

First, this Parliament with 200 new members represents Canadians' desire for new direction at the same time that they desire Parliament to get back to basics. Surely the search for peace and justice is the basic role for government. Peace is a challenging goal. Great thinkers of the past have pondered its elusive nature. Is it the inability of individuals to resolve their differences without violence that spills over from the home to the streets to civil war and to international conflicts, or is the large conflicts between nations which leave in their wake a pattern of violence that works its way from the battlefront to the cities and the neighbourhoods and indeed into family homes?

Second, the topic is appropriate because our Fathers of Confederation recognized this issue when they listed peace first, followed by order and good government, as their three main goals for this country.

Third, the appalling situation which goes on in Bosnia-Hercegovina causes anguish for all Canadians who watch the human suffering on their television screens each night.

Therefore I wish to thank the Prime Minister for announcing reviews of foreign policy and defence and the Minister of National Defence for giving us the opportunity to put forward our opinions.

I have no personal connection with the military and no personal connection with the area under debate but I do know that currently Canadians are interested in the expenditures of their government and are even questioning the long term value of military expenditures. They no longer believe the Russians are coming and if they consider the concept of being defended they wish to be defended against threats to their security in terms of job loss, poverty, hunger, illness and the escalation of violence in their society.

They understand that the military and its acquisition of ever more sophisticated equipment eats up precious resources that could be used for building the country. For example it has been said that health care workers and community volunteers working to raise money for local hospitals wonder why they are having bake sales while governments contemplate huge military expenditures.

At the same time, Canadians recognize that the military represents jobs to some workers, careers to some scientists, profits to some business persons and local support to some politicians.

In spite of the current question about the cost of our defence establishment, I do believe that most Canadians are truly proud of the peacekeeping function and the reputation we have for responding to trouble spots around the world. Very few realize that the cost of peacekeeping amounts to only about 2 per cent of that military budget they are concerned about.

Canadians know that the end of the cold war and the emergence of tribalism have changed the nature of conflicts that have erupted since.

The realities that UN peacekeepers face today are different. Does that mean we should abandon our traditional honourable role? I think not. Rather I see a need to redefine and work through the most effective way to aid the innocent victims of violence.

We do not have to reinvent the wheel. Work has been ongoing by subcommittees of the House in the last Parliament and indeed by the Canadian Senate which published a report last year called: "Canada's response to a new generation of peacekeeping". I believe this work can serve as a common sense guide to future decisions.

It is tempting to say: "It is hopeless. Let's pull out" or, on the other hand, to respond to the violence we see and say: "Let's get tough. Let's increase our intervention through more troops and perhaps air strikes". These are tempting suggestions.

If we are truly peacekeepers we will recognize that violence begets more violence. If we are truly a peacekeeping nation we will follow the moderate course set out by the Senate with its step-by-step recommendations that indeed respond to most of the concerns raised in the Chamber today.

Let us not back away from our tradition of moderation. It has served us well. Let us not be forced to an extreme position by a deadline. That happened much too often in the last Parliament in my view. Let us be the leaders in this field of international decision making.

All members of the United Nations are fumbling in their attempts to respond to these ethnic wars. We can best serve our brothers and sisters in this global village by having a well thought out foreign policy which then guides our military activity.

We are a new Parliament. Let us take the time required to develop a cohesive plan. Let us not abandon the vulnerable in Bosnia and let us not abandon our tradition of moderation in international relations.