Eric C. Lowther

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have one correction to make. I did not vote no. It was the member across the way. I am always supportive of free votes in this House. I recognized the question, so I wanted to clarify that.

As far as the parliamentary committee is concerned, these things cost a lot of money. I know, as do many hon. members, that there are some straightforward things we can do to correct current policy, things that do not cost anything, that can save taxpayers and that can impact immediately the family and the children in a positive way without incurring more taxpayers' money on more committees and that type of thing.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member across the way. I agree that the focus on child poverty is misplaced. We are better to focus on the situation of the Canadian family overall if we really want to improve the lot of children. They are not disembodied entities. They are part of families.

Certainly the Reform Party shares the concern about the stresses of the economy on families. It is part of the reason that we see one of our critical mandates as being one of job creation. The head of the family, whoever it may be, must be able to find a job. We do not see increased government spending as the road to job creation, but lowering taxes and decreasing the bureaucracy on many of those small business people and others who provide jobs for people. That is the road to a healthier economy which in turn will benefit the children within these families.

I want to make one other point that we sometimes gloss over on this debate about the tax credit and recognition that is given to institutionalized care, but not to those who choose to care for their families at home. More critical than the financial impact on these families is the subtle message that this sends to them if they choose to stay at home and care for their children. There are some sacrifices involved in that. I realize not everybody wants to do it. However, if they choose to do it the message they are getting from the policies we have today is that there is absolutely no value in it. The government will not recognize it.

When we send these subtle messages they serve to undermine the strength of the families and they serve, in part, to cause some of the family breakdown we have had. That is why I think it is so critical that we not only worry about the financial impacts, but the message we are sending as far as the value of the parent-child bond.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your efforts and the challenges you have in the House. I gain appreciation for your position more and more all the time.

To carry on with my speech regarding the Bloc motion, I make reference to a publicity stunt we saw in the House some days back by a Bloc MP who carried his chair out of the House to protest government ineffectiveness in addressing child poverty and the gap between rich and poor. It is interesting that the Bloc comes back with this motion which proposes greater government intervention to address these problems.

However, let us continue to use this illustration or analogy with the chair. We do not need more politicians establishing programs which tell families what kind of, for example, chair they should have, which is what the Bloc seems to be proposing. Rather, this decision should be left to parents. Give them back some of the resources they had so that they may decide what kind and what size of chair they need.

The chair that a child needs is best provided for and decided on by parents. Parents and not government know what kind and size of chair their children need as they grow up. Going from that first chair with the hole in the middle, through the high chair, the stool up to a student's desk, parents are in the best position to make these decisions because they are closest to the children.

Parents know when to make the changes, big governments do not. Big government programs which promote a one size fits all approach serve to diminish the value of the individual and cost more than the benefit they deliver. The responsiveness of government is so slow and delivers a one size fits all solution that it never brings out the best of the individual.

One of the many Reform proposals to assist the family refers to changes to the negative tax treatment of families. We would extend the child care deduction to all parents, including those who care for their children at home, and put this decision in the hands of those closest to their children. Let the parents decide how to raise their children. It seems to make sense. We would increase the spousal amount to level the playing field for parents who choose to stay at home to look after their children and help their families meet the needs of this demanding time we all live in.

Why is this a good idea? Research indicates this is good for children. Polls indicate this is something parents intrinsically know and want. I refer to some polls.

In 1997 a research project done by the National Foundation of Family Research and Education, NFFRE, performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of current research on child development. According to NFFRE the core findings from this meta-analysis are that regular non-parental care for more than 20 hours per week has an unmistakably negative effect on social and emotional development, behaviour adjustment and the emotional bonding of young children to their parents. In addition, the report stated parental care consistently and significantly outperformed regular non-parental care for children prior to five years of age.

This high integrity research makes it clear that the best interests of infants and preschool children are served when they are in full time parent care. For many of us this is a “no brainer”, yet current government policies give tax incentives to institutionalized care but none to parental care. It seems upside down to me. It sends a message to parents that the work they are doing has no value. That is very destructive.

Clearly, parent and family time is important and governments need to respect this if we are to preserve the health and happiness of our homes.

To continue with more poll information and studies that have been done, parents want to make families a priority. I am referring to a national poll conducted by a research firm known as Compass Inc. Fully 94% in this national poll of Canadians identified that lack of time spent with offspring has, at least, a somewhat serious stress on family life.

In 1991 a cross-Canada poll conducted by Decima Research was the most comprehensive poll ever taken of Canadian women. Women were asked: “If you had the choice, would you stay at home to raise your children or work outside your home and use day care?” Not surprisingly, 70% said they would rather stay at home.

In 1997, NFFRE submitted to the Government of Ontario a study it was contracted to do regarding child care. By more than a 10 to 1 margin, 92% of Ontarians said it is preferable for a young child to be at home with a parent than to be in institutionalized day care. They do not see taxpayer funded government programs as being the answer for child care or the child poverty question.

Of parents who had put their children in non-parental care, 77% in this same study indicated they would have preferred to have provided parental care in retrospect.

Let me be clear. No one is proposing that parents have to stay at home to raise their children. That is not what I am saying. But surely the government should not penalize them when they do and that is the reality we are living with today. This is doubly tragic when the polls underline the fact that parents want to stay at home and the research indicates that it is a good idea for the health of the child. Why does our government policy so stringently work against something the people want, which makes so much sense?

Reform wants parents to be allowed to make the choice which best meets the needs of their family without tax unfairness. Unfortunately the government does not seem to get it. In the last budget, for example, it increased the inequity stay-home parents suffer by raising the child care expense deduction by 35%, refusing to recognize any value for stay-home parents. It is tragic. It is actually destructive. It works against families and some children.

I would like to point out that the Bloc motion deals with child poverty in terms of material wealth. As I have indicated, what many Reformers are concerned about is another form of poverty which many children are suffering, the poverty of lack of time with their parents, the lack of a consistent caregiver. I could quote studies of the damage that does and the psychosis that develops in children when caregivers are constantly changed.

Government has done much to add to this kind of poverty by the mega-government, tax and spend, government will fix everything philosophy that this motion subscribes to. We need to focus on the well-being of the family and the whole child within the family; not just the material child, but the child who needs to spend time with their parents; not just the child alone, but the child and the family.

Strong families pass on our culture, language, heritage and values. Strong families train future citizens. In this context let us get it right and always remember that governments make poor parents, but strong Canadian families create good governments.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the motion today. I was somewhat amused when I looked at the television broadcast of this debate and saw the line underneath the picture indicating “elimination of poverty”. I thought some might say we have reached a point of arrogance to assume we in the House will eliminate all poverty.

I have some comments regarding the motion which I would like to share. The particular motion proposes to eliminate the gap between the rich and the poor and to eliminate child poverty through government intervention.

For some individuals these are noble sounding goals, but Reform would take issue with how the Bloc and others in the House propose to achieve these goals. Often the method and the determination of the outcome are more critical than just lofty sounding goals.

Some feel the answer to these problems is more megagovernment programs, more government make work projects, more protectionism, more bureaucracy, more taxes, more debt and a more unfocused federal government, more of the old vision of how a government should work.

It is because this has not worked that Reform takes a different view of how these issues should be addressed. Reform would point out that we have been through the age of megagovernment programs and it has not worked. It certainly has not eliminated the problems. The Bloc obstensibly says that this is an attempt to address the issue. Instead of eliminating poverty or the gap between the rich and the poor, what has been the result of megagovernment that the Bloc seems to wish to promote today?

A short list would include a $600 billion debt, the highest taxes in the industrialized world, one-third of every tax dollar going to interest on the national debt, job insecurity for many Canadians, almost one in five of our trained young people not finding work, and a brain drain of our brightest to better opportunities in other countries.

We could do better but more of the same and bigger government are not the answer. This megagovernment vision which the Bloc and others in the House seem to support has resulted in low and single income individuals and families paying higher levels of taxation with the hope of getting some back through some government program.

Even after the latest budget an individual starts paying taxes at approximately $7,000. Surely such individuals cannot be classified as rich, but the government still forces them to hand over their income to their megagovernment so that perhaps their megagovernment can think of some sort of bureaucracy growing program for them.

An individual earning $29,000 will pay about 20% of his income to the federal government in personal income tax, employment insurance and CPP premiums. This total does not include the Liberals' beloved GST or any provincial taxes.

A megagovernment comes up with megaproposals and megaprograms which are not easily tailorable to the needs of individuals. Given the diversity of the needs of the regions in Canada, the big brother approach does not meet people where they are at.

An example might be the child tax benefit. One can agree there is value in recognizing the increased costs of raising a child, but we can take issue with how it is recognized by the government. It is important to recognize the responsibility of raising children. In the words of supreme court Justice La Forest:

Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of longstanding philosophical and religious traditions. But ultimately its raison d'etre transcends all these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that couples have the unique ability to procreate, that children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship.

The family is an important relationship. The child tax benefit essentially takes money from families with children through taxes today. Then one year later they are sent a cheque. This is a year after they filed and paid their taxes. Would it not be easier to simplify the process and simply reduce their tax bill at source in the first place and eliminate much of the bureaucracy involved in processing the program? Let the family have the money in the month it is earned and not a year later.

There is a family in my riding, the Lucas family, that shared with me a story of how there was an error in the child tax benefit the family received. Revenue Canada sent a cheque for $1,000 and said “We underpaid you on the child tax benefit”. This is a poor family that is just starting out with one young child and another one on the way. This was a windfall, $1,000 out of the blue. The family enjoyed the $1,000 by spending it on some immediate needs.

Three months later the family got a letter from Revenue Canada saying it was an overpayment on the child tax benefit and now the $1,000 had to be paid back. The stress it put on that family I cannot begin to fully articulate today. However after many calls and many appeals to the taxman the family was allowed to pay so much off a month. It put tremendous stress on the family. In researching the whole situation it was not the only family that had been ground up in this bureaucratic nightmare. In fact there were many families across Canada. It is the height of administrative bureaucracy when it loses touch with the impacts it is having on everyday people.

This kind of complexity adds to the burden of taxation and administration that families have to carry. Not only have taxes become the greatest expense in the family budget, but it has become a family expense just to file an income tax return because it is so complex. There are 600 pages in the act and 700 pages of special interpretations. The Income Tax Act and the special interpretations that go with it are thicker than most phone books and it started out as a 36 page document to fund the war effort. Bureaucracy has gone crazy and it is impacting on families. The bottom line is that more government intervention in recent years has worked against the family and their children.

What is Reform's vision? Reform has pointed out that the old vision of megagovernment just is not working. This is the vision which has us working half the year just to pay the tax bill. The old vision of the current government promised job creation and social justice. That is what it promised but it delivers chronic unemployment, chronic poverty and youth crime. It is a vision which promises national unity through national programs and national standards but delivers friction, disunity, non-accountability, duplication and waste.

Current government vision trivializes the individual, family and community contributions by implying that only through government programs, government spending and government propaganda can the country be held together.

Reform's vision is that of a country defined and built by its citizens rather than by its government. It is a vision of smaller government and lower taxes. It is a vision that reaches out to the initiative, drive and diversity of Canadians and calls upon individuals, families and communities to lead the way to growth, progress and unity. It allows families and communities to enjoy the fruits of their labours.

The best way to address child poverty is to address the needs of the family. This may be attained through jobs for parents or youth. This can be achieved through lower taxes and less bureaucracy. Children are members of families in the care of their parents. They are not disconnected free agents.

Reform believes that we can best help families by simplifying and reducing the burden of government on them and by showing that they make an important contribution to the health of our country. More than that, Reform would point out that we need to better respect the autonomy of families and not undermine these relationships by driving a wedge between parents and their children or between husbands and wives with greater government intervention in family relationships. That is not the answer.

These are not just my comments. These positions are written into the policies, statements and documents of the Reform Party. We affirm in our statements the duty of parents to raise their children responsibly, according to their own conscience and beliefs. We further affirm that no person, government or agency has any right to interfere in the exercise of that duty as long as the actions of parents do not constitute abuse or neglect.

Rather than saying we need bigger government and the higher taxes that go along with it, Reform is saying that we need smaller government. The money earned by families is best left in their pockets, the pockets of those who know how best to spend it to address their needs and those of their children. Children can be best served by those closest to them, that is parents and not governments. Parents know best how to address the needs of their families.

I refer to the publicity stunt we saw performed by the Bloc Quebecois member who carried his chair out of the House in protest. It is interesting that he did this to demonstrate the government's ineffectiveness in addressing child poverty and the gap between the rich and the poor—

[Court Challenges Program, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge your indication of the time and I want to make sure my colleague has the opportunity to sum up at the end of the debate.

I want to follow on the comments of the hon. member who just spoke. I found it interesting that he on the one hand calls for accountability through the democratic process and for policy to be shaped by the democratic process, yet intertwined in his talk is support for the Court Challenges Program. I found a real inconsistency when we look at what is actually going on here.

My experience prior to coming to this great House was that I worked in a business environment and had some exposure to certain business practices. One of the things that is brought to mind is the generally accepted accounting principles and practices that are norms and structures for the business environment.

Why are those principles put in place? They are there to ensure that business processes are structured in such a way that there is not even the appearance of a conflict of interest or the appearance of misuse. They protect the processes against any kind of misuse. The problem with the Court Challenges Program is it does not have that kind of protection for the taxpayer.

One of the new terms we have heard coined in Canada lately is the term of judicial activism. I see that as the will of special interest groups using unelected judges to override the parliamentary or democratic process which if successful imposes the will of the minority on the majority. This is of particular concern to us with this program.

Since the charter of rights, and the hon. member who just spoke made mention of this, many social policy debates have shifted from the political arena and from the democratic process into the courts. My concern and the concern of many of the members of my party is that special interest groups are imposing their particular positions on the will of the majority.

Policy matters should properly be handled not by taxpayer funded special interest groups presenting their cases before unelected judges but by common support and elected representatives debating and deciding these issues in parliament and legislatures. This is the foundation of our country, the democratic process, yet we are seeing it overridden by programs like the Court Challenges Program.

I quote an example. The Lawyers Weekly , in a 1992 issue stated that 75% of the Women's Legal and Education Fund, LEAF for short, which is known as a feminist activist group, had interventions before the Supreme Court of Canada which were funded by the Court Challenges Program. Many of their interventions were funded by this program. The group LEAF intervened on a number of cases. Borowski, Daigle, Lemay and Sullivan were all cases dealing with the laws around abortion. In these same cases another group, REAL Women of Canada, had also been granted intervenor status by the Supreme Court of Canada but they were refused funding by the Court Challenges Program.

Regardless of where one sits on these particular cases or on this issue, there is a fairness issue here that is obvious. Even if one is going to endorse this program one would think there would be some component of fairness. But when one side of the argument is funded and not the other and it is done in such a heavily weighted fashion, there are clearly some significant problems with the process.

These are the kinds of examples which illustrate that certain groups with certain ideologies and certain opinions are being endorsed and funded by taxpayers. I liken it to being forced to pay someone to beat you up with a stick. That is what is happening to Canadian taxpayers thanks to this program.

I know my time is short so I will move to my concluding remarks to ensure that my colleague has time to summarize.

Our party's position is that we would like to ensure that the foundation which built this country, the democratic process that gives Canadians an opportunity to shape policy in the public arena but not through the court system is what is entrenched. Those are all detailed in our policy. We stand behind them and that is what members will see in the House as we represent our positions.

[Criminal Records Act, April 3rd, 1998]

moved that Bill C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act (offences against children), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-284 this afternoon. The bill proposes to amend the Criminal Records Act and the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to sexual offences against children. I was pleased that the bill was drawn and made votable. I do not buy lottery tickets but I feel like I have won.

The bill addresses some of the very real concerns of parents. It addresses some of the procedural shortcomings of our current policies regarding an individual's criminal record. Essentially the bill allows for the disclosure of an individual's criminal record if the individual has been convicted of a sexual offence against a child and later applies for a position of trust with respect to children. We would think that this would be the current case but it is not.

Before I delve into the details of the bill, I would like to lay out the big picture that lies at its heart. Our families are the building block of society. Children are our nation's future.

As one of the constitutional principles of my party, we “affirm the value and dignity of the individual person and the importance of strengthening and protecting the family as essential to the well-being of individuals in society”. Our children are a most precious resource as they are our future. If we protect our children we are protecting the future of Canada.

Reformers are concerned about the safety of our children. Reformers are concerned about ensuring that those responsible for children will not abuse their position of trust. Reformers are concerned about how difficult it is for children's organizations to know whom it is that they are hiring and to be sure that they are not putting children at risk.

Especially with respect to sex offences against children, Reformers and hopefully all of us in the House are concerned about protecting those most vulnerable from the potential sexual predator. We justifiably recoil in horror when we hear some of the stories of children being sexually abused. As parliamentarians in the House we have the responsibility to fulfil the fundamental role of government to ensure the protection of our citizens. This is particularly true for children who are the most innocent and vulnerable in society.

Bill C-284 before us today is designed to help address these legitimate concerns. It would enable those responsible for children to make fully informed decisions about whom they hire. It would help ensure public confidence that those responsible for children or looking after children have not abused this position of authority in the past.

Bill C-284 was based on an earlier bill in the 35th parliament tabled by the Reform member from Fraser Valley, which again underlines our commitment to children and families. His bill was in response to a petition from over 25,000 people across Canada which called for specific changes to prevent those convicted of sex offences against children from holding positions of trust over children. This is what Bill C-284 is concerned about. This could effectively be achieved when Bill C-284 is passed.

Let us look at the mechanics of our current legal system in this regard. It is true that when one is convicted of an offence, including a sexual offence against a child, one receives a criminal record and justifiably so. It is true that if a person applies for a position of authority over children in day care, et cetera, the children's agency may do a record check, flag the fact that the person has been convicted of such an offence and take these facts into consideration when considering a job application. This all makes sense and that is how it should be.

Where is the weakness in our current laws? The weakness occurs when an one's sentence is completed and one receives what is termed a “ pardon”. Let me be clear that “a pardon does not erase the fact that you are convicted of the offence”. This is a direct quote from the pardon application booklet of the National Parole Board. The individual has still committed the offence.

Rather, a pardon allows people convicted of a criminal offence to have their criminal record sealed and effectively erased from the public record. This means once a pardon is awarded for an offence for which one is convicted, any federal agency or department that has records of convictions must keep those records separate and away from the public. Therefore, once a pardon is granted the fact that a person was convicted of a criminal offence will not be disclosed or made accessible to anyone without prior approval of the Solicitor General of Canada which, for practical purposes, is an impossible process.

Essentially once a person receives a pardon for a previous conviction there is no record accessible to the public that there ever was such a conviction or that the pardon was ever even granted.

I do not want to spend too much time debating the merits of pardons, although I will note that according to the National Parole Board for the last number of years 96% of the total decisions it makes are in favour of granting pardons. Very few are denied. More specifically, in 1996-97 there were 18,294 decisions made and 104 decisions were denial, 1% of the total.

With that background let us go back now to Bill C-284. In the preamble of the bill it recognizes that there are certain circumstances in which it may be appropriate to grant a pardon to a person who has been of good behaviour following a conviction for a criminal offence and a period following the completion of the sentence.

Bill C-284 also recognizes that if a person has been granted a pardon for an offence the record of that offence should be kept separate from other records and access thereto should be given only in cases where public interest overrides the privacy of the record.

Bill C-284 would submit that public interest clearly overrides the privacy of the record in connection with the interests of caring for children, particularly when those responsible for children are reviewing applications for employment in positions of trust regarding children.

However, as I earlier indicated, once a pardon has been granted for any offence, including sexual offences against children, the current official policy is don't ask, don't tell. Employers guided by the Criminal Records Act are not to ask someone to disclose a conviction for which a pardon has been granted or issued.

To rectify the situation Bill C-284 proposes to allow the limited disclosure of an individual's criminal record when an individual applies for a position of trust with respect to children, even where a pardon has been granted.

I hear one member saying that makes good sense. I hope we can all concur and speedily pass it through the House.

Children's organizations would then be able to identify those who are more of a risk of abusing a position of trust with such a disclosure, the end result being better protection of Canadian children.

I think we will all agree that the protection of our children is paramount. Those who have suffered from sexual abuse characterize it as a life sentence. We in Parliament have a responsibility to ensure that when one's child is being placed in the hands of another individual those hands are not likely to be abusive. These are the concerns of Bill C-284.

The bill would enable those responsible for children to make fully informed decisions about who they hire. Bill C-284 would give parents with children in third party care the assurance that those responsible for looking after their children have not abused this position in the past. This is important because all the evidence indicates that individuals who have sexually abused others in the past are at greater risk to repeat this abusive behaviour. I will speak further to this a little later, but first I will summarize the particulars of the bill.

First, it is specific in its intent in order to better protect children from those who have been abusive in the past.

Second, Bill C-284 proposes to allow for the limited disclosure of an individual's criminal record if the individual has been convicted of a sexual offence against a child and later applies for a position of trust with respect to children. Such a disclosure will include an individual's criminal record for a previous sexual offence against a child or children, even if one had served one's sentence and had later received permission to have the notice of a conviction removed from the individual's criminal record.

Bill C-284 does not propose that sex offences against children can never be pardoned, although that might be another reasonable thought. The bill does not propose that if one makes a mistake such as this it should be forever on one's criminal record. Again, that might have merit but that is not what this bill is all about.

Rather, Bill C-284 proposes that if one does sexually abuse children that person could effectively be prevented from holding a position of care or authority over children ever again. Those responsible for children will be able to see that a job applicant has abused such a position in the past and thus be more judicious and wise in their hiring practices.

Why is Bill C-284 necessary? Essentially it sends a message that protecting our children is paramount. Bill C-284 provisions are common sense and because studies have shown that those who abused children sexually once are more likely to do it again. This is not harsh on my part. Those are the facts.

Correctional Service Canada studies have shown that about one third of all sex offenders are convicted of a new criminal offence after release. I am referring to a study done in 1996 by Correctional Service Canada, “Forum on Corrections Research”. To reference this same source, according to the offenders intake assessment process most of the 808 recent federal admissions with a sexual offence history had recommitted a sexual offence.

There are other studies I can quote but for sake of time I am going to move on to one other study which indicated that sexual offenders who had committed sex offences in the past had a subsequent sexual recidivism rate of about 30%. Again, not to use my words, but to quote this study's authors, the strongest predictor of repeating sexual assault crimes was not surprisingly a previous sexual offence.

Bill C-284 would address these troubling statistics by giving responsible agencies the means to deny sex offenders the ability to place themselves in high risk situations ever again. It would be good for both the offender and of course for the children.

What about the right to privacy, some may ask. In a May 1996 discussion paper the privacy commissioner explained the Privacy Act does not prevent the release of personal information if it is in the public interest to release such information. In fact, the act specifically permits the release of personal information in public interest.

The April 1996 RCMP protocol manual defines public interest as “evaluated on the basis of whether it is specific, current and probable, where there is a possible invasion of privacy balanced against a public interest, consideration may be given to who would be receiving the information and whether any controls can be placed on further use or release”. That is from the RCMP disclosure of personal information in the public interest document.

I submit the disclosure provisions in Bill C-284 fall well within the accepted protocol for the release of personal information, of which one's criminal record is a part.

It is in the public interest for children not to be exposed to those who have abused them in the past and are more likely to do so again in the future, as the statistics I have quoted so clearly show.

It is in the public interest for parents to have confidence in those who are caring for their children, to evaluate public interest on the basis of whether it is specific, current and probable.

Bill C-284 is specific in that the disclosure takes place only when those responsible for children request the information upon reviewing an individual's job application for a position of trust with respect to children. Therefore it is specific. Bill C-284 is current in that disclosure takes place only if an individual applies for a position of trust over children. If no appropriate application is made, then no disclosure is given.

Bill C-284 is probable in that it allows for disclosure only during the time an individual applies for a job with children and information disclosure is very relevant to the situation.

Overall the bill is important for the protection of our children.

Those who have suffered from sexual abuse characterize it as a life sentence. I am quoting Abby Drover who as a 12 year old was held captive in an underground bunker in 1977.

How can we say no to parents and child care agencies crying out for this simple straightforward tool to protect innocent children? How can we say no to the protection of our children as we look into their eyes, place them in someone else's hands, close the door and drive away? We cannot.

Children and their parents thank members for their anticipated support and speedy passage of this bill.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the debate at second reading of the budget implementation act. I will take a little different tact from what my peers have done. They addressed a number of aspects of the budget and I concur with their comments. However, I want to take a little different direction.

Let me first point out that I believe this has to be a good process. Surely this is where the parliamentary process should be at its best. There can be a tendency, though, so I am told, due to the pressures and demands on our time, to lose sight of the fact that the decisions made here affect everyday people. Incrementally the lives of every Canadian are affected by every decision made in the House. This is particularly true of budget decisions, something of which many Canadians have become painfully aware.

Therefore, I think it is useful to remind ourselves of whom it is we are here to serve. It is the people of Canada and their positions on the issues of the day. Are we reflecting their position? How will individuals in our ridings be affected by the decisions we make?

Let us always be primarily mindful of the impacts on everyday Canadians and their families, not the partisan lobby groups that promise to re-elect us, not the self-proclaimed cultural elite that feel compelled to decide for us what Canadians need, and not the political favours being traded. Let us decide on the basis of how it will affect the lives of members of our constituencies who put us here. Let us reflect their concerns and make common sense decisions consistent with their desires and best interests.

It is within this context that I wish to make my comments on behalf of the families I represent. In Canada we pride ourselves on being fair and non-prejudicial. Yet for years we have tolerated an injustice perpetrated on the families of Canada.

The tax policies of this “liberal” government send a signal to parents who wish to be the primary caregivers of their children and raise them at home. That message is that this choice has no value. However, if they pay someone else to care for their children it does have value and is recognized in the tax treatment. The government is telling us, through its tax treatment, that parenting has no value or at least far less value than institutionalized care.

The government's message is negatively prejudicial against parents who wish to be the primary caregivers of their children. Over and above that, studies indicate that institutionalized child care is generally speaking—not always; there are always some exceptions—not in the best interest of children.

Under current tax laws in Canada, parents who choose to pay someone else to care for their children can claim the expense. Those who can or choose to forgo other activities and invest the majority of their time into the care and training of their children are told by our tax department that their efforts have no value. Therefore no tax considerations are given. This is a bad message. It is unfair and detrimental to the stability of our nation, and many families are calling out for changes.

The government has its priorities wrong by stating that parenting has less value than non-parental care, as implied by the tax treatment, and Canadians know this. We clearly recognize that not every one is able, due to circumstances or other personal reasons, to provide full time care for their children; but that is not a reason to treat unfairly those who choose to commit full time effort to caring and training of future generations.

It is for this reason the Reform Party has been calling for unfair prejudicial treatment to end by working to see implemented a child care deduction to all parents, including those who care for their children at home: $5,000 for every child under seven and $3,000 for every child seven to twelve years of age. Parents who can and want to should be encouraged, not discouraged, to provide as much direct parental care as possible.

Why do we take this position? It is what many families are calling for. It is well backed up by sound research that increased parental care is in the interest of the children. So it follows that it would be in the long term best interest of our country. They are our future citizens, our future leaders.

Allow me to refer to some thorough and respected research done on this very topic. The research I have today is from a well known research firm, the National Foundation for Research and Education on the Family. I will quote from a study it did for the Ontario government.

It found by more than a 10 to 1 margin that Ontarians felt it preferable for a young child to be at home with a parent than to be in institutionalized day care. It also found 77% of parents who had their children in non-parental care would have preferred to have provided parental care in retrospect. In addition, parents prefer family to day care. Given the choice between day care and a relative, 73% said that a relative would be preferable to institutionalized day care.

I could go on. I have a number of studies, but for the sake of time I quote from a cross-Canada study done in 1991. The question was: “If you had the choice, would you stay at home to raise your children or would you work outside your home and use day care?” Of course 70% said “Certainly I would prefer to stay home”. It was by far the majority, yet we have tax policies and tax treatment today which say this has no value but institutionalized day care does.

For this reason I brought this matter forward today. For some time now the Reform Party, as part of its policies, called for change in this area and for fair treatment of families. We argue that parents should have access to at least equal tax treatment which is not dependent on how they choose to care for their children. It is a reasonable position. Reform cares about families.

Let me quote from our policy book one of our key principles that has been foundational to the Reform Party and the reason I raise this issue today. Our seventh principle says that the Reform Party recognizes the importance of strengthening and protecting the family unit as essential to the well-being of individuals and society.

We also recognize in our policy book that it is the duty of parents to raise children according to their own conscience and beliefs. We further affirm that no person or government or agency has the right to interfere with the exercise of that duty as long as the actions of parents do not constitute abuse or neglect.

The Reform Party recognizes the important work that parents do. We want to give them every opportunity and encouragement to invest in the lives of future generations. Why? Because it is in the long term best interest of a strong and healthy society in the years to come. Unfortunately the Liberal budget like many before it does not respect this principle or the work that parents do.

[Taxation, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, studies show how important the parent-child bond is for the long term health of Canadian children. A national poll indicated that 94% of Canadians are concerned about the lack of time they have to spend with their offspring.

Many parents would like to stay home and raise their children if they could afford to do it, but this government overtaxes them if they do. Only third party child care expenses can be deducted and the last budget increased this by 35% while ignoring homemakers.

When will this government stop its discriminatory tax policies which undermine many Canadian families?

[Taxation, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, some families are suffering more than others because of the government's high tax policies.

The tax assault on stay at home parents is particularly odious. Currently there is little to no tax recognition given to the value of staying home to care for one's children instead of putting one's kids in day care. Homemakers are becoming increasingly frustrated and are beginning to take action.

Calgary homemaker Beverley Smith has lobbied Canadian officials for two decades for equitable tax treatment but has had little success with unresponsive Liberal and Tory governments. She has now taken her complaint all the way to the United Nations.

On behalf of all Canadian homemakers Beverley will complete her submission to the UN Commission on the Status of Women, pointing out 11 areas under which Canada discriminates against homemakers.

Ms. Smith points out that others can deduct child care expenses but homemakers cannot. She has a strong case. Homemakers call on the government to stop—

[Home Care, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, many in the House recognize that the most critical relationship in a healthy society is the parent-child bond. Sadly the government's budget increased discrimination against parents who choose to care for their children at home.

Parents are crying out. When if ever will the government stop saying to stay at home parents that they will be given a tax break if someone else looks after their children but if they do it there is no value in it?