Sharon Hayes

[Taxation, March 26th, 1996]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the onerous burden of taxation upon the Canadian family, and the pressures that such taxation places upon the family, and that this government take immediate measures to provide the family with tax relief, including balancing the federal budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Motion No. 148 which highlights the issue of the level of taxation that the Canadian family faces and recommends the course the government should pursue to relieve the financial and tax burden on families.

The debate today is particularly relevant in light of the federal budget tabled earlier this month. I introduced this motion to highlight the issue of taxation and the family. Normally the taxation issue is associated with individuals or with corporations. Rarely is this issue ever associated with the family in this place.

It distresses me to say that it has certainly not been a theme of this government to recognize families in its policy development beyond its perfunctory rhetoric.

I recall my beginnings as a politician. In the town of Coquitlam, there was a forum called together of federal candidates before the last election. At that forum were the candidates from all parties and members of our community. It was sponsored by a local communi-

ty newspaper, the Tri-City News , that wanted to find out what the issues were in our area.

Candidates from all parties were there: the NDP incumbent, the Liberal candidate who was the provincial president for the Liberal Party and many others. They were called on to answer to the issues that were important to our community. There was free discussion. It was all on tape. The report of that discussion went into the newspaper the following week.

At that time I did not have much experience in politics. However, I did have experience as a community volunteer, a community member, a teacher and a mother.

The issue of family distress, the monetary and cultural pressures on the families that I saw in my community, brought me to consider that perhaps change might be possible in the political process. That is what brought me to the political arena.

That afternoon in that setting the issue of the family was primary. People talked about high taxes, their hopes for the future, the choice for young mothers to stay at home, the value of parenting and less government intrusion into families. Those were the topics of discussion chosen by the people in my community.

That day I was able to answer their questions with conviction because that is exactly where I come from and that is exactly why I aligned myself with the Reform Party. The Reform Party listens to the individuals, the families and the grassroots of the community. That day again affirmed my decision to take on the risk of political life.

Those families are not skilled at the lobby table. They are not well funded to be able to bend the ears of politicians, to organize or to pressure policy direction. However, the well-being of families is what is in the hearts of Canadians and that well-being will predict the strength of the future of the country.

By introducing this motion, I wish to establish the fact that the Canadian family has been affected by the overspending and resulting over-taxation of previous and present governments and is in desperate need of tax relief. It is a fact that the federal government can provide the Canadian family with tax relief by balancing its revenues and spending.

Even as I stood as a candidate for the Reform Party, it proposed a zero in three plan to balance the budget. Through reasoned spending priorities and choices, if Reform had been elected in 1993, this year's budget would not have been looking at a projected deficit of $25 billion but would have seen us making decisions on how to allocate a budget surplus. The books would have been balanced and debt reduction and/or tax relief would have been a reality.

As my motion indicates, it is through a balanced budget that tax relief for families will be realized.

How is it that we got where we are? The inability of governments to address the real security of Canadians through proper fiscal management has a very long history. Thinking back to 1972, the then Liberal government came into power with a debt load of $16 billion. It was voted out of office in 1984, 12 years later, leaving behind it the travesty of a $160 billion federal debt which has been a millstone to the prosperity of our country and to every citizen.

The Tories could not rein in their spending and again the debt grew, first to $200 billion in 1988 and then to $485 billion in 1993.

Today, still with no firm commitment to deficit elimination by, once again, a Liberal government, the security and future of every man, woman and child stands at the mercy of an incredible $578 billion debt which is projected to increase to $620 billion by 1997.

Meanwhile, political parties of all persuasions throughout the provinces have recognized the need for deficit elimination. Even the separatist government in Quebec now recognizes the need to balance its provincial budget with a stated goal of a balanced budget only four years away.

Not surprisingly, the results of overspending over the last 30 years by successive Liberal and Tory governments have produced a record of continually increasing taxes on the Canadian family. For instance, from 1961 to 1994, taxes on the Canadian family rose some 1,167 per cent. The rate of those tax increases far outstrips the corresponding increases in the cost of food, shelter and clothing over the same period.

In 1994, the average Canadian family earned $46,488. The Fraser Institute's Tax Facts 9 outlined the tax bill that this average Canadian family faced by categorizing the taxes by type. This is what it found.

Income tax, perhaps the most easily identifiable tax, accounted for $8,250. Another continual frustration to families are the sales taxes which take another bite of $3,278. Excise taxes gobble up another $973. Then there is the auto fuel and motor vehicle taxes of $709.

There is a big bite with social security, medical and hospital taxes of $3,817 and property taxes of $1,848. There are import duties of $331, a profits tax of $1,306, natural resource taxes of $354 and all the other types of sundry taxes not included in the above are $361.

If these are added up, the total taxes paid by the average family is $21,228. That works out to 46 per cent of its cash income. It means almost half of the working hours are spent on behalf of various levels of government or others.

It is little wonder that increasing numbers of Canadians are suffering from tax fatigue. For instance, in the Angus Reid survey in 1990, 45 per cent of Canadians expressed their concern of being

financially under stress, while in 1989 that figure was only 38 per cent; still a large number.

According to a 1995 Angus Reid poll, over half of Canadians stated that they were finding it harder to make ends meet than just five years before that.

Tragically, this financial stress is especially common among young families. A two-year project entitled "Prospects for Young Families" found that in the 1970s, families headed by a person under 25 had a median income of 80 per cent of the income of all family groups combined. By 1992, however, young families had a median income of only 54 per cent of the income of all other families.

There is something wrong with this picture when hard working families find that the harder they try, the farther behind they get. If this is a land of opportunity and the envy of countries around the world, why then do we rob our families of hope or achievement as they continually run harder to accomplish less?

The effect of this level of taxation leaves the family with less and less after tax income. According to StatsCan, since 1989, after tax family income has dropped some 6.5 per cent. If we go back a full 10 years, the picture is no better.

The StatsCan study found that the average family's after tax income in 1984 was $43,204. In 1993, the figure was $43,225. That is a long time for the average family after tax income to rise by just $21-10 years.

With declining disposable income, families are left with less money to spend on their children and less money with which to realize their dreams and secure their futures. It has been demonstrated that it takes twice the working hours now to support a family as in the 1970s. The opinion of Canadians again reflects this reality. Fifty-two per cent of Canadians surveyed believe "it is just not possible to support a family on one income any more".

There is a direct correlation between the levels of taxation and the resulting loss of net income in families and the rise of dual income earner families. For instance, in 1967, 58 per cent of Canadian families had one income earner. By 1991, however, only 19 per cent of families were classified as traditional earner families while dual earner families had skyrocketed to 61 per cent.

Negative societal effects resulting from the rise of the dual wage earner family have just begun to be reported. Particularly distressing are the effects on children who with both parents working are placed in institutionalized day care.

A recent study by Dr. Mark Genuis of the National Foundation for Family Research and Education demonstrated that non-parental care of children undermines the bonding between a parent and a child. The study concluded that "insecure bonding to parents in childhood is a direct cause of clinical levels of emotional and behavioural problems in adolescence".

There are negative effects on families themselves. Thirty-five per cent of homes with both parents working outside the home with children under six experience moderate to severe levels of stress. Those attempting to balance those same pressures while coping with toddlers under three similarly report severe stress.

Excessive taxation does hurt families. What has been the response of the government since being elected in 1993? What is the Liberal approach to home economics? Their record is simply a continuation of neglect and disregard for the financial challenges of the Canadian family. It is a record of sly and subtle tax increases in spite of the finance minister's rhetorical pronouncements to the contrary. In short, it is a record that has failed to recognize the tax burden that families face.

Let me list some of the examples of tax increases the government has and will be implementing. The full fiscal impact of the 22 tax increases from all its budgets will be to suck approximately $8.8 billion from the pockets of Canadians and their families.

For instance, recent proposed changes to the RRSP rules of reducing the age of mandatory withdrawal from 71 to 69 will net federal coffers some $100 million by the year 2000. Freezing the RRSP dollar contribution to $13,500 until 2003 will garner the federal government some $215 million more over the next three years.

RRSPs are fundamental to a family's savings and wealth. Families use them not only for retirement purposes but also for purchasing homes and other investments. Instead of changing RRSP rules to further line its pockets, the government should empower families to have greater control over their private savings and finances. Reform's super RRSPs would do just that. It would empower families and give them greater control over their personal finances.

Other examples of Liberal tax increases include excise taxes which will amount to almost $1.7 billion over the next three years. Not to be forgotten of course is the government's failure to abolish the GST which will be another $17.9 billion tax grab in 1996-97 alone.

In spite of the increased revenue gouging by this government, it has no plans to offer Canadian families the tax relief they deserve and desperately need. It still has not committed to deficit elimination. The finance minister has even stated that there will not be any tax relief for some time.

Rather than recognize the contribution and importance of families and the incredible tax load they carry, the government has other priorities. One of those is the federal plan for gender equality. Millions of family tax dollars are being poured into every federal department to fund gender analysis where the goal of all women

must be to pursue economic autonomy and their value is determined by their activity in the paid workforce.

Recent government initiatives in employment equity, pay equity and day care are going to cost Canadians billions of dollars and in the meantime remove value and choice from some of our most fundamental institutions. This is all predicated on a warped and intrusive government priority agenda.

The government's mindset of neglect and disregard for the family is also reflected in other misguided spending priorities. This is illustrated in the comparison of federal spending on major diseases in our society.

In 1994-95 the federal government spent $43.4 million on the national AIDS strategy, yet in the same year it spent only $4 million on breast cancer. Considering that one in nine women will experience breast cancer in her life compared with approximately 2,000 deaths by AIDS each year, Canadian families have a right to demand an explanation of how government determines and prioritizes the allocation of their hard earned tax dollars.

These examples of overtaxation and misguided spending priorities assault the sensibilities of families. In spite of the observations I have made, there are policy alternatives. Less, not more government is one of the solutions. Social policy spending must be targeted to those most in need and public policy should promote choice and empower families.

Income splitting is one practical solution. The Reform Party's taxation task force is examining this concept to better the economic and tax status of families. Presently two incomes of say $30,000 receive much better tax treatment than a single income of $60,000. Tax treatment to allow spouses to declare and split their household income would level the playing field between dual and single wage earner families. Income splitting would level the taxation field by recognizing and valuing the idea of a home team.

The child care expense deduction could also be reformed. Presently this income tax provision allows parents to deduct expenses incurred for child care that is non-parental. The effect of this is that parents who send their children to camps or daycare facilities, or who hire a nanny can deduct that amount from their income tax. However, parents who stay at home with their children are not eligible for this deduction.

This deduction could be converted into a child tax credit that would expand choice and opportunity for families. In the last budget this government instead raised the age eligibility limit for children from 14 to 16. The result is that parental and non-institutional child care options are still not recognized in our tax law, but what is recognized is the subsidization of child care for a 16 year old teenager.

Recognizing this tax inequity and the unfair tax treatment families face, my colleague from Calgary Centre introduced a private member's bill in the first session of this Parliament which would have provided a tax deduction for all parents regardless of their income status or method of child care chosen. What was the response of this government to this innovative proposal? The proposal was dismissed out of hand and relegated to the overcrowded never never land of private members' business.

Earlier this month I joined with the member for Mississauga South to support another private member's bill that would convert the child care expense deduction to a $5,000 tax credit for parents with children under the age of seven and a $3,000 credit for children between the ages of 7 and 13.

This proposal was developed in conjunction with Dr. Mark Genuis of the Calgary based National Foundation for Family Research and Education. This proposal will expand choice and will recognize the importance and value of parenting and family in our income tax law. It is innovative proposals such as this one that can and should be implemented immediately.

Reformers believe that just as a family must balance its books, so too must the federal government. With this approach in mind we developed our zero in three proposal which we presented to the public prior to and during the last election campaign.

In February 1995 we presented our taxpayers budget which was designed to balance the federal budget within three years and implement measures to prevent future deficits and secure the interests of taxpaying families. Reformers believe that balancing the federal budget is the primary means by which tax relief can be offered and realized for families in the long term.

It is no accident that the wording of this motion we are debating today includes specific reference to deficit elimination. To date this government has failed to present any plan to balance the federal budget.

Government priorities in spending must also recognize not only special interests but the best interests of families and thus the best interests of society as a whole. Finally, the bias and discriminatory aspects that impact negatively upon the family could and should be eliminated from the Income Tax Act and its regulations.

In conclusion, it is crucial for the future of the family that government acknowledge and recognize the burden of taxation it has placed on the Canadian family. It must realize that this burden

impacts the viability and the contribution of this fundamental institution. It must realize that a dollar left in the hands of a taxpayer is better than a dollar in the hands of a bureaucrat or politician. It must realize that decisions made by parents are better than decisions enforced through programs designed by bureaucrats in Ottawa and funded by those parents' taxes.

I call on the House to design and implement new priorities; priorities that will expand choices for families rather than constrict them; priorities that will provide social and economic security for families, both for parents and their children; priorities that will provide economic social security for future generations; priorities that will empower families to realize their dreams and allow them to become a vibrant part of the future success of this great land of ours.

[Health Services Research Fund, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to challenge the government on its decision to unconditionally spend $65 million on a health services research fund.

I have heard from Canadians from coast to coast who are incensed to learn of the existing Health Canada research funding priorities or lack thereof. For instance in 1994-95 the federal government spent some $43.4 million on the AIDS strategy, yet in the same year it spent a mere $4 million for breast cancer.

All illness traumatizes individuals and families and all death is tragic. However, a total of 10,700 HIV cases with 7,400 deaths since 1980 does nothing to answer to the feeling of abandonment in 1995 alone of the almost 18,000 families affected by breast cancer or the 5,400 who buried their loved ones on account of this epidemic disease.

Clearly this government has demonstrated no supportable criteria for the allocation of precious health care and research resources. How can we trust it with a new arm's length research sinkhole of precious tax dollars?

[Petitions, March 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of 63 constituents and backed by an overwhelming feedback from many more, on this the day the government presents its budget I would like to present a petition which requests that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline. I trust the government will heed the petitioners' sincere request.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I too look at the streets of my neighbourhood and my city and have visited other communities across Canada. I have talked to many Canadians about this very issue.

It is true that more choice is available to Canadians. More women have the opportunity to work. It is also true that the cost of living, the demands on families and the effect of the dollar that they receive in income which has continually been eroded to where there are statistics that state that it now takes twice the working hours to support a family than it did 25 years ago. When that statement is taken to its logical conclusion, it almost demands two people working to do that.

When we talk about average family income being the same, that means that more women actually have entered the workforce in the last 25 years to make up the difference to maintain that standard of living.

As I mentioned in my speech, 40 per cent of those parents who do work would prefer to be home. Does that tell you something? They are not working necessarily by choice.

Not long ago, I read an article about a backlash that radical feminists are very nervous about. There is actually a trend now, when one talks about trends, for women to choose to stay home. Many women have been in the workforce and have seen that it is not all it is cracked up to be. The pressures and tensions are more than they want to take on.

One study shows for 60 per cent of parents where both are working who have children below three register severe levels of tension just co-ordinating activities and the life that two full time jobs can force on them. That is being recognized by the women and men of this land.

We need to step back and ask what is causing this. It is that an average family puts half of their earned income into taxes. It takes more earned hours to create a lifestyle that is affordable.

We need to address taxation. We need to address the debt. We need to address the deficit first. We need to get the deficit down. We need to help families by giving them some relief, some hope that there will be tax relief so that they can make the choices regarding how they want to raise their families and how they want to afford what we force on them as a lifestyle in Canada.

They need choice courtesy of the government. I challenge the government to give them that choice by giving them tax relief.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's throne.

I put to you a simple question: Are Canadian families in a better position than they were before this government was elected? The record shows that like its predecessors, Liberal government policy continues to attack your family and mine.

Families are overtaxed due to government overspending. A 1995 Fraser Institute study found that taxes on the average Canadian family rose by 1,167 per cent from 1961 to 1994. In 1984 average family after tax income was $43,204, while in 1993, 10 years later, it was $43,225. In other words, after tax family income had risen by $21 in 10 years. For the family, this has meant less disposable income to spend on their children, less to invest in their family's future, and less choice.

Many will claim that this level of taxation is justified by our excellent social programs. Reform believes that social programs must be targeted to those most in need. Why would we make such a statement? Does present government policy really serve Canadian social policy now and in the future?

According to a recent study, Ottawa's fiscal mismanagement and unsustainable social programs mean that the next generation will be paying in taxes double the amount that they will receive in benefits. In spite of this the budget to be tabled on Wednesday will most likely include more tax increases such as perhaps the gasoline tax increase. My constituents in Port Moody-Coquitlam have sent me to say that they vehemently oppose gas tax increases.

Need I remind you that this government proposed to scrap the GST during the last election campaign. The throne speech however simply replaces the GST with a national sales tax. It is another of at least 26 broken or forgotten Liberal promises.

The government's record stands in contrast to Reform's approach to home economics. In our address to the people delivered before the government's throne speech, we outlined the feedback we have received from Canadians. In that address we stated that Canadians will look to government to introduce: a plan to eliminate, not just reduce, the federal deficit by 1997-98, and a proposal for tax relief to stimulate job creation and improve consumer confidence by leaving more dollars in the pockets of Canadians; and a commitment to reform the tax system to make it simpler and fairer.

These initiatives would create the financial flexibility that families need and deserve so that they, not the government, can decide what their priorities should be. Just as families must balance their books, so too must the government. Yet the government's throne speech offers no such vision and no such hope for Canadian families.

Another issue that is of concern to families is the care and raising of their children. It is interesting to note that the rise of the two income family is directly related to their financial decline caused by higher taxation and less disposable income.

The economic necessity of the two income family is at variance with the wishes of many Canadian parents. A 1994 Angus Reid poll found that 40 per cent of Canadian parents who work would rather stay home to raise their children if they could afford to do so.

What is the approach of this government? Last December an ill-prepared human resources development minister announced an insulting child care program. It was a $720 million insult to taxpayers, a $720 million insult to parents who do not believe in an all knowing nanny state, a $720 million program that was an insult to parents who want a choice.

The throne speech completely failed to recognize the critical need to expand the choices and options available to parents in providing care for their children. The negative consequences of institutional day care that the government espouses are starting to come to light. A recent study by Dr. Mark Genuis of the National Foundation for Family Research and Education found that non-parental child care has direct implications for the family and society. The study stated that "insecure bonding to parents in childhood is a direct cause of clinical levels of emotional and behavioural problems in adolescence, including youth crime".

A proactive, family friendly, innovative proposal would be to convert the child care expense deduction into a child care tax credit. Currently the child care expense deduction is available only to those parents who use non-parental child care. Other methods of child care, for instance home care, are not eligible for that deduction.

My colleague put forward Bill C-247 which addressed this problem. That was stifled by this government. This proposal would have expanded the options and choices available for parents by recognizing that there are many superior forms of child care the government can and should promote.

Another issue related to children and family is that of child support payments and their enforcement. Inaction by this government has meant that the needs of custodial and non-custodial parents and their children have been left unattended by this government through the first half of its mandate.

Last April the Reform caucus agreed to a position on this issue. We believe that families should be treated equally within the tax system. We believe that awards for child support must be consistent and fairly taxed. Our principle is that support is not income but the fulfilment of an obligation of a parent to their children. The tax deduction that a non-custodial parent currently has would be eliminated and the additional revenues could be targeted directly toward families and children in need.

Of greater importance, I would expect the government's proposal to address the issue of fair and effective determination of child support orders. One innovative reform is that of the unified family court which would emphasize mediation rather than the present litigation. It would reduce the adversarial nature of resolving issues such as child support payments should family breakdown occur. The unified family court is already implemented in some jurisdictions such as Ontario and Saskatchewan. I have introduced a private member's motion in the House to debate this reform. Child support decisions must be family support decisions.

The throne speech made reference to a growing crisis of confidence in the United Nations. This crisis of confidence seems very well deserved. Last year the UN committee that monitors implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recommended that Canada become a spank free zone by abolishing section 43 of the Criminal Code.

It is that section which provides parents with the legal protection to reasonably discipline their children. That is a prerogative that has been long recognized in our law and by parents. Such a domestic policy should not undermine the family. Neither should

international policy and activity have that effect. The convention on the rights of the child and the more recent Beijing platform for action have real consequences that are identifiable.

Prior to even attending the UN-Beijing conference on women, the government announced its federal plan for gender equality. Do Canadian families know that the government has put gender feminists in power to analyse and prioritize every policy decision in 24 federal departments and agencies? Does this reflect the priorities of Canadians and Canadian families? I think not. I know not.

There must be greater accountability for the effect and impact the UN and the international obligations that the government makes in our name. For instance, the Beijing platform for action will have sweeping ramifications for the future direction of our public policy and yet it was never presented or even talked about in this House. It is with this in mind that I have introduced a motion to debate this accountability issue.

In conclusion, families are not better off than they were before the 1993 election. In my judgment, the throne speech reflects on a government that will continue to place many other priorities ahead of Canadian families. The priority of the government should be the future. The Prime Minister characterized that future as one of tolerance, respect, generosity and sharing.

The birthplace and nurturing of these qualities are not at the spigot of government programs but in the homes across the land. These qualities are not found in a government endorsed call to arms for the rights of women or the rights of children but instead are found in the strength and unity of our families.

The government's throne speech talks of a caring society and social union. Such ideals are not achieved through intrusive, activist and expansive government programs. They are best achieved through a strong and compassionate society, sustainable for future generations that has at its heart and as a foundation strong, viable and stable Canadian families.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reply to the government's throne speech delivered last week. By tradition the throne speech outlines the government's vision for the nation which will ultimately be reflected in a legislative agenda presented in this second session of the 35th Parliament.

I became politically active out of my concern for the future direction of our society and to address the problems that our families from across the country are facing.

In examining this throne speech and this government's record, it is clear to me that this government has failed to acknowledge the problems and challenges facing the Canadian family. In doing so the government has ignored the foundation of our society, which is the family.

As the Reform Party's family issues critic I have concluded that family is not seated at Mr. Chrétien's throne.

[Child Support, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the issue of child support. Any reform to the child support or taxation system must be more than a half measure by ministers to placate special interests or to fudge broken government promises.

The child support issue is not simply a woman's issue; it is a family issue. Child support must be family support. It must address the interests and concerns of children and both parents.

How the tax is calculated or how child support payments are enforced will only make sense with a fair and just support settlement.

Change is needed to remove the necessity of adversarial lawyers in a family court. Change is needed to bring federal and provincial jurisdictions together and change is needed to create fair guidelines and formulas.

The policies of governments have contributed in a very real way to the breakdown of family units in Canada. In child support as in all government decisions, Reform believes that the well-being of families should be the priority.

[Income Tax Act, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-241, an act to amend the Income Tax Act with respect to child support payments.

I wish to commend the member for Nepean for her persistence and her efforts in support of this bill we are debating today. The issue of child support payments and taxation has been festering for many years without an adequate response from either this government or its predecessor.

One parent families are a result of a breakdown in marriage in a family. To put this into perspective, in 1991 300,000 Canadian parents received child support. The total bill was some $1.65 billion. It involved some 35,000 children in support and custody cases. Further, statistics indicate that 95 per cent of the custodial and single parents are mothers.

The Reform Party has recognized the need to fundamentally address this issue. Our family task force, which I chair, carefully considered and developed our position on child support payments and taxation in addition to addressing some other related issues.

Our motivation for developing a position on this issue is the function of our concern about the family and recognizing the need for strengthening it for this generation and future generations of Canadians. We believe the family is the fundamental building block of our society. The family is the fundamental institution that transfers and protects our values and culture. The family provides our society with the necessary stability needed for our prosperity and measured progress.

Parents and children are the basis for the family. Children can in no way be considered apart from or distinct from their parents. Children exist through and thrive on the relationship that exists between a mother and father. Thus the well-being of a child is directly related to the continued shared responsibility. I believe this broader picture of the responsibility of both parents for their children must be considered if a positive solution is to be found to child support payments and family relationships are to be strengthened.

As I mentioned before, the Reform Party has developed a rather comprehensive position on this issue. We addressed the issue of taxation, the level of support through guidelines, and enforcement and compliance with maintenance orders.

On the issue of taxation, child support payments should not be considered earned income subject to taxation. The current tax regime in paragraph 56(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act does exactly that. I ask, where else in the tax system does such an approach exist? Child support payments are the fulfilment of an obligation of parents to their children regardless of family status. It is money directed from a parent for the well-being of his or her child. The money that is received for child support is not earned income. The federal government should therefore not tax these payments as though they were income.

This can be illustrated by contrasting child support payments and alimony. Child support payments are intended specifically for the children and not the mother. Alimony payments, on the other hand, are payments received as income for support of the divorced spouse. This distinction is a crucial one, one that must be recognized.

The effect of the tax system is compounded by the deficiency in the court system. The levels in support awards do not adequately reflect and meet the needs of the custodial parent and children, or perhaps the non-custodial parent.

With these considerations in mind, the Reform position, like Bill C-241, calls for revision of paragraph 56(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act that would strike payments received for child support from being considered as earned income and therefore eligible for taxation.

The Reform proposal would also redirect revenues collected from the taxation of the non-custodial parent to those single-parent families and dual parent families and the children most in need through a complementary increase in the federal child tax benefit, which is to say it is directed to those in need.

These positive and proactive measures will strengthen the circumstances and conditions of single parent families. They will also address the inequity the current tax regime promotes in the tax treatment of intact and separated families.

There is a broader issue of the current level of taxation that all Canadian families face. The reality is that the current tax burden upon the Canadian family is unjustifiably excessive and onerous. A 1994 study on families and taxation found that the average family composed of two or more persons paid 46 per cent of their cash income to various levels of government.

Families cannot now survive on a single income. In 1967, 58 per cent of families were supported by a single income. In 1994 that figure has been forced to an historic low of 19 per cent, and it is not by choice. In a 1994 survey of family attitudes, 52 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement that it is not possible to support a family on one income any more. The same survey stated that 40 per cent of parents agreed that if they could afford to they would stay home with the kids, that they work because they need the money.

Recognizing the needs of families and the pressures they face, Reform has developed another positive and proactive measure that will address the broader issue of taxation faced by Canadian families. The simplified tax proposal will provide some tax relief for Canadians, simplify the taxation system through the elimination of deductions, exemptions, and tax incentives, and in general promote more economic freedom for families. In particular, our proposal will provide a generous tax exemption for children to account for expenses parents incur in raising children. Such a provision will be particularly important for low income earners and single parent families.

A second important issue related to child support payments in addition to taxation deals with a process for administering the issue of child support payments. Families and marriages often break down under acrimonious and adversarial circumstances. Many parents then resort to an adversarial court system. The current system essentially pits one parent against the other. This is not in the best interests of the parents and it is certainly not in the best interests of the children involved.

Changes to the current system are urgently needed. The Reform proposal addresses this issue. We advocate the implementation of unified family courts. An important part of this proposal is the front end process of mediation and conflict resolution. The unified family court would also resolve the blended jurisdiction of family law, such as child support, custody, and access. Presently, jurisdiction for family issues is divided between levels of court at both federal and provincial levels. The development and implementation of the unified family court would better facilitate all aspects of family law by incorporating them under one roof.

The Reform proposal also addresses the issue of guidelines to determine the level of support awarded. When a family and marriage break down, courts are left to determine what the level of payments for child support should be. However, the problem has been, as my colleague has said, the inconsistency and sometimes unfairness of the level of support awarded. Such inconsistency is unfair to all concerned. To address this inconsistency, our proposal is based on well established legal principles of demonstrated need and ability to pay.

In practical terms, Reform advocates the establishment of nationwide guidelines that will take into consideration the income, taxation, and parenting cost implications for both custodial and non-custodial parents. Nationwide guidelines would have the effect of standardizing the level of support awarded. In doing so they will do much more to ensure fairness for those in the situation.

Finally, there is the issue of enforcement and compliance with maintenance orders. The present circumstances are abysmal. For example, in Quebec 25 per cent of non-custodial parents default in paying child support. The phenomenon of default is in part a function of the adversarial system I discussed earlier. A system that perpetuates acrimony and anger is a system that will fail.

Reform's proposal addresses the issue of enforcement across provincial boundaries. We propose the use of the national registry. We will pursue studies to see if this could be co-ordinated through the income tax system. A registry of this type would improve the access to information and effective response desperately needed to improve compliance and enforcement of maintenance orders.

In conclusion, the principle and concept of Bill C-241 is well founded, but more needs to be done to concretely tackle the root causes surrounding issues of child support. Although this bill addresses the issue of taxation, it does not consider this issue of the level of support and the crucial aspect of enforcement and compliance.

The time for action has come. To foster the stability and prosperity for the next generation of parents, children and families, we need to start by reinforcing and strengthening decisions made in this present generation.

[Petitions, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, today I am pleased to present two petitions sponsored by Sun Hope in memory of André Castet, with over 500 signatures from the residents of British Columbia, many in my own riding of Port Moody-Coquitlam.

These Canadians express the need for substantial revisions to the Young Offenders Act and reject the tinkering and posturing of this government in legislation and its inactivity such as we see in Bill C-37.

[The Late Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of the Reform Party to recognize a Canadian who was not afraid to leave his mark on the pages of our history. Emmett Hall was a man who led, a leader who asked not why, but why not. Today I join with colleagues from all parties to pay respect to his memory.

Emmett Hall had an outstanding record of personal achievement. After a successful and long career in law, at age 57 he rose to new and increasing challenges as Chief Justice of Saskatchewan, Supreme Court judge, royal commissioner and finally elder statesmen.

It was his Supreme Court judgment in 1975 that set the stage for negotiations on Indian land claims. The Ontario education system was profoundly changed with the Hall-Dennis report of 1968.

Even in retirement in 1977 he led the commission that addressed the challenging need to balance affordable rail transportation with small town survival in central Canada. Even at the age of 90 he was mediating a logging and land claims dispute between the B.C. government and two Indian bands.

Historians, however, will recognize his greatest contribution as the chairman of a royal commission whose report led to the introduction of our national medicare system through the Hall report of 1964.

Medicare to this day continues to be a federal cost shared program. It is and should be the best health care safety net in the world. It was made in Canada for Canadians, first on a provincial level and then federally through the Medical Care Act, and it is now mandated to bring comprehensive coverage for health service, publicly funded, portable across Canada and universally accessible to all Canadians regardless of ability to pay.

I would be remiss today to neglect to mention that the confidence of Canadians in medicare is severely eroding. Cutbacks have forced health care professionals, governments and the public to take time to address, analyse and protect this aspect of our life and country.

Emmett Hall was never afraid to challenge the status quo. Today we recognize a man who bravely put forward ideas to propose change, not for change itself but to bring about a better solution.

All that Canadians value in medicare is recognized today in his memory. His vision of health care reform was that it result in the highest quality health care for all Canadians. That challenge continues and needs new Canadian solutions once more in these times of increased pressures on public finances.

Our condolences go out to his family. We salute with others today a great prairie pioneer and statesman.