Jan Brown

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, these are comments of a general nature. The hon. member may wish to comment and he may not.

It seems to me when we stand in this House and challenge the government, there is also an obligation upon us to provide some constructive alternatives as to how government approaches the matters of the day, the problems and issues facing all of us.

In the hon. member's statements for example he mentioned that the military industry is an industry of the past. That may be true but an alternative, and one perhaps the government should look at soon, is to redefine the role of the military in Canada.

Rather than challenging and saying the government is not doing anything, it would be far better to say it is time that government looked at some alternatives for using our military personnel. It should look at how our defence industry can be changed to meet the new environment in the global considerations facing us today. There was not a single constructive alternative for Canada that I heard in the hon. member's presentation, not a single one.

The hon. member is asking questions about conversion, but what about the root problems that face Canada today: high taxation, a huge debt, an unstable dollar, an insecure economic community, high unemployment. There was not a single thing I heard that was a constructive alternative to addressing those issues and those are the root problems facing Canada today.

We can talk about committees in this House that dither around in deciding that maybe they will do this today, maybe they will do that. Maybe it will be the defence committee that will look at the issue today or maybe it will be trade and industry. However it is our obligation and responsibility as members of this House to start looking at some of those root problems. We must start providing the government with some constructive alternatives rather than standing and complaining about a particular position Quebec is dealing with. Unemployment in Quebec is every bit as much an issue for all of Canada.

I would like the hon. member to respond to those comments if he so wishes. I would be interested to hear what the hon. member has to say.

[Child Support Payments, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, having heard the hon. minister I have no supplementary question. I thank him for his answer.

[Child Support Payments, May 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. It is on a matter that has been discussed earlier today.

As we heard, a landmark decision was rendered today by the Federal Court of Appeal that will fundamentally change the approach to child support payments in this country. Justice Hugessen ruled that Suzanne Thibodeau was discriminated against on the grounds that the inequity, the inequality created for separated custodial parents is discriminatory and imposes a burden on them not imposed on others.

The Federal Court has taken the lead in recognizing the importance of stabilizing the family unit, whether you are together or apart. Will the minister follow suit and do the same?

[Aids, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, picture a virus that attacks a baby's brain, destroying any ability to crawl, to walk, to speak. Imagine a virus that can kill a child before its second birthday, the body completely overrun by infection. There is no vaccine, no cure for this virus and babies can get it in the most tragic way: from their mothers.

White heterosexual females are the fastest growing demographic group to fall victim to AIDS. Many do not know that they have the disease. In fact they even believe this could not possibly happen to them.

Reported pediatric cases of AIDS have been rising steadily since the early 1980s. The latest statistics show that 93 children have been diagnosed with AIDS in Canada. Sixty-three of them have already died.

In Quebec one out of 80 pregnant women has AIDS. Experts agree that the only way to curtail the rise in pediatric AIDS is to prevent transmission of the disease to women.

I urge the government to support aggressive public education campaigns, including women focused efforts. AIDS in children is a problem that will not easily disappear.

[Income Tax Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to rise and to speak to this motion this evening. It addresses an issue of importance to our nation and it is of importance to families, whether together or apart, and that is taking responsible action to ensure that our children are well provided for.

Having said that, I believe that the Income Tax Act should be revenue neutral when considering taxable income for families that remain intact and for those that separate. Presently it is not revenue neutral.

I want to make it crystal clear from the outset that I support this motion in principle. However, it does not go far enough. It is because of the manner by which it does not fulfil the principle that ultimately I cannot support it.

I will explain how the motion goes right and how it goes awry. In keeping with the practice established by my Reform colleagues in this House, I will propose constructive suggestions for making this motion more acceptable.

I commend my hon. colleague, the member for Nepean, for having identified a piece of legislation that is in absolute and desperate need of reform. She pointed out that the legislation was enacted during a time when women seldom worked outside of the home. The year was 1942 and for those post war times the legislation was developed in good faith.

However, the relevant section of the Income Tax Act has become severely outdated. It no longer properly reflects the contemporary reality of divorce. In particular, it fails to address the reality of the millions of Canadian women who work outside the home. Let me share a little of today's reality for those women whose spouses have left and who are raising children on their own.

Statistics Canada has indicated that a large and growing number of single parents, particularly women, suffer a decline in their standard of living in income relative to the parent who no longer lives with his or her children. We have heard that argument numerous times in this debate.

The Income Tax act provides for deductibility of child support payments by the payer and their inclusion into income by the recipient. If the payer had remained in the family unit, his or her ability to deduct child raising expenses would in most cases be reduced.

For example in 1993, the main income earner in a typical husband, wife and one child family would have received a child tax credit of $1,002 for a dependent child. That is if they lived in Alberta and the child was between seven and eleven years of age. If the family income was above a threshold level, then no child tax credit would be paid and the cost of raising the child would provide few, if any, tax deductions. If the parents separated in 1993 and the highest income earner supported the child only through fully tax deductible payments, $500 a month for example, he or she would obtain this significant tax deduction.

It is estimated that by allowing the deduction for the non-custodial parent and taxing the payment received by the custodial parent, generally the one with the lower income, it cost the government $235 million in tax revenue in 1992. With tougher laws enforcing more parents to pay child support it is expected this amount will grow. One can call that a moral hazard, if you will.

I agree with my colleague across the House that the Income Tax Act seems to treat the parent who leaves a relationship and who has fewer responsibilities for raising the children better than the parent, usually a woman, who remains with the children. Let me give an example of how this is the case. This example does not just come out of thin air. It reflects a number of real Canadian situations and actually comes out of my riding of Calgary Southeast.

This is the case of a married man and woman. He made $85,000 a year and she was a homemaker who received no income. This couple divorced and the woman received custody of the children. He continues to earn $85,000 a year and she now has a job that pays $17,000 a year. As part of the settlement he agreed to pay his former spouse $6,000 a year in support payments for his children.

What we need to look at is the $6,000 given as maintenance support. Under the present tax system, the recipient of the $6,000 pays income tax on this amount and the payer, the former husband in my example, receives a $6,000 tax credit. This system provides tax incentives for spouses who leave marriages and who do not raise the children.

A person who divorces, thanks to the existing legislation, receives a windfall for leaving the marriage. Certainly it is not the intent of the legislation to financially benefit a person for leaving family responsibilities behind.

The Income Tax Act as it now exists for reasons I have just mentioned contributes to a perception that there is little legislative support for families torn apart by divorce. This situation is intolerable. Ultimately it hurts the children.

The present system as I see it is flawed for two reasons. The first is allowing the ex-husband to claim a tax credit for his maintenance payments and the second is taxing the ex-wife for the amount she receives. Both of these problems show a failure of the government to encourage or recognize the importance of stabilizing the family unit and responding to the ongoing responsibilities of caring for the children involved.

The motion my colleague has proposed recognizes this inequity to be sure and attempts to redress it. However, I am concerned that her motion fails to be equitable. The pendulum may have been too far on the side of inequity, but the answer is not to swing it all the way in the other direction.

What is needed is some real compromise that will ensure ultimately an effective standard of financial support for the children who are affected and that will treat all affected parties fairly.

The motion allows the recipient, regardless of his or her income, to not have to claim the maintenance he or she receives. It is the lack of recognition of the income component received that is inequitable.

There should be a means test applied to the recipient in order to determine when and if he or she should pay any tax on the maintenance payment. This could be done quite simply. I suggest a recipient should pay no tax on maintenance payments up to $1,000 a month. Any maintenance payments over $1,000 a month should be included as taxable income by the recipient parent.

The changes I would like to see to this motion would in effect see no tax being paid on the amount that is paid in child support up to an acceptable limit by either the custodial parent or by the spouse providing the support. My suggestion is that the child support payment not be taxed as part of the income of the custodial parent unless that amount exceeds $1,000 a month. For example, if it was $1,200 a month, the $200 per month would be added to the income of the recipient and that portion would be taxed.

This may not result in loss of government revenue over all, but it is really too early to tell what the net effect may be. It is unclear at this point if there would indeed be a net tax loss through such an approach. In fact, in the long term it may ensure greater financial support for the children.

I spent quite a bit of time over the break developing this particular thesis. Perhaps it is not quite the same approach my colleagues on this side of the House have taken to this point. However I felt it was also very important to express my views on behalf of those constituents who have approached me for a very long time on this matter.

In conclusion given that the motion refers to changes in the Income Tax Act, I must mention the following. My colleague wishes to make the Income Tax Act more fair for all parties. A good place to begin is with a flat tax system. It could be the case that if such a flat tax were implemented then we would not have to be looking at yet more complicated changes to an already complicated tax system.

[Health Care, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the minister's response but it was not specific to my question. I have a supplementary question.

I would like to know what progress has been made in the investigation that the minister committed to on March 17 regarding those fraudulent cases of breast cancer treatments in Montreal. Could she be specific to that question.

[Health Care, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are precious few moments in this House when the government's answers to questions are complete, specific and focused.

Having said that, my question is for the Minister of Health. Breast cancer has reached epidemic proportions in our country. Currently there are two cases of fraudulent breast cancer research. There are ongoing allegations of improprieties in the medical auditing process and the American medical community has withheld information for three years that was important to Canadian research.

Will the Minister of Health tell the House how the Department of Health will guarantee the integrity of breast cancer research in Canada.

[Youth, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian youth today are faced with the prospect of an unhappy future. They recognize they are going to have to pay off the massive debt that weak governments have left them. Youth unemployment rates are higher than ever. Youth crime statistics are soaring.

Constituents tell me that on an average Friday or Saturday night numbers of young people can be found in the parking lots of my riding of Calgary Southeast partying and sometimes vandalising. There is little fear of being caught. Many know if they are caught the punishment will be easy to handle.

Members from all areas of society, including youth groups, have been calling for the government to make changes to the Young Offenders Act. Does this government have the strength to show Canadian youth it cares about them, that it is willing to make the tough decisions to guarantee their future?

The two big signals this government can send to Canadian youth to show it cares about them are to balance the budget and reform the Young Offenders Act.

[Co-Operative Housing, April 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, this is the second time that the Bloc Quebecois has put forward a motion on social housing. This is the second time that I have risen to speak against it.

The first motion deplored the fact that the government had not increased or re-established funding for social housing construction programs. However this time its concern is more emotional.

In the first motion debated on February 16, the Bloc declared that it was interested in social housing support for all Canadians. Let me be clear, the Bloc carries a singular agenda. The only care that the Bloc has for Canada is to take what it can and separate post haste.

The motion before us is terribly wrong minded. It fails to appreciate the economic reality our country faces today. The taxpayers of Canada, you and I, Madam Speaker, my children and my grandchildren will pay for this folly of overspending.

The combined debt is now over $600 billion and the federal deficit is predicted to be about $40 billion. Despite this colossal financial lodestone, the Bloc Quebecois is saying the government has not yet spent enough. It is urging the government to spend more, to increase the deficit and the debt, to climb aboard this runaway debt train, giving no thought to fixing its brakes.

It is important to clearly establish what is needed before we blindly commit to throwing around millions of dollars.

A 1992 study stated that the majority of people on welfare received adequate support to meet their basic housing needs. It stated that the traditional solution has been to spend a fortune on these programs and if things are not improving, throw more money at them.

In its 1991 annual report the CMHC agrees that social housing needs can be met under the existing funding plan. The report states that more of an effort must be made to achieve greater cost effectiveness so that more can be done with the available budgets.

I recognize that we need a major social revenue in Canada. However, throwing money at a singular and specific problem is not a good resolution. We need to assess what the problem is and then address it specifically.

The clamour for federal funding support is not decreasing. The demand is there but there are fewer dollars to spread around. Given this, new innovative ideas are needed to ensure sound fiscal management at all levels of government.

In 1988 all three levels of government spent under $3 billion on housing or $114 for every person in Canada. That is up from just $366 million or $17 per capital in 1970. Yet poverty advocates claim the housing problem is as acute as ever.

Given that this funding spiral cannot continue unabated, it is more important than ever that housing subsidies, like other forms of assistance-and we said this over and over again-be targeted to those in need. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation ensures that all Canadians, regardless of who they are and where they live in Canada, have equal access to federal resources allocated for housing. CMHC currently administers more than 652,000 units.

Despite these enormous holdings, my hon. colleague would have us believe that more money yet needs to be spent on social housing programs in Quebec. In the fiscal year 1994-95, according to the main estimates for public works and government services, CMHC will receive $2,033,779,000 for social housing alone. Of this approximately $366 million will be going to the province of Quebec. That represents about 18 per cent of CMHC's total budget for social housing.

In comparison, Alberta, my province will receive approximately $150 million. For every dollar that Alberta receives, Quebec gets $2.25.

Believe me, Albertans question this transfer payment ratio even more so as they work through a seriously difficult time, difficult days of deep, deep cuts to our provincial programs.

While we are doing comparisons, let us take a quick look at the United States provision for social housing. When the leader of the Queen's Loyal Opposition visited the U.S. I wonder if he discussed social housing spending habits with the Americans. Canada may not yet be a paradise of social housing but we are sure not doing too badly in comparison with the U.S.

We spend approximately $114 a year per capita on social housing while in the U.S. that expenditure is about $40 per year per capita. We spend almost three times as much right now.

Therefore Canada is not facing serious social housing problems. It is facing serious economic problems. This government fails to recognize that we are facing a financial crisis. This motion shows that the Bloc also fails to recognize it.

Canadian and international money markets are hugely unstable because this government cannot keep its spending under control and shows scant interest in doing so. The Canadian dollar is in a sinkhole, interest rates are rising and despite a decrease in the unemployment rate the dollar remains unstable, an indicator that investors have lost faith in our economy.

In principle the solution to the problem is simple. The government needs to put a cap on spending. The government needs to clearly demonstrate to the financial communities both within and without Canada that it is serious about reducing the deficit.

I can assure the government that if it introduced measures of this kind it would find support from my side of the House. All members of this Parliament should be mindful that we cannot spend ourselves out of a recession. Governments have tried this for 15 years and it has not worked.

It is for these economic reasons that Gordon Thiessen, the head of the Bank of Canada, stated on April 5 that to inspire consumer and market confidence this government will have to address its debt and deficit situation by cutting spending.

Given this, when members in this House put forward matters for debate, especially when those matters involve the spending of taxpayers dollars which are at a premium, they must ask themselves: Who will pay? Where will the money come from? Could this be done better and more cheaply?

I see no indication that the Bloc either heard what Mr. Thiessen said last week or that it considered even asking questions such as these. It must be too busy figuring out strategies for separation.

We cannot condone yet more money being siphoned off by Quebec. Constituents from my riding are getting very tired of seeing their tax dollars inequitably flushed into the province of Quebec, especially given the Bloc's mandate for separation.

Alberta's transfer payments have been capped and the need to cut spending has been recognized there. But here is the Bloc yet again with its hand out asking for extra money.

In its strategic plan for 1992 through to 1996 CMHC does not mention a need for increased funding nor a need to increase programs in Quebec. However, in a businesslike move in keeping with the private sector, the CMHC is promoting cost effective programming and management.

Finally, this demand for social housing support is an indicator of a larger economic problem. Simply spending more money to alleviate social housing problems is like trying to tend to a fever of 105 by rolling someone in the snow. You may cool the body for a short period of time but surely you have not found out why that body is sick.

Quebec needs to look more closely at this problem. The Bloc Quebecois is showing that as a province said to be on the verge of separation, it clearly lacks an appreciation for its own economic, social and political upheaval.

[Communications, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as members of the 35th Parliament entering the merge lane on the information highway, our government vehicle can be fairly compared with the Model T. Offices which are still equipped with the 286-based computers and no modems make for a very slow entry, and slow travellers better get out of the way for surely they will be run over by communicators using more efficient hardware and software.

We are expected to govern in the nineties and into the next century. Using equipment from the eighties makes us less efficient in governing. Rather than becoming road kill I suggest we make the system on the Hill user driven by ensuring that we have the tools to communicate effectively. With more effective communications we can better serve our constituents.

This means a minimum of 486-based modem equipped computers. Let us together make the 35th Parliament one to be remembered for having made smart computer based connections that put us in the passing lane on the super information highway.