Barry Campbell

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked two questions. The first is why we address the deficit through program cuts rather than tax cuts The answer is simple: because it is working.

The second question that he asks is about the auditor general. I would reply by wondering out loud what the auditor general would have to say about this House's adopting a motion which is not costed in this fiscal climate.

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, very briefly. I find it fascinating that as we look at the opposition motion today, it is not costed.

I heard the hon. member state a great concern about spending and cost deficits, which we hear from that side of the House and which is a concern we share and one which we are acting on. As I reread the motion, there is no indication whatsoever about what this would cost. Estimates I have seen range into the billions and billions of dollars and the suggestion in the fresh start document that they would have to find only $12 billion would be blown out of the water. Some would look at the motion and say "if you do this along the lines you have been saying, your costs would be additional billions of dollars".

I find it really distressing that we are debating a motion of a party, which consistently is concerned about government spending, government revenues and taxation levels, which is not costed. It has offered us no indication today whatsoever about the costing of this motion.

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat incredible that the hon. member opposite would speak about members on this side of the House not being in favour of reducing government spending.

As the hon. member would know if she had read the last three budgets, or would recall if she thought about it, we took unprecedented steps in the three budgets we have presented as a government to reduce government spending to its lowest level in many years as a percentage of the gross domestic product; in fact, soon to its lowest level since the late 1940s.

I know that the hon. member opposite and her colleagues would like to see government spending go down even more. They have this small problem of telling us how that would happen without having an unfortunate negative impact on this country without leading to the kind of meanness and nastiness that my hon. colleague, the secretary of state, referred to.

The government will continue to stand alongside Canadians. It is not going to stand aside and out of the way. We are going to stay in the game, helping and working with Canadians.

The kinds of spending reductions we have achieved have been done in a reasonable, realistic and compassionate way, but not without impact and not without cost.

It is incredible that the members of the third party stand up day after day telling the government to cut further because it does not affect anybody.

As to the questions which were asked, I am going to respond in the following way. The hon. member asked some questions and then proceeded to answer them. I am going to ask her who would benefit most from the proposal that is in the motion before us. I would just note that it is proposed to be a tax credit. There is no indication that it is a refundable tax credit with the result that people without income would not benefit and it would not be available to them.

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in today's debate.

The motion before us relates to a topic dear to every member of this House and to Canadians everywhere: the well-being of our children. Indeed, the matter is so important that we must be especially vigilant to ensure that we think about it as clearly as we can. Unfortunately, the motion as proposed tends not to clarify but rather to obscure some very important points about the purpose of the child care expense deduction, about genuine tax fairness, about

fiscal responsibility and about the important steps this government has taken to advance the well-being of Canadian children.

Let me begin with the first point, the purpose of a child care expense deduction.

As we have already heard, the child care expense deduction is designed to help modest income families with two working parents shoulder the child care expenses they must incur in order to earn an income or to study. In other words it exists to help ensure that the tax burden of these families is fair compared to those with similar incomes who do not face these additional expenses.

This leads me to another point that deserves to be emphasized. The existing system is designed to assist parents with modest incomes. In these tough fiscal times if not always, it would be unrealistic and even unfair to use taxpayers' money to introduce new benefits that would largely go to affluent Canadians.

These are issues that by themselves are sufficient to show why today's motion does not deserve the support of this House.

There is another important point I would like to turn to now. That is to remind hon. members of the important steps, the targeted steps our government has taken to advance the well-being of children, especially those of families in need.

In fact, despite the austerity we are forced to come to terms with, the federal government continues to provide significant support, through the child tax benefit, to low and middle income families with children. These benefits are tax exempt; they are revenue based and paid monthly.

Maximum payments go to families with net incomes below $26,000 and include a basic benefit of $1,020 per child, as well as an additional $75 for the third and each subsequent child in the family.

In addition, there is also the child tax benefit supplement which specifically helps parents who stay at home to raise their preschool age children. This supplement provides modest income families who do not have deductible child care expenses with an additional $213 for each child under the age of seven.

Beyond this, federal assistance to families with children is further enhanced by the working income supplement. This supplement helps low income working families meet some of the extra costs related to earning employment income. It is important to recognize that the working income supplement is not just limited to two income families but also applies to single earner families where one spouse stays home as the caregiver.

The bottom line for this program is both clear and considerable. The total annual cost of the child tax benefit including the working income supplement is over $5 billion.

It is also vital to note that these are not static programs. This government recognizes that the issue of child hardship and poverty is of growing concern to us all. That is why we have taken effective, targeted action to enhance them.

For example, until the 1996 federal budget the maximum value of the working income supplement was $500 annually. The budget doubled this benefit to $1,000 to be phased in over two years. Over 700,000 working families will benefit from the increased working income supplement. The average benefit they will receive will increase from $350 a year to $700. About 250,000 families will receive the maximum increase of $500. When this measure is fully implemented in July 1998, benefits to low income working families will be enhanced and enriched by $250 million a year. I would add that about one-third of the families that will benefit from the increased working income supplement are single parent families.

I would also like to mention another important measure in last year's budget which will help families with children. In fact it will help them with one of the most important investments a young person in his or her family can make for the future and that is education.

I am referring to the learning package, an additional $80 million a year in tax assistance to help students and their families deal with the increased costs of education. Students receive assistance with their educational costs under two tax provisions: the tuition fee credit and the education credit. As tuition fees rise, the amount of assistance provided by the tuition fee credit rises automatically.

In the 1996 federal budget the amount on which the education credit is based was increased from $80 to $100 per month. In addition, the limit on the transfer of tuition and educational amounts, for example from a student to her parents, was increased from $4,000 to $5,000. Moreover the annual limit on registered education savings plans contributions was increased from $1,500 to $2,000 and the lifetime limit was raised from $31,500 to $42,000.

Finally, we have also taken action to improve the child care expense deduction, the issue at the heart of today's debate.

The 1996 budget broadened eligibility for the child care expense deduction by allowing single parents studying full time to receive the benefit and deduct it from all other income. Families with both father and mother studying full time may enjoy this benefit as well.

Furthermore, and this is a first, the benefit is now available to parents completing high school. At the same time, the age determining deduction eligibility has been raised, thus enabling parents with older children to take advantage of the deduction.

The measures I have just set out have provided considerable support to many children and parents in Canada, but I am not claiming that these measures alone are enough.

Surely there is more that could and should be done but in this period of limited resources we have to make sure that we are doing the most good we possibly can do with every dollar we spend. On this score the measure before this House fails miserably. It is proposed without regard to cost; incredibly it is proposed without regard to need and without regard to impact. Everyone agrees that we must do the very best we can for our children. To that extent I appreciate the intent of today's motion, but is it really the best we can do? Would children in need derive the most benefit? I think not.

What is needed is for better thought out and better targeted proposals to be brought before this House. But typical of the party opposite, we have simple solutions offered to complex problems.

However, today's debate and for that matter every issue under debate in this House would be of national interest only if it were grounded on clear intentions and proposals of substance, which must be expressed in clear terms and accompanied by accurate figures. Today's motion miserably fails the test on both counts.

The Reform Party claims it is concerned about families, about family time, about providing a better standard of living and care for Canada's children, but in its proposals here today and in other venues it proves conclusively that it places no real priority on child poverty and has little true understanding about family life in the 1990s.

Families with two working parents exist for a number of reasons. Financial need is just one. The operation of the tax system might be another but it is not the sole reason that parents make a decision to stay home or seek work outside the home.

Reform has nothing to offer the majority of Canadian families who must or choose to have both parents work. Even more troubling, today's motion dares to suggest that tax fairness would be enhanced by providing a credit to every family irrespective of income level. This simply means to a host of families who enjoy material benefits which low and modest income families can only dream of that they would benefit even more.

The real agenda here is very clear. Reform has staked out a policy of a broad national tax cut, a policy that has not won the hearts of very many Canadians. Canadians see through the cheap appeal of Reform's tax proposals. Those Canadians are the ones with real common sense. They will not allow governments to buy electoral success by promising rapid and wide ranging tax reductions. Canadians will not be fooled by this phoney reform of the human face. When communism was collapsing in eastern Europe we started to hear about communism with a human face. That is what is happening here. Canadians will not be fooled by this political cross-dressing.

In closing, there is no politician who would not like to lower taxes as far as possible. But good government means acting with constraint and consideration and making sure that today's tax cuts do not come at the price of increased pain and suffering tomorrow for those who are most vulnerable. That is why this government has opted in its three budgets to take targeted action that works within our fiscal conditions and that serves those who are most in need.

That is what real political leadership and nation building is about. It is not about picking winners and losers. And because today's motion does not meet those tests of real leadership, does not increase real tax fairness and does not focus its benefits on those most in need, I have no hesitation whatsoever in urging all hon. members to vote against today's superficially appealing but essentially misleading motion.

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I was very pleased to hear from the hon. member opposite. He always has very cogent remarks to make in the debates in this House. I welcome his comments about not skewing the system one way or the other but I am confused about a situation that prevails in his own province of Quebec.

For many years Quebec governments have provided a significant benefit to parents for having children, indeed an increasing amount of money. They have expended tens of millions of dollars in this effort to engineer more births in the province of Quebec and I understand without much success. I wonder how that program squares with his comments about equity and not providing unequal incentives. What about couples who have chosen not to have children or not as many as the government of Quebec wanted them to have?

[Supply, November 21st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I was truly touched by the attempt by the hon. member opposite to put a human face on the gibberish we normally hear from the Reform Party.

I was also struck by the fact that she seemed to be talking about a different kind of world than most Canadians inhabit.

I wonder if she would share with us her understanding of the composition of the Canadian family out there today. I hear it described as if all families are comprised of an Ozzie and Harriet vision. That is what I heard portrayed across the way.

Also I would like her to comment on the extent to which Reform's recent budget proposals would adversely impact on families in this country, no matter how they may defined, whether in the Ozzie and Harriet world she lives in or in the world in which real Canadians live. The dramatic changes and the increased cuts across the board that would be made as a result of that document would gut this country.

[Export Of Arms, November 20th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am responding to the hon. member's question. I did not interrupt as she asked her question, tempted though I was. I would ask her to respect the answer.

As noted in the HST technical paper, beginning April 7, 1997, businesses in the three provinces will be required to price their products on a tax inclusive basis. The participating governments have consulted extensively with business in this respect and recognize it will require some operational adjustments. Accordingly, rules have been developed that will minimize disruption for business while still addressing the desires of consumers.

That being said, we must bear in mind that removing embedded provincial sales tax from business inputs and moving to a single administration will entail significant economic benefits for businesses in the participating provinces, benefits which they can pass on to consumers.

The participating governments believe consumers will benefit which is why they have moved to tax inclusive pricing.

[Export Of Arms, November 20th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. Hon. members will know that Canadians have expressed a strong preference to know the full price of goods and services in advance of making their purchases.

I had the privilege of travelling with the finance committee on the GST consultation. If there was one refrain we heard from one end of the country to the other it was: "We want to know what things are going to cost. We don't want sticker shock, counter shock".

Tax inclusive pricing under the harmonized sales tax agreement with the three Atlantic provinces responds directly to the preference that has been expressed by Canadians across this country.

With tax inclusive pricing consumers in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador will know before they get to the cash register what their intended purchases will actually cost, and as such they will make better informed purchasing decisions.

As noted in the HST technical paper-

[Divorce Act, November 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

The Ottawa conference brought together 50 states and numerous international organizations and non-governmental organizations.

They were willing to meet in Ottawa because they shared the common objective of achieving a global ban on anti-personnel mines.

The Ottawa conference was highly successful and will have a concrete impact. The aim of the conference was to develop a strategy to achieve a global ban on anti-personnel mines. We now have such a strategy in place in the form of an action plan which outlines numerous concrete activities which states, international organizations and NGOs are willing to undertake to build the necessary political will to achieve a ban.

We were also successful in achieving an agreement on a conference declaration which represents the views of 50 countries on how best to work toward an international ban. One of the most important elements of this declaration was the obligation it placed on state participants to seek the earliest possible conclusion of a legally binding agreement to ban these mines.

In his closing speech to the conference, the foreign affairs minister invited the international community to return to Canada to sign such an agreement by the end of 1997. The timeframe will ensure that the unprecedented international momentum behind the movement to ban mines will be maintained and effectively focused on building the political will necessary to sign such a treaty.

The minister's initiative to achieve such a treaty by the end of 1997 enjoys the support of numerous states and international organizations as well as the secretary general of the United Nations and the president of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Our initiative is also fully supported by a wide number of NGOs, including the international campaign to ban land mines and Mines Action Canada.

I would like to point out that Canada is leading by example. Last week the Minister of National Defence announced that we now have in place a plan for the complete elimination of our stockpiles of anti-personnel mines beginning with the immediate destruction of two-thirds of our stocks, the remaining one-third to be eliminated in the context of international negotiations which, as the minister has stated, will conclude by the end of 1997.

We believe that establishing the end of 1997 as a deadline for such an agreement is realistic and necessary, particularly given the horrible social and economic costs associated with inaction on the part of the international community.

Canada is willing to work with each and every other like minded country to move the process forward.

Every week over 500 people are killed or maimed by land mines around the world. Canada has taken the lead in calling upon the world to stop the carnage caused by anti-personnel mines.

[Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is the nature of the negotiations that members are briefed as soon as a deal is arrived at. It would be pointless to brief people on a deal that had not been concluded. Once that took place there were several meetings and debriefings for the opposition caucus. There have been hearings before the committee. There have been discussions at length and questions which have been responded to.

With regard to the other social charter type issues, there are ongoing negotiations within the WTO of which Israel is a member. I point out that no other country in the Middle East is a member of the WTO.