John Cummins

[The Environment, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about the documents on the Internet, we are talking about confidential cabinet documents.

Things change over time. The cabinet itself has ordered that public consultation be restricted. If there is nothing to hide, why does the minister want to fast track this project? Why does he not want public consultation?

[The Environment, March 8th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, according to cabinet documents obtained by CTV, Atomic Energy of Canada wants to fast track the burial of tonnes of nuclear waste in the Canadian Shield.

The report says that the work should begin as soon as possible and with as little consultation as is necessary.

Why do the Liberals want to fast track the burial of 30,000 tonnes of nuclear waste and why do they want to restrict public consultation?

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, to be quite honest, I find it rather difficult to expect someone making $25,000, the total family income, to be paying any income tax at all.

In my neck of the woods rent for a modest home is well over $1,000 a month. Put some food on the table and there is nothing left. I find it amazing and absolutely incredible that families earning $25,000 a year are paying taxes. I find that an absolute outrage.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the member's noting that a stay at home parent is the greatest profession in the world is something I think everybody in the House should appreciate and agree with. I know that goes for across the aisle with many people.

As far as guaranteed annual salaries, it is an interesting option. However, the issue before us today is the unfair treatment by the tax system. I think that is the issue we have to address first.

I know that many people who forego economic opportunity to stay at home with their children do not mind that. What does bother them is the unfair treatment by the tax system. They are prepared to accept a lower standard of living so that they can enjoy their children more and have total responsibility for the upbringing of the children.

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this most important motion. The objective of the motion is to encourage the government to try to understand the difficulties that families are facing in today's society.

It seems obvious to me from listening to the debate that the government just does not understand the difficult choices families have to make. We do not have to go too far back to observe some of the actions of the government and reflect on the result of those actions to see that that is the case.

For example, the government refused recently to take realistic action to discourage children from smoking. That is important. It is a health issue. It is important to try to bring that issue forward to children yet the government seems to ignore that concern. Recently it refused to protect children from sexual predators by not invoking the notwithstanding clause after a recent unfortunate court decision in British Columbia.

Today the type of issue we are talking about is that the government refuses to ensure that families are treated fairly under the tax system. In fact, it denigrates the role that has been played by stay at home parents.

Much mention has been made today about the comments of the junior minister of finance. The most unfortunate comments that he made reflected a real lack of understanding of the important role that homemakers play. Those comments of the junior minister are not to be unexpected.

As an example, the Prime Minister's office produced talking points recently which said that Reform does not understand the modern family, that parents work for a variety of reasons and finances is only one of them, and that the Reform platform assumes that increased tax deductions will encourage parents to quit their jobs and return to the kitchen. That is a shameful comment. It comes right out of the Prime Minister's office and shows a complete lack of understanding of the important job parents do when they decide to stay home to provide care for their children.

That disregard for that important role was expressed very clearly by the member for Vancouver Kingsway who talks about the low esteem that may keep parents at home. It is low esteem if one desires to stay at home and look after children. She refers in that same statement to parents who decide to stay at home as being looked down upon as misfits. I find it outrageous that anyone could think those things and then try to suggest they were misunderstood. The words speak for themselves. Parents, she says, who stay at home are simply taking the easy way out.

I have a real concern about that because that is simply not the case. It is not the easy way out. It is the difficult way out in many respects.

I have a friend. Both he and his wife are well educated people, both capable of providing an income for the family. It would be a modest income because we know how the tax penalizes single family earners. A few years ago this friend of mine, who as a matter of fact ran for parliament in 1988, decided that he would stay home and look after the home front while his wife went out to work. He stayed home to look after their two young children until they were well into their elementary school years. It was difficult for him. Not that many years ago many people did not understand why he would choose to stay home, because as I said, he certainly was capable of earning a living. But that was a choice that he made.

My friend is going to be penalized all the way down the line for that in a financial way. Maybe I will talk a little bit more about that, about the financial sacrifices that were made by that family and the sacrifices that will be felt in the years to come when both parents elect to retire.

Again the sacrifice that people make is ignored. The member from Essex—Windsor talks about stay at home parents as a nostalgic notion promoted by the Reform Party. It is an absolute outrage to refer to a stay at home parent and those who wish to do that as a nostalgic notion. I am disturbed by that. I am disturbed by the notion that somehow people who stay at home are misfits.

My wife was a well-qualified teacher. She chose to stay home and look after our son many years ago. I think he appreciates that to this day.

C. D. Howe Institute researcher Kenneth Boessenkool calculated that a dual earner family with two preschool children and an income of $70,000 gets more than $14,000 in child related tax breaks that are not available to the single earner family. That is absolutely astounding, $14,000. That is over $1,000 a month in benefits that accrue to a dual earner family, benefits that are denied to a single earner family.

In fact in the C. D. Howe Institute document, Boessenkool traces the federal government's tax treatment of families with children since World War II. He notes that in earlier decades income tax provided reasonable tax deductions for children to both single and dual earner families. In recent years however, he notes, tax benefits have been targeted toward very poor families and dual earner families. Middle income, single earner families with children are taxed as heavily as families without children. Let me repeat that. Middle income, single earner families with children are taxed as heavily as families without children.

How are we going to prepare ourselves for the future? How are we going to prepare our children for the future if we are taxing their parents to death? How are they to pay the high tuition fees that are required today if they are facing a tax regime which is that stringent and unmerciful?

Boessenkool notes that it is unfair. The tax system should accommodate the cost of child rearing whether or not both parents are working outside the home. He argues further and makes three points that I want to raise here as well.

First, he says that the tax system no longer recognizes the cost of raising children in all families. That is true. The facts are there and are very, very clear.

Second, he notes that to the extent that the tax system has relieved the burden for middle and upper income families with children, it has done so disproportionately for dual earner families through generous child care exemptions. Again, the discrimination there is built into the tax system and has been ignored by the finance minister who acknowledges that the problem exists yet for five years has done nothing to rectify it.

Finally, Boessenkool notes that the combination of clawed back social policy transfers plus income and other taxes has created unacceptably high effective marginal tax rates for families earning between $20,000 and $30,000. I do not think one can live on $20,000 or $30,000 in the area where I live. I do not know whether there are many areas in Canada where one is going to be able to survive on between $20,000 and $30,000.

It is also important to recognize that we are not whistling in the dark over here or singing a tune alone on this issue. There is a loud chorus behind us.

An October 1998 Compas poll showed that 92% of Canadians felt that families with children today were under more stress than 50 years ago, 90% felt that parents were working too hard and too many hours and 78% felt that not enough respect was given for the effort parents put into raising children. That is a serious condemnation of this government's policies. They are out of line with what the public is saying.

The Vanier Institute pointed out that single income families with children are 3.8 times more likely to have a low income than a dual income family.

It is a serious problem and I appreciate the opportunity to address it today.

[Division No. 325, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on December 2, I asked the minister of fisheries why he authorized a fishery for his friend and campaign contributor which resulted in a kill of 30,000 coho in a no-kill zone, a number the government questioned in error. I was outraged by the kill and DFO bureaucrats were alarmed.

Ottawa warned north coast managers in Prince Rupert that the more that becomes known of the coho kill the bigger the issue would become. I could not agree more.

On May 21 last the minister announced that coho stocks were in crisis, some bordering on extinction. There were to be no fisheries directed at coho anywhere on the coast by any fishermen and a zero retention of coho caught in other fisheries.

On June 19 the coast was divided into red and yellow zones. In red zones there was to be zero mortality of coho. Nevertheless, in red zones there were to be a number of small, highly restricted, experimental recreational fisheries. Such a fishery was authorized in the Dixon Entrance on the north coast of the Queen Charlottes. Problems became apparent immediately.

In a weekly coho report dated June 24 officials issued a warning to the minister:

Concern for Dundas Island red zone sport fishery growing. Encounter rates of coho climbing.

Nevertheless, a promised observer program to monitor the fishery was not put in place until halfway through the season and when they were hired there were only four of them for six fishing areas. The July 29 report indicated for area one that coho abundance was high throughout Dixon Entrance and that it did not matter where one went or what they did, coho were being caught.

The coho encounter rate was estimated to be 11 to 1 at Langara Island, although they acknowledged that many believed it to be much higher. The August 5 report indicated that in area three at Dundas Island East monitors were reporting an encounter rate of 20 coho caught for every chinook taken.

The August 12 report indicated that area one lodges continued to be fully operational with about 320 anglers per day. It reported coho encounters were a continual occurrence, noting that unguided vessels were remaining in areas where coho abundance was high. It also noted that there continued to be reports that some fishermen were not treating the coho well when releasing which could be increasing mortality. Area one coho encounters were then estimated at 80,000. The report goes on to estimate that area three coho encounters were 142 coho for every chinook caught.

The minister had promised that the fishery would be closed if there were coho mortality. There was a continuous coho kill that reached alarming proportions, yet he took no action.

On the north coast of the Charlottes the minister was not interested in conservation. He was only interested in providing a special opening for the lodge based fishery operated by his friends.

Last summer DFO scientists undertook a special mortality study on recreational catch and release for coho. Scientists found a mortality rate of slightly more than 25% for coho caught in recreational fisheries.

In estimating a 30,000 coho kill in the waters of the north coast and the Queen Charlottes, I used a coho-chinook encounter rate of 10 to 1, not the 142 to 1 documented in area three or even the 11 to 1 documented at Langara Island. I also used a mortality rate of 10%, not the 25% rate DFO scientists found in their study. A minimum of 30,000 coho were killed in this no-kill zone.

The question remains. What does no kill mean to the minister? Does it mean that only his friends and campaign contributors can go fishing?

[Nisga'A Treaty, March 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Vancouver Island North residents gave the Nisga'a treaty an overwhelming thumbs down on the weekend, echoing the results of two previous grassroots plebiscites this year. More than 97% of the voters rejected the treaty as it now stands. Only two and one-half per cent of the voters, 76 people, supported the deal.

People are concerned about this treaty. Saturday's turnout represented 25% of the people who voted in the last provincial election in the North Island constituency.

British Columbians are fed up with the federal and provincial governments misrepresenting the terms of this treaty. They know that the real cost of the Nisga'a deal is almost three times what their governments claim the cost to be.

British Columbians know that because government underestimated the value of lands and resources the province is contributing to the deal, they will get stuck with 75% of the bill.

The people most affected by this deal have spoken. Is the Liberal travelling road show to the west listening? Is this government listening?

[Petitions, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition from my constituents who are concerned that Canada does not effectively screen out those who become involved in criminal activities, including terrorism and drug trafficking. They note that these individuals pose serious threats to the health, welfare, safety and well-being of Canadians and that these individuals unduly burden our justice system, our immigration and refugee system at taxpayer expense.

The petitioners implore the government to take action and have the Canadian status of these individuals revoked and that they be deported.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 18th, 1999]

With reference to the neuro-psychiatric side-effects experienced by those taking the anti-malarial drug mefloquine (Lariam): ( a ) Of those Canadians administered mefloquine prior to the date of its licensing for general use by the Health Protection Branch in 1993, how many persons committed suicide or attempted to commit suicide and how many of these incidents were associated with alcohol use; ( b ) Of those Canadians administered mefloquine after the date of its licensing for general use by the Health Protection Branch in 1993, how many persons committed suicide or attempted to commit suicide and how many of these incidents were associated with alcohol use; ( c ) Of those members of the Canadian forces who were administered mefloquine since 1992, how many have attempted suicide or committed suicide; in what year; in Canada or abroad and if abroad name the country; ( d ) Of those members of the Canadian forces who were administered mefloquine since 1992 and attempted suicide or committed suicide, how many of these incidents were associated with alcohol use; ( e ) Has the Health Protection Branch reviewed the international experience concerning suicides, suicide attempts, and suicidal ideation associated with mefloquine use, and if so when, and what were the results and recommendations of the review, and what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations; ( f ) Has the Health Protection Branch reviewed the scientific literature with regard suicides, suicide attempts and suicidal ideation associated with mefloquine use and if so when, and what were the results and recommendations of the review and what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations; ( g ) Has the Health Protection Branch revised the administering instructions for mefloquine to include warnings regarding suicides, attempted suicides, suicidal ideation, or the combination of mefloquine and alcohol and if so when, and what action taken, and if not does it plan to do so and if so when; ( h ) Have the Canadian forces taken actions in regard to suicides, suicide attempts or suicidal ideation associated with mefloquine use or the combined ingestion of mefloquine and alcohol and if so what was the action and when was it taken, if not why not and when do the forces plan to do so; ( i ) Has the Health Protection Branch taken special steps to warn Canadian physicians of the hazards of combining mefloquine and alcohol, when were they taken, and if no action why not, and when does the Branch plan to act and what do they plan to do; ( j ) Have the Canadian forces noted or otherwise received letters, doctors reports or other complaints from military families of miscarriages or infant deaths where either the father or mother were administered mefloquine prior to or at the time of the child's conception?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last September the auditor general advised the government to more carefully estimate the value of lands and resources being transferred under treaty.

His caution is especially relevant with regard to the Nisga'a treaty, where a study I commissioned by a respected economist and former member of the House, Robin Richardson, found the cost of the treaty to be $1.3 billion, almost three times the value placed on it by this government.

In undervaluing the lands and resources, the federal government burdens British Columbia with three-quarters of the cost of the treaty. That is a downloading of $652 million of federal costs on to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

There is no denying the inaccuracy of the government numbers. They now admit to underestimating third party compensation. They admit to placing no value on mineral resources, water resources, fishery and wildlife resources in the treaty area. The list goes on.

The Nisga'a deal is not a good deal when you do the numbers. The deal is a good deal only for the Minister of Finance because this government—