Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-247, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act (child care expenses) tabled on May 6, 1994 by the member for Calgary Centre.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Income Tax Act to allow the deduction of a fixed amount of $5,000 or $3,000 as child care expenses, regardless of the income of the parents and of the amount of child care expenses actually incurred.
The existing statute does not apply to stay at home parents. Only those families whose children attend profit making establishments are allowed the child care expenses deduction.
The bill means that parents can decide how they want their children cared for and deduct a fixed amount of $5,000 for children seven and under and $3,000 for those aged eight to fourteen, regardless of their income and the actual expenses incurred.
Upon initial examination, this bill seems to make sense. However, I would like to have more detailed information on what it will cost, given that the deductions now allowed represent the major part of day care costs for the government. I would also like to know how many families and children would benefit from this bill. The government must manage its resources wisely. Given their scarcity, I would think that priority must be given to women who work.
That being said, statistics show that in 1961, in 65 per cent of families with a child under the age of six, one parent stayed at home. In 1991, this sort of family structure represented only 12 per cent of families. Nowadays, over 70 per cent of pre-school age children attend day care regularly while their parents work.
Child poverty is increasing dramatically. The government's cuts in social programs have further worsened the situation.
In addition, the cost of raising children at home is rising. Who would dare to say that those parents who stay at home are not working? And yet, the monetary value of this work is not recognized.
In this sense, the bill provides a modest financial benefit for families in which one parent stays at home to care for the children. We know that there are very often no more vacancies in day care centres.
The present income tax regime is unfair to single income families. The child care expenses deduction applies only to two-income families, whatever the total. Families may claim a maximum of $5,000 per child, for children less than seven years old, and a $3,000 deduction for children 7 to 14 years old. No deduction is allowed for one-income families because the legislation assumes they have no child care expenses to pay. These are the families who need financial support, particularly single parent families which, in most cases, are mother and children units. Children in those families are the first ones to be struck by poverty.
In our modern world, we can see that, for a great many families, it is vital for the mother to work outside the home. This participation in the workforce is sometimes threatened by the lack of child care services.
Under certain circumstances, women are forced to stay home and that can cause serious problems. These women suffer from isolation and lack of social recognition. Therefore, the government should take the necessary steps to ensure their social and economic equality. Years spent at home caring for children result in a considerable loss of income and great difficulties when reintegrating the labour force.
According to what I have just heard the hon. member for Calgary Centre say, it seems the Reform members support this bill for very old-fashioned reasons. Even though I tend to agree with this bill, I cannot share the philosophy and the line of thought of the hon. member sponsoring it. His objective seems to be to promote a more traditional and conservative view of the family. He would like to see women stay home in greater numbers. I think this would be a move backwards that would profit neither the women themselves, nor society which would no longer benefit from their valuable contribution in important areas.
On the other hand, we must examine this bill in the current context of the government social policy which is very regressive. There is a blatant lack of an overall and fair child care program. And if we consider that a great number of women choose to stay at home to raise their children, the bill proposed by the hon. member for Calgary Centre makes sense, of course, if that is the free choice of these women. Then, the government must respect this choice, recognize the economic value of the work of these women at home and give them this modest financial benefit.
This bill is far from being the ideal solution, but it gives the opportunity to revive the debate on child care.
Our society wants children, but parents who have them and raise them are penalized.
I support this bill only inasmuch as the mother or the couple choose that kind of child care of their own free will. If they do so, they should not be unduly put at a disadvantage by the federal tax system.
Surveys show that the general public supports some kind of government financial assistance to families where one parent stays home to take care of children.
The government and our society should find a comprehensive solution to that problem. I certainly hope the Minister of Human Resources Development will examine this whole issue of assistance to families and particularly children, because it is urgent. The federal government should work hand in hand with the provinces to provide more child care services.
I should add that comparative studies in the United States, Canada, and Europe suggest that it is inadequate and unfair to hand out money to families to pay for child care instead of using tax dollars to fund a child care system, which is probably the way of the future.
In conclusion, I would like to say that, eventually, we should also examine the issue of assistance to families who take care of the elderly, the chronically ill, or the handicapped.