Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-244, which was introduced by my colleague for Mississauga South.
This bill would enable a taxpayer to transfer part of his or her income to a spouse who remained at home to rear children, to enable this person to make contributions to the Canada pension plan.
The intent of this bill is a praiseworthy one, greater financial independence at retirement age for whichever spouse remained at home to look after children. I say spouse, but generally speaking that person is still the wife.
The logic behind Bill C-244 is the following: a worker would be authorized to transfer part of his income to his spouse on his income tax return. For application of the Canada Pension Plan Act, the income thus transferred would be considered income from self-employment. For the recipient, would this self-employed status confer the tax deductions related to self-employment?
If so, the stay-at-home spouse would pay both CPP contributions, the employer and the employee share, which would entitle her to a larger pension upon reaching retirement age.
In order to make such a transfer, the couple must have a child who is not attending school full time, and the couple must not, of course, claim child care expenses.
This is where my first criticism comes in. Is this not a way of using the wife as a tax shelter? The societal view behind this bill is that women are at home looking after children. There is an obvious risk that the male partner may ask his female partner to stay home and look after the children, in order to take advantage of this tax measure.
This view is contrary to a modern family policy aimed at improving women's autonomy and their participation in the labour market.
The family policy put forward by Quebec, with a day care system for children over the age of three at $5 a day, and the additional social assistance provided by Newfoundland for day care expenses are cases in point.
Every major report on women and the labour market released since the 1970 report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada emphasized the fact that child care is an essential service if women are to participate fully in the labour market.
My second criticism is the following: What about individual autonomy, especially that of women? There is a risk that the income transfer will take place on the tax return only, making the woman dependent on her husband. This is a backward approach that makes no sense at a time when the income of EI and welfare recipients is being cut to encourage them to go back to work.
Besides, it would be unfair not only from a tax point of view but also for single parent families, most of which are headed by women who have to put their children in day care so they can go to work.
I am convinced that women re-entering the labour market would rather rely on a family policy adapted to their needs like the one in Quebec than lose their autonomy and be subsidized to stay at home.
Finally, this tax measure will cost the federal government in terms of lost tax revenues. Instead of sinking money in such a controversial measure, the federal government should transfer to the provinces the money they are entitled to and let them implement a family policy suited to the 21st century.
