Bill C-394 (Historical)

Supporting New Parents Act

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (parenting tax credit)

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to establish a tax credit with respect to maternal and parental benefits.

Supporting New Parents Act

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss Bill C-394, the supporting new parents act, brought forward by our leader.

I know one thing to be true, since I am a mother myself. I am very proud to be a mother. We have heard this repeated several times today, but I will reiterate it. It is that babies are expensive, but this government is more expensive.

This is why we need to consider the different costs associated with babies. When people have a child, they prepare and purchase all the things that are required, such as the stroller, the car seat, the crib, and the high chair. My previous colleague talked about the costs of diapers and formula.

As a responsible Conservative, I also considered the financial implications, so I considered things like additional life insurance for my family. My husband and I took the time to have a will made, now that we had an entity to pass something on to, and also opened an RESP, which I will get back to.

Certainly one of the great joys of having a child is the time spent with the child. That has actually the greatest value of all. I was very fortunate when I had my son. I was the deputy consul general in Dallas, Texas, and my husband took two years from his career to care for our son. He credits this experience with the position he has today, in that his skills as a parent were recognized by his present employer. This bill allows parents to spend more time with their children.

In addition, we were very fortunate to have not only a happy child, but a healthy child, and this is not something every family or every parent gets to experience. Someone who is very close to me had a child with hemolytic-uremic syndrome, which resulted in many hours in the hospital. This experience with this sick child was a testament to the parent's will and strength, and is something I cannot possibly imagine.

What I am most concerned about for my son is the generational debt. It is an $18-billion deficit this year, with a $669-billion debt. My son will be 32 years old when the debt is scheduled to be paid off. In closing, I repeat that babies are expensive, but this government is more expensive.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (parenting tax credit), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last took up debate on the question, the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore had seven minutes remaining in her time. Therefore, we will go to her now.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to discuss Bill C-394, the Supporting New Parents Act, brought forward by our leader. I do know one thing to be true. I mentioned this before and it bears repeating, as I continue my final seven minutes to discuss this piece of legislation. As I mentioned, I am a mother myself. I am very proud to be a mother. When we were discussing this piece of legislation before, one theme was just how incredibly expensive it is to welcome a child into the world.

It is a wonderful thing being a mother. It is the most marvellous thing, and among the most, if not the most satisfying thing I have ever experienced. However, there is certainly a cost to becoming a new parent, without question.

I think all of the speakers previously agreed that welcoming a child into the world is very much an expensive proposition. However, I will say this: Babies are expensive but the government is more expensive. That is why we need to consider the different costs associated with babies to start. When people have a child, they prepare, and purchase the things that are necessary. There is an endless list, such a stroller, the car seat, the crib, and the high chair. I recall my colleague previously doing a calculation for things like diapers and formula. Really, the costs are absolutely astounding.

Of course, as a responsible Conservative, I also considered the other financial implications. I know that my husband and I considered additional life insurance for my family. We took the time to have a will made, because it was something very important to us now that we had a future stake in the world. As well, we were very fortunate to begin an RESP contribution for our son.

Despite the the costs, it is a great joy for new parents to spend time with their child. I am sure that many, if not all, parents would say that it is probably the greatest joy of all. I was very fortunate when I had my son. I was, at that time, the deputy consul general in Dallas, Texas. Therefore, just like many Canadian women, I had a good job and a solid career. I had my child and was able to re-enter the workforce somewhat quickly. This has been done before. It will be done again in the future. It is something that mothers do all the time.

However, I was especially fortunate because my husband at the time was able to take two years from his career to care for our son. In fact, he credits this experience with the position he has today, in that his skills as a parent were recognized by his present employer. Therefore, this bill allows parents to spend more time with their children, which is something very important.

In addition, I mentioned before that we were able to have not only a happy child, but a healthy child. This is, indeed, not something that every family has the blessing of. I mentioned someone who is very close to me who had a child with hemolytic uremic syndrome, which resulted in many hours in the hospital. This experience with this child of theirs, this sick child, was certainly a testament to their strength and their will, and something that I cannot possibly imagine. However, the point is that this bill would, in fact, ease the burden of a family from a tragedy or something like that. It would allow them to be a greater ease in regard to their finances as they deal with their sick child.

In addition to the goodwill that is required to take care of a child, I just want to take a minute to discuss how the government talks about supporting and sticking up for the middle class. Supporting this bill was actually mentioned at the status of women committee, the very committee on which I sit, yet a recommendation in support of this bill was not included in a recent study of theirs. That is shameful. To me, it just shows spite on the government's part, that it is not willing to even consider a piece of legislation, even if it would be helpful to parents and to all Canadians.

Let us take a look at what has been destroyed by the government since it took office in regard to children.

First is the universal child care benefit. Every Canadian parent benefited from this and looked forward to receiving it every month. I know that $160 a month for my son certainly made a difference in my family budget.

Second is the children's fitness tax credit. My little guy plays hockey and that is not an inexpensive undertaking. All Canadian parents can certainly benefit from such a tax credit. It is a shame the Liberal government disposed of it.

As I said, babies are expensive, but the Liberal government is more expensive.

My son would never think about being the owner of a $4.5 billion pipeline, something I did not account for when I created my will. I am not sure if my son has any expectation of is ahead for him with respect to the carbon tax and its cost for my family as well as for future generations.

Babies are expensive, but the Liberal government is more expensive.

What concerns me the most for my son is the generational debt. This is the reason we should support the bill. It is about easing the financial burden on families. There is a deficit this year of $18 billion, a total debt of $669 billion. I daresay my son will be 32 years old when this debt is scheduled to be paid off.

Babies are expensive; the Liberal government is more expensive.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, the member said that her son played hockey, which is not inexpensive, and that she benefited from the tax credit. As a kid, I did not play hockey because it was too expensive and my mother's revenue did not qualify for a non-refundable tax credit.

That is the difference in approach between the previous government and our government. The Conservative government focused on boutique tax credits that would help some but not all and often not those who needed it the most, like my mother when she was raising me. That is the starting point where there is a difference in approach between the Conservatives and our party and our government.

It is with pleasure that I rise in this debate to speak to Bill C-394, which will amend the Income Tax Act by providing a non-refundable tax credit of 15% on income earned from the employment insurance maternity and parental benefits program. The proposed amendments would also make it possible to carry forward the credit or any unused part of the credit for a period of one year, and to claim it in the following taxation year.

We understand the good intentions behind this bill and share most if its values. However, Canadians must be able to count on a government that will help create good, well-paid jobs that support a strong economy and that offer families opportunities to prosper. It is important to note that Bill C-394 misses the mark in that regard.

The proposed tax credit is not an effective means of achieving the objective set out in the bill, which is to offer help to all parents who take leave to care for a newborn or adopted child. That is one of my many concerns regarding this proposal.

We believe in supporting parents who need help with the high cost of raising kids, and helping kids have the best start in life. The member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, through his PMB, wants to continue the Harper practice of boutique tax credits that benefit some but not all, while we are helping everyone by providing more to the middle class and to those who need it most. In fact, under Bill C-394, the following groups would not even qualify for the non-refundable tax credit: almost all of those who are self-employed; those who do not pay federal personal income tax; those who do not qualify for EI maternity or parental benefits. Our approach, however, puts more money every month directly into the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families, helping lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer has voiced some reservations, mentioning that given the tax credit is non-refundable, not all families would have sufficient income to claim their total eligible amount in 2018-19. The PBO also estimates that this tax credit would result in forgone revenues of $607 million in 2018-19 and a future fiscal liability of $261 million that could be claimed in future years.

On this side of the House, we have taken action to strengthen the EI system to better support new parents. Mothers can now access maternity benefits up to 12 weeks prior to their expected due date. In addition, parents can now choose to receive parental benefits over a longer period at a lower benefit rate.

In budget 2018, we have also announced a new employment insurance parental sharing benefit that would give greater flexibility to parents by providing an additional five weeks of EI parental benefits when both parents agree to share parental leave. Taken together with our government's investments in early learning and child care, we have a plan that is working for Canadian families.

Here is another concern I would like to highlight.

It is best to amend the Income Tax Act as part of the budget process. Doing so enables the government to consider all the options, to balance priorities, and to make new fiscal commitments, but only if they are affordable. This means we can continue to offer the programs and services Canadians need while keeping taxes low for middle-class families.

That goal is especially relevant in the case of Bill C-394, which could be a $1-billion line item according to the Department of Finance. That cost will probably go up, plus the tax credit is for just one aspect of the employment insurance benefit system.

Bill C-394 has many more shortcomings that could result in much more paperwork and compliance issues. For example, unless the provinces choose to bring in parallel measures, all income earned in a given province will still be taxed on those amounts.

Once again, we see a major flaw in this bill. Although it aims to help parents who receive EI parental or maternity benefits, it offers nothing to parents who do not receive such benefits when they take leave to care for a newborn or newly adopted child. Self-employed workers, people with no insurable earnings and people whose income is too low to be taxable would receive no tax relief under the proposed credit.

The government does not believe that Canadian families would be well-served by a wide range of highly targeted tax credits that benefit certain people, but that do nothing for those who may be most in need. That is why, over the last few years, we have eliminated poorly targeted and ineffective tax expenditures. The proposed parental tax credit falls squarely into that category.

The government wants to ensure that the federal tax system and the benefits that are part of it are fair and effective, and that the system works for all Canadians, but that is not the case with the proposal before us.

The government has implemented a plan that helps the most people through, among other things, the Canada child benefit and the strengthening of the EI system to better support new parents.

Since 2016, Canadian families have received additional support through the Canada child benefit. Not only has that benefited Canadian families, but it has also lifted hundreds of thousands of Canadian children out of poverty by giving more money each month to low- or moderate-income parents to help them cover the high costs of educating children.

As well, the Canada child benefit is entirely tax-free, unlike the former child benefit system. The Canada child benefit is also simpler, more generous, better targeted and gives more help to the people who need it the most.

Approximately 3.3 million families with children receive more than $23 billion per year under the Canada child benefit. Approximately 54% of families who receive the maximum benefit amount are single-parent families and, in 90% of cases, are single mothers.

For example, a single mom of two children aged five and eight with a net income of $35,000 in 2016 will have received $11,125 in tax-free Canada child benefit payments in the 2017-18 benefit year. That is $3,500 more than she would have received under the previous child benefit system. That is important to mention. That amount makes a big difference in the lives of many families, single-parent and others, across the country, which the measure proposed today does not do.

Under the bill accompanying budget 2018, our government is strengthening the Canada child benefit by indexing the benefits each year to follow the increase in the cost of living, as of July 2018, two years earlier than planned.

The Canada child benefit helps families invest in the things that give kids a good start in life, like a safe living environment, healthy food, music lessons or sports camps. As well, to support greater gender equality at home and in the workplace, budget 2018 proposes to create a new employment insurance parental sharing benefit. Such a measure has been in place for years in Quebec and has had very conclusive results: 83% of fathers take parental leave. That benefit will result in additional take-it-or-leave-it weeks of EI parental benefits when both parents agree to share parental leave. This measure should be in place by June 2019.

At a time when Canada has a strong and growing economy, the government is making smart and necessary investments to ensure that the middle class, including all parents, continues to benefit from that growth. We want growth and prosperity to be inclusive.

The Canadian economy has been booming for two years. Canada has the strongest growth in the G7, 600,000 jobs have been created and the unemployment rate is at its lowest in 40 years. It is important for that prosperity and that growth to benefit the most people and for the social elevator to work in Canada.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madame Speaker, we are dealing with a very important issue raised by the leader of the official opposition in his bill, the issue of parental benefits. However, the tool that he proposes is not at all adequate.

The main problem is not the refund of costs through a tax credit, but the issue of access to those benefits. This issue not only affects Canada, but also other countries.

Parental leave is the result of a long fight that began in the early 20th century. One of the first protections voted by the International Labour Organization in 1919 was the Maternity Protection Convention.

That standard was revised in 1952, providing for a minimum of 12 weeks, while recommending that the length be extended to 14 weeks. In 1998, 120 countries granted maternity leave. In under 20 years, such leave has been extended to fathers and same-sex partners. If we look south of the border, the United States does not offer parental leave, which forces many young families to make enormous sacrifices. They choose to return to work just a few days after the birth or adoption of their child because they do not have the means to pay for leave. That is a model that we should stay as far away from as possible. I am proud to be in a country, or in a province, actually, that offers parental leave.

If, in the United States, only rich families can afford to have one parent stay at home to take care of their baby, in Canada we also have a corresponding problem: accessibility. The main problem with parental leave benefits is that they are difficult to access. The priority if we want to fix the parental leave system should be to improve accessibility by lowering the minimum number of hours parents need to work to qualify for benefits.

This becomes clear when we compare the ratio of people in Quebec and in Canada who have access to parental leave benefits. In Quebec, 84% of new mothers benefit from parental leave. In Canada, that number is only 64%. One-third of Canadian women cannot access parental leave. That is why making the system more inclusive should be a priority.

In every province and territory, including Quebec until 2006, parents must accumulate 600 hours of paid work, regardless of what their salary is, to qualify for paid leave to take care of their child. These benefits are paid monthly and cover 55% of the salary.

Think of how that compares with Quebec, where any parent who earns $2,000 or more qualifies for paid leave. If a man or woman earns minimum wage, he or she is eligible for parental leave after 178 hours of work. In other words, Quebec requires less than one-third of the hours required in the rest of Canada. In Quebec, parental benefits make the lives of parents a little bit easier financially speaking, since they can count on monthly payments of between 55% and 75% of their income, depending on the number of weeks requested, with the maximum insurable earnings being $74,000.

As my colleagues have already said, unfortunately, this bill will help the members of our society who need it least. The tax credit will help those in the upper tax brackets and high-income earners, while low-income parents who have difficulty making ends meet will not stand to benefit hardly at all.

The provincial law helps less fortunate families and the effect is noticeable, since there is a considerable gap between Quebec and the other provinces when it comes to the use of parental leave.

Let us look at the case of mothers with a total household income of less than $30,000. A lot more of them take paid leave in Quebec than in the other provinces and territories.

Based on the 2013 data, researchers Sophie Mathieu, Lindsey McKay, and Andrea Doucet found that 85% of low-income women in Quebec had access to paid maternity leave compared to 44% of women in the rest of Canada.

The riding of Salaberry—Suroît, which I proudly represent, is poorer than the Canadian average. The average household employment income in my riding is $35,000 compared to the Canadian average of $46,000. If we look at women's income alone, 57% of women live on less than $30,000 a year. I do not think that my riding is unique in this regard. What good is a tax credit when you earn less than $30,000?

Many of these women, whether they live in Beauharnois or the Prairies, do not earn enough money to benefit from the Conservatives' proposed tax credit.

I will wrap up this point by sharing another quote from those researchers in Le Devoir, to show, once again, that the Conservatives should have used the Quebec method as a model.

The QPIP is fairer, since there is just a 10-percentage-point difference in the use of maternity leave among women whose family income is below $30,000 [which corresponds to 85%] and those whose income is higher than $60,000...This gap is more than 30 percentage points in the nine other Canadian provinces (44% of low-income Canadian mothers had access to maternity leave...).

This is why the NDP is proposing that we increase the benefits from 55% to 60%, which would help more Canadian families.

Another point we should look at is the federal system, which goes up to 61 weeks at 33% of the person's pay. The number of weeks is very generous. Would there be a potential for a gradual return to work, during which wages would be topped up and we could ensure a smooth transition to day care for our little babies?

Generally speaking, under the federal system, if an individual works while receiving EI parental benefits, he or she could earn the greater of up to $50 a week or 25% of their weekly benefits. After that, any amount earned is deducted in full from the amount of benefits. It is impossible to live on 33% of one's salary if the claimant has an average income. Furthermore, if the income allowed is 25% of benefits, which represents 33% of earnings, this really hinders a gradual return to work.

In closing, this tax credit will be very costly and will not help the families who really need it the most. A conservative estimate of the cost is $850 million, or about 20% of the cost of buying a pipeline to British Columbia. Why spend so much money on a tax credit that completely misses the mark? If the government wants to improve the parental leave plan, the allocation of resources should address income inequality and improve access to benefits for those who need them most.

In conclusion, the NDP has presented historic measures that would help parents much more than a tax credit for EI benefits. A better way to help new parents on parental leave would be, for example, to increase the income replacement rate.

The NDP is proposing to raise the rate from 55% to 60%. This measure would benefit all parents on leave, not just those who earn enough to pay taxes. This would be a much easier way to fix the situation described by the Conservatives, the solution being to increase the available income of new parents on leave.

Parents returning to work desperately need affordable child care. If we want to allocate substantial public resources to new parents, it is imperative that child care be part of the conversation. Affordable child care is an extremely important issue to Canadian families, so making a tax credit the priority makes no sense.

By lowering the threshold for eligibility for parental leave, we would also be helping more young parents, people in precarious jobs, and part-time workers to qualify for parental leave. The current threshold of 600 hours makes it very hard to qualify. Lowering the threshold would allow more parents to access the system.

If we consider that it is in children's best interest to spend quality time with their parents, especially in the early years, if we call children the apple of our eye, if we say we want to give our children every chance of receiving love and attention and of developing strong bonds with their parents, then I think we need to make it easier for new parents to take parental leave, instead of giving additional resources to people who do not need them. We must not be unfair to people of more modest means who are struggling to make ends meet. In closing, I hope the Conservatives will change their mind and offer solutions that are a little fairer for all Canadians.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, the member for Louis-Hébert stated that Bill C-394 would not help mothers or fathers who had a small business. I assume he believes this because they may not pay into EI. However, to clarify, while the government is extending parental leave, those same parents who may own small businesses will not have the opportunity to use that benefit because they do not pay into EI.

I am happy to support Bill C-394, the supporting new parents act. I am always proud to stand and support families. They are the cornerstone of our society. When that foundation is strong, it is to everybody's benefit. Unfortunately, under the Liberal government, times right now are really tough for families.

It has been reported that on average middle-class Canadian families are paying more than $800 in additional taxes due to the Liberal government's policies. These are the very people the government claims it is still helping. For my constituents in Saskatchewan, there is a reality that the carbon tax will add significantly to the tax bill, which will be on top of the $800 more they are already paying under the Liberal government.

The Liberals are imposing a carbon tax on the provinces, and it will come at a significant cost to each and every person. In fact, Finance Canada has stated that the Liberals' carbon tax will cost an extra 11¢ per litre just in gasoline alone. When people live in rural Saskatchewan, they have long distances to drive to get just about anywhere, such as the grocery store, the midnight run to Walmart to get diapers, formula, or whatever the case may be. This carbon tax will add up very quickly.

While the government is raising the cost of living for Canadians, it is encouraging to consider the proposed legislation before us, legislation that would actually help new parents keep more of their hard-earned money. The supporting new parents act would deliver real support to families at a time when they need it the most.

The arrival of a child is a happy and exciting occasion for new parents. As a mother, I know this first-hand. My children are my greatest joys. I also know that this milestone comes with many additional costs. New parents will need everything from diapers to wipes to bottles to car seats to strollers to cribs, and that is just the beginning of the list. There is so much more. I have only named a few of the basics. A full list would almost be endless.

By removing the federal income tax from EI maternity and EI parental programs, the supporting new parents act would help alleviate the financial pressures of these additional costs. Certainly, the proposed legislation would be a welcomed relief. When parents can keep more of their take-home benefit, it gives them more choice in deciding whether to stay home with their baby.

Currently, EI maternity benefits are available to a birth mother for up to 15 weeks. Parental benefits are available for up to an additional 35 weeks. Now the parental benefits can be extended up to 61 weeks at a reduced wage replacement.

The opportunity to bond and care for a child in its infancy is so very valuable to mother, baby, and father. I cherished the time I had with both of my children. The existence of the El maternity and El parental programs makes that a possibility for so many Canadians.

When we consider this legislation and the price tag that comes with becoming a new parent, it is important for us all to remember that El benefits are not equal to a person's regular pay. The basic benefit rate is 55% of his or her average weekly pay. That is only a little more than half of a person's regular pay. For parents who choose to extend their parental benefits to the maximum of 61 weeks under the new regulations, their benefit rate is reduced to 33% from 55%.

This means that while new parents are incurring new and additional costs, they are taking home less pay. Then, of the benefits that they do receive, they do not get to keep all of it. As it stands, every Canadian who collects benefits through these programs pays federal taxes on them. Their take-home benefit is being taxed. Some parents are also slapped with a tax bill when they file their taxes.

The parental EI program has some new flexibility, in that parents can choose to extend the length of their parental leave. For many parents this is positive, and the option to stay at home with their child in these early years is preferred. However, this new flexibility has not provided more income to parents. Extended leave means that parents have even less income over an extended period of time. It is great that there is a desire to make these programs more flexible. What we cannot forget is that there are expenses at home regardless. For many parents, this choice may be unaffordable. If that is the case, then it really is not a choice that is available to them.

Rather than just making the parental leave longer, let us also remove the federal tax from these benefits. Let us take a real step to put more money back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians. Let us help offset the cost of a parent who decides to take leave from work to be with their infant. Let us not tax the dollars of taxpayers twice. That is not fair.

With the support of this House, this legislation could deliver significant support to Canadian parents of a newborn or an adopted child. To give an example of the support this legislation would deliver, a Canadian parent with an annual salary of $50,000 would be eligible for a tax credit of $4,000, and $4,000 can go a long way. Depending on where they shop, a box of 128 diapers will cost them, give or take, over $35. With $4,000 more in their pocket, they can buy a lot of diapers.

What this legislation is really offering Canadians is the ability to better meet their family's needs. It takes off some of the financial pressures of becoming a new parent and allows for more flexibility to spend precious bonding time with their children.

I am happy to stand up and support of this legislation. Conservatives are committed to delivering meaningful support to Canadian families. On this side of the House, we understand that the cost of raising a family can really add up and that for many Canadians it is not easy to make ends meet. We know that is particularly true for new parents who are facing new experiences and new expenses with less income.

The legislation we are considering today is an opportunity to support these new parents. It is a chance to strengthen families by giving them financial support when they need it most. When we put more of their hard-earned money back into their pockets, it means they have more money to spend on their priorities. They do not need the government to spend it on their behalf.

We have seen the Liberal government's reckless spending. It only ends up costing Canadian taxpayers more and more. This money is better in the pockets of Canadians. Moms and dads work hard to make ends meet, and they know what their family's needs are. They deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money.

The supporting new parents bill would help a lot of Canadian families. I hope that it will find support on all sides of the House.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak tonight on behalf of my wonderful riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

The riding is a wonderful riding, but is a story of two situations. It is a story of tremendous business wealth and success, and there is a lot of entrepreneurship. It is also a riding that unfortunately leads the country in child poverty and has a very high poverty rate, way above the national average.

In the past election in 2015, I wanted to be a champion, a voice, an advocate for those who needed help but did not have a loud voice, especially here in Ottawa. When I started going door to door in 2015, people told me that the Conservative Party had boutique tax credits, credits that were targeted to a very select segment of the population. The boutique tax credits were there to help someone take ballet lessons or help a family send their kids to piano lessons or play hockey.

The reality is that Bill C-394 is another feeble attempt at a Harper-era tax credit. The credit does not target working families. The credit is not skewed toward reality, and it leaves hundreds of thousands of our children in poverty. The party opposite, with its boutique tax credits, likes to talk about being there for families and being there to give back. For some reason, the party is not there to represent the working-class families that are living in poverty.

The universal child care benefit was for everyone. Whether people made $200,000 or $15,000, they received the same amount. How was that fair? To add to that, it was taxed. Conservatives were taking money back from families that needed it the most; we want to bring children and families out of poverty.

When I went door to door, people were amazed at the audacity of the universal child care benefit. It did not help families that needed it the most. It was a boutique tax credit. We remember during the election the member for Carleton going around in his Conservative golf shirt to communities to hand out tax credits. It was called “Christmas in July”. That did not resonate with Canadians. It did not resonate with people in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

The first week that I started campaigning for the honour of being a member of Parliament, I went door to door in our priority neighbourhoods, such as Crescent Valley, family by family. People talked about not being able to afford to live. They could not afford to heat their houses or buy groceries. They could not afford books for their children to go to school. It is great to have a boutique tax credit to take kids to ballet or to piano lessons, but people across this country were forgotten by the party opposite for 10 years. People were trying to survive week in and week out with the necessities of life.

Yes, I am a proud Liberal. Yes, I believe that the Liberal Party and federal governments have a duty, an obligation, to provide good national transitional programs, especially for those in need. The Canada child benefit is that program. It is changing lives. It is lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty from coast to coast to coast. When I go door to door now, people are so appreciative that our government came forth with a program that is actually having an impact on their lives. With the Canada child benefit, nine out of 10 families have the extra help they need, month in and month out, to pay for things like healthy food, summer camps, back-to-school clothes, and the necessities of life. That is one of the biggest differences between our party and the party opposite. We believe that we can do good things for Canadians.

I know the members of the party opposite like to wrap themselves up in “We are there for everybody—we are there for the middle class and we are there for people who live in poverty”, but let us talk about the tax-free savings account as an example.

The tax-free savings account was a program that was maxed out by 3% of Canadians, yet the party opposite wanted to double that tax-free savings account for Canadians, for the masses. However, it was not for the masses; it was for a select few. If we have hear it once, we hear 10 times a week that this party is mortgaging the future. Even before I ran in politics, I remember listening to Power and Politics one night when the finance minister of the party opposite was interviewed. He was asked how the Conservatives were going to pay for doubling the tax-free savings account. He replied, “Don't worry about it. It's okay. The Prime Minister's grandchildren or great-grandchildren can pay for that. We'll pass that down the road.”

I remember sitting there in amazement that a finance minister of the party opposite could actually say that he was mortgaging our children's and our children's children's future to double the tax-free savings account, which targeted a very narrow scope of Canadians.

Bill C-394 does the very same thing. It targets a very narrow sector of Canadians. That is why, as a government, we believe in national programs like a national poverty reduction strategy, historic investments in affordable housing, historic investments in child care and early learning, and especially the Canada child benefit.

As I alluded to earlier, my riding leads the country in child poverty. I take great pride in knowing that in my riding, that needle is starting to move to the left because of wonderful programs like the Canada child benefit.

Members of the party opposite have said that they are listening to Canadians and Quebeckers. I know the Leader of the Opposition has a website called “Listening to Quebecers” and that they are in favour of Quebec jurisdictional rights. Well, we are here to listen to Canadians. We believe our programs are the right programs. We will stand behind our programs and do that day in and day out for the betterment of all Canadians.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to support the bill to help new parents introduced by my colleague, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who is also the leader of our party and, hopefully, the next Prime Minister of Canada.

Our leaders' proposal is very appealing because it is a reflection of the reality we are faced with. In their last budget, the Liberals boasted that they lowered taxes for Canadian families. It is even written in a document put out by the Government of Canada. Well, that is not true, and I am not the only one saying so. The people watching sometimes wonder who is telling the truth. I would refer them to the Fraser Institute, an independent Canadian organization that assesses economic policies.

With the Liberals in power, Canadian families are paying $840 more in taxes because the government eliminated income splitting and tax credits for sports, educational activities, and public transit. The Liberals are also introducing a carbon tax, but they cannot tell us to what extent this will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We had a useful tool to reward people who take the bus, but that tax credit was eliminated by the Liberals.

The Liberals also got rid of tax credits for textbooks and education. That really stings. My mother is a teacher, and I am sure she is disappointed in the Liberals for cutting measures that encouraged parents to buy educational materials for their kids. That is the truth of it.

This government goes on and on about giving more to families and cutting taxes, but that is not actually true. No wonder then that it is opposed to a bill that would give more money back to families. It is their own money, after all, not money that grew on trees, not money they borrowed. We know how much the Liberals love borrowing money. They have hit $17 billion and they are not stopping. They promised modest deficits, but that is now out the window. They got us into such a fix that Canada will not likely see a balanced budget again for decades. That is regrettable because we are a wealthy, resource-rich nation.

As we saw again this week, the Liberals cannot seem to attract private investment. They scare off anyone wanting to invest in our energy resources sector. The only way they could think of to develop the energy sector was to borrow money to buy a company and send all that money to Texas with nary a foot of pipeline built. I am talking about the infamous Trans Mountain project. That is where we stand today.

Our leader is proposing concrete measures. Getting families to stop paying tax on tax is what is at the heart of this private member's bill. I am sure that my colleagues will agree on this. The government is not only taxing families, but it is also taxing the benefits it is giving those families. Our leader says that it is time to fix this situation and give families a break. That is exactly what this private member's bill before us seeks to do. It addresses a very special time in many peoples' lives, including my own, when they become parents. It represents a new life and a child, but also a great deal of responsibility.

Madam Speaker, I imagine that you experienced this and you know that everything happens all at once. You have to buy a stroller, paint the bedroom, and buy furniture and a high chair. My children are all grown up now and I am closer in age to being a grandfather than a new parent.

It is a wonderful time, but it is often young people who are just entering the workforce, who are struggling to make ends meet, and who are sleep deprived. It is a critical time in peoples' lives and we want parents to be able to devote their time to taking care of their children and taking care of themselves during these precious moments.

They need a break. They do not need to be squeezed by the government for even more money.

At the federal level, maternity and parental benefits are provided through employment insurance, but in Quebec, they are provided by the Quebec parental insurance plan. The bill proposes that, in both cases, the government not tax the benefits parents receive while they take care of their families.

It is very simple. I am surprised that my colleagues are opposing this measure. We want to leave money in parents' pockets. They earned it and were already taxed, so why tax the benefit income they receive?

The Conservatives believe that people should come before government. This is how we managed to lower taxes on families before the current government came in. We also managed to do so while balancing the budget and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. That is what you call sustainable development.

The measure our leader is proposing would help parents keep their money and avoid being taxed a second time when they want to spend time with their families. This bill was introduced on February 1 and would represent a tax break for young families.

As members know, we currently have a labour shortage in Canada. My colleague from the Thetford Mines region surely has an experience similar to mine. In Chaudière-Appalaches, there is full employment. Everyone is hiring. We want to attract immigrants, people from all over, and young families who will be able to meet these challenges. This is a good time to have children, because there are some great job opportunities in our country. There will be a deficit, but with the help of Canadians, we will be able to eliminate it, since our leader does not want the government to become insolvent.

Let us go back to the bill that is before us. Its goal is to support new parents and prevent double taxation. It will give a break to families who are on parental leave by giving them a tax break on all income earned under federal EI maternity and parental benefits or under the Quebec parental insurance plan.

Simply put, we want to leave more money in young parents' pockets when they need it the most, that is, when they start a family.

The sums of money are actually quite substantial. For example, for a family income of $50,000, which is not a lot, the potential tax break amounts to $4,000. This significant measure will help families in Quebec and everywhere else.

Basically, we have two opposing views. On one side, the government thinks that budgets balance themselves or that money grows on trees, and throws money around willy-nilly without thinking of the future. On the other side, we are saying that we need to find ways for parents to keep more of their hard-earned money when they need it the most so that they can devote it to their families.

I therefore have no problem supporting the bill sponsored by our leader, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I hope the Liberals will experience a surge of good will towards young families and see that this makes sense. It is true that they did not think of it themselves, but perhaps they could support the bill instead of taking money away from these young families and sending it to Texas to buy a pipeline.

In closing, I want to point out that this pipeline was worth $550 million dollars in 2007 and was worth $2.5 billion at the time of purchase, according to the company's books, and yet the government has announced that it is going to pay $4.5 billion for it. That is a lot of money to be tossing out the window that could have been used to buy strollers and decorate nurseries. I deplore this Liberal incompetence.

I support this bill, which will put more money in the pockets of Canadian families.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I recognize the next speaker, I just want to indicate that, unfortunately, I will have to cut the debate short at 6:30. I will now recognize the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I had prepared a number of remarks on this bill. I believe very strongly in the bill and think it is excellent. It should be supported by the House.

Family is dear to the heart of the leader of the opposition, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. From his own experience, he knows the challenges of raising a young family. It was really disappointing to hear the debate on this bill, and hear what sounded more like excuses than reasons not to support the bill. We heard the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance talk about all kinds of things that had nothing to do with the substance of the bill, and that is disappointing.

This bill is a private member's bill, and it is subject to the limitations of private members' business. It is not able to address every challenge of raising a family. This bill seeks to reduce the tax burden on people who are working and who have to make a decision about how best to spend time with their baby. It enables the parents of newborns to at least reduce their tax burden by eliminating the income tax from their maternity or paternity benefit. What is wrong with that?

This is private members' business; it is unable to solve every problem. We heard excuses about people who do not pay income tax or people who are self-employed. Indeed, these other people have enormous challenges. We cannot fix everyone's issue and we cannot solve everything through a single private member's bill. It is disappointing to hear the excuses that came up in the debate on this bill and the unwillingness to support it.

This bill help reduce taxes on young families, who are confronted with a multitude of costs and expenses at a vulnerable time of life. We are talking about a number of young people who are, in many cases, at the beginning of their careers, young people who have an enormous amount of expenses related to everything from diapers to high chairs to car seats. Those are along with all of the other things that make life expensive, like the cost of housing.

Of course, the most expensive part about life for many Canadians is taxes. This reduces taxes to help young parents be with their children after a baby is born.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 6:30 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.