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.

The House resumed from June 5 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.

Supporting New Parents Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence to just give me some indication of the time. I am not accustomed to speaking ad hoc, but I feel compelled to rise today to speak against the private member's bill being proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, Bill C-394.

I do so knowing that the hon. member is a member of the party of the late Jim Flaherty, so I am very disappointed that a basic principle of taxation has been thoroughly ignored in presenting this private member's bill, which is that there is a difference between a benefit that is offered through the federal government and a program that a citizen pays into.

A program such as the Canada pension plan or the employment insurance program is one that a person, not necessarily a taxpayer—we do not know yet—who qualifies for that program pays into, and the person is then entitled to derive certain monies from that program, depending on whether they meet the criteria.

That is very different from a social benefit, which is awarded based on other criteria. It could be universal or means-based.

Again I must reiterate how disappointed I am that this bill has been put forward to the House, especially in light of the terrific work that our government did in the very first few months of our mandate in bringing in not only a bona fide and increased universal Canada child benefit but one that was tax-free, that was needs-based for those who needed the money more, and that was automatically deposited to people's accounts. They did not have to apply for it. They did not have to worry about whether it would be taxed back when it came time to do their personal income taxes 12 or 14 months later.

It was worry free, and it has lifted, as we know, more than 300 children out of poverty. That is where the money needs to go: toward lifting those families that have the most need out of poverty. Again, that is my disappointment on the tax side.

As a woman, as a feminist, as a mother, as a daughter, I am someone who saw my own mother opening up that envelope in the kitchen. I think it was when the eighth child was born in our family that the family allowance originally came in, in the 1960s. That was money in her hands. She had worked briefly as a teacher prior to having my oldest brother. She had decided to stay home, of course, as many women did, to look after us. We came one after the other. When the twins came, she said, “That is just next year's baby come this year.” Next year's baby came anyway. They just kept coming.

We ended up being nine in the family. Having that money in her hands meant she could use it for the very important things that she wanted to spend the money on—not that my father was not doing his part; he definitely was. He was working and bringing home money, but it was so important for her to have that income and to feel that she could make decisions for the family.

Fast-forward 25 years to myself as a single mom. It was the early 1980s. It still was not quite the thing to do, but I had a very supportive family around me. I was able to benefit from a number of programs at that time that allowed me to not only have my child and to feel secure in looking after her on my own, but also to go back to school. In doing so, I earned my master's degree in business administration and learned about financial matters. By this time, as members can imagine, it was very important to me.

It was at that time that I realized I had so many opportunities. Again, because I lived in Montreal, Quebec, I was able to get an excellent education for a very low price, but that is not free. There is a cost to society.

There were taxpayers before me who had paid into the general pool so that education could be available to people like me. When I got a terrific job at a bank three years later and I was finally making the big bucks, I paid my fair share of taxes and I was happy to do so, because then I could feel that I was helping another young mother like me to get her chance in life. That is what our tax system is about, that when we are in need, money is available and public support is available to us, but when we have more money, we are able to help other families who are in need.

I just wanted to come to that very basic principle. I had enormous respect for the late Jim Flaherty because as minister of finance, he brought in so many terrific initiatives to help people do better in life. Again, I would ask the hon. member opposite to think a bit more about this proposition that he is bringing forward.

I want to get back to families. Yes, it is expensive, and yes, it is complicated, but it is what makes life so rewarding. When people talk about cost, it always kind of bothers me because it really depends on how we value our children. Having my daughter completely changed my life. Having my daughter made me into the person, I would like to say, that people see here today. I hope that I am doing her proud. She is an artist today. She lives and works in New York City with her husband and they too are paying their taxes. If there is one thing I taught my daughter, even as an artist she did her bookkeeping and her accounting, and when she sold her work, she paid her taxes. I would certainly encourage all young people to think about how important it is to be that contributing member of society so that when they need the money, it is there for them, but when it is time for them to give back, they are able to do so.

We do not have to make it complicated. I am happy to report that I did get married. When my daughter was six years old, I met a wonderful man. We had twin boys, and it was not long before they were into sports, hockey and this and that. That sports credit was around and chasing after receipts from volunteer organizations was a pain in the neck. The arts credit was too late for my daughter, but she took art anyway. We did not wait for a tax credit to put my daughter into art school. It was complicated, and life is already complicated enough. Then we had that bus transit pass thing, and people should try looking for receipts for the monthly bus pass at the bottom of their kids' knapsacks at the end of every month. They have to have that receipt because at the end of the year when they want to claim it, CRA is going to come looking for those receipts. Please, let us simplify the lives of today's families. That is what our government has done. We are putting money into the accounts of families on a daily basis.

In my riding alone this represents $6 million a month. That is money that goes into our local economy. When I knock on doors in my riding, my constituents are very pleased to know that they are getting this money without having to apply for it or worrying that it will be taken out of their bank account.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to stand in the House and support the private member's bill put forward by Canada's Conservative leader and the leader of the official opposition that supports new parents. Bill C-394, the supporting new parents act, is a policy that works in the best interest of families, in the best of interest of children, and in the best interests of Canadians.

Canadians have seen many changes in the employment insurance program, specifically to maternity and parental benefits. This specific change provides support to families by providing tax relief on their employment insurance benefits. Currently, employment insurance is taxable under each and every program. This new refundable tax credit would benefit Canadian families at a time when it would be truly needed by the families.

Let us have some fun with this, and I will let everyone take part in this. As a parent, I understand how much it costs to purchase diapers. I went on to my little app, and currently at Walmart, a case of Huggies Little Snugglers diapers for newborns costs $29.97 and provides 88 diapers. According to the New Kids-Center, a site where one can find out how to parent, a newborn uses, on average, 10 to 12 diapers per day, per month. Sometimes I fell asleep, so I am sure I used less. Still, at 35¢ a unit, the cost is $4.20 a day. The total cost per month for diapers alone for a newborn is $130. Although the number of diapers used per month may go down as the child grows up, the cost per unit goes up. Regardless, we are looking at an average cost of about $130 a month just for diapers. This is just some basic parenting 101.

The supporting new parents act is a plan proposed by a parent in the House who knows a lot about diapers and children. When we have a leader of the opposition, our Conservative leader, bring forward legislation like this, he does it because he understands family. He understands what it is like to raise children and the cost of that He and Jill have had many children, as he discussed, so he understands what it is like.

If we were to add his family to my family we could field an entire baseball team, with one substitute. I do not think there are a lot of people in the House who could do that. This is coming from two parents who have spent a lot of money on diapers, so I understand this. There is a personal feel to it.

Currently parents of newborns receive anywhere between 33% and 55% of their income, whether they are taking extended benefits that now go to the 18-month period. As the chair of the status of women committee, we talk a lot about women and equality. As was brought forward in committee, one of the biggest things parents who are stay home with their child look at is loss of income. Who is going to choose to stay at home with the child? They may be looking at the opportunity to stay beyond the six-month parental leave, to be taken by the mother or the father. A lot of times that decision comes down to who is making the most money. Therefore, that person will continue to earn their benefits and the other person will stay home. The bill would help make the decision easier though.

At the end of the day, the bill would put more money back in the pockets of parents. The benefit to an average Canadian whose salary is $50,000 would be $4,000. We have heard from witnesses across Canada that choices on EI are based on the impact of the family's income. Therefore, an important bill like this provides that ability for parents to actually choose. There is going to be a choice. When parents know they can make x number of dollars and keep that in their pockets, it will be their choice.

Many times we have discussed why fathers do not take parental leave. One reason is because sometimes the breadwinner is the father. This would give them an option. In some families, the breadwinner may be the mother. This also would provide them additional income. It is that simple.

The Conservative Party of Canada believes in the family unit, and this is all about that. We believe in supporting families and developing reasonable, responsible programs and legislation. We believe that the way to help families is to lower taxes and have good policies. Strong families raise strong individuals, which in turn create strong communities and a stronger country.

Bill C-394, the supporting new parents act, is a policy that would work for families. It would work to help offset some of the costs of parenting. With five children of my own, I know the cost of raising children truly never goes away. I have a 22-year-old son who is still learning how to budget, so I give Garrett a budget. We are working on that. Working with our children and trying to ensure they have the best opportunities does not stop at a particular age.

Canadian families have so much to think about, including what school their child is going to. Do they take sports or piano lessons, or perhaps both? We do not get a tax credit on that, but it is an option. There are friends and curfews. However, the beginning of a child's life is a very special experience. Providing any opportunity for a parent to stay home with a child and help raise that child is a key to building a stronger child-mother, child-father bond, and I think that is really important.

This bill would put families first by providing a tax credit for income earned under EI maternity and EI parental benefits. According to reports, the average family right now, under the current government, is paying $800 a year more in taxes, and we know that is going to continue to grow. Yesterday in the House, we were discussing budget 2018 and the government's historic investments. These historic investments, of course, are the ones the Liberals are going to see on the backs of these children we are currently going to try to diaper, so let us give them a break now.

Let me provide a little insight. When I was talking about diapers, I was talking about the average cost. We can look at other things parents have to pay for. There are baby wipes, $7.99; a box of Q-tips, $3.99; two jars of baby food, three dollars; baby formula, anywhere from $9.98 to $52; baby cream and soaps, an average of five dollars to $10. We can add on the car seat, the crib, blankets, strollers, bottles, and swings. When we add all of those things, parenting does cost money. Being a parent is not cheap, and we know that at one time, one or two parents reduce their income to become parents and raise their children.

Bill C-394, the supporting new parents act, is a policy that would work in the best interest of families, children, and Canadians. The bill would assist new families by removing the federal tax on EI maternity and parental benefits for parents who choose to take time off to raise families, a newborn, or an adopted child. As a party, we believe that the family is essential for the well-being of individuals and society as a whole.

Raising children in Canada can be challenging. Canada's Conservatives recognize the sacrifice of Canadian parents who have to make these choices when having children, including taking leave from work and losing almost half of a regular income. This compassionate policy would help families when they need it most. It would give them more freedom and flexibility to raise their families. For any young family, this important proposed tax relief could make a huge difference in the cost of raising newborn children.

Canadian parents should be able to focus on providing for a new child. They deserve our support. This is especially important when the cost of living continues to rise for parents under this government.

This is the first major economic policy put forward by our leader. We look forward to proposing many other initiatives as we carry forward. As a Conservative team, we are working together to develop social and economic policies that make sense for all Canadians.

I hope I have not scared off anyone who is currently considering having a child when I say how expensive it is. Having a child is one of the greatest joys. It sometimes causes the greatest amount of tears, a lot of late nights, disagreements, and perhaps some time outs. Any time we can give a break to parents so they can raise their families, that is what the government should be doing. Our children are worth it, and supporting today's families is worth it.

I urge this government and members of the opposition party to support this bill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to discuss Bill C-394, a private member's bill put forward by the leader of the official opposition.

Whereas we applaud the suggestion of investing resources for new parents, this bill misses the point. It does not address the inadequate parental leave system that exists in this country. It leaves out the fundamental issue of child care and contributes to the growing inequality in Canada. This proposal would not fix the many issues with Canada's parental leave, particularly the systemic barriers that Canadian women face.

Let us talk about inequality. Growing inequality is the result of decades of Conservative and Liberal policies of privatization and deregulation. They are policies that have ravaged our public services and dismantled our welfare state. They are policies that have attacked the foundations of what previous generations have fought for to offer better living conditions to the working class and to people across this country. They are policies that are in the interest of a few and leave the many behind.

We know that inequality in Canada does not affect everyone equally. It is gendered, racialized, indigenous, disabled, and more and more, it is generational. The millennial generation, my generation, faces the prospect of being worse off than their parents. This is the generation we are talking about when talking about new parents. Let us talk about what millennials are facing.

Millennials are facing increasingly precarious work conditions. They have to survive going from one gig to the next. They are being told to get used to the job churn. We are hearing a government telling us to embrace this reality as a new normal. We are seeing an official opposition that does not seem to get that the fundamental challenges we face cannot be fixed with a regressive tax proposal like the one in front of us. When the Conservatives were in government, they did nothing to improve the working conditions that millennials face in our country and did nothing when it came to child care.

The economy we have today is not working for Canadian millennials. A 2015 Abacus survey shows us that 59% of millennials are delaying major life milestones, such as starting a family, because of the financial pressures they face. Beyond this number are the stories of young people who are struggling to get by.

I am reminded of a young woman I met in Windsor who talked about how, given all the challenges she has faced to be able to find secure employment with multiple degrees and student debt, et cetera, the one thing she said she knew well was that she was not going to be able to have kids because she would not be able to afford to give them what her parents gave her.

In the fall of 2016, a CIBC report was published that demonstrated that not only is there a historically high rate of part-time jobs in the economy, a rate that still sits at over 19%, but the share of below average paid jobs is steadily increasing. In Canada, more and more jobs that are being created are insecure ones, and many of those are being done by young people.

Reversing growing inequality must be front and centre for us as parliamentarians. This is where the proposal put forward by the leader of the official opposition falls short.

The measure proposes an investment of $850 million annually according to some estimates. This number will be looked at by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. As it stands, an investment of this size needs to address some of the most pressing issues related to the deficient parental leave system that exists in our country.

We know that we can do better. An example within our own federation has shown us the way. Quebec has implemented measures that should be supported by the federal government. Quebec has generous and accessible parental leave and a much larger number of women and their families who can benefit from it. Women who earn minimum wage in Quebec have to work only 178 hours to have access to the Quebec parental insurance plan, or earn only $2,000 through insurable employment. That number climbs to 600 hours for other Canadians. Once they have their child, Quebec families can count on a network of affordable day care throughout Quebec. Elsewhere in Canada, day care is often too expensive. Families and often mothers have to make a tough choice: postpone starting a family, not return to work, or face financial hardship in order to pay for child care.

This is unacceptable. We can and must do better. If Quebec can do it, so can the rest of Canada. It is a matter of priority.

Therefore, what can we do?

First, we have to talk about the fact that too many Canadian parents are not eligible for parental leave. Excluding Quebec, only 64% of Canadian women can take their leave benefits after having a child. This means that more than one-third of new mothers do not qualify to take that leave.

David MacDonald from the CCPA indicated that Bill C-394's tax credit proposal will not help alleviate inequalities in Canada and in some ways will even contribute to them, and that the tax credit proposal is more likely to benefit higher-income and middle-income earners, and is less likely to benefit new parents earning lower incomes.

Barriers to access El, notably in the number of insurable hours that are required, are too high for many young women in precarious work. That reality is very much the case where I come from. Many people up north do not have access to parental leave, because of the high rates of unemployment and underemployment. Also, I hear from my neighbours and friends, and I know from my own reality as a new parent, that there is a lack of access to affordable child care, and that proves to be a major financial burden for many families where I come from.

Second, instead of providing a tax credit, we need to increase the income replacement rate. We agree that we need to put more money in the pockets of new parents because they need it. However, with this proposal, since the proposed tax credit is not refundable, new parents that earn low incomes would not benefit nearly as much as middle-income or high-income earners, since many low-income families earn only 55% of their salary when on leave.

The income replacement rate of 55% is simply too low, especially when families are dealing with many new expenses. A higher income replacement rate would benefit all levels of income earners, and would therefore not participate in increasing the already alarming growing inequality that exists in Canada.

Finally, we must address the issue of child care. For Canadian women, and for new parents to have more income available to them, we must as a country find a way to offer child care services that are affordable across Canada. In all our major cities outside of Quebec, costs for child care are making life unaffordable, and are proving to be very challenging when families are deciding their priorities. I will list off some of the numbers of the median costs of child care by city in our country: Toronto, $1,212 per month per child; Ottawa, $1,009 per month per child; and Vancouver, $950 per month per child. Canadian parents know this reality and this is the kind of priority that they want to see addressed.

We want to be clear that the NDP supports the idea that we need to invest in Canadian families and in new parents, but we disagree with the proposal that has been put forward by the Conservative leader, a proposal that will increase inequality as it will do nothing to help lower-income families. It is a proposal that will not help new parents finally access the benefits they need and deserve, by making parental leave more accessible. It is a proposal that for all of the public resources it aims to invest will not create a single affordable day care space, something that is urgently needed across our communities.

I am proud to say that, along with our colleagues, we believe that Canadian parents deserve much better.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, this is my first opportunity to speak in the House since yesterday's tragic event in Toronto. It has touched all of our families and all of our communities in different ways. I want to assure the people of the city I represent and have the privilege to speak on behalf of in this House that all of Parliament and all of the government is here to help with support. We will make sure that the beauty of Toronto, its diversity and its capacity to help its citizens, is not surrendered to this horrible act we witnessed on its city streets just yesterday. My love and heart go out to those families that have been impacted.

I am pleased to rise in this chamber to speak to Bill C-394. While anytime we talk about the plight of this country's children and families is a good day in the House, I also think it is very important to talk about why costly tax changes really should be implemented as part of a comprehensive budget process and not as a gimmick, stunt, or slogan, as we have just seen presented in this House.

The tax proposal being presented here would not do half of what it promises it would do. It certainly would have very little impact on the most vulnerable families in this country, and it would not provide a firm or comprehensive tradeoff that would allow our government to support it.

Doing a full budget allows the government to consider all the tradeoffs and balance all the priorities and undertake new fiscal commitments in a responsible manner that helps those who have the greatest needs with the most amount of support. It does not, as this proposal would do, target support to people who are doing slightly better than others. I will get into how that works in my comments.

It is critical to understand that as the government works to propose and deliver real change for Canadians, it does so in a way that reflects and respects their real needs. The government does not believe that Canadian families are well served by a maze of boutique tax credits, such as the proposed tax credit we are debating today, which would benefit some while doing nothing for those who need it most.

Let us consider who would actually be helped by what the hon. member is proposing. Under his proposed scheme, the tax credit would only be available to individuals who are receiving maternity or parental leave benefits from an employment insurance program. All the other parents—

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to begin debate on my private member's bill, the supporting new parents act.

The arrival of a new child, whether the first, second, or fifth, is one of the biggest milestones in life. As a father of five, I can say it is also one of the greatest joys a couple can experience. With every new child, the experience does not get any less joyful and exciting but it is also a great responsibility.

All parents know just how tough those first few years can be. The financial pressures can seem overwhelming. The ever-increasing cost of raising a child can be very high.

It is not cheap to raise a child in Canada. New parents have to make sacrifices to afford the basic necessities for the new baby. It is often surprising how quickly the costs can add up. With diapers, toys, bottles, new clothes every three months, it is not easy.

That is especially true for families where one parent has to take time off to care for the new baby. While Canadian families were hoping for lower taxes and higher benefits in 2015, the fact is that many families are struggling under this government. This government's tax hikes are leaving less money in Canadians' pockets. The Liberals are breaking their promises.

The average family in Canada is already paying over $800 more in taxes every year under the Liberal government, and the costs are going up. Life gets evermore expensive. Groceries, hydro, or power as we call it in Saskatchewan, gas, and with kids in the house, all the extra trips parents are making to care for a newborn, families do not see the costs of these necessities going down anytime soon. Canada's Conservatives understand the importance of supporting young families with children during those important early years.

We also think the best way to support Canadian families is to keep taxes low, foster a positive environment for job creation, and make sure parents are free make their own decisions for their families.

That is my motivation for introducing the supporting new parents act.

The supporting new parents act would create a federal non-refundable income tax credit for any federal income tax paid under EI parental leave programs.

Quebec residents receiving benefits under the provincial parental insurance plan will be eligible for a tax credit for an equivalent amount. I would like to explain to hon. members how that will work.

We are fortunate in Canada to have EI maternity benefits and EI parental programs that benefit so many Canadians. However, every Canadian who receives these benefits has to deal with certain costs associated with them.

When someone goes on maternity or paternity leave, they take a pay cut. Benefits cover only 55% of their salary, but on top of everything, they also have to pay income tax on the benefits they receive.

When parents go on EI parental or maternity leave, they sacrifice up to 45% of their salary. After making that sacrifice, they have to pay tax on the benefits they receive. With tax being withheld from every cheque, it means that families with a parent on leave see their take-home benefits cut down, and many get hit with an extra tax bill afterwards when they file their income taxes.

My proposed bill offers a major tax relief to young families. It will give Canadians on parental leave a break by offering a tax credit for any income earned under the EI maternity and EI parental programs. We want to leave new parents with more money in their pockets. We know the parents know what is best for their child.

The only way the government in Ottawa can help parents of newborns is to leave more money in their pockets and let them spend it as they see fit. Once passed, my bill will tangibly benefit thousands of young Canadian families. For example, a Canadian mom who was earning $50,000 a year before going on benefits would be eligible for a tax credit of about $4,000.

My hope is that once this bill is passed, CRA will support Canadian parents by applying the credit automatically so Service Canada no longer needs to withhold taxes on parental and maternity benefits. This is a limitation I have as a private member's bill, but when we are government, we can ensure the Canada Revenue Agency automatically applies the credit.

At the very least, new parents would not be hit with a surprise tax bill when they file their taxes. I think we can all agree that is not right. At a time in their lives when they need every penny to raise their newborn, parents still get squeezed by the tax collector.

I have already spoken with families across Canada about the supporting new parents act. We want them to know what this bill is about. They tell me they want the supporting new parents act to become law. They can see how they are going to benefit. The new law would put money in the pockets of hard-working families.

I want to share one story with my hon. colleagues.

I spoke with one mom in Ontario who told me that Service Canada withheld 10% of her maternity and parental benefits, and she still got hit with an $1,800 tax bill when she filed. She had to pay on top of all the money that was being withheld. That is a lot of money after a stressful year, with a lot of new costs, to have to write a cheque to the Government of Canada for benefits she received after taking a pay cut of up to 45%.

What else could she have spent this money on? It could have gone toward buying a car seat or a new pair of boots for the baby. One never knows what types of extra costs add up. However, instead, the government handed out these benefits with one hand and then took a cut of it with the other.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (parenting tax credit).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to introduce my private member's bill, the supporting new parents act.

Welcoming a new addition to the family is one of the greatest joys that any parent can experience. For many Canadians it is also a time of great anxiety. When parents take advantage of EI, maternity, or parental leave, they forgo over 40% of their salary. They take a huge pay cut to spend those critical first few months at home and provide that care for their child. Conservatives believe that when parents make that sacrifice, they should not then have to pay taxes on the benefits that they receive. The bill would provide a tax credit that would offset any taxes owing on their maternity and parental leave.

This also addresses a situation that many parents who receive a top-up from their employer experience. When they file their taxes, they often have to pay extra taxes because the EI system does not withhold enough on their benefits. Many new parents, in addition to the new costs of providing for their children, also then have to pay that. The bill would alleviate that.

I hope all members of Parliament will support this important piece of legislation for Canadian families.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)