moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should legislate to grant a salary to mothers and fathers who stay at home to care for their children.
Madam Speaker, I have tabled this motion many times already. In 1970, the royal commission on the status of women said that women who stay at home provide as much goods and services as women who have paid employment. And if they had paid employment, we could help our children and get some regions of Quebec and Canada out of poverty. We could review our approach and develop legislation that is most of all fair for all families, that gives back parents their primary responsibilities and allows them to choose the method they prefer to raise their children.
Since the guaranteed annual income system is much superior, we could provide an income supplement for all those who need it, not only for low income workers. Our findings reinforce the idea of implementing a guaranteed annual income to eliminate poverty.
As an example, I will read a letter from Julie Dupont, of the Montreal area, dated September 10, 1998. She says:
I am not in the habit of writing letters to newspapers to complain or to make comments. I must say I do not have much time for that—my husband and I have five children between 18 months and nine years of age.
On July 20, the day of our wedding anniversary, we received a nice gift from the federal government: a reduction in our child benefits. The notice was related to the new Canadian child tax benefit.
Some gift! While our 1997 income was $11,530 less than our 1996 income, we were told that our tax benefits would drop by $82 a month.
She is not the only one in this situation. In my riding, there is a couple, Germain and Clémence Côté, whose child tax benefit was reduced by $280 a month, and, furthermore, they are not even entitled to a GST refund.
I will get back to Mrs. Dupont, whose tax benefit was reduced. Here is another quote from her letter:
For a family of seven, I do not think one could say that we have a very high income.
Because I could not believe it, I reread the whole notice and the pamphlet that was sent with it. It says that this new benefit “... includes the basic benefit plus a new supplement. This supplement is the Canadian government's contribution to the national child benefit program”. It also says that the program's goals are “to reduce child poverty and to help the parents of low-income families to return to the work force”. I might also add that it discourages middle income parents who work to stay in the work force.
Of course, we chose to have many children. And we live adequately on one salary. We live adequately because we are very frugal and because we have different strategies to save money and to get the basics in life without becoming the victims of the consumer driven society. We have simple needs and our life is focused on the lives of our children, to our great pleasure.
However, raising five children with an income like this means there must be limitations, sacrifices even. We are not asking for charity, but it would seem normal to me to receive a little support from society. After all, our five children will be taxpayers one day. Very few families want to have more than one or two children. We are constantly told how much courage and patience we have and so on. Of course, we have more courage, patience and energy than we need. The only thing that is lacking is the federal government's recognition of our valuable contribution to society, as parents of five future taxpayers.
This letter is asking for a salary for the parent staying at home to raise the children, whether it is the mother or the father. It could be a contribution or a supplement. Right now, a committee of Liberals wants to pay stay-at home parents a supplement to foster the children's development. There must be something fairer for parents who stay home to take care of their school age children. We are not telling working women to go back home and cook. This is not the point.
This is strictly about families, mothers raising their children. There are examples where families are losing money to federal taxes because they choose to take care of their kids at home.
Here is a quote from a letter sent to me by the Centre de femmes de La Sarre:
If there is adequate pay for adults having decided to work at home, great, but every woman must have the choice between working full-time or managing the family home—.
—We are pleased to see that you mention very clearly the large part of the work accomplished by women, in many cases without being paid—
—The perverse effect of poverty among women and children has an impact on living conditions and education, but we should first address the problem of poverty without creating more problems concerning the isolation and excessive responsibility given to women with regard to the education of children. Women are not the cause of poverty, and they are not the solution to this problem either. It is the social conditions that are the cause of poverty. Consequently, the time has come to address the real social causes in order to fight more efficiently against the increasing problem that poverty is.
We believe that your concern about the elimination of poverty among women and children is very important and very relevant.
This letter comes from Lulu Hébert, president of the Centre des femmes l'E.R.I.G.E.
She also writes:
We are expecting you, Mr. St-Julien, as our representative in the House of Commons, to adjust what you say in the House. Trying to take women and children out of poverty is in itself a good thing. But we must at the same time let families decide to have one of their members work in the home. This way, nothing would stop you from paying a salary with marginal benefits to an adult willing to work at home and that would give more opportunities to women who wish to invest outside the home. As the Centre des femmes, our objective is to improve women's living conditions, including the fight against poverty. This is why we are pleased to share our thoughts with you. We are hoping for your co-operation in considering this vision which supports greater equality between women and men.
The purpose of this motion is to bring the government to legislate to grant a salary to mothers and fathers who stay at home to care for their children. The hon. member who prepared a document for the Liberal Party said “It is imperative, financially and socially, that the state do something to help children. Many studies underline this need and demonstrate beyond any doubt that the quality of early childhood care has a significant impact on the physical and mental health of children and on their social integration”.
Several reports on this were carried in the media in my area and in my riding. With regard to taxation and tax rates, why are families, in my region and elsewhere in Canada, penalized because of the number of children they have? Here are some examples. Mr. Germain's family loses $280 per month. Mrs. Côté is expecting her 10th child, so the 12 of them will be living on a net salary of $22,000 or $23,000. Why? We keep asking ourselves.
Such situations exist in my riding. A destitute child grows up to be even poorer and does not function well socially.
I have reintroduced this motion in the House to hear what other members of our great parliament have to say, and to debate about legislating to grant a salary to mothers and fathers raising children.
I am looking forward to hearing other members, and I will reply later.