Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I rise on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Shefford. She is currently attending an international conference on an issue that comes under her responsibility in the Progressive Conservative caucus.
I am pleased to take part in the debate on Motion M-486, which provides that the government should legislate to grant a salary to mothers and fathers who stay at home to care for their children.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik for moving this motion and for his relentless efforts to help Canadian families.
Let me say from the outset that I support any proposal promoting greater parental involvement in the first few years of children's lives. The purpose of this motion is to put these parents on an equal footing with those who work and enjoy tax benefits for expenses relating to child care.
But before getting to the financial aspects of such an initiative, let me talk about those ultimately concerned by this motion, the children.
Numerous studies have shown that the quality of care received during the first few years of a child's life has a decisive impact on their physical and mental health, as well as on their ability to integrate into society. It is therefore imperative, in my view, that the state make a special effort to help children from a financial as well as from a social standpoint.
Like most industrialized countries, Canada is at a crossroads. The choices that we will make over the next few years will determine our ability to participate in the economy of the future, an economy that will be increasingly global and knowledge based.
As we debate the strategic investments we will be required to make during this period of economic and social change, our growth could be impeded by a lack of vision which in turn could diminish the quality of life of Canadians and of children in particular.
If economic growth is favoured at the expense of our social environment, problems could arise. Studies on health and human development have highlighted the importance of investing in children during their critical formative years if we harbour any hope that our society of the future will be populated by well balanced, competent and healthy individuals.
It is now widely accepted that each dollar we spend today on our children will ensure that we save double that amount in future on health care, social and criminal justice programs.
By enhancing support for children and their families during the initial developmental years we will be helping our children gain some self-confidence and learn to adapt more easily. We will be promoting sound learning habits, positive social behaviour and good lifelong health habits.
Investing in our children is therefore essential to ensure the quality of our social and economic life.
At a time when huge economic and social changes are taking place, and when the gap in revenues is getting wider, the pressures on Canadian families increase the risk that parents may have neither the time nor the ability to take good care of their children.
This brings us to today's motion. In light of what I just said, members will agree with me that it is important to give parents the means, the flexibility and the options they need to ensure a good start for their children.
But before getting any further, let us take a look at the preferences of parents when it comes to child care. According to a 1997 poll by Compas Research in Alberta, 95% of respondents thought that it was better for parents to care for infants and pre-schoolers.
An earlier country-wide poll by Decima Research found that 70% of households with young children and both parents working would prefer one of the parents to be able to stay home to care for the children, if they could afford to.
The question is therefore as follows: should parents have to choose between a job that they need and the attention a child needs to become a healthy and responsible adult.
The Norwegian government answered that question with a resounding no. As of August 1998 it is allocating $570 per month per child under three years of age to households where one parent remains at home to provide child care.
Should we broach this issue by focusing on equal opportunity and equality between two income households and households where one parent must provide child care?
In other words, since each taxpayer finances tax benefits, without automatically claiming these benefits, could the current Income Tax Act be deemed discriminatory toward households where one parent stays home to care for the children?
That is a thorny issue, if ever there was one. However, this is the view held by the national forum on health. It maintains that Canada is the only country in the industrialized world that does not take into account in the calculation of income tax expenses incurred by households where a parent cares for children at home. It further argues that households with children are discriminated against in the process.
Some would say that the child tax benefit, which incidentally should be indexed, provides assistance for low income households, and that parents who pay for child care are entitled to a tax deduction of up to $7,000 per child.
But some people fall between the cracks: households that do not qualify for the child tax benefit and do without a second income so that one of the parents can stay home and care for the children.
On April 14, 1997, the Devoir featured an article that tackled the issue head on, and I quote:
What about those who fall between the cracks? The market alone has no answer, and neither do existing social solidarity mechanisms. Another solution must therefore be found. For some time now, people from widely divergent disciplines that rarely have anything to do with each other(economics, philosophy, sociology) are rediscovering the old idea of a universal income. All the proposals focus on the same principle: pay each member of society a basic allowance, with no strings attached.
Why should we reconsider at this time an idea hatched 200 years ago by Thomas Paine, the great English human rights thinker, and later borrowed by 19th century French utopian thinkers and later still, by at least two Nobel Prize winners for economics who hold generally opposing views, namely Englishman James Meade and American Milton Friedman? As far back as the 1960s, they were calling for the introduction of a negative tax. We could give a Keynesian answer to that question: When circumstances change, my position has to change as well.
I am not someone who has ever shied away from exploring new and innovative ideas that could shed new light on our social conditions which no longer meet the changing needs of a modern society.
This being said, I do not wish to comment on or argue the feasibility or even the eventual terms and conditions of a program to financially compensate parents who remain at home, as recommended in today's motion. I will leave this up to those who are qualified to do that.
What I think we should do, however, is offer new opportunities to parents wishing to stay at home to care for their children, which would mean a better start and, ultimately, improved opportunities for this country's most important resource, our children.