Debates of Dec. 3rd, 1998

moved:

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-43, in Clause 54, be amended

(a) by replacing line 10 on page 17 with the following:

“54. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), the Agency must develop a program”

(b) by adding after line 12 on page 17 the following:

“(1.1) An employee of the Agency has the same rights of recourse with respect to non-disciplinary demotion or termination of employment as if the employee were occupying a position in the Department of National Revenue.”

moved:

Motion No. 107

That Bill C-43, in Clause 91, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 27 with the following:

“7.2.2 of the Directive, except that a reference therein to two years is deemed to be a reference to five years; and”

moved:

Motion No. 101

That Bill C-43, in Clause 88, be amended by replacing line 34 on page 25 with the following:

“lished in the corporate business plan, including information respecting implementation of harmonization with taxes or other fiscal measures imposed by the provinces, and a”

moved:

Motion No. 103

That Bill C-43, in Clause 89, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 26 with the following:

“89. (1) Three years after the coming into”

The recorded divisions on Motions Nos. 25, 37, 55 and 71 in Group No. 3; Motions Nos. 28 and 32 in Group No. 4; Motions Nos. 64 and 106 in Group No. 5; and Motions Nos. 100 and 102 in Group No. 6 stand deferred.

Pursuant to order made Wednesday, December 2, the recorded divisions on the motions stand further deferred until Monday, December 7, at five p.m.

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

It being 5.50 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on the today's order paper.

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to consultations with all House leaders, I believe you will find that there is unanimous consent for the Reform members to split their speaking time on this important issue. I would ask therefore for unanimous consent.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan is asking for permission to split the 10 minutes into two five minute segments. Is that agreed?

Agreed.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time this evening with the hon. member for Lethbridge.

I rise today to speak to Motion No. M-486 and in so doing to pay tribute to a group of people that go largely unnoticed in our modern society. This group of people is largely made up of women but there are some men also. This group is stay at home parents.

In today's society it is not easy to be a stay at home mom or dad. Career paths are demanding. To step off of that path can often mean various forms of reprisals or discrimination and second class status from many different sources. Fortunately many parents are willing and able to make this commitment to their family. In so doing they raise their children in the manner they think is best.

I would be remiss also if I did not recognize the extremely heavy burden that single parent families carry today. Single parent moms and dads do not have this same option and in no way am I passing my judgment on them.

As we all know, today's society has picked up the pace of living tremendously from days gone by. The cost of virtually everything from groceries and clothing to transportation and other essentials has risen faster than the incomes of most people. This continues to cause further economic strife in many families today. Overall tax relief is necessary for families now, not at some distant time in the future.

One way that some of the economic stress can be relieved is to address how the child care expense deduction is formulated. The current system clearly differentiates between single and dual income families. In addition, the expenses are only allowable if they are receipted, therefore restricting eligibility to institutional daycares.

Parents that choose to stay at home are not eligible for this same tax credit. The discrepancy between single and dual income families is apparent in how the child tax credit applies to them. One example of this is that in dual income families the lower earner must claim the child care expense deduction, thus ensuring that the value of the deduction is minimized.

The member's proposal does nothing to address this disparity and inequity that stay at home parents face under our current tax laws. Specifically I refer to their inability to claim the child care expense deduction. Rather than treat all parents equally, this motion would divide people into a multitude of different camps.

There are at least four alternative options that should be looked at closely and used as a replacement for this motion. These alternative options would better address the inequalities that exist under the current child care expense deduction.

The first option would be to give further consideration for income splitting. The second option would be to give stay at home spouses access to independent RRSPs. While both of these concepts have merit, a further examination is necessary to determine the specific financial and operational considerations of them prior to any implementation.

A third consideration is to make the spousal exemption equal to the personal exemption. In order to provide equity, the spousal deduction needs to be equal to the personal exemption of the primary income earner. In light of a more demanding economy, this levels the field for those parents who are able to and choose to stay at home.

A fourth consideration would be to convert the child care expense deduction into a refundable child tax credit for all children. Currently this is only available to those parents using commercial daycare.

At this time only 16% of families use commercial daycare. Contrary to past doctrines, current psychological and sociological research supports the concept that children become better balanced and more productive citizens when in the care of a family.

As a parent of eight and a foster parent for over 25 years to over 140 children, I strongly believe in the role of the parent and the family institution. However, I believe that Motion No. M-486 does nothing to lessen these pressures, nor does it really address the needs of today's families.