Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to support the motion presented by the hon. member for Nepean. The issue of support payments is a
very important one for many people, especially for women and children.
The current legislation discriminates against children born in poor families or families headed by single parents. This motion is needed to improve the circumstances of women and children. The legislation was passed 52 years ago and has changed very little since then, but society and the status of women have changed a great deal.
In the forties, the government introduced what was considered progressive legislation. In 1994, that is no longer true.
In 1942 when this policy was first developed the support payers, at that time mostly men, invariably earned more than their wives so that the tax brackets of the two parents were different. The husband would save more by his deduction than the wife would pay in tax and that net savings would conceivably be passed on to the child. In some cases of course this has happened, though to so few that it makes little difference. Three facts make support of this motion essential.
To begin with the reality of separation and divorce is rarely so easy, and I am sure we all know of cases where children have become pawns in parental disputes. Children who generally never have a say in such matters are left without a voice in their own future.
Change of the income tax code will not eliminate this problem but it will be a significant measure to combat it.
It is also true, that after a divorce, the husband's standard of living goes up while that of the wife and children goes down. Justice in this case is impossible under the prevailing legislation.
Second, since the reform of the tax code several years ago the number of tax brackets has been reduced to three. The likelihood of tax differential has dropped merely as a result of that factor alone.
Today, the likelihood that both parents are in the same tax bracket is far greater. It means giving a break to the non-custodial spouse and obliging the spouse who does to pay income tax. The system does not make sense, and when all is said and done, the money saved rarely goes to those who need it most, in other words, to the children.
Third, when one also considers that more and more women are part of the labour force than when this law was introduced, it becomes even clearer that the system has become a system of subtle discrimination against women. In other words, as women have entered the labour force their relative responsibilities regarding the family have stayed the same as witnessed by the fact that still very few men gain custody of children.
With the duel responsibilities of family and work single parent women suffer all the more because their child support is taxed back once again. This was never an intention of the original law.
Let us look at a typical situation of child support payments. Across Canada we have the problem of many so-called deadbeat dads who do not pay child support in full. If for example supporting a child would cost $10,000 per year, that income would naturally be taxed back. Often settlements will include that extra amount. Therefore the net amount would stay the same.
Unfortunately if the support is in partial default the parent with custody, and again I repeat almost always the mother, must pay tax on an amount already insufficient to support her child, whereas the defaulter would still get a tax credit on what he did pay.
If the defaulter paid half the amount, which is $5,000 in this case, the mother and the child would suffer from not having enough money and the obligation by law to pay for it while the man would receive a tax credit on the part he did pay with no penalty.
A law that allows this sort of shocking absurdity must be changed.
We often hear stories about how hard it is for single parent families to get support payments. They are often poor, and the government penalizes them even more.
I hope members of all parties will realize that this motion is not just a matter of amending the income tax, but of letting justice prevail, so that these people will have a better life than they do now.
I also want to say that the changes proposed by the hon. member for Nepean are entirely sensible and economically viable. Our social programs support many women who then have to spend money they do not have to pay taxes. Often poor women cannot work because it would be too expensive. Being on welfare undermines a person's hope and dignity.
The purpose of social programs is not to help divorced spouses. The current system is unnecessarily costly.
We have to remember some important facts about the broader issue of single parent families. Large portions of poor children come from mother supported single parent families. Single parent families most often live either just on the edge of or below the poverty line.
I think we should all recognize that to fail to change this law would result in some people-I remind all members that these are living, breathing children not just numbers out in space somewhere-not succeeding where a relatively minor measure, from our point of view, might help them to succeed in their endeavours.
However, if you look at the law it seems that we actually try to hurt our youth. Youth issues have always been important to me and I am sure to all my colleagues and I must oppose any measure which we know makes life even more difficult for the youth of Canada.
As my colleague pointed out when she introduced this motion, Canada seems to be unique among first world nations in that it taxes child support. The United Kingdom, the United States and Australia were all among the nations she cited then as being more progressive than Canada.
It is at this point that I wish to criticize the member for Calgary Centre who asserted in the House on March 22 that because child support would then become income exempted the government would receive less money and therefore damage the economic wellbeing of the country.
Once again the Reform Party is failing to take into account the long term. Not helping our children now might lead to greater family insecurity, welfare dependency and even crime, subjects I know all members are currently concerned about.
I must disagree with his analysis of the validity of this motion.
Can we truly say that the system is fair? No. Many experts agree that the legislation should be changed as soon as possible. This is not just a debate between men and women. Children are the ones who are affected most by separation or divorce, and in all cases, it is the children who suffer.
Can we tolerate the status quo, when measures taken by the government today discriminate against youth? We cannot, Mr. Speaker. Young people are our resource for the future. Our government has many programs that are very important, and I am glad to support them. However, what we give with one hand, we take back with the other. We will never achieve prosperity if we maintain measures that discriminate against young people who have not had all the opportunities to which they are entitled in a country as rich and strong as Canada.
Once again, I want to commend the hon. member for Nepean for presenting this votable motion. I hope that all members of this House will take note of this motion and support it without hesitation.
