Mr. Speaker:

I am on my feet today to address Motion 486, as brought forward by our colleague, the Member of Parliament for Abitibi. Before I begin, I would like to offer my appreciation to the Member for Abitibi, for his help in getting me on the speaker’s list tonight. This is an important topic for me as I strongly believe that by increasing input from Members on this matter, we will collectively come to better understand the issue as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, for as long as there have been people, there have been children. Few would argue that each of these children require guidance and care, in some form or another. Over the past 20 years we have diversified the sources of this type of care. In the hustle and bustle of life in the 90’s our children now seem to spend most of their time in the care of “the Terminator,” “Barney” or “Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman.” With only these role models to follow, is it any wonder that our children are turning to antisocial behaviour in larger numbers than ever before. As responsible legislators, we must promote the idea of direct parental contact. To that end, I applaud the Member for Abitibi for bringing this motion forward tonight.

The average household income in my riding of Huron-Bruce is less than $50,000 per year. If the family unit is made up of a couple of children and one or two adults, $50,000 is not a lot of money. The financial complications are further compounded if the family unit is extended. More children, an elderly parent or a disabled relative all pose significant additional financial strain. After one subtracts the cost of essentials such as housing, food, clothing and transportation, there is not a great deal left over for recreational items or extras. Unfortunately, as the household purse strings become stretched tight, undesirable effects such as severe marital discourse often follow.

Mr. Speaker, we must also consider certain biological factors at play in this debate. Although I feel that either parent should have the option to stay at home with their children, we must also acknowledge that it is the female partner who is required to actually give birth to the child. One cannot argue with biology. Quite simply, this means that women generally must either postpone or leave their careers for an extended period of time if they wish to have a family.

The total elimination of the income portion contributed by one of the parents can be a difficult obstacle for the family to overcome, especially when household costs tend to increase with the addition of a new baby. Statistically speaking, it has been estimated that a new baby will cost its parents upwards of $100,000 before its eighteenth birthday. I simply do not know how we can expect our young people to build families of their own under these conditions, especially when other bills such as student loans and new mortgages must also be factored in.

In an effort to assist in combating these difficulties, Motion 486 states that “we should legislate to grant a salary to mothers and fathers who stay at home to care for their children.” It says that, but it means so much more. Mr. Speaker, M-486 recognizes the importance of the parental caregiver to their family and to our society. It clearly identifies the role, that stay-at-home Mom’s and Dad’s fulfil, as work with a real value to the population in general - a principal that I strongly support.

Canada has a good income support system. We have the Child Tax Benefit and the ability to deduct certain child care expenses from our taxable incomes. I don’t want to give the impression that I do not support these measures, I simply think that we should enhance them.

There are those in this place that point out the immense costs associated with issuing blanket payments to stay-at-home caregivers. I would agree that the cost would be high. I would point out however, that there are others methods that could also be used to achieve the same goal. I think it could be said that the overall objective of M-486 is to create a situation that will make having children more financially bearable.

Currently only those who are gainfully employed, by an outside source, are eligible to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. If we allowed parental caregivers to make contributions to the plan, it would increase the cash flow into the CPP and it would help to curb the disproportionate instances of senior women who are forced to live in poverty. If I could explain – the average life expectancy for women is substantially longer that the life expectancy of their male counterparts. This simply means that the average woman is required to save much more money for retirement than the average man. When you consider that women leave the workforce to have children, and hence stops contributing to the CPP, RRSP’s and private or corporate pensions, saving enough becomes increasingly difficult.

In addition to retirement pensions, there is also the issue of disability assistance. We as a society have determined that people who are employed should have protection against loss of income as a result of a severe medical condition. I support this idea however I must ask why do we not extend the same opportunities to stay-at-home Mom’s and Dad’s. Surely they are providing a service that is at least as valuable to society as the person who is assembling cars, writing newspapers or delivering packages. As the situation currently stands, an individual who has spent their entire working life in the home, and hence has not been permitted to pay into the CPP, is unable to collect benefits. What this means is simple: even though such a person has made a significant societal contribution, should they become stricken with a debilitating illness, they would not be eligible for a CPP disability pension. This seems like a pretty arbitrary line that we have drawn.

I want to be clear – I am not advocating a non-contributory plan. I think that everyone should have to pay if they wish to collect, but they should have that option. I also think that we should further explore the idea of income splitting between partners. To give you an example – if Suzy works outside the home and earns an annual salary of $40,000 and her husband Tommy remains at home with the children, we should then allow the couple to file Income Tax Returns showing an income of $20,000 per spouse minus deductions. This would reduce the household tax burden while recognizing the fact that Suzy could not function at the same level outside the home if Tommy did not take an active child-rearing role within the home – call it a partnership.

Mr. Speaker without detailing technical and statistical information, I can say that there is also a strong indication that children who have the benefit of direct parental contact during their formative years, do much better in social adaptation and in school than children who do not have that contact. I guess it could be said that by promoting the stay-at-home option, we might be causing a beneficial trickle down effect in other sectors such as youth justice and education. Perhaps we should be considering the cost of maintaining the status quo rather than the cost of implementing something new.

In conclusion Mr. Speaker, what we are really talking about here is priorities. In this time of limited public revenues, governments must direct their resources into areas where they can get the most value. I feel that by exploring matters such as those that I have outlined here tonight, we would be doing just that. It has been said that every dollar invested in initiatives such as this, provide us with multiple dollars in savings in other areas. The days of wild spending are gone. We live in an era of strategic investment and partnerships. As we prepare to enter the 21^st century perhaps it is time for us to recognize the immense societal importance of something that we all have in common – our parents.