• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 140 Ï NUMBER 057 Ï 1st SESSION Ï 38th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, February 15, 2005 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 3483 HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, February 15, 2005 The House met at 10 a.m. bill would address that category of persons now inappropriately styled as adult children. The term “adult children” is an impossible Prayers legal concept that is only possible in family law and creates adults with rights greater than other adults. I am certain many members of the House would want to adjust ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS those rights. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) Ï (1000) [Translation] *** COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE PETITIONS HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, SKILLS DEVELOPMENT, SOCIAL MARRIAGE DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval—Les Îles, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians, have the honour to table, in both official languages, the third report including from my own riding of Mississauga South, concerning the of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, definition of marriage. Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities entitled: Restoring Financial Governance and As we all know, the majority of Canadians believe that the Accessibility in the Employment Insurance Program. fundamental matters of social policy should be decided by elected This report calls for the creation of a new EI fund that will be members of Parliament and not by the unelected judiciary. dedicated exclusively to EI, will have the capacity to maintain It also is the duty of Parliament to ensure that marriage is defined premium rate stability and will be managed by an independent EI as Canadians wish it to be defined. Therefore the petitioners call commission that is broadly representative of EI contributors. upon Parliament to use all possible legislative and administrative Ï (1005) measures, including the invocation of section 33 of the charter, the FINANCE notwithstanding clause if necessary, to preserve and protect the current definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one Mr. Massimo Pacetti (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, Lib.): woman to the exclusion of all others. Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Finance on Bill Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, CPC): Mr. Speaker, C-33, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget it is my pleasure on behalf of the citizens of Prince George—Peace tabled in Parliament on March 23, 2004, which agreed on Thursday, River, and particularly residents of Fort St. John, my home town, to February 10, 2005, to report it without amendment. present a petition on their behalf concerning marriage. *** The petitioners note that the House passed a motion in June 1999 that called for marriage to continue to be recognized as the union of [English] one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. They further DIVORCE ACT note that currently the institution and definition of marriage is under Hon. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.) moved for attack and therefore they call upon Parliament to recognize in federal leave to introduce Bill C-334, an act to amend the Divorce Act (child legislation the institution of marriage as being the lifelong union of of the marriage). one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce this bill, an act to *** amend the Divorce Act, child of the marriage. QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER The bill is about the legal obligation imposed by the Divorce Act Hon. Dominic LeBlanc (Parliamentary Secretary to the on divorced parents to pay child support for their children who are Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): older than the age of majority and who are in fact adults at law. The Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. 3484 COMMONS DEBATES February 15, 2005 Supply The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? I would be remiss if I did not mention that I am a parent myself, with two young children. They are now in the early years of school Some hon. members: Agreed. and have just passed through the more intensive years of preschool care. Laureen and I chose a healthy mix of various day care options for our children. Some of this care was provided directly by their GOVERNMENT ORDERS mother, especially in the first year and a half. We also have used close relatives. We have employed caregivers and, for a number of Ï (1010) years, Benjamin and Rachel attended a regulated, institutional day [English] care centre on a part time basis. For us, fortunately, all of these experiences have been good experiences, but for us the key has been OPPOSITION MOTION—CHILD CARE FUNDING choice, and in this party we want to ensure that a similar range of Hon. Stephen Harper (Leader of the Opposition, CPC) moved: choices is available to and affordable for all parents. That the House call upon the government to address the issue of child care by fulfilling its commitment to reduce taxes for low and modest income families in the upcoming budget, and, so as to respect provincial jurisdiction, ensure additional funds for child care are provided directly to parents. It is certainly a mistake to assume that parents with choices would overwhelmingly select regulated, institutional, not for profit child He said: Mr. Speaker, our members will be splitting their times care. This is not the experience elsewhere. Finland, for example, and I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Saskatoon provides high quality, municipally run day care centres, but it also —Rosetown—Biggar. offers a monthly home care allowance for parents who choose to I am pleased today to introduce a motion calling for the take an extended leave of absence from work in order to care for government to honour its throne speech commitment to reduce their children. The evidence shows that almost 70% of parents with taxes for lower and modest income Canadian families. children under three choose home care, while only 11% choose formal day care centres. [Translation] We also urge the government to take advantage of the coming budget to keep its promise on child care, while respecting provincial This brings me back to the other issue we raised in our motion areas of jurisdiction and meeting the needs of Canadian families. today. Parents with children often indicate that they would prefer to [English] stay at home or work part time in order to care for their children, yet at the same time a high percentage of parents with young children We call upon the government to give any new funds for child care both work outside the home, often full time. I have no doubt that directly to parents themselves. This debate comes just after the some of those parents would prefer and do prefer access to quality government's apparent failure last week to reach a federal-provincial institutional day care, but what these facts tell us is that a large agreement on child care and it gives the government one more number of those parents would prefer to stay at home, work only part chance to get things right and act on 12 years of broken promises. time and spend more time with their children were they able to do so. As we all know, the Liberal Party has been promising Canadians a national child care program since 1993, so the recycling of this promise in the 2004 election was no surprise. However there is one Is it not possible that part of the reason so many parents with major reason that the Liberal vision of child care will inevitably fail. young children work outside the home is that our tax system makes In listening only to the government funded experts, who dominate it all but impossible for them to do otherwise? the child care debate, the government has completely lost touch with the needs and aspirations of Canadian parents. Parents have made it clear that they want choice and empower- Canada is almost unique in the industrialized world in providing ment when it comes to deciding how they can best take care of their no tax benefits to married couples and almost no tax benefits to children. families with children, beyond a very low income threshold. Other countries provide tax benefits like income splitting between parents, A recent survey by the Vanier Institute of the Family asked parents an additional basic personal exemption for children, or universal per to rank a series of possible child care options. Parents' first choice for child tax credits or deductions. Canada provides nothing except for raising their children was their spouse or partner. Second was a the universal national child benefit and tax deductions for grandparent. Third was another relative. Fourth was home-based day institutional care. care. Fifth was institutional day care. Finally there was the option of babysitting by friends or a hired sitter. But the message is clear: parents want choices and they want to The Conservative Party certainly supports the existing deductions make those choices themselves. Yet the government's preferred and the national child benefit program and would like to see this option is to make the choice for them, to take parents' tax dollars and enhanced, but the benefit program does not provide enough plough all available money into one option, that of supporting assistance for many lower income parents to be able to consider institutional day care centres, an option that parents themselves rank staying at home to raise their children, and it provides next to fifth out of six.

Load more

  84

Copy Link