Evidence of meeting #50 for Status of Women in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was children.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
A mother at home is given virtually nothing. So $5,000 is a lot. On the contrary, I get the impression it's being proposed that people who put their children in child care be given $10,000.
4:45 p.m.
As an Individual
The proposal is to give more to them, but to give nothing to people whose children aren't in child care. That's unfair. I agree that $5,000 per child isn't a lot. However, if you have two or three children, it's enough. Right now in Canada, but perhaps not in Quebec, if you have three children, the government will help you put your children in child care and will pay more than you would earn working half time. It would cost less to let the mother stay at home.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
I have a lot of trouble understanding your equation. We all know that, to have a good child care system, you first have to have a structured system. The people who work there also have to be able to get high-quality training and have good working conditions, so that the children can have a relationship with people outside the home that is also a loving relationship and a relationship that will nourish them. Even if you want to do what you can at home, you can't always be there.
I find it hard to understand why you favour one system over another, when we should favour both systems and, through a comprehensive family policy, enable women to stay at home while feeling valued, not being considered as cheap labour. We should have a family policy that also makes it possible, if we want, to place our children in a child care centre that provides good service.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
I don't know, madam. That's why we've invited you here, so you can give us ideas and make suggestions to us for improving the situation. Giving $1,200 a year per child doesn't improve the situation.
April 24th, 2007 / 4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
Five thousand dollars is a lot more than nothing.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
That amount is taxable. Consequently, a person who stays at home with three children ultimately earns less money in one year than what she would receive from social assistance. That makes no sense.
4:50 p.m.
An hon. member
A point of order—[Inaudible--Editor]
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
She's not badgering. She's asking for a response. She's asking for clarification.
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
What I want is a kind of morality. If we establish child care centres that pay good wages, we also need good wages for women at home. We agree.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I have a couple of questions. I had hoped to ask everyone a question, but I'm not being very good about that.
Ms. Smith, you talk in your brief about income splitting, and you said you did some work on income splitting and also on pension splitting. I'm concerned about that inasmuch as it says in the brief that this will not be a windfall for the rich.
I've been doing some background reading. One of the concerns comes from information or research done by the Canadian Labour Congress. They took a look at exactly how many single-income earners there were. Apparently, 2.8 million Canadians live in single-earner families. They are the ones most likely to gain from income splitting. However, of that 2.8 million, most have a family income of about $36,000 or less. They would only save about $200 through income splitting—a $200 difference between that and the spousal tax credit—whereas a single-earner family with an income of $230,000 would retain an extra $9,000.
Similarly, we had a group that came in and talked about pension splitting, and they actually gave us a chart. I have the chart here. It showed that a couple making about $21,000 a year would get no benefit from pension splitting and a couple making $121,000 a year would benefit by just under $9,000.
That concerns me inasmuch as it would cost the federal government about $5 billion a year to have income splitting. That's the calculation that's been done. My concern is that it would reduce the amount of federal dollars available to provide the kinds of services that benefit all Canadians.
So I wondered about this disparity and why you think income splitting is a positive thing, when there is this contradiction.
4:50 p.m.
As an Individual
Thanks for your question.
There are many ways to do income splitting. In the United States they have tax brackets, so the wealthy do pay more than the poor. That helps address some of that concern you have about a windfall for the rich. The other suggestion has been to put a cap on it, so it would not be available for people above a certain income or for households above a certain income, I suppose. The other is that you make it voluntary. I suppose that might help a little bit.
It's seems to me that maybe there's a misperception that income splitting is for the single-income family. Income splitting is for all families, most of which are dual-income. If you earn only a little bit of money and someone else you are living with earns a lot more money, you're actually probably living at the same living standard because you share the same home. So it's ridiculous to not treat you as if you are partners. Currently, the tax law treats you as an earner and a useless dependant, if you have no income, or an earner and a lot less worthy person. The psychological message of income splitting is that you're equal, you're sharing, you're partners. You're not dependent on each other, you're interdependent. So it's a big, powerful message of women's equality. That's one point.
I think, too, when you look at it as what it would cost the government, that's a very financial way of looking at something that is basically, as Ms. Lysack points out, an investment. If you are able to recognize caregiving—and that's one way to do it—you're saving billions of dollars in the health care system. You're keeping some of the handicapped in their own homes and able to get loving care and keeping children, teenagers, for example, off the streets and maybe reducing your criminal justice costs.
So to look at it as only a cost is not the whole picture, I think.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
It's interesting. We talk about the disabled. I have done a great deal of work with constituents who have severely disabled children. The message I'm getting back is that there isn't the support and they simply can't cope. So we're going to have to do a whole lot better than we're doing in terms of taking a look at the whole picture.
I'm glad you recommend more tax brackets. I think losing all those tax brackets certainly put an unfair load on lower-income people.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses this afternoon for your presentations.
I guess I have one comment on what I observed generally through most of your presentations. And I take no exception at all to what I think are some very valid points around how especially caregivers and those who are taking on important responsibilities in the home could be better compensated, to come at this question of equality from the standpoint of incomes, and as you know, we're looking at it specifically from the question of economic security.
Through the course of all of your presentations I was struck with the notion, though, that at the end of the day—for example, Ms. Smith's eight-point plan, as I look through that—the fiscal cost, the fiscal weight, of those proposals would be significant. It left me with the question as to how one would come at footing the bill.
Again, I'm not talking philosophically. I'm not opposed to what you're trying to drive at, but we're in a country where we've got to strike a balance between what's borne on the public purse, if you will, whether it's provincial or federal—in this case it's a bit of a split—and at a time when the country is faced with a whole set of priorities, not the least of which is dealing with a reduction in greenhouse gases and a whole host of public policy initiatives.
How do we come at this question of how we pay for it? We're talking about billions of dollars here, potentially $15 billion to $30 billion per year. Income taxes in Canada at the federal level are around $75 billion a year, so we're talking about substantial increases in taxes or we're talking about axing other programs. I wonder if you could—and perhaps each of the three witnesses here—give us a comment on how you would expect the public purse to pay for this ultimately, or is there a model you've looked at that would actually make this fiscally possible?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada
I can start.
Thank you. I think that's a really important question, and particularly from the child care perspective, when we look at this, we've been talking about a price tag of about $10 billion a year to have a fully accessible, universal, high-quality child care system that is inclusive and meets all needs. So that does seem like a really hefty price tag, but the important thing is to look beyond the price tag, to begin to look at it as a whole and look at the return. Certainly again, the evidence we're seeing in Quebec is very encouraging in terms of why we would want to do that. It doesn't just pay for itself. In fact, it will support other programs.
In terms of the examples that were given, it's true that many European countries do provide additional allowances or financial contributions to families who don't use the public system of early learning and child care, and—
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
I'm sorry, what would they be, those additional allowances? What's an example?