Evidence of meeting #44 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
Coordinator, Canadian Social Development Program, KAIROS (Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives)
I guess it depends on who you want to hear from. Do you want to hear from paid professionals who articulate arguments for their membership? I think that's important. Do you want to hear from community members? Do we, sitting at this table, represent Canadians? Do we? I don't think so.
I think you need both. I think you need to hear from us—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Just a quick question. If you don't, why are we listening to you now?
Coordinator, Canadian Social Development Program, KAIROS (Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives)
No. I'm saying, yes, listen to us—
Coordinator, Canadian Social Development Program, KAIROS (Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives)
Can I finish, please?
Coordinator, Canadian Social Development Program, KAIROS (Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives)
Okay. Let me finish.
Yes, I think you want to hear from the paid professionals, because we have something to say--we've thought about the policies--but I think you also want to hear from diverse groups of Canadians, low-income Canadians, aboriginal people, people who are more diverse than us.
I think you can do it. You are in seven or eight cities. Why not create a space for a hundred randomly selected Canadians to come together and dialogue? We don't really have the chance to dialogue. It might be interesting to see if Canadians, if they have the chance to dialogue, could agree on certain policies and values.
It was done in the Romanow commission. It was done in the Ontario participatory budget hearings. There are lots of ways to do it, and I think it would be very beneficial.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Thank you, Judy.
We'll continue with Mr. Savage now, for five minutes.
Conservative
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Mr. Polanyi, while we're chatting with you, we've heard from a number of KAIROS organizations across Canada. They're always very good presentations, but I think you're the first one who has actually mentioned the 0.7% of GNI and the necessity of reaffirming poverty reduction as a primary objective. Considering that Development and Peace and the Primate's World Relief Fund are part of the organization, that makes sense. I'm also sure you'd agree with me that my colleague John McKay's private member's bill, Bill C-293, which reaffirmed that, is a step forward in the right direction. So I'm glad you mentioned that.
I'd like to ask both you and Elizabeth, if I could, a question on child care again. I don't believe in universal child care benefits. I don't think they're the way to go. I think we were on the right track last year, building the infrastructure of child care across the country.
In my own community, a lot of people were excited about it, especially parents of children with special needs, parents of francophone or minority-language children. They were finally going to have an opportunity to provide child care to their kids. That $1,200 does nothing for them. But the real problem with the $1,200 is the way it was handed out and then taxed back in such a way that lowest-income Canadians aren't necessarily the beneficiaries of it at all. At the very least, if it was going to be done, perhaps doing it through the low-income supplement of the child tax benefit might have been a better way to direct the payments to those who need the assistance the most.
I'd like your thoughts on that, Michael and Elizabeth, if you have any.
Coordinator, Canadian Social Development Program, KAIROS (Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives)
Yes, you're right. It was inequitable and a proportion of it was clawed back. I think Elizabeth is more of an expert, so I'll defer to her, but my sense of the issue is that, first of all, as a parent—and I see there are other parents in the room—you know how far $1,200 a year goes for child care. That doesn't provide adequate funding for child care.
Maybe I'll just defer to Elizabeth, and she can talk about the principles and other things.
Executive Director, Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care
I'll just answer very briefly on this. I'm sure you've heard this before. Yes, the $1,200 doesn't go very far for child care. The fact that it is taxable and that low-income families do not necessarily benefit from this as fully is a real shame, I have to say.
We certainly do call for income supports. As I say in my briefing, that money is fine, but we need more than that. We need the universally accessible child care system, and just doing this through the $1,200 isn't enough.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, but they had indicated that under the study they did, a two-income family making $30,000 a year will return less of that than a single-income family making $200,000 a year. Clearly that's inequitable and has to be considered unacceptable, yet some people say they'll have both.
The problem is, there's only a certain-amount-sized pie that the federal government has, and you have to look at what benefit you're getting with that $1,200. It seems absolutely unconscionable that it would go to those who really don't need it the most. At the very least, it seems to me that all of us who believe in the universal child care system need to advocate that you can't do the $1,200 and still provide that other child care.
Do you think it's fair to say that, Elizabeth? And if I'm leading you, you can certainly tell me that.
Executive Director, Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care
No, I think it's fair to say that. As I said, our real emphasis—and it's the same thing with the CCAC—is advocating for the universal system first and foremost. Income supports that fit in with existing income supports for low-income families are perfectly acceptable, but I think we really need to have the emphasis on—
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I agree with that, but it shouldn't be called a universal child care benefit. It should be called a gift to Canadians from the Liberal surplus, because we've heard from RESP dealers that some people are putting it into RESPs, which is wonderful. But most families who can't afford child care simply can't afford RESPs either.
Coordinator, Canadian Social Development Program, KAIROS (Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives)
Can I have ten seconds?
Coordinator, Canadian Social Development Program, KAIROS (Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives)
I was just going to say that it relates to the question about what kind of child tax benefit the government is committed to provide to families. I know it's stalled around $3,300 to $3,400. A lot of groups are calling for that to be increased up to $5,000, to reflect the full costs for low-income Canadians of raising a child.
