Ms. Dhalla talked earlier about the child fitness tax credit. I'd like to ask your reaction to the government's universal child care benefit. This is the $1,200 per year given to parents for each child under the age of six. This benefit is taxable in the hands of the lower-income spouse, which for low-income Canadians means it's a tax-free amount of money—$100 a month for each child under the age of six. We've established that there is a clear link between the level of income and the quality of a Canadian's diet. I think the links are clear, and you've presented good evidence to back that up.
Nutrition and nutritious food have to be considered an important part of child care. If someone takes their child to a neighbourhood day care provider, nutritious food is vital as part of that child care. This benefit is going to help all families in Canada.
We on this side of the table believe strongly—and I think all members of Parliament would agree—in an effective social net for those who need help in this country. That's critical. There will always be a scarcity of resources. When I ask for your comments in thirty seconds, I suspect that part of the answer will be that there needs to be more. We will always say there needs to be more. But I'd like your reaction to the universal child care benefit. It provides direct money to parents, which will improve their income and thus their diet.
We know that increased income equals an increased quality of diet equals a reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and, frankly, bypass and angioplasty business for Dr. Grover and his colleagues.
That's my question to all three of you. Will the universal child care benefit help in this equation? It's true that there's always a scarcity of resources, and there could always be more. But will that amount of money help combat what we're talking about here today, which is better health outcomes for Canadians?