Human Resources committee  No, I am saying to keep that, but to not be.... They'd have that money, but some have been advocating to increase it, and I'm saying to keep it at what they have. Alongside cash transfers we should have in-kind transfers, but not complete--

Human Resources committee  No.

Human Resources committee  That's not necessarily the case, because sometimes, for example, low-income families may not have the resources available to them. That's where the community, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, has a very important role. Sometimes they will play that role by informing them and telling them what they should probably do.

Human Resources committee  In terms of increasing that amount and by how much, I'd rather not pronounce on how much. Based on my own research and what I understand, I'm not sure. There has been some work, actually, and I've discussed this question with other people. What the optimal amount should be is something I would rather not say or give a--

Human Resources committee  Yes, I would, specifically for low-income families, to guarantee the child care. Studies by other economists looking at whether there should be universal child care found very mixed and conflicting results, but it has been shown that having child care specifically for low-income families is beneficial.

Human Resources committee  Yes, but we should try to allocate those resources to in-kind transfers so that we're guaranteeing, for example, that children have the education that they need, have the child care that they require, or have certain goods that they require. I'm not proposing to eliminate it or to get rid of it.

Human Resources committee  No, I'm saying that based on research, if we transfer a lump sum of money to a family and look at certain outcomes--for example, children's health or children's poverty--what has been found is that transferring just that amount of cash has little impact on their health or on other outcomes, such as educational attainment.

Human Resources committee  I think so, yes. I am not saying to eliminate cash transfers, or at least some of that amount, but to have a greater weight placed on in-kind transfers. Have services rather than just transferring the money and giving the families total discretion on that. Provide services that the government and researchers and policy-makers feel have a greater impact on children's outcomes.

Human Resources committee  Yes.

Human Resources committee  Yes--

Human Resources committee  No. I agree that there should be both, so the current level should remain as it is, but we shouldn't be trying to increase it and provide more and more cash transfers.

Human Resources committee  No. I think we need to try to understand better ways to allocate those resources, in the sense that sometimes when we simply transfer the money, we're not always sure of how that money is going to be spent. I'm not trying to say that parents do not necessarily know how to spend it, but sometimes certain strategies are better to obtain a certain goal.

Human Resources committee  Thank you. Although I did not specifically talk about social housing, I think it is important. This would be, for example, an in-kind transfer, so to speak. So you would provide a service for children and their families. I haven't actually looked extensively at housing for children and how that can impact, for example, their health status or their education, or other welfare or other outcomes.

Human Resources committee  Yes.

Human Resources committee  Yes, that's true. The federal government should transfer the cash as it does now. That should remain as is, but that money, instead of being provided as a cash transfer or a cheque, should be provided in terms of services, for example, to provide child care or to fund child initiatives.