---

FAIRNESS FOR PARENTS AND CHILDREN
A DISSENTING OPINION BY MICHELLE DOCKRILL
NDP WOMEN'S CRITIC
JUNE 1999

The mandate of this Committee was ``To study the tax and transfer system as it applies to families with dependent children and . . . determine if (federal policies) treat families with children in an equitable manner." The challenge for the Committee was to rise above the narrow and misdirected debate about whether parents, - mainly mothers, - who work inside the home are more or less deserving of public support than those who work for pay outside the home, and address the critical issue of whether Canada supports any families adequately today.

Sadly, while the Committee recognizes at some points that ``this whole debate . . . has been driven by concerns that are not on target" and that ``the tax system does not appear . . . to favour one type of family with children over another type of family with children"; in the end, it fails to deal with the needs of all Canadian families.

The reality is that all parents want to do what is best for their children - and all parents make sacrifices on behalf of their children. For most families, the central issue is how to earn a decent income, and at the same time give their children the security, attention, and stimulation which is essential for all of us to develop, grow and thrive.

The problem with our tax/transfer system is that it discriminates against all children, treating them for tax purposes as a consumer item, like a winter holiday or a minivan. The tax concern is not whether one-earner or two-earner families with children are more or less disadvantaged than the other, but whether the system values children, and the role of parents in raising the citizens of the next generation.

What the Committee's narrow focus obscures is that over the past 15 years Canada, like other powerful economies, has slowly shifted towards the devaluation of children. (Sylvia Ann Hewlett, ``Child Neglect in Rich Nations", report to UNICEF). The facts are that:

• Canada is the only country in the industrialized world that has no universal recognition of the costs and value of raising children.
• In real terms, Canada was spending close to $2 billion more on children in 1984 than it spends today.
• For modest and middle-income families, the value of Canada's child benefit is one of the lowest in the OECD.
• Canada's major tax/transfer program for children, the Canada Child Tax Benefit goes to only 36% of poor families (National Council of Welfare: Kids are Still Hungry).

In examining whether Canada treats families with children equitably, it would have been more than appropriate to consider whether the major tax/transfer program for children - the Canada Child Tax Benefit could be improved or even evaluated. But in spite of a wealth of testimony on the subject, the Committee contents itself with asserting that there is no clawback - only a reduction. In so doing, the Committee has reduced an exceptionally important issue, - the fact that Canada's main anti-poverty program withdraws support from the poorest of the poor, - to a discussion of semantics.

Instead, the Committee calls for a reexamination of the Child Care Expense Deduction, the one tax provision that recognizes that child care costs are a legitimate employment-related expense. There are problems with the CCED - right now many people who use child care - and pay for it - can't access the tax deduction because they can't get receipted child care. But the point is, that to support choices for parents, the Committee could have focussed on making this provision less restrictive in the short term, and recommended that the best way to provide real choices for parents would be to put in place an affordable, universal system of early learning and care for all children, and make it available on a full or part-time basis whether their parents are in the labour force or not.

In its conclusions, the Committee calls for extending a new refundable credit, within the Canada Child Tax Benefit, to parents who provide direct parental care. Although intended to expand choices for parents, this proposal is restricted to parents ``who forego earned income." The Committee often stated that ``our policy should . . . neither encourage nor penalize caregiving choices." Unfortunately, that policy hasn't been fully applied - since this recommendation effectively denies the choice of direct caregiving to mothers on social assistance.

Supporting the decision of a parent to stay home or work part-time while children are young is one of the choices that public policy should support. But it should not be limited by income level. Dozens of witnesses appeared before the Committee to put the case for fairness and real choice for all families. As Rita Chudnovski argued:

``Families whether in or out of the paid labour force have more in common than things that divide them. All of their children need quality early childhood experiences and services, regardless of the employment and economic status of their parents. All parents, whether at home full time or in the paid labour force perform countless hours of unpaid work caring for their children and families and this work need to be recognized. . . . all families need complementary social, fiscal and tax policies that expand and support real parental choice - and support women's social and economic equality. And most importantly, all families need cohesive policies that recognize our shared social responsibility for supporting the healthy growth and development of all of Canada's children."

In some ways, Canada's family policy is stuck in what Judith Maxwell refers to as a paralyzed model, one caught between different ideologies - an ethic that values paid work, but provides limited support for it. Two-thirds of Canadian women with children work outside the home, but the labour market is on the whole hostile to families. The growth in part-time, non-standard and low-wage employment creates more work, less pay and less time for children. ``Flexible" employment is largely on employers' terms and is very costly in terms of family life and economic security. Limited access to quality child care and jobs that pay a living wage are central to the difficulties today's families face in trying to reconcile the competing goals of economic security for their families and a nurturing and healthy environment for their children. These realities may be beyond what this Committee saw as its mandate. But they are central to the concerns and the choices facing every Canadian family.

In one very important respect, the Committee recognized the need to help families achieve that balance. Despite our concern about the overall direction of the Committee report, New Democrats are strongly in support of its third recommendation, - to extend maternity and parental leave and to eliminate the waiting periods that prevent both parents from accessing it. Our own approach would have gone further.

NDP Recommendations

Expand Maternity and Parental Leave - to make maternity and parental leave more widely available to women in the part-time workforce, to those who are self-employed and in other non-standard work. We need a range of programs to permit and encourage both parents to combine work and family responsibilities, including longer and more flexible benefits, higher wage replacement, and further incentives to help both parents share parenting more fully.

Introduce an Early Childhood Education program - a comprehensive universal program available to all children, whether their parents are in or out of the labour force, to be phased in one year at a time - to all five year olds in year 1, all four year olds in year 2, three year olds in year 3, etc. Coverage and care for younger children could be accommodated through longer maternity/parental leaves, and early care and education programs.

Restore Universal Recognition of Children in Canada's Tax/Transfer System via a universal transfer - such as extending the Canada Child Tax Benefit to all families with children, or alternatively a non-refundable tax credit. Expand the National Child Benefit in stages to provide more adequate support to middle-income families, index both the benefit levels and the eligibility thresholds, and eliminate the clawback.