Putting families first

Many Canadian families are finding themselves shocked to discover that the hundred bucks a month per child under six paid under the Universal Child Credit (designed to destroy the national child care strategy as well as the tax-free and very effective Canada Child Tax Benefit) they thought was tax free is in fact taxable income. And while the lower income parent many think the UCC is tax free because they're still below the basic exemption, the fact is their partner's spousal amount goes down -- meaning it winds up being taxed anyway. (Or in the case of a single parent, or even unmarried siblings living in the same household, the "equivalent to spouse" amount drops).

Meanwhile, while the federal government clears up the red tape for foreign adoptions, it refuses to do anything about the gulag called the Canadian foster care system. 23,000 kids remain wards of the state -- and of course, because they're "un-adoptable" the government doesn't have to pay a single penny of the "child care" dough. Little wonder why unmarried mothers as well as mothers with low incomes decide it's just better to have an abortion, rather than have their unborn child be a "burden" on the system.

In recent months, I've done a lot of soul-searching and have decided that on balance I lean more pro-life than pro-choice. I do not think, however, simply outlawing abortions is the answer (although I do feel they should be restricted after viability). I do believe, however, that if our country had the kinds of social policies that actually put families first we could substantially reduce the number of terminated pregnancies -- and it would be possible to do this without any legal restrictions.

I'm not talking about a nanny state. I am talking about adjusting tax and family policies that make children front and centre.

First, I'd take the hundred bucks a month and make it tax free -- in fact, I'd tack it on to the base amount of the CCTB. This would ensure no provincial clawbacks. It would also ensure over ninety percent keep all of the money, and even upper middle class families (between $110 and 170 thousand) would get a partial tax rebate.

Second, I'd reduce the clawback on the National Child Benefit (NCB) supplement -- from 22% to 4%, the same as the CCTB. More money for middle income parents.

Third, I'd restore the young child supplement. It may seem like a small amount, but $20 a month would be useful to parents.

Fourth, I'd bring back the tax exemption for children. For example, it could be $2000 per child under seven and $1000 for kids 7-18. Along with the enhanced CCTB and NCB, it would take several hundred thousand families off the tax rolls during a child's most critical years -- up to 7.

Fifth, a daycare plan. I personally do not favour a flat user fee like which exists in Québec, but child care should be geared to income and available to any parent who asks for it. The fact remains not one single new day care space has been created the last thirteen months. We were promised 25,000 in the first year. There should be a combination of public and private day care with regulations applying across the board, and real tax incentives to encourage corporations to build in-house facilities. To ensure equality, parents who decide to stay at home should receive an equitable tax break -- equal to the tax realized value of the child care deduction.

Sixth, provinces must abandon their "rob Peter to pay Paul" attitude, taxing back what the federal government gives. If this means higher transfer payments from Ottawa to cover the gap, so be it.

Seventh, as I noted above, the red tape that exists in foster care must be eliminated. No question, there should be background checks to ensure prospective parents are capable of taking on their task. It simply doesn't make sense, however, to give foreign kids more rights than those of all races in our system. There should be, at least, a national adoption registry and provinces should cooperate to ensure foster children may be placed anywhere in Canada. It's true child protection is a provincial responsibility, but if there is no suitable parent in say Prince Edward Island but there is one in Saskatchewan why should the PEI kid be stuck?

And eighth, we do need to have a serious discussion about stem cell research. This has mostly been limited to the medical community and while we do have a law in place it's something that should be revisited on a frequent basis and not merely set in stone. In my opinion, unused embryos should not be destroyed unless an implant candidate cannot be found and the parents do not want any more children.

These steps are certainly radical. I think, however, we need to say that we're both going to have family values as well as value families.

Vote for this article at Progressive Bloggers.