CPJ Canada rebukes pro-senior anti-child Fed budget

CPJ Canada excels at economic analysis of Canadian societal discrepancies, presenting cost-analyses to Governments, particularly the Federal Government of Canada, and lobbying for budget allocations that, within CPJ's parameters, are moderate and reasonable, according to a set of priorities that puts poor children first. I'm in accord with these principles of practice, but not always without criticism of the specifics of various proposals, as in this case where I wonder how the allocations for "early child learning" would be distributed. Would provisions be made for mothers in poverty who want to keep their children at home and home-school them, rather than sending them to disease collectors like early childhood government schools, or any schools for that matter? Would some of the funds go to faith-based agencies where mothers in poverty could be trained by experts in early childhood learning, so as to add to their own personal and familial lore? Could these be kept separate from the police-like Welfare and Children's Aid Societies? But I am anticipating the important press release below. I quote the first secton of the lead article in a special issue of Ola!, CPJ's montly email newsletter, somewhat a press release. You can subscribe to Ola! by clicking the title of this blog entry and at CPJ's website, navigating your way to the Subscribe link. Or, by cutting pasting: http://www.cpj.ca Once there, look around. Here's the newsletter item I selected, but I can't endorse every single nuance, nor the general approach of the entire stand on the budget. Nevertheless, Citizens for Public Justice (Canada) is doing a very good work and this is not the place to articulate further reservations. - Owlb :

A TEMPERATE BUDGET ...
THAT LEAVES SOME PEOPLE OUT IN THE COLD

The first way to analyze a federal budget is to look at what's been called for and what was delivered. That's especially helpful this time in a budget called "Delivering on Commitments."

In our brief to the Finance Committee last fall, CPJ called for a limited, realistic mix of measures that would make a serious difference in the level and depth of child and family poverty in Canada.

We asked for funding, by 2008-9, for early learning and childcare to be at $6 billion a year. On affordable housing, we wanted the federal government to be spending $2 billion a year. And for national child benefits, $4 billion a year more (which would get the maximum child benefit to $4,900 per child per year.) We've long critiqued the practice of provinces "clawing back" the National Child Benefit Supplement from families on social assistance. So this year we called for an increase in the Canadian Social Transfer of $0.5 billion a year to offset the costs of provinces ending this practice and putting the federal money into the hands it's intended to be in - families.

At the minimum, we said, the government should make good its election promise to invest $5 billion in early learning and childcare and another $1.5 billion in housing over the next five years. Again, limited and reasonable expectations.

In that light, how did this budget perform? The government came through on its childcare commitment, promising $1.2 billion a year by 2008-9 (so that's short of our $6 billion.) The budget offered nothing new on housing, child benefits or the Canada Social Transfer.

The budget, then, did less than we saw needed. Nonetheless, the child care money is an important financial commitment, one that is long overdue. We hope this budget allocation will give Social Development Minister Ken Dryden a good base in upcoming meetings with his provincial and territorial counterparts. The test will be to what extent they can lay the foundation of a program that truly meets the principles of quality, universal, accessible, developmental child care.

Overall the Liberals spent a tremendous amount of money on a wide array of program and priorities, and CPJ thinks some of them are terrific (like green initiatives, spending on seniors, and international aid.) Big commitments to health care ($41 billion over 10 years) where the provinces and territories signed on with the federal government will help us all. And the provinces receive an additional $33 million in equalization payments and some of that money will go to social spending.

There were some commitments the government made, like giving part of the gas tax to municipalities, which ensures stable funding, and they delivered.

So why is there so little for poor Canadians, with the exception of seniors, who got another boost? This budget leaves low-income Canadians largely out in the cold. But their fortunes affect us all. Here's an example.

PDF