International Family Childcare Association -

Jack Mintz: The art of research
Posted: May 19, 2009, 7:20 PM by NP Editor
Jack Mintz, Federal Budget, research
If Canada wants to be a leader in R&D, the solution isn’t more government money; it’s a smarter approach

By Jack Mintz

T

he federal government’s recent budget has taken a lot of heat over its support for research, including in a letter signed by 2,000 researchers dependent on government support. Not only is the heat unfair but it is also contradicted by the facts.

The real issue is not the amount of money being spent but whether the government’s approach is the best innovation strategy. Researchers could help a lot by framing the discussion in this way.

Much of the criticism laid against the Harper budget reflects reduced funding provided to three granting agencies following a federal strategic review. Arguably, the purpose of a review is to improve the program’s efficiency, reducing expenditures that are overlapping or not effective. The 3.4% cut is being redirected to other research funding, including graduate scholarships, and, in fact, the 2009 budget provides for a substantial increase in research funding.

While much fanfare has been made about the newly-found U.S. budget commitment to research, it must be remembered that this only follows a secular decline of 50% of research funding for physical sciences as a share of GDP in the past 25 years. In other words, the United States is now in catch-up mode. Yet a close look at the U.S. budget numbers for research and development suggests less than meets the eye. In a recent review of the Obama budget, the Office of Management and Budget shows that federal funding for research and development will be $147-billion in 2010, just slightly more than the Bush administration’s $144-billion in 2008 and less than an estimated $165-billion in 2009 (including stimulus spending).

In comparison, the Harper government in its 2009 budget will increase science and technology funding by $5.1-billion on top of $2.2-billion in new funding in the previous three budgets. Adjusting for size of the economy, this is more than the U.S. spending increases. Over $2.75-billion is devoted to repairing post-secondary infrastructure that has seriously impaired scientific research and teaching due to inadequate facilities. A further billion dollars is spent on clean energy, clearly one of the most critical areas for research in the coming years. Other funds are devoted to various programs, including the National Research Council’s successful Industrial Research Assistance Program to assist corporate innovation and the hiring of graduate students.

The recent report by the Science, Technology and Innovation Council does an excellent job laying out information about our research performance. In 2006 (the latest year of available data), public expenditures on research and development as a share of GDP was 0.9% in Canada, more than the 0.8% share in the United States. Further, once the research and development tax credit is included, Canadian funding of business research was 0.23% of GDP compared to 0.22% of GDP in the United States (2005, the latest year available). Much of our support is provided through the tax system while the United States directs most of its public support through grants given to defence, health, space and energy industries, among others.

And, more of our population has post-secondary education than in the United States, although Canadians favour colleges over universities compared to Americans. Given the differences in education structures, it is not entirely clear whether some Canadian college education is much different than certain types of U.S. universities — for example, Canadian colleges like Ryerson have become universities recently.

The problem is research intensity as a country. Total public and private research and development spending in Canada is still lacklustre, just slightly better than the OECD average. Although research and development expenditures have improved from 1.6% of GDP in 1996 to 1.9% of GDP in 2006, it is still less than the 2006 G-7 average of 2.2%. Our mediocre performance is primarily a result of low business-funded research, which is only 1.1% of GDP, compared to 1.8% in the United States for 2006. Even after accounting for differences in industrial structure, resource-rich Canada’s position improves little.

So if we are graduating lots of students, and governments are coming to the table, why is research and development performance so mediocre? Clearly, the effectiveness of public programs, not the size of spending, is the heart of the matter. To illustrate, Canada’s public support for business research is one of the highest in the world, primarily delivered through R&D tax credits. The advantage of a tax credit program is that reduces the complexity involved with grant applications as well as leaving it to the private sector as to where to best spend research money.

The United States is able to achieve much greater success with its grant-based regime, which is focused more on communications and transportation industries. In contrast, Japan provides far less government support for business research than the United States and Canada, it is more reliant on fiscal incentives like Canada and it has an even better R&D record than the United States. Obviously, our generous tax support has not done the job.

Canada has done admirably well in recent years funding new professors and graduate studies. Yet, fewer students graduate with PhDs compared to other countries. Further, insufficient support is given to post-doctoral fellows who must take a salary cut (including losing tax-exempt status of scholarships) when completing their doctoral studies.

And venture capital funding has been poor, providing less than 2% of 2007 funding for small and medium size businesses. Our labour-sponsored venture capital credit has been ineffective yet governments cling to it. A capital gains tax regime to encourage the rollover of investments in new investments is not leading to high rates of small business growth.

If our policies are not working well enough to achieve better research performance, perhaps it is time for the federal government to put some of our best brains together to figure out how we can improve our innovation performance. Just spending more is not the answer. Spending wisely is.

Financial Post
Jack M. Mintz is the Palmer Chair in Public Policy, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary.

Photo: Getty Creative

Sara Landriault has been published in Australia regarding the International Childcare Crisis.

Childcare is a worldwide problem, says the National Family Childcare Association, a Canadian organisation advocating for equality in all childcare choices.

This policy is initially written for Canadian laws, but can easily be configured to an International status. Childcare is a worldwide problem that needs a solution that suits the needs of the child.

Our policies are as follows:

Primary Advocacy

*
Family Tax Fairness to be adopted by the Finance Minister of Canada (Income Splitting)

Long Term Advocacy

*
Parental choice should be available through financial equalization factors and taxation by way of a model of a childcare benefit voucher system similar to the Australia model recognizing the four parental choices of: parent/partner/guardian in the family home; care by a relative; regulated private-home day care; licensed day home, child care centre, nursery school or preschool/kindergarten facility. The signatories agree that parental choice is the cornerstone for all decisions
*
Taxation must view the family unit as a whole and follow a ‘family taxation’ policy giving stay-at-home families and single parents the opportunity to equalize taxation and must also allow families of dual income to income splitting. All policies must be voluntary to family perspective.
*
All tax credits must be provided for provisions for equalization of all parents regardless of parental choice in childcare.
*
Governments must separate funding parental childcare choice initiatives from capital funding plans, thereby demonstrating the necessity to address childcare in both contexts.
*
Expansion of licensed childcare spaces should follow the model established in Nova Scotia (circa 2007) with low cost loans and cost-sharing grant, encouraging the development of both commercial and non-profit programs licensed programs. This model provides credible accountable use of taxpayer money and expands parental choice options.

Increasingly stay at home parents are being treated like second hand citizens because of the “privacy law” in Canada, and the decreased amount on how the government treats them.

Tax laws, credit departments, banks and even the Revenue Canada Agency does not recognize parenting at home as a economic value and constantly decreases the value of a parent when taxes are raised, and credit are added.

Childcare in Crisis logoTax laws
Mortgages
Bank Accounts
Credit Bureaus
Hydro Smart meter
Tax Credits
Resumes
Pensions

These are just a few problems parents at home face and we must come together to alleviate the strain on parents just because they childcare their own children.

Parents who use daycares are also finding financial restraint due to over prices costs and unavailable childcare spaces across Canada and the World.

Moms, dads, grandparents, neighborhood care, friends, centers, are all childcare to us. We need to stand together and work with any government to ensure our children’s need are met.

Sara Landriault is a stay at home mom (sic) of 3 beautiful girls. In raising her children, she has grown with them and has learned as much from her daughters as she has taught them. Sara finds arguments between daycare vs stay at home moms very disrespectful to all involved. An advocate for equal respect and financial rights for parents who choose daycare, staying at home and everything in between, Sara is President/Founder of the National Family Childcare Association in Canada.

Just a quick note letting you know we are now an International group, and are quickly becoming the International Choice.

Australia Openforum

Dear Minister J. Flaherty,

I have written this letter to you, as a mother and President of the
National Family Childcare Association, (NFCA).

The key purpose of the NFCA, a now International group, is to ensure equality for all parents. We, at the NFCA, strongly believe that parental choice is the best solution for Canadian children, especially since choosing childcare is an extremely delicate matter. Ultimately, a parent’s choice of any kind, affects not only a child’s early development, but also that of their future and this great nation. Parental choice is something that is a human right, must be optional and is certainly not to be taken lightly.

Policy revues by professional economists, activists and parents clearly states that “funding the child” is the best possible way to raise children within the “UN rights of the child”.

Your acknowledgment of lowering taxes to boost the economy is fully supported by the NFCA. (On a personal note and being a mother of three young children in this economic time, I know that we all could use more money in our pocket to ensure future of our children).

During the Oct 2008 election, parents of disabled children were promised income splitting. The NFCA, an international group of 250,000+ individuals, and supported by other like-minded groups, are in full support of income splitting and would like to ensure that your government follows through on this specific promise. We also request that income splitting be extended to all Canadian families with children. Making this type of adjustment to the current tax system would not only equalize the current inefficiencies for families, Canada would prosper socially, economically and surpass its present reputation in the eyes of the United Nations and the rest of the world.

The NFCA requests that you understand all Canadian parents hardships during these economic times. Everyone is feeling the pressure and suffering due to the inadequacy of the current Canadian tax structure. Let us help you to resolve this issue for the good of all Canadian parents and their children. There is a real opportunity here to work to correct this current injustice in the present Canadian tax structure; let us not waste it.

The NFCA is humbly suggesting the following measures are to be seriously considered for your 2009 Jan budget:

*Income splitting for families with children
*Lower taxes
*A truly National Childcare plan that financially meets the needs of all families of children, “Fund the Child”.

Canadian parents are anxiously awaiting your Jan 2009 budget release as a result.

–
Thank you,
Sara Landriault
stay at home mom
President, National Family Childcare Association
www.careofthechild.com
www.incomesplitting.org
landriault@ripnet.com

–30–

Press Release

2008-10-17

National Family Childcare Association (NFCA)

The NFCA would like to address Minister of Social Services in Ontario Madeleine Meilleur, comment on Grandparents loosing funding for fostering their own kin.

Reported from the Toronto Star

TORONTO–The Ontario government’s move to cut off funding for grandparents with temporary custody of their grandchildren was done out of spite, the New Democrats charged today, while likening Social Services Minister Madeleine Meilleur as a modern day Marie Antoinette.
Hamilton New Democrat Paul Miller first raised the issue of grandparents in Hamilton and Ottawa being cut off from the $200 to $300 in temporary care assistance funding they received each month to help raise their grandchildren.
Ms. Madeleine Meilleur comment was,
“Grandparents have the same rights as every other person in Ontario who is in financial difficulty,” Meilleur said.
“They can apply for and receive … welfare.”

“Ms Meilleur is misrepresenting her position by saying the Grandparents have the same rights as every other person in Ontario with financial difficulty. Facts are foster parents, and young families with 2 incomes using subsidized daycare are treated on a higher financial regard then any other parent/legal guardians in Canada. Grandparents are generally over the age of 60 with special needs of there own and cannot go out and join a union paid job, so they stay at home and protect their already abused grandchildren from any future nightmares.”

The NFCA would like to call on Ms. Madeleine Meilleur to fully reverse this decision on the funding cuts or resign from her position as Minister of Social Services.

Betty Cornelius of Cangrands has sent special notices to Grandparents across Canada to help fight Ms. Meilleur’s decision to cut funding to our most poverty stricken citizens.

Please contact Betty Cornelius
www.cangrands.ca
613-474-0035

“About 90% of Cangrand children are special needs, Grandparents are loosing their retirement savings, homes and going to snowsuit funds to keep their grandkids warm. In Ontario foster parents are paid over $1200 a month to help raise a child that is not kin, but if you a kinship of the child you are left at the food banks begging. This is not fair.”
Says Sara Landriault

Please contact for local grandparent contacts,
(Ottawa area grandparents are available to speak with the press)
–
Thank you,
Sara Landriault
stay at home mom
President, National Family Childcare Association
www.careofthechild.com
www.incomesplitting.org
landriault@ripnet.com

Queen’s Park Bureau Chief

VANCOUVER–The New Democrats will today unveil an ambitious new $17 billion child benefit plan that will pay families up to $400 a month per child, sources told the Star.

NDP Leader Jack Layton will announce the cornerstone pledge of his Oct. 14 election campaign when he launches the party’s platform this afternoon in Toronto.

Under the plan, which expands the $100-a-month “baby bonus” program the Conservatives introduced in 2006, every Canadian family would receive a monthly cheque.

Sources said the scheme “gives everyone a raise.”

“(But) families who are most in need will receive greatest increased benefit.”

Families with a household income of $38,000 or less would receive $400 a month per child.

Those earning less than $188,000 a household would get $250 a month per child.

And families making more than $188,000 a year would receive $100 a month per child.

Unlike the current Tory “universal child care benefit” policy, the money wouldn’t be taxed.

Also, the eligibility threshold would be extended from the existing cut-off when a child turns 6 to 18 years old.

“It’s to help every family,” said a senior New Democrat yesterday, adding parents need financial help for child care long after kids are 6.

“This will help with everything from daycare to hockey (fees).”

When fully phased in by 2012, it should cost $17 billion a year – up from the $13 billion the Conservatives spend on various child benefits, including tax credits and the monthly baby bonus.

Layton was coy when asked about his platform yesterday after a rally with more than 600 raucous supporters at the historic Commodore Ballroom.

“I’m very excited about the platform that we’re releasing. It’s balanced. It’s really going to offer a very different choice for Canadians,” he said.

“We’ve made a commitment that every year the budget needs to be balanced and that’s the record we would take.”

Big-ticket items in the NDP platform will be funded by the planned cancellation of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s $50 billion in corporate tax cuts.

By offering “mainstream” policies designed to appeal to a wide swath of the Canadian electorate, Layton believes he can supplant the Liberals as the viable progressive alternative to the Conservatives.

The NDP leader is tied with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion at 21 per cent apiece in the latest Star-Angus Reid poll, well behind Harper at 40 per cent.

However, New Democrats believe they have the momentum – they claim the Liberals are tanking and the Tories have reached a plateau.

Layton has been drawing large crowds on this four-day swing through British Columbia, where the NDP holds 10 of 36 seats and hopes to pick up several more as a result of a collapsing Liberal vote here.

On Wednesday in Kamloops, 400 people packed a town-hall meeting at Thompson Rivers University. A similar forum in Victoria on Thursday also attracted 400 people.

He said the enthusiastic audiences are because “people are taking a deeper look” at the NDP.

“I think that people are coming to the conclusion that there isn’t just the same old set of choices and they’re opening their door to the idea that maybe there isn’t just one party that has the entitlement to perpetually be the alternate to the Conservatives,” said Layton.

“I think that’s because we’ve seen many years of problems. Some of the same problems that we talk about today emerged, as I’ve often said, over the past 25 years, not just the past 25 months.”

Here is a Nice offer!!

Roy Green was doing a one hour radio show on AM900 CMHL Sunday Sept 14 at 4pm EST.
This show was regarding childcare and the 2008 election. Roy featured, Yvonne Coupal, Helen Ward, Michelle Olson and Sara Landriault as guest panels discussing childcare.

Each of us run our own group and/or association but most of all we are all mothers.

Click here for more info
(I will like all of your sites to your names)
Yvonne Coupal
Helen Ward
Michelle Olson
Sara Landriault

During the show Helen Ward, President of Kids First Canada explained how she called each of the political parties to discuss their policies in childcare.

On Sept 12, 2008 mid afternoon Helen called,

Conservative Party
In which they did not respond to Helen’s phone call

Liberal Party
The Liberal representative explained their childcare views politely and professionally to Helen. Though Helen does not agree with the Liberal childcare plan, she is grateful for the respect they have given to her.

Green Party
Helen had a long indepth conversation regarding childcare policies in which the Green showed interest in expanding their minimal childcare policy already in place.

NDP Party
Helen discussed in length with Ian Capstick the importance of the NDP acknowledging parental care in all of its form through childcare.
At one point Helen Ward stated “every mother is a working mother”
Ian Capstick, who is the press secretary to Jack Layton leader of the NDP, slammed back at Helen with a sharp tone “THAT IS POPPY COCK AND YOU KNOW IT!”.

Well you have it all now folks, beer and popcorn has been bumped and poppy cock leads the way!

I spoke with Helen Ward and she was flabbergasted that the NDP would even have such an opinion on motherhood in that form.
Helen emphasized to Ian Capstick that she personally supports many other NDP’s policies and has been raised in an NDP family environment.

Helen also said this after our conversation,

“The purpose of our advocating is to generate discussion about the issue. Is every mother a working mother, and does childcare include parental care?”

Feel free to email Ian Capstick
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

New Democrat Campaign Headquarters:
Ian Capstick
Senior Campaign Press Secretary
613-720-6400
ian@ndp.ca

My personal view,

Just because you do not belong to a union or bring home the bacon, does not mean you do not work. EVERY MOTHER AND FATHER ARE WORKING PARENTS!

Stephane Dion

Liberal Party

Conservatives repeat lies on child care cheques

ISSUE:

After being challenged by Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion to end his campaign of “piling lies upon lies,” Mr. Harper and the Conservative Party launched more attack ads claiming Mr. Dion would eliminate the Universal Child Care Benefit.

REALITY:

Stéphane Dion has repeatedly said that he will not eliminate the $1,200 child care benefit. This is clearly a matter of public record and Liberals even released an official statement clarifying this in unequivocal language before the Conservatives launched their ads. And yet, Stephen Harper is repeating these baseless fabrications.

Universal Child Care Benefit

* While Mr. Dion has criticized Mr. Harper for cancelling billions in child care funding agreements with the provinces and breaking his promise to create child care spaces, the Liberal leader has never committed to ending or reducing the Universal Child Care Benefit. Period.

“The leader has not said at all that the $1,200 [a year] now being given to parents would be taken away….We don’t want to take it away.”

(Liberal Social Development Critic, Ruby Dhalla, National Post, March 26, 2007)

* Liberals will maintain this benefit and will augment it with real support to create quality child care spaces.

WHAT DION SAID

The Conservatives hand their whole claim that Dion would cancel child care cheques based on Mr. Dion’s response in a 2006 interview with the National Post before Mr. Dion was elected as Liberal leader. Here is the full exchange:

National Post: Would you cancel the Tory daycare plan? What would you replace it with?

Stéphane Dion: Yes. The Dryden plan was much better. We need child care facilities to provide Canadian parents with real choice. It’s a matter of social justice, but also of sound economics: child care facilities are a good way to encourage flexibility and mobility of our workforce, at a time when, often, two parents are working outside the home. (National Post, October 21, 2006)

REALITY

The question is not specifically about the $1,200 benefit. Mr. Dion is asked about Mr. Harper’s child care plan in general, including the cancellation of Liberal child care agreements with all 10 provinces, and his failed plan to create 125,000 child care spaces.

However, Liberals have repeatedly pointed out, cheques alone are not child care.

Further, since becoming leader, Mr. Dion and the Liberal Party have been clear that we will not take away the $1,200 family child care allowance. The Liberal Party will in fact add a new refundable tax credit worth $350 per child per year and will invest to create more child care spaces for Canadians.

In addition, the Liberal Party has committed to increasing the National Child Care Benefit Supplement and creating a new Guaranteed Family Supplement worth up to $1,225 per child for lower-income families.

The Conservatives broke their promise to Canadian families that they would create 25,000 new spaces annually.

The Liberal Party opposed the Conservatives’ slashing $750 million in annual investments in child care spaces.

And yes, while keeping the cheques, Liberals do intend to replace the Conservative plan to create child care spaces, because their plan didn’t work.

Choice in Childcare opinion,

So here it is, Dion wants to up the Universal Childcare benefit about $300 a year and put more money into daycare spaces. This money will not go to the parents it will go to the daycare workers.

Why would sending money to the daycare workers be the only way to create daycare spaces?
When accountants, lawyers etc… go to University do they have a guarantee of a government well paid, benefits, and union backed job?

Paying the daycare workers directly is for the comfort of the daycare employment, not the children.
One style daycare does not fit all children.
Send the money to the parents to make a true choice in childcare.

Stephen Harper

Conservative

Many families struggle with the cost of child care. For 13 years, Liberals promised but never delivered new child care spaces. Conservatives are giving parents choice in childcare – direct support to fit each family’s unique needs – and investing in new child care spaces.

Conservatives are building a stronger, safer, better Canada for families and children.

The Conservative Record

Delivered choice and support to parents through the Universal Child Care Benefit: $1,200 per year in direct support for every child under six – over $3.7 billion in 2006 and 2007 to help parents with the cost of child care
Invested $250 million per year to assist the provinces and territories in creating new child care spaces

The Liberal Record

For 13 years, Liberals promised new child care spaces but never delivered.
Liberals oppose the new $1,200 Universal Child Care Benefit and have promised to take it away from thousands of families.
Liberals voted against $250 million per year for the provinces to create new child care spaces.

The NDP Record

New Democrats joined the Liberals in opposing the 2006 and 2007 budgets including the Universal Child Care Benefit and $250 million per year for new child care spaces.
The NDP plan for child care puts interest groups, bureaucrats, and politicians ahead of parents when it comes to federal funding assistance.

The Bloc Record

The Bloc talks a lot about child care. But what can they actually do other than talk? With the BLOC, we can’t achieve anything.

For Canadians, the choice is clear: strong leadership and the real support with the Conservatives or weak leadership and no support with the Liberals.

Choice in Childcare opinion,

Nothing new.

No Income Splitting, no tax breaks for parents at home… nothing new

Remember,

Parents at home at paying up to 42% higher taxes than the double income families, this included single parents!
Parents at home are only eligible for tax breaks if they use outside sources for childcare.

In the 2006 election I specifically said $100 was better than nothing the Liberals were offering. Well today we are being offered nothing from both sides.

Only the rich are allowed to income split,
Some of you may have read my article about “Why do I have to divorce to Income Split?”, well below explains why I would have to die or become very rich to income split.
These laws are for Ontario as well as Canada in the tax revenue, please ask your local MP one question next time you email/phone he or she, “Why are only specific Canadians allowed to Income Split?”

Dentists

1. The Corporation would be taxed at a much lower rate and personal taxes would be deferred on retained earnings until paid out from the Corporation in dividends, salaries or bonuses.

2. Persons other than the dentist (usually family members and/or a family trust) are not prohibited from owning shares of corporations that deliver non-dental services. Therefore, the income could be taxed in the hands of persons other than the dentist, often resulting in substantial reductions in overall taxes (i. e. income splitting).

3. Selling shares of a small business corporation may qualify for taxfree treatment whereas the sale of an unincorporated business does not. Ancillary corporations could allow a dentist to lower the total tax paid on the sale of a practice.

General

Q. I have a question regarding tax implications on investment accounts.

I currently have a non-registered investment account under my name only. My spouse and I have joint bank accounts. If I were to add my spouse’s name to my investment account and make it a joint account, who can or has to report the capital gains or loss and at what percentage?

- Terence C.

A. In general, from the Canada Revenue Agency standpoint, any asset can be registered jointly for legal ownership. However for income tax purposes, CRA considers who the beneficial owner of the asset is, as opposed to the legal owner.

Generally the split for capital gains, capital losses and other income (interest, dividends) would be in the proportion of funds that each spouse has contributed to the account.

In the case of a joint bank account, you might want to factor the income earned by each of you and split accordingly.

Death Estates

2. Income Splitting. Since individuals are taxed at progressive tax rates, a family trust is an ideal mechanism for high income earners to reduce their annual tax liability by transferring income to persons taxed at a lower, marginal rate. Generally, people think of minor children as the ideal beneficiaries under a discretionary family trust as they generally have little or no income. However, low income earning spouses, dependent parents, adult children and other individuals are also common beneficiaries named in discretionary family trusts. By transferring income through a discretionary family trust to a low income beneficiary, a substantial tax saving is possible.

Physicians

How Can You Income Split with a PC

Physicians are allowed to split income with other family members, such as a spouse, parents, children and trusts for minor children. The income splitting is achieved by having the family members own non-voting shares of the PC that can receive dividends as determined by the physician. Dividends are taxed more favourably than other types of income. An individual with no other income can receive up to approximately $30,000 of dividends tax-free. Dividends can be paid most tax-efficiently to family members who do not have significant other income.

What Factors do you need to Consider when setting up the Share Structure:

It is extremely important that the share structure of the PC be set up with advance planning at the outset, in consideration of the following:

1. Flexibility for changing circumstances of family members;
2. Flexibility to pay dividends to whatever family members are selected each year by the physician;
3. Ensuring that the physician retains complete control of the PC;
4. Allowing the physician to cancel the shares of family members if the circumstances warrant (i.e. marital problems);
5. Establishment at the time of incorporation of multiple classes of shares, so there is a separate class for each family member (allowing complete flexibility as to dividends payable to each family member); and
6. Establishing special classes of shares to be issued to the physician on the transfer of goodwill and other assets relating to the practice, such as equipment.

Professional Corporations

(b) Professional Corporations

Prior to 2001, only a handful of professionals (such as engineers) were permitted to incorporate their practices. In 2001 the majority of professions were given this similar right – but it came with restrictions. There are two major restrictions. The first restriction is that a “shareholder” in a professional corporation does not have limited liability like a shareholder in a “regular” corporation – at least for professional liability. Thus, if a law firm becomes a professional corporation, the shareholders will be protected from claims by their landlord for the failure to pay the rent for the offices, but they will not be protected from claims for negligence in providing legal advice. The second restriction is that the shareholders of a professional corporation are restricted to members of the applicable profession. Thus, for example, a professional corporation established by several accountants is restricted to having only the accountants as shareholders. One of the large advantages of corporations is the possibility for what is known as an “income split”. Suppose Timmy makes $50,000 in salary from TimCo. If Timmy is married with two children, he may be able to make his wife and children shareholders of TimCo and pay the same $50,000 to himself and his family with the result that the tax paid by the four family members will be less than the tax Timmy would have to pay if he received the full $50,000. (It should be mentioned, of course, that the Canada Revenue Agency does not like income splitting and uses what are called “attribution rules” to negate such attempts. However, with careful tax planning by one’s accountant, even a minor income split may produce significant results.) Under the current rules for professional corporations, if Timmy was a social worker, he would not be able to effect an income split with his family unless they were all social workers. However, an important exception to this rule came into place in 2005 which permitted physicians and surgeons and dentists to have family members (ie. spouse and children) as shareholders of professional corporations – so there is hope that this will someday be extended to all other professional corporations. At the moment, the primary persons who would consider professional corporations are: accountants, audiologists, chiropodists, chiropractors, dental hygenists, dental surgeons, dental technologists, denturists, dieticians, lawyers, massage therapists, medical laboratory technologists, medical radiation technologists, midwives, nurses, occupational therapists, opticians, optometrists, pharmacists, physicians and surgeons, physiotherapists, psychologists, respiratory therapists, social workers, social service workers, speech language pathologists, and veterinarians.

National Family Childcare Association

NEWS RELEASE

May 20, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Private Members Bill C542 – Family fair policies!

Ottawa— The National Family Childcare Associations Private Members Bill
C-542 will be a beginning to supporting all families in times of stress
caused by financial disadvantages through our unfriendly tax system.

“Bill C-542 is created to put the needs of our sick children first and
that is what the NFCA is all about.” explained Sara Landriault,
president the NFCA. “It is great to see a movement towards putting our
children first rather than leaving them with crumbs left over from our
bureaucracy”

Private Members Bill C-542 was created by Gord Brown Leeds- Grenville MP
of the Conservative Party.
Bill C-542 is designed to change the labour code to enhance benefits for
parents with gravely ill children.
This bill will ease the parent’s financial burden while they struggle to
save their child’s life mentally and physically. Bill C542 will allow
parental leave to care for a sick child.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3478372&Language=e&Mode=1&File=36#4

The introduction of the Private Members Bill C-542 is a necessary
vehicle for families caring for sick children. Up to now, these families
have struggled to save for their children’s future under the burden of
medical and related costs. Unfortunately, they face such a huge cost
burden compared to many other parents. In some cases these families will
not have home for their sick children to return to after treatment.

“I’ve heard about a mother who spent 2 hours a day in the hospital with
her sick child and left him alone after that. Who could be so heartless
to not be with their child during this critical time, I thought. Well,
this mother was a single mother with no family around and had the threat
of losing her job if she took any time off work. So yah I think twice
now about who the heartless ones truly are”, says
Sara Landriault stay at home mom of 3.

Sharon Ruth and Fiona McKenney have started a movement for sick kids in
Leeds Grenville and would like to see National support for our
children’s needs. Both Sharon and Fiona are passionate and experienced
in advocating for this issue due to the fact they have surviving
children of cancer. The NFCA strongly throws all support into helping
Sharon, Fionna and any other parents of sick children across Canada to
create policy change on a Federal level.

The National Family Childcare Association is a grassroots movement
fighting to bring about policy change that will allow all families the
opportunity and the means to care for their children in a way that fits
their life.
–30–
Further information contact:
Sara Landriault, President
National Family Childcare Association

landriault@ripnet.com