Catalystthe

For many of us, living a life in harmony withGod’s great Earth is central to our Christ-ian calling. The majority of us, however,go about the tasks of daily life oblivious tothe cries of creation. Or worse, we areaware, but unwilling to take the action re-quired to respond to injustices sufferedby the Earth.

In conversation with lay people and clergyfrom a number of Christian denominations,I have seen that ideas about how we arecalled to relate to the Earth vary greatly.In considering these descriptions, we areinvited to reflect on our relationship withthe Earth both personally and communally.

Dominion“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth andsubdue it; and have dominion over the fish ofthe sea and over the birds of the air and overevery living thing that moves upon the earth.”Genesis 1:28

We are lords, masters, and conquerors ofnature. We have the scientific and techno-logical knowledge and capacity to controlthe Earth.

Stewardship“The Lord God took the man and put him inthe garden of Eden to till it and keep it.”Genesis 2:15

We are domineering-but-benevolent “landmanagers” of a planet that has been en-truste d to us by God. We are superior be-

Spring 2014

Let Them Have DominionBy Karri Munn-Venn

ings, instructed to rule over the plants,animals, and the ground beneath them.

Creation Care“The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, theworld, and those who live in it.” Psalm 24:1

We are shapers of creation, but also de-pendent upon it for our survival. We arecalled to preserve the life systems thatGod has created. As an integral part ofthose life systems, we are called to be co-creators with God in our time.

Co-Habitation“We know that the whole creation has beengroaning in labour pains until now; and notonly the creation, but we ourselves, who havethe first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardlywhile we wait for adoption, the redemption ofour bodies.” Romans 8: 22 – 23

We are co-habitants of the larger com-munity of living beings, living in harmonicrelationship with creation. The individualand communal elements of our socialconcerns are integrated to sustain all ofcreation.

Covenant“This is the sign of the covenant I am makingbetween me and you and every living creaturewith you, a covenant for all generations tocome: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, andit will be the sign of the covenant between meand the earth.” Genesis 9: 12 – 13

God invites us to a multi-faceted relation-ship with and joint responsibility for cre-ation, shared with all forms of life. Ashumans, we are bound together with cre-ation in a familial-like community of mut-ual responsibility and compassion.

Creation Advocacy“May the glory of the Lord endure forever;may the Lord rejoice in his works — wholooks on the earth and it trembles, whotouches the mountains and they smoke. I willsing to the Lord as long as I live; I will singpraise to my God while I have being. May mymeditation be pleasing to him, for I rejoice inthe Lord.” Psalm 104: 31 – 34

Based on a connection with creation (pla-nts, animals, and landscapes of the Earth),we emulate God’s love for the Earth, list-ening faithfully and acting courageouslyto protect and heal creation through pro-phetic witness and action.

How do you see your relationship withthe Earth? Do any of these concepts res-onate with you? How might you define aChristian relationship with creation? Whatkind of relationship do you aspire to have?What prevents you from taking action?

Karri Munn-Venn is a Policy Analyst at Citizens for Public Justice. The concepts

explored in this piece are based on reflectionsfrom CPJ’s Living Ecological Justice.

the Catalyst, a publication ofCitizens for Public Justice, reportson public justice issues in Canadaand reviews CPJ activities.

Spring 2014 (Volume 37, Number 1) ISSN 0824-2062Agreement no. 40022119Editor: Brad Wassink

the Catalyst subscription: $20 (three issues)

the Catalyst is also availableelectronically. If you would prefer toreceive an electronic copy of theCatalyst, simply contact us atcpj@cpj.ca.

We love to hear from you! E-mail us with your ideas andfeedback at cpj@cpj.ca.

Connect with us online facebook.com/citizensforpublicjustice

twitter.com/publicjustice

the Catalyst Spring 2014 2

In ReviewCitizens for Public Justice 309 Cooper Street, #501 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0G5 tel.: 613-232-0275 toll-free: 1-800-667-8046 e-mail: cpj@cpj.ca web: www.cpj.ca

Citizens for Public Justice’s missionis to promote public justice inCanada by shaping key public policydebates through research andanalysis, publishing, and publicdialogue. CPJ encourages citizens,leaders in society, and governmentsto support policies and practiceswhich reflect God’s call for love,justice, and stewardship.

CPJ annual membership feeincludes the Catalyst: $50 / $25 (low-income)

CPJ on the Road

In February, Joe Gunn and CPJ BoardMember John Murphy met with HalifaxMayor Mike Savage (left) and CityCouncillor Jennifer Watts. Joe also ledworkshops on Living Ecological Justice atAll Nations Christian Reformed Church inHalifax and at the Bethany Centre inAntigonish, NS.

Joe then spent a week in southwesternOntario. He gave a workshop called “Step-ping Up to the Plate: Faith Communitiesand Ecological Justice in Canada” in Chat-ham, and he also met with CPJ membersand partners in London, Waterloo, andBrantford to discuss the connection bet-ween CPJ’s work and local issues.

CPJ’s new book, Living Ecological Just-ice: A Biblical Response to the Enviro-nmental Crisis, has been put to good useby many faith communities interested inexploring how they can live into theircommitment to care for creation. CPJ staffmembers Karri Munn-Venn and JoAnneLam have led workshops with church lead-ers, CPJ supporters, and members of thepublic in Ottawa at the Centretown Chur-ches Social Action Committee, KairosSpirituality-for-Social Justice Centre, andSt. Peter’s Evangelical Lutheran Church,and in Toronto at the Canadian Council ofChurches.

If you are interested in learning more aboutecological justice or how your church canengage in creation care and advocacy,please contact Karri at 613-232-0275ext. 223 or karri@cpj.ca. We are pleas-ed to offer workshops, presentations, ser-mons, or Bible studies. And make sure toorder your copy of Living Ecological Just-ice at cpj.ca/lej!

Are you passionate about social justiceissues? Are you looking for a chance toapply your university education to press-ing issues and current questions?

CPJ’s Public Justice Internship Pro-gram provides a recent graduate withthe opportunity to join us in Ottawa forone year. Through writing articles,researching policies, and engaging indialogue with senior policy staff, theintern will become better equipped tochallenge issues of injustice in Canada.Applications will be accepted until March30 for this full-time, paid position. Formore information, visit cpj.ca/careers.

Public Justice Internship

CPJ is excited to welcome JanelleVandergrift as our new Socio-EconomicPolicy Analyst. Janelle will coordinateour research and writing on poverty andco-lead the Dignity for All campaign.

Throughout this winter semester, CPJhas been pleased to have Ben Pashainterning with us. Ben is a Master ofSocial Work student from CarletonUniversity and is working on ecologicaljustice issues.

Though Christians across Canada haveadvocated for change, Budget 2014 gavethose concerned with poverty, climatechange, and refugees little to cheer for.In our annual federal budget analysis,CPJ considered how the government’sgoal of eliminating Canada’s financialdeficit left unnecessary social and envir-onmental deficits. Read our full responseand press release at cpj.ca.

Budget 2014: Canada Disowns the Podium

Welcome to CPJ!

3 the Catalyst Spring 2014

Ashley Chapman is the Public Justice Intern atCitizens for Public Justice.

New Year, New Rules for RefugeesBy Ashley Chapman

Citizenship and Immigration MinisterChris Alexander knows where refugeesponsors and advocates stand on thegovernment’s recent policy shifts. Dec-ember 10 marked Human Rights Day,and many churches, individuals, andorganizations used the occasion toconfront trends that place economicconcerns above human protection.Leaders of the Anglican, Presbyterian,United, and Lutheran churches joinedCanadian heavyweights like SarahPolley, Lloyd Axworthy, and LawrenceHill in issuing a statement on the govern-ment’s waning respect for refugees’ rights.

Sponsoring FamilyThe new year brought major changes forimmigrants and refugees wanting tosponsor their parents or grandparents tocome to Canada. A two-year moratoriumon applications was imposed near theend of 2011 because of a backlog thatresulted in eight-year wait times. The pro-gram was reopened this year on January2, but with much stricter criteria and acap of 5,000 applications (which wasreached on February 3). The CanadaGazette, the official newspaper of theGovernment of Canada, announced theparental sponsorship changes last Maywith an impact statement that largelydiscussed “economic outcomes” and“processing efficiency.” The new rules in-crease the minimum income level requir-ed to sponsor by 30 per cent, heightenproof of income requirements, anddouble the period of financial under-taking by the sponsor to an incredible 20years.

“The new rules favour wealthy peopleand people with excellent paying jobs,”says Rose Dekker, the Refugee Co-ordinator at World Renew. “Refugees donot usually fall into that category in theirfirst years in Canada, so they will not be

able to meet the new requirements forsponsoring parents and grandparentswho have been left behind in theircountries of origin, or — in some cases— the country in which they took asylumas refugees.”

This is troubling, especially when it’slower-income refugees who could mostbenefit from extra familial supports suchas live-in childcare.

Dependency Age Reconsidered The parent and grandparent changewas one of two economically drivensponsorship changes proposed for thisJanuary. Also posted in the Gazette wasa change to the Immigration and Re-fugee Protection Regulations age ofdependency, from 21 and under to 18and under, as well as an end to theexemption for full-time students abovethe age of dependency. This means thata refugee family would have to decidewhether safety in Canada is worthleaving their nineteen-year-old son ordaughter behind in a potentially life-threatening situation.

This change was front-of-mind for manyat the Canadian Council for Refugees’Fall Consultation last November. Refugeesettlement workers explained the gender-ed dangers this would create in countrieswhere women are oppressed. Becausewomen may not be permitted to workoutside the home, unmarried daughterscould be forced to marry to avoiddestitution.

One settlement worker recounted asituation under the current age of de-pendency where a 22-year-old was theonly remaining family member left in abrand new country (the neighbouringcountry where the family fled to maketheir refugee claim). The family pleaded

with Citizenship and Immigration for anexemption to no avail. Ironically, it wasonly when the daughter attempted suicidethat her situation improved. Because ofher “mental condition,” she was able tobe considered a dependent and join herfamily in Canada.

Advocacy VitalSurprisingly, refugee claimants withchildren aged 19 to 21 were given anearly Christmas present — at least fornow. On December 20, a notice wasquietly posted to a government websitestating that the proposed age of depend-ency changes would not take effect inearly January. This was welcome news,but those in the refugee settlement com-munity were unsure whether the changeshad been cancelled or postponed — andit now looks as if the latter is the case.

Still, the government’s about-face on theage of dependency is reminiscent of the2012 refugee health program cuts,which were unexpectedly scaled backthe day before they came into effect.Although the scaled-back cuts were(and still are) widely opposed, theywould have been even more compre-hensive, also cutting health care torefugees specifically selected to come toCanada by the government. Whenquestioned, then minister Jason Kenneysaid the last-minute change was to fix awording error and that government-assisted refugees were never actually atrisk of losing their coverage. But docu-ments and emails obtained through anAccess to Information request show other-wise: the last-minute change was partial-ly due to the potential for public pushback.

It’s a reminder that even in a time whenCanada’s immigration policy is focusedmore on economic concerns than humanprotection, there is a role for advocacy.The voices of refugees and their advo-cates can still be heard.

A similar version of this article firstappeared in the January 27 issue of theChristian Courier.

the Catalyst Spring 2014 4

Brad Wassink is theCommunications Coordinatorat Citizens for Public Justice.

Though the recession hit hard in 2008,we often cite 2009 as the year whenmarkets rebounded and our recoverybegan. Still, almost five years later, thatrecovery has not reached everyone inCanada. For about 3 million low-incomeCanadians, the impact of the recessionremains.

“Making Ends Meet” is CPJ’s fourth andfinal report in the Poverty Trends Score-card series. It reveals that while theincomes of Canada’s poor have stagnat-ed or fallen, the costs of many essentialgoods and services have skyrocketed.

Stagnant Incomes The income side of the equation wasdetailed in our previous reports and hasseveral root causes, including unemploy-ment, the rise of precarious employment,and static wages at the bottom of theearning scale. Throughout the recession,from February 2008 to July 2009, Can-ada’s employment rate (or the percent-age of working-age Canadians with jobs)dropped from 63.8 per cent to 61.3 percent, not far from where it sits today(61.6 per cent). During that same time,temporary jobs have grown at two tothree times the rate of permanent jobswhile the poorest 20 per cent of house-holds have seen their after-tax incomedecline by 1.3 per cent.

Couple that with a 6.7 per cent increasein the consumer price index, and the

constant grind to get by is made thatmuch harder. Cost of living increases,especially for food, shelter, and education,have a much harsher impact on thosewith low incomes than on those withhigh incomes. These three budget itemsmake up nearly half of spending for thebottom quintile of households, but barelyconstitute more than a quarter of spend-ing for the top quintile.

Cost of LivingAs rising house prices continue to pre-clude more and more Canadians fromhomeownership, there’s added pressureput on the rental market. And it’s not justin big cities like Vancouver and Toronto.Newfoundland & Labrador, Saskatch-ewan, and Manitoba have seen thelargest rental housing price increasessince the recession. As a result, thesupply of affordable and rent-geared-to-income housing can’t meet the growingdemand. The average wait times forsubsidized housing range from 16 monthsin Vancouver to 10 years for singles andchildless couples in Ontario.

Similarly, food banks are struggling tokeep up with the spike in clients sincethe recession. Food prices have risen13.1 per cent since 2008. Last year,833,000 people in Canada turned tofood banks in the month of March alone,a significant increase from 676,000 inMarch of 2008. Children consistently re-present over a third of food bank users.

Equally disconcerting are the barriersfaced by poor children in the educationsystem. Education is hailed as the ticketout of poverty, but it’s becoming moredifficult to access for many low-incomepeople. It’s not just college and univer-sity tuition rates that are barriers. InOntario’s public education system, abouthalf of elementary schools charge extrafees for extracurricular activities andlunchtime programs, while 91 per centcharge fees for field trips. These addedcosts act as barriers to full participationfor low-income students, entrenchingthe intergenerational cycle of poverty.

Where Do We Go From Here?Significant action is needed to assistlow-income Canadians still struggling tomake ends meet. The Dignity for All cam-paign is crafting a model poverty elimin-ation strategy with measures to increaseincome security and assistance for low-wage, precarious workers as well asproposals to boost investments in afford-able housing, healthy food, childcare,and access to education. These policyrecommendations have been draftedcollaboratively at Dignity for All policysummits, including our recent summit onhealth (see the article on page 5).

Work for public justice continues yearround. We can all play a role in remind-ing governments of their responsibility toimplement the necessary public policylevers to help low-income Canadiansemerge from the recession that — fiveyears later — still lives on.

The Recession Lives OnBy Brad Wassink

Take ActionHas your MP signed on to the Dignityfor All Campaign? Check the list ofendorsements at dignityforall.ca andencourage your MP to join!

Read the full “Making Ends Meet”report at cpj.ca/reports. The report iscomprised of five two-page fact sheetsfocusing on the rising costs of housing,food, and education.

5 the Catalyst Spring 2014

Health as a Public Good: Thinking Broadly, Acting LocallyBy Lori Kleinsmith

I work as a health promoter at a Com-munity Health Centre. Our centre providesprimary care, community development,and other health services to clients whoare often marginalized and stigmatized bypoverty, homelessness, addictions, ortrauma. Our clients’ stories offer powerfulinsight into the way social and economicfactors affect a person’s health status.Known as the social determinants ofhealth, these factors include social ex-clusion, early childhood development, andunemployment.

I often work with people struggling withinadequate and unaffordable housing,reliance on food banks, and employmentbarriers. I recently spoke with a client whobecame homeless as a result of losing hisjob and having his Employment Insurancedelayed.

It’s not smoking, physical inactivity, or thehealth care system that impacts one’shealth the most; it’s poverty. As a healthpromoter, my role is to help clients gaingreater control over decisions and actionsaffecting their health. However, living withthe toxic stress of poverty creates little tono opportunity for empowerment, control,or stability.

In Social Determinants of Health: theCanadian Facts (see www.thecanadianfacts.org), Dr. Dennis Raphael writes thatthe major determining factors of Canad-ians’ health “are not medical treatments orlifestyle choice but rather the living con-ditions they experience.” Dr. Raphael ex-plains that addressing the many under-lying social and economic conditions willcreate the circumstances for empower-ment and, ultimately, better health.

Dr. Raphael was one of several pre-senters at the recent “Health as a Rightand Public Good” policy summit organ-ized by Dignity for All: the campaign for apoverty-free Canada. The summit provid-ed an opportunity to expand our centre’sknowledge of the work being done fed-erally on health and poverty issues and toconnect it to our local work. The two-daymeeting included presentations fromhealth experts followed by discussions onpolicy recommendations for mental hea-lth, pharmacare, medicare, refugee healthcare, Aboriginal health, and the social de-terminants of health.

Connecting the necessary public policychanges with our clients’ everyday sit-uations is not easy, but our centre strivesto bring a big picture understanding to ourlocal-level work. This approach helps edu-cate and mobilize our community towardactions that address the social determin-ants of health. Some examples from ourcommunity health centre include:

• A “Do the Math” Challenge where 90 participants lived on a diet of packagedfood bank staples for three days. The initiative raised awareness about the failure of food banks to address root causes of poverty and about the need to raise social assistance rates.

• Self-advocacy skill-building workshops and the formation of community action groups for people with personal experience of poverty.

• Anti-poverty advocacy through social media, public presentations, articles, petitions, and meetings with politicians.

At the Dignity for All summit, Dr. Raphael’spresentation nicely summed up manyissues involved in addressing poverty andhealth in Canada. He described Canadaas “a leader on researching the socialdeterminants of health but a laggard onaction and public policy implementation.”He highlighted reasons for this including alack of media coverage, a lack of leader-ship by both governing and opposition

parties, and the corporate domination ofour public policy agenda.

The health-related policy recommend-ations carved out at the summit willbecome part of a model national povertyplan that will also include positions onhousing, food security, and employment.As a participant in the drafting process, Iwas able to share experiences from myclients and hear what needs to happen ona national level to make an impact. In turn,I will be able to share the ideas from thenational poverty plan with my communityand mobilize support through actiongroups and the Niagara Poverty Reduct-ion Network.

The connections between health andpoverty are clear, as are the public poli-cies needed to address them. The cha-llenge is translating these connections ina meaningful way for Canadians to betterunderstand and support. In this way, com-munity-based advocacy work is critical.

Lori Kleinsmith is a Health Promoter at BridgesCommunity Health Centre in

Port Colborne, Ontario.

Martha Jackman from the University of Ottawa speaking at the summit.

the Catalyst Spring 2014 6

Nicole Armstrong is a student at Carleton Universitymajoring in social work andwas an intern at Citizens for

Public Justice.

Climate change is one of the most import-ant environmental issues of our time. Inorder to limit climate change, we need tostart weaning ourselves off fossil fuels.This may sound like an overwhelmingbattle for the global community, but oneeffective approach may be for churchesand other institutions to divest from coal,oil, and gas company shares.

The goal is to force the hand of fossil fuelcompanies to promote renewable energyand to pressure governments to enactlegislation that keeps fossil fuels in theground. If successful, this strategy couldcause fossil fuel companies to drasticallyreduce their carbon emissions and pushgovernments to ban further drilling or toenact a carbon tax.

Last month, seventeen major Americanfoundations announced that they willdivest close to $2 billion in philanthropicfunds from fossil fuel companies. Inaddition, the president of the World Bank,Jim Yong Kim, expressed support fordivestment at the World Economic Forumin Davos, Switzerland.

The United States has a growing numberof institutions involved in fossil fuel divest-ment campaigns. Leading the movementare student groups on hundreds ofuniversity campuses, but Lutheran, Epis-copal, Presbyterian, United Church ofChrist, and Unitarian church bodies arealso beginning to get involved.

To date, much less action has been takenin Canada. Sarah Mikhaiel, GeneralSecretary of the Student Christian Move-ment Canada (SCM), says that manychurches are still in the preliminarystages of looking into divestment. TheSCM has decided to divest their endow-ments in fossil fuels and is encouragingchurches and campus organizations todo the same. The United Church ofCanada has applied a negative screen toits holdings, refusing to invest in alcohol,gambling, pornography, tobacco, andweapons — but not yet fossil fuels. In acampus-wide referendum this February,students at the University of BritishColumbia voted by a strong majority thattheir student-run Alma Mater Societyshould push the administration to divestits $1 billion endowment fund from allfossil fuel holdings.

Similar campaigns are asking institutionsto immediately freeze any new invest-ment in fossil fuel companies and todivest from existing funds that includefossil fuel public equities or corporatebonds in the next five years. The inspir-ation and hope for these campaigns comefrom the success of the South Africadivestment campaign of the 1980s. Manyinstitutions (including many Canadianchurches) divested from companies withinvestments in South Africa. In doing so,they successfully pressured the govern-ment to end apartheid.

Yet despite the potential for impact,asking institutions to research the hold-ings of major companies and divest mayseem like an uphill battle. The processhas just become easier, however, thanksto a report by Richard Heede published inClimatic Change. Heede found that 90companies are responsible for two-thirdsof our greenhouse gas emissions to date.Many scientists and environmental advo-cates hope these findings will bring scrut-iny and increased accountability to fossilfuel companies.

Still, institutions may fear financial loss asa result of divestment. But in “The Finan-cial Case for Divestment of Fossil FuelCompanies by Endowment Fiduciaries,”Bevis Longstreth predicts that the futureprospects for fossil fuel companies willsuffer due to the growing awareness ofthe existential threat of climate change.Longstreth says that the largest 200 fossilfuel companies are severely overvaluedin their trade markets, and that coal andoil are likely to become “stranded assets”on account of new developments in alter-native energy sources. He explains thatcontinuing to hold investments in any ofthese companies could actually result ingreat material loss.

Divestment brings many challenges andcan be a long and difficult process, but itis crucial and it is urgent. Churches andother institutions have the opportunity tosend a powerful message to fossil fuelcompanies and to our governments. If wedon’t, global warming could increase ashigh as 5.3 degrees, resulting in devast-ating effects for us all. We need to stopprofiting from those who are damagingour planet.

Stop Profiting from the Wreckage!By Nicole Armstrong

In February 2014, the congregation ofTrinity St. Paul’s United Church inToronto voted unanimously to ensurethat its funds are not invested in any ofthe world's 200 largest fossil fuelcompanies.

7 the Catalyst Spring 2014

Simon Lewchuk is a Policy Analyst at

Citizens for Public Justice.

Income Splitting: A Contentious Debate within the Canadian ChurchBy Simon Lewchuk

Income splitting, also known as familytaxation, would change the tax systemso that it takes into account total family(rather than individual) income. It wouldallow higher income earners to transfer aportion of their annual income to the lowerincome partner to reduce the house-hold’s overall tax burden. The federalgovernment has proposed income split-ting for families with children under theage of 18, allowing them to shift up to$50,000 a year in income betweenpartners.

What are the arguments in favour? Christian groups in favour of incomesplitting like the Institute of Marriage andFamily Canada (IMFC) argue that thecurrent tax system unfairly penalizesfamilies who choose to have a parentstay at home or work in a lower-payingor part-time job. Some believe it createsa disincentive for parents to stay at homewith their young children.

Families with one partner who makessignificantly more than the other current-ly pay more tax than families with similarincomes spread more evenly betweenpartners. For example, a family with twoincome earners each making $40,000would pay a total of $12,000 ($6,000each) a year in federal income tax. Asole earner family where one personmakes $80,000 — the same totalamount as the family in the first scenario— would pay $14,080 in federal taxessince they would be in a higher taxbracket. Proponents maintain that this isunjust and that all families should betaxed equitably.

Who would benefit?According to a 2014 study by the Can-adian Centre for Policy Alternatives(CCPA), families in the top 50 per cent ofCanada’s income distribution would re-ceive 97 per cent of the benefits, whilethe bottom 50 per cent (those makingunder $46,000 a year) would only receive3 per cent.

Looking at this another way, the bottom60 per cent (families making $56,000 orless) would receive an average benefitof $50 per year while the richest five percent of all Canadian families (those whomake over $147,000) would receive anaverage annual benefit of $1,100.

The IMFC suggests, however, that count-ries currently using family income splitt-ing show that the measure could insteadbe designed to benefit lower and middleincome families. In France, for example,single parents are able to split their in-come with children.

What do opponents say? A large number of social policy org-anizations, including the CCPA and theBroadbent Institute, oppose incomesplitting. They argue that income splittingwon’t provide any benefit to single-parent families or to dual-income familieswhere both partners are in the lowest taxbracket.

Some claim that income splitting pro-motes what they deem to be an outdatedmodel of family with a primary bread-winner (presumably a man) and a stay-at-home spouse (presumably a woman).They feel income splitting would create adisincentive for some women to enter orremain in the workforce, as families withone high-income earner would see asignificant increase in taxes if the secondpartner were to work. As a result, theybelieve it would represent a step back-wards for gender equity.

How much would it cost?The CCPA estimates that income splitt-ing would cost the federal government$3 billion annually in lost tax revenue,and an additional $1.9 billion provincially.A study by the C.D. Howe Institute hassimilar findings, estimating that the costwould be $2.7 billion federally and $1.7billion provincially.

Where do the political parties stand?The Conservatives plan on introducingthis measure once the federal budget isbalanced, likely just before the 2015election. However, Finance Minister JimFlaherty has recently come out againstincome splitting, noting that it “benefitssome parts of the Canadian population alot and other parts of the Canadianpopulation, virtually not at all.”

The NDP and Liberals also oppose thegovernment’s current income splittingproposal, while the Green Party support-ed income splitting in their 2011 electionplatform.

What might public justice have to sayabout income splitting?A public justice framework requires thatwe evaluate government policies andinitiatives in terms of the common goodrather than personal benefit. As such,we must seriously question any policythat disproportionately benefits thewealthy while significantly diminishingfederal revenues and therefore thegovernment’s ability to carry out its ownpublic justice tasks of reducing povertyand inequality, protecting the environ-ment, and caring for the most vulnerable.

CPJ aims to promote a civil discoursethat respects families’ childcare choicesand recognizes the value that stay-at-home parents contribute to society. Atthe same time, it is reasonable and fairfor a progressive taxation system toplace a slightly smaller tax burden ondual-income families due to their higherexpenses (e.g. childcare, transportation,work-related costs, etc.).

At the end of the day, we need to evalu-ate whether the government’s proposedincome splitting measure makes the taxsystem more fair, accomplishes worth-while policy goals, and is the best use ofa significant amount of government rev-enue. In CPJ’s view, it fails on all counts.

Groundings

the Catalyst Spring 2014

David Pfrimmer is Principal Dean and

Professor of Applied ChristianEthics at Waterloo LutheranSeminary on the campus ofWilfrid Laurier University

in Waterloo, Ontario.

Last year, Pope Francis released hisapostolic exhortation, “Evangelii Gaudium(The Joy of the Gospel).” In discussingthe Roman Catholic Church’s renewedsense of mission, Pope Francis highlight-ed “the structural causes of inequality”and reaffirmed the social teaching of thechurches: “No to the economy of exclusion.No to the new idolatry of money. No to afinancial system that rules rather thanserves. No to inequality, which spawnsviolence.”

Many in the media interpreted the Pope’sassessment of capitalism as Marxism.Others suggested that his words reflect-ed a growing public concern about theincreasing influence of corporate power.Christians, however, may have heard inhis address a return to the economics ofJesus. In wandering the Galilean country-side, Jesus called for a “values revo-lution” that changed how people viewedpossessions and deployed power. But italso included a wisdom that offered hopeto an occupied and excluded people.

Inequality is certainly a symptom of thedarker side of the principalities and pow-ers today. It is driven by changing de-mands for workers due to new technol-ogies, the nature of global markets, andthe knowledge economy. Globalizationand free trade have been linked to thedeclining influence of labour unions, tostagnant incomes and wages for fam-ilies, and to higher education require-ments for almost any job. All these havecontributed to growing disparity, butpeople are not simply poorer; they’reexcluded from the economic and thesocial mobility necessary to pursue abetter life.

Theologian Douglas Meeks has suggest-ed we might well look to the oikonomiatou theou (economy of God) for a visionof possible alternatives. The “economyof God” is an economy of enough ratherthan an economy of scarcity. It assumesthat basic human needs take priorityover the consumer-driven desires orwants that placate us. The economy ofGod summons human generosity andunderstands human vulnerability as thebasis for more authentic security for all.

As former Chilean Ambassador to theUnited Nations Juan Somavía aptly saidto the World Summit on Social Develop-ment, “You cannot have secure nationsfull of insecure people.”

No economy can function without found-ational values that inform, sustain, andhold its leaders accountable. In WhatMoney Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits ofMarkets, Harvard philosopher Michael J.Sandal observes that we have yet tohave a public debate over the kind ofeconomy we want. As a result, he says,“We drifted from having a market econ-omy to being a market society. The differ-ence is this: A market economy is a tool– a valuable and effective tool – fororganizing productive activity. A marketsociety is a way of life in which marketvalues seep into every aspect of humanendeavor. It is a place where social rela-tions are made over in the image of themarket.”

Sandal’s analysis sounds much like thesituation that faced the people of Galileewhen social relations were being remadein the image of Rome. This brings usback to the economics of Jesus and hisvalues revolution. Christians know some-thing about values even if we frequentlyfail to live up to them. There have beennumerous reports and many public calls

to address inequality. In these times, theyall seem to fall on perpetually deaf earsamong our political and economic lead-ers. Yet I would suggest that inequality isbut one symptom of the wider problem— we have forgotten the importance of“belonging.” In Matthew 25, when Jesus“gathers all the nations of the world” onthe day of judgement, he will say tothem, “just as you did it to one of theleast of these who are members of myfamily, you did it to me” (vs 40).

There is an old Jewish proverb that says,“Where there is too much, something ismissing!” The growing inequality of thosewho are being forgotten today — theleast, the last, the lost, and the lonely —points to what is missing: a commitmentto ensure that everyone has a place atthe table. Jesus’ values revolution meansthat everyone belongs at the table in thehousehold of God’s good creation. Andfor those to whom much has been given,much more will be expected to get every-one there!

Jesus’ Values RevolutionBy David Pfrimmer

Rev. Dr. Mishka Lysack speaking at CPJ’s 50th anniversary event in Calgary.