Policy Should Favour Two-Parent Families

A study released in January by the "think tank" at C.D. Howe Institute entitled, "Retooling the Welfare State: What's Right, What's Wrong, What's To Be Done" has called for a "tough love" approach to reforming the welfare state. Included in its recommendations was one that there be financial discrimination against non-traditional families.

The report written by John Richards who served in the Saskatchewan NDP government in the early 1970's and who is now a professor at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C. stated:

In general, two-parent families comprising a mother and a father raise children more successfully than do other family structures ... Accordingly, social policy should discriminate officially on behalf of such families.

This recommendation led to a debate in the Globe and Mail, not previously known to be supportive of the two-parent family. The Globe reprinted, on January 16th , an article from the Wall Street Journal entitled "The Time Bomb of Day Care" by Andrew Peyton Thomas who referred to putting babies in day care centres as "psychological 'thalidomide'".

This was followed by an article by a member of the Globe's editorial board, Melana Zyla, on January 16th, who wrote about the importance of commitment to the family. The Globe's Editor-In-Chief, William Thorsell, then wrote an article, on January 17th, in support of the two-parent family, thereby accomplishing a 180switch from his opinion expressed in the Globe on July 5, 1997 when he described the family as "the most dangerous place in society and ... the primary site of homicide, assault and sexual abuse." (See Reality, July/Aug 1997, "Globe and Mail and the Family", p. 15.)

Finally, in a two-part editorial published February 19 and February 21, 1997, the Globe and Mail called for creative thinking to improve a family's choice in child care because of emerging research confirming the importance of the development of the child in the first three years after birth. The editorials stated that we have, for too long, tended to believe that universal child care programs are the single answer. Instead, the editorial suggested we explore other avenues to support those who would prefer to spend more time at home with their children. The editorials also pointed out that new parents' attitudes to child care are limited as much by culture and attitudes as they are by tangible obstacles based on our workaholic culture. It did go on to say, however, that women don't feel that a real choice is being offered to them in their decisions about parenting, and that Canadians should be concerned by this. One solution, according to the Globe editorial was to turn the child care deduction into a universal child credit which does not discriminate against say-at-home parents.

Day care advocates did not take this attack on their ideology lightly. They shot back with letters to the editor grimly pointing out the need for child care because of abuse, alcoholism, etc. and the advantages (to children) of high-quality, stimulating, early-childhood environments which prepare children for the academic and social challenges of school.

To put a final touch on its rebuttal, the feminist Child Day Care Advocacy Association sponsored a study on child care. This advocacy organization consists mainly of day care providers and organizations sympathetic to a policy of universal day care, and is heavily funded by the Women's Program, Secretary of State. It is also a member of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC). This organization, which has strong self-interest in the debate, obtained funding for its study from the federal Department of Human Resources and Development (HRD). None of the many media reports of this study disclosed the source of funds for it and the sponsor of the study. Significantly, if a national day care plan is implemented in Canada, it will be administered by HRD and members of the advocacy group would have ready employment.

The study was carried out by two economics at the University of Toronto who concluded that a public child care program would bring satisfaction all around -- not only children who are disadvantaged, but all children would gain. Each child enrolled full time would cost the taxpayer a proposed $8,500. annually. This, the authors claim, would result in lower dropout rates, higher future incomes and fatter tax revenues. Best of all, however, was the contention that stay-at-home mothers would join the work force, that some mothers would move to full-time jobs and, with fewer career interruptions, more mothers would have higher incomes. Total joy for everyone!

The whole package would cost taxpayers an estimated $5.33 billion per year. Apparently, this was not considered a problem. However, it's better than the estimated $8.2 billion per year put forth by a sociologist, Dr. Katie Cook, former president of the now disbanded Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, who chaired a federal Task Force on Child Care. Her report, tabled in the House of Commons in 1986, also recommended the establishment of a universal child care system, open to everyone regardless of income. The wide discrepancy in cost between the two studies indicate that either Canada has experienced a surprising degree of deflation during the 12 years between the two studies, or else, perhaps, one of theses studies must have been seasonally adjusted.

What is significant, however, is how the debate on child care has shifted in recent years. Previously, it was not even a consideration that young mothers be given the financial option to remain at home to care for their children. We've come a long way. The public debate on child care is far from over but, at long last, there promises to be some balance in the debate.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS