|
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
SOME PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT GOVERNMENT OPERATED CHILD CARE
Some Accurate Facts on Child Care
On November 29, 2004, REAL Women of Canada
wrote to all the Ministers Responsible for Child Care in every
province and territory in Canada, in which we raised many
concerns about the proposed national Child Care Plan. We stated
that the proposed plan would not meet the actual needs of
Canadian families since it would deny parents a choice of
child care alternatives and only provide the one-size-fits-all
scheme of a government operated system. We also stated that
such a programme would inevitably increase taxation, resulting
in more and more women being required to enter the paid workforce
in order for the family to survive financially.
We went on to raise some practical considerations about the
proposed national plan. These included the following:
- The $5 billion for child care over five
years promised by Prime Minister, Paul Martin, will cover
only a small fraction of the true costs of a national day
care plan. In 1986, the federal government estimated that
the cost of a universal child care program would be $11.3
billion annually. In 1999, a leaked federal discussion paper
from the Department of Health concluded that such a program
would cost, at that time, $12 to $15 billion annually. Unfortunately,
as the federal government's commitment cannot be relied
on in the future, realistically, this may leave the provinces
with the responsibility for another federal program that
taxpayers may come to regard as their "right."
Then the provinces will have to continue the programme,
even though they may not be able to afford it.
- In 1997 the government of Quebec established
a "universal" child care system, which is now
costing that government $1.4 billion annually. To date,
this program provides day care space for approximately 180,000
children, that is, only half of Quebec's children under
five years of age are included in the plan. If all children
in Quebec under five years were in the programme, this would
cost the Quebec government approximately $3 billion annually.
This is a large part of the provincial government's entire
budget and to implement it will prevent the government from
having any flexibility in regard to other programmes.
- According to the Institute for Research on Public Policy
(IRPP), a non-partisan think tank based in Montreal, the
Quebec $7-a-day program, regardless of family income, favours
upper income families, with the latter over-represented
among those in this subsidized day care system. It is disturbing,
therefore, that children most at risk in Quebec are also
those who are more likely to be either left out or have
poorer services.
- According to the IRPP, what is often forgotten
in the current public policy discussion about early childhood
education is that data regarding the benefits of high-quality
programs were collected from low-income and significantly
disadvantaged children. Far less, however, is known about
the impact of similar child care for non- or less disadvantaged
children.
- Much of the pressure for a national plan
comes not from parents, but from child care lobbyists, such
as the Canadian Child Care Federation, or Child Care Advocacy
Association of Canada. These organizations were formed in
1982 to lobby for a national child care plan. They have
received millions of dollars since that time from Status
of Women to carry out their lobbying and advocacy research,
all of which is directed to the establishment of a national
child care plan.
- The child care lobby groups have the most
to gain from a national plan, which will guarantee them
financial security for life, by placing them on the government's
payroll with secure income and benefits.
- Canadian unions are playing a major part
in the advocacy for a national child care plan. The Unions
have experienced a decline in membership over the past few
years, with only 30% of workers now unionized. This decline
would cease if an entirely new class of public-sector jobs
- namely, child care workers - could be obtained. During
the years since the government day care plan was inaugurated
in Quebec, wages for unionized child care workers in that
province increased by 40% due to union-led pressure, such
as sit-ins, walkouts and the threat of a general strike
that would have paralyzed the child care system used by
working parents. In short, the rising costs of child care
are partly caused by union dues and higher wages but not
for the children's needs.
- Recent pressure for a national child care
plan has come as a result of the release of a report from
the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). This report was requested by the Canadian
Department of Social Development Canada (formerly Human
Resources Development). The background Report for the OECD
report was also funded by this department and carried out
by Canadian child care lobbyists. The final "Country
Note" report of OECD was merely an adaptation of this
background report prepared by the lobbyists with few changes.
It is significant that the background report and the final
"Country Note" report of the OECD specify that
the OECD does not endorse the views expressed in the document,
which are those of the authors who reviewed Canada's system
in four provinces. The "review team" consisted
of child care advocates from England, Finland, Belgium and
France. In short, the OECD "experts" simply relied
on the Canadian child care lobbyists' reports and a two-week
tour of four provinces. The report by OECD, therefore, appears
to have been stage managed by the federal government and
only represents the views of federally funded Canadian child
care lobbyists.
- The OECD report states that early childhood
education should be "part of national human capital
development" and wants Canada "to create a universal
system in tune with the needs of a full employment economy,"
ensuring "equal access of women to the labour market"
which "broadens and strengthen the tax base."
The report also states that "increasing access to the
workforce for mothers reduces poverty and family dysfunction."
These conclusions are merely ideological opinions from left
wing lobbyists and have no basis in fact. Women who remain
at home to look after their own children, especially during
the early years, may in fact be preventing family dysfunction.
Pushing mothers into the paid work force to broaden and
strengthen the tax base should not be an objective of any
child care plan.
- The lobbyists who framed the report want
the proposed child care plan to be an extension of the regular
education system, with a "readjustment of education
budgets in favour of the foundation stage of lifelong learning."
They have overlooked an important consideration. Pre-school
children, at least those under three years of age, need
close one-on-one care, since their personalities and characters
are in the process of development. By the time a child reaches
kindergarten, the necessity for close, one-on-one care has
decreased substantially. Children's needs differ according
to their age and development and the genuine needs of pre-school
children for one-on-one care should not be disregarded in
order to legitimize child care facilities for those who
are older.
- The OECD representatives, visited only
four provinces for their study, Prince Edward Island, British
Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Although the report
praises Quebec's "extraordinary advance" in child
care, the review team did not visit Quebec.
- Child care is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.
The needs of families in each province are different. The
federal government has already taken an asymmetrical approach
to child care in regard to the province of Quebec, permitting
it to operate its own programme without any strings attached.
It is only fair that the other provinces be provided with
similar consideration by the federal government.
We concluded our letter by stating that we
respectfully requested that other options be made available
to parents by way of direct payments to them, e.g., tax child
credits, and that all parents be treated equally in this matter,
regardless of their choice of child care arrangements.
The response from the Provincial Ministers
to our letter has been generally positive. Many did seem to
share our concerns. The province of Alberta has already stated
it wants to operate its own child care system without federal
government control and that its programmes would include direct
payments to parents at home. B.C. has made it clear that it
doesn't want to have the federal government set the terms
of child care in that province.
The Provincial Ministers are to meet again
with Federal Minister of Social Development, Ken Dryden, now
that the February budget has allotted $700 million of the
initial payment on the $5 billion child care plan. However,
no strings have been attached to this starting grant on child
care.
There is no doubt that the provincial ministers
will sign some kind of child care plan. The $5 billion dangling
before their eyes is quite an incentive. However, the terms
of the agreement will be most interesting. Will it involve
accountability by the provinces to Ottawa and will the terms
include funding for only government operated child care? Hopefully,
the provinces will remain wary of the federal government's
carrot of $5 billion over 5 years and refuse to be bound by
the federal government's determination to establish only government
operated child care, which will deny parents any choice.
BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
