October 2000 Fraser Forum: And How are the Kids?
Prime Minister Chretien has announced a children’s agenda that includes $2.2 billion to be invested in kids. Some may feel that at last the state has come through on its promise to end child poverty, to have a national child care policy. But they are mistaken. In the first place, the array of prenatal and postnatal resources, community support, home visits, and parenting resource centres are, in the end, just advice—not money for parents or kids. The funds go to institutions and bureaucrats. The daycare and nursery schools are somewhat more directly beneficial to parents, but again, only to those who choose that style of child-rearing. In fact, the PM’s agenda—a compromise to let all provinces make more local arrangements—does not address a few of the key problems—each involving money.
Many activists lobbying to fix child poverty have indicated that all women should be earning money, and therefore all those with small children will need day care. It appears that the federal government—rightly I think—disagrees. The feds have noticed that not all women use day care; according to polls, many don’t even want it. But neither has the government done anything to actually help parents financially.
Many groups, such as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the National Association of Women and the Law, and the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada have wanted a national program, something like universal daycare. A leaked government document from July 1999 showed plans for such a multibillion dollar system with universal daycare and kindergarten for 3- and 4-year-olds.1 Some see the BC daycare and the new 24-hour-a-day Quebec daycare as ground-breaking, citing the need of women to work, the need for a comprehensive program across the country, and claiming that early childhood educators are trained professionals.2
So why is the government dragging its heels? The cost may be the first problem—$5.3 billion by one estimate. But a second hesitation is legal. Is it fair for the state to subsidize kids in day care but not other kids? The public was enraged when one government statement said, "it is increasingly unrealistic to expect that parents can undertake the task of ensuring early child development outcomes... the tasks are just too complicated and the competing demands on parents too engaging."3 Was the state saying it was better than the parent?
Other studies also raised second thoughts. Toronto psychiatrist Dr. Paul Steinhauer has identified "family time famine" as a main reason for emotional, behavioral, and academic problems of kids.4 In 1999, in its publication Well-Being: A Guide to Promote the Physical Health, Safety and Emotional Well-Being of Children in Child-care Centres and Family Day-Homes, the Canadian Paediatric Society found that children in child care centres have 2 to 3 more colds, respiratory infections, ear infections and diarrhea than do other kids. And psychologist Dr. David Cohen has pointed out that overmedication of children is part of a trend of not responding to needs of children. He says "if there’s one thing kids need, it’s time spent with adults who attend to them."5
It appears that the kids are not all okay. McGill University psychologist Patrick Fagan in The Real Root Cause of Violent Crime: the Breakdown of the Family cites divorce, not poverty, as the root of much crime; he notes that long times at home alone and frequent changes in a child’s care-giver are all part of the picture for such children. Statistics Canada in an April 1, 2000 report found that for youth between ages 15 and 19, binge drinking has almost doubled since 1995.
The current focus on the effects of child poverty, including chronic illness, hyperactivity, higher school dropout rates, and increased risk of teen pregnancy, bring national attention to the need for adequate financial backing when raising children. Daycare advocates say this is attainable only if both parents are working full time at paying jobs. Others say that the money could come as easily from equal state support to all parents. It turns out that having a child is itself a route to poverty. The Vanier Institute (October 1999) estimates it costs $160,000 to raise one child from birth to age 19. Yet Canada is the only G7 country to not give universal tax breaks for parents.
What do parents prefer? Only 16 percent of them currently claim the daycare deduction,6 which suggests that informal arrangements such as care by parents taking turns, care by a parent from his or her home-based business, care by the mother taking her child to work, care by a neighbour, relative, friend, or grandparent, are common options. An Angus Reid poll on June 9, 2000, found that 77 percent of Canadians want parents, not the state, to provide care for children. In July 1999, the Canadian Policy Research Network found that a majority of parents want economic support for parents during the first three years of a child’s life and economic support for a parent at home.7
Recent business trends show that assuming parents need daycare solely from 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. is unrealistic. On October 30, 1998, Statistics Canada reported that increasingly Canadians are being asked to work odd shifts, and such limited hours of daycare would not meet the needs of 45 percent of parents. The solution? One might be 24-hour-a-day daycare as Quebec is currently trying. But as some have pointed out, having such a facility in every community in the nation, with a low ratio of highly-trained staff to children could well be top quality daycare, but it would also be expensive. The expression, "affordable, top quality daycare" may be an oxymoron.
It turns out that many parents are voting with their feet. Aon Consulting reported on July 15, 20008 that many companies are paying more attention to flex time, the compressed work week, pooling time off, telecommuting, phased retirement, and pension flexibility—all to keep their job locations attractive to skilled workers who want to balance career and family time. Self-employment is also up, according to a December 1999 Stats Can study. John Chambers of Cisco Systems has observed that with high-speed home computers becoming commonplace, and with the drop in the cost of videoconference equipment, telecommuting is now broadly accepted and the choice of millions in North America (Dec 22, 1999, Globe and Mail).
Ironically, feminist lobbying has switched subtly too. On the one hand, women claim to be able to do anything men can do, and to need free daycare so they can earn without a penalty for being women. But others, described as third-wave feminists, claim that working in the home caring for kids is also important work in society, and that women will only be fully liberated if they are able to do paid or unpaid roles with equal dignity. Judy Rebick, former head of NAC expressed in her column in Elm Street magazine (October 1999) that valuing unpaid work along with paid work is the key to achieving full equality for women.
Despite Prime Minister Chretien’s promises, three problems remain. The first is the issue of free choice about how to raise kids. The state should not play favourites. Yes, daycare mums deserve deductions, but so do all other mums. Benefits should be allotted because all kids have value, and should not be conditional on labour force participation or the parent’s marital status.
The second is the issue of free choice of lifestyle. Some parents choose to have dad at home, mum at home, or parents taking turns with the kids. Some choose to have two incomes, one income or one-and-a-half incomes. The state should not favour or penalize these choices. Right now, families of four with two adult parents and total household incomes of $60,000 pay vastly different tax bills depending on who earns what. If each parent earns $30,000, the family pays $8,887 in tax. If one parent earns $36,000 and the other $24,000, they pay $11,663 in tax. If one parent alone works and earns $60,000, the family pays $15,552 in tax. A fairer system would allow family-based taxation as an option, or a single-rate tax, blind to how income was earned but based only on the total.
The third issue is more nebulous, but still important—what is the definition of work? Once we start to value taking care of the young, we must include care giving as a profession, and count unpaid care giving labour as part of the GDP, as economist Marilyn Waring suggests we do, and we must allow people who undertake such labour to be treated like full adults. They should be able to con-tribute to the CPP, get their own RRSPs, and provide for their own retirement. To finally value raising children as a vibrant part of an economy would be for the state to remove its blinders and notice what women have done for centuries. Yes, women can do paid work very well. But women already were working, even if unpaid, and they must be able do either or both types of work with dignity.
While the prime minister has been talking just with the first ministers, the issue of children’s programs touches everyone right in the home. More than that, it may redefine what is useful work, what choices parents can still maintain, and how economies value raising the young.
Notes
1July 29, 1999 Southam News. Document leaked to the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care.
2Ibid.
3Ibid. Follow-up letters to the editor of the Globe and Mail, July 30 to early August, 1999.
4Toronto Hospital for Sick Children, July 1999.
5Personal correspondence with author. See also the University of Maryland School of Pharmacy study mentioned in the Washington Post on February 23, 2000.
6Finance department sources and Heather Gore-Hickman, C.A.
7Web site: www.cprn.org.
8Kevin Jeffrey of Aon Consulting, a US research group, quoted in the Calgary Herald, July 15, 2000.
Beverley Smith (http://www.telusplanet.net/public/bvgsmith) is a teacher and mother of four. She has been a children’s rights advocate for 25 years and is a member of several women’s groups. She was nominated for the YWCA Women of Distinction Award in 1998, and received the Calgarian of the Year award by Calgary Business Magazine in 1999 and was named by Alberta Venture Magazine in 2000 as one of 50 "Albertans to Watch."
info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.