Daycare should not be a partisan issue

Why must child care be so divisive?

Michael Ignatieff announced yesterday that - no matter what the cost - a national childcare program would become reality under a government led by him. 

Not surprisingly, partisan gloves immediately came off. On one side, Liberal supporters happy to hear the news. On the other, the expected conservative accusations that the initiative is too expensive, too ambitious and not supportive of the traditional family where one parent stays home to look after the children. "You had 'em, YOU look after 'em," is the basic message.

What I think gets lost here is the notion that children themselves are citizens. There are always the predictable daycare naysayers who speak of kids as though they are a luxury consumer product. "If you cannot afford children, don't have them. Don't expect me to pay for your bad family planning," espoused one such commenter on Susan Delacourt's story. 

While there's a cogent argument to be made that there's a worldwide population crisis (though my own take is that we have a more urgent over-consumption crisis in the developed world), Canada does not have that sort of population problem. In fact, we are not replacing ourselves fast enough, not even when immigration is factored in. The boomers and seniors complaining that a universal child-care program is "20 years too late," and that the money would be better spent on the medical and old-age security costs associated with an aging population, are incredibly myopic.

The children in daycare now are the very ones whose income taxes will support the "Me Generation" when they are elderly.

Here's what I'd like the ask the commenters who use the phrases "my money," "my paycheque" and "my taxes" as if there had been a going-out-of-business sale at the Fraser Institute: Just because you're done with raising kids (or didn't have them), do you think people aren't going to continue to have babies? Are we simply going to wind civilization down here to coincide with your slow, pharmacologically-enhanced demise?

No, not everyone who has children can afford them. Teen pregnancy may be down thanks to public health campaigns and better access to birth control, but there are plenty of other ways to wind up with both kids and a small bank account. Fleeing a place of less fortunate birth, for instance (should kids from Haiti not be entitled to a licensed daycare spot?). Becoming the victim of spousal abuse, or simply being left by the other parent to fend on one income. Not having a higher education and a chance at a professional salary. Getting pregnant in the middle of a higher education and not being willing - because of religious conviction or other deeply-held personal beliefs - to consider termination as an option. Becoming ill or disabled.

None of these circumstances (or, I'd argue, any decision made by any parent) removes the right of a child to quality care in the critical preschool years. If you're not clear on the connection between good early years and successful adult outcomes, read the Pascal Report for starters. And while you're at it, ask an average middle class family in Quebec about the difference $7-a-day daycare has made in terms of the stress - even on double-income, professional couples - of providing for a family.

To put it in terms that tunnel-finished, free-marketeers can understand, there is a demand for childcare spaces that far outstrips supply. Witness: two-year wait lists for licensed daycare spots and longer wait-lists yet for coveted after-school programs.

So keep in mind that while you're busy spewing your disapproval of federally-funded childcare into commenting fields on articles, there are low-income parents dropping their children off at unlicensed basement daycares where they will sit in front of the television with no one to sing to them, read to them, or engage them in a little finger painting.

And furthermore, access to good quality childcare does nothing to threaten the right of families to choose to have one parent look after the children at home. A daycare space does not remove a stay-at-home mom space.

A national daycare program is a good idea. And it's a good idea no matter who thought of it, and no matter what political party manages to make it happen.

Comments

[DaniGirl]

Sing it, sista! It continues to amaze me that people don't see investment in quality, affordable, universal childcare is an investment in an entire generation. Something like 75 per cent of Canadian families have two parents who work outside the home, to say nothing of the unique needs of the single-parent families. Not only is a quality national system of child care beneficial for a generation of future taxpayers, but it's beneficial for all those parents who don't have to feel like they're one disaster away from their daycare arrangements collapsing like a house of cards.

I've had six caregivers in as many years, have had to fire two, have lost two to maternity leaves, and have had my two oldest on a wait list for care since 2005. The system is broken and we need serious investment -- financial and intellectual -- to fix it!

[anon]

The question is why do we need universal day care as opposed to day care targeted to low income families? Really, I would ask middle and upper income parents to address their own stress levels without a subsidy.

[jdwz]

Why do we need universal child care? Well, why do we need universal health care? Why do we have universal education systems? Why do we have police, firefighters, public transportation... I could go on. We need universal child care because we have a duty to care for our children -- and it's a duty I wish all Canadians would share.

I'm well aware of the "you had 'em, you deal with 'em" attitude of some. I think they're the minority. More people -- especially the ones with young children right now -- realize it's not the 1950s any more, and both parents (if there are two parents on the scene) have to work, extended families are out of province, if not the country, and friends are just as overloaded.

It's about time a federal party realized this is a game-changing issue. Parents are a huge voting bloc.

[Beth]

You are so right about this. And I would add that it will only work if the issue of compensation for people in early childhood is addressed. That's really the only way to get at quality. There are tremendously intelligent and dedicated people already working in the system, but many more leaving child care because they can't afford to work there. It's not only a high-stress, high-responsibility job, but it's one that demands high-level thinking and emotional intelligence along with really advanced people skills to do well.

And to the anonymous commenter above, I would say that having day care "targeted to low income families" creates a separatist system that isn't the best thing for any kids. Kids need one another, and they need to be around kids who are different from them. They all learn from one another; it's not a one-way street.

And if people in early childhood are appropriately compensated for their work, the true cost of quality child care is pretty far out of reach of middle-class families.

Middle-class families are already struggling with the cost of child care, and it's being supported (through low compensation) by the people who work in it.

It's a simple equation: without public support, over 90% of a typical child care program's budget goes into staffing. And well over 90% comes from tuition. A third factor is needed.

[erykah]

i support universal daycare, so long as it is not mandatory. sweden has the same system, except that because everything is state run, and because of high taxes and standards of living, economic reasons force both parents have to work and have no other option but to use state licensed day care. i think a subsidized program should be expanded and i was very lucky to have free day care that was high quality. i agree, however i hope that ALL families no matter their status or background have choices that fit their family needs. a one size fits all model seems to fail, like most other publicly funded systems.

[Joanna]

Middle class families spend too much, try living on less then $1000 a month like low income people have to, middle class families are financially obese overgrown children who need a reality check and learn how not to spend money on things they can't afford.

This obsession with more stuff, more cars, more phones is the problem, not national daycare, this obsession with stuff and money is the problem.

[Anonymous]

marginalization and separation are not the answer - unless you haven't visited any US inner cities to know that. Also, middle class and upper class often need these services to benefit their children (aside from the need for them to work) - they sometimes are among the most challenged at being good parents.

There's no debate except about the details of implementation. Investment in supports for all parents, the village raising the child, early years, etc - that's where I want my money going - and that's what I wanted even before I had children or knew I would have children. As others have mentioned, it helps all of us.

Canada seems like it would get that - I'm from the states originally and man, if we just go down that road, shame on us.

[Rich]

Good idea....Make everything government controlled so that nobdy has any personal responsibility for anything. The government adds complexity and cost to everything that it is involved in. They are neither efficient nor effective. The push should be toward less government and lower taxes, leaving people enough money left in their payche(ck/que) to be able to make their own decisions.

If you have kids and need to work then you are responsible for the cost of child care. If you can't afford child care, wait until you are financially stable to have kids.

[Tony]

There is an incredible irony when you ask about commentators that use terms like "my money", "my paycheque" etc. Let me add another term that causes huge problems with the family unit; "my career".

We'll have children, but not want to give up our careers for them. Often this discussion can cause a divorce. Children have become more spoiled and neglected. Its so much easier to come home from a stressful day at the office (or work in general), give them a hand out to shut them up or when they are younger, slap them in a daycare. Then we wonder why they barely know, much less respect us as parents. Its surprising the amount of children I see telling their parents to.. well you know what. If you don't believe me, do some research. No one will know this better then teachers as their jobs have become infinitely more challenging in just the past 10-20 years. Is it any wonder they ask for raises?

We simply can't keep tailoring to people who cannot accept responsibilities for their own actions. Like parents who don't even know how to cook, or are too busy to do so, end up raising them on mostly fast food like McDonald's (thus contributing to the obesity problem we are having). Its fine to be politically correct, but rather then giving handouts to solve a symptom, we should look to the root of the it.

Your article was concise and well thought out. However in my opinion, it is biased as it only considers a convenient, albeit in the long run, greatly problematic fix. It is the very "me me me" ideals that have left many children neglected.

[Lneumann]

Hear hear!

I am so tired of the "you had 'em, you pay for them" comments!

As the original article noted, she was willing to pay for the spot - she just couldn't find one!

I especially appreciate Brandie's comments about the rights of the children. No matter the parent's choices, kids have a right to high quality care!

[Missydog]

This idea has been proposed by the Liberals since the early 1990's but was never implemented by them all during Chretien's tenure as well as Paul Martin's. The reason -then - as well as in the future , if the Liberals were to take power, is the debt. So to take this current proposal as anything but political opportunism would be foolish. Paul Martin balanced the budget by downloading expenses to the Provinces as well as reneging on universal child care and equipping the Armed Forces, and we will be paying back the current stimulus spending for another decade
Universal child care , done correctly, does have its advantages but just stating it as an political platform will not accomplish anything.

[rich1299]

Martin did have a universal daycare program ready to go, negotiated with all the provinces, funding available but ti was killed by Harper when he took over. The current lack of national daycare program can't be blamed on the Liberals no matter how much some want to do so.

[BGMarkstad]

I agree that the nation has a vested interest in ensuring the young are well. It is not reasonable to be 'every man for himself' here since it costs over $200,000 to raise a child to age 18 and nearly nobody can go it alone. We need to support children just like we value the schools or hospitals.

But daycare is not the only location for children to learn or get care. Therefore your argument to value kids would be more logical if it then said to fund kids.

To ask for only daycare funding is like saying we all need good food so subsidize only one restaurant.

If funding for children goes only to daycare kids it is already a partisan issue.
To make it nonpartisan, have government fund all kids.

Sorry lady but the argument to have all taxpayers fund only one care style does not wash.

[Michael Erskine]

Martin not only had a plan ready to go--it was in full swing, in partnership with the province. It was cancelled after the first year by the Conservatives and replaced with a $100 per child payment to parents. The NDP traded the child care program and the Kelowna Accord for a handful of seats and the chance at holding the balance of power. We know how that worked out. Childcare is not partisan--but how it is delivered is ideological.

[Taryn E]

If universal childcare is the best we are going to do to ensure quality care for the future generation, then great.
What I hope to see is more citizens lobbying for ways parents can be home with their children. Whether it be stay at home mom or dad, or mom and dad sharing the childcare.
I believe the best way for a child to be raised is by their own family. The fact that families can no longer be supported unless both parents work full time, is the problem with that.
Many european countries have much more comprehensive parental leave, which in most cases allows the parent to stay home for not just one year, like in Canada, but 2 or even 3 years.
I'm not suggesting that or parental leave simply be extended, that is not realistic. But, if the goverment can fund universal childcare, they could simply pay the parent to do the job themselves, or perhaps supplement the wages of a parent or parents working part time until the child is school aged.
Ways for parents to be with their children is what we should be debating, not ways to have other people raise our kids.
Thanks.

[sendergreen]

I dont' care how you invent fairy tale links to people's "rights" to push universal daycare. Iggy says he'll plow through "regardless of the costs" pandering to spoiled greedy parents who grew up expecting most things to be free, or the new buzzword "affordable". Bottom line is using the coercive power of the state to reach into other people's pockets, paycheques, and bank accounts and use the money for your expenses. That's just plain theft. The rest of the story is just propaganda.

[Emily]

I absolutely agree with your opinions on this matter. Children have rights too; they have the right to play with other kids, be social, and learn acceptable behavior from their peers.

Sometime being a stay at home parent means that your child misses out on some very important milestones before they hit elementary school ( I say "sometime" because that isn't always the case). Sharing a coveted toy is one that comes to mind, or learning to take turns.

I find it almost amusing how people who have never, or will never have children perceive "universal childcare" as theft. They forget that the children in the world now will be our future. It is our responsibility as a whole to give them every opportunity for better education (yes daycare is education).

[harryn]

No right can impose any obligation on someone else. Universal daycare means that I have to make my children do without some things I consider important because I have to make up for poor decision other people made.
Would the author accept a universal private daycare system based on vouchers that are the same regardless of the parents' income, vouchers that pay 75% of the daycare cost with the balance only as long as the parents pay 25%? If not, is the refusal due to partisanship?

[Todd]

I have two children under the age of 4 and want the option to choose where or even if I place them in daycare. I also don't want to be held hostage by the inevitable province wide strike of this ideogically driven fantasy of a universal daycare program. It's just another politician telling people what they want to hear, but will not be able to deliver. Quebec has a government run program ($7.00/day)which sounds great until you realize it is not really universal. Half the children are still in private daycare because of the lack of spaces. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/canada_snapshot.html

[Kyle]

instead of putting the money into daycare, give the parents more of an income tax break so that their own money can pay for whatever way they want their kids taken care of - be it at a city run daycare, a private daycare, a live-in nanny, neighbour's house or stay at home mom.

I'm no tax or financial expert, but wouldn't a big tax break be more cost effective than running the same money through several levels of government - so that when the subsidy is available to the parents it is a fraction of the original amount?

[Jed Row]

Best article I've read on this issue yet. Well done.
Why wouldn't we invest in Canadian kids at a crucial age? We'll pay for a public education system to try and fix them once they're older, we'll pay for health care to keep them alive, and we'll pay for prisons to house them as adults and police to protect us from the ones we lost along the way.
I'd rather plan with them while they're young than react to them when they're older.
Somehow I think that would be more fulfilling...and cheaper.

[Bill Brooks]

Universal day care is just another huge tax funded idea that will increase the size of government again. How about allowing income splitting for 5 years to allow one parent to stay home. There are way too many authors like this one that are way too far left. Whats next, daycare for the rest of the world.

[nat]

I think people don't understand what "universal childcare" really means: a standard level of operation that a (hopefully) licensed childcare provider must meet in order to be deemed a quality care learning environment. It does not mean that ALL children must attend, but rather that a family enrolled in childcare in Halifax would receive the same level of care -BASED ON THE SAME STANDARDS AND EXPECTATIONS- as a family in Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia. Universal childcare, if done correctly, would provide a level playing field for all children (with or without any special needs).

[BMACK]

I have yet to hear a cogent argument for taxpayer funded baby sitting. The only one that the Liberals can come up with is so that kids will eat right. Apparently they consider daycare to be a child nutritional program. Not surprising when they consider taxpayer funded abortion on demand to be a family planning tool.

[Common Sense is Not so Common]

I have an infant daughter and I vehemently disagree with Universal Day care. I am also typically a Liberal voter by the way.

Me and my wife have more at stake in our child's future than ANYONE. With all due respect, I don't trust the quality of care my child will receive in such a system.

I ask Mr. Ignatieff, if you had a child would you put your child in this program.

If you won't - and I suspect you wouldn't given that you went to UCC which is just about the most elite private school in Canada - then don't assume that it's acceptable for my child.

Secondly, this system is going to cost a lot of money, and it will be funded in only one way - taxes.

Thirdly, Canada's aging population has nothing to gain and everything to lose from this policy and it's political suicide for Ignatieff. He is a fool - again with all due respect.

If you really want to help me and my wife, then give tax breaks to parents and let them spend their own money on their own kids.

If you don't want to help us - that's fine also - but for God's sake don't make life worse by creating unsustainable, expensive public programs of dubious quality.