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

[Alan Bouch]

This is a topic near and dear to my heart. I am a single full time solo-parent father of three boys. I have a very rewarding career and managed to pay for childcare without subsidies. My challenge was finding spaces for my boys. Lack of stable funding limited spaces and resulted in my children attending three separate childcare facilities. Daycare was vital for me to provide for my children.

Disillusioned by the lack of a coherent daycare plan and the chronic space shortages I became politically involved. I joined one of the daycare boards and went to work to plan a new daycare to remedy the inability of the local daycares to meet the demand.

We worked long hours fundraising from individuals, businesses and government. After countless meetings with my children in tow, baking cookies and auctions we had a viable plan.

The Liberals had announced a grand Universal Daycare plan during that time. Our feisty group of parents were excited that someone was listening and willing to invest in our precious young Canadians.

Then an election morphed an exiting daycare plan to a bizarre, non-plan of business administered daycare supplemented with $100 per child per month. Providing incentives to private business to develop daycares was a plan? We would send our children to daycares hosted by factories and banks?

When you spend two years working 20 hours per week to build a daycare from scratch, I must say I was disappointed and shocked that our new government had the gall to call this a daycare plan.

Despite the government turning their back on quality universal daycare, ten parents opened a new daycare and immediately filled 110 spaces to the delight grateful parents.

I am out of the daycare biz now, but my federal vote will be determined by the party that respects and invests in young Canadians. I am not alone. I hope our elected members are listening.

[J.Harrison]

The simple, cheap solution no one talks about: A work week built around homelife. Ask your employer for an alternative workplan if you have small children, an ill parent or disabled spouse. If two parent/guardians each work one day less a week, their daycare/homecare needs are reduced to three days a week. They may sacrifice some pay, but save daycare dollars and share the available spaces around better. Why do some people get 5 days a week- I only need two days a week but I can't get any days. I read a business quote that nothing will happen in childcare until the employers are part of the funding model. Employers and market forces are the ones who says we all must work 40 hours a week, five days, regardless if the time spent is actually productive. There are work at home options, job sharing and people could take their one year parental leave and stretch it it over time. The daycare conversation with government is not going anywhere: make this a labour issue. I'm for choice: Some parents stay home, some both work, some work part time. Do what is right for your family and convince your employer to support you.

[Michele]

Speaking of child care, I thought there was going to a be an opportunity for Stay At Home Moms to receive the child care subsidy? If it's more economical for them to stay home with their children, I think it's a good idea to recognize them as child care providers instead of reducing them to nothing, nevermind not giving them any benefits whatsoever.

The BEST politician will be one who puts women's & FAMILY rights as #1. There are so many young families that would benefit from better child care options as well as mothers who cannot afford to put every child in a daycare setting and instead find it cheaper to stay home (why not reward them?)

It's strange - a country that has nation-wide health care yet NOTHING for children? Caring about health but not people/families is ridiculous.

That being said, I know I for one am pro-SAHM child care subsidy!!!!!!

Being a mother is the hardest job....trying to make ends meet to be a mother AND have someone else look after your child while you work hard just to make ends meet isn't something the leaders of our country should be encouraging.

If this is Michael's stance, I know a LOT of people will vote for him!

[D]

I find the 'you had them, you pay for them' arguement amusing considering the fact that we live in a country that will cover healthcare costs for someone who has abused substances (alcohol/cigarettes) for a lifetime. The policies Canadians have in place are the very definition of our national 'personality' and image. It seems as though we decided a long time ago that we would be a nation that assisted in achieving the best quality of life for all, why doesn't that apply to children?
Education and daycare need a massive overhaul and anyone who cannot see this fact quite obviously can't see past their own nose.

[MRM]

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 since they also consider taxpayer funded abortion on demand to be a family planning tool.

[Stew Fair]

Children have a right to be raised at home, by their parents.

I work hard so my family can afford to have a single earner.

Please, the parents should focus on priorities. Stop buying lotto tickets, beer, cigarettes and big screen TVs. Live off of one income and have on parent stay home to raise the children.

It's hard to do it, which is why I don't want any more of my families income being taxed to support people who want it all but want someone else to pay for it.

[Susan]

What about those parents who work shiftwork, 24 hours a day 7 days a week, universal daycare just doesn't cut it, how about a subsidy for all parents to use toward the daycare that fits their family & lifestyle, I myself had to hire a nanny to come into our home because my husband and I could not find a daycare that opens before 7am - It really annoys me when the politicans try to tar us all with the same brush

[Pat D]

Giving tax breaks to all parents to help them provide the type of daycare they want to provide is the best solution. There are many studies which show that early daycare has some negative effects on children and that aggression and poor social skills often result from early institutionalization in daycares. Children are put into the position of having to negotiate with other children (about toys, play etc) before they have the social or language skills to do so. As a result inappropriate (often physical) solutions are often resorted to. Correction from daycare staff can vary from lacadaisical to punitive and a poorly socialized child can be the result. I have three children, the youngest of whom is 6, and the first two were never put in daycare. For a short time my mother provided daycare and for one maternity leave my husband and I shared six months each. Apart from that I worked part time in the evenings so one of us would always be home. In Kindergarten both children's teachers remarked on their excellent, non-violent social skills. When I did need part time daycare for my youngest (one day per week so I could hang on to my job where I had 10 years seniority) I phoned around and had a choice of 4 daycares. Many others had spots but wouldn`t take part timers. Of the 4 which I toured only one had a noise level which I considered acceptable. All 4 were licenced and inspected but I don't think the large institutional experience is good for children.