See text below.
EXCERPTS
I'm a bilingual, Canadian woman, mother of two children under 10, wife and executive. It was only a few days ago that I felt the coming election was a colossal waste of time. We'd once again be going to the polls without much to get excited about. That is, until the issue of child care finally made party policy platforms.
The child care debate should be of interest to all Canadians, not just families. After all, we're talking about preschool care, the formative years of the next generation of Canadians. It's peculiar that the issue hasn't received more attention, perhaps because it's largely a women's issue. This election presents Canadian women in particular - whether they are working moms, stay-at-home moms or moms-to-be - with a tremendous opportunity: an opportunity to change how we live, to make life more manageable, to make our families healthier and to better our children's chances of success in the knowledge economy. Women should be listening carefully, and making their way to the polls in the new year.
Our government has failed to keep pace with the needs of its families in the knowledge economy. It might be a simple case of demographics. Parliament, and hence policy, is dominated by men, typically affluent white men over 40. Many of these men remember the Beaver Cleaver childhood experience of the "nuclear family" in the '40s and '50s. Mom didn't work - well, outside the home, that is - mom took care of the house, dad and the kids. Unless dad was a farmer, dad went to work somewhere away from the homestead. The family went for drives on the weekend and on summer holiday somewhere in Canada or the U.S. Mom and dad were married, and usually stayed that way, for better or worse. If dad could afford it, mom had a maid come in once a week, and maybe a day nanny. This is our politicians' typical frame of reference.
A lot has changed since then. Women were "liberated" in the '60s, were educated, and made their way into the workforce and into the world. They could earn a living and weren't dependent on their fathers or husbands to take care of them. Not bad for the single gal. But what about the woman who also answered to "mom"? How did she fare over the past 40 years?
Interestingly enough, not much was taken off her plate when she entered the workforce. She was still expected to take care of the house, dad and the kids (or make arrangements for child care and housekeeping). According to Statistics Canada surveys, "working mothers now put in 74 hours a week of paid and unpaid work and two-thirds of unpaid household work is still done by women, almost unchanged from 40 years ago."
Some suggest that women should put their careers on hold to stay home and raise the kids to ease the burdens of a stressed-out two-income household. But what if the family needs two incomes to make the mortgage payments? What if mom is the principal breadwinner? What if mom (or dad) is raising the children alone? These scenarios are no longer the exception to the rule. A report by the Canadian Federal Labour Standards Review Commission entitled "The Changing Face of Canadian Workplaces" outlines these important social and economic changes:
- In 2003, almost half of the workforce was female (46 per cent).
- Almost 71 per cent of mothers with children under the age of six were in the labour force in 2001.
- By 2003, 63 per cent of female lone parents with children under age six participated in the labour force.
- Forty years ago, only one-third of couples were dual earners, but today, both partners work in seven out of 10 married or common-law couples.
What these statistics indicate is that child care is a tremendously important factor in the lives of many Canadians, particularly women. According to the Childcare Resource and Research Unit, "access to available, high-quality ECEC (Early Childhood Education and Care) is critical to eliminate the barriers faced by women who choose or must exercise their right to paid employment and ... is additionally critical for low-income women to overcome poverty and isolation." Yet in the realm of Canadian social policy, child care is almost completely overshadowed by education and health care. Has anyone stopped to think about the effects of early childhood learning and development on the educational system and the health care system? Why do we have kids going into the school system who don't know their ABCs? What is the impact of proper nutrition on a child's ability to learn? These socioeconomic issues are interrelated, and it all starts with access to high-quality early childhood education and care.
We have to address the challenges that Canadian families face. It's not just a case of finding someone to "mind the children." We need competent, loving caregivers for our children. Make no mistake; parents want what is "best" for their children. Placing one's child in someone else's care can be traumatic for parents and kids. But what is best isn't always available. It's not just about affordability - it's about access.
For a great many Canadian parents, the only option is to rely on unlicensed caregivers, in some cases "babysitters." For those with access to their own family and friends networks, this can work well (though it can add different stresses to established relationships). For those who have to look to an unlicensed, unregulated "stranger," this can be quite stressful. Some parents have been very lucky, others less so.
But there is a better way. We need guidelines, regulations and inspections that ensure that our kids are safe. We need to know that our children are getting the nutrition, socialization and mental stimulus they need to grow into healthy individuals. We need universal, high-quality, publicly funded, not-for-profit, inclusive ECEC in Canada.
It appears that both the Liberals and the Conservatives are finally paying some attention to the child care issue, though at opposite ends of the spectrum. The Liberals took a step in the right direction last May when they announced funding and a plan for a national system of regulated daycare. They've since doubled the ante.
The electorate needs to ensure that the promises made come to pass. The Liberals also have to be wary of the complexities of the Canadian workforce and ensure that they're indeed creating a system flexible enough to accommodate the varied needs of workers in different sectors, including rural areas. The only people who work "9 to 5" these days are bankers and civil servants.
As to the Conservatives' plan to fund a child care program with a $1,200 annual taxable allowance, it does little to solve the real issue, which is access to high-quality care. It is only a drop in the bucket of what it costs to access child care and does nothing to address the issue of quality.
Let's see if the next government can create a universal, high-quality, publicly funded, inclusive strategy for early childhood education and care that helps mothers and fathers raise healthy and happy families.
This election, let's put Canadian kids first.
* Candice M. Christmas is associate director of strategy and communications at the Monieson Centre at the Queen's University School of Business.
- reprinted from the Kingston Whig-Standard