Another February 6th, and for those of us in the child care community, it’s a time to reflect on Canada’s close-but-no-cigar national child care program. You remember, right?
Everyone knows the story -- after years of advocacy for a national child care program, it seemed that one would really materialize. But the story ended with a clunk for children and families when the Harper Conservatives won the January 2006 federal election and cancelled the bilateral agreements between the federal government and the provinces/territories that Ken Dryden had spent months negotiating.
The cancellation was lickety-split. As just about his first act as Prime Minister after the swearing-in ceremony on February 6th, 2006, Mr. Harper stepped to a microphone to announce cancellation of the signed child care agreements. Objections from the child care community and parents were ignored. The provincial/territorial Child Care Action Plans developed as part of the intergovernmental process were abandoned or -- at best -- scaled back.
So on every February 6 since 2006, many of us in the child care world have cause to reflect on what could have been -- if Stephen Harper hadn’t cancelled the just-budding national child care program before it got off the ground.
For one thing, it would have meant moving into a more planned and publicly accountable approach. It would have meant real money for provincial/territorial governments to expand child care spaces in their jurisdictions and begin to make them affordable. Of equal importance -- it would have been an opportunity to improve quality so as to reflect the idea that high quality child care is "educational" in the very best early childhood sense. It’s worth reflecting on the principles that accompanied the promise of federally funding -- the "QUAD" principles -- Quality, Universal, Accessible and Developmental child care programs.
What do we see instead? Child care programs struggling to keep their doors open. Dedicated early childhood educators still earning low wages and working under challenging conditions, while centres grapple with recruiting and retaining the dedicated professional workforce needed to make high quality a reality. An entrenched, ineffective child care market approach with a growing for-profit and corporate sector. And we see parents in most of Canada still on their own when it comes to finding and affording the high quality child care they want for themselves and their children. Today, most families still rely on unregulated -- sometimes illegal -- care.
Today, a national child care program would have been eight years old. If it were, would Ontario be considering rolling-back staff: child ratios for infants and toddlers to below acceptable minimum levels -- if there were more federal funding and a collaborative pan-Canadian approach to quality improvement? Well, perhaps -- child care is within provincial jurisdiction. But with a real national policy framework linked to significant federal funds, it would have been more difficult.
And how are those $100 UCCB cheques working out for people? Have they delivered their promised "choice in child care?" More than $17.5 billion has been sunk into them without any evaluation of their effectiveness. For the record, CRRU’s analysis shows that the ever-growing bill to the public for this could have modestly funded an additional 700,000 child care spaces.
So—let’s have more than a moment of silence for the bilateral agreements, the QUAD principles and federal and provincial/territorial political will to work on child care collaboratively, and what these might have built. Of course, the child care community would have been there, always urging better policy, better funding, better programs -- no matter who formed government.
But let’s also look forward. The child care movement has never taken things lying down. We’re too busy pushing to improve the programs we work in, struggling to keep our issues heard, help parents find the best options available and encourage them to demand the child care system they deserve. The odds may be stacked against us but we know it’s worth it.
As the late-great Pete Seeger said: "if you sing for children, you can’t really say there’s no hope." The same goes when you work on their behalf.
Thank you for reading this story…
More people are reading rabble.ca than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable.
rabble.ca has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.
So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.
And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.