First reading May 17, 2006 Second reading September 25, 2006 – Opposition Bloc Québécois and Liberal MP’s joined the NDP in supporting the bill at its second reading. Committee hearings on the bill are expected in December or January.
Bill C-303
An Act to establish criteria and conditions in respect of funding for early learning and child care programs in order to ensure the quality, accessibility, universality and accountability of those programs, and to appoint a council to advise the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development on matters relating to early learning and child care.
Canada “At The Bottom Of The List For Childcare”
SooNews.ca
September 25, 2006
Press Release
OTTAWA –The NDP’s Early Learning and Childcare Act moves to second reading in the House of Commons today, landmark legislation to enshrine a national child care program as a cornerstone of Canada, side by side with the Canada Health Act.
“This will be a vital debate, as we have an opportunity to move forward after years of false starts and setbacks under the Mulroney Conservatives, four Liberal governments, and now the Harper Conservatives,” said Olivia Chow, NDP child care critic.
Sault MP Tony Martin said “passing this legislation will ensure reliable provincial transfers for child care spaces — while entrenching the principles of quality, universality, accessibility, accountability, and educational development. These are national standards we vitally need.”
“Early learning and child care is in disarray in Canada. Programs are fragmented across the country – there is no consistency of standards, availability, accessibility or affordability. Waiting lists across the country are so long that most kids will never get a childcare space.
A recent report by the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) puts Canada at the bottom of the list when it comes to childcare and shows that Canada’s child care investments are so inadequate that our future productivity, economic competitiveness and growth are at risk.
The cancellation of the money the government finally committed last year to the provinces is making things even worse. Planned new centres are not opening, because the funding will be cut in a few months time.
Martin said the bogus $1,200 child care allowance is doing nothing to create new spaces. Children deserve better.
“We have a chance to move forward.” said NDP MP Denise Savoie. “Rather than just allowing the government to take this disastrous and short sighted course, we can take this historic opportunity to affirm a Canadian commitment to early learning and childcare. We can make it happen. This bill maps out the course. This is vitally important to the future of Canada. We urge MPs of all parties to take action and support this bill.”
Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Ottawa: FAFIA, a pan-Canadian alliance of women’s and human rights organizations, is denouncing the $5 million cut to the federal department of Status of Women over two years. These cuts will be taken from its modest annual budget of $13 million. The grants and contributions arm ($11 million) of the department was not affected.
“These cuts will critically affect the federal government’s own commitment to live up to its equality commitments to women,” said Shelagh Day, Co-Chair of the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA).
FAFIA is also dismayed by the elimination of the Court Challenges Program. “This Program has provided Canadian women with their only access to the use of their constitutional equality rights,” said Shelagh Day. “Equality rights have no meaning in Canada if women, and other Canadians who face discrimination, cannot use them.”
“Constitutional cases are too expensive for women to mount on their own.
Without this test case fund, women simply do not have access to the courts when their rights are violated.”
During the last federal election campaign, Stephen Harper promised to “take concrete and immediate measures…to ensure that Canada fully upholds its commitments to women.” These cuts are not consistent with Mr. Harper’s election promise,” said Day
Status of Women Canada is responsible for equipping the federal government to conduct gender based analysis of all policies and programs. It also provides internal expertise on specific policy initiatives. The department’s budget is one of the smallest of any department at the federal level.
An Expert Panel on accountability mechanisms for gender equality, that made its report just before the last federal election, concluded that Status of Women Canada needed to be significantly strengthened in order to better perform its function as a watchdog for women’s equality. The cut to SWC ignores those crucial recommendations.
For more information, contact FAFIA’s co-chair, Shelagh Day
—–
Government’s real priorities revealed
OTTAWA, Sept. 26 /CNW/ – We are deeply concerned about the gutting of theonly federal agency that addresses critical questions pertaining to equality and about what it suggests about what this government’s true intentions are for equality matters in Canada.
Announced Monday, the 5 million dollar cut to Status of Women Canada (SWC) is a serious attack on the lone federal department engaged in the development of gender responsive policy and in the fulfillment of Canada’s human rights obligations to women at the international, domestic, and inter-governmental levels.
We now see the government’s real priorities revealed.
SWC is home to the Women’s Program which funds organizations that monitor and work to uphold Canada’s accountability to the principles of equality enshrined in the Charter and in the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
The announcement of the SWC cut follows last week’s 11th hour restitution of federal funding to some national women’s organizations by Minister Beverley Oda and appears to be the latest cat-and-mouse game being played with the values held by a majority of Canadians.
The strength and integrity of SWC is integral to efforts of organizations working to protect women’s rights. We do work such as this because while some crucial legal reforms have granted equality to women in Canada, the substance of daily life for many women fails to live up to the promise that formal structures indicate.
The gap between real-life experience and legal equality is the basis for much of the work undertaken by SWC and the women’s groups it supports. Until now, they were together supported at the bargain-basement cost of $24 million federal dollars a year (compared to the $15 billion announced by Harper in June for military vehicles over the next few years).
The announced set of cuts raises serious concerns about the Harper Government’s ability to effectively steward the social values of Canadians. As such, we will be watching closely in the coming weeks for what other truths are revealed regarding this government’s commitment to women’s equality in Canada, and to the full equality of all citizens.
Signed:
Canadian Council for Muslim Women (CCMW)
Canadian Federation of University Women (CFUW)
Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA)
Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW)
Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada (CCAAC)
DAWN Ontario: DisAbled Women’s Network
MATCH International
Womenspace
YWCA Canada
Diane Finley, Minister of Human Resources and Social Development, announced the creation of a ministerial advisory committee that will advise her on the design of the Child Care Spaces Initiative.
—–
Editorial: Harper’s dubious child-care panel
Sep. 8, 2006
Toronto Star
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has strong ideas on child care. He does not see the need for a national child-care plan that meets the needs of all families. And an advisory committee the government has just appointed to provide advice is not likely to contradict him.
Most of the members of the nine-person committee named this week by Human Resources Minister Diane Finley already are on record as supporting the Conservative proposal….
The new committee is chaired by Gordon Chong, a former Toronto city councillor and ex-chairman of GO Transit, who has said publicly that he supports Harper’s approach because it provides “choices” for families.
Other members include a private child-care operator; the president of a support group for stay-at-home mothers that rallied against the Liberal daycare strategy; the head of a right-wing think-tank; and, oddly, the head of a company that develops computer programming for prison systems.
Just two committee members represent the non-profit sector.
And while community organizations and municipal governments operate fully 70 per cent of all child-care spaces across Canada, none is represented on the advisory panel.
The Tories promise “choice.” But the fact is that most working families do not have much choice at all. At present, regulated child care meets the needs of only one in six children under the age of 12. That is why the Liberals recognized the urgent need to provide more spaces, before they were turned out of office earlier this year.
Harper and the Conservatives hope to create 125,000 child-care spaces over the next five years by providing tax credits to employers — an approach tried in Ontario in the mid-1990s that proved a failure — as well as capital grants and loans to care providers. They have no intention of providing ongoing operating support to the provinces to ensure that the spaces are sustainable.
This is a poor substitute for the $5 billion deal reached by the Liberals and signed by each of the provinces….
In theory, the new child-care committee’s mandate is “to provide advice on the child-care needs of Canadian families and the role and interests of employers.” At best, that is a mixed message to a skewed panel. Child care should be about children and ensuring that all of them get the best quality care. Employers can be counted on to look out for their own interests.
The committee’s makeup confirms that the Harper government is not interested in working with the provinces to create new, regulated, sustainable child-care spaces. If it were, the committee would be more balanced, with more input from municipal and community actors, the not-for-profit sector and working families.
—–
Advocates fear Tory committee too biased
Sep. 7, 2006
TONDA MACCHARLES
OTTAWA BUREAU
EXCERPT
OTTAWA—Daycare advocates slammed the federal Conservatives yesterday, saying a new ministerial advisory committee on child care is unnecessary and biased against non-profit daycare.
MP Olivia Chow (NDP—Trinity-Spadina) said the nine-member committee appointed this week by Human Resources Minister Diane Finley is “packed” with private-sector appointments while provinces, and not-for-profit experts in child-care delivery are marginalized.
“The advisory committee is unbalanced, unaccountable and shows the minister’s extraordinary unwillingness to work with the provinces and experts to create real sustainable child-care spaces,” said Chow.
Finley has asked the committee to report this fall on how to design an initiative that would meet the Conservative promise to create 125,000 new child-care spaces over five years.
Chow said five committee members are on record or work with organizations “which are on record supporting the Conservative child-care scheme as opposed to public, not-for-profit child-care spaces.”
She questioned the appointment of the head of Syscon Justice Systems Ltd., Floyd Sully, saying he “has expertise in developing computer programming for prison systems; perhaps Mr. Harper has a prison model in mind when it comes to child-care spaces for Canadian children.”
Only one committee member is associated with the delivery of public child care, she said. Others suggested two members could be considered friends of non-profit child care: Don Giesbrecht, president of the Canadian Child Care Federation, and Georgina Steinsky-Schwartz, head of Imagine Canada, which promotes social entrepreneurship.
Morna Ballantyne, co-ordinator of Code Blue (a coalition of 30 organizations lobbying for a national daycare program and operational funding along the lines promised by the federal Liberals) echoed Chow’s concerns.
The Liberal daycare program is to be scrapped next February by the Conservatives and replaced with an as-yet undefined program of corporate tax credits — which were tried and failed in Ontario in the mid ’90s — or capital grants and loans to create spaces. The Tories have sworn not to provide ongoing operating funds to the provinces….
The chair of the new committee is Gordon Chong, who ran for the Ontario Progressive Conservative party in 1987. A former city councillor and head of GO Transit, Chong now heads Toronto’s social housing services corporation.
Chong defended his views as not biased in favour of any result, adding he believes strongly in mixing private- and public-sector delivery of services “whether it’s housing or child care.”
He said it is “unfortunate” that Chow and other critics have “prejudged what conclusions we’re going to come to because I certainly haven’t done that.”
Colleen Cameron, the minister’s press secretary, yesterday dismissed the critics’ concerns. The committee members were selected for their “expertise and experience in child care, work-family issues, community organizations and the needs of employers,” she said, not their adherence to the Conservative party’s line.
Don Giesbrecht of the Canadian Child Care Federation, who was also named to the committee, said he’s “keeping an open mind” about the work.
—–
More talk, still no action, says CUPE on new federal child care committee
September 6, 2006
Yesterday’s announcement by the federal government of the creation of an advisory committee on child care “has been done before, and will probably generate the same recommendations that we have seen for the past twenty years or more,” said CUPE’s National President Paul Moist today….
According to an article in the Vancouver Sun/Can West News
– As the federal government sends out the first $100 cheques under its new Universal Child Care Benefit program, it is also cutting a $20.75 young child supplement for hundreds of thousands of low- and middle-income families in a move one critic calls “a real sneaky one.”
– 769,000 families who received the supplement last year will no longer get it as of this month, is not including any explanation about the phase-out of the supplement with the three million Child Tax Benefit cheques.
– Ken Battle, of the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, calls the elimination of the young child supplement “sneaky.” He says he suspects the government is relying on the complexities of the programs to keep people from grasping that they won’t get as much as they think.
“The government didn’t come out and explain to people that yes, you are going to get a $1,200-a-year new benefit, but by the way, if you get the young child supplement — which is mainly for low- and middle-income people — you are going to lose $249,” from cuts to the Child Tax Benefit program. “I think it’s a case of what we usually call ‘stealth,’ where the technical design details of a social program aren’t widely understood and therefore people end up getting less than they think.”
– Families with young children who qualify for the new universal benefit program can no longer collect the young child supplement paid under the Canada Child Tax Benefit Program, leaving those affected with a net gain of less than $80 a month, not $100.
– July marks the start of a new program year, when each family’s benefit amounts are changed based on their previous year’s income tax filing, it may be difficult for some people to spot what has changed when they get their cheques in the next few days.
– Colleen Cameron, press secretary to Human Resources Minister Diane Finley, who has the lead responsibility for the program, says there was no attempt to mislead or sneak anything by the public.”It was part of our plan. It was listed on our website, I don’t think it was anything that we tried to sneak past in any backwards way,” she said.
– According to Battle, a couple with one wage earner would keep $987 of the $1,200 after tax; a two-earner couple would keep $935, and the single-parent family would keep just $826 because the $1,200 of extra taxable income pushes that parent into a higher tax bracket than either of the other two.
Even a single mother, living on welfare with an income too low to tax, would not escape some sort of clawback, he said. Her $1,200 per child payment would melt to $951, due to the loss of the young child supplement in the Child Tax Benefit program.
– Eliminating the young child supplement will save the government about $340 million this year and $400 million annually after it is completely eliminated next year.
The results of a poll show that Canadians are rejecting Stephen Harper’s plan to distribute a $1,200 child allowance to parents with children under six years of age. The Environics poll asked more than 2,000 Canadians their views on child care and the response was clear – 76% of Canadians support a national affordable child care strategy. “Support for a national child care strategy was high across the country – in both rural and urban communities, in all provinces, and across all demographics.”
—–
Canadians pick Liberal child-care plan over Tory cheques: poll
By: SUE BAILEY, Canadian Press
June 20, 2006
OTTAWA — Most Canadians favour Liberal over Conservative plans for dealing with what they say is a serious lack of affordable child care, suggests a new poll commissioned by a child-care advocacy group.
Fifty per cent of respondents preferred a national, accessible early learning system as promised by the former government, says the Environics Research survey.
That compares with 35 per cent who favoured the $1,200-a-year family allowance proposed by the Conservatives for each child under age six.
“A very strong majority believes government has an important role to support families in accessing high-quality child care,” says Monica Lysack, executive director of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, which commissioned the poll.
“I think it’s important to remind this government that their approach just doesn’t wash with Canadians.
“That could cost the Conservatives some votes.”
Social Development Minister Diane Finley counters that the Tory plan offers “the best of both worlds.
“What we’re doing is creating 125,000 new spaces and giving the $1,200.”
Critics discount that claim because it’s based on a strategy of tax incentives to urge businesses to open child-care centres. They note that similar efforts have failed in the past because no funding was provided to offset prohibitive operating costs.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has conceded that the $250-million tax incentive plan “is not perfect.”
Ms. Lysack’s group has led the charge for child-care advocates who favour multi-year funding for provinces to create and sustain new spaces. She says the survey was paid for using donations, not government grants…
Mr. Harper announced early after the Conservatives took power that such funding would be axed after March 31, 2007. Instead, the Tories say the family allowance gives parents more choice to spend federal dollars as they see fit.
Just over 2,000 Canadians were asked the following question in a telephone poll between May 5 and 10:
“The new Conservative government has announced as one of its major platforms a new child-care plan that will provide parents with a $1,200 per year allowance for each child under six to help them pay for child care. This plan will replace the national early learning and child care system announced by the previous government, which was to provide provincial funding to create 100,000 new affordable child care spaces. Which one of these two plans for child care do you think the government should implement?”
Support for a national child-care system was high across Canada, in urban and rural areas and among families with a stay-at-home parent, said Derek Leebosh, senior associate with Environics.
“It shows that Canadians put a very high value on child care. They think it’s important that it be available and accessible.”
A solid majority of those polled questioned why there can’t be a family allowance and an improved child-care network, he said.
“A lot of Canadians feel like maybe they’re being forced to make a bit of false choice. Why can’t we have both? There’s huge surpluses. It’s not like we’re in a deficit.
“They don’t want to see [the $1,200 cheques] come at the expense of funding of affordable child-care programs.”
Almost half of respondents said they were less supportive of the family allowance after learning a portion will be taxed back.
As for voting intentions in the next federal election, Conservatives eager to turn their minority into a majority may find the poll results instructive.
Sixty-one per cent of respondents who voted NDP in the last election said they’d be less likely to support the Tories if they cancel the national child-care strategy in favour of the $1,200 cheques.
Fifty-eight per cent of Liberal voters and 49 per cent of Bloc Québécois supporters said the same…
Before I begin this morning, I’d like to thank Willingdon Family Drop Off here at the Willingdon Community Centre for being kind enough to allow us to use their facility this morning. …
… we will deliver a universal choice in child care plan to Canadian families ….
The previous government spent a lot of time talking about child care.
And since the election, they’ve been beating their chests on the issue.
But for all of their talk, they have precious little to show for it.
Their national child care program never materialized…
And after 13 years of rhetoric, no one can find those universally-free, readily-accessible, federally-created day care spaces.
So where did all the child care money go?
Well, for starters, politicians got their child care money.
So did armies of academics, researchers and special interest groups.
But what about parents?
No direct financial support. And no new spaces.
My friends, the old approach was a failure.
And that’s just not good enough for parents who have been waiting and waiting for child care….
The Government’s Plan for Childcare
Over the past 13 years, we’ve been treated to a lot of fancy words on childcare.
But the truth of the matter is that not a single Canadian family has received direct financial support…
For starters, this spring we‚re going to include in our first budget a family allowance for childcare worth $1200 a year per child under the age of six.
The question that the opposition must answer is simple.
Do they support the $1200 allowance for children, or do they support the status quo…?
The new approach to child care starts now.
We will ask Parliament to approve a universal choice in child care allowance.
An allowance that will deliver to parents a direct payment of $1200 per year, per child under six…
This approach requires no federal-provincial negotiations.
No funding for academics, researchers or special interest groups… It provides direct payment. ..
Our new approach enhances parental choice.
It acknowledges and supports the 2/3 of parents who do not use 9 to 5 institutional day care…
CTV News and Current Affairs
Guests: Sharon Gregson, Coalition of Child Care Advocates of BC and Kate Tennier, Founder, Advocates for Child Care Choice.
THOMSON: It’s been a hotly debated topic in the halls of Parliament and of course across the country. What is the future of child care? A new report from Statistics Canada shows that more and more parents are sending their children to daycare. Should the government give parents a yearly cheque? Or should the money go to national and provincial daycare programs?
We debate that issue with Sharon Gregson, a spokesperson for the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia. She’s in Vancouver this morning. And here in Toronto, Kate Tennier of Advocates for Child Care Choice.
Good morning to both of you, and thanks for coming in…
THOMSON: Let me begin with you, Kate. An editorial that you wrote, or an item that you wrote in the Globe and Mail saying: “Affordable, high-quality, universal child care is bad for kids and bad for the economy.”
KATE TENNIER: Yeah. It’s a complicated piece. I want to focus on the survey. The interesting news is that child care has actually plateaued. When you compare it to 1994, it looks like it’s gone up. But we’ve all been working from the premise that it was 53 percent of children in child care. That was the 2001 statistic. So, the headline should be reading that over the course of two years when daycare has increased in Quebec we’ve only gone up one percent. So, the rest of Canada has actually plateaued for the first time since these statistics have been kept, and actually gone down in some areas. So, that just short of shows the spin that we’re always trying to — and we’re a grassroots group, we’re not funded, we’re volunteer —
THOMSON: Right, so statistics aside, do you think $1200 is a good start?
KATE TENNIER: Well, it sets the right principle. And that’s what we’re saying. Because over — and that didn’t include 10 percent of children whose parents are on social assistance. Over half of Canada’s children are cared for by their parents. And we don’t think that, but that’s the truth. And the rest of the half that is in some form of child care averages actually only 27 hours a week. So, there’s only a small minority of children who are in full-time care, a small minority that are in daycare centres. You couldn’t have the Liberal daycare deal stand, because it would discriminate against the majority of Canadian parents.
THOMSON: Let me bring Sharon in on this to respond…
SHARON GREGSON: Well, I have to say to Kate — and all parents who are listening will know this — that just because we use child care, whether it’s a daycare centre or a family day home, we’re still caring for our kids. So, to say that some children are not being cared for by their parents because they use child care is completely wrong. It’s no surprise to me to know that numbers are going up. I work in child care, I’m a working mother —
KATE TENNIER: They’re not going up.
SHARON GREGSON: The numbers are going up. I’m a person who works in the field. I have long waiting lists. I talk to women every day who are beside themselves because they cannot find daycare, they cannot afford daycare, they want good quality for the kids while they work. Let’s talk about the real Canadian reality for working women and for families. We need quality, we need more child-care spaces in this country. And that’s —
THOMSON: But do we need a national [overtalk] — Sharon, do we need a national program, though? And I guess that’s at the centre of this debate.
SHARON GREGSON: Absolutely no doubt. And, Kate, I do disagree with you. The $1200 is not the right premise to be starting from. It doesn’t create more choice for parents at all. When Harris tried it in Ontario his tax-credit scheme didn’t create one new space. It won’t happen in Canada. We need an investment in creating a system. And Harper’s plan is an income-support plan, it’s not a child-care choice allowance by any stretch of the imagination.
THOMSON: But, Kate, when you take a look at the Throne Speech and one of the sentences in there that the Governor-General read was that looking at collaboration between the provinces, seemingly opening the doors [overtalk] — Hold on, hold on, Sharon. Yeah, seeming to open the door to the possibility of an additional program.
KATE TENNIER: What that is is part of their plan to help build daycare spaces. Again, only a small minority of Canadians want daycare spaces.
SHARON GREGSON: Not true, Kate, not true.
KATE TENNIER: Can I continue?
THOMSON: Yeah.
KATE TENNIER: That’s a bottom-up, coming from the community, nonprofit, and other organizations. And that’s fine, because that’s not a government-imposed system. I can’t reiterate strongly enough that the majority of Canadians are in, the majority is actually in full-time parental care. People have been led to believe otherwise. And the rest are in care only part-time. So, we would be discriminating against the vast majority of Canadian families with a national child-care program. So, so we cannot have that unjust social program inflicted on Canadians.
SHARON GREGSON: It’s not unjust at all. We’re talking about a continuum of services. Women who are staying at home full-time are still using part-time services, using preschool. We’re talking about a continuum of services that children can move in and out of that’s high-quality, early childhood development from the time their child is young as an infant until 12 years old. So, whether that’s a family place drop-in, a part-time preschool, full-time daycare in a centre or in a home. A continuum of services that meets the needs of families. We’re not talking about government-imposed institutional care. We’re talking about community-delivered services. We’re talking about the neighbourhood hub model where you know where your local elementary school is, you know where your local swimming pool is, you should also know where your local child-care services are…
Continuation of Federal/Provincial Child Care Agreements
Submitted by Councillor S.A. Schechter
Moved by Councillor Schechter, seconded by Councillor Keating
WHEREAS the Provincial Government’s February 14, 2006, Throne Speech noted that “the best way to assure our children lead healthy lives is to give them a strong start in life”;
WHEREAS the creation of a Provincial Childcare System as part of a National Childcare Program cannot be delayed because working families need this support for their children;
WHEREAS the government has been silent on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s decision to cancel the National Childcare Program which would provide BC with $633 million over the next 5 years for regulated childcare for children under the age of 6; and
WHEREAS other provinces are insisting that Ottawa live up to the terms of the agreements they signed under the existing program;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of North Vancouver call on Premier Gordon Campbell and the Provincial Government to:
• Insist that Ottawa live up to its full five-year funding commitment under the existing childcare agreement;
• Release an action plan for childcare as set out in the agreement and promised by the Provincial Government last fall; and
• Use this money to move away from the current user fee childcare system to a publicly-funded childcare system that creates a quality, stable space for every child; is affordable for all; meets the needs of working and studying families; and provides caregivers with fair incomes and the respect they deserve.
Vancouver School Board passes motion to write a letter to senior levels of government indicating that every effort should be made to ensure that Vancouver families have access to quality, affordable child care through the established national child care program.
NOTICE OF MOTION: (CHILD CARE)
Submitted by Trustee Sharon Gregson
WHEREAS the Board recognizes that every neighbourhood in Vancouver has children entering Kindergarten who are deemed to be vulnerable and that some neighbourhoods have as many as 60% of children vulnerable on one or more of the University of BC (UBC) early Development Indicator scales; and
WHEREAS the Board recognizes that quality child care (daycare/preschool) supports children’s early learning and school readiness, as well as parents in their parenting role; and
WHEREAS the current federal government is moving to replace the national child care plan with an income support plan that will not further the development of quality child care services in Vancouver,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of School Trustees of School District No. 39 (Vancouver) write a letter to senior levels of government indicating that every effort should be made to ensure that Vancouver families have access to quality, affordable child care through the established national child care program, and the aforementioned plan be continued.
D. Thorne: Since 2001 the B.C. government has cut $40 million from the provincial child care budget. Until today the federal government has picked up the slack, providing millions to the province for child care. In fact, B.C. had a five-year funding agreement with the feds worth $633 million for children under six, but Prime Minister Stephen Harper cancelled it. These federal dollars funded quality, affordable child care for B.C. families, and this government let that money slip away.
To the Minister of State for Childcare: what will you do now to fill the financial gap created by the cancellation of the federal government child care program? Will your government reinvest in child care for British Columbia families, or will you abandon it?
Hon. L. Reid: Our vision for child care remains clear. B.C. children will enter school better prepared to learn, better prepared to succeed. B.C. families will have access to quality child care. Families will have access to a range of services in British Columbia — early learning programs, services that we’re going to deliver in concert with the Ministry of Education. Children with special needs will be better supported to learn as they go forward in community.
Children will be cared for by qualified early child care providers. We are working in partnership with the sector. B.C. families will have access to community hubs where a range of services will be provided.
That is the British Columbia vision for child care. We will continue to deliver on that vision for child care, because it’s vitally important that we have the strongest possible start in this province for British Columbia families. That work is underway. That work will continue.
Vancouver City Council approved the following motion on March 2, 2006
Agenda item # 4
WHEREAS:
The City of Vancouver has a long tradition of providing leadership in the development and support of licensed, non-profit child care.
The previous federal government committed almost $5 billion over 5 years to establish a national child care program, of which $633 million was to come to BC.
The current federal government promised to rip up these agreements in March of 2007.
The current federal government is replacing the national child care plan with individual payments to families with children that are in fact taxable family bonuses and will do nothing to further develop a national child care program.
The suggested bonus of $1200 a year will cover just over one months cost for children under 18 months.
There is a lack of facilities for younger children, including those with parents who can afford to pay for child care.
The provincial government has been slow to raise opposition to this plan, despite very public concern expressed by other provinces, families and the child care community.
Therefore be it resolved:
THAT Council acknowledge that the primary responsibility for funding and administering comprehensive child care programs rests with senior levels of government.
THAT Council affirm its commitment to work cooperatively and in partnership with the provincial and federal government to ensure we meet the city’s overall targets for developing new child care spaces.
THAT Mayor and Council write a letter to senior levels of government indicating that every effort should be made to ensure Vancouver families have access to affordable and accessible child care through the established national child care program, and support for continuation of the aforementioned program.
On Friday, February 24, 2006, the federal Conservative government announced it has formally notified the provinces it will terminate the federal-provincial child-care agreements.
According to the Conservative federal finance minister, Mr. Flaherty, the Conservative government “has a mandate to scrap the $5-billion in child-care deals with the provinces and replace them with a program that gives parents $1,200 for each child under age six, along with $250-million in tax credits to provide new spaces.”
Finance Minister Carole Taylor has introduced a budget that restores spending for the Ministry of Children and Family Development that was cut four years ago. Taylor says the government will spend $421 million over the next four years to improve child protection services.
BUDGET COMMENTS:
Ask the Experts: Officials from unions and business react to the provincial budget
The Vancouver Sun, 22 Feb 2006
EXCERPT
…. JIM SINCLAIR, PRESIDENT OF THE B.C. FEDERATION OF LABOUR:
“Like a lot of British Columbians, we were looking at this budget to see how it would help us. I think it is fair to say that if you live in Point Grey and you own your own house and you send your kids to private school and you want to own a Mercedes-Benz and you own mining shares, you’re doing well in this budget. If you live in Kamloops and you’re struggling to make ends meet and your kids are in the public system and you want to send them off to college and you want a space in a childcare centre, it’s not a good budget for you.” …
GEORGE HEYMAN, PRESIDENT OF THE B.C. GOVERNMENT AND SERVICE EMPLOYEES’ UNION
“The finance minister admitted today that she has no new money targeted for income assistance, when everybody knows that the single clearest determinant about the future of a kid’s development and their health and their ability to reach their full potential and be a productive member of society, is that they don’t live in poverty in their formative years. It is not the fault of children if their families are poor, and this minister simply doesn’t seem to get that.” …
SARAH MACINTYRE, B.C. DIRECTOR OF THE CANADIAN TAXPAYERS FEDERATION:
“Frankly, this government is headed in the wrong direction. Instead of trying to improve competitiveness of the tax system by simplifying, lowering and flattening tax rates, the province has taken a policy of particulars approach, handing out tax credits to specific industries, groups and leaving most taxpayers in the dust.”
—–
Jenny Kwan, NDP Opposition’s finance critic
Faceoff: Budget 2006: The Opposition: Liberals ignore the real challenges
The Vancouver Sun
22 Feb 2006
Editorial
EXCERPT
“The government did not put forward a coherent plan to address child-care demands or rising child poverty and homelessness rates. This budget still assumes Stephen Harper will fund the national child-care plan. We know that won’t happen, but there is no replacement.”
Government pledges $421m to help young people: Funds will go to programs for those with special needs, mental-health problems, disabilities and addictions
The Vancouver Sun
22 Feb 2006 [Page: A4 ]
Janet Steffenhagen
EXCERPT
…. The $36 million for special needs will include an expansion of the infant development program, which serves children from birth to three who have developmental delays, and more support services that allow special-needs children to be included in regular child care….
“Today’s Throne Speech is shockingly silent on action for child care,” says Susan Harney, Chair of the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of BC. “Last September, the Premier signed a child care agreement with the federal government. He made a public commitment to improve access to quality child care in BC. Yet, six months later child care has fallen off the agenda.”
Reid has high hopes for child care from Harper’s Conservatives: MLA under fire for not fighting for federal-provincial child-care agreement
Richmond News, 21 Feb 2006
Eve Edmonds
EXCERPT
Where is Linda Reid in the fight for child care?
That’s what Allison Lee, a child-care worker, expectant mother and resident of the MLA’s riding, wants to know.
And Lee is not the only one wondering.
Reid, Minister of State for Child Care, and her Liberal government are under attack from numerous child-care advocates for failing to fight for the maintenance of a federal-provincial child-care agreement which was signed in September.
The agreement would have seen B.C. receive more than $600 million in child care funding over five years.
“(The) Throne Speech is shockingly silent on action for child care,” said Susan Harney, chair of the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C.
“Last September, the premier signed a child-care agreement with the federal government. He made a public commitment to improve access to quality child care in B.C. Yet, six months later child care has fallen off the agenda.”
The first year has already been paid out and Prime Minister Stephen Harper has recently agreed to honour the second year of the Liberal agreement.
However, there is no commitment to the full five years. Critics say Reid and Premier Gordon Campbell should be fighting for it.
The vice-chair of the government’s own Provincial Child Care Council (an advisory group to Reid), Heather Northrup, even resigned over the Liberals’ lack of action.
In particular, child-care advocates are asking why the Jan. 31 deadline for producing a provincial child-care strategy has come and gone with still no plan.
That’s because that deadline was on the heels of the Jan. 23 federal election, says Reid.
“There was no one to send any information to at the end of January.”
Diane Tannahill, president of the Early Childhood Educators of B.C., says, “this was a federal agreement, not just a Liberal agreement,” and it shouldn’t matter who is in power.
She also notes that Quebec and Ontario are not letting the federal government off the hook despite a change in leadership.
“Those provinces were further along in the negotiations than we were. They had financial backing, we had a memorandum of understanding,” counters Reid.
Reid adds that Harper has made a significant compromise by agreeing to honour the second year of the plan, considering he campaigned on scrapping the agreement altogether…
But Harper’s willingness to go a second year speaks to a government that is prepared to negotiate, says Reid.
“We are on the side of building long-term relationships. It is not just about an additional three years of funding,” she adds.
Reid says she supports both Harper’s plan of an allowance for parents of children under six as well as a national child-care strategy.
Most importantly, child care has anything but fallen off the table, she notes.
“I’m a fierce and ardent supporter of a long-term child-care strategy,” says Reid…
Raise the Rates – Carnegie Community Action Project
Here’s how advocates can get involved: The provincial budget is coming in February 2006 and the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance, Claude Richmond, says that welfare rates are under review.
TAKE ACTION:
Write a hand-written letter to Claude Richmond, Minister of Employment and Income Assistance urging higher rates. If you want to ask for a specific amount you could use the amount SPARC BC recommends for meeting minimum monthly living costs:
– $1233 for a single person, and
– $1824 for a single parent with one child.
Or, you could ask for a 40% increase as the Save Low Income Housing Coalition has.
MLA Claude Richmond’s address is
PO Box 9058 STN PROV GOVT,
Victoria, BC V8W 9E1
CC your letter to NDP MLA and critic, Claire Trevena
More info available from: Jean Swanson, Carnegie Community Action Project
Stephen Harper promises his government will get to work quickly to implement the promises he made during the campaign leading to his Conservative party’s minority election win.
He told a news conference that his first priority will be to clean up the government through his promised accountability act. …Harper’s cabinet will be sworn in Feb. 6.
—–
EXCERPT from text of prime minister-designate Stephen Harper’s statement at a news conference Thursday Jan 26, 2006:
On Jan. 23, Canadians voted for change and they asked our party to lead that change in the House of Commons. Today, I’d like to provide you with an update on how our plans to deliver that change to Canadians are unfolding.
As you can imagine, much of my time in the last two days has been spent addressing a number of issues related to the change of government. I’ve both spoken and met with her excellency the Governor General and accepted her offer to form the next government of Canada.
I’ve also spoken a number of times with the premiers and reiterated my sincere commitment to working with them to strengthen our federation. ….Over the days and weeks, the process of change will accelerate. On Monday, Feb. 6, her excellency the Governor General will swear in Canada’s new government. …. Our new government will act quickly to get down to work on delivering the change that Canadians voted for on Jan. 23. As you all know, we campaigned on a very clear set of priorities… And we’ll use our time in the new Parliament to pursue those priorities.
Our first priority will be to clean up government, make it more open and more accountable to taxpayers. We will do this by way of the federal accountability act…
Beyond the federal accountability act, we intend to move to implement our GST and other tax reductions, to toughen up our criminal justice system and to implement our child-care program. We’ll also commence negotiations with the provinces on the fiscal imbalance and on the introduction of a patient wait-times guarantee so that Canadians get the health care they’ve paid for….
There will be difficult situations; minority governments are never easy. But all parties recognize that Canadians have chosen the second minority Parliament in less than two years. They want us to get to work on delivering change….
As the Conservatives prepare to take power in Ottawa, Gordon Campbell should be fighting to ensure that federal childcare dollars promised to B.C. continue to flow to the province, NDP Intergovernmental Relations critic Michael Sather said today.
“As the Conservatives transition into government, important decisions will be made about funding relationships with the provinces,” said Sather. “These decisions will have a dramatic impact on programs and services offered in B.C., including childcare. Gordon Campbell needs to stand up for the interests of ordinary British Columbians and fight for this funding.”
In September 2005, the federal government announced its Early Learning and Childcare Agreement with B.C., which provides $633 million dollars to the province for childcare and early childhood development over five years. The B.C. government must release its Childcare Action Plan by January 31, outlining how these funds are to be spent.
In the recent federal election, Stephen Harper said he would terminate childcare funding to the provinces after one year, and Sather argues that without strong leadership and advocacy by the B.C. Liberal government, these much-needed dollars will disappear.
“Gordon Campbell has stated that under a new Conservative government, he would continue to advocate for funding of key projects like the Pacific Gateway,” said Sather. “But he has fallen silent on other important programs, including the childcare agreement that sends millions flowing to B.C. annually.”
“In five short days, the Campbell government is scheduled to release B.C.’s Childcare Action Plan. Without swift action and advocacy by the Premier, millions of dollars will slip through our fingers — to the detriment of working families.”
Sather called on the Premier to use his close relationship with Prime Minister-designate Stephen Harper to secure these funds and give B.C. children the best possible start in life.
“Gordon Campbell says that the lines of communication between himself and Stephen Harper are open. He needs to use them in the interests of working families that rely on quality, affordable and accessible childcare in B.C.,” Sather concluded.
BC Aboriginal Child Care Society recently hosted an information session on November 11th, at our Annual Conference.
During the slide show presentation many questions were raised. When the government’s “Guiding Principles” were discussed, BCACCS questioned why “Language and Culture” were not specifically identified.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights for the Child, article 30 states:
“In those states in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her culture, to profess and practice his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.”
The point was made, “Without our culture and language we are nothing”.
Based on the feedback from the delegates at a recent round table consultation, the key messages we want government to hear are:
In order to implement a new framework, it is necessary to have:
Adequate Funding – For the program design and integration process, and most importantly to ensure universal access to high quality culturally-responsive early learning and child care services, without regard to barriers of any kind, including geography, residence, affiliation or special need;
Culture and Language – Support for the integration of Culture and Language as the foundation of the Program;
Capacity, Authority and Jurisdiction – Recognition and support for First Nations capacity building, authority and jurisdiction.
When discussing the federal “QUAD” Principles, here are the main themes that arose:
First Nations determined: First Nations must be supported to define and implement their own QUAD Principles.
Reflective of the culture and geographic diversity in BC: Defined in the cultural context of BC First Nations, reflecting the cultural and geographic diversity that exists in the province.
Meet or exceed BC standards: First Nations QUAD Principles will meet or exceed standards established for the mainstream ELCC system.
Matched to program budgets: QUAD Principles need to match up to program budgets; because principles without funding/capacity to operationalize are meaningless.
Some of our Next Steps include:
Establishing collaborative arrangements between Government and First Nations.
Meaningful consultation and engagement with First Nations communities based on transparency and reciprocal accountability.
Timely provision of new funding to support effective First Nations participation in all subsequent phases of the program design and transition process.
According to information on the MCFD web site, “Throughout November, the provincial government is conducting a public consultation facilitated by the Ministries of Children and Family Development and Education.”
The info on the MCFD web site states that they are:
“… seeking input on government’s priorities for early learning and child care. The results of this consultation process will help create a detailed action plan for early learning and child care in BC, including spending decisions in years two to five of the [federal/provincial] Early Learning and Child Care Agreement.”
– via a community consultation session (eight “community consultation sessions” are listed but limited info about these sessions is available on line.)
And they note a third: if you wish to provide “written feedback and comments” you can send them to the Child Care policy Branch (see page 9 of their Consultation paper for the mailing address).
If you are interested in the Legislature’s Hansard transcript for Wednesday November 2 and what was said about the Child Care estimates, the “public consultation” etc. click on to http://www.leg.bc.ca/hansard/8-8.htm
Click on November 2 and scroll down until you see [Page 1570] and D. Thorne and Hon. L. Reid.
Subject: British Columbia Parents Do Not Endorse Upcoming Federal / Provincial Child Care Agreement
It is with much regret that, as a BC parent, I write on behalf of Parents for Child Care (PFCC) to ask the government of Canada not to sign the much anticipated child care agreement with British Columbia. PFCC has grave concerns that, once again, BC will not use the federal funds to create regulated quality child care spaces and build a sustainable child care system.
BC parents have watched over the last few years as millions of federal tax dollars have flowed to BC for “early childhood development”. Given federal Liberal promises of a National Day Care Program – BC parents eagerly anticipated that the significant increase in funds for these programs in BC would result in significant improvements in BC’s Day Care system. Instead, much to our shock and surprise, child care centers have closed, staff turn over at existing child care centers has increased negatively affecting the quality of care, waiting lists have grown impossibly long and parent fees have skyrocketed beyond the reach of almost all BC families. Today in BC, even if parents can afford $1100 a month for one child care space, their child can never secure a space because the average waiting list time is over 2 years. Clearly, the monies under the first child care agreement were not used for child care, or if they were used, they were used with shocking ineffectiveness.
However, after the Federal Liberals re-affirmed their commitment to a National Day Care Program in the last election, and knowing that a new federal provincial child care agreement between BC and Canada is about to be signed, BC parents were re-assured that finally some tangible steps were going to be taken to address the critical state of child care in BC.
Imagine parents’ surprise when, on the verge of the signing of this new child care agreement pledging $600 million dollars to child care, BC Premier Gordon Campbell’s recent Mini Throne Speech, says nothing about child care! Instead the BC government talks about a provincial government pledge to “literacy and something that looks like school readiness – all seemingly lumped in with a vague promise of increasing access to early childhood development – but with no acknowledgment that high quality regulated accessible child care is the optimum means to deliver early childhood development and learning opportunities to BC’s youngest”. BC parents, still waiting for affordable regulated high quality child care, are now beginning to fear that, yet again, federal funds will be used, not for child care, but other programs under the guise of “early learning” under this new agreement. We do not dispute the worthiness of such programs. However, they are programs that should be funded not with federal child care dollars but by provincial dollars.
Canada needs the full participation of its skilled workforce to successfully compete in the global economy. For the first time in BC’s history almost 50% of BC’s workforce is comprised of women – women who need to know that their children are getting the best early learning opportunities in a regulated child care environment. A child care system that can meet these demands cannot be built overnight and it is increasingly clear in Conference Board of Canada and Stats Can studies that the pressure for more skilled workers in Canada is going to increase exponentially as each year passes. The amount of federal money pledged under the proposed child care agreement is not enough to build an entire child care system – we know that. It is however, a significant enough amount of money that, if spent prudently, can begin to seriously start laying the foundation for a sustainable quality child care system that can foster every BC child’s early development and learning.
Given the above, and when one considers the failure of past federal child care dollars to effectively address serious child care problems in BC, PFCC is demanding that every dollar spent under the proposed child care agreement go towards increasing the number of regulated quality child care spaces, reducing child care staff turnover, eliminating waitlists, reducing parent fees and ensuring that all BC kids who need it have access to a regulated quality child care space. How money is spent under the proposed child care agreement must recognize that regulated quality child care is the optimum early learning opportunity and that quality child care ensures kids are ready to learn when they reach school age. Parents and kids do not need a number of ad hoc literacy, parenting and “ready set learn” programs that purport to meet “early learning criteria” just so funds can be siphoned from the proposed agreement under a technical reading of a small subsection of that agreement. For years many programs like these have been funded by provincial ministries like Health and Education. Funding for those programs should remain with those provincial ministries. What BC families need today is a network of child care centers across the province with well trained staff open during hours that can accommodate the various needs of parents whether or not these parents are in the paid workforce, in school or at home. It is these programs, particularly those programs that can accommodate the needs of working families, that are desperately under funded, unaffordable, with long waiting lists and on the verge of having to close. It is these programs Canada needs to have in place to continue to compete effectively in the global economy.
Unless the government of BC commits every dollar under the proposed agreement to developing just this kind of child care system, and nothing else, PFCC is not confident that these federal tax dollars will be spent as intended. It seems clear, at present,that they are at grave risk of not being spent on anything that will go towards creating a sustainable quality child care system that will serve the needs of BC’s kids.
In summary, we ask that you seek this commitment from the government of BC. If BC is not prepared to provide this commitment, then we suggest that you find a level of government (municipal/city) that will commit to the national child care program that the Federal Liberals have been promising BC families for a long time but have not been able to deliver. Absent this commitment from BC, PFCC is very concerned that 5 years from now a younger generation of BC parents will be asking you the same questions about why $600 million in federal tax dollars has not gone towards reducing waitlists and parent fees, reducing child care staff turnover and increasing the number of regulated quality child care spaces. An outcome such as this is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the proposed child care agreement. An outcome like this would simply become evidence of yet another failed government program that could not deliver meaningful, concrete, measurable results and could not meet the well documented needs of BC kids and families for child care. Worse still will be the effect on BC’s most vulnerable kids. Without a regulated quality child care system that allows every child access to early learning opportunities, many parents will remain in the unimaginable position of going to work to keep a roof over their head and put food on the table while leaving their children in an unsafe and unstimulating child care arrangement.
We ask that you seriously consider this proposal and hope to hear from you prior to the signing of the proposed child care agreement with BC.
Signed: Parents for Child Care, British Columbia (“PFCC”)
—–
September 24, 2005
To: Prime Minister/Premier ministre
Cc: premier@gov.bc.ca ; stan.hagen.mla@leg.bc.ca ; Dryden.K@parl.gc.ca ; carole.james.mla@leg.bc.ca ; linda.reid.mla@leg.bc.ca ; diane.thorne.mla@leg.bc.ca
Subject: BC Parents Won’t Support the Federal/Provincial child care agreement unless BC commits the money to Child Care
Dear Prime Minister Martin:
I appeared before the standing committee on finance on behalf of Parents for Child Care, a few years ago to advocate for the federal government to start contributing federal tax dollars to child care. Your initiative this year is finally putting us on the road to that dream. One problem we had in the past was that the federal money that was being given as Early Childhood Development dollars to the province was being used for anything but child care. We believe that the Province of British Columbia is preparing to do the same thing with the federal child care money.
Parents of British Columbia were ecstatic by the promise of much needed child care money. Even the small amount of money that has already been allocated has been helpful despite the fact it was not part of a large “child care plan”. All the speeches from Stan Hagen and Linda Reid are brimming with promise around child care. Why then did the Throne Speech completely ignore child care and only mention literacy initiatives? Why is early learning and child care in separate ministries when they are in fact one and the same? If the Province of British Columbia thinks the parents of this province will support receiving $600 million for early learning and child care and that the creation of a universal child care system is not part of it, they have another thing coming.
I would rather see the Federal government keep the money than allow it again to be redirected into anything but child care. Child care is early learning and is the place the majority of BC’s children already are. I call on you to protect the dream of a national, universal daycare program and hold the province of British Columbia accountable for how they are planning to spend this money.
