Money won't help
Boundary Bulletin (Grand Forks) / Source: Creston Advance
01 Sep 2006
By: Lorne Eckersley

Supporters of the Harper government's Universal Child Care Benefit have a reasonable point. Give parents money and let them decide how best to use it for child care. The program antes up $100 per month for each child under six and, in many cases, the money is a welcomed help. Even if it is taxable (I know there's some logic in the government making the benefit taxable - it claws back more from those who need help the least - but why not send out the cheques only to lower-middle and low-income earners and forget about taxing it?).

We shouldn't, however, fall for the premise that the child care benefit addresses the need for child care facilities and spaces, because it most assuredly does not. Sending money to parents worked well to buy votes, especially in cities where public and private day cares might seem to be on every corner (they aren't, actually). But that monthly cheque might well be directed toward a trip to Las Vegas, a couple of beers after work on a Friday evening or hockey registration for the kid. Hey, it might even be spent on childcare. But it does next to nothing to help create a strong infrastructure of facilities and trained workers. Day care operators can't plan to improve their facilities or upgrade employees' education if they can't rely on a boost in income.

Certainly, there are those who argue that providing childcare isn't the responsibility of the government. That argument holds no water today, as we have created a socio-economic system that virtually requires a family earn two incomes. More importantly, with the rapidly aging workforce, we need all the young people we can get to fill positions that are even now difficult to fill. We've made our bed and now we have to lie in it.

When there is no solid, affordable childcare system to rely on, the long-term costs are enormous. Children become latchkey kids, or they get fobbed off on a neighbour with a big basement, large TV and tolerance for a lot of noise.

The federal and provincial governments had an agreement worked out that addressed the need for child care before Harper was elected, but he backed away from the agreement, taking the politically expedient way out by sending cheques to parents with kids under six.

The scary thing, at least in B.C., is that the Campbell government slashed support to children when it was elected. The same Gordon Campbell who railed while in opposition that the NDP didn't put enough resources into children found it easy do the same once he was elected. The numbers are disheartening, if you happen to believe that youth are worth investing in. In 2001, B.C. spent $240 million on child care. A year later, that figure was reduced to $200 million. The spending has slowly inched back up to $240 million, but that includes money that started coming in from the federal government in 2003.

Next spring, though, the federal funds are scheduled to stop coming, thanks to Harper's brilliant scheme. And there has been no commitment from Campbell that his suddenly flush provincial government intends to make up the shortfall. When Campbell cut funds for childcare, a number of facilities were forced to cease operation. Unionized ones, in particular, with contracts to honour, simply had no option but to close their doors. Others struggled to carry on, reducing wages by as much as three bucks an hour. In this day and age, with a labour force that can't fill existing vacancies, how do we convince young people to go to school for a couple of years so they can then work in daycares that pay $10 an hour? The young people are in huge demand and the childcare facilities have to compete for too few qualified workers now. Thanks to Stephen Harper and Gordon Campbell, the challenge is only going to get more difficult.