April 29, 2021
Re: Proposed National Day Care Plan
REAL Women of Canada is a non-partisan, non-denominational women’s organization, federally incorporated in 1983. The members of REAL Women of Canada come from all walks of life and from differing economic, social, cultural and religious backgrounds. We are united by our concern for the family, the basic unit of society.
The national day care plan proposed by the federal government provides for $30 billion to be paid over five years and a pledge to provide annual child care transfer of funding worth $8.3 billion beyond the initial five years. It is anticipated this will create a 50% reduction in average parent fees by the end of 2022 and an average of $10 a day child care across the country by 2026. This plan is to be realized on a 50/50 sharing with the provinces and territories.
The plan to be implemented is to include national standards which the Liberal government now refers to as “targeted goals”.
Quebec Model
This proposal is to be modeled on the existing Quebec day care program, which was established in 1997 and costs Quebec $3.3 billion annually ($2.7 billion for reduced-contribution child care and around $610 million for the refundable child care tax credit).
The Quebec model, however, for which parents now pay $8.35 a day, should be regarded as a cautionary tale rather than a model for the other provinces.
According to a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2015[1], which was based on their prior analysis in 2005, researchers Baker, Gruber, and Milligan, found that the Quebec model falls far short of quality day care. Specifically, the researchers found more hyperactivity, inattention, aggressiveness, issues with motor and social skills, plus a reduction of the child/parent relationship. Alarmingly, it also stated:
A sharp and contemporaneous increase in criminal behaviour among the cohort exposed to the Quebec program relative to their peers in other provinces.
The researchers in the 2015 study also found that these negative outcomes for Quebec children extended into adulthood. Similar findings on the Quebec model have been made by other researchers.[2]
The world authority on early childhood learning and child care policies is University of Chicago economist and Nobel Laureate, James J. Heckman. He is notable for the “Heckman Equation”, which asserts that higher investment in a child’s early years pays great dividends later in life. The word “investment” in a child’s early years has been mistakenly interpreted as referring to only public systems. Dr. Heckman has reiterated, however (most recently at a virtual event on February 25, 2021, at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute), that “investment” in child care also applied to contributions by the family in the child’s upbringing. He stated that the most essential investment in building children’s early skills derives from family environments and especially parenting. According to Dr. Heckman, “Parents will always matter more than any program, or professional in a child’s life.”
The federal government’s national day care plan is based more on ideology rather than fact, since it relies on three flawed premises:
- Women experienced proportionally more job loss than men during the pandemic
According to Country Economy, Canada’s unemployment rate by sex and age is as follows:
| 2020 | 2019 | |
| Male unemployment | 8.9% | 6.0% |
| Female unemployment | 8.6% | 5.4% |
Table Source: https://countryeconomy.com/unemployment/canada
For further detail, see “The Many False Assumptions on Which This Budget Is Based” by Andrew Coyne in the Globe and Mail, April 23, 2021.
- Providing new child care spaces will increase female employment
According to Statistics Canada’s rapid response survey program[3], which asked parents what kind of substitute care they used in the last three months of 2019, it was reported that 40% of Canadian children under 6 were in parental care and 60% of children were cared for under a mix of licenced, formal care and informal care. Only 26.9% of Canadian children were in licenced day care or preschool full or part time; 26.6% were cared for in a home for a few hours several days a week – in their own home with a caregiver, a home of a relative, neighbour, grandparent, or other.
Only 14% of Canadian children under one year received non-parental care, almost half from a relative, and only 7% were in licensed formal care.[4]
According to an Angus Reid poll dated March 3, 2021:
- 78% of parents with children under six responded that it is best for young children to be home with a parent whenever possible.
- Both parental care and day care users are generally attached and satisfied with their child care decision.
- 84% of parents who care for their children at home preferred to continue until their child entered school and not return to the workplace.
- 53% of parents using day care wished to continue until their child was school age.
- Of day care users, 1/3 used the services part time; 39% used home-based day care, 60% centre-based; 69% found they “had little or no difficulty” finding a day care space, and 58% found wait times acceptable; over 56% felt their choice was working out well, and 41% were fine or OK.
- A national day care plan will pay for itself
The Liberal government’s position is that child care will pay for itself, and relies on a single study, a 2012 TD Economics study[5]. That report concluded that investing in child care will provide economic benefits. It is noted, however, that this conclusion is based on a significant caveat, “Quantifying the benefits is not an exact science.” Further, the report based its conclusions on the assumption that more women would enter the workforce if a national child care program were provided. This is not necessarily the case, as the decision on child care is not based on money exclusively. According to Statistics Canada, the first priority of a parent choosing childcare is proximity, second is availability, and cost is only the third consideration with proximity being the most important factor. [6]
According to Statistics Canada, only 3% of Canadian parents agree that they do not use child care centres because of waiting lists or space shortages.[7] Currently this is only a problem with the system in Quebec. Other research shows a large surplus of spaces in particular markets, not shortages.
The Fraser Institute issued a report in March 2017[8] which concluded that although the Quebec day care system did increase maternal participation in the labour force, it did not do so in a large enough scale to result in an increase in tax revenue that covers the cost of the program. Further, estimates of costs usually did not include capital costs, training, pension fund, and administrative costs.
It is significant that the participation of women in the labour force and Atlantic Canada increased at a slightly faster pace than women in Quebec, despite not having subsidized day care.[9]
The decision about child care should always be a decision for the parents. They should decide whether the child should be raised at home by a parent or other family member; in private day care or community-based care; in a religious or ethnic-based child care centre, such as an aboriginal center, where children will learn their culture, heritage, etc., or in a government-operated care centre.
We believe that this national day care plan proposed by the federal government will not meet the needs of many Canadian families. It may, instead, be detrimental to them. This is based on the fact that a federal day care plan will deny parents a choice of child care alternatives, since the Liberal plan focuses only on licenced, not-for-profit care – a one-size-fits-all scheme of a government-operated system. This is a discriminatory plan. It is important that there be equality for all parents. There is no equality when only one type of child care is being offered to parents, who will be required to pay for it, despite the fact that it may not meet their needs or benefit them.
A much better option for subsidized government child care is to target and invest in children most at risk. It is often forgotten in the current public policy discussion about early childhood education that data regarding the benefits of high-quality programs were collected from low-income and significantly disadvantaged children who benefit most from early childhood state intervention. Advantaged children do not benefit from a universal child care program because of their own enriched home environment.
Much of the pressure for a national plan comes not from parents, but from day care lobbyists, such as the Canadian Child Care Federation, or Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. These organizations were formed in 1982 to lobby for a national day care plan. They have received millions of dollars since that time from the Women’s Program of Status of Women, now called Women and Gender Equality (WAGE), to carry out their lobbying and advocacy research, all of which is directed to the establishment of a national day care plan.
These childcare lobby groups have the most to gain from the national plan, which guarantees them financial security for life by being placed on the government’s payroll with secure income and benefits.
Canadian unions are also playing a major part in the advocacy for a national day care plan. It is noted that during the years since the government day care plan was inaugurated in Quebec, wages for unionized child care workers increased by 40% due to union pressure, by way of sit-ins, walkouts and the threat of a general strike that paralyzed the day care system. Unfortunately, the rising cost of day care in Quebec caused by increased wages for day care workers did not provide a significant increase in day care spaces for children.
Child care, as you know, is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The needs of families in each province are different. The federal government has already taken an asymmetrical approach to child care in regard to the province of Quebec. It is only fair that the other provinces be provided with similar consideration by the federal government.
The federal government, however, has a history of establishing national programs and then reducing the share of the cost once the programs are established. Examples of this include the funding of public health care, which began on a 50/50 federal-provincial sharing of costs, but federal transfers for health care have fallen below the agreement that there be a shared burden. This has also occurred in regard to the federal-provincial agreements on public housing and welfare. Realistically, this day care plan may leave the provinces with the responsibility for another federal program that taxpayers may come to regard as a “right” and the provinces will have to continue the program even though they may not be able to afford it.
A child care program that provides parents with options is by far the fairest approach, and will provide dignity and respect for those parents who choose to make the sacrifices involved in raising children – the future of our country.
We believe, therefore, that it is essential that child care legislation in Canada support a flexible system. One way this can be achieved is by paying child care funds directly to the parents in order to allow them to choose care for their children, according to the child’s needs and the family’s values. The fact is that all families should be treated equally without discrimination in regard to the choice of child care. The focus of the Liberal government’s program is only on the licenced not-for-profit centres and this means all parents will be required to pay for a program that does not meet their needs.
In summary, we would like to state that we do not object to government-operated child care facilities as being one of the choices available to parents. However, this choice should not be the only option. We respectfully request that other options be made available to parents and that all parents be treated equally, regardless of their choice of child care arrangements.
Yours truly,
Pauline Guzik
National President
REAL Women of Canada
P.O. Box 8813, Station T, Ottawa, ON K1G 3J1
Email: realwcto@realwomenofcanada.ca
Phone: 905-787-0348
[1] Michael Baker, Jonathan Gruber, and Kevin Milligan, “Non-Cognitive Deficits and Young Adult Outcomes: The Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program,” National Bureau of Economic Research (September 2015), https://www.nber.org/papers/w21571.
[2] Michael Baker, Jonathan Gruber, and Kevin Milligan, “The Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 11, no. 3 (August 2019): 1–26, https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170603.
Michael J. Kottelenberg and Steven F. Lehrer, “New Evidence on the Impacts of Access to and Attending Universal Child-Care in Canada,” Canadian Public Policy 39, no. 2 (2013): 263–86, https://ideas.repec.org/a/cpp/issued/v39y2013i2p263-286.html.
Michael J. Kottelenberg and Steven F. Lehrer, “Does Quebec’s Subsidized Child Care Policy Give Boys and Girls an Equal Start?,” Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne d’économique 51, no. 2 (2018): 627–59, https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12333.
Pierre Lefebvre, Philip Merrigan, Francis Roy-Desrosiers, “Québec’s Childcare Universal Low Fees Policy 10 Years After: Effects, Costs and Benefits,” Cahiers de Recherche 1101 (2011), https://ideas.repec.org/p/lvl/lacicr/1101.html.
[3] Government of Canada, Statistics Canada. “Survey on Early Learning and Child Care Arrangements, 2019.” 28 May 2019, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/190410/dq190410a-eng.htm.
[4] Statistics Canada. Table 42-10-0005-01 “Type of child care arrangement, household population aged 0 to 5 years.” (2019) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=4210000501&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2019&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2019&referencePeriods=20190101%2C20190101.
[5] TD Economics, “Early Childhood Education Has Widespread and Lasting Consequences,” (2012) www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/di1112_EarlyChildhoodEducation.pdf.
[6] Maire Sinha, “Child Care in Canada,” Statistics Canada (October 2014), https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/89-652-x/89-652-x2014005-eng.pdf?st=NLxlfaCC.
Government of Canada, Statistics Canada. “Survey on Early Learning and Child Care Arrangements, 2019.” 28 May 2019, https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/190410/dq190410a-eng.htm.
[7] Statistics Canada. Table 42-10-0005-01 “Type of child care arrangement, household population aged 0 to 5 years.” (2019) https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=4210000501&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2019&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2019&referencePeriods=20190101%2C20190101[7].
[8] Vincent Geloso and Ben Eisen “Quebec’s Daycare Program: A Flawed Policy Model,” Fraser Institute Bulletin (March 2017), https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/quebecs-daycare-program.pdf.
Michael Baker, Jonathan Gruber, and Kevin Milligan, “The Long-Run Impacts of a Universal Child Care Program,” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 11, no. 3 (August 2019): 1–26, https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.20170603.
[9] Statistics Canada. Table 14-10-0018-01 “Labour force characteristics by sex and detailed age group, annual, inactive (x 1,000),” (2017) https://doi.org/10.25318/1410001801-eng.