|
There is some speculation lately that despite the great intent of the Conservative party to fund all parenting not just
daycare it will be nearly impossible to follow through, given the minority government and the resistance of opposition during
the campaign to this plan.
We are hoping that you are able to follow through and to make alliances that do enable you to keep this pledge.
We also would like to let you know very clearly that we are willing to work with you to help this along. We have a number
of suggestions and offers:
1. We recommend that you have a ministry of unpaid labor and that this ministry specifically focus on unpaid caregiving
of the young, sick, elderly, handicapped and dying. It would also have minor focus on volunteer work and other ways the
nation benefits from unpaid work. This would keep a UN commitment Canada made in 1995 at Beijing but never made and it would
be consistent with the many polls, radio talk shows and meetings you had during the campaign confirming public commitment
to recognizing at last the unpaid sector as 1/3 of the GDP.
2. We recommend that consistent with your commitment to equality, that you do propose the child funding legislation but
that to address the concerns that the amount is not enough, that you increase it to $4,000 per child. That would give people
real choice in options about how and where to raise the child.
3. We recommend that consistent with your commitment to accountability, that you look closely at all areas where caregiving
by 3rd parties and by family members is funded and that you make this information public. In particular all funding for daycare
lobby groups for organizations that advise about caregiving should be made transparent. It is my belief that the many programs
being offered for 3rd party advice to parents and for 3rd party care constitute a huge, previously kept hidden aspect of budget
and that the public deserves to know where these funds are going.
4. We recommend that consistent with your commitments to respect for public opinion and for a democratic style of governing,
that you take a dramatic step and fund a conference on unpaid labor. The Liberal government funded many child care conferences
which by-invitation only asked daycare users and advocates for their thoughts. Never did previous governments fund a conference
for the parallel but less visible care style- care in the home. It is time for such a conference, to bring together the care
styles that are not served by daycares. The tone would be one of noticing this sector of informal, parental and kith and kin
care, sharing the expertise of this sector, noticing research about caregiving in this sector from both the academic and informal
perspective, and noticing financial concerns and tax wishes. We can recommend many speakers and guests for such a conference.
The US is hosting a caregiving conference on unpaid labor in March 2006. It is time we had our own. Since it would be a conference
for the unpaid sector, this would also have to be a conference with low costs of attendance and with considerable help to
attend. It would be very useful we think for your government to show by such a conference that it really does mean what it
says about consulting the real experts about care of children being parents, and by extension, the real experts about care
of the elderly and handicapped being those who love them.
5. In order to keep your commitment to fairness, we would encourage you to consider a request for a Supreme Court reference
which Beverley Smith made 3 times and been down for 3 times by the Liberal government. Beverley Smith has renewed this request
Jan 26, 2006 asking the Attorney General to have the Supreme Court look at current tax legislation to see if it is consistent
with the Charter right to equal benefit under the law. We feel that it would be very useful and helpful to your new government
to have this court review as you prepare legislation which does ask for a greater equality but, without a court review, is
likely to face opposition from parties which are not as in touch with the public will or with the consistency of equality
rights.
6. We would suggest that you reassess funding for childcare in a broader way than the tax break for all children previously
proposed. I view this plan as a very useful start but it is important also to look at other aspects of fairer taxation which
would enable more choices for parents. In particular I applaud the words of several of your MPs that you are seriously considering
a move to shared income and household-based taxation as an option. To that end we would recommend that you meet very soon
with Dan Braniff of the Canadian Association of Retired Persons who has been promised a meeting on this issue with the Liberal
government, but was never given one.
7. We would strongly suggest also that you create a priority of funding for advocacy groups were you to fund them, that
define their role as pure research without bias. Often we are noticing that the funding of some advocates is clearly one-sided,
specifically to encourage a preferential funding for daycare use. It seems illogical for a government to fund a biased agenda
and I would encourage you to fund research and advocacy for equality rights not for preferential rights.
8. There is a conference coming up shortly focusing on unpaid caregiving and held in New York City. A Canadian delegation
would like to attend. We are hoping that you might be able to extend some funding for us to do so.
9. We are more than willing to help assemble, organize or be part of any advisory council, any touring speakers’
group or any other advocacy opportunity to help promote funding that flows with the person who is entitled to funding. I
am more than happy to meet with any MPs, with your office, with advisors, with new ministers or with any you feel we could
help as we try to share information, recent research and strong information about the public will.
I look forward to hearing back from you as we continue to network to create windows of hope for equality.
Beverley Smith
403-283-2400
bevgsmith@alumni.ucalgary
Sara Landriault
Ottawa organizer Fund the Child national rallies
613- 258-4854
sara@landriault.com
Mark-Alan Whittle
Hamilton organizer of the Fund the Child national rallies
infolpc@mountaincable.net
Scott Wooding, author “The Parenting Crisis”
swooding@telus.net
Pat Sawatzky, Edmonton
sawatzkyg@shaw.ca,
Reta Jackson, Family Resource Coordinator
frc123@shaw.ca,
Dawn Ackroyd, Calgary
dackroyd@telus.net
Orla Hegarty, Ryerson instructor, Toronto
ohegarty@gmail.com,
Stephanie Fehler
tfehler@persona.ca,
Lori-Dawn Kowal, Calgary
parcadol@telus.net,
Tracy Zeisberger
tzinvic@shaw.ca
Joanne and Lloyd Phillips, Ottawa
joanephillips1@rogers.com
Judy Arnall, Calgary
jarnall@shaw.ca,
Christine Ayling
ayling@telusplanet.net,
Paige Beselt
beselt@cablerocket.com,
Phyllis Kahn
saudade02@hotmail.com,
PS
There has been a lot of research done lately academically on the topic of caregiving. We will share three short items
and would love to share more.
Dr. Pierre Lefebvre of the University of Quebec has published recently an analysis of the costs and benefits of state
funding various arrangements for care of children. He concluded that the most efficient system would be universal, providing
a benefit without regard to income or profession of the parents. He suggests several options of how to proceed including
a- universal family allowance. He suggests annual amounts of $2500 per child aged 0-3, $2000 per child 4-5 years and $1500
per child 6-17 years.
He notes that these amounts are similar to those in the UK and they recognize the importance of care of a child whoever
is providing the care. The amounts are reduced as children age because the parent can spend some time in the later years earning.
b. work-related benefit Alternatively to the above, Lefebvre proposes a scenario where the state preferentially funds
parents who have paid income, and he suggests base rates be increased for dollars earned. The base rates would be $2000 per
child 0-3 years, $1333 per child 4-5 years and $1100 per child 6-17 years. He notes that this system is more like those in
the US, or France.
c. universal and extended maternity and parental leave. Lefebvre suggests that the benefit should be for all new mothers,
for one calendar year starting at the 7th month of pregnancy and that it should be one standard amount of $4800 for the year.
He feels such a system would correct the inequities of the present system which is only available to about 40% of new mothers,
and which ties care of children to salary
d.-kindergarten. Lefebvre suggests that government fund not only kindergarten for 5 years old but pre-kindergarten for
4 year olds, imitating systems already in place in Ontario where 90% of children of that age are in prekindergarten for half
days. (Parents sometimes have to pay for daycare. They rarely have to pay for kindergarten so in one way moving a child from
daycare to kindergarten saves the parents daycare money, though it costs the state more. It simply moves the bill from the
daycare department to the education department but in so doing often is moving from a federal program to a provincial program)
e. daycares. Lefebvre notes that daycare funding and use would not be nearly as massive if the some of the other funding
mechanisms above were in place.
With increasing costs for the daycare program in Quebec, that government is quietly reduced many of its universal benefits
for all children. It removed its generous family allowance which in 1997 for a 3rd child was $8.000. It has recently been
revealed that yet another universal program is being eliminated as of 2006. The non-refundable credit for dependent children
under 18 and the tax reduction for low income families have both been scrapped. Paul Delean of the Gazette in Montreal has
said that many parents may be in for a shock. when they do their taxes next year. In 2004 a middle income family had its provincial
tax bill reduced by $1,000 by such credits for dependent children so the loss will be considerable
Economist Paul Daniel Muller of the Montreal Economic Institute has released results Jan 17 2006 of a study of the Quebec
child care system, finding that the system now functions mainly on bureaucratic convenience and is not sensitive to the needs
of children or parents. Because the government of Quebec funds care providers (daycares) not parents, and because it sets
pay of child care workers, salary demands of that industry are negotiated not with centres but with the public treasury.
Resulting strikes about salary and working conditions led to 73,000 person-days of work loss since 1997, more than double
the number of days lost in the preceding 7 years before government ran daycare. He has also found that funding the daycare
directly and not the parent has reduced parental options and is insensitive to the new ways parents earn such as doing telework,
freelance and part-time. Muller argues that to reduce the potential for labor disputes and to provide real choices for parents,
there is no need to fund childcare specifically. He recommends instead to help parents;purchase child care services without
any restriction as to the type of services provided; He feels as an economist that when purchasing power remains in the
hands of parents, providers remain responsive to user needs;. He suggests that we empower parents through cash transfers,
vouchers or tax rebates for child care rather than directly subsidizing child care service providers;
|
