University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository
Graduate Studies Legacy Theses
2000 By accident or design: an analysis of child care policy in Canada
Scherer, Rebecca
Scherer, R. (2000). By accident or design: an analysis of child care policy in Canada (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/17031 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/40635 master thesis
University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY
By Accident or Design:
An Analysis of Child Care Policy in Canada
by
Rebecca Scherer
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS
GRADUATE DMSION OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
CALGARY. ALBERTA
JUNE, 2000
O Rebecca Scherer 2000 National Library Bibliotheque nationale If1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliogaphiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Canada Canada Your Kk vohe re-
Our m Notm refdrMca
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde me licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive pennettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, preter, distribuer ou copies of hsthesis in microfom, vendre des copies de cette these sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfichelfih, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format electronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. thesis nor substantial extracts &om it Ni la thLe ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othewise de celle-ci ne doivent dtre imprimes reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Abstract
Child care policy in Canada has developed in an inconsistent way resulting in a patchwork of services and programs that lack cohesion across Canada. These diverse policies on child care have been partially a result of jurisdictional issues, resulting in differences at the provincial and territorial levels, and partially a result of changing political will. As the country moved towards more universal programs following World
War I1 then began dismantling those programs in the new era of the debt and deficit crisis. policy directions changed.
This thesis provides a descriptive historical analysis of the development of child care policy at each of the provincial, territorial and federal levels between World War II and 1999. A chronology of initiatives was developed for each province and territory as well as for the federal initiatives that impacted upon child care. A more in-depth examination of policy evolution in Yukon, Alberta and Quebec demonstrates the diverse policies in place across Canada. Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor, Lynn Bosetti, for the time. advice, help and suggestions she made. Thanks also to Tom Langford and Annette LaGrange for being on my committee and providing the necessary criticisms, challenges and support.
I would also like to thank Wendy Atkin and Paul Henstridge for reading, re- reading. editing, commenting and providing feedback. Thanks to Mom and Dad for reading and editing. It was much appreciated.
My parents. Dave and Jane Kelley and my children. Heather. Thomas and Chris put up with me. supported me and encouraged me through this process. Thank you all. To my parents,
Dave and Jane Kelley
and
my children,
Heather, Thomas and Christopher Scherer Table of Contents
Approval Page ...... ii ... Abstract ...... 111
Acknowledgements...... iv
Dedication ...... v
Table of Contents ...... vi
Chapter 1: Introduction and Background to the Study ...... 1 Introduction: ...... 1 Significance of the Study: ...... 1 Limitations of the Study: ...... 3 Delimitations of the Study: ...... 7 Setting the Personal Context: ...... 3 Assumptions: ...... 5 Perspectives on Child Care: ...... 6 Changing Social Conrc~rs:...... 6 J~rrisdicrionulImplications: ...... 7 Organization of the Thesis: ...... 9
Chapter 2: Theoreticab' Analytical Frameworks: ...... 10 Introduction: ...... I0 The Role of Child Care in Women's Equality ...... , ...... 10 The Importance of Child Care: ...... t2 Defining Child Care: ...... ,...... 13 The Evolution of Research Surrounding Child Care: ...... ,...... ,...... 13 Child Development Theories: ...... 14 Biological Theories:...... 14 Cognitive Theories: ...... 14 Sociul Learning Theories: ...... 15 Psychoanalytic Theory: ...... 16 Ps ycho-Social Theory:...... -17 The First Wave of Child Care Research: ...... ,...... ,...... 17 The Second Wave of Child Care Research: ...... 19 The Third Wave of Child Care Research: ...... 1 The Ecological Model of Social Research: ...... 21 Child Care as a range of services: ...... *...... --37 Social and economic benefits to society: ...... ,.., ...... 23 /ntrodtrction...... 23 + -) . ibiarker Failures m c hrld Care: ...... 24 Child Care and Child Dwelopmenr: ...... ,...... *..**...... *...... 24 Empirical Studies: ...... 25 Cornpensatoty Studies: ...... '6 Developmental Outcomes of Child Care: ...... -L7 The Need for Quality: ...... 27 Changing Family Structures: ...... 28 What is Quality Child Care? ...... 30 Ratios: ...... 31 Group Ske: ...... 32 Consistency of Caregivers: ...... 33C) CI Caregiver Turnover Rates: ...... 34 Caregiver Training:...... ,...... -35 Director Qzialifications: ...... 36 The Impact of Auspice: ...... -37 Recognition and Definition of Qualiry by Parents: ...... 38 Conclusion/ Discussion: ...... 40
Chapter 3: Methodology ...... I Setting the Stage for Research: ...... 41 Introcilrction:...... 41 Qztestions that Infbrm the Study: ...... 41 A Review of Policy Analysis: ...... 42 Steps Along the Road: ...... 48 Data Collection and Analysis Techniques: ...... 49 Trusnr~orthiness:...... 52
Chapter 4: Federal Child Care Policy Development ...... 54 Introduction: ...... 54- - Dorninion-Provincial Wartime Agreement: ...... ,.,. Family Allowance: ...... 55 Canada Assistance Plan: ...... 56 Local Initiatives Plan and Department of Regional Economic Development: ...... 58 Child Care Expense Deduction: ...... 58 Katie Cooke Task Force: ...... 59 Parliamentary Committee on Child Care: ...... 60 Bill C 144: ...... 61 Canada Child Tax Benefit: ...... 62 Community Action Program for Children and Aboriginal Headstart: ...... 63 The Debt/ Deficit Era: ...... 63 Canada Health and Social Transfer: ...... 64 Social Union Framework Agreement: ...... ,., ....,., ...... 65 National Children's Agenda: ...... 66 Recent Events: ...... 67 Discussion: ...... 69 Conclusion: ...... ,., ...... 70
Chapter 5: Provincial Child Care Policy Development ...... ,.,, ...... 72 Introduction: Provincial Territorial Snapshots ...... ,,...... 72 British Columbia ...... 74 Alberta ...... ,...... 76 Saskatchewan ...... 77 Manitoba ...... 79 Ontario ...... I Quebec ...... 83 Nova Scotia ...... ,...... 86 Prince Edward Island ...... 88 Newfoundland ...... 90 New Brunswick ...... , ...... 92 Yukon ...... , ...... 94 vii Northwest Temtories ...... 95 Conclusions/ Discussion: ...... 96
Chapter 6: The Case Studies: Albetta, Quebec and Yukon ...... 100 Introduction and Overview: The Case Studies: ...... I00 Alberta: ...... I03 Quebec: ...... 108 Yukon: ...... 120 Discussion: ...... 129
Chapter 7: Conclusions and Indications for Further Research ...... ,...... 131 Overview: ...... 131 Discussion: ...... ,.., ...... 134 Child Care Policy as part ofa broader Social Policy Framework: ...... 136 Indications for further research: ...... 142
Bibliography: ...... 144
...... Appendix A ...... 139 Federal Chronology: ...... ,., ...... 159 Provincial/ Territorial Chronology ...... ,.,, ...,,., ...... 163 British Columbia: ...... 163 Alberta: ...... ,., ...... 166 Saskatchewan:...... ,...... 168 Manitoba: ...... 171 Ontario: ...... 174 Quebec: ...... 177 Nova Scotia: ...... 182 Prince Edward island: ...... 184 Newfoundland: ...... 188 New Brunswick: ...... ,...... 191 Yukon: ...... I93 Northwest Territories: ...... 195 Municipal Roles: ...... 198 Compiled From: ...... 199 Chronologies reviewed by: ...... ,., ...... 200
viii Chapter 1: Introduction and Background to the Study
Introduction:
Child care policy in Canada has evolved differently in the provinces and territories with the federal role changing as the political landscape evolved resulting in a range of services with inconsistent regulations and purposes across the country. As a parent. educator and advocate I experienced some of the inconsistencies and the impacts of these differences in a number of ways which ultimately led to the desire to write this thesis. The lack of consistent policy at the federal or provincial level has resulted in a patchwork of services across the country. The lack of consensus regarding whether child care is solely a private good. and therefore belongs in the marker economy. versus a public pod. and therefore worthy of public Funding, has contributed to the lack of consistent policy development throughout Canada. This thesis is a descriptive historical analysis of child care policy in Canada.
Significance of the Study:
The development of a chronology of federd provincial/ territorial child care policy development fiom World War II to the present and a discussion of similarities and differences across the provinces and territories is important because a compilation, comparison and analysis of federal, provincial and territorial policy development in the area of child care will help to inform directions for advocacy work towards a more consistent and high quality system of supports for children, parents and families. .Although the history of child care policies of all territories and provinces are reviewed, a comparison of Quebec, Alberta and Yukon in greater depth allows for a richer description of the variety of initiatives that exist within Canada. The discussion of similarities and differences of the case studies will point to potential policy directions that may benefit
Canada's families. The chronology and discussion of the diverse policy perspectives in
Canada will help to inform discussion in the evolution of a more consistent policy framework.
Limitations of the Study:
h entire policy area that I have not addressed involves aboriginal child care policy and program development. Aboriginal policies and programs have been Federally funded due to their unique relationship with the federal government. There are a number of initiatives that involve aboriginal child care and these issues deserve a more in-depth treatment than I can provide here.
Delimitations of the Study:
This study focused on the policy development at the federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictional levels that impacted upon child care. Discussion of broader family policy is included as it relates to child care. or to demonstrate the changing nature of jurisdictional issues, but it is not the intent of this study to focus upon comprehensive family policy development. Setting the Personal Context:
I come to this research from a variety of roles. As a social activist and a feminist I have developed a critical, action oriented focus. This work will support my advocacy through identifiing policy directions that have positive outcomes for women. children and families.
Ihave been active and involved with children most of my life. As a teenager. growing up in Calgary, I volunteered for the Providence Child Development Center for three years. One of my tlrst jobs. the summer 1 was seventeen. was as a -teacher' of a two-year old class in a for-profit daycare. With no experience or training I was put in charge of a group of twenty children aged eighteen to thirty-six months. This experience led me to become strongly opposed to for-profit child care. I went on to the University of
Victoria and obtained a degree in Psychology. Throughout my undergraduate yean I volunteered in a variety of social services. both working with children and in counseling situations. Following graduation I married and had three children. At that time I became involved in programs for children again. this time as a user of programs. My daughter attended a cooperative preschool program in Victoria that required parent participation and in turn provided support for parents.
When my family moved to a small town in the north, Haines function. Yukon. I became involved in child care again. It quickly became evident that many people did not understand child development and appropriate pedagogical practice for preschool children. I became involved in the development of a preschool program in Haines 4 Junction and became the teacher of the program there for many years. I also became an instructor of Early Childhood Education at Yukon College. This time my involvement in child care quickly moved into the political arena first as I served on a daycare Board of
Directors. then as an advocate for the child care movement in the Yukon. I served as a
Director. Treasurer and President of the Yukon Child Care Association-
The need to see quality child care available to parents. and consequently the need for policies that supported access to quality child care became an important issue for me. I soon realized that supportive policies were required across Canada. both at the provincial1 territorial level and at the federal level. Consequently. I became involved in the Child
Care .Advocacy Association of Canada (CCAAC), and worked at promoting a consistent system of affordable. accessible, public child care across Canada, first as the Yukon representative. then as Treasurer and currently as Co-chair of CCAAC. My interest in equitable child care policy eventually led me back to the University of Calgary to pursue this thesis on child care policy in Canada.
As previously mentioned I became interested in the development of child care policy in Canada over a number of years. As a parent using a variety of programs. some of which required licensing, like the daycare, and some of which did not, like the
preschool, I became active in lobbying for government regulation and support of all
programs that involved regular care of children by others. The more active I became as a
parent concerned about the quality and regulation of the care my children were receiving,
the more aware 1 became of the variety and uneven distribution of policies and lack of
policies for children and families. 5 As I became more involved in advocating for better policies in Canada, it became increasingly obvious that consistent policies for children at the federal, provincial/ territorial and municipal levels of government were lacking. Child care is primarily an area of provincial/ territorial jurisdiction, but the federal government has directly and indirectly influenced policy development through programs and funding mechanisms such as the Canadian Assistance Plan, the Local Initiatives Projects and the Canada
Health and Social Transfer (Friendly, 1994: Pence. 1992). This disjointed and ad hoc approach to child care by various levels of government has produced a fragmented child care system across Canada.
Assumptions:
I approach social policy !?om a feminist advocate perspective. As a result of my work with the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada I have developed a firm convictioll that child care is a public good deserving of public funding. High quality child care requires a number of contributing factors as outlined in chapter 2. Without the recognition of the importance of trained caregivers, and the need for higher wages, benefits and good working conditions, child care will not be of high quality. I feel that child care policy has been influenced by the perception that it is women's work: it is a field of women workers, in a care-taking role traditionally viewed as women's work.
Working at the national level has also influenced my belief that in order to have a system of programs (ie. Child care, family resource centers and parent education programs) that reflect communiq needs it is important to have a consistent fiarnework 6 within which services evolve, including a national set of principles and a federal hding agreement to support service delivery. Since the implementation of the Canada Health and Social Transfer in 1995 we saw an immediate reduction in services (Doherty.
Friendly & Oloman. 1997) followed by reinvestment and program development within the reinvestment framework of the Canada Child Tax Benefit and the discussions around a National Children's Agenda. Provinces and Temtories need federal dollars to develop the programs that they would like to implement. A framework from which to build would mean that provinces that did not place a high priority of child care still provided care that was not harm%I.
Perspectives on Child Care:
Child care policies can be viewed from several analytical fmeworks. Child care may be seen as a support to maternal employment, a component in addressing women's equity: a support to families, a children's service. contributing to healthy child development. and a component of social cohesion within communities. Child care policies fit within many jurisdictions. They are treated within the social welfare system. yet also fit within the mandates of health, education and finance ministries.
Changing Socicrl Contexts:
Changes in social context may be reflected in policy development and/ or implementation. According to 'family wage' analysts, the development of a universal family allowance following World War It emerged fiom the labour market trend towards lower wages, while encouraging women to stay out of the workforce (Dunt, 1999;
Kitchen, 1987). Other authors have emphasized that the universd family allowance was intended to recognize the cost of raising a family (Bashevkin, 1998; McQuaig, 19-93).
Regardless of the motivation, the family allowance program was a support to families provided by the federal government. Over the years the reasons for not moving towards a national system of services for children and families has changed. First, family allowances were clawed back from those considered as not needing the benefit. for example. the wealthy banker's wife, then the family allowance was threatened by the deficit anxieties resulting in its elimination; and finally. the jurisdictional reasons for not creating national income support policies were given (Durst, 1999; Pulkingham and
Trrnowetsky. 1998: Pufingharn & Ternowetshy. 1996).
.J~rri.stlic*rioncrl Impiiccr~ions:
Although child care policy is a provincial/territorid responsibility in Canada. since World War I1 the federal government had encouraged and influenced its development at the provincidterritorid level through different cost-shared formulas of program fimding (Friendly, 1994; Dennison & Gallagher, 1986). In 1995 the federal government introduced the Canada Health and Social Transfer. This changed funding for C health. social programs and education to a block funding formula fkom the previous cost- shared Formula. With the change in fimding formulas in 1995 the federal avenue of influence has changed (Pulkingharn & Ternowetsky, 1996; Doherty, Friendly & Oloman,
1998). Women's issues are recognized as existing within the federal jurisdiction, as well 8 as residing in the provinciaVterritorial jurisdiction. Employment-related policies and issues. primarily training programs are a federal responsibility but education is a provincial/temtord responsibility. The change to funding has affected education, health care. \vomen9sprograms and child care policies and regulation at the provincidtemtorial levels (Day & Brodsky, 1998). I plan to identify how policies impacting child care within these programs have changed over time.
Child care policy development in Canada has been a series of independent steps fonvard and back. There is interplay at the federal. provincial and temtorial. and in some cases. municipal levels. Since World War I1 the federal government has implemented some policy decisions unilaterally, while making jurisdiction an excuse for not developing policies at other times. The provinces and territories were engaged in their own independent dances around the development of policy for children in child care.
Some municipalities also developed child care policies.
The federal government became involved in the financing of child care in 1966 under the Canadian Assistance Plan (CAP), that placed child care within a social welfare framework of grants and subsidies. CAP was intended to subsidize welfare programs. The provinces quickly realized that CAP allowed them to cost-share some day care expenses through the subsidy of child care spaces for low-income families (Friendly, 1994; Pence,
1992). This was an unintentional outcome of the implementation of federai policy. In
1992 a cap was placed on CAP, with the 'have' provinces no longer receiving cost-shared dollars beyond a 3% growth rate per mum. In 1995 the funding for health and social programs, including child care, was changed from a series of cost-shared programs to a 9 block transfer payment, the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST).In the era of debt reduction and deficit elimination the amount of the transfer payment to a province or temtory was to be less than the previous payments had been, although the payments
~vouldno longer be tied to programs (Pulkingham & Ternowetsky. 1996). This flexibility was to allow the provinces to allocate dollars for their program priorities. However. the reductions in transfer payments did reduce or change services at the provincial level
(Doherty. Friendly & Oloman, 1996).
Organization of the Thesis:
This thesis is organized in the following manner. Chapter 1 introduces the topic and the organization of the thesis. Chapter 2 introduces the research body around which child care policy evolved. It includes a discussion of child care as a factor in women's equality and looks at the development of child care as an area of research evolving from child development and maternal attachment studies. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology used in gathering and analyzing data. Chapter 4 presents a summary of federal policy
4 development. while chapter 5 presents a summary of child care policy development for each province and temtory. Chapter 6 provides a more in-depth summary and comparison of Yukon. Alberta and Quebec. Chapter 7 discusses conclusions and indications for further research. Appendix A is a chronology of child care policy development at the federal. provincial and territorial levels. Chapter 2: TheoreticaU Analytical Frameworks:
Introduction:
This review of the literature will include a discussion of child care in relation to women's equality. A review of the evolution of child care research starts with child development theories and the subsequent move into attachment theory. Attachment theory quickly focused on the negative impacts of non-maternal child care. The research focusing on the negative effects of child care was the first wave of child care research.
The second wave of research focused on differential impacts of types of child care. The third wave of research in child care occurred when it became clear that not all day care was bad. and in fact. some day care was good. This third wave focused on identifying factors related to good child care. Finally. literature identifymg parent recognition of quality in child care, and definitions of quality is reviewed.
The Role of Child Care in Women's Equality
The status of women in Canada hinges upon many measures, especially issues of child care, gender equity, equal pay for work of equal value, and the multi- faceted ways that our society perpetuates inequities (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc).
Issues that affect the lives of women and children may not have as much political weight as those that affect men, and the issues that affect women and children are more likely to gain acceptance when they dovetail with male experiences, for example, in the case of
parents or wage earners. Women's issues are often eclipsed by male-oriented policy I I frameworks. When women's issues and concerns are acknowledged as important, it is often without provisions to find adequate and realistic solutions to these problems.
Gender stratification in the economy is reflected in our schoois and political systems.
Traditional gender stereotypes seem to be mirrored in early childhood education and care as an issue taken up primarily by women in a sector that employs mostly women in low- wage/low-status roles.
Gender equity is an important issue in Canada. and is one of the main concerns of the Status of Women Canada. Yet according to some researchers gender equity in Canada is no closer to being realized now than it was two decades ago (Boyd. 1997). Armstrong and Armstrong's (1 992) The Double Ghetto is as relevant in some issues today as it was when it was first published in 1978. Even at the level of government policy. progress has been slow and inconsistent (Armstrong & Armstrong, 1992; Mackie. 199 1). Multiple barriers to gender equity still exist in terms of access to education and training (Stalker &
Prentice. 1998). and in terms of equitable employment status (Hughes & Lowe. 1993:
Looker. 1993: Sainsbury, 1996; Swiss & Walker, 1993). Other impediments to gender equity include factors such as: conflicts between family and work responsibilities
(Mackic. 199 1); lack of employment opportunity (Pask, Mahoney & Brown. 1985); low lifetime earnings and the impacts of marital breakdown that result in high poverty rates among women (Abner. Mossman & Pickett, 1993; Day & Brodsky, 1998); and tax system inequities (Young, 1997). While school attendance is mandatory from age 6-16 in most of
Canada, there are gender differences apparent in participation rates for electives (Mackie,
199 1; Sadker, 1994). 12 The development of a framework to dlow child care to actually support families involves some degree of value assumptions which must be shared by most members of the society to which they belong. Foremost is the assumption that children and families are important in their own right. and deserve the care of a supportive social network to ensure that they are well cared for. It is important to recognize that children and families are the future strengths within society and not to blame all of our social problems on poor parenting. In tandem with this belief is the belief that society. and the government that represents it should ensure some basic rights for its citizens that override individual rights. and that society and the government have some basic responsibilities that take precedence over individual responsibilities. Families and children are valued regardless of their socio-economic status, and not viewed as the architects of their own poverty and therefore deserving of that poverty. Similarly, there needs to be recognition that women should have the same legal rights and responsibilities as men. When it is accepted that what is good for women is good for children. whether the mother chooses to work. is required to work. or is at home, it will be easier to put in to place services to support families. Women's equality will become a valued goal.
The Importance of Child Care:
High quality child care is an important component in healthy child development.
The importance of good quality child care has been demonstrated in a number of studies over the years and summarized by a variety of groups reviewing life long health, crime prevention, educational attainment and economics (National Council of Welfare, 1999; 13 Cleveland & Krashinsky, 1998; National Crime Prevention Council, 1996; National
Fonun on Health. 1996).
Defining Child Cure:
Child care may be defined as any non-parental care of children 0-12 years of age for a variety of reasons including parental employment. parental training, enrichment and prevention of school failure and juvenile delinquency. Child care has shifted from non- parental custodial care designed to allow mothers to work. to recognition as a system of early childhood care and education services that can meet a variety of needs. Child care may be viewed as an enrichment program. a custodial program, an intervention program or a preventative program. Whether it is full-day or part-day care in a center or a home it may involve a number of services kom speech therapy, physical therapy, or occupational therapy to parent education and referrals. Child care may be regulated or unregulated.
Child care occurs in urban, rural, remote and aboriginal areas. Due to the inconsistent funding and regulation of child care in Canada, child care may be of good quality or poor quality.
The E~*o!ltriunof Research Surroztnding Child Care:
Research into child care has changed focus over the years, evolving through three
-waves' of research: first was to see if daycare was good or bad for children; second came the examination of is this type of care better than that type of care; and fmdly the search for indicators of quality in child care (Howe & Pederson, 1992; Lamb & Sternberg, 1992; Yeates. McKenna, Warberg & Chandler, 1990). A body of research into child development preceded research on child care. Child development theories are divided
into several areas. There are biological theories, cognitive theories, learning theories and psychoanalytic theories. These theories all look at the stages of development from different perspectives. Within the context of child development, research evolved to
identify causes of atypical development. This resulted in attachment research. and
subsequent research into child care.
Child Development Theories:
Diologictrl Theories:
Biological theories assume a framework of programmed genetic development and
characteristics. It is important to recognize that this does not exclude environmental
influences. but rather that the sequence of maturational events in a child's development is
normally predetermined. It is recognized that there are differences in the timing of events.
although the sequence is. or should be, the same for all normal children. Arnold Gesell
introduced the concept of maturation (Essa & Young, 1994; Bee, 1989).
Cognitive Theories:
Cognitive theories examine how children think. The major theorist of cognitive
development was Jean Piaget. Piaget was a biologist with training in biological
adaptation. Following extensive observations, he developed a set of stages that were
thought to be universal. The stages were based upon the way in which children adapted to new situations as they develop. Children pass through the stages as they attempt to understand the world in which they live. Piagets' stages cover the time f?om birth to age
15. The Sensorimotor Period is from birth to age two and is the time when motor bchaviours and senses evolve and coordinate. A key feature of this stage is the development of object permanence, the time when a child knows an object exists although they may not actually see it. The Preoperational Period is from age two to seven and is very language oriented. This stage sees children preoccupied with their world and experiences. Role play begins during this time. From age seven to eleven is the Concrete
Operations Period. Children are beginning to apply logic to problems and can now practice conservation. In conservation the child recognizes that although shapes and sizes may change. the amount of something stays the same. The find stage from age eleven to
tifieen is the Formal Operations Period. This final stage is not attained by all children. or even all adults. and is the ability to use sophisticated, abstract thinking, logical reasoning and apply these to social and moral problems. (Essa & Young, 1994; Gardner. 1978:
Piaget. 1973; Evans, 1975).
Socicrl Learning Theories:
Social learning theorists such as Bandura assume that while biological influences impact our behaviour, the important factors influencing our behaviour are due to the experiences each child undergoes. Learning occurs without necessarily requiring rewards or punishment as postulated by Skinner. Learning may occur through observation- a child observes a behaviour and copies it. Intrinsic rewards, such as the feeling of accomplishment upon successfully completing a task may be enough to encourage learning of new behaviours. (Essa & Young, 1994; Bee, 1989; Gardner, 1978)
Social learning theory came out of a more radical learning theory which emphasized environmental influences over the biological and genetic influences in development. Key proponents of the behaviourd view of learning were Watson and
Skinner who studied techniques of classical conditioning and behaviour modification techniques respectively. There were a number of animal studies on classical and operant conditioning. which were generalized and applied to children. Operant conditioning is
important today as a method of modifying behaviour. (Essa & Young, 1994: Bee. 1989:
Gardner. 1978).
Psjrchocmcdytic Theory:
Psychoanalytic theories are based upon the work of Sigmund Freud. Freud was the
first to emphasize the importance of the early years to lifelong development. This
conclusion was arrived at while working with adults with emotional problems, and
tracing their problems back to their childhood. Consequently, Freud developed stages
through which children pass as they develop. His stages are based upon the biological
area that provides the most gratification at that time. From birth to eighteen months is the
oral stage. The anal stage is from eighteen months to three or four years of age. From
three or four years to six years is the phallic stage. The latency stage is fiom six years to
puberty, and finally, the genital stage is from puberty on. He theorized that children move 17 through life constantly balancing their desire for gratification of biological needs with the responses of the people around them (Essa & Young, 1994; Bee, 1989; Gardner, 1978).
Psj~cho-SocialTheory:
Eric Erikson was one of Freud's followers and he refined Freuds' theory to reflect a lifelong search for a sense of identity. This psycho-social theory sees each stage as defined by conflict. but conflict is healthy and results in opportunities for personal
than tgrowth. Erikson's stages are lifelong, rather focused only on childhood. From birth to eighteen months the first stage is that of trust versus mistrust. The second stage is From eighteen months to three years and is that of autonomy versus shame and doubt. Initiative versus guilt is the stage from three to five years. From six years to puberty is the stage of industry versus inferiority. During the adolescent years the stage is that of identity versus identity diffusion. In early adulthood intimacy versus isolation is the stage. Middle age is the balance between generativity and stagnation. Finally, in old age the stage is integrity versus despair. (Essa & Young, 1994; Bee, 1989: Gardner, 1978).
The First Wave of Child Care Research:
Within these frameworks of child development, the child was seen in the context of family. As child care became more prominent in English speaking countries the emphasis on research expanded From child development research, to include research to answer the question of whether child care was good or bad. This research came from the tension between the dominant ideological assumption that young children should be at t 8 home with their mother. and the need to have more women in the labour force. It should be noted that the dominant ideology reflected the beliefs of the middle and upper classes and not that of the working classes since working class mothers had long been expected to use non-maternal care while working but middle and upper class mothers were not espected to participate in the work force.
The early 1970s research involving child care centered around attachment
Following the Ainsworth study. Was daycare good or bad for a child? Was a child's attachment with its mother damaged by being left in care? This was known as the first wave of child care research. and was recognized by Gardner in 1978:
One major controversy concerns the effects on children of spending so many hours away from their mothers. People influenced by John Bowlby's work fear grave consequences if the unique mother-infant bond is disrupted by daily separations, Although cross-cultural studies suggest no harmhl effects of multiple mothering, critics have questioned whether these findings cm be generalized to the infant in a daycare center. Research is just beginning to shed light on this issue. (Gardner, 1978; p. 45)
The first wave of research is cited and re-analyzed by those who wish to argue that a mother should be home with their children. All of these reports make assumptions about maternal care without looking at the other influences. Paternal care, social interactions beyond the parents and exposure to traumatic experiences are all beyond the control of the mother. Yet, the common denominator cited was the mother. That these reports were so widely quoted and defended shows how closely they fit within the framework of the 19 dominant ideology. They supported the view that the proper place for children was at home with their mother. However, the compilation of literature started showing that maternal employment and attachment was not the danger it was purported to be:
Dutch studies on non-maternal care have shown that there is no reason to be opposed to early non-matemal care because of the supposed adverse effects on child development. A secondary analysis of five studies showed that full-time non-maternal care is not related to a negative quality of attachment in infancy. (Lamb,et al. 1992)
The Second Wave of Child Care Research:
While some research continued to probe the issue of whether day care was good or bad for children. the second wave of child care research developed in the late 1970s.
The research at that time looked at the effects of different day care experiences on children. The question evolved From. "Is daycare bad for children?" to "Is this type of daycare better than that kind of daycare?'
In English-speaking countries there has been a dichotomy between what is good for poor parents and the dominant ideology for middle and upper class families. Child care for children at risk has been seen as acceptable and fit within a welfare model of services. while upper and middle class mothers were expected to stay home and care for their children. In the United States:
Government involvement in the family domain consistently provoked controversy except when parents were clearly unable or unwilling to provide the necessary care, nurturing and supervision. (Hayes et al., 1990) 20 This attitude resulted in research that looked for the negative impacts of non- maternal care upon children. While looking for negative effects of daycare. it was found that non-maternal care was not necessarily harrml, and in some cases exerted a positive influence upon a child's development (Eyer, 1996: Lamb et al., 1992; Hayes et al, 1990;
Pence et al. 1988). Research shows that socio-economic status is a good indicator of how positive early programs will be. Some studies (Hayes et al, 1990) show children from middle and upper income families are not harmed by child care programs and may show positive effects. and children from lower income families show positive effects of early programs:
. .. high-quality cognitive enrichment child care programs have positive implications for the intellectual development among low-income children at risk for declining IQ scores. (Hayes et al, 1990)
During this time it also became apparent that there were differences in day care types that had not previously been acknowledged; center based care. family day care. preschool programs. inclusive care programs, among others, were not all the same. It became necessary to include more in the debate than simply maternal care versus non- maternal care. The Third Wave of Child Care Research:
The third wave of research occurred during the 1980s. The results showing
positive effects for some children led to research on the factors that resulted in positive
impacts. This is the search for quality indicators of child care. Can certain factors impact
a child's experience in daycare? What defines quality child care? What indicators are
associated with quality care? What role does the child's socio-economic status play in
their daycare experience? It is now agreed that there are some specific indices of high
quality child care. and that these are necessary to enable children to benefit f?om their
time spent in non-parental care. The underlying assumption in the three waves of daycare
research is that daycare is a service to allow for the employment of mothen.(Howe &
Pederson. 1 992: Lamb, Stemberger & Ketterlinus. 1992).
The Ecological Model of Social Research:
During the three waves of research into the effects of daycare, there were a
number of researchers who began to question the validity of looking at daycare in
isolation From the broader family and social contexts. There were arguments advanced
that daycare research needed to look at daycare in the context of the family. Their socio-
economic status. family structure, employment status. family size, type of care used by
the family versus preferred type of care. In 1979 Bronfenbrenner critiqued the limitations
of traditional approaches to child development research. He wanted to find a way to recognize the impact of both the immediate and the more remote environment upon development. Bronfenbremer started with a critique of the content of the research to date and ended up with a critique of the methods of research (Pence, 1988). From this critique came the ecological model of human development research. The ecological model of research sees the different parts of the family's experiences as nested and intertwined.
The ecological model helped bring about the increased recognition that early childhood services encompass more than custodial care to allow parental labor force participation. Within this broader framework it is important to recognize the needs of the child. the parent(s), the family and the broader social network. including the labor force.
to which they belong. There is an oft-quoted African saying 'It takes a village to raise a
child'. This attitude reflects the importance of child rearing to the future well being of a
society. It is a societal responsibility. as well as an individual responsibility to ensure the
development of healthy. independent individuals to fulfil the required roles in the culture
in which they live. both socially and economically.
Child Care as a range of services:
During the 1990s the research questions have broadened and the definition of
child care has evolved. Child care is now being viewed as a range of services that
encompasses healthy child development, readiness to learn, preventative programming
for at-risk children and families. and an integral part of community development. The
questions now are broader. What policies support families and children? How does child
care fit within the broader social policy framework? How does child care support social 23 cohesion? Child care is no longer seen as solely a support for maternal employment, but also as a support for women's equality, children, families and communities. This change in the perception of child care is demonstrated by the Social Planning Council of
Winnipeg in their 1998 Report Card on Child Poverty in Manitoba:
Child care is an essential service for parents who are seeking employment, who are employed, who attend training programs. Child care also promotes school readiness, provides support to families, contributes to crime prevention and healthy communities. helps reduce poverty, creates jobs. facilitates economic self-reliance, contributes to lifelong good health of children. and promotes women's equality. (p. 18)
Social and economic benefits to society:
Intro~itrction:
This section relies heavily upon the work of Cleveland and Krashinsky (1998) because this is a Canadian study by two economists that involved a comprehensive review of the literature. In The Benefirs and Costs of Good Child Care Cleveland and
Krashinsky (1998), attempt to measure the social and economic benefits to society of a national child care program. They discuss the concept of a competitive market and give examples of when and how markets 'work'. They discuss briefly the framework provided by considering the Free market and the recognized failures in the standard model. They then look at the reasons that a free enterprise competitive market fails for child care. A major limitation of this approach is that it still assumes that the fiee market economy should be the framework from which to examine and assess child care policies. Ruth 24
Rose (1 993; 1997) has also looked at a cost and benefits analysis of child care fiom an economic perspective and has also concluded that it is a social benefit. although she does not agree with the Cleveland & &ashinsky (1998) calculations.
.Il~rr.kerFlzilt ires in Child Care:
According to Cleveland and Krashinsky (1998) the ways in which the child care market fails are varied. First there is failure because the market does not allow for the
,public interest' in the outcome of child care. It is argued that child care is a mixed good in economic terms because the benefits are shared by both individuals and society.
Market failure may also occur because of the variations in child care by parents. poor and middle income parents may choose poor child care because that is all that they can afford. or because they do not recognise quality care; however child care can provide important
services to children regardless of their parent's resources. Other market failures can occur
in relation to the taxation. future earnings and payoffs to labour market attachment. The
parent who chooses to work and use child care, or not work and care for their children
may not know the impact this will have on life-time earnings, or the impact upon their
career of detachment fiom the labour force. Another failure occurs in relation to a
welfare system that penalizes single parents who wish to work.
Child Crire and Child Development:
In discussing the long-term effects of good child care on children's deveIopment
and learning, Cleveland and Krashinsky (1998) identify the implications of switching 25 from parentlrelative only care to good quality non-parental care and the implications of switching From low quality care to high quality care. They do an extensive review of the literature in three areas. First they look at empirical studies that compare 'ordinary, middle-class' children who have had early childhood education experiences with those who have not. Second they look at compensatory programs for 'disadvantaged' children.
Finally they look at the impact of variations in child care quality on children's developmental outcomes.
Enrp iriccll St lcclies:
In reviewing empirical studies that compare ordinary children who have had early childhood education experiences with those who have not, the literature finds positive benefits for early experiences. Cleveland and Krashinsky (1998) focus on three studies with quantitative measures. The first is a French study (Richardson and Mm. 1989 in
Cleveland and Krashinsky. 1998. p.23) which finds that when controlling for the father's occupation. pupils with more years of preschool are less likely to repeat grade one. The second study is a Swedish study (Andersson, 1992, in Cleveland and Krashinsky, 1998.
p.23) which follows-up on a study of the positive impacts of early childhood education experiences at age 8. At age 13 the positive effects are still evident. The study finds that
earlier entry to child care benefits children. The third, and most statistically significant.
study is from Britain (Osbom and Milbank, 1987 in Cleveland and Krashinsky. 1998, p.
24). The Osbom and Milbank study used all children born during one week in April 1970
as the sample of the population. The sample was of 8500 children once they had calculated sample restrictions. The children were assessed using cognitive and educational tests at age 5 and age 10. They statistically controlled for many factors. They
concluded that while socio-economic factors were the most important determinant,
attendance at early childhood educational programs positively affected educational
performance. Other reviews of the literature (Hayes, Palmer and Zaslow. 1990; Doherty,
1996 and Lamb. 1998) on the impact of early childhood educational experiences on
children's development have shown that good quality non-parental care is not detrimental
to children.
C bntpmsorory Stzrdies:
In discussing the developmental benefits of compensatory preschool programs for
disadvantaged children, Cleveland and Knshinsky review ". ..two excellent sources of
information in the economics literature that investigate the economic effects of
compensatory preschool education." (p. 26). There seems to be no doubt that targeted
programs for at-risk children are a good investment. This was supported again with the
release of a study in British Columbia which codinned that targeted programs are cost
effective (reported in Calgary Herald, October 15, 1998). Other reports that support this
conclusion include the National Crime Prevention Council's Preventing Crime by
Inves~ingIn Chilrlren and the National Fonun on Health's @?hatDetermines Health. Dereiopmmtnl Outcomes of Child Care:
In examining the developmental benefits of higher-quality child care Cleveland and Krashinsky (1998) state "There has been increasing recognition that child care arrangements of different types are not of uniform quality." (p. 29). The quality of care in the United States is not good. The Cost. Quality and Olitcomes Study (Helburne. 1995)
"rated most care as poor to mediocre, with only one center in seven providing a quality of care that promotes healthy development." @. 29). While there have been no large scale studies in Canada the smaller studies have not found that we provide uniformly good quality care. Quality of care for children in early childhood education programs varies.
There are many sources that look at indicators of quality in early childhood settings.
These include Friendly (1 994), Hayes. Palmer and Zasiow ( 1990), Doherty (1992) and
Lamb ( 1998). While child care in Canada may be better than that found in the United
States (Doherty & Stuart, 1996), SPR Associates (l986), in a study for the Special
Par!iamentary Committee on Child Care, found that one in six programs in Canada were judged to be of very poor quality.
The Need for Quality:
Given the diversity of needs in Canada it is helpful to look at how a good system of services for early childhood services could work. It is important when considering the ways that child care could be included in a system of supports to families that it not be overlooked that high quality child care should also be considered a benefit to society.
There are many ways that a high quality child care system could support families and 28 build a stronger society. This section will examine at the importance of quality child care and the factors that are associated with quality child care. Then the social and economic
benefits to society will be discussed.
Of the various components of child care, child care quality shows the strongest and most consistent positive associations with cognitive and social development (Burchinal, 1999. p. 89).
C'h~mngingFamily Sirucilrres:
When considering the subject of early childhood care and education services there
are many issues to consider. First it is important to recognize that all children deserve
quality care. regardless of the reason that they are in care. Quality child care is a necessity
when a child's parent(s) are required to work. and given the high mobility rate of
Canadian society, it is harder to count on the extended family for help. Given the
changing nature of families and work it is essential to put in place a system of supports
that will meet the range of needs for Canadian families. There are many family models
now. not just the -traditional' family with a father who supports his family, a mother who
stays home and nurtures her family and children who get home baked cookies and live in
a spotless house. The changing economic realities make it more and more difficult for
families to fit into a traditional mold even if it is the choice that they would like to make.
There is an irony inherent in the public bemoaning of the loss of the traditional family in
the English speaking world. while governments rehe to develop initiatives that support
families (Eyer. 1996; Lamb et ai, 1992; Smith, 1982). 29 Families do not all look the same, nor do they have the same child care needs.
Children live in traditional families, families in which both parents work, blended
Families. single parent families, same sex families, and extended families. Families come
From wide range of cultural. religious and socio-economic backgrounds. Families live in urban and rural and remote settings. and are different sizes. Regardless of these factors. children still need to be cared for so that they can experience positive outcomes. Children in all of these families have individual needs that are worthy of being met.
Children in traditional families where a mother stays home to care for her children ohen have experiences with non-maternal care. Pre-school programs to enhance school readiness are frequently used by mothers who stay home. These programs provide parents
( usually mothers) with a break from the continual care of their child while allowing the child to develop social skills and increase their school readiness (Cleveland &
Krashinshy. 1998).
Children who live in families with both parents working need reliable. consistent care. Parents may schedule their work at different times so that one parent is usually available to care for their child(ren), or they may require reliable, regular child care.
Families in which both parents work often require the second income to stay out of poverty as is noted in Friendly (1994):
A federal government report on child poverty concluded that the number of earners in a household was an important characteristic that differentiated poor and non-poor households so that single-parent, mother- led households are the most likely family type to be poor. (p.3 1) 30 In Canada there are many children who live in single parent families, most of which are headed by a woman, whether they are divorced or were never married. Quality child care is an essential service for single parents, both as a needed care, but also as a
resource for help with their children (Smith. 1982). A large number of single parent
families live in poverty. This means that as well as needing the social supports they may
also need tinancial assistance. If they work. they may well work for low wage jobs with
inconsistent and/or extended hours. They may require care for non-traditional hours.
which limits their access to child care, especially high quality care.
What is Quality Child Care?
Quality child care goes beyond mere custodial care. High quality care and
education programs enhance a child's life long physical and social development, health.
and bring many benefits to society (National Crime Prevention Council. 1996: National
Forum of Health. 1996: Cleveland & Krashinsky, 1998). These benefits are most obvious
for children who live in poverty or are at risk, but exist for all children in high quality
care (Burchinal, 1999; Friesen, 1995) . Poor quality care can be detrimental to children
(Cleveland & Hyatt. 1998; Friesen, 1995). Unfortunately, high quality is not readily
apparent when parents are trying to fmd a space for their child. Parents can see whether a
center is bright, cheerfill and clean in appearance, however, it is not easy, especially on a
short visit to recognize the more important factors affecting quality of care. Factors that
may indicate higher quality care include low caregiver-child ratios, developmentally
appropriate activities. training levels of staff, low staff turnover rates, good child-staff 3 1 interactions, small group sizes, mixed age groups, and family involvement (Friendly.
1995: Essa & Young. 1994; Blau, 199 1; Hayes et al, 1990). Another factor associated with quality care is auspice, defined as whether the program operates as a commercial enterprise or as a non-profit organization. Research has consistently shown that non-profit programs are more likely to provide quality care than commercial programs (Friesen.
1996: Lyon & Canning, 1995; National Council of Welfare, 1999). Each of these factors
~vi11 be discussed.
RL~~~US:
Low caregiver-child ratios are an important part of a quality program.
Recommended ratios vary according to the age of the children being cared for. When infants. that is children up to eighteen months of age, are being cared for the recommended ratio is no more than one caregiver for four infants. The next age group is the toddlers. those children eighteen months to three years of age. Recommended ratios at this age are one caregiver for six children. Preschoolers are children aged three to five years. The recommended ratio at this age is on caregiver for every eight children. And the five to twelve year olds are grouped into the school-age children with a recommended ratio of one caregiver to twelve children (Hayes et al. 1990; Friendly, 1995). Many states and provinces have regulated caregiver-child ratios that are much higher than those suggested. When ratios are above those recommended it becomes much harder for the caregiver to give adequate attention to each child. In that case, care is much more likely to be custodial than to enhance an individual child's development. Overall, research tells us that better (higher) stachild ratios in child care centers are associated with caregivers who provide more intellectual, verbal and social stimulation of children, are more sensitive and responsive. are less harsh. detached and less controlling, and provide more appropriate activities.. . Studies involving family day caregivers found that they. like centre-based staff, were more restrictive when the ratio of caregivers to children was poorer. (Friendly, 1994, p. 230)
Grozlp Size:
Group size is closely linked with ratios. The group size limits the number of children and caregivers that can share a space. It is important that group size be small enough that children can know each other and their caregivers. A smaller group size is
more likely to allow interactions that support verbal and social development. While the
ratio determines the number of children a caregiver must care for. the group size
determines the overall number of children and staff that will be together. The Canadian
Child Care Federation, a membership organization for frontline caregivers, suggests that
eroup size reflect the age of the children being cared for to allow for the development of C
relationships between caregivers and children and between children:
A review on studies on group size found that caregivers working with large groups of children were less responsive, provided less individualized responses, were more restrictive, and more involved in monitoring. Children in large groups were found to be less cooperative, more hostile. cried more. talked less. did more poorly in tests of social competence, were more anti-social and more involved in aimless wandering. (Friendly. 1994, p. 23 1) Group sizes vary a great deal across Canada and the United States. Generally, the recommended group sizes are smaller than those in place. In the United States. the
Federal Interagency Day Care Requirements are higher than those recommended by either the National Association on the Education of Young Children, or the Child Welfare
League of America (Hayes et al, 1990). In Canada we have no federal guidelines. and provincial. territorial guidelines or regulations vary greatly.
It is very important for children to have consistency in their caregivers and routines. Consistency of caregivers allows the caregiver(s) and children to establish a relationship and is more likely to be supportive of positive child development outcomes.
Consistency of caregiver(s) also allows the parents to develop a relationship with those caring for their child(ren). While consistency refers to s-ng, and the s~affturnover rate. it also refers to maintaining a group of children who know one another, within a space that is familiar to them.
Research has found that children whose child care arrangements had been unstable were more likely to be insecure and to perform more poorly in school several years later. (Friendly, 1994, p. 229)
Consistency of routine is also an important factor. in that it allows the children to feel comfortable and be able to anticipate the transitions that are coming. Consistency is also a 34 key factor in any discipline policy. The same rules need to apply, regardiess of which staff or children are involved in a discipline issue. Discipline must be age appropriate and involve logical consequences for the children involved.
Cnrrgiver Ttirrtovrr Rates:
A low staff turnover rate is directly tied to lower ratios, smaller group size and consistency of care. When caregivers do not feel that they are overwhelmed by the number of children with whom they are working, and have the opportunity to develop relationships with the children and their parents, caregivers experience lower stress levels.
However. there is another key factor in the high staff turnover rate experienced in many child care facilities. and that is the low wages that are paid to child caregivers in North
America. The Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association and the Canadian Child Day
Care Federation released a report in 1993, Caringfor a Living, on the wages and working conditions of childcare workers in Canada. Auspice was found to be a reliable predictor of wages. The lowest wages were found to be paid in commercial centers while municipal centers paid higher wages than did non-profit centers. Wages in non-profit centers were
found to be 25% higher than those in commercial centers when averaged nationally. Low wages were found to exist regardless of educational attainment or experience. "Compared
with employees in the service sector as a whole, child care wages were 20% lower."
(CDCAA & CCDCF, 1993). There is a positive correlation between educational attainment and wages within the child care sector. "On a national basis, those staff with a high school diploma earned $7.00 per hour, while staff with a one year certificate earned 35 $8.44 per hour and staff with a two-to-three-year certificate or diploma earned $10.89 per hour." (Friendly, 1994; p. 226). Even staff who are well trained earn much lower wages than workers in other fields with comparable training levels. "The ten lowest paid job categories were all female-dominated and child care was the most poorly paid of these occupational groups." (Friendly, 1994, p. 226). Child care is not a well paid occupation. which is a significant contributor to the high staff turnover rate.
Cirregiver Trclining:
Staff trained in early childhood care and education. while they are paid somewhat more than untrained staff. are significantly better caregivers. Training includes many components from normal child development, to programming for the different age groups. to behavior and stress management. and basic health, safety and nutrition requirements for children of different ages. This training allows caregivers to provide an environment that meets the needs of the children. and allows for interactions which will
facilitate positive child development, and increase language acquisition and expression.
Training also gives the caregiver age appropriate ways of dealing with conflict. While it is
important for staff to be wined for the benefit of the children, it is difficult to retain trained st& with the low wages and often poor working conditions. Lyon & Canning
(1995) report in the Atlantic Day Care Study that wage enhancement grants had more of
an impact on caregiver training levels than did training requirements. In the Yukon it is
not uncommon for child care workers with their early childhood education diploma to
leave the child care field to work for the Department of Education as Educational 36 Assistants. a job which pays more, provides benefits and requires fewer hours and less responsibility.
It is also important that children have the opportunity to experience and practice language and social skills. Goelman and Pence (1987) suggest yet another significant factor for children's understanding of, and use of language is caregiver training. (cited in
Hayes rt al. 1990). These opportunities occur more often when there are trained staff who practice developmentally appropriate practices. and interact warmly and genuinely with the children in their care.
Dire crar Quirl~ic*irrions:
There has been little research that actually identifies the link between the qualifications of a child care director and the quality of care in their center. However. there have been a couple of studies that suggest that training in both the field of early childhood education and in administration impact upon the quality of care (Doherty,
1999). The Il/inois Directors Study (Jorde-Bloom. 1989) found that there was a statistically significant correlation between the director's level of education and center quality. This was also found to be true in the Atlantic Day Care Study (Lyon & Canning,
The relationship between ECERS and directos specific early childhood education was significant: centers that had directos with higher levels of specific early childhood education had significantly higher ECERS ratings. (Lyon & Canning, 1997, p. 146) I would suggest that it should not be a surprise that a director with training in early childhood education and administration would provide a higher quality program. I anticipate hture research will continue to support this view.
The Inlptr cI qf'.-!lrspicr :
Auspice may be defined as the designation a program has: Are they a business operating for a profit or are they operating as a non-profit association? Family day care is frequently treated as a non-profit program by provincial child care regulations. yet are considered within the tax laws as a home-based business. Currently child care in Canada is provided in a variety of settings from care by a relative to family day care to center based child care. There is also a gamut of babysitters and nanny services available. These child care arrangements may be publicly funded and operated, run by non-profit boards of directors. or run as a business for profit or be part of the informal child care sector. There is quality care found across the spectrum of child care services available. However. factors indicating quality occur more often in the non-profit sector than in the commercial sector. Many studies have shown that in the United States and Canada there is a correlation between non-profit auspice and higher quality care (Friesen, 1996; Lyon &
Canning, 1995; Friendly, 1994; Hayes et al, 1990; Lamb et al, 1992). Auspice alone does not determine whether a program offers quality care, however, it is more likely to occur in non-profit centers where the decisions are not made upon showing a profit margin. The most likely ways of increasing profits are through lower wages paid to st&? hiring of untrained workers for lower wages, using higher child-staffratios, and not providing 38 nutritional meals or snacks. All of these cost saving measures will result in lower quality of care for children and lower developmental outcomes for children. (Friesen, 1995;
Friendly, 1994)
Recognition cmd Definition of @duliiy by Parents:
In discussing quality of care it is important to look at parents' ability to choose better quality care. Many factors come into play in parent choice of child care. A primary factor is that parents need child care that they can afford. Cost may be a barrier to choosing good quality child care. Many indicators of quality are not easily observable.
Parents. when searching for care for their children. are often at a disadvantage. First of all. they may not know which facton indicate quality care and result in positive child development outcomes. Secondly, parents may define quality care quite differently. Many parents have to find care that is within their budget, within a reasonable distance of home and work. and is available for the hours that they require care (Kisker & Maynard. 1991).
If all of those conditions are met, then they may be able to look at other factors that more closely resemble indicators of quality as seen by child development professionals and advocates. In an ideal world, all child care would be affordable, and of high quality, consequently a decision based upon accessibility and hours would be easy. However. given the range of quality that currently exists it becomes much harder for parents to make choices that will have positive child development outcomes for their children while fitting into their other financial, geographicai and time requirements. Since parents may not be aware which factors reliably indicate quality care that results in positive outcomes for their children it could be a role of government to regulate those factors that are associated with quality.
It is not altogether unexpected to find that although experts find that the majority of care available is adequate, at best, and poor more often, parents tend to report being satisfied with their child care choices (Blau, 1991). Parents are making the best possible choices that they can within their own fmancial constraints, their knowledge of quality indicators. their cultural backgrounds and the accessibility of care:
Many parents use child care because of commitments to work and or education. A child care service does not meet their needs unless it is affordable. reliable, available when they need it and reasonably easy to reach from home and/ or their place of work or education. Once these basic needs are addressed, research indicates that parent's priorities are safety. cleanliness and adults who are warm and affectionate with children. (Doherty. 1999, p.59)
This would suggest that since parents have made the best choice that they can. then it is in their best interest to feel satisfied with the choice that they have made (Blau, 1991:
Helbum. 1995). Parents may be unable to evaluate quality in the same way as the child development experts for a number of reasons. Parents may have different priorities in child care needs and they also may have had little experience in finding and evaluating child care. Parents may have little knowledge of child development and age appropriate practices. This lack of experience combined with a different priority list on the part of parents. and the lack of cohesion in the child care system: services are not centrally listed 40 and rated, and there are no consistent referral services for child care services, and there is not a consistent governmental body that defines and regulates quality of care; then it is understandable that finding child care is a time consuming and frustrating experience for many parents. Consequently, it is in the parents' best interest to be satisfied with their chiid care choices (Helburne, 1995).
Conclusion/ Discussion:
Through the evolution of research child care has been Framed within theories of chi Id development and attachment disorders. before moving into a policy and evaluation orientation of measuring indicators of quality care, and finally being placed within a broader social. political and economic context. As research in child care has evolved child care has become part of the public debate in large part due to the increase in the employment of mothers. The focus has shifted to one of public policy. Child care is now acknowledged to involve economic issues, it has implications for women's equality and it can be seen as one element of the social context for a variety of communities, as well as involving child centered issues such as healthy child development and school readiness.
Changing social expectations and needs influenced the direction of research by recognizing the social responsibility for children, children as a public good, and the subsequent need for adequate public funding and regulations. Discussion and research now argue that child care is a public good, as well as a private good, and consequently requires public funding, regulations and legislation. Chapter 3: Methodology
Setting the Stage for Research:
Int~*a~irictiur~:
As a feminist and social activist I situate myself within a perspective that looks to see if there are power differentials involved in policy development. I acknowledge and am informed by the gendered nature of child care. I am critical when the direction of policy movement is based upon economic agendas that do not value or give voice to women and children. My perspective as a feminist. social activist informed my choice of topic. and led to an inclusion of a discussion of the impact child care has upon women's equality. From these perspectives I reviewed relevant child development. child care, feminist and policy analysis literature. collected and analyzed data. and offer conclusions.
This chapter is organized into questions driving the research. a review of policy analysis literature. a section on data collection and a discussion of data analysis. The means of validation of the data are discussed in this chapter.
Qliestions rhar Inform the Study:
The following questions informed research on child care policy development in
Canada: How diverse are policies regarding child care in Canada? How do federal initiatives impact on provincial and territorial child care policy development? What are the broader social contexts that shape child care policy development at the federal, provincial and territorial levels? What are the similarities and differences in the child care 42 policy of Yukon, Alberta and Quebec? Did these policies or lack of policies develop intentionally, or were they unanticipated outcomes of other initiatives?
A Review of Policy Analysis:
In reviewing the literature on policy analysis there is a general agreement that policy analysis has to do with the investigation of governmental policies. This focus on existing policies rather than a consideration of possible policies is held to be central to a distinction between policy analysis and policy advocacy (Dye, 1987; Fischer & Forester.
1987). In reviewing the policy literature from the 1980s on I would agree with House
( 1982) when he said "What constitutes public policy analysis, who should carry it out. and how it should be done is not universally agreed upon." ( p. 2 1). There are a number of views regarding what actually constitutes policy analysis and whether or not it should be set in a broader context with values explicitly acknowledged. While there has been a high degree of overlap in models of policy analysis, the move towards a qualitative approach that acknowledges values and social contexts has been apparent since the late 1980s.
A quantitative method of examining government policies is one approach to policy analysis (Carley, 1980; deHaven-Smith, 1988; Durn, 198 1; Hogwood L Gm,
1984). This quantitative method arose out of welfare economics and systems dysis
(Carley, 1980: Hogwood & Gunn, 1984). The underlying assumption is that policy analysis is quantifiable and valid, and could be analyzed within a scientific framework
(Hogwood & Gunn, 1984). 43 The Pareto formula is often cited in determining whether a policy was good. The
Pareto formula suggests that if even one person is better off and no one is worse off, then the policy is a good one (Carley, 1980; Pal, 1992). The most common quantitative method of analysis cited was costlbenefit analysis (Carley, 1980; Dm, 198 1; Hogwood
& Gunn. 1984; Pal, 1992). Costhenefit analysis is designed to operate within a market economy framework. and to analyze the costs and benefits of a policy: to be able to say whether a given policy's accumulated costs will be more than the accumulated benefits to the public.
There have been a number of models of policy analysis proposed. yet while they may overlap. these models do emphasize different aspects. Dobelstein (1990) describes a continuum of three models of policy analysis. The Behavioral Model defines the problem in objective terms. devises sets of specific alternatives to resolve the problem under prescribed circumstances. projects the likelihood of achieving each alternative and calculates the cost and benefit for each alternative. The Criteria-based hiodel defines the problem with respect to policy alternatives available for dealing with it, establishes universal and selective criteria for evaluating altematives, gathers data concerning each altemative and determine which alternative offers the greatest benefit per cost. The lncremenfal!\/lode1 calculates the marginal beneftts of current choices for dealing with a problem. initiates small choices toward a solution with measurable marginal benefits, accelerates choices that produce positive results while decelerating choices that produce negative results. 4t Dunn (198 1) identifies three approaches to policy analysis that allows for both quantitative and qualitative measures to be used. The empirical approach is primarily concemed with describing causes and effects of given public policies. It looks for facts.
Before implementation of a policy the empirical approach would predict the impact, and after implementation it would describe the impact. The evaluative approach is concemed with the value of the policy. Does a given policy fit within the moral and ethical framework'? The normative approach is primarily concerned with recommending future courses of action that may resolve public problems. Within the three approaches to policy analysis Dunn discusses three forms of policy analysis. Prospective analysis involves the production and transformation of data before policy actions are taken. Retrospective analysis occurs after policy actions have been taken. Integrated policy analysis allows for the continuous monitoring and evaluation of policy over time. So within each approach. empirical. evaluative or normative, it is possible to analyze a set of policies prospectively. retrospectively or with an integrated analysis.
Hogwood and Gunn (1 984) discuss descriptive and prescriptive analysis.
Descriptive analysis is a historical analysis of how policies were made. Prescriptive analysis looks at how policies should be made. Prescriptive analysis is applied, socially relevant, multi-disciplinary, integrative and problem directed in nature.
Nagel (1 980) suggests that policy analysis research methods should focus around four areas. First, take policies as given and attempt to determine what caused them.
Second. take social forces as given and attempt to find out what policies they have determined. Third, take policies as givens and attempt to determine what effect they have. 45 And fourth, take goals as given and attempt to determine what policies will achieve or maximize those goals.
Pal (1992) differentiates between academic policy analysis and applied policy analysis. Academic policy analysis is interested in theory. It looks at the big question. The goal is explanatory and aims to understand policy. Academic analysis is a long analysis, it is independent of the implementation of a policy and strives to be objective. Applied policy analysis is analysis of a specific policy or problem. It is evaluative in nature. and seeks to change policy. Applied analysis is client driven and is centered around client values. Applied analysis is done quite quickly.
Prunty ( 1984) cites Anderson's policy differentiation. Distributive policies are those in which resources are allocated to assist a specific group. and those who seek benefits are not in competition with each other. Regulatory policies impose restrictions or limitations upon individuals or groups, consequently reducing the freedom of those regulated. Re-distributive policies are deliberate attempts to shift the allocation of wealth. income. property or rights among broad classes. Anderson also differentiates between material policies which are tangible, and symbolic policies which have little direct impact.
Traditionally there has not been much attention paid to the values of the analyst or of the broader society in weighmg the costs and benefits of a given policy (deHaven-
Smith. 1988; Finch, 1986; Fischer & Forester, 1987; Paul & Russo, 1982). The move towards questioning underlying assumptions and values is important. If one thinks of the issue of poverty, the definition of poverty changes dramatically for different belief 46 systems. For example, the Fraser Institute, a right wing think tank, measures poverty based upon minimal survival measures (Sarlo, 1992). The Canadian Center for Policy
Alternatives and the Canadian Council for Social Development measure policy based upon costs of living (Doquier, 1989; Lochhead & Shillington, 1996). The Fraser Institute tinds fa less poverty in Canada.
A number of authors have suggested that the recognition of values in policy analysis is necessary to set the analysis in context (deHaven-Smith, 1988; Dobelstein,
1990: Finch. 1986; Fischer & Forester. 1987). That analysts are employees of someone. often government. is recognized as a problem in setting a broader context (Fischer &
Forester. 1987: Pal. 1992). As employees the analysts have to keep in mind the interests of the employer: will the policy make the government/analyst look good? (House. 1982).
In the discussion ofvalues. beliefs and larger contexts within which policies exist, there are a number of views. The idea of acknowledging and then being able to put aside one's values. beliefs and the larger contexts is common (Carley, 1980; Hogwood & Gunn,
1984: Nagal, 1980; Rogers, 1988; Paul & Russo, 1982). However, there is a body of literature which argues for the inclusion of values, beliefs and the larger context into the analytical process (deHaven-Smith, 1988; Finch, 1986).
DeHaven-Smith (1988) argues that political theories give us a template for identifying society-wide impacts that extend far beyond the program participants. He goes on to suggest that without conflicting theories it is not possible to observe unintended impacts and place them in context. Finch ( 1986) suggests that as the limitations of quantitative methods are recognized there has been an increasing use in qualitative methods to address policy analysis. Qualitative methods allow for more flexibility in the research process, place policies within their broader social context, and are concerned with process as well as outcomes. Finch also suggests that qualitative methods offer explanations which are adequate at the level of meaning and are also aware of causal adequacy.
Bowe. Ball and Gold (1992) discuss policy sociology and discuss the development of policies within the dominant discourses:
This Leads us to approach policy as a discourse, constituted of possibilities and impossibilities. tied to knowledge on the one hand (the analysis of problems and identification of remedies and goals) and practice on the other (specification of methods for achieving goals and implementation). We see it as a set of claims about how the world should and might be. a matter of the 'authoritative allocation of values'. Policies are thus the operational statements of values, statements of prescriptive intent. (p. 13)
The view of policy as text that reflects dominant discourses, thus privileging some concepts and silencing other concepts allows us to view child care policies within the broader contexts within which they were developed. The realm of policy analysis is diverse. Some researchers stress the quantifiable, scientific method in the field of policy analysis (Carley, 1980; Hogwood & Gunn, 1984).
Other researchers recognize the need to articulate underlying beliefs and values, but believe that once that is done it is possible to be objective (Fischer & Forester. 1987; Pal,
1992: Paul & Russo. 1982; Rogers, 1988). Still other researchers suggest that it is necessary to place policies and their analysis within the broader societal contexts
(deHaven-Smith, 1988; Prunty, 1984). Recognizing that policy is text and that dominant discourses influence policy development is important in situating policy within the social context (Bowe. Ball & Gold, 1992). There is a move towards the inclusion of more qualitative means of evaluating policies (Finch, 1986).
Reviewing the policy analysis literature allowed me to identify intentional and unintentional policy outcomes and to identify the ways in which child care policy development is situated in a larger social context.
Steps Along the Road:
This thesis is a descriptive historical analysis of policy. I use a combination of policy analysis methods to Xorm the policy development. Retrospective analysis is the method used for compiling the chronologies of policies, initiatives and political climates.
Within the discussion sections of the thesis I use descriptive analysis: how policies were made. and prescriptive analysis when I suggest how policies could be made. Qualitative analysis focusing on language and social contexts underscore the discussions around policy intent. implementation and outcomes. Recognizing the dominant discourses allows identification of voices that are privileged and those that are silenced. These techniques are complementary and allow for the integration of the political and social contexts into the analysis of policy development. 49
Dnin Co/lection and Analysis Techniqzres:
My first task was to compile a chronology of Federal/ Provincial/ Territorial child care and related policies from 1945- 1998/9. I then created a chronology of elections during the same time Frame, since it became apparent that child care policy changes often followed an election. (See Appendix A)
These chronologies were compiled from secondary sources including the
National Child Care Study, encyclopedia entries. the Canadian Parliamentary guide. and internet searches. After I had completed a draft of the chronologies I asked advocates. academics and/ or bureaucrats for each of the different governments to review the chronology for their jurisdictional area and identify gaps or errors and provide verification of the chronology as presented and corrected. In all sixteen people reviewed the chronologies and provided a reliability check of the chronologies for the different jurisdictions (See Appendix A). In the chronology development there were times that sources cited different dates, or used different names for a department or title. I used my reviewers and government documents to attempt to identify the most likely possibility.
Sometimes I choose not to include an event if I felt it was not relevant to child care policy.
The decision to create a parallel chronology of elections emerged from the sudden directional changes seen in some jurisdictions. For exampie, a series of initiatives would indicate that a jurisdiction was moving in a given direction, then suddenly they would change. Elections were a prevailing factor, as in the example of the policy development in
Ontario through the early 1990s when a number of policies were implemented that 50 supported the development of more child care spaces and the conversion of commercial care centres to non-profit status. Following the 1995 election many of those decisions were reversed (Childcare Resource and Research Unit, 1997).
Following the development of the chronology I set the information within a broader context, by looking at child care policy as it relates to gender equity, access to training and education, the broader social context and the role child care plays in social cohesion. Placing the chronological events within a wider context was accomplished through an extensive literature review. It was necessary to use the literature review of child care and women's issues to inform social contexts and the evolution of ideas within those contexts. since within this thesis 1 address a number of issues relating to child care policy. I completed a literature review of child care's role in gender equity; of the place of child care in a broader social context: and quality indices for child care. A discussion of the indicators of high quality care and the research into issues surrounding quality is included in chapter 2. Acknowledging the difficulties of defining quality unilaterally is important.
Once the child care chronology was delineated for the federal and provinciaV territories contexts, I developed a more in-depth comparison of policy development and implementation in Alberta, Quebec and Yukon. I chose to examine Quebec because it has developed a broad family support policy including universal government sponsored, non- profit child care. Quebec has a strong sense of the need to establish social supports for economic development. Alberta was chosen as a contrast since it lacks a broad based family support policy, nor have child care policies been developed for government 51 sponsored non-profit child care. Alberta is a conservative province with a history of supporting the private economy and free enterprise. Yukon is a territory that has a mix of auspice and yet has developed more supportive policies that fall between the two more extreme political views.
The review of literature was accomplished using a variety of sources in three main arenas: early childhood care and education literature. gender studies literature and policy literature. The review of the literature was conducted through catalogue searches at the
University of Calgary. research done at the Child Care Research and Resource Unit at the
University of Toronto. searches through the collections of the Manitoba Child Care
Association and the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada and electronic searches through the ERIC system. The information was then assembled in a way that attempts to demonstrate that child care is a component of many issues through identifying trends such as language usage or funding mechanisms at the federal. provincial and territorial levels.
Language usage and fimding mechanisms suggest who is privileged in a given social context. The language of individual responsibility coupled with parent subsidies as the
major government Funding privileges those that can afford high quality care or
supplementary preschool while stigmatizing those that use subsidized care. The language
of healthy child development and women's equality coupled with public funding of
programs suggests all children and women are valued.
A more in-depth comparison and discussion of the three provincial jurisdictions
with very different political and social views was developed: Quebec is a province that
has developed a comprehensive child care policy within the broader context of strong family policies and sees non-profit auspice as essential. Alberta is a politically conservative province with a strong sense of individual responsibility and a belief in a market system that supports a for-profit auspice. Yukon is a temtory that combines more supportive social policy and a mix of auspice.
Trr~snvorrhiness:
In order to demonstrate that the analysis is one that the reader can trust a number of techniques were used. The Framework for analysis fits within a critical, constructivist paradigm as outlined by Guba and Lincoln (1994). The aim of the inquiry was to critique and point the way to transform policy around child care, and recognize and understand the social contests that influenced policy development.
Lincoln and Guba ( 1985) proposed four criteria by which qualitative research rstablis hes 'truth value' : credibility, transferability. dependability and confirmability.
Credibility refers to ensuring that the research was conducted in a credible way for the subject of inquiry. A method of providing credibility is triangulation. A triangulation of three separable components of this study is undertaken to show consistency between the components. The literature review provides a strong base from which to recognize the characteristics of positive, comprehensive policy involving child care and is one aspect of triangulation. The use of public documents and secondary sources around policy announcements and objectives is a second aspect of triangulation. The verification and corroboration of the chronology by federal, provincial or territorial advocates, researchers or bureaucrats is the third aspect of triangulation. I received feedback kom sixteen 53 experts in their jurisdiction on the accuracy of the chronologies. Further, I shared my chronologies at the Linking Research To Practice Forum in Ottawa, November 27, 1999 on the topic Child Care Policy Development in Canada. I informed my audience that I wanted critical feedback regarding the accuracy of my chronology for their jurisdiction.
Active discussion provided feedback that was helpful and that I was able to incorporate into my thesis. Response to the presentation and discussion suggested that it resonated with other participants. Triangulation also supports the dependability and confirmability of the data collection and analysis. Together they inform us that the data are trustworthy. Chapter 4: Federal Child Care Policy Development
Introduction:
In Canada child care and other social policy issues have always been the responsibility of the provincial governments. The federal government has. however, intluenced policy around social issues, health and education in a number of ways. Federal involvement has ranged from providing funding for programs considered important by the federal government. cost-sharing programs. or utilizing the tau system. Child care initiatives from the federal government have been accidental, as in the case of the Canada
Assistance Plan, deliberate, as in the introduction of Bill CI 44. the national child care bill that died on the table. or through the tax system. as in the introduction of the Child Care
Tau Deduction. Historically. child care policy in Canada has emerged from multiple goals. few of them related to child care services per se.
The origins of child care in Canada actually date back to late-nineteenth-
century social reform. which has resulted in child care being placed in the
historical context of the social welfare system. (Atkin, 1998; p. 57)
This chapter wili review federal initiatives that directly or indirectly influenced child care policy in a chronological order. Some initiatives cover time spans that overlap with other initiatives. Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement:
During World War I1 the federal government under MacKellzie King offered
Funding for child care as part of the war effort (Pence, 1992):
World War II represented a departure from the custodial model of day care; the federal government became involved for the first time in day-care financing under the Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement. This legislation emphasized that the nurseries were an emergency measure linked to mothen' participation in industries deemed essential to the war effort. (Atkin. 1998; p. 59) The Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement provided start-up and operating costs for child care centers on a cost-shared basis. Initially. to receive funding, the province had to show that at least 75 percent of the mothers using the service were working in war related industries. While the federal government removed the 75 percent requirement. only
Ontario and Quebec actually opened daycare centers under the program. Although
Alberta signed the Agreement, an advisory committee quickly refuted the need for child care in Alberta (Read, Greenwood-Church. Hautman. Roche & Bagley. 1992). In 1945 the Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement was withdrawn and the federal government withdrew from funding child care.
Family Allowance:
Following the Great Depression and World War II the federal government introduced a universal Family Allowance program in 1945 (Bashevkin, 1998; McQuaig,
1993). Some authors have suggested that this program was a payment to families with children under the age of eighteen in recognition of the cost of having children
(Bashevkin. 1998; McQuaig, 1993). However, Durst (1999) and Ursel (1992) offer the interpretation that Family Allowances were brought in an attempt to allow wages to remain low and maintain a labour market competitiveness. The introduction of a universal Family Allowance was done unilaterally by the federal government and designed by departments not usually involved in social policy such as the Department of
External Affairs. the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada (Durst, 1999: 35).
Whether designed to support families andlor suppress wages, the universal program was available to all families. and therefore did not create an artificial concept of deserving and
un-deserving recipients. The suggestion was that it did not cost much more to implement
a universal program and eliminate the need to have eligibility criteria (Ursel, 1992). In
1989 Brian Mulroney introduced a claw-back of the family allowance payments for
middle and upper income families through the income tau system. Family allowance was
no longer a universal program (Dunt. 1999; Bashevkin. 1998: McQuaig, 1993). In 1993.
under Jean Chretien's liberal government, the Family Allowance program. the child tax
credit and the non-refundable tax credit were rolled together into a new income-tested
program. the Child Tax Benefit. The Child Tax Benefit is an income support targeted to
middle and low-income families.
Canada Assistance Plan:
In 1966 the federal government under Lester Pearson introduced the Canadian
..lssistance Plan (CAP). CAP was a federal-provincial cost-sharing arrangement that allowed provinces to encourage the development of %on-profit services that have as their objective the lessening, removal or prevention of the causes and effects of poverty, child neglect. or dependence on public assistance." (Pence, 1992 p. 27). Although CAP was never intended to fund child care, CAP allowed provinces to fhd the costs of child care for low-income families within a welfare framework (Friendly. 1994). Cost-shared funding agreements allowed the federal government to support the development of child care programs in Canada, even though it was an area of provincial responsibility:
Gradually, CAP'S shared-cost agreements with the provinces and territories
permitted expansion in the child care system. Yet, because CAP treated
child care like other welfare services, subsidies for child-care spaces were
made available only to lower-income families, barring the development of
a child-care system designed to meet the needs of all children. (Atkin,
1998: p. 59)
In 1990 the federal government under Brian Mulroney placed a cap on CAP that resulted in a reduction of dollars for the 'have' provinces of British Columbia. Alberta and Ontario. No longer did these provinces receive a Federal dollar for every provincial dollar spent on welfare services. The cap on CAP had significant impact in reducing the expansion of regulated child care in those provinces affected (Friendly, 1994), althou& some have suggested that the impact in Alberta was minimal since hdiogwas being redirected from operating grants to parent subsidies. and the amount was below the cap
(White. 1997). 58 Local Initiatives Plan and Department of Regional Economic Development:
In 1970 the federal government under Pierre Elliott Trudeau introduced the Local
Initiatives Projects (LIP).LIP was a federal job creation program. This program allowed for the development and operation of community based child care programs (Atkin, 1998;
Friendly, 1994). LIP was withdrawn in 1973. At the same time that the federal government introduced LIP it also introduced a plan under the Department oj'Regiona2
Economic Ekpansion (DREE) that allowed the development of child care programs in rural areas for a target group of economically and socially disadvantaged families (Atkin.
1998: Friendly. 1994: Rochon & Rice, 1992). The development of child care programs through these projects was viewed as an opportunity for job creation and services to an at- risk population. rather than a service for all children, families and communities.
Child Care Expense Deduction:
In 197 1 the federal government introduced the Chi[d Care Expense Dedzrction
(CCED) provision of the Income Tax Act. The CCED allows parents to deduct a percentage of their receipted child care expenses. This tax measure favours middle and upper income families in that the value of the deduction increases with income (Bach &
Phillips. 1997). Lower income families are more likely to use the unregulated market with its lower cost. Unregulated care is frequently not receipted, consequently many lower income families are unable to take advantage of the CCED.In 1978 the federal government introduced a Child Trrx Credit through the Income Tar Act. The Child Tar
Credit was means tested and targeted to low-income families. The child tax credit was a supplement to low-income families, not a child care subsidy or expense deduction. In
1988 the Conservatives under Brian Mulroney tightened eligibility rules for the Child Tar
Credit.
Katie Cooke Task Force:
The Liberal Government appointed a task force to examine the issue of child care in Canada in 1984. The chair of the task force was Katie Cooke. the first president of the
Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. The other members of the task force were Renee Edwards, Executive Director of he Victoria Day Care Services in
Toronto: Jack R. London, Professor of Law at the University of Manitoba; and Ruth
Rose-Lizee. Professor of Economics at University of Quebec.
Providing quality child care for today's and tomorrow's children. and adequate leave policies for parents are major challenges of the 1980s. The federal government recognized the concern of parents and leading professionals in the field when, in May 1984, it appointed a Task Force on Child Care to study the issue and make recommendations to the government. (Canada, 1986. pp. xxiii)
The Report of the Task Force on Child Care was released in March 1986 and covered a wide range of issues. The task force examined child care in Canada by examining changing family dynamics and needs, parental leave needs and current provisions, current child care arrangements (both formal and informal), needs of parents, needs of caregivers, issues pertaining to quality as well as the economic costs and benefits 60 of public child care. The task force also looked at child care provisions in other countries and the delivery of other social programs in Canada in order to suggest means of delivering a national child care program. The task force then made a number of recommendations that included immediate, short term and long term goals in the development a national system of quality child care recognizing both the need for a federal role and the jurisdictional issues and individual needs of each province and territory. (Canada, 1986).
Parliamentary Committee on Child Care:
Following the appointment of the Task Force the Progressive Conservatives were elected in 1984. During the election campaign the Progressive Conservatives included a national child care program in their campaign platform. After the Report of the Task
Force was released it was passed on to a Special Parliamentary Commitlee on Child
Care. chaired by Conservative MP Shirley Martin, that had been created in November
1985 (Canada. 1987). The committee was to examine and report in the child care needs of the Canadian family, with the focus on the child in the context of the family. It is noted that the responsibility for child care is a shared responsibility between families, and all levels of government. In the end there were thirty-nine recommendations made. The committee did not agree on the need for child care or on the role of government in providing child care:
The committee was deeply split, and in the end the Liberal and NDP members issued dissenting minority reports. The Conservative majority thought that the focus should be on giving money to parents to pay for child care; the Liberals and NDP wanted governments to invest in the building and operation of more child-care spaces. (MacIvor, 1996. p.374)
Bill C144:
By 1988 the Progressive Conservatives had developed their National Strategy on
Child Care:
The strategy was not a new national government program. instead, it was a package of existing tax measures with some additional funding to create and operate new child-care spaces. The funding was seriously inadequate: it was targeted to create 200,000 new spaces over seven years. when the actual present need is over a million spaces. (Macivor. 1996. p. 375) This strategy required negotiations with the provinces and to go through the parliamentary committee process. This long process involved the production of reports on issues requested by the committee, public hearings and readings in the House and Senate.
Many advocates were concerned by the content of Bill C- 144 and worked at increasing public awareness of the short-comings it contained:
Conclusion: in its own terms, as we think we have demonstrated above, Bill C- 144 fails. It does not meet its own criteria of availability, affiordability, quality or accessibility? and it puts at risk certain populations served by the existing child care arrangements. Other criteria could have been presented. CDCAA (Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association) wishes that this committee would measure the bill against additional principles suggested by CDCAA and other major groups. (House of Commons, 1986-88: witness Sharon Hope-Irwin, CDCAA; 4:30: 7-9- 1988) 62 When the Progressive Conservatives called an election in 1988 Bill C 144 died on the order table in Senate. Following their re-election the Progressive Conservatives did not
revive Bill C-144, and in 1992 Don Mazankowski, Finance Minister, announced there
would be no national child care program.
Canada Child Tax Benefit:
In 1997 the federal government announced the creation of the Canada Child Tax
Benejir as part of its strategy to eliminate child poverty. This is a supplement to be paid to
low and middle income families combining the Child Tar Benefir with the Working
Income Strpplement (WIS). "Its primary goal is to encourage people to move from welfare
to work by offering income supplements to working-poor families." (Bach & Phillips.
1997: 249). This is a federal program of cash supports to individuals that was negotiated
with the provinces and territories to allow the provinces and temtories to deduct the
payment from social assistance recipients. The claw-back from welfare families
effectively makes it a supplement to low and middle working families that is not available
to the poorest of the poor, those on social assistance. Provinces and temtories agreed to
'reinvest' their Social Assistance savings in programs for poor children. The argument
was made that the new Child Tax Benefit would provide a disincentive to welfare
parents. That the supplement was not enough to cover the cost of quality child care
should the welfare recipient move into the workforce (August; 1999; Battle, 1999), and
that there was no requirement for the provinces to provide child care was not included in
the discussions. Community Action Program for Children and Aboriginal Headstart:
In 199 1 the federal government announced two programs, the Community Action
Program for Children (CAPC) and Aboriginal Headstart, that were to be 100 percent federally funded. These programs were federally hdedservice delivery programs to benefit children, but were not designed to deliver child care. CAPC was to encourage the development of programs for children by a partnership of community groups working together. "CAPC was designed to support integrated health and social services for families with young children." (National Council of Welfare. 1999). However. before the program actually began in 1993 it had already had its budget reduced. CAPC lost more hnding in the 1996 budget cuts. In 1997 the federal government announced additional funds tbr CAPC. but the budget was still less than the amount originally announced in
199 1. CAPC is a complicated community development program with several layers of administration. It has never reached the goals set out in its announcement in 199 1
(National Council of Welfare, 1999). Aboriginal Headstart was to provide targeted early intervention programs for aboriginal children. It is modeled on the American Headstart program.
The Debt/ Deficit Era:
tn 1993 the Liberals included the development and expansion of a national system of child care in their election plad,orm, know as the so-called 'Red Book'. After they were elected, the Liberals, as the feded govemrnent, became committed to the elimination of the deficit and the reduction of the debt. Social programs became the scapegoat of the 64 deficit/ debt agenda despite evidence that social programs were not major contributors to the accumulated debt and deficit situation (Pulkingham & Temowetsky, 1996).
Subsequent budget cutting measures had negative impacts on social programs, including child care. in Canada (Doherty, Oloman & Friendly, 1998; Swimmer, 1997; Pulkingham
& Temowetsky. 1996). Despite the commitment of Human Resources Minister Lloyd
Axworthy and his attempt to introduce a national program late in 1995. the government was not committed to the red book promise on child care. Following a cabinet shuffle in
January 1996. that resulted in a new Minister of Heaith and Social Services who was not committed to child care. there was a move to retreat fiom the child care negotiations
(Bach & Phillips. 1997). This shift in emphasis resulted in the removal of child care fiom the federal agenda. The elimination of the Nationd Day Care Information Center following the cabinet shuffle in 1996 meant that there no longer was even a federal bureaucrat to contact regarding child care issues.
Canada Health and Social Transfer:
Prior to 1995 hdsfor child care were cost-shared between the federal and provincial/territorial governments. In 1995 the federal government introduced the Canada
HeaW and Social Transfer (CHST)which significantly changed the funding mechanisms for social programs including child care (Pulkingham & Ternowetsky, 1996). The funds
From the federal government for health, social services and education were moved to a block funding arrangement without requirements or commitments to maintaining current levels of funding by the provinces. At the same time the amount of hnding in the block 65 from the federal government was decreased. Not surprisingly this change in hding negatively impacted child care services across Canada (Doherty, Friendly & Oloman,
1998).
Social Union Framework Agreement:
In February 1999 the federal and provincid territorial governments signed a social union Framework. "The February 1999 Social Union Framework Agreement signals an era of more effective cooperation among governments on social issues, including children." (Canada 1999; pi). The social union framework. signed by the
Government of Canada. nine provinces and the territories. is a three year agreement to meet the needs of Canadians in the areas of health and social programs (PMO office.
1999). Quebec did not sign the agreement.
In a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation. the Government of Canada. nine provinces and the territories embarked on a new era of flexible federalism and by agreeing on a new framework to strengthen Canada's health and social programs to better meet the needs of Canadians as we enter the 2 1st century. We are, of course, disappointed that the government of Quebec did not see fit to join us in the historic agreement. (PMO office, 1999).
The agreement mentions commitments, guidelines and principles that are agreed upon, but there are no actions to implement these commitments, guidelines and principles. In order to develop a new program there must be the agreement of a majority of the provinces and territories, and an agreed upon accountability mechanism established
(PMO ofice, 1999; Government of Saskatchewan, 1999). This agreement will be reviewed in three years. There is potential under this agreement to have discussions around a more comprehensive child care system, but it would be dependent upon agreement of a majority of provinces and territories before it could be discussed. (It is possible that we would not have a medicare system had this agreement been in place then.)
National Children's Agenda:
In June 1999 the federal and provincial/ territorial governments released the results of their discussions around the iVafional Children s Agenda (NCA). The Nationul
Children 's Agenda is a product of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Council of Ministers on Social Policy Renewal. The Council was created in 1996 by the first ministers to discuss social policy issues in the wake of the CHST. Despite recognizing "Children are our country's strength today, and in the fiihrre." (Canada 1999; p. 1) the National
Children i Agenda is a document without substance, nor does it actually commit to better policies for children. The document states "As a nation we aspire to have children who are ( 1) Healthy, physically and emotionally. (2) Safe and secure. (3) Successll at learning. (4) Socially engaged and responsible." @. 9). These are the four goals of the
NCA. The document then goes on to identify six key areas of importance where
". ..cooperative effort can have positive effects on children." @. 11). Those areas are: supporting parents and strengthening families; enhancing early childhood development; improving economic security for families; providing early and continuous learning experiences; fostering strong adolescent development; and creating supportive, safe and violence free communities. Although the document discusses the importance of cooperative efforts there are no concrete actions that will lead to Canada wide policies for children. The initiatives listed in appendix A are mostly those programs that were instituted under the reinvestment component of the National Child Benefit. There is some discussion that the government's role is that of making information accessible to the public. and some talk of the role of the voluntary sector in program delivery, however, there is no discussion of using the NCA as a means of priorizing and equalizing government policy to benefit Canada's children and families. At the end of the document C the Council recognizes that child care is an important environmental influence in a child's life:
At some point in time, all families use some form of' supplemental child care. Children who have experienced good care, whether at home, or through formal or informal child care arrangements, have greater social competence, higher levels of language development and play, and fewer behavioural problems in elementary school than those who have experienced lower quality care. (Canada, 1999; p. 36).
Recent Events:
July 1999 saw the release of an internal Health Canada document on a comprehensive system of programs for children. The National Post (July 29, 1999: AI) reported that the document was leaked by Kerry McQuaig of the Ontario Coalition for 68 Better Child Care (OCBCC).Subsequently the National Post (July 30, 1999) stated that the document was not leaked by the OCBCC. The Globe and Mail (July 30,1999: A3) said that the document was released by Health Canada. Whether released or leaked the draft document shows that Health Canada bureaucrats are actually looking at a comprehensive system of programs for children and families that include programs from conception through infancy; parent support programs; accessible, affordable child care; and junior/ senior kindergarten for 4 and 5 year olds. In Calgary the subsequent press was mostly negative. viewing programs for children as government interference in the private lives of families (Calgary Herald, July 30. 1999: A1 8: B 1; B9).
July 1999 also saw a kderal cabinet shuffle. with Pierre Pettigrew being replaced as rhr Minister of Human Resource Development by Jane Stewart. Prime Minister
Chretien signaled his intent to stay on as Prime Minister by moving more left-wing party members into cabinet. The new Minister of Human Resource Development is a strong child care supporter, and a strong believer in social programs.
On the CBC radio 1 broadcast of The House on October 16, 1999, Jane Stewart.
Minister of Human Resource Development said that the Liberals had always felt that parents were the ones ultimately responsible for their children. However, given the overwhelming body of research emphasizing the importance of the early years to lifelong health. school completion and success, and crime prevention, the government had come to realize that on a policy level the federal government needs to provide and support parent choices. She immediately pointed out that the federal government had put child care on the table in 1996, but that the provinces had rehed to negotiate. This view of the 69 1996 Axworthy offer leaves out the fact that following a cabinet shuffle the new Minister,
Doug Young, withdrew the offer without ever actually negotiating with the provinces.
The party line at the time was that the provinces were not interested.
Discussion:
Federal involvement in child care has taken a variety of intentional and unintentional forms. The Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement was a federal policy to provide child care to working mothers in order to support the war effort. The Canada
.4ssisfance PIan was never intended to fund child care. It was a cost-shared program designed to assist with the cost of supporting welfare programs for those with low- incomes. The provinces quickly realized that the language was vague enough that they could cost-share subsidies to low-income parents who needed child care. The Local
Iniriarives Plan and the Department of Regional Economic Erpansion, were never designed to develop child care, but were used for child care in some provinces. Child care as an issue that may require federal support was first recognized by the Royal
Commission on the Status of Women in 1970 and has since been echoed by Judge Rosalie
Abella in the Royal Commission Report on Canadian Employment Equity in 1984, in the
Liberal Task Force on Child Care in 1986 and in the Nationa! Council on WeIfae
Reports in 1988 and 1999. The Conservatives also appointed a Parliamentary Cornminee on Child Care. The two bodies, the Liberal Task Force and the Conservative
Parliamentary Committee, came to similar conclusions regarding the need for a comprehensive child care program with federal support, although the emphasis in each 70 was different. The Liberal Task Force favoured the development of a system of child care. while the Conservative Parliamentary Committee stressed tax measures. Child care was an issue in the 1986, 1990 and 1994 campaigns, although election promises regarding child care never materialized. More recent language has moved child care in a direction away from a welfare model, and towards a more comprehensive def~tionrecognizing lifelong impacts of the early years, and the role quality child care plays.
Conclusion:
Federal child care policy in Canada has been inconsistent. There have been a number of initiatives between 1945-1999 that impacted child care in either a direct or an indirect way. However. there has been no cohesive development of child care policy within the broader social policy fiarnework:
There is no Canada-wide consensus about the goals for child care; instead different provinces espouse different goals. As a result there is no society- wide perspective on the characteristics of quality child care. (Doherty, 1999, p. 70) A Health and Welfare Canada report suggests that the broader social context including models of the family and work have resulted in assumptions underlying child care policy within the context of balancing work and families that have resulted in a lack of national policy:
The implicit assumptions underlying existing child care policy seem consistent with a combination of patriarchal and individual responsibility models of the family. For example, existing tax policy requires that, in two-parent families, deductions for child care must be taken by the parent with the lowest income. The underlying assumption seems to be that child care is not the responsibility of the primary income earner (usually the father) nor a requirement for his ability to work, so he may not claim the child care expense. Rather, child care is the responsibility of the secondary earner (usually the mother) and often is a requirement for her to undertake paid work. so she may claim the expense. This is consistent with the assumptions of gender inequality and gendered division of labour common to the patriarchal model of the family and the separate spheres model of the work-family relationship. ( Health and Welfare Canada, 1989. p. 803- 804).
The suggestion that tax policy hinges upon a patriarchal and individualistic world view offers one explanation for the lack of consistent child care policy development in Canada.
Individuals have been expected to care for their families without government assistance or interference. Child care when viewed as a private responsibility belongs in the private market. and not in government policy. Government policy involving child care has occurred when the government perceives that it is in the best interest of the government or society to become involved.
The values and norms of society, including gender roles, have varying influences on the health and well-being of children. Societal values help determine governments' social, health and economic policies. Public policies define the social expectations, rights and responsibilities that determine the resources available to children as they grow. (Canada, 1999; p. 37) Chapter 5: Provincial Child Care Policy Development
Introduction: Provincial/ Territorial Snapshots
This chapter provides an introduction to provincial and territorial jurisdictional differences. a chronology for the development of child care policy in each province and territory and a concluding discussion on the diversity of policy in Canada.
Child care policy falls under provincial jurisdiction in Canada. Each province/ territory has its own legislation and regulations. The lack of a federal ~ax-neworkhas resulted in very different policies, regulations. legislation and services across the country
( Do herty & Stuart. 1996; Friendly, 1994; Norpark Computer Design, Inc. 199 1). Issues surrounding child care in many provinces/ territories have evolved gradually and vary greatly from province to province. The diverse response of the provinces to the
Dominion- Provincial Wartime Agreement for child care is an excellent example of the historical roots of these variations (Pence, 1992; Goelman, 1992). While British
Columbia was interested in child care and signed the agreement, they did not actually get to use the funding (McDonnel, 1992). Alberta signed the agreement but quickly rehted the need for child care (Read, Greenwood-Church, Hautman, Roche & Bagley, 1992).
Quebec and Ontario both successfully funded child care through the Agreement
(Desjardins. 1992; Kyle, 1992). However, none ofthe other provinces signed the agreement. Following the end of the agreement Ontario successfully lobbied for the on- eoing support of centers established with the cost-shared arrangement, while those C centers established in Quebec closed.
Regulations also vary enormously &om province to province. British Columbia and Ontario were licensing day cares by the 1940s. Many other provinces did not regulate child care until after the federal government introduced the Canada Assistance
Plan in 1966. Regulated child care services in Newfoundland did not include care for infants until June, 1999. Most child care services in Canada developed within a welfare model of services. Development of services were either supported to allow mothers to work. such as during the Dominion- Provincial Wartime Agreement. or were opposed because mothers were supposed to be home with their children, and therefore. child care services were unnecessary. Programs developed under CAP were targeted to low-income families. A 199 1 comparative analysis of child care found that:
Most provinces espouse what might be called a social welfare philosophy of child care, which primarily aims to help low income families so that parents can work, seek work, or upgrade their skills through more education or training. Alberta, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, British Columbia Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan take this approach. Alberta's policy captures the essence of this philosophy: day care programs may be used as a resource by lower income families to participate in education and training opportunities as a means of increasing economic independence among families. (Norpark Computer Design, hc, 1991. p. 7) The other end of the spectrum is seen in Quebec, the only province that perceives child care as a community service. Between 1965 and 1990 Quebec developed a broader range of family policies than the rest of Canada Programs include support to families with young children, subsidized child care, supplements to the federal Family Allowance, extended parental leave and direct monetary incentives to increase the birth rate (Baker,
1990).
The provinces and territories have developed quite different systems of child care since World War 11. There are both similarities and differences in the language used in the development of public documents, regulations and legislation at different times and in the different provinces and territories. There are similarities that result from federal initiatives. for example the Canada Assistance Plan effectively placed child care within a welfare model of services. However, language around child care and its importance and place varies tremendously. Is child care solely a support to maternal employment to move people from social assistance? is child care an important part of the social economy that requires support? Does parental choice mean subsidizing parents and not prognms. or does it mean providing a system that allows for adequate choice for parents? Does child care support children and families? Does child care support healthy child development?
The provinces have diverse views in answering these questions that have resulted in a wide range of policies and supports across the country.
British Columbia
British Columbia has a relatively long history of policy regarding child care. Like many provinces the first legislation was included under the welfare programs legislation when the Webre Institutions Licensing Act was amended to include daycare in 1943
(Pence, 1992). The next set of changes took place following 1966 when federal CAP 75 hnding provided cost-shared fimding for low-income families using daycare. In 1969 the
Child Care Facilities Licensing Board replaced the Weyare Institutions Licensing Act in regulating child care. Following the election of the New Democratic Party under Dave
Barren in 1972. the eligibility ceilings for subsidy were increased, the amount of the subsidy payment was increased and part-time preschool and after school programs
became eligible for subsidy.
The election of the Social Credit Party in 1975 was followed by the formation of a
series of advocacy groups: the Coalition for hproved Day Care Services in 1975. BC
Daycare Action Coalition in 198 1. the Western Canada Family Day Care Association in
1982 and the Native Preschool Teachers Association in 1985. In 1988 the BC Preschool
Teachers Association. which had formed in 1968, became the Early Childhood Educators
of BC.
In 1989 regulations governing child care were amended. Centers could now have
infants under eighteen months. Training requirements were identified. The number of
hours a child could spend in care was increased to thirteen hours per day. (Essa & Young,
1994: p. 86)
In 1990 a Task Force on Child Care was appointed by Bill Vander Zalm. The
report of the Task Force was released in 1991 following the election of the NDP under
Mike Harcourt. This document Showing we care: A child care s~ategyfor the 90s was
viewed as a key document by advocates. A Child Care Branch was established in the new
Ministry of Women's Equality in 1992. The provincial Child Care Facilities Licensing
Board was disbanded and replaced with a Director of Community Care Facilities and the 76 Ministry of Women's Equality became responsible for grant programs relating to child care. In 1993 a Provincial Child Care Council was appointed and in 1994 a Child Care
Policy Team was established. A wage supplement was introduced in 1995. In 1996 the
BC Benejiis (Child Care) Act was proclaimed. In 1998/99 things have become progressively turbulent as child care has been a victim of the budget and has seen changes to reduce those programs eligible for funding and unionization. In 1999 unionized child care workers were part of a broader community services workers strike involving several unions and many senice providers.
Alberta
.Alberta signed the Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement in 1942. but did not open any centers under the agreement. In 1966 the Preventive Social Services Act delegated authority for daycare to municipalities and introduced cost-sharing with participating municipalities such as Edmonton.
In 1 978 the Social Care Facilities Licensing Act was proclaimed. This act governed child care licensing and changed funding fiom program hnding to fee subsidies for low-income parents. Funding followed the child and thus allowed commercial centers to access provincial hnding. The Act recommended licensing standards and the licensing unit was transferred to the Community Services Branch of the Health Division within the
Social Services and Community Health Department. In 1980 a Day Care Advisory committee was established. Operating allowances were introduced and the provincial government took over municipal funding and administrative roles. In 1981 the Social 77
Care Facilities Licensing Act was amended and legislated new standards and standards for family day homes were introduced. In 1986 a fieeze was imposed on Operating
Allowances. In 1987 and 1989 manuals were introduced for centers and family day homes respectively. The number of children permitted in a family day home was increased in 1989.
Alberta Day Care Reforms was released following public consultation in 1990.
Over the next five years st& qualifications were to be introduced. operating allowances were to be redirected to parent subsidies, the fieeze on operating allowances was lifted although new dollars were to go to parent subsidies. and the income level to qualify for subsidy was to be raised. Family day care programs were deregulated in 1994. unless they were part of a satellite program. In 1996 Regional Authorities for children's prognms were established. In 1998 there was a large reduction in operating grants, and in 1999 operating grants were eliminated.
Saskatchewan
Saskatchewan was not eligible for the Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement
Funding of child care. In 1970 the Child Welfare Act was introduced and included the
funding of start-up grants, monthly operating grants and fee subsidies for low-income
parents.
[n 1974 the Department of Social Services established a Day Care Branch.
Following the establishment of the Day Care Branch Licensing was available only to
centers that were operated by non-profit parent boards. Grants and subsidies were increased at this time. In 1975 the Family Services Act included new child care regulations. In 1976. special needs requirements were recognized and funded through grants for equipment and staff.
Following the election of the Progressive Conservative Party under Grant Devine in 1984. it was recommended that commercial centers be licensed. Lobbying by the
Regina Day Care Coalition resulted in preventing commercial centers from licensing. In
1986 the grants were changed from an annual equipment grant to a monthly per child operating grant.
In 1989 the Child Care Act was introduced. This Act did ailow for the licensing of commercial centers. In 1990 Child Care Regzilafionsand Policy was introduced.
Following the election of the NDP under Roy Romanov in 1991, a Child Care Advisory
Board was appointed in 1992.
In 1993 the government announced the Saskatchewan Action Plan for Chiklren and introduced grants to encourage work-place child care. In L 995 Child Care Resource
Centers were established throughout the province and parental fee subsidies were changed to reflect differing costs for different age groups. 1996 saw the announcement of
a wage enhancement grant for child care workers. In 1997 capital grants for renovations
were introduced. Six years following the announcement of the Saskatchewan Action P[an for Children. a policy firamework was released in 1999. By 1999 the wage enhancement
grant had been extended to include all child care workers. Manitoba
Manitoba started advocating for child care quite early. In 1962 the Community
Welfare Council of Winnipeg reieased a report calling for day care, family day care and before and after school programs for working mothers. Following the election of the NDP in 1969 the Planning Secretariat commissioned a report on daycare services which was released in 1 97 1.
The Provincial Child Day Care Program was introduced in 1972 in the
Department of Health and Social Development. This program provided start-up grants and operating grants to non-profit centers and family day homes, and fee subsidies to low- income parents. 1972 also saw the Manitoba Women's Bureau release a report on working mothers and child care, and the formation of the Manitoba Child Care
.4ssociation.
Following the election of the Conservatives in 1977 commercial child care centers were allowed to access governments grants and be 'grand-fathered' in if they were in operation prior to 1974.
In 19 8 1 the NDP were elected and the Community Child Day Care Standards Act was passed in 1982. In 1983 regulations were passed to support the Act and the Child
Day Care Program moved from the welfue division to the new Department of
Community Services. In 1986 a wage enhancement grant for workers in non-profit centers was introduced and fbding to include child care centers in new school structures that were funded by the province was introduced. A Task Force on Child Care was appointed in 1988. 80
The Conservatives were elected in 1988. In 1989 the Report of the ~Manitoba
Child Care Task Force was released. A one day strike was staged by staff to protest low wages for child care workers. Following the one day strike the Minister of Family
Services appointed a Working Group on Child Care. The Manitoba Child Care
Association (MCCA) called for a moratorium on further job action pending the report of the Working Group. In 1990 the group reported and the government accepted their recommendations which included an increased wage enhancement grant, wage enhancement for family day care workers. increased maintenance grants, an increased ceiling for parent subsidies and increased parent fees. The MCCA was satisfied with the report and called off any job action.
In 199 1 the fhding for child care was restructured into one consolidated direct operating grant which included the wage enhancement. The result was a lower wage enhancement and increased parent fees. 1992 saw a freeze placed on the licensing of new spaces and a report from the Working Group on Franco-phone Day Care was released.
1993 saw some major reductions in funding for child care. The operating grant to centers was reduced by 4%; the operating grant to nursery schools was reduced by 50%; operating grants to the Manitoba Child Care Association and the Family Day Care
Association were eliminated; and a form was introduced requiring new centers to acknowledge that they would not be receiving government funds.
A Regulation Review Committee was established in 1994 and a Review of Child
Care regulations began in 1996. The Children and Youth Secretariat began trying to
integrate and coordinate children's se~cesin 1996. In 1997 a 26 member Regulation 8 1 Committee was established. 1997 also saw MCCA and FDCA vote to amalgamate the associations.
Funding for child care started to increase again in 1998 with a 4% increase of the operating grants for inf'ant and preschool spaces. 1999 saw an increase of $S.jM in child care hnding including a 10- 14% increase in grants for centers, a 2% increase in grants for family day homes. 1999 also saw funding for early literacy programs. women and infant nutrition programs, BabyFirst and Early Start programs, increased funding for the
Children and Youth Secretariat, increased bdhgfor Children's Special Services. and funding for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention and Workforce Attachment programs.
Ontario
Ontario signed the Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement and established a
Day Nurseries Branch in 1942. In 1945 the Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement ended. and with it the funding. 1946 saw the Day Nurseries and Day Care Parents
Association successfully lobby to keep day nurseries open despite the end of the funding.
The Day Nztrseries Act was passed in 1946.
In 1966 Ontario was able to introduce fee subsidies for low-income families through the Canada Assistance Plan. In 1974 the first policy statement on child care in
Ontario called it a welfare service for those in fmancial need and recommended lowering standards to reduce costs. The Day Care Services to Children Report issued by Margaret
Birch, Minister of Social Services, later became known as the Birch Proposals. The Day
Care Reform Action Alliance successllly fought the Birch Proposals. The Advisory Council on Day Care released its first Progress Report in January, 1975, its second
Progress Report in June 1975 and its Final Report in 1976.
In 1978 the Children's Services Division replaced the Day Nurseries Branch and the Day ivzrrseries Act was amended to require licensing of family day care, staff/child ratios and support for integration of special needs children. A consultative paper. Dq iV~rrseriesServices: Proposed Standards and Guidelines, was released in 1980. 198 1 saw the formation of the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, an advocacy group for quality child care.
In 1984 the Standing Committee on Social Development held public hearings and received submissions across Ontario. In 1985 Enterprise Ontario was announced and included new funds for child care. Following the election of the Liberals under David
Petrrsen in 1985 a Program for Action was announced. This signaled a policy shift as child care was referred to as a public service and not a welfare service.
Following the election of the NDP under Bob Rae in 1990 a number of actions were taken around child care. A wage enhancement grant was introduced in 1991, and a conversion program to encourage for-profit centers to convert to non-profit centers was also introduced. School boards became eligible to operate child care programs in 1992 and JobsOntario created 8200 fully-fhded child care subsidies for low-income parents looking for work or job training. In 1993 the wage enhancement grant was capped and no new workers in a program were eligible for wage enhancement. Before the election in
1995 a pilot project, The Early Years- working towards a seamless day for four and five year olds, was announced. 83 Following the 1995 election that resulted in a Conservative government under
Mike Harris a number of changes to child care policy and programs were made. The
JobsOntario subsidies became cost-shared with municipalities, the government imposed a
Freeze on the pay-equity portion of the wage-enhancement grant, the program development fund that provided start-up grants and capital grants was eliminated, the funding to include child care programs in new schools was eliminated, the program to encourage conversion to a non-profit governance was cancelled, the Early years program was cancelled and the policy limiting new subsidies to non-profit programs was reversed.
Mr. Harris quickly eliminated all the changes implemented by Mr. Rae. In 1996 pay equity for child care workers was eliminated.
In 1997 the Ontario provincial government announced that licensing ofchild care programs was to be devolved to municipal and regional governments. Prior to the election in 1999 a retroactive lump payment of the pay-equity portion of the wage enhancement grant was given to workers to cover 1995-1998. All contracts for wage enhancement grants were transferred to municipalities effective July 1999. Mr. Harris was re-elected in
1999.
Quebec
Quebec signed the Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement in 1942 and six centers were established. When the agreement ended in 1945 and funding discontinued those centers closed, 84 In 1968 members From over one-hundred organizations came together to form an organizing committee to promote day care. The province introduced the licensing of existing centers through the Department of Family and Social Welfare. Some centers in low-income districts of Montreal received pilot project funding.
In 197 1 the Liberal Cabinet, under the leadership of Robert Bourassa created an inter-departmental committee to look at day care centers and tax exemptions for working mothers. In 1972 the first regulations were introduced following the recommendations of the inter-departmental committee. A provincial tax credit for mothers using child care was introduced. Partnerships between Perspectives Jeunesse and the federal Local
Initiatives Program created 70 new centers in 1972. By 1974 54 of the 70 centers had closed following the end of the LIP funding. In 1973 a Day Care Liaison Committee was formed.
In 1974 the Bacon Plan. a policy plan on child care issues, was adopted. The
Bacon Plan financed low-income families rather than programs. In 1976 the Parti
Quebecois was elected under Rene Levesque, and Denis Lazure becomes the Minister responsible for child care. Fee subsidies were increased, new subsidies were authorized and new finding allowed for the development of an association for non-profit child care.
In L 977 free space in public schools was no longer available for child care. Action was taken to maintain existing child care facilities in their free space over an eighteen month time frame. In 1979 the government announced that the Bacon Plan would be shelved. and a new policy regarding child care would be adopted. 85
.4n Act Respecting Child Day Care was passed in 1979, and operating grants were introduced. The Act created 190fficedes senrices de garde a l'enfance (OSGE); was more supportive of non-profit, parent-run boards and recognized four types of day care: center based care. family day care agencies, school-age care and drop-in programs. In 1980
I'Office des services de garde a l'enfance was established to coordinate regulated child care. Child care regulations to support the Act were developed by OSGE and adopted in
1983. 1984 saw the introduction of family day care and infant care policies.
A new Ministry of State responsible for family life was created by the Liberal government under the leadership of Robert Bourassa in 1988. l'Office des services de garde a l'enfance announced a plan to double the number of child care spaces by 1994.
Unions representing day care workers joined the 'Common Front'. a group of unions who represent the public sector. In 1989 An Act Respecting Child Day Cure was amended and
2 million dollars was allocated towards the development of 24 hour care.
In 1990 the ceiling at which parents no longer qualified for subsidy was raised to allow higher income families to access subsidy and policy changed to allow for-profit and non-profit programs without parent boards to access a subsidy for infant and special needs care and an annual equipment grant. In 1992 the number of spaces eligible for fimding were regulated. Between September, 1992 and May, 1994 the unions organized a campaign to provide public education regarding wages and working conditions.
Unionized workers held a province wide one-day walk-out to protest low wages. Public support for child care workers increased. A series of regional actions and strikes occurred in April, May, September and November 1993. The new regulations regarding parent fee 86 subsidies was introduced in 1993. In 1994 three day cares in Montreal went on strike.
They were supported by other centers throughout Quebec, the Consiel de statut de la femme and the concertaction inter-regionale. On April 21 most CSN centers were on strike. In May 1994 the Quebec government introduced a wage enhancement grant resulting in an increase of S1I hr.
Following the election of the Parti Quebecois in 1994 public consultations on
Funding child care were held, and in 1995 a moratorium was placed on new centers while a Task Force was established to look at the issues of funding and wages and working conditions. The Minister of Education and the Minister responsible for Women, Pauline
Marois. announced a decision 70develop a comprehensive early childhood policy that
will meet the needs of children 0-12 years old.. .'? (CRRU. 1997; p. 3 1). In 1997 the new services were available to all five year olds at a rate of $5.00 per day. with a planned incremental introduction of services to younger children. Increased paternal leave time and parental leave to be paid at 75% was also introduced in 1997. In 1999 a change in ratios was announced to accommodate the larger than anticipated demand for $5.00 a day child care for 3-5 year olds. Following discussions with the field the ratios were allowed to be either the old or new ratios. Unionized workers in preschool aged centers staged a one day strike to protest poor wages and working conditions.
Nova Scotia
In 1966 the Minister of Public Welfare announced the appointment of an
Advisory Committee on Day Care Services. In 1967 the Day Nurseries Act was passed, 87 and the Preschool Association of Nova Scotia was founded the following year, and the
Nova Scotia Day Care Advocacy Association and the Nova Scotia Child Care Council were founded in 1969.
Following the election of the Liberals under Gerald Regan in 1970 the Provincial
Advisory Committee was re-constituted. The committee introduced a day care subsidy program. In 1974 parents, children and non-profit child care workers occupied the
Legislature to successfully lobby for increased funding.
1978 saw the election of the Progressive Conservatives under John Buchanan. the passing of the Day Care Act and supporting Regulations and a moratorium placed upon the number of subsidized spaces. In 1979 the government formed a Task Force on Day
Care Finunce. In 1980 the Day Care Act and Regulations were revised. In 1983 another
Task Force. this one on Day Care was formed. and in 1984 the Day Care Act and
Regrrlurions were amended again. In 1987 a Task Force on Family and Children's
Services was appointed and the Day Care Act and Regulations were amended to introduce training requirements for day care staff. At this time an equipment grant was established for non-profit spaces. In 1988 the government released a Ministerial
Statement on Chiid Care. In 1990 there was a one day walk out by child care workers to protest low wages. There was then a Round Table on Child Care, and fmdly a salary enhancement grant was introduced. In 1992 an increased number of subsidy spaces at a higher rate were introduced. In 1993, differential funding for non-profit infant spaces was introduced. 88 Following the election of the Liberals in 1993 there was an increase of 50 new subsidized spaces per year until 1998. In 1995 Child Care Services were renamed
Prevention and Child Care Services. In 1996 the minimum user fee for subsidized parents increased to $2.00 per day. 1999 saw the establishment of an operating grant and a departmental move to simplify the hding mechanism.
Prince Edward Island
In the 1960s a Headstart program was established in Charlottetown and some kindergarten programs were developed in Prince Edward Island. In 1969 a
C'omprehensiw Development Plan resulted in the consolidation of schools outside of
Charlottetown. this allowed some one-room schools to be used for preschool and kindergarten programs. Also in 1969 the federal Regional Economic Expansion program funded the development of two child care programs in 'needy' rural regions. In 1970 the
Department of Social Services was responsible for monitoring and funding six non-profit, community based programs. Following the Human Resources Committee review of the issue of daycare in 1970, the Department of Social Services became responsible for daycare.
1973 saw the Child Care Facilities Act passed and the Child Care Facilities Board established. In 1977 the Department of Health and Social Services changed the funding
policy to one of fee subsidies for eligible parents. Following the election of the
Progressive Conservatives in 1979 and a leadership convention in 1981 followed by a 89 reelection of the PC government, in 1982 the Child Care Subsidy program was expanded to include special needs children.
In 1983 the Study of Child Care Services in Prince Edward Island was released. It included recommendations for the direct funding of programs, need for training requirements for staff and noted the low wages of child care workers. Recommendations that required dollars were not acted upon.
In 1984 the Early Childhood Development Association (ECDA) and the
Department of Social Services co-sponsored the Satellite Family Daycare Project linking rural family day homes with licensed centers for program suppon. This project was
Funded by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission.
Following the election of the Liberals under Joe Ghiz the Child Care Regzdations were amended in 1986 and the Child Care Facilities ,4cr was amended in 1987. This amendment included the requirement that two members of the Child Care Facilities
Board be representatives of ECDA. There had been two members representing ECDA since 1980 by Ministerial Agreement. A government document Guiding Principles for the Deve/opmenf of Child Care Services was released, and the government announced the
implementation of the Direct Funding Program for licensed child care facilities. In 1988
the government announced the introduction of a special needs grant and eliminated the
extra funds for special needs in the Child Care Subsidy Program. In 1990 the Guiding
Principles document was revised- this is a document that has been released and revised
annually since 198 1. 90 Following the election of the Liberals under Catherine Callbeck in 1993 Operating
Grants for child care were reduced by 9% as part of an overall reduction by all departments and programs of 9%.
A network of family resource centers opened with funding from CAPC in 1994.
Five centers were regionally based, and one was opened for off-reserve aboriginal children. A Special Needs Review was conducted in 1996 with a 6 EC supervisors, regional early childhood educators and parents. A review of the child care subsidy program took place in 1998 and resulted in income testing of parents and revisions to the per diem rates.
The National Child Benefit reinvestment strategy identified child care as a priority in 1998. In 1999 the provincial government announced the development of a five year strategy for children from prenatal to the school years. This is a broad policy initiative involving communities. health regions, school boards and four government departments:
Health and Social Services, Education, Justice, and Economic Development. Child care issues are expected to be a major component of the strategy to be announced in the spring of 2000.
Newfoundland
Newfoundland became a member of Canada in 1949. In 1968 the Werfme
Licensing Act was enacted allowing licensing of facilities for children aged two years and up and prohibiting licensing for facilities for children under age two years. 9 1 In 1974 a government interdepartmental committee was struck to review daycare and homemaker services. The Report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Day Care und Home Maker Services was released later that year. In 1975 the Daycare and
Homemaker Services Act was proclaimed. The Act allowed public hdsto be used for fee subsidies. In 1976 the Regulations to support the Act were adopted and included specific requirements for child care. A Director of Day care and Home Maker Services was appointed. This position included responsibility for chairing the Day Care and Home
Maker Services Board.
In 1977 a separate division of Day Care and Home Maker Services was established within the Department of Social Services. Following the election of the
Conservatives under Brian Peckford, fhding included a $500.00 start up grant and a parent fee subsidy program. Funding was available regardless of auspice. In 198 1 the
Minister of Education established an Advisory Committee in Early Childhood and Family
Education. The Day Care and Home Makers Services Act and Regulations were amended. and the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Newfoundland and Labrador funded the Report on Comprehensive Day Carefor the Province of iVe~vfolindZandand Labrador in 19 82.
In 1983 the Day Care Advocates Committee was founded and the Day care
Advocates Association was founded in 1984. A Day Care Needs Assessment of rural
Nen4oundland was done in 1985, fimded through Health and Welfare Canada.
Following the election of the Liberals under Clyde Wells in 1989, the Day Care and Home Makers Services Act was amended in 1990. Under this amendment the Day 92 Care and Home Maker Services Board must now have majority representation by non- governmental organizations. An Interdepartmental Review Committee was appointed to revise the Act and Regulations. At this time the ceiling on parent subsidies was raised.
In 1993 the one-time start-up grant was suspended, the annual equipment grant was suspended and a cap was placed on the number of fee subsidies available. In 1994
Canada Employment and lmmigration eliminated funding for the 45 week training progm for child care workers.
In 1996 the Liberals were elected under Brian Tobin. In 1998 a new Child Care
.4cr was announced. The new Act was proclaimed June 1. 1999 and included the reinstatement of some grants, an increase in the number of subsidies, regulation of infant care. regulation of family day care and the certification of Early Childhood Educators
(ECEs). The province hired six ECE consultants to license. support and monitor child care.
New Brunswick
During the 1970s some day care centers were established under the Federal Local
Initiatives Project. In 1979 the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of
Women recognized the need for affordable child care in their Annual Report. In 1980 the province passed the Child and Family Services and Farnib Relations Act. [n 198 1 parent subsidies were introduced, and the New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of
Women launched a campaign to improve the quality of child care in New Brunswick. 93 Day Care Regulations and Day Care Facilities Standardr were introduced in 1985. The
Garde de Jour NB Day Care Association, which had formed in 1973, organized a province-wide day care lobby in 1984. In 1985 the New Brunswick government hired 3 regional consultants with ECE training and experience. Parent fee subsidies increased in
1989 following the election of the Liberals under Frank McKenna in 1987.
In 1989 a Minister of State for Childhood Services was created, and an Office for
Childhood Services was established. The Office for Childhood Services established a nine member Provincial Advisory Committee and a nine member Interdepartmental
Committee. Playingfor Keeps: Improving our children 's qualip of life. a policy
/hamework. was released by the government in 1991.
In 1992 the Early Childhood Initiatives program was announced. and a Child Care
Review Committee was established in 1993. New Directions: Child Care Reforms was released later in 1993. Parent fee subsidies were increased, although student parents were required to take out loans for child care, and Operating Grants were reduced by 50%.
A number of changes were implemented in 1994. The subsidy system changed from an open-ended first come program to an fixed number of spaces program. It was announced that the number of subsidies available would increase as the direct grants to programs were decreased. Operating and professional development grants were reduced by 50%. And the government produced A Policy Framework for Child Care Services, a document that viewed child care as a small business requiring loans and business seminars, while paradoxically advocating for high-quality, affordable child care. 94 In April 2000 the Child Day Care Facilities Act was revised and Operator
Standards were implemented.
Yukon
The first day care in the Yukon incorporated in 1968 and was officially opened by blme Chretien. wife of Jean Chretien, then Minister of Indian Affairs. The Yukon Child
Care .dissociation (YCCA) was founded in 1974. A Position Paper on Child Cure Needs was developed by the Yukon Status of Women Council and YCCA in 1976.
In 1979 the Progressive Conservatives were elected under Chris Pearson to
Yukon's first Executive Council. Licensing for day cares started in 1979 with the Dq
Care Ordinance. A Day Care Subsidy program was introduced in 1981. In 1983 the
Department of Human Resources created a .5 Day Care Coordinator position with responsibility for day care issues.
In 1985 the NDP were elected under Tony Penikett. The Day Care Coordinator position became full-time, regulations were revised to increase the parent subsidy and simplify administrative procedures. The Child Care Challenge was released by the
Women's Directorate in 1986. Also in 1986 the Regulations were amended to upgrade standards and introduce an Operating Grant and a Capital Grant. Operating grants were extended to Family Day Homes, and subsidies for infants and special needs children were increased. Let's Talk About Child Care in the Yukon was released by the government in
1987. Following consultations in the communities the government released We Care:
Rkoners Talk About Child Care. Working Together: d Child cure Strategy for the Yukon 95 was released in 1988, and an Implementation Strategy for Working Together was released in 1989. In 1990 the Child Care Act was enacted. In 199 1 child care subsidy rates were increased.
The Yukon Party was elected under John Ostachek in 1992. A moratorium was placed on the Direct Operating Grant (DOG) in 1993 and new regulations and hding formulas were introduced.
Following the election Piers McDonald and the NDP in 1996 and sustained lobbying by YCCA the moratorium on the DOG was lifted in 1999 and an increase in the parent fee subsidy was announced. 1999 also saw the creation of a Child Care Training
Trust Fund to support caregiver training. The spring of 2000 saw further increases in supports to child care services. The Direct Operating Grant was increased. the wage enhancement portion of the DOG was changed to ensure it went to the workers. a one- time equipment grant was offered at $1501 space, and training levels were changed from three to five levels, making it easier to reach a new level and a higher wage supplement.
Northwest Territories
During the 1970s child care programs were established under the federal Local
Initiatives Program bding.A policy regarding fee subsidies was finalized in 1973. A
Policy Respecting Day Care Services was released in 1974. A Policy Respecting
Subsidized Day Care was adopted in 1980.
In 1985 a Day Care Consultant was hired on a one year contract to review child care issues and make recommendations. In 1987 the Day Care Consultant position 96 became permanent in Family and Children's Services. Following the introduction of the
Child Day Care Act in 1988 an Interim Day Care Program was created that included start- up grants. fee subsidies and operating and maintenance grants.
The Native Council of Canada hired a consultant to examine the child care needs of Native people in the Northwest Territories in 1988.
In 1992 child care responsibilities moved from Family and Children's Services to the Department of Education, Culture and Employment. Licensing for the two Eastern
Regions became de-centralized in 1992. The Interim Day Care Program became the Early
Childhood Program in 1994. At that time operating grants and subsidies for 'at risk' children were increased.
In 1997 the Early Childhood Program was decentralized to five regional offices of the Department of Education. Culture and Employment.
In 1998 Nunavet Temtory was created in the eastern arctic and the Northwest
Temtories in the western arctic. They each have their own governments and premiers.
Conclusions/ Discussion:
Provincial and territorial policy development has had little cross-provincial consistency. Federal initiatives such as CAP, and the CHST have resulted in provincial actions. however, the specific actions are dependent upon the provincial social contexts, world views and dominant ideologies within each province or territory. Policy development has not progressed in a single direction. Policies are implemented then following an election policies are reversed. Ontario provides a good example of this. 97 Due to the inconsistent policy development across Canada the programs and services provided vary tremendously, as do the delivery models for those programs and services. Many provinces have se~cesfor children or families in a number of Ministries or Departments, consequently conflicting policies or mandates may result in a lack of programs and confusion around access to programs.
The implementation of the CHST resulted in provinces and temtories reevaluating their programs. The CHST needed to maintain healthcare, so the other programs that had been funded came under scrutiny. Social assistance and child care were notably vulnerable to cuts in a time of conflicting fiscal priorities.
Despite the fimding limitations. a broader recognition of the importance of early child development in the wider social contexts increased pressures for provincial and
territorial governments to provide services for children. especially for 'at risk'
populations. The focus on child poverty and the need to provide children with sufficient
resources has also highlighted the importance of early child development programs and
the need for child care. A number of initiatives have resulted From this pressure. such as
parent education programs, infant nutrition programs and headstart programs, but few of
them have included child care. Canada does not appear to value children in child care or
their caregivers.
In Quebec. child care is discussed within language of a social economy. Child care
is recognized in a broader range of contexts than in other places in Canada. Child care is
recognized as a support for women's equality as well as an important part of healthy child
development. No other province uses the language of a social economy, or recognizes the 98 importance of child care in such a broad context. The language of parental choice varies
from province to province. In Quebec parental choice means the provision of choices by
government for parents. Alberta and Ontario parental choice means increased parental C In
fee subsidies in place of program grants.
All provinces offer parent fee subsidies to low-income families who work, or in
some cases. while training or looking for work. This targeting of subsidies to low-income
families reinforces the concept that child care is a support necessary to move people into
the workforce. The provision of parent subsidies does not address the issue of access to
high quality. affordable child care. The ceiling for eligibility influences who has access to
subsidized child care. Low income families are eligible for subsidized child care. Middle
income Families are ofien unable to access affordable. regulated child care while upper
income families can purchase private center or nanny care. This does have the potential to
stigmatize those who use child care as being low income or in need or government
support and unable to afford the better private care.
Several provinces, Alberta, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and
Newfoundland, have reduced operating and equipment grants during the fiscally
restrained 1990s. Reduction of government grants result in higher parent fees charged to
continue operations, making child care even harder to access. Low income families may
no longer be able to afford the parent portion and middle income families are even less
likely to afford the fees.
Quebec has moved towards a publicly hdedsystem of child care since 1997, and
British Columbia announced in 2000 that it was also moving towards a publicly funded 99 system indicating that these two provinces see child care as a public good that will provide support to families and children. Chapter 6: The Case Studies: Alberta, Quebec and Yukon
Introduction and Overview: The Case Studies:
In this chapter a more detailed discussion of Yukon, Alberta and Quebec is provided. The intent is to provide a contrasting view of the diversity of policy in Canada that has resulted fiom the lack of a federal fhnework.
All three of the governments that I investigated, Alberta, Quebec and Yukon, discuss child care in terms of maternal employment (Government of Quebec, 1997. 1988;
Government of Alberta, 1994; Yukon Government. 1988) and place an emphasis on parental responsibility. They also use similar external measures of quality such as training requirements. group size and ratios (Childcare Resource and Research Unit. 1997).
Despite these similarities. they have produced distinctive consultative and discussion papers. public information and statements, and means of support for child care at different times. When child care has been an issue of importance for the government in power there are a number of documents released and changes to regulations and legislation. This is demonstrated in the Yukon in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and in
Quebec fiom the mid 1980s. Alberta has much less in the way of public documents concerning child care. The emphasis in the documents in the three jurisdictions is also quite different. Alberta documents emphasize parental responsibility, the importance of parent choice and the role of the voluntary sector (Alberta, 1994; 1990). Quebec documents also emphasize the importance of parental responsibility, but define the 101 government role as one that provides options for parents to utilize in exercising their responsibiiities (Government of Quebec, 1997a; 1997b; 1991).
Child care policy development in Alberta has evolved through five phases between World War U and the present (Hayden, 1997). The first phase was the preprogram phase in which there was Little state intervention in child care policy development or service delivery. The period from 1978 to 1986 Hayden characterizes as one of generous allotments, in which the government introduced a direct operating grant and provided fbnding to child care programs with minimal restrictions. Policies at this time frequently were in support of for-profit child care. Between 1986 and 1993 the government began introducing more rigorous standards of care and regulations to address issues of quality. Hayden calls this the regulatory reform phase. 1993 to 1995 saw the fiscal restraint phase as government focused on reducing funding. Finally, the fifth phase is that of marginalization/ devolution as the government devolves responsibility to the parent and community. Hayden discusses the implications of the development of child care services within the framework of a welfare support and a means of increasing employment rather than as a means of providing high quality experiences for children.
When child care is viewed as a welfare program it is vulnerable to attack when hding priorities change.
Funding for child care in Alberta now consists only of parent subsidies. Yukon provides a Direct Operating Grant which includes a wage enhancement portion as well as parent subsidies, and Quebec has moved towards a more publicly funded system of support for child care services with a number of grants and a new wage settlement 102 (Childcare Resource and Research Unit, In press; Rochon, 1999). Only Quebec has developed a more cohesive system of supports to families that includes chiId care as part of a broader family policy (Government of Quebec, 1997).
Child care has been viewed in many ways as demonstrated in the debates around who should provide child care, who should pay for child care, and who defines child care.
These debates have been argued differently in Yukon, Alberta and Quebec. While all use measures of quality, these indicators of quality measures of child care have evolved and have been emphasized in different ways. The questions in the debate have seen different aspects emphasized in different parts of the country. Is child care merely a support for working women? If so. then which women should be working? 1s child care part of an intervention program to help at risk children? If so, then which children are considered to be at risk? There appears to be little common understanding in Canada upon which to build a comprehensive system of child care and supportive family policies. Public debate on child care often focuses on the issue of maternal employment, which produces discussions of whether mothers should be employed or not. Rarer are discussions focused on the statistical indications that a large number of children who require child care do not have access to it. Child development issues are an emergent factor in child care policy debates, but the needs of children are narrowly defmed and targeted for an at risk population rather than acknowledging through policy that child care programs are key components of services for all children.
The diversity of policy development and promotion in Canada is demonstrated in the very different paths taken by Alberta and Quebec in the development and 103 implementation of policies and legislation regarding child care. While there is a common use of language in discussing measures of quality, parental responsibility and maternal employment. there is contrasting language around the role of the government in supporting parental responsibility and providing quality of care. Alberta and Yukon situate child care within the welfare framework of programs. Quebec situates child care within a framework of supportive family policies. Consequently policies in the three jurisdictions have evolved quite differently.
Aiberta:
Alberta signed the Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement in 1942, but did not open any centers under the agreement:
In 1 942. the federal government introduced the Dominion-Provincial Agreement which offered government subsidies to encourage the establishment of child day care centres during the war years. Although Alberta signed the agreement the government took only a brief interest in it. An advisory committee refuted the need for child day care in the province, and the provincial government did not acquire any funds under this agreement. ( Read, Greenwood-Church. Hautman, Roche & Bagley, 1992: p. 13 1)
In 1966 the Preventive Social Services Act was proclaimed. This Act delegated decision-making authority for daycare to municipalities and introduced cost-sharing with participating municipalities such as Edmonton and Calgary. The shift in perception of child care services was important: This change of emphasis from one of custody and maintenance to one of prevention and individual development provided a Fundamentally new approach to social service planning and delivery in Alberta. This Act provided the first avenue for funding child day care centres sponsored by public and non-pro fit agencies. (Read, Greeenwood-Church, Hautman, Roche & Bagley, 1992; p. 132)
While the Preventive Social Services Act changed the way social services. including child care were delivered, and allowed for the fimding of non-profit child care, overall. the eovemment support for child care was small and auspice was not an issue. During the C
Chiid day care services were being provided by both municipal and private agencies. with the largest growth in the privately owned and operated sector. By the min-1970s, at least two out of every three centres were operated privately. Most of the private centres were small family operations. providing a service to local families. Local chains and Franchised commercial centres became more common during the 1980s. (Read. Greenwood-Church, Hautman. Roche & Bagley. 1992: p. 134)
In 1978 the Social Care Facilities Licensing Act was proclaimed. This act followed a discussion paper, the establishment of a task force and public consultations regarding standards and regulations for child day care. "The standards included in this
Act were the first legislated and enforceable day care standards in the province." (Read,
Greenwood-Church, Hautman, Roche & Bagley, 1992; p. 137). At the same time as the new Act was proclaimed, the mechanism for fimding changed from program funding to 105 fee subsidies for low-income parents. The licensing unit for day care services was transferred to the Community Services branch of the Health Division of the Social
Services and Community Health Department in 1978.
In 1980 a Day Care Advisory committee was established. In 198 1 the Social Care
Facilities Licensing Act was amended and legislated new standards and standards for
Family day homes were introduced. Operating allowances were introduced and the provincial government took over municipal bding and administrative roles. The operating allowance was based on the child's age and attendance at the program. Funding followed the child and thus allowed commercial centers to access provincial funding.
In 1986 a freeze was imposed on Operating Allowances following a review of the
Child Day Care Program in Alberta. New spaces could still be licensed if they met the requirements. but could no longer access an operating grant. At the same time that the government was conducting their review, Chris Bagley (1986) conducted a review of
Alberta day care fknded by a grant from three unions. Bagley suggests:
Alberta probably now has some of the worse daycares in Canada, as well as some of the best. The province has created through its subsidy program. financial conditions which enable daycare operators of integrity to offer some of the best programs in the country, including a high proportion of trained staff. But quality programming of this kind is largely voluntary, and most daycares operate within an ideology which tolerates the excesses and faults of a private enterprise system. Regulations on group sizes in daycare appear to have been abandoned in several social service regions. (Bagley, 1986; p. iii) Bagley goes on to substantiate this by showing that in 1986 Alberta had the best regulations in terms of child-staff ratios and group sizes, and the worst regulations in terms of caregiver qualifications. It is also reiterated that there may have been a substantial gap between the regulations and the enforcement of those regulations.
In 1987 and 1989 the Child Day Care Program introduced operating manuals for centers and family day homes respectively. The number of children permitted in a family day home was increased in 1989.
In 1990 Alberta Day Care Reforms was released following public consultation.
The key reforms to be addressed were training qualifications. child-staff ratios and the change in hnding mechanisms. Over the next five years staff qualifications were to be introduced: child-staff ratios that reflected quality care were to be introduced; and operating allowances were to be redirected to parent subsidies at programs that met the regulations. The freeze on operating allowances was lifted although new dollars were to go to parent subsidies, and the ceiling on a families income level to qualify for subsidy tvas to be raised.
The Day Care Licensing Policy Manual was deveioped and released in 1993 to provide interpretation of the legislation governing day cares (Childcare Resource and
Research Unit. 1997).
In late 1994 the Alberta Government released Finding n Better Wv:the canslrltarions and research leading to the redesign of children 's services in Alberm. This document has a preamble that explains the need for government to get out of the delivery of services. A clear message was that the voluntary sector should be helping in the provision of services to children:
Scouts Canada (Alberta) is but one example of the enormous contribution
and capacity of volunteer organizations. This organization involves 23,767
children and youth and 8,000 volunteers throughout the province. (Alberta,
1994: p. 7)
That Scouts Canada does not provide ongoing direct services to children is not indicated, nor are the programs run by volunteers through Scout Canada regulated.
1994 was also the year that the government de-regulated family child care programs. and increased the number of children needed to license as a center. This deregulation did not include satellite family child care programs that operate as part of other services.
Shedd (1 997) discusses the implications of the government's welfare reform on the Family and Social Services programs. The goal of Alberta's deficit reduction program was to reduce expenditures. The largest budget line item was social assistance payments.
The definitions for those eligible to receive support were changed:
Finally, hdsfor transitional support were reduced substantially. Of particular importance was a change in eligibility for single parents. Whereas employable single parents could previously obtain social assistance if they had children under two years old, it is only parents of children less than six months who are now eligible for this support. (Shedd, 1997; p. 258) However, a number of other family progmms were also in line for reform:
Wile the government proposes to increase expenditures on SPD [Services to People with Disabilities] and child welfare, it plans to decrease expenditures on day care. The FSS [Family and Social Services] Business Plan 1993-94 to 1997-98 projects a decrease in day care from $73.8 million to $60.2 million. This proposal is consistent with the desire to increase parental responsibility. However it is at odds with the goal of supports for independents. Single-parent families have historically made up a significant proportion of all welfare cases. Reducing support of day care can only make it more difficult for single parents to enter the labour force. (Shedd, 1997; p. 270)
In 1996 seventeen Regional Authorities for children's programs were established.
In 1998 there was a large reduction in operating grants, and April 1, 1999 operating grants were finally eliminated. The funds that were eliminated from operating grants were to be moved over to parent subsidy. However, by 2000 only 60% had been reinvested in parent subsidies.
Quebec:
Quebec signed the Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement in 1942, although it was not a popular issue in Quebec:
It is unlikely that Quebec would have signed the Dominion-Provincial Agreement at all if there had not been a Liberal government in Quebec under Premier Adeiard Godbout. There was little public interest in the scheme, and considerable opposition fiom the clergy. (Prochner, 1996,p. 120)
Six centers were established in Montreal, and no other municipalities considered establishing nurseries under the Dominion-Provincial Agreement. When the agreement ended in 1945 and hding discontinued those centers closed quickly since there had been no real government or community support for them in the first place.
In 1968 members from over one-hundred organizations came together to form an organizing committee to promote day care (Desjardins, 1992). The province introduced the licensing of existing centers under the Department of Family and Social Welfare.
Some day care centers in low-income districts of Montreal received pilot project funding.
In 197 1 the Liberal Cabinet, under the leadership of Robert Bourassa, created an inter-departmental committee to look at day care centers and tax exemptions for working mothers:
An interdepartmental committee, struck in January 1971, recommended that the government acknowledge that social change would one day require it to play a role and bear its share of responsibility in the care and education of young children. The committee suggested, so among other things, that the government could carry out this role by taking part in the gradual establishment of a child care system. According to the members of the interdepartmental committee, child care was to be viewed as part of a family and social policy framework and should, in the fairly short term, be considered an essential service. They recommended the development of day care centres, school-based child care. drop-in centres and family child care. (Lalonde-Graton, 1986, p. 6). 110 Following the recommendations of the interdepartmental committee the fmt regulations were introduced, with stated support for non-profit, parent run boards and recognition of
four types of child care. Despite the implementation of some of the recommendations of
the interdepartmental committee the development of a child care system was not to be considered an essential service for years to come.
In 1972 a provincial tax credit for mothers using child care was introduced.
Partnerships between Perspectives Jeunesse and the federal Local Initiatives Program
created 70 new centers in 1972. The end of the federal funding for these programs in
1973 resulted in the closure of 54 of the 70 centers, however, it created pressure resulting
in a more cohesive effort which became the Day Care Liaison Committee (Desjardins.
1992).
In 1974 the Bacon Plan, a policy plan on child care issues, was adopted. The
Bacon plan was developed following a tour of the province with public consultations
(Lalonde-Graton. 1986). The Bacon Plan called for parent fees to cover the full costs of
child care. except that it would finance low-income families. Programs were not to be
funded. The Bacon Plan also announced that commercial centers would no longer be
hnded. By fall many centers had closed due to the adoption of the Bacon Plan
(Desjardins, 1992). Within a year the decision not to hdcommercial care had been
reversed (Lalonde-Graton, 1986).
In 1976 the Parti Quebecois were elected under Rene Levesque, and Denis Lazure
became the Minister responsible for chiid care. Proposed amendments to the Health and
Social Services Act included child care specifically and addressed issues of staff 111 qualifications, ratios, programming and other issues relating to quality care. However, the proposed amendments were not acted upon (lalonde-Graton, 1986). While funding policies were not changed, fee subsidies were increased, new subsidies were authorized and new fhding allowed for the development of an association for non-profit child care
(Desjardins. 1992; Lalonde-Graton, 1986).
In 1977 free space in the public schools was withdrawn. Workers staged a strike against existing child care facilities that lasted eighteen months (Desjardins, 1992). Other sources suggest that workers did not strike. but rather staged a series of job actions
(Bourgon. 2000). The goal was to maintain the Free space in the public school system.
In 1979 the government announced that the Bacon Plan would be shelved. and a new policy regarding child care would be adopted. An Act Respecting Child Day Cure was passed in 1979. and operating grants were introduced. An Act Respecting Child Day
Cwe created l0Oficedes services de garde a l'enfance (OSGE). It also was more supportive of non-profit, parent-run boards and proposed to prohibit the issuance of new licenses to commercial centers (Lalonde-Graton, 1986). The debate over auspice flared when the government announced that they would issue licenses, but not allocate grants to commercial centers. In the end commercial centers could be licensed, and low-income parent subsidies could be used at commercial centers, but operating grants were not available. An Act Respecting Child Day Care recognized four types of child care: center- based care. family day care agencies, school-age care and drop-in programs.
In 1980 I'Office des services de garde a l'enfance (OSGE) was established to coordinate regulated child care. OSGE implemented five year planning and funding and increased the number of spaces available. OSGE developed child care regulations to support the Act which were adopted in 1983. In 1984 policies for family day care and infant care were introduced.
As early as 1984 the Quebec government was actively working to develop a family policy within the new social context. The Ministry of Social Affairs developed a working paper and toured the province for public consultation:
In the course of this consultation, large numbers of citizens expressed opinions with respect to the establishment of a new family policy. Their recommendations focused on ten specific points:
1 .) definition of the family; 2.) transformation of social and family roles for men and women; 3.) family and marital violence; 4.) economic support for families;
5.j the working world and parental responsibilities; 6.) family living; 7.) school and the family;
8 .) recreation and cultural activities; 9.) child care facilities; 10.) social services and other services required for the welfare of families. (Lalonde-Graton, L 986; p. 102)
Following the release of the discussion paper and a consultative process, a Family
Policy Report was released. The report highlighted the importance of child care within a family policy framework. There were concrete recommendations regarding the funding and development of child care within a child development perspective (Lalonde-Graton, 1986). Although these recommendations of the Family Policy committee were not immediately acted upon Ldonde-Graton ends her report to the government with a reminder that child care is part of a larger social context:
Child care has become a social and collective responsibility. There is no reason to doubt or ignore that fact or to look for solutions other than the provision of organized, licensed child care facilities. Such facilities are part of a standard of living to which children are entitled. @. 1 19)
In 1988 a new Ministry of State responsible for Family Life was created by the
Liberal government under the leadership of Robert Bourassa. A publication by the government in 1988. A Beiter Balance commits the government to moving in the direction of a family policy that includes child care:
A major element of the Government's family policy and an integral part of its position on the status of women, the new policy on day care services aims at providing a better balance between the needs of parents and the provision of services to meet these needs. In this area, the Government intends to reafl~rmits intention to help parents obtain the quality services they need, to ensure the fundamental right of children to quality services and to contribute to solving problems currently faced by Quebec day care services. (Government of Quebec, 1988; p. 3)
In the spirit of addressing problems in the day care services? l'Office des services de garde a I'enfance announced a plan to double the number of child care spaces by 1994. The document stresses the need for day care and family policies to be compatible and 114 discusses the seven principles upon which Quebec's day care policies must be built.
Those policies were:
1. Essential support to parents.
2. An environment favourable to the child's development.
3. Development which respects the parents' choices.
4. Preference for senices managed by parents.
5. A refirmation of the autonomy of day care services.
6. Community responsibility. And
7. Sound management of services. (Government of Quebec, 1988; p. 16-1 7)
The document then lays out the variety of day care services needed and available; the need for quality. stressing stafTqualifications and remuneration; and the financing of child care through parent fee subsidies and direct operating and maintenance grants.
In 1988 unions representing child care workers joined the 'Common Front', placing child care in the public sector negotiations (Bourgon, 2000).
In 1989 An Act Respecting Child Day Care was amended and 2 million dollars was allocated towards the development of 24 hour care. In a summary prepared by the
Quebec government in 1990 they reiterate the seven principles outlined in 1988 and discuss the major amendments to the Act:
Firstly. it is important to note the adoption of a principle recognizing that the object of the law is to promote quality day care services and to foster their harmonious development while privileging the development of non- profit day care services. (Government of Quebec, 1990; p. 47) 115 In 1990 the ceiling at which parents no longer qualified for subsidy was raised to allow higher income families to access subsidy and policy changed to allow for-profit and non-profit programs without parent boards to access a subsidy for infant and special needs care and an annual equipment grant (Fullurn, 1992).
Pzrrting Families First was published in 199 1. Through this document the Quebec government discusses the interwoven policies that had been put in place to support t'amiiies. There is discussion of a variety of policies within the context of the family:
Government intervention with regard to the family occurs in several realms. Consequently a family policy is horizontal and seeks to ensure that all government, municipal and social programs which Sect family life reflect a concern for the family. (Government of Quebec, 199 1; p. 15)
These policies include such diverse interventions as financial supports including family allowances. birth allowances, and tax deductions; child care services; health and social services; education; housing and family law. The government position on family policies involved a variety of Departments and Ministers, and required some form of cooperation:
Quebec is without doubt the only Canadian province in which family policy is governed by a complete set of coherent measures aimed specifically at the well-being of families. To achieve its goal, Quebec has set in place an administrative structure and mechanisms that call upon the services of numerous participants in a myriad of governmental sectors of activity. all with one goal: improving the well-being of the family. (Le Bourdais & Marcil-Gratton, 1994; p. 103) 116 Although there are distinct areas within the family policy arena that fall short of the goals laid out. the fact that the various departments are coordinating family policies and benefits and prioritizing policies leave Quebec in a better position to provide support to families than other provinces in Canada.
In 1992 the number of spaces eligible for hding were regulated and unionized workers held a province wide one-day walk-out to protest low wages. Behveen
September. 1992 and May 1994 the unions ran a campaign about wages and working conditions. Public support increased. 1993 saw the introduction of new regulations regarding parent fee subsidies and a province-wide demonstration regarding the high cost to parents of child care and the low wages of workers in child care. There were a series of regional actions taken in April, May, September and November 1993. A wage enhancement for child care workers in the non-profit sector was demanded. (Childcare
Resource and Research Unit, 1997) In 1994 three day cares in Montreal were out on strike. They were supported by day cares throughout the province. and had the support of the Consiel du statut de la femme and the concertaction inter-regionale. On April 21,
1994 most day cares represented by the Confederation des syndicats nationale (CSN) were on strike. In May 1994 the government introduced a wage enhancement grant that increased wages by $1 per hour (Bourgon, 2000).
Following the election of the Parti Quebecois in 1994 public consultations on
Funding child care were held, and in 1995 a moratorium was placed on licensing new centers while a provincial Task Force looked at issues around the hding of child care and wages and working conditions of child care workers. In 1996 Pauline Marois, the Minister of Education and the Minister responsible for women and therefore day cqe announced a decision "to develop a comprehensive early childhood policy that will meet the needs of children 0- 12 years old.. ." (quoted in
Childcare Resource and Research Unit, 1997; p. 3 1). Pauline Marois made the links between women. children, education and child care.
Families Firsr: New Elements of the Family Policy defined the changes the government announced it would make within its objectives of supporting families:
The changes the government intends to make to its family policy to meet the current needs of families and children are the following: A reform of fmancial support for children, with the introduction of an integrated child allowance; The development of early childhood education and day care services: The introduction of a parental insurance plan to provide adequate income replacement coverage during maternity and parental leave. These changes are founded on a fundamental principle: parents are primarily responsible for meeting the needs of their children, while the state has a supportive role to play. The family policy targets three major objectives as a means of putting this principle to work: Ensuring fairness through universal support for families and increased assistance for low-income families; Facilitating the reconciliation of work and family life; Fostering child development and equal opportunities. (Government of Quebec, 1997a; p. 1 1) It8 The changes discussed under the development of early childhood education and day care services include full-time kindergarten, free, for all five year olds effective
September 1997. Four year olds will be phased into day care and educational services at a rate of $5.00 per day at the same time. Day care and educational services for three year olds are scheduled to be available in September 1998 and services for two year olds in
September 1999. To support adequate financial resources during maternal and parental leaves. the government introduced an increased maternal leave time and parental leave to be paid at 75 percent.
The family policy introduced in Quebec in 1997 contains three hdamental components: an integrated family allowance program, a comprehensive network of early childhood development and childcare services. and a parental insurance plan. (Tougas, 2000; p. 20).
The government of Quebec also released two booklets on the preschool education program. One is a document about the preschool education programs objectives and structure. The other is designed to answer parents' questions regarding the preschool education program. The preschool education program is the component of educational services that is designed for four and five year olds. There are specific cuniculum requirements in the broadest sense- encouraging the development of self-esteem, and in the more traditional 'educational' activities including oral communication, math and fine and gross motor skills (Government of Quebec, 1997~).
The Parents: Some Answers to your Questions booklet discusses the objectives and underlying principles of the preschool education program. The importance of play is 119 highlighted, along with the importance of self-esteem and social interactions. The role of the teacher is laid out, and the importance of parent participation is stressed (Government of Quebec, 1997d).
The staggered introduction of an affordable child care program that was independent of parental workforce status or income has resulted in a child care system that focuses on children.
By 2000. children of all ages- from infants to twelve year olds- will have access to childcare regardless of their parents' socio-economic status.. ..the government anticipates that by 2006 90% of families wishing to make use of early childhood and childcare services will be able to do so for a modest $5 per day per child. (Tougas. 2000; p. 22)
In 1999 a change in ratios was announced to accommodate the larger than anticipated demand for $5.00 a day child care. The large demand for child care created some poorer working conditions as the new policies were implemented, and the change in ratios was not well received by the field. Unionized workers staged two days of strike action to protest poor wages and working conditions and express concern that changes to the regulations could negatively impact quality. By fall the government had agreed to salary scales through direct government subsidies for child care workers in all sectors of the field. Several committees were developed to address issues of pay equity and retirement benefits. "Finally, the government has announced its intention to reduce the ratios in the near future." (Rachon, 1999; p. 4). 120 The new programs require trained staff, since the government recognizes the relevance of training to quality. Numbers of childcare workers required have also increased dramatically. Consequently the government has committed to an improved pay scale in all regulated centers, incentives to help train current staff without minimum qualifications and increased funding to expand training programs (Tougas, 2000).
Yukon:
The first day care in the Yukon was incorporated in 1968 as the Child Care Centre
Society. and was officially opened by Mme Chretien, wife of Jean Chretien, then Minister of 1ndia.n Affairs (Pence. 1992a). The daycare included some political objectives in its constitution:
The constitution listed three objectives: 1 .) to enlighten and direct public opinion relating to the need for complete and responsible daycare centres in the Yukon territory: 2.) to establish, maintain. operate and conduct a daycare centre for the adequate and proper care of preschool children; 3.) to establish, maintain, operate and conduct in conjunction with the daycare centre. a nursery school and a kindergarten program so as to better prepare children for formal schooling. (Johnson & Joe, 1992, p. 478479.)
Despite a good enrollment and recognized political objectives it quickly became clear that without government funding it would not be possible to maintain the program or the objectives. Othei centers opened and closed. Each was negotiating for some degree of government funding independently while relying heavily on volunteers to cut costs and raise funds. The child care community was disjointed and not regulated. In 1973 the raise funds. The child care community was disjointed and not regulated. In 1973 the
Yukon government indicated that it would not longer accept individual applications from centers. As a result the Yukon Child Care Association (YCCA) was founded:
The Yukon ChiId Care Association formed in March 1974 as an umbrella organization with six objectives including: public relations and public education about child care; establishment of regulations for maintenance and operation of child care faciiities; programming and staff qualifications; arranging for inspection and enforcement of regulations; training staff; and acquiring and distributing hdsto child care facilities. (Johnson & Joe. 1992. p. 48 1).
The YCCA had a lot of work to do over the first few years. Board members were continually lobbying the government for funding and regulations, and providing public education regarding the need for child care services. There was an active voice that felt that families should be supported to enable mothers to stay home (Johnson & Joe. 1992).
There was considerable debate around accessing CAP funding for parent subsidies:
Yukon Government Executive Committee Member Flo Whyard was supportive in trying to fmd fbnding within government to subsidize day care services through the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP). In the end YCCA turned down the "sliding scale" subsidy plan available through CAP because it would have resulted in substantial fee increases for parents who were not eligible for assistance, and the cutoff point for eligibility was considered too low for families coping with high northern costs. (Johnson & Joe, 1992, p. 484) 132 A Position Paper on Child Care Needs was developed by a collaborative effort between the Yukon Status of Women Council and YCCA in 1976. This paper documented the need for government funding, regulations or standards and training. It was not until 1979 that the Yukon had its own elected territorial government (Johnson & Joe, 1992) when the Progressive Conservatives were elected under Chris Pearson to Yukon's first hlly- elected Executive Council.
Licensing for day cares fmally started in 1979 with the Day Care Ordinance. All centers looking after more than seven children were required to be licensed. A Day Care
Services Board was established to review applications for a day care license. The Board was also to establish standards to be incorporated into the Ordinance. The Government felt that they had gone beyond the need, while Opposition Critics felt that the Ordinance did not go far enough:
Opposition members were critical of the legislation. feeling that it failed to set minimum standards or provide hding to ensure day care centers could operate effectively. Tony Penikett argued that day care should be a non- profit service and "viewed as an essential service like health or education", which would promote equality for women and increase the productivity of society overall. The Government Leader, Mr. Pearson, attacked the position saying that he disagreed with the philosophy of socialism and "being looked after from womb to tomb". The Liberal leader, Mr. McKay, urged the government to think of the needs of children, noting that many women wanted to work while others were single mothers who had to support their families. (Johnson & Joe, 1992, p. 486) t 23 The Ordinance may not have been ail that YCCA wanted but a foundation was laid upon which future legislation and regulations could be built.
Despite the ruling government's lack of interest in regulating child care and supporting out of home care, the Day Care Act and Regulations were established in 1980 and a Day Care Subsidy program was fmally introduced in 198 1. The administration of the Subsidy program was complicated and time consuming. In 1983 the Department of
Human Resources created a .5 Day Care Coordinator position with responsibility for day care issues.
In 1985 the NDP were elected under Tony Penikett. Having spoken on behalf of child care while an opposition member. he now was lobbied to follow through on promoting child care in the Yukon. The Day Care Coordinator position became full-time. regulations were revised to increase the parent subsidy and simplify administrative procedures. The Child Care Challenge was released by the Women's Directorate in 1986.
Also in 1986 the Regulations were amended to upgrade standards and introduce an
Operating Grant and a Capital Grant. Operating grants were extended to Family Day
Homes. and subsidies for infants and special needs children were increased.
Lei 's Talk A bout Child Care in the Yukon was a discussion paper released by the territorial government in 1988, along with 5 information sheets: Factors Affecting Qzcalily
Care in Child Care Centres; Quality Care; Paying for Child Care; Duycare Services
Board and Choosing Child Care in the Yzikon, as well as a Highlights of the Child Care
Act sheet to facilitate the community consultations regarding child care. Let's Talk was a tool to allow Yukoners to voice their opinions about the type, accessibility, afTordability, 124 accountability, and quality of child care services that were needed by the community.
The discussion paper was bedto allow participants to voice their opinions and provided information to allow for educated decisions.
The Yukon Child Care Association (YCCA) developed a response to the discussion paper, Sharing the Caring. Many of the recommendations from YCCA were eventually implemented.
Following consultations in the communities the government released We Care:
Yukoners Talk dbotir Child Care. A key feature ofthe We Care document is how it situates child care within a range of other supports to families including parenting and life-skills courses or workshops. A clear message of support for government funding of child care was expressed. The problems caused by low wages was identified as an issue that needed to be addressed. Issues surrounding auspice were also acknowledged:
In rural communities, where child care services are in the developmental stages, the stated choice is clearly that of non-profit societies run by community boards rather than profit-oriented business endeavors. In Whitehorse, where both non-pro fit and "for-pro fit" centres and day homes have operated for years, the views are more divided. Some people believe that both profit and non-profit centres and dayhomes should receive government support and encouragement. Others believe that the non-profit mode is most suitable for services which relate to child care. In most cases. people feel that the 'for-profit' centres now operating should not be penalized should hding policies be changed to encourage the non-profit mode of service delivery.. .However, when new child care cennes are being considered, government funding should be for non-profit only. (Yukon Health and Human Resources, 1988b, p. 33) The report also provides community profiles of child care resources and needs. There was an attempt to allow for complete participation on the part of interested Y ukoners. Following the community consultations the Yukon government developed lvorking Together: A Child care Strategyfor the Yukon, and released this action plan to the pub1ic in 19 8 8. Working Together laid out the government's objectives for child care over the next four years. These objectives included: increasing the number of spaces available and to provide care in each of the communities; provide 111 subsidies to low income famiiies: to encourage training of all child care workers; to provide supports for special needs children in all communities; to recognize and assist in the provision of culturally appropriate services; to provide pay equity for child care workers; to provide a direct operating grant; to provide flexible services; to provide support to families to allow a parent to stay home during the early years and Yo establish legislation which fosters the development of quality child care with community and parental involvement." fp. 1-2).
The Yukon Government laid out an impressive array of objectives designed to support parent choice and promote quality care. An Implementation Strategy for Working
Together was released in 1989.
In 1 990 the Yukon Government released Working Together: A First Year Review.
The Review first outlined the principles of good child care: quality, parental choice, accessibility, affordability, comprehensive services, government responsibility, accountability and auspice. The report then identifies the progress made towards the objectives laid out in the 1989 document An increase in the number of spaces is shown. 126
The ceiling on the child care subsidy was raised for infant and children with special needs. and the subsidy program was revised to pay operators in advance. Social assistance was changed to allow parents to receive assistance if they choose to stay home. The Child
Development Center was supplemented to support outreach to three communities. Yukon
College started a training program for child care workers; child-related first aid courses were offered. The Council of Yukon Indians received a grant to develop culturally appropriate programming. Funding was introduced for preschool programs. A new Child
Care Services Unit was established within the Department of Health and Human
Resources. Territorial expenditures on child care were shown to have increased substantially.
In 1990 the Child Care Act was enacted. The Act came out of the community consultations and strategy that had been a priority for the previous two years. Substantial changes came about with the implementation ofthe new Child Care Act:
The new Child Care Act legislated many important changes, the most significant of which were: 1. the recognition of child care services as "...supportive of healthy families, healthy communities and a healthy economy.. ." (Yukon Child Care Act, 1990, p. 1) 2. the defining of objectives relating to: The development of quality child care services with parental and community involvement; Supporting a range of child care programming in Yukon communities; and Recognizing and supporting the aspirations of Yukon First Nations to promote and provide culturally appropriate child care services;
4 J. the establishment of a new Yukon Child Care Board whose mandate it is to advise the Minister on all aspects of child care and to hear appeals under the Act. 4. expanding the legislation with respect to enforcement procedures; and 5. clearly defining an appeals process (Mauch. 1992, p. 509).
These changes retlected the community discussions and acknowledged a substantial government role in the provision, delivery and regulation of child care in the Yukon. For- profit centers were to be 'grandfathered' in and treated as non-profits. but the for-profit system was to be discouraged in a publicly hded grants program. In 199 1 child care subsidy rates were increased to better reflect the actual costs of child care.
The Yukon Party, a much more politically conservative party, was elected under
John Ostachek in 1992. Child care immediately lost priority within the government agenda and a moratorium was placed on the Direct Operating Grant in 1993. Auspice was no longer an issue with the government. The funding that YCCA was to receive from the
territorial government to replace the federal funding of the three year pilot project never
materialized with the new government. As well as continuing with political lobbying,
YCCA' was struggling to survive.
I I was actively involved with YCCA at this time, in a variety of executive roles, We were struggling to keep the association active without fimdiog, lobbying for our space municipaIIy, lobbying for training requirements and doing a fair amount of media interviews aimed at all of the activities. 128 YCCA continued to lobby for caregiver training requirements, holding public consultations and media interviews. New regulations and hding fomulas were introduced in 1995. The new regulations introduced training requirements for child care workers. with a phase in time to the year 2000 for compliance with the training requirements. The new hding formula allotted so many points for a number of factors such as training levels of staff, ages of children in care, maintenance expenses and calculated the Direct Operating Grant for each program accordingly. Parent subsidies were still available to targeted. low-income and middle-income parents with a sliding scale that recognized farniiy size and ages of children as well as income.
Following the election of Piers McDonald and the NDP in 1996. sustained lobbying by YCCA eventually resulted in the lifting of the moratorium on the Direct
Operating Grant in 1999 and the sliding scale used to calculate parent contribution by decreased by 5%. although the cap on the subsidy amounts has not changed. A Child
Care Training Trust Fund was established in 1999 to support the training of caregivers to meet the regulations. In 2000 the Direct Operating Allowance was increased. It will now include a subsidy for centers providing a hot meal program and the points allocated for trained workers are now to be tied to the worker, so that the wage subsidy actually reaches the employee. The training levels in the regulations are to be changed to reflect a more realistic progression increasing &om three levels to five levels. A much needed toy grant was given to child care centers and a grant was also given to YCCA's toy lending library. A variety of other programs designed to support children and families have also 129 been introduced since 1998: the healthy baby program; a dental and optical program for low-income families; a hot breakfast program for schools and child care centers.
Discussion:
Alberta, Quebec and Yukon evolved policies around child care in very different ways that emphasize the very diverse political views of the three jurisdictions. Quebec has developed a set of policies to support families that includes child care. The Quebec
Cgovernment has published a number of documents designed to inform the public of the services provided, and the language used is very inclusive and recognizes the needs of hilies and the role of government to support families in Mfilling their responsibilities.
In contrast Alberta has kept child care policies firmly within the welfare model of services. Although Alberta no longer provides operating grants, provision of parent subsidies remains within the welfare model. There have been few public documents to inform the public of programs and services including child care. The most recent public statements talk about parental responsibility and the role of voluntary organizations in the provision of services for children. Yukon has not had many public documents in recent years, although there were a number published when the policies were fist introduced.
Public documents in Yukon recognize the multi-faceted need to support child care.
Yukon developed policies that are more supportive than Alberta and yet are still firmly set within a welfare model of services. Recent discussion has been around the need to move towards a more publicly hdedsystem in the Yukon and away fiom the welfare system of grants and subsidies. 130 A circumstance unique to Quebec was the involvement of the labour unions with child care as early as the mid 1970s. The inclusion of child care negotiations under the public sector bargaining of the 'Common Front' and the work the unions did to increase public awareness around the value of child care workers, their wages and working conditions contributed towards the model of child and family policies we see in Quebec today. Chapter 7: Coaclusions and Indications for Further Research
Overview:
During the course of my research I did and extensive literature review and developed a federal/ provincial/ territorial chronology of events involving child care policy development. The literature review allowed me to set the chronology development within the other social contexts of the time. It allowed me to see that child care policies in the 1960s were developing within a Framework of examining if day care had a negative
impact on children. It allowed me see that child care policy development was influenced
by other social factors such as the need for women in the workforce, or the desire to have
women at home. Recognition of factors influencing quality in child care resulted in
regulations that were more specific. The literature review set a context in which I asked a
number of questions: How diverse are policies regarding child care in Canada? How do
federal initiatives impact on provincial and territorial child care policy development?
What are the broader social contexts that shape child care policy development at the
federal, provincial and territorial levels? What are the similarities and differences to be
found in the case studies of Yukon, Alberta and Quebec? Did these policies or lack of
policies develop intentionally, or were they an unanticipated outcome of another
initiative?
I found that policies in child care across Canada are highly diverse and that this
was amply demonstrated in the case studies of Alberta, Yukon and Quebec in chapter 6.
Many provinces have regulations that are designed to provide quality care, but the 132 specifics within the regulations vary tremendously. Some provinces allow a number of centers to operate with exemptions and thereby compromise quality. An example of this is found in Manitoba where more than 25% of centers operate with an exemption that allows them to use unqualified staff (Prentice, forthcoming).
I Found thct federal initiatives influence the development of provincial and territorial child care policies, since federal initiatives generally involve the provision of dollars to allow for program development. Examples were described in chapter 4 (such as the Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement. Canada Assistance Plan and Canada
Action Plan for Children).
The broader social contexts also shape policy at the federal. provincial and territorial levels. The 1960s and the push for a 'just society' saw the development of national social programs designed to redistribute wealth and help those in need. By the
1990s there was a focus on individual responsibility, debt reduction and deficit elimination. This resulted in the elimination or scaling down ofa number of programs. as was discussed in chapter 4. The Provincial and Territorial social contexts also influence the types of policies developed and implemented. This is clearly demonstrated by the opposing world views as evidenced in the individual responsibility policies of Alberta and the social economy policies of Quebec that are documented and discussed in chapter
6.
Chapter 6 discussed the case studies of Alberta, Quebec and Yukon, showing similarities and differences. The three governments that I examined used similar measures of quality, discussed training requirements, and enacted child care legislation 133 that is backed by regulations. Justification and promotion of child care has been quite different in the three jurisdictions. Quebec kames child care as a support to families, a support to maternal employment and a support for healthy child development. Alberta frames child care as a private responsibility of mothers who work. Yukon frames child care as a support to maternal employment with some acknowledgement of child care as a support to families. Funding of child care in the three jurisdictions has been organized differently. Quebec has moved towards public funding for all families. Alberta provides parent subsidies. Yukon provides operating grants and parent subsidies. Language used in public documents reflect the role of child care in very different lights as demonstrated by the justification and fimding mechanisms.
While all three jurisdictions discuss parental responsibility, Alberta espouses a more private responsibility attitude towards children's and family's services than does
Quebec. where the government role is seen as one that will provide the options to allow parents to fulfill their responsibilities. Alberta has favoured a system of subsidies to low and middle income families to allow parental choice in the care of their children. Quebec has favoured a move towards a universal system that recognizes the central role child care has in life-long health, women's equality, healthy child development, and school readiness and success.
The clearest example of an unintentional outcome for a policy that involved child care was the federal Canada Assistance Plan. While the program was intended to support welfare services for low-income Canadians, the provinces quickly moved to include parent subsidies for child care under this cost-shared program. This meant that the I34 provinces could receive federal dollars for child care, however, federal child care fbnding came as part of a welfare program. Consequently it has been seen in some provinces solely as a means of moving families off social assistance and into the work force.
Intentional policy development is demonstrated in the introduction of the
Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement. Funding day care so that mother's could work and thereby contribute to the war effort was a deliberate policy. This was stated explicitly in the initial agreement, that said federal funding of programs was dependent upon a requirement that 70% of the enrollment be children of mothers working in war related jobs. That it did not fit the broader social contexts of the time was demonstrated by the withdrawal of the agreement following the end of the war.
Po 1icy development around child care has reflected broader social constructs.
There have been few intentional policies created around child care at the federal level.
Child care policies at the provincial and territorial levels have been influenced by social constructs. federal funding and labour market requirements.
Discussion:
Between World War II and the present, Canada has seen a number of changes in the way social programs and child care are viewed. There was a move towards universal benefits to support all people in a variety of venues from welfare to health care to old age security programs and family allowance programs at a time when politicians talked about a just and civil society that cared for all of its members. Child care was established as a need during World War II, then removed from the public agenda it became part of public 135 policy on the federal stage again in 1966 when CAP was used to support day care for low- income families. Towards the end of the 1980s the political agenda shifted and began to focus on family values, individual responsibility and the debt reduction, deficit elimination world view. This resulted in a reduction or elimination of many social programs as they were heralded as the cause of the current fiscal problem. Child care was a victim of timing. "Between 1969 and 1986 there were nine reports examining the issue from different viewpoints" (Canada, 1987; p. 3). These reports all called for some form of national child care program to address a variety of needs: women's equality, employment opportunities. family needs. Unfortunately, by the time child care reached the federal political agenda it became overshadowed by the fiscal crisis that was being brought to the fore.
Provincial policies and programs developed uniquely based on the social, economic and political agendas that held sway. Canada Assistance Plan ensured that all policies had some welfare model components. Despite CAP broader policies developed with much variation. Some provinces privileged non-profit programs while others supported commercial centers. How individual provinces answered the questions of whether mothers should work, whether child development was important or whether services needed to be targeted to those who needed them, influenced policy development.
The fiscal constraints and federal downloading of program responsibilities with reduced fimding supported a more targeted approach in many provinces. The exception is seen in
Quebec, where child care is seen as an integral component of felyservices and where child care, along with other social programs, is discussed in terms of a social economy: Quebec has been a leader in developing family policies, introducing significant changes in tax and income benefits, and services for families with children. They include $5 per day child care for preschoolers and increased housing assistance for Low- and moderate- income families. (CCSD,2000; p. 5)
Child Core Policy cis part of a broader Social Policy Framework:
Social cohesion may be defined as involving building shared values and communities of interpretation, reducing disparities in wealth and income. and generally enabling people to have a sense that they are engaged in a common enterprise, facing shared challenges, and that they are members of the same community. (Judith Maxwell in Policy Research Committee, 1996).
Within this definition. policies that promote equity and social development help encourage social cohesion. The Canadian Policy Research Network has done a number of studies looking at family policy and social cohesion. The sense in Canada that there is a growing dissatisfaction has been attributed to declining social cohesion (Jenson. 1998). b
Research in the area of supporting social cohesion through policies that support families, children and communities will be of importance in the future. Family policies in Canada have tended to follow the pattern seen in the United States. A comparative look at family policies in eight countries suggests that we should consider other models that would lead to support for families and increase the sense of social cohesion in Canada (O'Hara,
1998). Other studies have suggested that policy makers need to recognize and address
issues to support families in Canada (Cheal, Woolley & Luxton, 1998). A shift in policy 137 from crisis intervention policies to preventative policies to recognize the needs of families and children would be necessary to increase social security in Canada (Grady, Howse &
Maxwell, 1995).
It is interesting to note that English-speaking countries like Britain and United
States put a high value on individual responsibility (Lamb et al, 1992). Parents are responsible for their children. Poor people are responsible for their poverty. The global. political shift to the right has meant that New Zealand and Canada have also started to place more emphasis on individual responsibility (Smith. 1982; Eyer, 1996).
In Canada over the last decade there has been a shift away from the collective society towards individual responsibilities:
Neo-liberalism, along with the accelerated pace and scope of globalization and the movement towards international standards and markets, undermined Canada's socio-economic control and distinctiveness. On the one hand, it seemed that the state's hands were tied and it was unable to soften the blows and woes of economic downturn. On the other hand, the federal government was adept at making the tax system more fkiendly to the wealthy. and in the name of market competitiveness and deficit reduction, it nimbly unravelled Canada's social safety net. (Dobrowolsky, 2000: p. 17)
The past decade has seen the end of universal family allowances, universal old age pensions, changes to the structure of the Unemployment Insurance plan, changes to our health care program and a move away from programs that were jointly funded rolling into reduced block fbnding (Pullcingham & Ternowtsky, 1996). There has been a shift towards 138 blaming people for their inability to fmd work, rather than an acknowledgement that the job market is tight and undergoing significant changes in the skills required for employment. There has been a move away from ill-time well-paying jobs with benefits. to part-time. low wage jobs with no benefits ('mcjobs'). Low wage 'mc jobs' that were once the domain of young people gaining experience, are often providing a principal family income. Minimum wages have been the subject of debates over whether they suppress economic growth. Will the unemployment rate decrease if the minimum wage is eliminated? Minimum wages were once the government's way of recognizing the need of people to meet basic living expenses, although minimum wages no longer meet basic
living expenses.
The economic agenda has managed to become the driving force behind social
policy decisions (Dobrowolsky. 2000: Pulkingharn & Temowtsky, 1996). The economic
agenda ensures that the policies that are implemented will be favorable to big business.
'-At the present time Canada and the United States are characterized by politics of
exploitation. which aid industry and the rich generously and with few restrictions, but
which are mean-spirited and restrictive in providing assistance to the poor." (Pence,
1988). In order to reach a point where families, children and child care are valued, we
must find a way to put social policy on a par with economic policy. When we can
convince the politicians that people are still important it may be possible to put forward
policies that support families once again "The system cannot respond to values it refuses
to recognize." (Waring, 1984). 139 Despite this shift to the right, there has been a significant change in the way that economists have viewed child care over the past twenty five years. Originally child care was placed within a market economy framework and viewed as a private commodity that the market would adjust to in order to ensure adequate supply and demand (Krashinsky.
1977). There has been a shift towards viewing child care as a public good as well as a private commodity and a number of reasons for the failure of the market economy regarding child care have been put forward (Blau, 199 1 ; Rose; 1997; Cleveland &
Krashinsky, 1998). Despite evidence that child care is a good economic and social investment (Cleveland & Krashinsky, 1998; Rose. 1997), it is difficult to convince eovernrnents to make a substantial investment: C
Part of the problem in creating a reasonable public response to the nation's child care needs is confirsion about the basic nature of the service and who benefits Crom it. Child care is really two different services: a service to parents that enables them to go to work or otherwise be away from their children. and a service to their children that affects their development and general well-being. To the extent that one considers child care a service to parents. it is mainly a private good that benefits the parents and should be paid for by the family. To the extent that one focuses on child care as services to children- contributing to (or hindering) their well-being and development- how well it is provided has the potential to create benefits or costs to society as a whole or offend our moral sense of the way children should be treated. In these cases, the public must pay its share, or not enough (or not enough good) quality services will be provided. In this latter view child care involves early education and is no different from education of older children, long considered a public responsibility. (Helburn, 1999; p. 12) The education system has developed broader support within society as a public good deserving public investment. Kindergarten, which combines some aspects of child care with education has. overall, more support in Canadian budgets than other early childhood programs:
Programs within a universal system like education have a greater public presence than those that take place within child care, which in Canada, unlike many European countries, is not a system but more a part of what could be termed a 'services market'. Kindergarten's public presence, combined with almost universal acceptance and use, carries with it a broader consensus regarding expectations in areas such as program quality. (Johnson & Mathien, 1998; p. 1)
Child care is a part of a broader social policy framework. Child care is central to many issues within the social and economic arenas. Whether you view high quality child care as a positive component of healthy development; as a support to working parents: as a key component to women's equality and work force participation; as a community resource for children, families and caregivers; or as a part of a healthy child program; child care programs are an essential element in building a sense of social cohesion within communities and across Canada. That the care and education of children are part of a broad variety of arenas is evidenced by the fact that although child care and children's issues have no recognizable home in the federal government, "In total, there are no fewer than 16 ministers with direct or indirect responsibilities for children." (Godfrey & 14 1 McLean. 1999; p. 126). Unfortunately this seems to have resulted in no one minister willing to take the lead on the development of supportive policies for child care.
In The Silent Crisis in US Child Care (Helbum, 1999), a discussion of structural changes in society over the past twenty-five years highlights the need for child care. The changes discussed are in an American context but are also applicable in the Canadian context. Structural changes identified include a more mobile population and therefore the lack of extended families for support; the major influx of mothers with children under the age of six into the workforce; a change in the nature of work in the home- women no longer need to make the clothes, the bread and the invention of a number of household devices that have changed the nature of house-keeping; birthrates have declined: education levels have increased; divorce rates have increased; and single parent families have increased. A move away from manufacturing and into service industries has also increased the demand for low waged women workers. As a result many more children spend time in non-parental care.
An area of confbsion arises when children become kindergarten age. Typically, kindergarten is a half-day program for five year olds. This can mean that a child is in an educational setting that is government sponsored for half the day and in a child care program that may or may not be government hded for the other half of the day. Studies have indicated that the quality of care throughout the day may have little consistency:
In addition, teachers and child care staf'f have substantially different qualifications and work under different conditions. Wages and benefits vary substantially. The programs themselves are likely to differ in terms of class size and staff-child ratios. The constant, of come, is the children since thousands move between child care and kindergarten on a daily basis. (Johnson & Mathien. 1998; p. 1)
It is interesting to note the language used to describe, promote or minimize child care in the public documents and discussion papers to be fascinating. When child care is viewed as important whether for women, children. families or societies, a number of documents promoting child care for a variety of reasons are available. When child care is viewed as a 'family responsibility' government involvement tends to be limited to those unable to provide for themselves, the documents have a very different tone. Although the words or phrases used may be similar, the context in which it is embedded gives it a different meaning. A good example of this is the phrase 'parental choice'. In Alberta parental choice signals a change from providing operating grants to hdchild care and a shift to increasing child care subsidies to parents. In Quebec parental choice is seen as a choice for parents from the range of programs provided by the government to support fmilies.
Indications for further research:
The contributions of the unions towards the recognition of the need for a comprehensive child care system in Quebec was instrumental in the public support for better wages, benefits and working conditions. Trained child care workers with good working conditions and reasonable wages contribute substantially to quality care for children. Recently, the unions have been active in British Columbia, and an I43 announcement that the government is working towards a public system was made in
April. 2000. An analysis of the contributions and campaigns of unions around child care would be an important contribution.
An area of funding, regulations and policy development that I mentioned only briefly is in the area of Fim Nations programs. Federally the government has hded a number of programs unique to First Nations communities or populations. An exploration of these programs and policies would provide a different lense with which to view federal policy development in the area of child care.
A fascinating area for further research would be a discourse analysis of the language and contexts influencing public policy around child care in Alberta and Quebec.
The language and tone of public documents are both similar and dissimilar. A closer examination ofthe discourses around parental choice and responsibility. women's equality and the value of children would provide invaluable insight into the way Quebec developed a publicly funded system of supports for all families while Alberta has not. Bibliography:
Abner. E.. Mossman, M.J. & Pickett, E. (1993). No More Than Simple Justice: Assessing the Royal Commission Report on Women, Poverty and the Family. In Dawson, T. B. (ed) (1993). Women. Law and Social Change: Core Readings and Current Issues. North York, New York: Captus Press.
Alberta Family and Social Services. (1990). Alberta Dav Care Reforms. Edmonton, A1 berta: Alberta Family and Social Services.
Andeeson. B. (1 992). Effects of Daycare on Cognitive and Socio-emotional Competence of Thirteen Year Old Swedish School Children. Child Development. 63: 20-36
.Armstrong, P. & Armstrong, H. (1978). The Double Ghetto: Canadian Women and their Segre~atedWork. Toronto, Ontario: McClelland and Stewart.
Armstrong. P. & Armstrong, H. (1992). Lessons from Pay Equity. In Comelly, M.P.& .4rrnstrong. P. (eds) (1 992). Feminism in Action: Studies in Political Economv. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars Press,
Assembly of First Nations (1995). National Overview of First Nations Child Care in Canada. Ottawa. Ontario: Author.
Atkin. W. (1 998). "Babies of the World Unite": The Early Daycare Movement and Family Formation in the 1970s. In: Chambers, L. & Montigny, E. (eds). Familv Matters: Papers in Post-Confederation Canadian Histom. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars Press.
Atkinson, M. (1993). Governing Canada. Toronto, Ontario: Harcourt-Brace Janovich.
August. R. (1 997). Income Security and the Labour Market: Saskatchewan Perspectives on Child Benefit Reform. In: Durst, D. (ed)(1999). Canada's National Child Benefit: Phoenix or Fizzle?. Kaiifax, Nova Scotia: Femwood Publishing.
Bach, S. & Phillips, S. (1997). Constructing a New Social Union: Child Care Beyond Infancy? In: Swimmer, G. (Ed.). How Ottawa Spends1997-98: Seeing Red: A Liberal Report Card. Ottawa, Ontario: Carleton University Press.
Bagley, C. (1 986). Davcare in Alberta: A Review. with National Implications. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary. Baker, M. (1 997). Advocacy, Political Alliances and the Implementation of Family Policies. tn: Pulkingharn, I. & Temowetsky, G. (Eds). Child and Family Policies: Strugeles. Strategies and Options. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
Baker, M. (1997). Women, Family Policies and the Moral Right. h: Canadian Review of Social Policv, No. 40.
Baker. M. (1 990). Family Policv in Quebec. Ottawa, Ontario: Library of Parliament, Research Branch. Ministry of Supply and Services Canada.
Baker. M. (1985). Child Care Services in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Library of Parliament. Ministry of Supply and Services Canada.
Baker. M. & Dryden, J. (1 993). Families in Canadian Societv. 2" edition.
Biggs, M. (1996). Building Blocks for Canada's New Social Union. CPRN Working Paper No. F 02.0tta\va, Ontario: Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd.
Bashevkin, S. ( 1998). Women on the Defensive: Living through Conservative Times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Battle. K. ( 1999). The National Child Benefit: Best Thing Since Medicare or New Poor Law? In: Durst. D. (ed)(1999). Canada's National Child Benefit: Phoenix or Fizzle?. Halif'. Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
Bee. H. (1989). The Developing Child. Fifth Edition. New York, New York: Harper & Row. Publishers.
Blau. David (ed.) (199 1). The Economics of Child Care. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Boyd, S. (ed) (1997). Challenging the PublicRrivate Divide: Feminism. Law and Public -Policv. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press. Bourgon. Louise (2000). Personal inte~ew:Ottawa. April 8,2000
Bowe. R.. Ball, S. & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming Education and Changing Schools: Case Studies in Policy Sociolow. London: Routledge.
Burchinal, M. (1 999). Child Care Experiences and Developmental Outcomes. In: Helburn, S. (ed) (1 999). The Silent Crisis in U.S. Child Care. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Periodicals Press. Burt. S. (1997). Gender and Public Policy: Making Some Difference in Ottawa. In Strong-Boag, V. & Fellman, A. (1997). Rethinkina Canada: The Promise of Women's Historv. Third Edition. Toronto, Ontario: Oxford University Press.
Canada (1999). Social Union Framework Agreement. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services.
Canada. ( 1987). Sharinp the Res~onsibilitv:Report of the Special Committee on Child -Care. Canada: Queen's Printer.
Canada. ( 1 986). Report of the Task Force on Child Care. Ottawa. Ontario: Supply and Services Canada.
Canadian Council on Social Development. (2000). The Progress of Canada's Children Into the Millenium: Hiehli&ts. Ottawa, Ontario: CCSD Publications.
Canadian Daycare Advocacy Association & Canadian Child Day Care Federation. (1993). Caring for a living: A studv on wages and working conditions in Canadian child care. Ottawa. Ontario: Canadian Daycare Advocacy Association & Canadian Child Day Care Federation.
Carr. J. (1987). The DayCare Dilemma: A Critical Analysis of the Options. Critical Issues Bulletin. Vancouver. British Columbia: The Fraser Institute.
Cheal. D: Woolley. F. & Luxton? M. (1998). How Families Cope and Whv Policv Makers Need to Know. CPRN Study No. F*02. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Network.
Childcare Resource and Research Unit. (1997). Child Care in Canada: Provinces and Territories: 1995. Toronto, Ontario: Center for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.
Childcare Resource and Research Unit. (In press). Child Care in Canada: Provinces and Temtories: 1998. Toronto, Ontario: Center for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.
Cleveland, G. & Krashinsky, M. (1998). The Benefits and Costs of Good Child Care: The Economic Rationale for Public Investment in Young Children. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto.
Cleveland, G. & Hyatt, D. (1998). Child Care for Low-Income Families: A Good Bargain for Canadian Families? In: CHOICES: Family Policy, Vol. 4, No. 2. Cleveland, G. & Hyatt, D. (1997). Assessing Federal Child Care Policy: Does the Arrow Reach its Target? In: Institute for Research on Public Policy, Policv Options: Issue on Child Care, Vol, 18, No. 1: 20-24.
Cohen, M. et a1 (1973). Cuz There Ain't No Daycare (or almost none) She Said: A Book About Daycare in BC. Vancouver, British Columbia: Press Gang Publishers.
Day. S. & Brodsky. G. (1998). Women and the Equality Deficit: The Impact of Restructuring Canada's Social Proms. Ottawa, Ontario: Status of Women Canada. deHaven-Smith, L. (1988). Philosophical Critiques of Policv Analysis: Lindblom, Habermas and the Great Society. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida Press.
Dennison. J. & Gallagher, P. (1986). Canada's Communitv Colleees: A Critical Analysis. Vancouver. British Columbia: University of British Columbia Press.
Desjardins. G. (1 992). An Historical Overview of Child Care in Quebec. tn: Pence. A. (Coordinating editor) (1992b). Canadian National Child Care Study: Canadian Child Care in Context: Perspectives from the provinces and territories. Volume 2. Ottawa, Ontario: Health and Welfare Canada.
Dobelstein. A. (1 990). Social Welfare: Policv and Analvsis. Chicago, Illinois: Nelson- Hall Publishers.
Do browolsky, A. (2000). The Politics of Pragmatism: Women. Representation and Constitutionalism in Canada. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.
Docquier, G. et al. (1 989). Victimizing the Unem~loved:How Cn cuts Will Promote Povertv in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Doherty, G. (1 999). Elements of Quality. In: Research Connections Canada. Volume I. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Child Care Federation.
Doherty, G. (1994). Child Care Policy in Canada: An Annotated Bibliomaphy. Toronto, Ontario: Childcare Resource and Research Unit.
Doherty, G. (1992). Oualitv in Non-profit and For-profit Child Care: A Review of What the Research Tells Us. Toronto, Ontario: Doherty Associates Inc.
Doherty, G., Friendly, M. & Oloman, M. (1998). Women's Support. Women's Work: Child Care in an Era of Deficit Reduction, Devolution. Downsizing and Deregulation. Ottawa, Ontario: Status of Women Canada. Doherty, G. & Stuart, B. (1996). A Profile of Quality in Canadian Child Care Centres. Guelph, Ontario: University of Guelph.
Doherty, G., Rose, R., Friendly, M., Lero, D., Irwin, S. (1995). Child Care: Canada Can't Work Without It. Occasional Paper No. 5, Toronto, Ontario: The Childcare Resource and Research Unit, Center for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.
Dm. W. (198 1). Public Policv Analysis: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Durst. D. (ed)( 1999). Canada's National Child Benefit: Phoenix or Fizzle?. Halifax. Nova Scotia: Femwood Publishing.
Essa. E. & Young. R. (1994). Introduction to Early Childhood Education. Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Canada.
Evans. E. (1 975). Contem~oraryInfluences in Early Childhood Education. Second Edition. New York, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Eyer. D. ( 1996). Motherguilt: How Our Culture Blames Mothers for What's Wrong With Societv. New York, New York: Time Books, Random House.
Finch. J. (1986). Research and Policy: The uses of Qualitative Methods in Social and Educational Research. London: The Falrner Press.
Fischer. F. & Forester. J. (eds) (1987). Confronting Values in Policy Analvsis: The Politics of Criteria. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
Friendly, M. (1 997). What is the Public Interest in Child Care? In: Institute for Research on Public Policy, Policv Options: Issue on Child Care, Vol. 18, No. 1 : 3-7.
Friendly. M. (1 994). Child Care Policv in Canada: Putting the Pieces Together. Toronto, Ontario: Addison-Wesley Publishers.
Friesen, B. (1 995). A Sociological Examination of the Child Care Aus~iceDebate. Occasional Paper No. 6, The Childcare Resource and Research Unit. Toronto, Ontario: Center for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.
Fullurn. H. (1 992). Addendum: Child Care in Quebec, 1988-1990. In: Pence, A. (Coordinating editor) (1992b). Canadian National Child Care Study: Canadian Child Care in Context: Perspectives from the provinces and territories. Volume 2. Ottawa, Ontario: Health and Welfare Canada, Gardner, H. (1 9 78). Deve1o~menta.lPsychology: An Introduction. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Godfrey, I. & McLean, R. (1999). The Canada We Want: Comoeting visions for the new miIlennium. Toronto: Stoddart.
Government of Alberta (1994). Finding a Better Way: The Consultations and Research Leading to the Redesign of Services in Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta: Commissioner of Services for Children.
Government of Canada. House of Commons. (1992). The Conservative Government's 1987 Decision : To Spend $5.4 Billion on Child Care Over 7 Years. Ottawa, Ontario: House of Commons.
Government of Ontario. Ministry of Community and Social Services. (1995). Interprovincial Comoarisons in Child Care. Toronto, Ontario: Unpublished.
Governrnent of Quebec (1 997a). Families First: New Elements of the Farnilv Policv. blontreal. Quebec: Government of Quebec.
Government of Quebec (1997b). Bill 145 ('1997. chapter 58) An Act respecting the Ministere de la Famille et de I'Enfance and amending the Act respecting child dav care. Montreal. Quebec: Government of Quebec.
Governrnent of Quebec (1997~).Prom: Preschool Education. Montreal, Quebec: Govemment of Quebec.
Government of Quebec (1997d). Parents: Some Answers to Your Questions. The Preschool Education Prog-ram. Montreal, Quebec: Government of Quebec.
Government of Quebec (1990). The Policv on Day Care Services: Summary. Montreal, Quebec: Government of Quebec.
Government of Quebec (1 989). Puttinn Families First: Plan of Action Resoectine Family Policv 1989- 199 1. Montreal, Quebec: Government of Quebec.
Govemment of Quebec (1988). A Better Balance: Policy Statement on Dav Care Services. Montreal, Quebec: Govemment of Quebec.
Govemment of Saskatchewan. (1999). Saskatchewan's Action Plan for Children: Building on Community Success: Creating a Long Term Plan for Saskatchewan's Y ouneest Children and their Families. Working Paper: Policy Framework. Regina Saskatchewan: Government of Saskatchewan. Grady, P.; Howse, R; & Maxwell, J. (1995). Redefining Social Securitv. Kingston, Ontario: School of Policy Studies, Queen's University.
Harlow, H. & Mears, C. (1979). The Human Model: Primate Perspectives. Washington: V. H. Winston.
Hayden, J. (1997). Neo-conservatism and Child Care Services in Alberta: A Case Study. Toronto. Ontario: The Child Care Resource and Research Unit. Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.
Hayes. C; Palmer J. & Zaslow, M. (eds)(1990). Who Cares for America's Children: Child Care Policv for the 1990s. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Health and Welfare Canada. (1989). Status of Dav Care in Canada 1989: A Review of the Major Findings of the National Dav Care Study. Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada.
Helburn. S. (ed) (1999). The Silent Crisis in U.S. Child Care. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Periodicals Press.
Helbum. S. (ed) (1995). Cost. Quality and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers. Technical Report. Denver, Colorado: Department of Economics. Center for Research in Economics and Social Policy, University of Colorado at Denver.
House of Commons (1 988). Minutes of oroceedings and evidence of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-144. an Act to authorize pawnents bv Canada toward the provision of child care services and to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in consequence thereof. Ottawa: Queen's Printer.
Howe, N. & Pederson, D. (1992). Research and Public Policy in Day Care: A Canadian Perspective. In: The Canadian Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education Vol. 3. NO. 2: 85-88, 1992.
Hughes, K. & Lowe, G. (1993). Unequal Returns: Gender Differences in Initial Employment Among University Graduates. In The Canadian Journal Of Higher Education XXIII- 1. 1993.
Jenson, J. (1998). Citizenship in Neo-Liberal Times: Rethinking, Restructuring and Redesimine Res~onsibilitvfor Child Care. Paper presented at the International Sociological Association Meeting in Montreal, Quebec.
Jenson, J. & Stroick, S. (1999). A Policy Blueprint for Canada's Children. Reflexion. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Policy Research Networks. Johnson, L & Joe, M. (1992). An Historical Overview of Child Care in the Yukon. In: Pence, A. (Co-ordinating editor) (1 992a). Canadian National Child Care Studv: Canadian Child Care in Context: Perspectives fiom the Provinces and Temtories. Volume 1. Ottawa, Ontario: Health and Welfare Canada.
Johnson. L. & Mathien, J. (1998). Early Childhood Senices for Kindergarten-age Children in Four Canadian Provinces: Scope, Nature and Models for the Future. Ottawa, Ontario: The Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
Jorde-Bloom, P. (1989). The Illinois Directors Studv. A Report to the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. Evanston, Illinois: National College of Education.
Kisker. E. & Maynard, R. (199 1). Quality, Cost and Parental Choice of Child Care. In: Blau, David (ed.). The Economics of Child Care. New York, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kitchen. B. (1987). The Introduction of Family Allowance in Canada. In: Moscovitch, A. & Albert. J. (eds). The Benevolent State: The Growth of Welfare in Canada. Toronto. Ontario: Garamund Press.
Krashinsky. M. (1977). Daycare and Public Policy in Ontario. Toronto: Ontario Economic Council; University of Toronto Press.
Kyle. I. ( 1992). An Historical Overview of Child Care in Ontario. In: Pence, A. (Co- ordinating editor) (1992a). Canadian National Child Care Study: Canadian Child Care in Context: Perspectives fiom the Provinces and Territories. Volume I, Ottawa, Ontario: Health and Welfare Canada.
Lalonde-Graton, M. (1986). Child Care in Ouebec: An Overview. Ottawa, Ontario: Special Committee on Child Care.
Lamb. M.E. et a1 (eds) (1992). Child Care in Context: Cross-Cultural Pers~ectives. Hillsdale. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Le Bourdais, C. & Marcil-Gratton, N. (1994). Quebec's Pro-Active Approach to Family Policy: "Thinking and Acting Family". In: Baker, M. (ed). Canada's Chanping Families: Challenges to Public Policv. Ottawq Ontario: Vanier Institute of the Family.
Lero, D. (1 997). Principles for Sound Child Care Policy Development. In: Institute for Research on Public Policy, Policy Options: Issue on Child Care, Vol. 18, No. 1: 38-41.
Lincoln, Y. & Guba, E. (1 985).Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills CA: SAGE publications. Lochhead, C. & Shillington, R. (1996). A Statistical Profile of Urban Povertv. Ottawa: Center for International Statistics, Canadian Council for Social Development.
Looker. E.D.(1993). Gender Issues in University: The University as Employer of Academic and Non-Academic Women and Men. In The Canadian Journal of Higher Education XXIII-2, 1993.
Lyon, M. & Canning, P. (1997) Auspice, Location , Provincial Legislation and Funding of Day Care in Atlantic Canada: Relationships with Center Quality and Implications for Policy. In The Canadian Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education. Vol. 6, No.2
Lyon. M. & Canning, P. (1995). The Atlantic Dav Care Studv. Ottawa, Ontario: Department of Human Resource Development Canada.
MacIvor. H. (1 996). Women and Politics in Canada. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.
Mackie, M. (199 1). Gender Relations in Canada: Further Explorations. Toronto, Ontario: Brace Harcourt.
Mahoney. K. (1985). Daycare and Equality in Canada. In: Manitoba Law Journal, Vol. 14. NO. 3: 305-340.
Mahoney. K. (1984). Supporting Better Day Care: The Role of Government. In: Journal of Child Care, Vol. 2, No. 2. Marshall. C & Rossman, G. (1995). Designing Oualitative Research. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publicaions.
Mauch, D. (1 992). Addendum: Child Care in Yukon, 1988-1990. In: Pence, A. (Co- ordinating editor) (1992a). Canadian National Child Care SW: Canadian Child Care in Context: Pers~ectivesfiom the Provinces and Temtories. Volume 1. Ottawa, Ontario: Health and Welfare Canada.
Maxwell, A. (1992). Child Care in Alberta. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Child Day Care Federation.
McDaniel, S. (1990). Towards Family Policies in Canada With Women in Mind. Feminist Perspectives Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women.
McDomel, L. (1 992). An Overview of Child Care in British Columbia. In: Pence, A. (Co-ordinating editor) (1992a). Canadian National Child Care Studv: Canadian Child Care in Context: Perspectives from the Provinces and Temtories. Volume 1. Ottawa, Ontario: Health and WeIfare Canada. McQuaig, L. (1993). The Wealthv Banker's Wife. Toronto: Penguin Books.
Michalski, J. (1999). CPRN Discussion Paper: Values and Preferences for the "Best Policy Mix" for Canadian Children. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Policy Research Networks, Inc.
Minister of Supply and Services Canada (1994). Improving Social Security in Canada. Child Care and Development: A Sup~lementa~,Paper. Hull, Quebec: Author hIoscovitch, A. & Albert, J. (eds) (1987). The Benevolent State: The Growth of Welfare in Canada. Toronto, Ontario: Gararnund Press.
Nagel. Stuart S. (1980). Wrovine Policv Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
National Council of Welfare (1999a). Preschool Children: Promises to Keep. Ottawa Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
National Council of Welfare (1999b). Children First: A Pre-Budget Report by the National Council of Welfare. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
National Crime Prevention Council (1996). Preventing Crime BY Investing in Families: An Intemated Approach to Promote Positive Outcomes for Families. Ottawa, Ontario: National Crime Prevention Council.
National Forum on Health (1 996). What Determines Health?. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Norpark Computer Design, Inc. (1991). A Com~arativeAnalvsis of Child Care Legislation. Toronto, Ontario: Ministry of Community and Social Services, Child Care Branch.
O'Hara, K. (1998). Comparative Familv Policy: Eight Countries' Stories. CPRN Study No. F * 04. Ottawa: Canadian Poiicy Research Network.
Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care (1994). Putting the Pieces Together: A Child Care Agenda for the 90s. Toronto, Ontario: Author.
Osborn, A. & Milbank, J. (1987). The Effects of Earlv Education: A Rewa From the Child Health and Education Study. New York, New York: Clarendon Press.
PMO ( 1999). The New Social Union Framework. htt~://~rn.~c.cal~ublications/factsheets=ftsh19990204925 e.htm Pal, L. (1 992). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction. (Second Edition). Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Canada.
Pask, E.D.,Mahoney, K. 8r Brown, C.A. (eds) (1985). Women. the Law and the Economy. Toronto, Ontario: Butterworths.
Pence, A. (1993). Canada. In: Cochrane, M. (Ed). International Handbook of Child Care Policies and Programs. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Pence, A. (Co-ordinating editor) (1992a). Canadian National Child Care Study: Canadian Child Care in Context: Pers~ectivestiom the Provinces and Territories. Volume 1. Ottawa, Ontario: Health and Welfare Canada.
Pence, A. (Coordinating editor) (1 992b). Canadian National Child Care Study: Canadian Child Care in Context: Perspectives fiom the provinces and territories, Volume 2. Ottawa, Ontario: Health and Welfare Canada
Pence, A. (ed) (1 988). EcoloeicaI Research with Children and Families: From Concepts to Methodolow. New York, New York: Teachers College Press.
Pence, A.; Griffin, S.; McDonell, L.; Goelman, H.; Lero, D.; Brockman, L. (1997). Shared Diversitv: An Intemrovincial Re~orton Child Care in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada.
Piaget, 3. (1973). The Child's Conception of the World. Great Britain: Paladin.
Powell, L. (1 997). Family Behaviour and Child Care Costs: Policy Implications. In: Institute for Research on Public Policy, Policy Options: Issue on Child Care, Vol. 18, No. 1:ll-16.
Powell, L. (1993). Toward Child Care Policy Development in Canada. In: Papers on Economic Eaualitv @. 199- 226). Prepared for the Economic Equality Workshop: November 29-30, 1993. Ottawa, Ontario: Status of Women Canada.
Prentice, S. (Forthcoming). Report on Manitoba Child Care. Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives.
Prentice, S. (1997). The Deficiencies of Commercial Day Care. In: Institute for Research on Public Policy, Policy Cbtions: Issue on Child Care, Vol. 18, No. 1: 42-46.
Prentice, S. & Ferguson, E. (1997). "My Kids Come First": The Contradictions of Mothers' "Involvement" in Child Care Delivery. In: Pulkingham, J. & Ternowetslq, G. (Eds). Child and Family Policies: Strugeles. Strate~esand O~tions.Halifax, Nova Scotia: Femwood Publishing.
Prentice, S. (1988). "Kids Are Not For Profit: The Politics of Child Care. In: Cunningham. F. et a1 (Eds). Social Movements/Social Change: The Politics and Practice of Organizing. Toronto, Ontario: Between the Lines.
Prentice. S. (1987). The Politics of Care: Childcare in Ontario. (Masters Thesis, York University. 1987).
Prochner. L. (1996). "Share their Care, Mrs. Warworker": The Development of Wartime Day Nurseries in Ontario and Quebec, 1942-1946. Canadian iournal of Research in Early Childhood Education. Vol. 5, No. 1.
Provincial/ Territorial Joint Working Group on Child Care Support Committee- Day Care Directors (1 99 1 ). Report on Child Care. Ottawa, Ontario: Author.
Pulkingham, J. & Ternowetsky, G. (1999). Child Poverty and the CCTBMCB: Why Most Poor Children Gain Nothing. In: Durst, D. (ed). Canada's National Child Benefit: Phoenix or Fizzle?. Halifax. Nova Scotia: Femwood Publishing.
Pulkingham. I. & Ternowetsky, G. (Eds) (1997). Child and Familv Policies: Strue~les. Strategies and Options. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Femwood Publishing.
Pulkingham. J. & Ternowetsky, G. (1997). The Changing Context of Child and Family Policies. In: Pulkingham, I. & Ternowetsky, G. (Eds). Child and Familv Policies: Struseles. Strategies and O~tions.Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
Pulkingham, J. & Ternowetsky, G. (Eds) (1996). Remaking Canadian Social Policy: Social Securitv in the Late 1990s. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Femwood Publishing.
Read, M., Greenwood-Church, M., Hautman, L., Roche, E., & Bagley, C. (1992). An Historical Overview of Child Care in Alberta. In: Pence, A. (Co-ordinating editor) (1992a). Canadian National Child Care Studv: Canadian Child Care in Context: Perspectives fiom the Provinces and Territories. Volume 1. Ottawa, Ontario: Health and We1 fare Canada.
Rochon, Y.(1999). Quebec: A Giant Step Fonvard for Working Conditions. In: Interaction; Fall 1999.
Rochon. K.& Rice, C. (1992). An Historical Overview of Child Care on Prince Edward Island. In: Pence, A. (Coordinating editor) (1 992b). Canadian National Child Care Studv; Canadian Child Care in Context: Permectives f?om the ~rovincesand temtories, Volume 2. Ottawa, Ontario: Health and Welfare Canada. Rose. R. (1999). The New Family Policy in Ouebec. Unpublished: Universite de Quebec a Montreal.
Rose. R. (1999). Quebec's Family Policy: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. In: Perce~tion,Vol. 23, No. 1. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Council on Social Development.
Rose. R. (1997). For Direct Public Funding of Child Care. In: hstihlte for Research on Public Policy, Policy Options: Issue on Child Care, Vol. 18, No. 1 : 3 1-34.
Rose. R. & Richard, D. (1993). Who Benefits from Public Daycare Funding Programs? The Quebec Situation. In: Papers on Economic Eauali~(p. 227-259). Prepared for the Economic Equality Workshop: November 29-30. 1993. Ottawa, Ontario: Status of Women Canada.
Sadker. M. & D. (1 994). Failing at Fairness: How Our Schools Cheat Girls. Toronto, Ontario: Simon & Schuster.
Sainsbury. D. (1996). Gender. Eoualitv and Welfare States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shedd. M. (1 997). Family and Social Services, the Alberta Deficit Elimination Program. and Welfare Reform. In: Bruce. C., Kneebone, R. & McKenzie, K. (eds). A Government Reinvented:aa.m. Toronto, Ontario: Oxford University Press.
Skrypnek. B. & Fast, J. (1996). Work and Family Policy in Canada: Family Needs. Collective Solutions. In: Journal of Familv Issues, Vol. 17, No. 6.
Smith, A. (1982). Understanding Children's Develooment: A New Zealand Perwective. Second Edition. North Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin/ Port Nicholson Press.
SPR Associates (1986). An Ex~loratorvReview of Selected Issues in For-orofit Versus Not-For-Profit Child Care. A Report Prepared for the Special Committee on Child Care. Ottawa: House of Commons.
Stalker, I. & Prentice, S. (eds.) (1998). The Illusion of Inclusion: Women in Post- Secondary Education. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.
Stapleford, E. (1992). Daycare: A Historical Perspective as a Basis for Policy Issues. In: The Canadian Journal of Research in Earh Childhood Education Vol. 3, No. 2: 85-88, 1992. Swift, K. & Birmingham, M. (1999). Caring in a Globalizing Economy: Single Mothers on Assistance. In: Durst, D. (ed). Canada's National Child Benefit: Phoenix or Fizzle?. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Femwood Publishing.
Swimmer, G. (ed) (1997). How Ottawa Spends: 1997-98: Seeing Red: A Liberal Reoort Card. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.
Swiss, D. & Walker. J. (1993). Women and the Work/Family Dilemma: How Todav's Professional Women are Finding Solutions. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Teghtsoonian, K. (1995). Work and/ or Motherhood: The Ideological Construction of Women's Options in Canadian Child Care Policy Debates. In: Canadian Journal of Women and the Law Vol. 8: 41 1-439.
Tipper. J. & Avard, D. (1999). CPRN Discussion Pa~er:Building Better Outcomes For Canada's Children. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Policy Research Networks. Inc.
Torjman. S. & Battle. K. (1995). Can We Have National Standards? Ottawa. Ontario: Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
Ursel. J. (1992). Private Lives. Public Policy: 100 Years of State Intervention in the -Familv. Toronto. Ontario: Women's Press. Ward, M. (1992). Federal PSE Policy- First Nations: 1987-89. (Doctoral dissertation. . University of Calgary).
Wiring, M. (1984). If Women Counted: A New Feminist Economics. New York, New York: Harper Collins, Publishers.
White. L. (1998). Welfare State Development and Child Care Policies: A Com~arative Analvsis of France. Canada and the United States. Department of Political Science, University of Toronto: Unpublished dissertation.
White, L. (1997). Partisanship or Politics of Austerity? Child Care Policy Development in Ontario and Alberta, 1980 to 1996. In: Joumal of Family Issues Vol. 18 (1): 7-29.
Yeats, M.: McKenna, D; Warberg, CC.& Chandler, K. (1990). Administerinn Early Childhood Settings: The Canadian Permective. Toronto, Ontario: Memll Publishing Company.
Young, C. (1 997) Public Taxes, Privatizing Effects and Gender Inequality. In Boyd, S. (ed) (1 997). Challen~inethe Publiflrivate Divide: Feminism. Law and Public Policv. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press. Yukon Health and Human Resources. (1988a). Let's Talk About Child Care h the Yukon. Whitehorse, Yukon: Yukon Government.
Yukon Health and Human Resources. (1988b). We Care Yukonea T& About Childcare. Whitehorse, Yukon: Yukon Government.
Yukon Health and Human Resources. (1989). Working Together: A Child Care Strategy tbr the Yukon. Whitehorse, Yukon: Yukon Government.
Yukon Health and Human Resources. (1990). Working Together: A First Year Review. Whitehorse, Yukon: Yukon Government. Appendix A
Federal Chronology:
1940 Liberals won election under Mackenzie King.
1942 (WWII) -Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement. Based on need to have
mothers working. -Provided start-up fbnds and operating costs for child
care centers on a F/P 50150 cost-shared basis. To receive hding initially
provinces had to show that at least 75% of mothers using the service were
working in war related industries. (Pence. 1992 p. 20-2 1)
Liberals won election under Mackenzie King.
-Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement withdrawn.
-Introduction of the universal Family Allowance program.
Liberals won election under Louis St Laurent.
Liberals won election under Louis St Laurent.
Progressive Conservatives won election under John Diefenbaker.
Progressive Conservatives won election under John Diefenbaker.
Progressive Conservatives won election under John Diefenbaker.
Liberals won election under Lester Pearson.
Liberals won election under Lester Pearson,
-Canadian Assistance Plan (CAP). Cost-shared program development of
%on-profit services that have as their objective "the lessening, removal or 160 prevention of the causes and effects of poverty, child neglect or dependence on public assistance. (Cohen, 1973)" (Pence, 1992, p. 27)
Liberals won election under Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
-Local Initiatives Program (LIP) introduced. A job creation program that allowed for the creation of child care centers.
-Child Care Expense Deduction (CCED) provision in Income Tax Act. -First national conference on daycare in Winnipeg. Co-sponsored by the Federal Department of Health and Welfare and the Canadian Council on Social Development. Out of this conference came the recommendation for the establishment of a Federal Day Care Information Office.
-Royal Commission on the Status of Women established. -National Day Care Information Center established within the Federal Department of Health and Welfare. -CAP was amended to expand the definition of day care services that could be cost-shared.
-LIP funding withdrawn -First annual Status of Daycare in Canada report issued.
-Child Tax Credit introduced, It is means tested.
Progressive Conservatives elected under Joe Clark.
Liberals elected under Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
-Second National Conference on Day Care:
John Turner takes over as Liberal leader and Prime Minister. Progressive Conservatives elected under Brian Mulroney.
-John Turner appointed a four person task force on child care.
-Release of the Katie Cooke Task Force on Child Cure. -Brian Mulroney established a Special Parliamentary Committee on Child Care.
-Release of the report of the Special Parliamentary Committee on Child Care.
-Brian Mulroney introduces Bill C-144- the child care bill. C-I44 died in senate following the election call. -Introduction of Child Care Initiatives Program (CCIP).The program funded research, training projects and pilot projects.
Progressive Conservatives re-elected under Brian Mulroney.
-htroduction of the clawback of Family Allowance.
-Cap on CAP.
-Community Action Program for Children (CAPC) introduced. (100% federally hded.) -Aboriginal Head Start introduced. (100% federally funded.)
Kim Campbell takes over as PC leader and Prime Minister. Liberals elected under Jean Chretien.
-Family allowance, child tax credit and the non-refundable tax credit were combined in a new income tested Child Tax Benefit (CTB). -Working Income Supplement (WS) announced.
1994-5 -Social Security Review led by the Parliamentary Committee on Human Resource Development.
1995 -Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) introduced. -CAP abolished. -CCIP funding ended. -hiworthy attempts to introduce a child care bill in Dec.
1996 -Cabinet shuffle in Jan. moves Axworthy to Foreign Affairs. Doug Young becomes responsible for Child Care. Negotiations drop due to lack of provincial interest according to Doug Young, although the majority of the provinces were interested and there had been no official negotiations. -Elimination of the National Day Care Information Center- results in no longer having a contact person federally for child care.
1998 -Canada Child Tax Benefit (CTB) introduced.
1999 -Feb-Social Union Framework signed. -June-National Children's Agenda announced. -July-Health Canada document 'leaked' suggesting a comprehensive system for children should include community based planning, evaluation and monitoring of the following: -a perinatal system for pre-natal, birth and infant care -a parent resource system for families with children 0-6 years -an accessible, affordable child care system -a junior and senior kindergarten system for all 4 and 5 year olds -Cabinet shufne replaces Human Resource Development Minister Pierre Pettigrew with Jane Stewart. Provincial/ Temtorial Chronology:
British Columbia:
194 1 Liberals formed a coalition government under John Hart.
1942 -Could not meet the 75% requirement for funding
1943 -Welfare Institutions Licensing Act amended to include day care.
1947 Liberals formed a coalition government under Byron Johnson.
1952 Social Credit elected under W .A.C. Bennett.
1966 -CAP provided cost-sharing of Full-time programs for a target population
1968 -BC Preschool Teachers Association founded.
1969 -Provincial Child Care Facilities Licensing Board replaced Welfare Institutions Licensing Act.
New Democrats elected under Dave Barrett.
-Eligibility ceiling for parent subsidy increased. -Amount of subsidy payments increase. -Part-time preschool and after-school programs qualify for subsidy. -Children's Services Employees Union formed.
-Opening of Day Care Information Center in Vancouver.
Social Credit elected under Bill Bennett.
-Coalition for Improved Day Care Services (CIDS) formed.
-CDS dissolved. -BC Daycare Action Coalition founded.
-Westem Canada Family Day Care Association founded.
-Native Preschool Teachers Association formed.
Social Credit eIected under William Vander Zalm.
-BC Pre-school Teachers Association becomes Early Childhood Educators of BC (ECEBC).
-Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre opened with fimding from the federal Child Care Initiatives Fund. -Regulations revised to include: -infant programs for under eighteen months -training requirements clarified -hours a child could spend in care increased from 10 to 131day
-Task Force on Child Care appointed.
Rita Johnson takes over as leader of Social Credit. NDP elected under Mike Harcourt.
-Showing we care: A child care strategyfor the 90s (report of the Task Force) released. A key document for advocates.
-Child care Branch, Ministry of Women's Equality established. -Provincial Child Care Facilities Licensing Board disbanded and replaced with a Director of Community Care Facilities. -Ministry of Women's Equality became responsible for grant programs for child care. 165
-Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre stabilized with provincial and municipal funding. One of the few CCIF projects to successfully make the transition from federal pilot project to provincial funding.
1993 -Provincial Child Care Council appointed. -Review of regulations initiated.
1994 -Child Care Policy Team established: a vehicle for cross-ministry communication between Health. Social Services, Ministry of Women's Equality and Post-Secondary Education.
1995 -Wage supplement introduced.
1996 NDP elected under Glen Clark.
1996 -The BC Benefits (Child Care) Act: included an ongoing requirement for the Provincial Child Care Council.
1999 -Unionized workers, including child care workers. staged a 14 day walk-
out as part of the Community Social Services Employers Association
strike.
-Advocacy Forum established to promote a common agenda and vision. Endorsed by a broad range of groups: -BC Association of Child Care Services -Coalition of Child Care Advocates of BC -Early Childhood Educators of BC -School Age Child Care Association of BC -Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre -Westem Canada Family Child Care Association 166 -Child care was removed from the Ministry of Children's Services, which had become more preventative, and moved to Social Development and Economic Security. Moe Sihota is the Minister responsible for child care.
Alberta:
193 5-70 Social Credit Party in power under Aberhart. Manning and Strom.
1942 -Signed Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement, but did not open centers.
-The Preventive Social Services Act delegated authority to municipalities and introduced 80/20 cost-sharing with participating municipalities.
Progressive Conservative Party came to power under Peter Lougheed.
-Alberta Association for Young children founded.
-Early Childhood Services Program developed by Department of Education.
-Alberta Task Force on Day Care Report released.
-Social Care Facilities Licensing Act amended: >recommended new licensing standards. >licensing unit transferred to the Community Social Services Branch of the Health Services Division of the Department of Social Services and Community Health. - changed bding from supporting programs to fee subsidies for low- income parents. Funding followed the child, allowing commercial centers to access provincial funding.
1980 -Day Care Advisory Committee established. 167 -Operating allowances introduced. -Provincial government took over municipal funding and administrative roles. Province took on responsibility for preschool and school-age programs. Less than a year later the province returned responsibility for school-age programs to municipalities
198 1 -Family and Community Support Services Act. -Social Care Facilities Licensing Act legislated new standards. -Family day home standards introduced.
1985 Progressive conservatives elected under Don Getty.
1986 -Freeze imposed on Operating Allowances. -Minister Connie Osterrnan formed the Child Care Network.
1987 -Introduction of the Day Care Licensing Policy Manual.
1988 -Computerized day care information system introduced for the province. -Subsidy system redesigned to facilitate processing of subsidy payments.
1989 -Family Day Home Program Manual revised. -Increased number of children permitted in a Family Day Home. -Increased administrative fee per child for contracted Family Day Care.
1990 -Family and Social Services release the White Paper on reforms to day care in Alberta. Public consultation resulted in Alberta Day Care Reforms over 5 years*: -staff qualifications introduced> 50 hour orientation, untested, only attendance required -operating allowances to be redirected to subsidy over 5 years. -fkeeze on operating allowance lifted, with new $ going to parent subsidy. -increase income level to qualify for subsidy. *time lines were changed so reforms were not complete until 1999.
Progressive Conservatives elected under Ralph Klein.
-Cap on family day home budget, and deregulation of Family Day Homes (Satellite Family Day Homes still regulated).
-Restructuring health and social programs, including child care. -Child Care Services Budget cut 20% over 3 years. -50% reduction in kindergarten Funding. -"Only 'high-priority' centres are inspected for compliance with minimum standards." (Ontario, 1995) -Eliminated 'job-search? and 'special needs' fiom subsidy eligibility. -Increased parent surcharge fiom $30-401 month to $100/month.
-Regional authorities set up.
-Reduction in operating grants.
-Elimination of operating grants. -Increased parent subsidy funding- ceiling raised so more families eligible. -Parent surcharge reduced.
Saskatchewan:
1942 -Did not take advantage of Dominion/ Provincial Agreement.
1944 CCF/NDP won election under Thomas Douglas. CCFNDP elected under Woodrow Lloyd.
Liberals elected under W. Ross Thatcher.
-CAPallowed provincial governments to recover some of their costs for low-income users of child care.
-The Child Welfare Act. This included government funded start-up grants. monthly operating grants and fee subsidies for low-income parents.
NDP elected under Allan Blakeney.
-Regina Women's Service began referral service.
-Establishment of the Day Care Branch of the Department of Social Services. To be licensed &er this required that the center be non-profit and operated by a parent Board. Increased grants and subsidies available.
-Family Services Act included new child care regulations.
-Introduction of grants for staff and equipment to include special needs children in centers.
-Day Care Users Survey by government.
-Day Care Needs and Demands Study Report.
-The Day Care Review, an intergovernmental report released. -Action Child Care founded.
Progressive Conservative Party elected under Grant Devine.
-Directions for Child Care in Saskarchewan report released. Recommended allowing commercial child care centers be Licensed. i 70 Lobbying by the Regina Day Care Coalition resulted in not following the recommendation.
-Change in grants fiorn annual equipment grants to a per child operating grant*
-Saskatchewan Child Care Association founded.
-Child Care Act (permits commercial centers to license)
-Child Care Regulations and Policies.
NDP elected under Roy Romanov.
-Child Care Advisory Board appointed. -tuition subsidy introduced for worker training -Breaking New Ground in Child Care released
-Introduction of grants to encourage work-place child care. -Saskatchewan Action Plan for Children announced.
-Child care Resource Centers established throughout the province. -Parental subsidies by age group introduced.
-wage enhancement announced
-capital grants for renovations announced
-release of Policy Framework for the Saskatchewan Action Plan for Children. -3rd installment of Wage Enhancement Grant > now covers all child care workers.
NDP under Roy Romanov win minority government. (September) Manitoba:
Consewatives elected under DufTerin Roblin.
-Community Welfare Council of Winnipeg report Day Cure Services for FVorkirzg Mothers released which recommended day care, family day care and before and after school programs.
Conservatives elected under Walter Weir.
NDP elected under Edward Schreyer.
-Day Care Services in kkznitoba released. (Commissioned by the P Ianning Secretariat).
-Introduction of Provincial Child Day Care Program in Department of Health and Social Development. Provided start-up grants and operating grants to non-profits and family day homes and fee subsidies to low income parents. -Manitoba's Women's Bureau released Mothers in the Labour Force: their Child Care Arrangements. -Manitoba Child Care Association founded.
Conservatives elected under Sterling Lyon.
-Permitted commercial centers to be grandfathered in for subsidy if operating prior to 1974.
-White Paper on Tor Credit Reform released. Had implications for child care.
NDP elected under Howard Pawley.
-Community Child Day Care Standards Act
-Regulations passed to support Act. -Child Day Care Program moved from welfare division to the new Department of Community Services.
1986 -Wage enhancement grant for non-profit centers introduced. -Introduction of the inclusion of day care centers in new school structures funded by the province.
1988 -Appointment of Manitoba Task Force on Child Care.
1988 Progressive conservatives elected under Gary Fi lmon.
1989 -Report of the ~ManitobaChild Care Task Force released. -One day walk out staged by staff to protest low wages. -Working Group on Child Care appointed by the Minister of Family Services. -MCCA called for a moratorium on further job action pending the report of the Working Group.
1990 -Government accepted and implemented the short-term recommendations of the Working Group including increased wage enhancement grant. wage enhancement for Family day care, increased maintenance grants, increased ceiling for parent subsidy and increased parent fees. -MCCA called off its moratorium, satisfied with the changes.
199 1 -Funding restructured into one consolidated direct operating grant including the wage enhancement. Resulted in lower wage enhancement and increased parent fees.
-Licensing of new spaces temporarily frozen. -Working Group on Francophone Day Care report released.
-Number of parent fee subsidies capped. -Operating grants to centers reduced 4% -Operating grants to nursery school reduced 50% -Operating grants to MCCA and FDCA eliminated -Introduction of acknowledgement form that new licensing centers must sign acknowledging that they will not receive government hding.
1994 -Regulation Review Committee established
1996 -Review of Child Care Regulations begins. -Children and Youth Secretariat began to integrate and coordinate children's services.
1997 -26 member Regulation Committee formed and begins to meet. -Members of MCCA and FDCA vote to amalgamate the two associations.
1998 4%increase in operating grants to infant and preschool spaces.
1999 - LO- 14% increase in grants (school-age excluded). -2% increase to family child care grants. -Total increases in child care funding equal $5.5M -In addition: -$4.1M to Early Literacy -$2.8M to Women and lnfant Nutrition -$2.8M to BabyFirst -$1.1M to Early Start -$I .5M to Children and Youth Secretariat -$0.6Mto Children's Special Services -$0.4Mto Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention -$3.2M to Workforce Attachment
1999 NDP elected under Gary Doer (September) Ontario:
1942 -Signed Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement -Establishment of the Day Nurseries Branch
Conservatives elected under George Drew.
-End of Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement and funding.
-Day Nurseries and Day Care Parent's Association successfully lobbied to keep day nurseries open despite the end of the D-P Wartime Agreement. -Day Nurseries Act.
Conservatives elected under Thomas Kennedy.
Conservatives under LesIie Frost.
-Nursery Education Association of Ontario founded.
Conservatives elected under John Robarts.
-Canada Assistance Plan allowed fee subsidies for low-income parents. -Day Nurseries Act amended. Provided for an increase in the provincial subsidy from 50% to 80%.
Conservatives elected under William Davis.
-Day Nurseries Act amended. Provided funds for new centres.
-Margaret Birch issued Day Care Sentices to Children. It was the first policy statement on child care called it a welfare service for those in financial need, -Day Care Reform Action Alliance successllly fought the Birch Proposals which wanted to reduce standards to lower costs. -Day Nurseries Act amended. Increased the subsidy rate for special needs and provided a fund for renovations. -Advisory Council on Day Care released its first Progress Report in January, and its second report in June.
-Advisory Council on Day Care released its Final Report.
-Formation of the Children's Services Division and the elimination of the Day Nurseries Branch. -Ministry of Community and Social Services released a consultative paper Program Priorities for Children 's Services -Day Nurseries Act amended to require licensing of family day care, stflchild ratios and support for integration for special need children.
-Release of consultative paper Day Nurseries Services: Proposed Standards and Guidelines.
-Formation of the Ontario Coalition for Better Day Care (OCBCC). -Day Care Policy: Background Paper released. -Day Care Initiatives announced. -0CBCCreleased Day Care Deadline: 1990.
-Regulations revised.
-Standing Committee on Social Development held public hearings across Ontario and received written submissions.
-Enterprise Ontario announced. Included new hdsfor child care.
Frank Miller takes over as leader of the Progressive Conservatives. Liberals elected under David Peterson. 176 -Program for Action announced. It stated a change to recognize child care as a public service and not a welfare service.
-New Directions for Child Care released. Policy saw child care as a public service not a welfare service.
NDP eIected under Robert Rae.
-Day Nurseries Act: Enforcement Practices Review Report released. This report identified enforcement problems in a number of areas and recommendations.
-Introduction of wage enhancement grant. -Conversion program to encourage for-profit centers to convert to non- profit.
-Child Care Reform in Ontario: Setting; the Stage released. -Ontario Child Care Management Framework released. -School boards became eligible to operate child care programs. -.lobsOntario created 8200 fully-funded child care subsidies for low- income parents looking for work or job training.
-Wage enhancement grant capped- no new staff at a center or new centers were eligible for wage enhancement.
-Pilot project announced: The Earlv Years Proeram working towards a 'seamless' day for 4 and 5 year olds. (NDP before election)
Conservatives elected under Mike Hams. -Following election of Harris' conservative government: JobsOntario subsidies became cost-shared with municipalities -freeze on pay equity portion of wage enhancement grant. -program development hd(start-up and capital) eliminated. -fbnding to include childcare programs in new schools eliminated. -conversion program cancelled -Early years program cancelled -policy limiting new subsidies to non-profits reversed. i 996 -pay equity for child care woiker~eliminated.
1997 -government announced licensing to be devolved to municipaUregional governments.
1999 -retroactive lump payment of pay equity portion of wage enhancement to workers to cover 1995- 1998 in March 1999. -all contracts for wage enhancement grants transferred to municipality responsibility effective in July.
I999 Conservatives re-elected under Mike Harris.
Quebec:
1942 -Signed the Dominion-Provincial Wanime Agreement. Six centers were established.
1 944 Union Nationale elected under Maurice Duplessis.
1945 -Dominion-Provincial Wartime Agreement ended, funding discontinued, centers closed.
I939 Union Nationale elected under Paul Sauve.
1960 Union Nationale under J, Antonio Barrette. Liberals elected under Jean Lesage.
Union Nationale elected under Daniel Johnson.
-Federation des femmes du Quebec founded.
Union Nationale under Jean-Jacques Bertrand.
-Delegates fIom over 100 organizations came together to form an organizing committee to promote day care. -Department of Family and Social Welfare is in charge of the licensing of existing centers. -Pilot project hding was introduced for some centers in low-income districts of Montreal.
-release of Bird Commission's report.
Liberals elected under Robert Bourassa.
-Cabinet created an inter-departmental committee to look at day care centers and tax exemptions for working mothers.
-First regulations introduced following the recommendations of the inter- departmental committee. -Provincial tau credits for mothers using child care introduced. -Partnership between Perspectives Jeunesse and LIP created 70 new centers.
-Day Care Liaison Committee formed.
-Bacon Plan adopted- a policy plan on child care issues. Financed low- income families rather than programs. -By fall 54 out of 70 centers had closed due to the end of LIP funding. (250 centers in Quebec; 70 under LIP) 1976 Parti Quebecois elected under Rene Levesque
1976 -Minister Denis Lazure takes responsibility for child care. Fee subsidies increased, new subsidies authorized and funding allowed the development of an association for non-profit child care.
1977 -End of access to free space in public schools resulted in actions to maintain those spaces. (18 mos duration).
1978 -Regroupernent des garderies sans but lucratif du Quebec (RGQ) founded. -Adopted a new policy on child care services under the Ministry of Social Services.
1979 -Announcement that the Bacon Plan would be shelved. -An Act Respecting Child Day Care introduced. -It creates I'Office des services de garde (OSGE). -More supportive of non-profit, parent-run boards. -Recognizes 4 types of child care: 1. Center based programs 2. Family Day Care Agencies 3. School age care (school boards responsible) 4. Drop-in programs -Operating Grants were introduced.
1980 -['Office des services de garde a I'enfance established to coordinate regulated child care. -L'Office implemented 5 year planning system to allow for stable budget and planning. -Increased the spaces available.
1983 -0SGE establishes regulations. -Child care regulations for the Act adopted.
-Policy introduced regarding Family Day Care and Want Care.
Pierre-Marc Johnson takes over as leader of the PQ. Liberals elected under Robert Bourassa.
-established new Ministry of State responsible for family life. -1'Office announced plan to double number of child care spaces by 1994. -Unions representing Day Care Workers joined the 'Common Front' (public sector employees)
-An Act Respecting Child Day Care was amended. -S2M allocated to encourage development of 24 hr care.
-Increased the ceiling at which parents qualify for subsidy. -For-profits and non-profits without parent boards now qualify for subsidy for idant care and special needs care and an annual equipment grant.
-Regulated number of spaces eligible for funding annually. -Sept 92- May 94 unions organized a Campaign to increase public support around wages and working conditions. -Unionized workers held a province wide one-day walk out to protest low wages.
-Regional actions/ strikes occur in April, May, Sept and Nov. -New regulations regarding parent fee subsidies.
Daniel Johnson takes over as leader of the Liberals. Parti Quebecois elected under Jacques Parizeau. 18 1 1994 -3 Day care centers in Montreal strike. They are supported by other centers throughout the province. By Ap 2 1,94 must CSN centers-are on strike. They have strong public support, support of the Consiel du Statut de la Femme and the Concertaction inter-regionale. -May 94: Quebec introduces a wage enhancement grant of $ lh.
1994/95 -Public consultations on funding for child care.
1995 -Task Force to look at fbnding of Day Cares and Wages established by Marois. -Moratorium on new child care centers.
1996 Lucien Bouchard becomes leader of the PQ.
1996 -Pauline Marois, Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Women (and therefore daycare) announces decision "to develop a comprehensive early childhood policy that will meet the needs of children from 0-1 2 years old.. ." (CCRU. 1997; p. 3 1) Marois makes links between women's equality, children's needs and education.
1997 -New services available to all 5 year olds starting in Sept with a incremental introduction of services over time for younger children at a rate of $5.00/day. -tncreased maternity leave time and parental leave to be paid at 75%.
1999 -Change in ratios to accommodate new services announced. Following 'discussions' ratios were lowered to previous ratios. -Unionized workers of child care programs for preschool aged children stage one day strike to protest poor working conditions and wages.
2000 -School age programs included in increased wages and benefits. Nova Scotia:
1946 Progressive conservatives elected under John Stanfield.
1966 -Minister of Public Welfare announces Advisory Committee on Day Care Services.
1967 George Smith and PC come to power.
1967 -Day Nurseries Act
1968 -Preschool Association of Nova Scotia founded.
1969 -Nova Scotia Day Care Advocacy Association founded. -Nova Scotia Child Care Council founded.
1970 Liberals elected under Gerald Regan.
1972 -Provincial Day Care Advisory Committee formed. Introduced day care subsidy program.
1974 -Non-profit child care workers, parents and children occupy the Legislature for increased funding.
1978 Progressive Conservatives elected under John Buchanan.
1978 -Day Care Act and Regulations. -Moratorium placed upon number of subsidized spaces.
-Formation of a Task Force on Day Care Finance.
-Revised Day Care Act and Regulations
-Formation of a Task Force on Day Care.
-Day Care Act and Regulations amended. -Task Force on Family and Children's Services. -Day Care Act and Regulations amended. -Introduction of training requirements for day care staff. -Equipment grant on non-profit spaces established.
Ministerial Statement on Day Care.
-One day walk gut in child care centers to protest low wages. -Round Table on Day Care. -Salary enhancement grant introduced.
Roger Stuart Bacon becomes interim leader of the PCs.
Donald Cameron becomes leader of the PCs.
-Increased subsidy spaces and rates introduced.
-Differential hnding for non-profit infant spaces introduced.
Liberals elected under John Savage.
- 50 new subsidized spaces per year announced.
-Child care services renamed Prevention and Child Care Services. -Budget cuts result in 41 fewer spaces rather than 50 additional spaces.
-Minimurn user fee for subsidized parents increased to D.OO/day.
Russell MacLelIan becomes leader of the Liberals.
-Increase in per diem. -Operating grant established. -Departmental move to simplify funding mechanism. Prince Edward Island:
1943 Liberals elected under Walter Jones.
1953 Liberals elected under Alexander Matheson.
1959 Progressive Conservatives elected under Walter Shaw.
1960s -Saw the development of some kindergarten programs- not a system. -Head Start program established in Charlottetown.
Liberals elected under Alexander Campbell.
-Development of some child care programs in rural PEI with federal Regional Economic Expansion funding. -PEI Comprehensive Development Plan resulted in consolidation of schools outside of Charlottetown. This resulted in a few one-room schools being available for other uses such as preschool programs and small kindergarten programs. -Federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion developed the Canada Newstart program. One component was the development of daycare in two areas targeted as needy- resulted in two centers. Newstart also hded a training program.
1970 -Human Resources Committee reviewed day care issue and identified social services as the agency to manage any fbnds and monitor these centers.
2971 -The Department of Social Services was responsible for monitoring and funding of six non-profit, community based child care programs established through the Development Plan. 185 -Federal fimding for Newstart ended. Daycares continued following lobbying of the provincial government. -Department of Social Services became responsible for daycare.
-Two-year diploma in ECE began at Holland Campus.
-Child Care Facilities Act legislated. -Child Care Facilities Board established.
-Early Childhood Development Association of Prince Edward Island
(ECDA) founded.
-Department of Health and Social Services changed bding policy to one of fee subsidies for eligible parents- the Child Care Subsidy Program.
Liberals elected under Bennett Campbell.
Progressive Conservatives elected under Angus MacLean.
James Lee becomes Ieader of the PCs.
-Play and Learn (PAL), a mobile preschool program began in rural Kings County. -Child Care Subsidy Program expanded to recognize the higher costs of providing integrated programs for special needs children. Parents were income tested for subsidy.
-West Prince Playmobile Project began. (another mobile preschool program) -Sludy of Child Cme Services in Prince Edward Island released. Recommendations included direct funding of programs, need for training requirements, and noted the low wages of caregivers. None of the recommendations that required additional funds were acted upon. 1984 -Satellite Family Daycare Project linked rural family day care homes to licensed centers for program support. Cosponsored by the Department of Health and Social Services and the ECDA and funded by Canada Employment and Immigration Commission.
1985 -First licensed after school program sponsored by the YMCA.
1986 Liberals elected under Joe Ghiz. -Child Care Regulations amended. Included the introduction of strafT training requirements; program requirements and defined types of programs.
1987 -Child Care Facilities Act amended. This included the requirement that hvo members of the Child Care Facilities Board be representatives of the ECDA. This amendment acknowledged that the Board had had two members since 1980 by Ministerial agreement. -Guiding PrincPlesfor the Development ofchild Care Services released. -Government announced the implementation of the Direct Funding Program for licensed child care facilities.
1988 Government announced the introduction of a special needs grant and eliminated extra hdsfor special needs in the Child Care Subsidy Program. This meant that parents would no longer be income tested for additional costs. This was done at the request of families. -Department of Health and Social Services issued the revised The Parent's Guide to Eurly Childhood Programs.
1989 -Department of Health and Social Services issued A Guide to Positive Behaviour Management for Child Care Facilities.
1990 -Guiding Principles for the Development of Child Care Services revised. 187 -Department of Health and Social Services issued Directory of Licensed Chi[d Cure Facilities. This is revised and issued yearly and has been since 1981.
Freeze introduced on operating grants.
Liberals elected under Catherine Cdlbeck.
-Operating grants cut 9% as part of a 9% reduction to every government budget/ program.
-Network of family resource centers opened with funding from CAPC. Centers were regionally based (5). A 6' one was opened for OR-reserve aboriginal families.
Progressive Conservatives elected under Patrick Bims.
-Special Needs Review- reviewed all policies of Special Needs Programs- involved a steering committee with 6 EC Supervisors and regional ECE and parent consultations.
-Review of child care subsidy program. Resulted in revisions to per diem rates and income testing for parents. -NCB Re-investment Strategy identified child care as a priority. -Kindergarten Curriculum Pilot established.
-Government announced development of 5 year strategy for children, prenatal- early school years. Broad policy initiative involving community, health regions, school boards and 4 government departments (Health and 188 Social Se~ces,Education, Justice and Economic Development). Child care issues are a major component- strategy to be announced Spring 2000. -ECDA received funding from HRDC as one of 5 sites across Canada to measure readiness to learn- Understanding Early Years Project- will be done with all kindergarten teachers in EC System
1949 Liberals elected under Joseph Smallwood when Newfoundland joined Canada.
1965 -The Welfare Institutions Licensing Act, allowing licensing facilities for children aged two and up and prohibiting facilities for under twos.
1971 -Early Childhood Development Association of Newfoundland incorporated.
1972 Progressive Conservatives elected under Frank Moores.
1972 -Memorial University of Newfoundland began offering ECD courses.
1974 -hterdepartrnental committee struck to review daycare and homemaker services. -Report ofthe interdepartmental Committee on Day Care and Home Maker Services released.
I975 -The Daycare and Homemaker Services Act allowed public hdsfor fee subsidies.
1976 -The Daycare and Homemakers Services Regulations had specific requirements for child care. I89 -Director of Day Care and Home Maker Services appointed. Included the responsibility of chairing the Day Care and Home Maker Services
Licensing Board.
-Separate division of Day Care and Home Maker Services established within the Department of Social Services.
Progressive Conservatives elected under Brian Peckford.
-Funding provided a $500 start up grant and a parent fee subsidy program. Funding provided to private and non-profit sector.
-Minister of Education established the Advisory Committee in Early Childhood and Family Education.
-The Day Care and Home Makers Service Act and Regulations amended. -Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Newfoundland and Labrador funded Report on Comprehenrive Day Care for the Province of ~Ve~vfuundZundand Labrador.
-Canada Employment and Immigration Commission funded a 45 week training program for day care personnel- this was administered by the Community Services Council. -Day Care Advocates Committee established.
-Day Care Advocates Association founded.
-The Day Care Needs Assessment in Rural Newfoundland funded through Health and WeLfare Canada. 190 -The Newfoundland and Labrador Daycare and Preschool Owners and
Operators Association founded as a non-profit association.
-Citizens Action Child Care Committee incorporated.
Thomas Rideout took over as leader of the PCs. Liberals elected under Clyde Wells.
-The Association of Early Childhood Educators of Newfoundland and Labrador was incorporated.
-Day Care and Home Makers Services Act amended. Included change to Board that gives majority representation to NGOs. school-age Child Care Study was released. -Interdepartmental Legislative Review Committee appointed to revise the Act and Regulations. -Parent fee subsidy ceiling was increased.
-One-time start up grants were suspended. -Annual equipment grants were suspended. -A cap was placed on the number of fee subsidies available.
-Funding eliminated for the 45 week training program established under Canada Employment and Immigration.
Liberals elected under Brian Tobin.
-New Child Care Act announced to include: -regulation of infant care -regulation of family day care
-Child Care Services Act proclaimed June 1. -Some grants reinstated -Number of subsidies increased -Infant care regulated -Family daycare regulated -ECEs certified -6 ECE consultants hired by provincial government to license, support, monitor
New Brunswick:
1960 Liberals elected under Louis Robichaud.
1970 Progressive Conservatives elected under Richard Hatfield.
1970s -Federal Local Initiatives Project funding allowed establishment of day care centers.
1973 -Garde de Jour NB Day Care Association founded. It was an association of day care staff and directors funded by the government.
1975 -Day Care Act
1977 -New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women established.
1979 -New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women reported the results of a study on day care in the province in their annual report. Recognized the need for affordable day care and the lack of rural care or infant care.
1980 -The Child and Family Services and Family Relations Act
1981 -Establishment of one year training program for child care workers. -ChiId care parent subsidy increased. 192 -New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women launched a campaign to improve the quality of day care in New Brunswick.
-Southern New Brunswick Preschool Association formed.
-Day Care Regulation 83-85
-Garde de Jour NB Day Care Association launched a province-wide day
care lobby.
-Province hired 3 regional consultants with ECE training and experience.
-Day Care Facilities Standards introduced.
Liberals elected under Frank McKema.
-Parent fee subsidies increased.
-EstabIished a Minister of State for Childhood Services. -Established Office for Childhood Services. -Established a nine member Provincial Advisory Committee (NGO) -Established a nine member Interdepartmental Committee -Established Early Childhood Coalition/ Petite Enfame> non-profit organization responsible for training in partnership with federal government.
-Playing for Keeps: Im~rovineour children's qualitv of life (a policy framework) was released.
-Early Childhood Initiatives announced. -MicMac Maliseet Child Care Council established.
-Child Care Review Committee. -New Directions: Child Care Reforms released. -Parent fee subsidies increased. Student parents required to take student loans for child care. -Operating grants reduced by 50%. -Subsidy system changed fiom open-ended, first come program to a system where a fixed number of subsidized spaces are provided. The number of spaces will be increased as the grants are reduced and eliminated. -Professional development grants reduced by 50%. -A Policy Framework for Child Care Services looks at child care as a small business requiring loans and business seminars. while advocating high quality, affordable child care. 3000 -Revised Child Day Care Facilities Act -Operator Standards implemented.
1968 -First day care incorporated in Whitehorse- the Child Care Center Society was officially opened by Mme Chretien, wife of the Minister of Indian Affairs.
1974 -Yukon Child Care Association (YCCA) founded.
1976 -Yukon Status of Women Council and the YCCA formed a Child Care Action Committee. They developed a Position Paper on Child Care Needs.
1979 Progressive Conservatives elected under Chris Pearson to first Executive Council.
1979 -Day Care Ordinance, introduced licensing.
1980 -Day Care Act and Regulations established. -Day Care Subsidy Program introduced.
-Department of Human Resources creates .5 Day Care Coordinator position responsible for day care issues.
Willard Phelps takeover as leader of Progressive Conservatives. NDP elected under Tony Penikett.
-Day Care Coordinator becomes 111-time. -Regulations revised. Increased subsidy and simplified administrative process.
-Regulations amended. -Upbgaded standards -Operating grants introduced. -Capital grant program established. -Operating grants extended to Family Day Homes. -Subsidies for infants and special needs were increased. -Women's Directorate released The Child Care Chaflenge.
-Government released: Let S Talk About Child Care in the Yukon -Government consultations in all the communities. -Government reIeased: We Care: Yukoners Talk About Child Care. -Working together: A child care s~ategyfor the Yukon released by government.
I989 -Implementation Strategy for Working together released. -YCCA receives a Child Care Initiatives Fund grant over 3 years to develop a Family Resource Program. The understanding was that the Temtorial government would provide core funding when the grant ended. 195 -Child Care Services Unit established within the Department of Health and Human Resources.
1990 -Child Care Act proclaimed.
1991 -Amount of child care subsidies increased.
1992 Yukon Party elected under John Ostachek.
1992 -Yukon College receives federal grant for provision of distance ECE courses.
1993 -Moratorium on Direct Operating Grant. -New regulations and funding formulas introduced.
1996 NDP elected under Piers McDonald.
1999 -Announce lifting of moratorium. -Amounce increase in parent fee subsidy.
Northwest Territories:
1971 -First program to receive government funding opened in Iqaluit
1972 -Program opened in Yellowknife.
1970s -Centers opened under LIP grants
1973 -Policy on fee subsidies finalized.
1974 -Policy Respecting Day Care Services released
1980 George Braden becomes Government Leader.
1980 -Policy Respecting Subsidized Day Care adopted.
1983 -Northwest Territories Child Care Association founded. (No longer existed by 1992) Richard Nerysoo becomes Government Leader.
Nick Sebbeston becomes Government Leader.
-Day Care consultant hired on one year contract to review child care issues and make recommendations.
Dennis Patterson becomes Government Leader.
-Day Care Consultant becomes permanent in Family and Children's Services within the Department of Social Services.
-Northwest Territories Child Day Care Act- -Child Care Regulations support the Act. -Advisory Council on the Status of Women released a position paper on child care. -ECE training program opened in Iqaluit. -Native Council of Canada hired consultant to examine child care needs of
Native people in NWT.
-Interim Child Day Care Program introduced. -start-up grants -Fee subsidy -Operating and Maintenance grant.
1991 Nellie Coumoyea becomes Government Leader.
1993 -Child care responsibilities moved to the Department of Education, Culture and Employment. 1994 -Interim Child Day Care Program became the Early Childhood Program. -Subsidy moved fiom an income tested program to a needs test. 197 -Subsidy extended to informal care and part-time and after-school care. -Licensing for 2 Eastern regions decentralized. -Operating grants and subsidies for 'at risk' children increased.
1995 Don Morin becomes Government Leader.
1997 -DecenuaIization of the Early Childhood Program to 5 regional Education. Culture and Employment offices.
1999 Nunavet Territory is formed with its own government. Now Northwest Territories and Nunavet each have their own leaders and government. Municipal Roles:
Quebec: -Municipalities may hold licenses to operate child care facilities.
Ontario: -Day Nurseries Act enables municipalities to directly operate facilities, administer programs and pay 20% of fee subsidies.
Saskatchewan: -Municipalities may administer child care centers.
Alberta: -Until 1980 municipalities paid 20% of subsidies. -Municipal governments may choose to contract school-age care.
British Columbia:
-No legislated role. -City of Vancouver involved in planning and developing child care.
Yukon: -Legislation permits municipalities to hold Licenses for child care programs, although none do. Compiled From:
Beck. J.M. (1968). Pendulum of Power: Canada's Federal Elections. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall of Canada Limited.
Friendly. M. (1994). Child Care Policv in Canada: Putting the Pieces Together. Toronto: Addison- Wesley Publishers.
Government of Ontario. Ministry of Community and Social Services. (1995). Interprovincial Com~arisonsin Child Care. Unpublished government document.
Library of Parliament (1997). Canadian Prime Ministers since 1867. http ://tv~~~v.parl.gc.ca/36/refmat/Iibrarv/~rn.
Marsh. J. (Ed) (I 985). The Canadian Encvcloaedia. Edmonton: Hurtig Publishers.
National Council of Welfare (1 999). Preschool Children: Promises to Keen Ottawa: Author
Norpark Computer Design. Inc. (199 1). A Comoarative .haIvsis of Child Care Legislation. Taronto.Ontario: Ministry of Community and Social Services. Child Care Branch.
0' Handley. K. & Sutherlmd. C. (Eds) (1997). Canadian Parliamentary Guide. Scarborough: Gale Canada, a Division of Thomson Canada Limited.
Pmce. A. (Coordinating editor) (1992). Canadian Child Care in Context: Persoectives fiom the provinces and territories. Volume 1. Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada.
Pence, A. (Coordinating editor) (1992). Canadian Child Care in Context: Perspectives fiom the provinces and territories. Volume 2. Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada.
Pence, A.; Griffin, S.; McDonell, L.; Goelman, H.; Lero, D.; Brockrnan, L. (1997). Shared Diversity: An lntemrovincial Reoort on Child Care in Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Chronologies reviewed by:
Federal Christine Blaine
Yukon Carol Oberg
BC Maryann Bird; Mab Oloman
Alberta Tom Langford; Noreen Murphy
Saskatchewan Marta J uorio
Manitoba Debra Mayer
Ontario Gillian Doherty
Quebec Louise Bourgon
Nova Scotia Valerie Blauuw-Thompson
PEI Kathleen Flanagan-Rachon
New Brunswick Dixie van Raalte; Diane Lutes
Newfoundland and Labrador Christine McLean
Northwest Temtories Gillian Moir