THE DAYCARE CAMPAIGN LITIC O S REVISITED: FROM BABY STEPS P TO BEER AND POPCORN A

Dianne Rinehart C S É T T It was strange enough to see male politicians from Canada’s top three parties U I duking it out over which had a better plan for bringing up baby the during the last AL federal election campaign. But stranger, still, was the media’s inability to sift reality from rhetoric on the Tory’s marquee child care platform — until after the votes were counted — despite a readily available cacophony of critical voices and studies from daycare advocates and big business alike. Here journalist Dianne Rinehart takes a look at how — and why — the media dropped “baby” during the campaign, and why daycare advocates say it was a crying shame.

Il était déjà étrange de voir les chefs des trois grands partis, tous des hommes, rivaliser entre eux pendant la dernière campagne fédérale pour faire valoir leur programme de services de garde. Mais il était plus étrange encore de constater l’incapacité des médias de percer à jour la rhétorique de la plate-forme vedette des conservateurs en la matière — jusqu’à ce qu’on connaisse le résultat du scrutin –, malgré le concert de critiques et les nombreuses études brandies par les intervenants du milieu et le monde des affaires. Les médias ont « jeté le bébé avec l’eau du bain », estime Dianne Rinehart, qui explique pourquoi les partisans des garderies ont parlé de véritable honte.

ike the Virginia Slims cigarette ad slogan “You’ve Here’s how it happened: On December 5, 2005, the come a long way baby,” that successfully tapped Conservatives promised $10.9 billion over five years for L into a feminist desire for women’s freedom in the child care, including “$1.4 billion to honour the Liberal late 1960s — even as it enslaved them to tobacco — the government’s agreements with the provinces until the end Conservative government’s $10.9-billion child care plat- of the 2006-07 fiscal year and $1.25 billion in grants or tax form in the January 2006 federal election campaign ini- credits to encourage businesses and community groups to tially appeared friendly to women, even to feminists. create 125,000 new daycare spots over five years,” the Globe Primarily, it promised to give women “choice” — a word and Mail reported. But the heart of the plan was a pledge to closely associated with the feminist pro-choice movement — give parents $1,200 a year for every preschool child to in child care options; and, secondly, it promised to recognize spend on daycare — however they wanted to. The plan the contribution of stay-at-home mums by paying them, a would benefit about 2 million children under six, “but long-sought-after goal of the women’s rights movement. because some is taxed back, [it] would cost about $1.6 bil- For a party that consistently polled lower with lion a year, or $8.25 billion over five years,” the Globe said. women than with men, it seemed a smart sales strategy: That plan was to double the $5 billion over five years The Conservatives were not only apparently listening to that the Liberals had earlier announced to create 625,000 women and responding to their needs — they appreciat- new child-care spaces, and the Liberals responded that day, ed their work! announcing a new, richer plan that would provide $11 bil- But did the promise live up to the reality? And, more lion — over 10 years. Upping the ante still further, on important, did journalists provide critical reporting and January 11, the NDP announced its largest “single spending analysis of the platform? Not by a long shot — until the proposal is $16 billion over four years to boost the Child ballots were cast and the Conservatives rose to power on a Tax Benefit by $1,000 per child, finance 200,000 more marquee platform that even their analysts would later child-care spaces and create a children’s commissioner,” deem a failure. the Globe reported.

POLICY OPTIONS 47 DECEMBER 2007-JANUARY 2008 Dianne Rinehart

he Conservative Party seemed to As daycare advocate NDP MP of these theories appear to apply to the T have designed an entire election Denise Savoie says, coverage of the reporting on the child care platform. campaign around an issue traditionally Conservative program was further ham- According to the Toronto Star’s Laurie more of concern to women than to men pered by a media obsession with a 30- Monsebraaten, who reports on child care — and the other parties followed suit. second sound bite from , issues, female reporters are afraid to push But despite the enormous money communications director to Prime for “women’s issues” stories because of being committed and the amount of Minister Paul Martin, who — referring concerns that it will sideline their career newspaper ink devoted to covering the to the Conservative promise to pay par- and that — “because most newspapers options, child care advocates such as ents $100 a month for every child under are run by men” — their efforts will be Martha Friendly, coordinator of the six — said: “Don’t give people 25 bucks wasted. “Unless an editor thinks your story is exciting it’s not going Coverage of the Conservative program was further hampered to get play,” she says. by a media obsession with a 30-second sound bite from Scott But child care was big Reid, communications director to Prime Minister Paul Martin, news in the 2006 election. who — referring to the Conservative promise to pay parents There was something else at play in the lack of critical $100 a month for every child under six — said: “Don’t give reporting on the platform: people 25 bucks a week to blow on beer and popcorn. Give who was quoted, and who them child care spaces that work.” was reporting. Though poll results Childcare Resource and Research Unit a week to blow on beer and popcorn. indicated women were more con- at the , and Don Give them child care spaces that work.” cerned about child care than men, and Giesbrecht, president of the Winnipeg- So were the critics right? Yes. that they were more nervous about a based Canadian Child Care Federation, Analysis of articles in Canada’s Conservative government than men, claim the media coverage of the pro- two English-language national news- not only were men — who Statistics gram was shallow and lacking in criti- papers, and Canada reports are less likely to be cal analysis of whether it could actually , taken between the day responsible for child care — the promi- deliver what it promised: choice, child the Tory program was announced and nent sources in the child care stories, care spaces and money. election day, January 23, 2006, indi- but male columnists were the primary “We were quick to respond to draw cates the Conservative Party got an analysts. So why did reporters choose attention to what was at stake here,” says easy ride from the media on its so- them to tell the story? Armstrong’s Giesbrecht, who realized the Liberal plan called “pro-choice” child care plan. analysis suggests reporters often quote — which had already negotiated five Primarily this was because of differ- sources because of their prominent years of financing with the provinces to ences between the ways the media position, rather than their knowledge create a national early childhood educa- cover “hard” news issues, such as — something that favours male voices. tion and child care program — would be crime, wars and the economy, and The fact the Tory child care plat- dismantled if the Conservatives were how they cover “soft” news issues, form was introduced during an election elected. “But [our press releases] were like such as child care, historically of more campaign might also explain the lack of tumbleweeds going across the valley, interest to women because they are analysis and congruity in reporting on because there was so little uptake on it. more affected by them; but another it. Election campaigns are covered not We were waiting for the controversy to factor was the complexities of report- only by journalists who report off and begin, for [reporters] to let us tell them ing from the campaign trail. on from the campaign trail — as they our side,” he says. Much has been written by news are replaced by colleagues — but by It never happened. analysts, such as Kay Mills, Laura reporters back in the newsroom who Friendly was similarly frustrated. Flanders, Michele Mattelart and Cory are picking up on announcements Why, she wondered, were reporters fail- L. Armstrong, on how women and made across the country, making it dif- ing to “audit” the platform’s ability to women’s issues are sidelined by the ficult for any one reporter to build deliver? Further, her efforts to garner media, how issues pushed by female expertise on any one platform. attention for the shortcomings and mis- reporters are given less weight in And there’s another factor analysts information about the plan, as well as papers than those by male reporters point to: editorial agendas. the importance of a national early child- and how news judgments are made University of New Brunswick pro- hood education program, were broadly overwhelmingly by male editors on fessor Luc Theriault examined cover- ignored. Similarly, Giesbrecht says let- how much space or how many stories age of daycare issues in the National ters written by his organization were — if any — will be devoted to issues Post in the lead-up to the election. He never published in western papers. perceived as women’s interests, and all argues that fully a year before the elec-

48 OPTIONS POLITIQUES DÉCEMBRE 2007-JANVIER 2008 The daycare campaign revisited: from baby steps to beer and popcorn tion, the paper framed the Liberal day- Globe and Mail: The day after the the daycare centre operators or organi- care policy as a “bureaucratic social Harper child care policy was zations that had created new programs program” or a “massive top-down gov- announced, the Globe’s editorial in anticipation of monies already in ernment-run program” that served the warned that the $100-a-month tax the works that would now be lost — or middle class, rather than those who credit for every child “will do little to parents on daycare waiting lists. Those need it, in a series of articles which cul- assist anyone’s choice,” “that many stories would come after the election. minated on December 11, 2004, with parents need to go out to work and Another opportunity for analysis an editorial titled: “Say No to the require affordable daycare,” that “gov- was missed when the Globe reported Nanny State.” ernment has an obligation to make the results of a Strategic Counsel poll So did the Post series act as a pre- women’s equality concrete by support- on December 8 that found 48 percent emptive strike against the Liberals ing child care in various ways,” includ- approved of the Harper child care pro- child care program? Monsebraaten of ing “offering financial support to help posal and 45 percent liked the Liberal the Star, admittedly a paper whose facilitate the choice to work,” that the program. But when analyzed by gen- own views are on the left, agrees the current tax system “penalizes” the der the poll found 50 percent of Post influences other media. “It’s really choice of stay-at-home parents and women preferred the Liberal plan, pushed the media to the right.” makes it unaffordable for some, while compared with 40 percent of men, And there’s another factor: $113 million of the $545-million feder- while 52 percent of men liked Harper‘s Mattelart argues that in times of crisis, al tax subsidy of $7,000 for each child idea best, compared with 43 percent of so-called family issues are emphasized “went to individuals earning more women. in politics aimed at increasing the than $100,000 a year” and much of it There was something else at play birth rate, discouraging abortion and went to those earning more than that negatively skewed analysis: the penalizing households where both par- $200,000. The Globe advised Harper to misuse of a 2003 Vanier Institute of ents are breadwinners. target support at those who need it, or the Family national survey of Canada is not in crisis and there is use the $2.5 billion to lower taxes Canadian values to support the Tory currently a shortage, not an excess, of across the board — and, importantly, plan, which appeared in Margaret manpower. Nonetheless, the reported that “choice” was about Wente’s column in the Globe on Conservative child care platform, which appearance, not about reality: “While December 10, among many other rewarded one-income families over two- his child-care policy, with its element places. “Did I mention that most par- income ones — seemed aimed at penal- of choice, looks superior to that of his ents say they’d rather stay home with izing homes where both parents work. opponents, it would help those in need their kids if they could afford to? Mr. Was it to encourage higher fertility rates, currently Another opportunity for analysis was missed when the Globe below replacement rates, or reported the results of a Strategic Counsel poll on December simply to promote conserva- 8 that found 48 percent approved of the Harper child care tive values? proposal and 45 percent liked the Liberal program. But when Or was it an attack against higher salaries for analyzed by gender the poll found 50 percent of women daycare workers? While the preferred the Liberal plan, compared with 40 percent of men, platform appeared aimed at while 52 percent of men liked Harper‘s idea best, compared paying for child care, a with 43 percent of women. much stronger concern voiced in the Conservative side of the far more if it were actually targeted at Martin doesn’t have a nickel for debate was the notion that the estab- them.” them,” she wrote. lishment of government-subsidized But from that point on, that mes- But as Allan MacKay, president of quality daycare in had resulted sage — which turned out to be correct — Vanier, noted in the Globe the day in unionization of child care workers was lost. Even articles printed the same before, the notion that the Vanier and a demand for improved wages. In day — including an analysis piece — did Institute’s 2003 study indicated fact, not only was child care not going not critique the effectiveness of a plan “Canadians do not want to support a to be free, or worth the Tory offer of the editorialists noted wouldn’t deliver. national system of early child care” $100 a month, but the cost might Further, the paper was unsuccess- was wrong. The study found “in an increase if the rest of the country fol- ful in obtaining analysis or criticism ideal world, the No. 1 choice of people lowed Quebec’s lead. from the majority of provinces that is to have one’s partner, followed by In short, Mum is cheaper. would lose money they’d negotiated one’s parent, then another relative, Here’s how the two papers report- with the Liberals to create child care followed by home-based, followed by ed on the Tory plan. programs. Nor did it seek reports from a child-care centre.” But because par-

POLICY OPTIONS 49 DECEMBER 2007-JANUARY 2008 Dianne Rinehart

ents know they don’t live in a perfect no requirements the money actually choice when it comes to deciding how world, almost 70 percent “are pre- be spent on child care. parents should raise their children.” pared to see their tax dollars help The word “choice” made it into In short, child care was a major cover the costs of supplemental child headlines, as well, creating the illusion election issue, but whether readers care,” and one-third “told us that it existed. “A Question of Choice,” were informed by the reporting on it child care for parents working outside declared the headline over Tory Hugh was doubtful. the home is a ‘very high priority,’” he Segal’s regular election analysis. Fast-forward to the year after the explained, apparently futilely. “Tories think government should facil- election, and the portrayal of the pro- Then came Reid’s beer and pop- itate choices and opportunities for gram was very critical, indicating readers corn quote. That led to a December Canadians. The Liberal/NDP establish- had not understood the child care plat- 13 editorial that reversed the paper’s ment believes they know best, and if forms — and journalists hadn’t either. Newspapers reported And the kicker post-election story? The government spent that Harper’s promise to $123,205 on a study that informed them that Scott Reid may create 125,000 new child have been right about beer and popcorn: “The general care spaces in five years through tax incentives for consensus was that the $1,200 will not have any real impact businesses and grants for on child-care choices and instead will be used to help with the community groups was next bill...No one is going to be in a position to go back to impossible to fulfill: A simi- work or stay at home to raise children because of the $1,200.” lar $10-million plan initiat- ed by the Mike Harris earlier position that the Conservative something is not state-run, then it can- government in had not created plan did not offer choice, and instead not be of any value at all.” one new space between 1998 and 2004. praised the Conservatives for placing What is astonishing is not that this They also reported the government “the issue of choice on the table.” rhetoric made it into a political pun- had to establish a task force to make National Post: The day before the dit’s column, but that it was repeated recommendations on how to encour- Tory plan was announced, National in quotes from male politicians on an age businesses to create the promised Post writer Heather Sokoloff set out almost daily basis in Canada’s national child care spaces — consultation one details of the expected child care pro- newspapers without challenge. might think might have been done grams, and in rare reporting on the before the proposal was dropped in the Conservative program, interviewed he newspapers, for the most part, election campaign. people representing both sides of the T failed to analyze whether the $100 And in an article titled “Child-Care debate, including women. But after a month would enable parents to Proposal Gives Least to Poorest,” the the platform was announced, choose to put their children into child Globe gave front-page coverage to an reporters on the campaign trail did care; whether it would enable women update on a Caledon Institute of Social not challenge the veracity of the pro- to leave the workplace and stay home; Policy report, released during the elec- gram, and instead quoted Harper say- or how much of that $100 parents tion campaign, which neither the Globe ing something now known to be false: would retain after taxes — and where or the Post had covered then. Its analysis “It’s a universal payment, but the they would ultimately spend it. indicated families earning $30,000 to heaviest benefits are at the lowest Nor was there analysis of language $40,000 were the least likely to benefit income.” Nor did reporters challenge used to sell the program: Harper used from the plan. A family with two chil- Conservative child care spokesperson the term “institutionalized” daycare dren, with one under six, earning Rona Ambrose on her report that two- programs to disparage the Liberal plan, $36,000, for example, would net only thirds of Canadians want care that’s and “choice” to promote his own. $388 a year for the child out of the not institutional — another misrepre- “You can choose the childcare option $1,200. Though neither the Globe nor sentation of the Vanier study. that best suits your family’s need,” the the Post reported that, the Post did pub- Meanwhile, an editorial on Globe quoted him as saying. lish Harper’s earlier-mentioned con- December 6 proclaimed, “On child “Government should support your tention — unchallenged — that the Tory care, Harper’s got it right,” and lauded choices, not limit them” — though his plan would help the middle class and a Conservative plan that would put plan did nothing of the sort. poor, while the Liberal plan wouldn’t. money into parents’ hands “that could Harper’s language so successfully be spent on whatever form of care best drew on feminist catchphrases that fter the election, and after the suits their kids’ needs best — be it for- one Post reader wrote: “I find it ironic A Conservative government mal daycare, babysitting or stay-at- that Paul Martin is pro-choice when it announced it was axing a Canadian home parenting,” though there were comes to abortion rights, but is anti- Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) that was due

50 OPTIONS POLITIQUES DÉCEMBRE 2007-JANVIER 2008 The daycare campaign revisited: from baby steps to beer and popcorn

The Gazette, Two young girls at a Montreal daycare. The issue of daycare, federal funds for parental choice versus federal funding for provincially administered spaces, was lost in the noise of beer and popcorn in the 2006 campaign. The media never covered the real issues, and the voices of daycare advocates could not be heard above the din. to pay out $249 annually, Caledon’s refused to reinvest in child care,” on Newspapers also reported that updated study found that those who top of the $400 million they saved families were surprised to find — as make $200,000 a year or more, with one when they axed the CCTB. they filed their income tax returns in parent already at home — in short, Though the Caledon report was the spring of 2007 — that they had to those who already have plenty of choice freely available during the campaign, pay tax on the child care benefit. — benefit the most. They get to keep, the papers failed to report on it — but While that was reported during the after taxes, $1,076 of the $1,200 annual apparently not for lack of resources. campaign, it apparently hadn’t sunk amount. Families that benefit the least: Consider how the Globe hired the C.D. in, possibly because of a lack of those with two working parents and a Howe Institute to compare which tax emphasis. Reporting something is tax- combined income of $30,000. Out of platform would most benefit taxpay- able is much different, as the C.D. the $1,200 for each child, they’ll net a ers: a cut to the GST, promised by the Howe example illustrates, than show- shocking $199. Conservatives, or a cut to income taxes ing readers with charts and studies. As Ed Gillis, a legislative assistant promised by the Liberals. The money And the kicker post-election story? in NDP MP Savoie’s office, explained, was there to compare tax proposals, The government spent $123,205 on a the rest is going back to as an but not the platform that most affect- study that informed them that Scott “income tax claw back of $244 mil- ed women, though it was a main plat- Reid may have been right about beer and lion that the Conservatives have form plank for all three major parties. popcorn: “The general consensus was

POLICY OPTIONS 51 DECEMBER 2007-JANUARY 2008 Dianne Rinehart

that the $1,200 will not have any real enced the quality of analysis, while the grandparents because they couldn’t impact on child-care choices and instead one woman on the file, Conservative afford daycare on minimum wages. will be used to help with the next bill... MP and “child care” critic Rona The Citizen’s Norma Greenaway No one is going to be in a position to go Ambrose, simply repeated Harper’s mes- was later perplexed to discover readers back to work or stay at home to raise sage. And there was another place the didn’t realize they had to pay tax on the children because of the $1,200.” female voice was missing during the $1,200 annual credit, or that the pro- Post-election newspaper analysis campaign — and that was on analysis. gram, in the end, wasn’t about choice. and reporting was so critical that the Political pundits in the papers “Most mothers I know knew it was tax- Harper government announced major were all men: In the Globe, the three able, and though the [political] focus changes to his marquee election prom- strategist critics were Moe Sihota, was on choice, to me it was so clear it ise in the March 2007 budget. Thomas Axworthy and Peter Donolo. wasn’t going to provide choice.” Acknowledging business was not going In the Post, Conservative pundit Hugh But in retrospect the Globe’s to create 125,000 spaces, Harper Segal squared off against Liberal John Galloway thought there was a lack of reversed the plan to give $250 million Duffy. They had representation from analysis on the word “choice,” and a year in tax credits and incentives to various party followings — but not how much parents would retain of the business and community groups, and from half of Canada’s population. $100. “We probably could have poked instead transferred those monies to the And while female journalists much bigger holes in child care, specif- provinces, as the Liberals had planned, like the Globe’s Gloria Galloway and ically, than we did before and during to create child care spaces the Tories the Post’s Sokoloff were reporting on the campaign,” she says, though she had earlier painted as bureaucratic and the stories, analysis, for the most does not attribute it to gender issues. institutional. The step was taken part, was by men: Andrew Coyne In the end, confusion in the pub- months after the government received and Don Martin in the Post and lic’s mind may have spelled the end of the task force study that reported what Jeffrey Simpson and Lawrence a child care program, not just for this business was saying all along — business owners The budget reversal achieved what no amount of effort on don’t have the money, time or expertise to create day- the part of child care advocates during the election could: It care spaces, something led to a flurry of news stories analyzing the failures of the Canadian Federation of Conservative child care program. Giesbrecht noted he had Independent Business presi- conversations with reporters during budget week, “where dent Catherine Swift had long been pointing out. they’ve actually asked the questions they should have asked a The budget reversal year ago like: ‘What if? What’s at stake here?’ Those questions achieved what no amount of were not being asked in the last election.” effort on the part of child care advocates during the election could: Martin in the Globe, with Margaret election, but for many more: “We had It led to a flurry of news stories analyzing Wente weighing in once, incorrectly, a sniff at a future of actually putting the failures of the Conservative child as it turned out. together a national system of early care program. Giesbrecht noted he had Martin, for example, analyzed the learning and child care,” says conversations with reporters during child care program announced by the Giesbrecht. “[Now] we’re as far from it budget week, “where they’ve actually Tories in one paragraph, and conclud- as we’ve ever been.” asked the questions they should have ed: “[For] a $1,200 grant for every six Greenaway agrees: “To be honest, asked a year ago like: ‘What if? What’s at and under child, parents could hire a I’m convinced there won’t be a big stake here?’ Those questions were not relative or family member to give far program to create universal child care being asked in the last election.” superior loving care.” For $1,200 a year? in our lifetime. I think it’s gone.” In the end, neither paper gave But what also may have skewed readers a complete picture — until coverage was the women whose voices Dianne Rinehart is a Toronto-based after the election. were not heard until after the cam- writer and editor, and an MA candidate The fact that those being quoted, paign, including the 70 percent of in journalism at . She unchallenged in most reports with women with kids aged three to five who is has been associate editor of Flare, edi- alternative viewpoints, were, like work outside the home and the 65 per- tor-in-chief of Homemaker’s magazine, Conservative leader , cent of all women with children under freelance Moscow correspondent for US mostly privileged men with a political three who work for pay — or, memo- News & World Report, and parliamen- stake in defending the Conservative rably, immigrants forced to send their tary correspondent for Canadian Press. child care program definitely influ- children back to China to be raised by [email protected]

52 OPTIONS POLITIQUES DÉCEMBRE 2007-JANVIER 2008