A national child care system… because “it’s 2015” – Broadbent Institute

The best line of the Trudeau government’s first day— widely reported and praised in the international media—was the new PM’s.

In response to a reporter’s question about why he’d chosen to create a gender-parity cabinet, he rather matter of factly observed “because it’s 2015”.  This ostensibly simple statement summed up a complexity of attitudes, beliefs and even world views in three words. For those feminists who remain doggedly optimistic after a decade nasty enough to slay the optimism of Anne of Green Gables, it raised hopes that the first day’s lustre could foreshadow more significant changes to come.

Mr. Trudeau’s observation aptly fits another feminist “ask”— one that’s been a pillar of the feminist agenda for 45 years. This is the kind of solid universal publicly-funded early childhood education and child care (ECEC) system that many other countries have; one well-designed so it simultaneously advances women’s equality, supports young families across the income spectrum and is good for children.

Feminists are but one of the constituencies who passionately believe that 45 years after the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, the answer to why a coherent national child care system of high quality services is needed is simply “because it’s 2015”.

“Because it’s 2015” stands in for a host of no-brainer rationales. Child care is still the ramp to women’s equality in employment.  Economic research shows how child care helps stimulate the economy through mothers’ paid work. Child care helps “generation squeeze” mothers and fathers balance work and family and make ends meet. Without child care, it’s impossible to help families out of poverty or help newcomers settle. And substantial research has accumulated that shows that if it’s high quality and inclusive, early childhood education and  care provides a terrific environment in which young children thrive whether they’re middle class or low income, abled or disabled, francophone, Anglophone or Indigenous.

Most women with children —more than 77% with three to five year olds—are employed or  engaged in studying, language learning and other activities. Yet a crucial piece of the social infrastructure needed to support them is still missing in Canada in 2015. And many families who don’t “need” child care choose to have their children participate in early childhood programs for socialization and learning as children do from about age two and a half in many other countries.

Now that the dust from the election has settled and the new government gets down to work, it’s timely to review campaign commitments to child care. The Liberal platform stated:

“We will develop a child care framework that meets the needs of Canadian families, wherever they live”, and “we will meet with provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities to begin work on a new National Early Learning and Child Care Framework, to deliver affordable, high-quality, flexible, and fully inclusive child care for Canadian families. This work will begin in the first 100 days of a Liberal government and will be funded through our investments in social infrastructure. The framework we design together will be administered in collaboration with, and in respect of, provincial jurisdictions”.

The platform also made an explicit commitment to “research, evidence-based policy, and best practices in the delivery of early learning and child care”. As one of the world’s child care laggards, Canada is in a position to learn a great deal not only from our own experience but by using evidence  from other countries about best (and worst) ECEC policies and practices. The body of research and analysis could be important because there is now substantial evidence about the best ways to move forward on the universal, high quality, publicly funded and managed early childhood education and care system long sought in Canada.

In a video outlining directions on child care developed by the Liberal Party for last November’s ChildCare2020 conference, Mr. Trudeau declared that: “As a country, we need to prioritize access to child care for every family that needs it. It must be affordable, available, and of the highest quality possible. When we’re talking about our kids’ development, we can’t cut corners”. And on CBC Radio’s The House last spring: “We’re committed to making sure parents have affordable, quality early learning for their kids, there’s no question about it,” concluding with “I think there is a need for national leadership to make sure that early learning and child care happens”.

The child care platform is one of three components in a “Greater Economic Security for Middle Class Families” package. In addition to child care, it includes a new geared-to-income Canada Child Benefit which amalgamates the existing Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) with the Harper government’s Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) cheques, and Flexible Work, including more flexible parental leave benefits. The funding for child care, however, which is part of the Social Infrastructure Fund, is not earmarked specifically for child care. Thus, the new government’s commitment to a national child care program—while it includes many of the key elements needed to make it work—still leaves important pieces to be fleshed out.

The 2015 federal election was the first in which child care was a major election issue and the first in which three of four political parties—for which 70% of Canadians voted— made commitments to a national child care program. Noting that it had primarily been the NDP championing child care in the campaign, the Toronto Star’s endorsement of Mr. Trudeau observed, “If he wins power, [a national child care program] ought to be on his agenda”. The Star noted that “a national child care program is something that is long overdue” and that it would be firmly within the Liberal Party’s tradition if revived, as “Paul Martin’s government first proposed such a national plan more than a decade ago”.

In 2015, it’s dreadfully evident that our patchwork, marketized child care situation fails just about everyone and that young Canadian families live in one of the few wealthy countries that fails to  support them well. While not a simple task, taking on the challenge of beginning to create a real evidence-based national child care program in 100 days when the new federal government meets with the provinces would be consistent with creating the gender-parity, diverse and talented cabinet revealed yesterday.

And it would be absolutely appropriate if for no other reason than simply…”because it’s 2015”.

Martha Friendly is Director of the Childcare Resource and Research Unit.

Source: A national child care system… because “it’s 2015” – Broadbent Institute

Union women work to shatter labour’s glass ceiling

By H.G. Watson     December 4, 2013   http://rabble.ca

Photo: flickr/Ian Sane

The labour movement’s female ranks are growing, but women are still struggling to have their voices heard and to fill executive positions.

“Sadly, I still find myself in the trenches,” said Yolanda McClean, the Diversity Vice-President of CUPE, speaking at the microphones during the women’s forum at the Ontario Federation of Labour (OFL) convention.

Women, even in unionized workplaces, face workplace harassment and income inequality.

For those that might consider leadership positions, there are still barriers in the way of taking executive roles at the local or national levels — including a lack of available childcare and mentoring — despite the fact that there are more women unionized than ever before.

A recent Globe and Mail article found that the rate of men who are unionized is dropping while rates for women have held steady. The losses for men is found in the declining manufacturing sector while unionization rates in health care, education and public administration — industries largely dominated by women — have grown.

Men still take up many of the top positions in labour unions and councils, a situation that has certainly not gone unnoticed by union sisters. At the Unifor founding convention in August, Lindsay Hinshelwood, a member of the former CAW local 707 in Oakville, Ontario, ran against Jerry Dias to challenge what she called the “old boys club” of leadership.

“Traditional power structures still exist within the labour movement which is really unfortunate,” said Nicole Wall, a Toronto based regional representative of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

She, along with her mother, labour activist Carol Wall, sat on a panel about the challenges women face in the labour movement last Tuesday at the OFL convention.

They were joined by Katie Arnup, a national representative for communications at Unifor, Sue Genge, who was formerly with the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) and the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) and Michele Landsberg, a journalist who has written extensively on labour issues.

Landsberg recounted that when she attempted to write a story about maternity leaves many years ago, she was laughed off the phone by many of the union leaders when she asked if they would include leave provisions in collective agreements.

“I’ve heard a woman say that she ran for an elected position and she was told she’d get in trouble with her union supervisor because they didn’t want a woman running,” she said.

If there is anyone who knows the challenges of becoming not only active in labour, but a leader, it would be Nancy Hutchison. The secretary-treasurer of the OFL was the first woman to work in the gold mine in the Campbell Red Lake Mine in 1977. Hutchison became the president of her union local, and eventually rose through the ranks of the United Steelworkers to take a place on their national executive as the Canadian National Health, Safety and Environment Department Leader.

“Very rarely will a sister come up and say, ‘it’s my first year working here and I want to be involved in the union,'” she said. “It’s up to us to look for [leadership] qualities.”

Mentorship opportunities and access to childcare were two of the key barriers she identified for women who may consider running for leadership positions.

At the OFL convention, there were several impassioned speeches in support of a universal childcare system. Others also advocated for maternity leaves to be included in collective agreements — a situation that they argue benefits families overall, not just women.

But according to Landsberg, union culture has to become more inclusive — or risk disappearing altogether.

“The union movement has done amazing things for changing the scene for women externally,” she said, noting that unions supported Charter challenges that helped secure the right to choice.

“But internally, they haven’t done as much and they have to because that is the future of unionizing –they need the women or they are gone.”