CANADA Child care program inadequate, misdirected Kids don’t cash in on Epp plan TORONTO — Rejecting calls for a universal, publicly-run and funded child care system, the federal government moved Dec. 3 to implement the recom- mendations of the much-criticized Martin Report. Labour, women’s and day care advocacy organiza- tions all agree that the new “‘national day care program”’ unveiled by Tory Health and Welfare Minister Jake Epp will not ensure the increase in accessible, affordable, publicly-run day care needed by every region across The $5.4-billion program, as the Martin report basi- cally outlined, will send $3.1 to the provinces to finance day care — both non-profit and profit — as they see fit, and $2.3-billion to parents in the form of tax breaks, over a seven-year period. Ata press conference here Dec. 4, day care advocates Toasted the new plan. Lesley Russell of the Ontario Coaction for Better Child Care said it did little to address the child care crisis in Canada. ‘‘It doesn’t add the necessary spaces, affordability, quality, or fairness in accessibility,’ she said. _Tax credits to parents, the speakers agreed, in fact divert money away from day care. The $100-200 credit per family spreads the resources available too thin. And tax deductions are in fact regressive, because they bene- fit the already affluent more than parents in tough financial and day care straits. Currently there are about 200,000 day care spaces across Canada, but 2 million children of working families in need of child care. According to the Epp plan, the new program .will double the number of spaces. However, day care activists say 400,000 places after seven years is still a long way from meeting both current and projected needs. ‘Kentucky Fried Children’ _ Another side of the new program that child care ac- tivists found reprehensible was the non-distinction be- tween non-profit and for-profit funding. ‘‘All this new- found money at the provinces’ discretion,”’ said Russell, “will attract not only Canadian business interests, but “Kentucky Fried Children’, the U.S.-based child-care chains’’. Equally unclear, Russell pointed out, was how the $2.3-billion would be divided among the provinces. Would they compete among themselves? And what if one province decided not to use any of the money? Replying to a Tribune question, Russell said that when day care activists talked to Epp the day the program was announced, he “‘gave no guarantees the provinces will in fact use the money they could get from the govern- ment’’. Provinces Opt Out - Provinces led by right-wing governments, like Alberta or B.C., whose commitment to any kind of day care, public or private, is at best lukewarm, are quite free to opt out altogether. The federal program would thus con- tribute no additional spaces. Ontario Health Minister Sweeney, Russell continued, was non-committal about expanding child care facilities. ‘*He told us that what Ontario hopes to get fits in exactly with its own program — which at least puts the emphasis on non-profit care’, she said. “‘However, on this basis, according to Sweeney, there will be no additional fund- ing from the Ontario government other than that pro- vided’. No Standards Set An equally glaring deficiency of the plan, Barbara Cameron of the National Action Committee on the Status of women pointed out, is its failure to address the question of child care standards. ‘‘Now, with the Meech Lake Accord giving the provinces greater jurisdiction over social programs,”’ she said, ‘‘we really have to worry. We asked the health ministry to set minimum day care standards, as with National Health Care. But obvi- ously they didn’t. There will be different standards ac- me 1837 Revisited TORONTO — Actor Eric Peterson (CBC TV’s Street Legal) portrayed William Lyon Mackenzie as he led a march of 400 down Yonge Street on the 150th anniversary of the rebels’ march on Toronto- The historical relevance of the march, with the marchers chanting anti-Family Compact, anti-Tory slogans, was not lost on the day’s events. In an impassioned send-off speech Peterson called for responsible and democratic government to the resounding cheers of the participatns. Above — Mackenzie (Peterson) Set the tone for the march with impassioned oratory. Right — 400 marchers stopped traffic on TRIBUNE PHOTOS — PAUL OGRESKO Toronto’s busiest street. 14 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, DECEMBER 16, 1987 Alternatives exist to Tory non-care _ The Epp plan gives Canadians what they donot § and should not want: 1. INCOME REDISTRIBUTION SCHEMES Alternative: a child care system that will work for Canadian families. Substitutes like tax vou- chers, and child care deductions do not build a system of child care. 2. PROFIT-MAKING CHILD CARE Alternative: Good care must be non-profit and parent controlled. Serious concerns have been raised about the quality of commercial child care. 3. LIMITED CHILD CARE OPTIONS Alternative: A range of services to meet the needs of the contemporary Canadian family. Without access to a choice of child care ser- vices, families can still experience problems. 4. UNREGULATED, INFORMAL CHILD CARE Alternative: Families need good, quality, reli- able child care arrangements. Solutions which propose unlicensed, informal care as a cheaper solution to the day care crisis are unacceptable. 5. INEQUITABLE ACCESS TO CHILD CARE Alternative: All children must have the same right of access to child care. Only a universally accessible system of child care will guarantee this. 6. USER-FEE CHILD CARE Alternative: User-fee child care bars many chil- dren from service. We need a publicly-funded system to serve families. — provided by the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association ross the country. In fact, there may well be no improve- ments at all in standards, especially with private com- panies moving in; there may even be a deterioration. “*No matter what Epp may claim, this plan as it stands will not contribute to a solid, Canada-wide child care system.” Fits With Free Trade Cameron also slammed the plan for dovetailing with the more sinister aspects of free trade. Funding for-profit care in a free trade environment, she pointed out, will result in large American corporations demanding na- tional treatment. ‘‘In other words’’, said Cameron, “‘public, tax money will be going to American corpora- tions to build day care centres’’. Ontario Federation of Labour vice-president Julie Davis concurred with Cameron’s. distaste of Canadian taxpayers’ money going to American corporations, and slammed the federal government for not addressing the question of standards, quality or wages. ‘‘Wages in the industry are abysmal. The best students coming out of day care training at McMaster in Hamilton’’, Davis told the new conference, ‘“‘are thinking of working at McDonald’s. An assistant manager there makes more than a trained child care worker’. Davis said that she was opposed to public money being used to subsidize for-profit centres. ‘‘Just weeks ago’’, she said, “‘the 1,500 delegates at the OFL conven- tion called for the phasing out of existing for-profit centres, and their replacement by non-profit ones.” Davis pointed out that “‘quality day care does not necessarily mean an increase in taxes, but a shift in priorities,’’ hitting out at the government's plan to waste $8-billion on nuclear submarines for the Arctic. ‘The money spent on child care is not money poured into the Atlantic Ocean’’, she continued. “‘It creates jobs; child care is labour intensive. However, it is stilla female ghetto, with substandard wages and working conditions. But it has the potential to be much more,” — she said. ‘*We in the labour movement see child care not as a_ women’s issue’’, Davis concluded, ‘‘but as a workers’ issue, a parents’ issue. The Tory government is simply not prepared to put money into social programs at this time; it’s the kind of government that sees nuclear sub- marines as the priority.” — M.S.