CANADA Conclusions contradict data in federal child care report By KERRY McCUAIG It’s taken over 10 years and a half dozen studies but the federal government now appears ‘on the verge of getting the kind of report it wants. A report, commissioned by a federal task force reviewing child care in Canada, has recommended increased public financing for commercial child care, even though non-profit centres provide “signif- icantly higher quality care.” Non-profit child care advocates fear the study will have an impact on the task force recommenda- tions due to be releaed at the end of March. Support for commercial child care would be “in keeping with the intention of this government to privatize public services,” says Barbara Cameron of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. The NAC rep noted that past government-solicited studies have universally supported a substan- tially increased role for Ottawa in funding child care with emphasis on the non-profit sector. “If government meets demands for a social service by expanding it into the private sector, this is the equivalent of privatizing it,” charged Cameron. The survey, leaked Jan. 20 by the Ontario Coalition for Better Day Care, studied over 1,000 _ Canadian centres, and found, ‘tan ~. alarming level of non-compliance with provicial standards . .. one in Six centres was rated either poor or very poor by ... consultants. The problem was worse among the small for-profit (centres) where almost one in three was deficient, ‘Radical change needed’, CP tells poverty committee TORONTO — A government committee studying social assist- ance in the province has been asked to make a “‘radical break”’ with existing social welfare pol- icy. The committee which is making the first review of social legisla- tion in twenty years was told by Communist Party Metro Toronto leader Geoff DaSilva that the growing numbers of people living in poverty demands ‘‘a radical departure from the past — a de- parture which will not only sub- stantially improve the position of the poor, but which will lead in the direction of eliminating pov- erty altogether’’. The committee which has been holding public hearings across the province heard representation documenting the increased pov- erty among women, children, na- tive, handicapped and young people. Sweeney: Caving in to the commercial lobby. “Lack of resources is one major factor in the failure of for-profit operators to provide standard lev- els of care,” conclude the authors of the survey, carried out by SPR Associates Inc. of Toronto. It recommends changing fed- eral legislation to allow existing or new funding to be available to the commercial sector. Supporters of non-profit child care reject the study’s conclusions, arguing they don’t reflect the data collected. “The survey came up with the same real findings on the quality of child care, then the authors spent the second half of the paper trying to justify their findings away,” day care researcher Mar- tha Friendly told the Tribune. Friendly, who works out of the University of Toronto, says she has “real problems” with the report’s methodology. “It found commercial child care was of poorer quality than non-profit Rising unemployment rates have greatly contributed to the 1.2 million poor in the province. Wel- fare and other forms of social as- sistance equals poverty the com- mission was told and the lack of affordable housing both add to the numbers of poor and make those already living in poverty even poorer. Submissions have called for an immediate increase in social assistance programs to bring re- cipients above the poverty level. The Communist Party brief in- sisted that this be an ‘‘immediate measure — no more studies. No phase-ins. No half-way ap- proaches. The poverty level is it- self minimum enough’’. “There must be no more ex- cuses’’, DaSilva told the Commit- tee. Concepts of ‘‘deserving’’ and ““non-deserving poor’’ or the ap- proach that says welfare must be so low as to provide an incentive 6 e PACIFIC TRIBUNE, JANUARY 28, 1987 child care and therefore concluded that equivalent funding would take care of the discrepancies. However, in several provinces there is equivalent funding to both the profit and non-profit sectors. But comparisons were not made to see if there were any statistical differences in the quality of care. “T think a difference would be found. In a province like Alberta, there would be a significant differ- ence.” Seventy per cent of Alberta’s centres are commercially run, the highest ratio ‘in the country. The province is also notorious for hav- ing the lowest standards and qual- ity of care. In fact says Friendly, the parli- amentary committee had specifi- cally asked that such a comparison be made. “I would question why the research did not examine this issue, and why (when the authors failed to fulfil their contract) the committee accepted the report.” The study became public just as federal and provincial social ser- vice ministers prepared for a two day meeting in Ottawa, beginning Jan. 22 where child care will be a major item. There has been serious con- cern about the meeting’s out- come since Ontario reneged on its support for non-profit child care, indicating it will pressure the fed- eral government to change fund- ing legislation to allow direct grants to the commerical sector. Charging that Ontario social service minister John Sweeney “caved-in” to the commercial lobby, advocates of non-profit day care, which include wo- men’s, religious and voluntary to work must be rejected, he said. “The number of working poor indicate the poor want work not welfare’’, charged the party spokesperson. ‘‘The fault lies in the fact that there are no jobs for them’’. Commission. Certainly, the idea of guaranteeing an annual in- come, providing it is adequate, is something to be favored. But the issue is how best to achieve this. The Macdonald Commission would achieve it by doing away with all other social programs. The Communist brief also cal- led for an increase in the mini- mum wage to $6.50 an hour; job training programs; government paid health care benefits; a vastly expanded, publicly funded child care system; improved rent re- view legislation coupled with a building program of affordable housing. The brief raised a cautionary note concerning a guaranteed Annual Income. “‘A GAI was a main proposal of the Macdonald The danger here is that such a GAI could result in institutional- ized charity, and undermine the principle of universality common to many social programs, a uni- versality for which long and hard struggle has been waged. Better,” we believe, to maintain what we have, to build on that and improve Over the past decade,. childcare advocates, women’s, religious, and voluntary — organizations, labour groups and many others have developed a consensus around a future direction for childcare in Canada. ‘affordability, porental lvement, p de “direction, good sponsorship, q conditions ...* Moni te wages and working toba Home. Economics Assaciation Many of those who have qalvocated for high quality childcare believe that public funds should not be used to support for-profit childcare. WHY? WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO? Profits can be increased by reducing salaries and operating expenditures. Salaries in for-profit centres are cs an average of 30% less a than those in non-profit = childcare programs. 20% * 1% : 40% 60% e s J rT b ee, ? Benefits FOR-PROFIT NON-PROFIT son — (50% ws bt wos, 20% ro — eT 20% oes mere i ot 20% ton em iui im tors Fast = = i om Revenue Salaries Accom. Food & ' Profit Business $ Spent on Childcare & Program Costs Tax COMPARISON OF NON-PROFIT AND FOR-PROFIT CENTRES same size same fees organization, the labor movement and other non-business interests, consider the province’s switch a serious setback. They note that the commercial sector lobbied to reduce child care standards, and has been vocal against any improvements in regulations and_ financial accountability. “Increased public funding to for-profit operators will enhance their lobby, increasing pressure to lower standards,” charged Came- ron. Many of the study’s recom- mendations are an effort to ans- wer criticism leveled against commercial centers. They in- it as the basis for achieving an adequate annual income’’. Key to eliminating poverty the brief said is for all levels of gov- ernment to commit themselves to full employment policies. Legislation to stop plant clos- ings; rejection of a free trade agreement with the United States and the strengthening of Cana- clude ‘*much improved regulation and enforcement’’ of standards and call for ‘‘operator/staff- parent boards’’ in all centres to provide accountability for publi¢ funding. d Such ‘‘guarantees’’ are not sufficient says Cameron. ‘‘In a climate of deregulation of the pri- vate sector there are no guaran- tees that standards will be prop- erly enforced. ; Public money as a subsidy to the ‘‘child care business’’ is both a poor use of public dollars and poor public policy, she says. “There is no avoiding the fact — quality care and profits are at op- posite poles, you cannot. havé both.”’ dian control over the economy are essential first steps. A program of “‘public interven- tion’’ in the economy, including the nationalization of U.S. branch plants, the banks and resource in- dustry ‘‘would put an end to the billions of dollars given to the corporations as tax breaks and handouts’’, the brief said. pay legislation. Pressure on to pass pay equity bills TORONTO — Opposition parties in the Ontario legislature are | pressuring Premier Peterson’s Liberal government to pass equal Separate bills covering both the Ontario civil service and the broader public and private sector have been introduced but nei- ther have gone for third reading. The Opposition is accusing the government of stalling, until it calls an election, expected this summer. The New Democrats have tabled a number of amendments in committee and have proposed a time table which would see the bills become law by the end of April. The amendments include protection from reprisals for workers who initiate a pay equity action; making the legislation retro- active to the date the legislation is proclaimed and shortening the adjustment period to five years and removing exemptions under the bills. The Equal Pay Coalition lobby which has been pushing for equal value legislation is split on its support for the bills. Most labor groups are arguing that the legislation constitutes an attack on the collective bargaining process and is therefore so funda- mentally flawed that unions would be better off without it. While some women’s groups are pressing for passage, fearing an election and a majority Liberal government will mean an end ' to equal pay.