ABILL
OF RIGHTS
FOR WOMEN

THE RIGHT TO
EQUALITY

Equality under the law shall mean:
Equal pay for work of equal value. No
wage controls, which lock women
into their present unequal status.
Equal access to education, employ- 4

ment and promotion. Improved protective legislation. Equality in
marriage. Wages for farm wives through tax concession.

THE RIGHT TO
ECONOMIC SECURITY
Security under the law shall mean:
Jobs or a guaranteed income. The
unrestricted right to organize into
trade unions. Wages and salaries to
meet cost of living and productive in-
creases. Cost of living indexing on all
social security payments. Adequate
income support to sole support
mothers. End UIC discrimination
against married and pregnant wo-
men. Adequate pensions at age 55
years. Special non-contributory pen-
sion plan to guarantee security to all
women in their senior years.
Adequate low-cost housing. Stable
prices of food, consumer goods and services through democratic
control of multi-national corporations.

THE RIGHT TO
MOTHERHOOD

The right to motherhood under the
law shall mean: Universal free day
care. One year paid-maternity leave
with no loss of seniority or benefits.
Hot meals for school children. Good
pre-natal and post-natal care with
open access to contraceptive

ego and information. Remove abortion from the Criminal
le.

THE RIGHT TO
INDIVIDUAL
DEVELOPMENT

The right to individual development
under the law shall mean: Free post-
secondary education, including stu-
dent allowances in line with the cost
of living. Vocational training without
restriction. Special courses for immigrant women. Full support for
the demands of Native Women for equality.

THE RIGHT T
PEACE

How futile our other rights would be
without freedom from. war. The right
to peace. shall mean: Promotion of
friendship and understanding be-~
tween nations. Reduction of military
expenditures and re-channeling of
these funds into expansion of social
services. Make Canada a nuclear-
free state. Full support for the United
Nations’ efforts towards disarmament.

Prepared by the Congress of Canadian Women.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE— MARCH 14, 1980—Page 6

NUE

The fight for daycare —

All of the children, 50 of them,
were down in the basement.
Twenty-eight of them were under
two years of age, the youngest
was three months old. The tiniest
babies were sleeping in the laun-
dry room alongside the washer
and dryer without any heat or
light. The children were too
young to talk, they had no way of
letting their parents know how
badly they were being treated.

* * *

This was discovered in a day-
care centre, a house in suburban

Toronto in. 1976. True it’s a>

“horror” story, but it isn’t an iso-
lated incident. It is what can and
does happen when the care of
pre-school children is relegated to
private enterprise. It is the result
of government policy which con-
siders daycare a welfare service
grudgingly provided only for the
most needy or as a subsidy to pri-
vate business. :
As women with children enter
the work force in rapidly increas-
ing numbers governments at all
levels have dropped their
commitment to daycare.
_ In 1978 there were only 75,516
spaces in daycare centres (both
privately and publicly run) for
over 2:5 million Canadian chil-
dren under five. This is a drop of
over 2,500 spaces from 1976.
Although actual figures on
families requiring daycare are not
available for the entire country we
can safely assume that 75,516

spaces do not satisfy the needs of .

working parents. A study by the
Metro Toronto Planning Depart-
ment indicates that only 22% of
the children of working families
are cared for in a supervised day-
care setting. This figure excludes
children under 12 who require
care before and after school and
during school holidays and sum-
mer vacation. Other parents must
make do with makeshift often in-
adequate child care arrange-
ments.

Who Is Responsible?

Presently all three levels of
government are involved in day-
care. Capital costs (land purch-
ase, building construction,
furnishing and renovations) are
split. For renovating, Ottawa
pays 50%, the province 30% and
municipalities 20%. Building
costs are split 50-50 between the
province and city. Needless to
say very few new buildings are
constructed.

- Operating costs (salaries, food,

_ Maintenance, supplies, etc.) are

limited to subsidies for low in-
come families divided at the same
rate as for renovations: 50-30-20.

To qualify for a subsidy the
family must pass a ‘‘means test”’.
Their total income is calculated,
living costs are deducted and the
rest is what must be contributed
to daycare costs. Living costs are

calculated according to govern- °

ment guidelines. For example
rent is not determined by how
much the family actually pays but

by how much the government
thinks they should pay. This
method naturally underestimates
living costs and overestimates
“surplus’’. family income. The
whole process is an insulting in-
vasion of privacy of working
people’s lives.

This leaves the rest of working
families to buy daycare from pri-
vate operators at market rates. In

Metro Toronto these range from

$40 to $75 per week per child.

OWW GRAPHIC

The obvious problem with this
method of funding is it treats day-
care as a welfare service rather
than a social right. It also places
too much of a financial burden on
the municipality which has no ac-
cess to corporate or personal in-
come taxes and must rely solely
on the already over burdened
property tax.

Quality Child Care

Availability of daycare cannot
be divorced from quality. Child
minding is not a substitute for the
emotional, intellectual and physi-
cal development of a child. Cut-
backs in operating costs at city-
run centres have increased
child/staff ratios, in some places
eliminated the more costly infant
care services and affected the
quality of food, maintenance and
supplies.

Commercially run daycare
centres make their profits on the
difference between parents’ fees
and the cost of running and main-
taining the centre. Hence a built-
in conflict between profit and
quality in commercial daycare.

Another method of reducing
government commitment to child
care is to use family daycare as a
cheap alternative. Under this ar-
rangement persons may care for
up to five children (including their
own) in their home. Out of a pay-
ment of $7.50 per day per child the
care giver supplies food, equip-
ment and supplies for the chil-

_dren. This method eliminates the

capital costs and reduces the
operating costs for the gover
ment. In terms of quality 8
doubtful that one person ae
supervise and feed five pre-school
aged children let alone pro

intellectual and emotional
stimulation.” sat
Some parents have establishee

non-profit co-ops as alternative
child care. They receive V: )
no government capital or operat-
ing assistance and their services ,
must often be supplemented bY.
the voluntary labor of the parents
involved. They are a poor subst:
tute for publicly run and finance®—
system. —

Getting Good Daycare
Governments are well aware of
the crisis in daycare. Theil”
policies are in keeping with @
capitalist mentality that avoids
providing a public service except i
under extreme pressure |
views the private market as the =
source for these services.
What is required is a system of
universal daycare which would
require government funding of
both capital and operating costs,
similar to the elementary school
system, except that attendance —
would be non-compulsory.
Daycare as a social right will be
won only when working people —
launch the same kind of campaign —
that won them medicare,

unemployment insurance and —

other social benefits. a

Political pressure should be~
brought to bear on the federal —
government to increase and make —
conditional grants for daycare t0 —
the provinces. The provinces —
which are _ constitutionally
responsible for daycare must
provide the necessary funding

for the establishment and quality —

operation of a comprehensive —
daycare system. To begin with
public funding should go to
publicly-run centres, not tq col-
porate daycare. .

Trade unionists can lead this
fight by including it in the collec
tive bargaining

labor of working parents have 2
responsibility to subsidize the
cost of child care. This could be
handled in much the same way as
medical and other benefits.

The long term benefits out-
weigh by far the costs of provid-

_ ing this kind of system. The prob-

lems resulting from inadequate
child care arrangements are; not
temporary, the results will be —
manifested throughout the child’s
life. And in one form or another
society will eventually have to
pay. .

Information in this article is
based on a paper presented ata
conference of trade unionists
sponsored by Organized Working
Women and Humber College held
in Toronto, March! & 2. Entitled
Daycare and the Union Move-
ment it was prepared by Barbara
Cameron and the OWW Daycare
Committee. :

process. —
_Employers who benefit by the |

:
\
'
;

i