September 11, 2000 to December 11, 2001

September 11, 2000 to December 11, 2001
by Sandra Griffin

On September 11, 2000, First Ministers signed the historic Early Childhood Development Agreement. It acknowledged that "every child should be valued and have the opportunities to develop his or her unique physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual and creative potential"; it confirms a commitment for governments to work together “so that young children can fulfill their potential to be healthy, safe and secure, ready to learn, and socially engaged and responsible”; it promised us that "no child would be left behind"; it pledged $2.2 billion over five years to support new investments made by the provinces/territories in early childhood development services and resources. September 11, 2001, the first anniversary to celebrate this historic agreement, instead became a day of infamy, a day described by many as "the day the world changed".

On December 11, 2001, the federal government brought in a new budget — "Securing Progress in an Uncertain World." It acknowledged the importance of national security, promised "to keep Canadians safe, to keep terrorists out and to keep our borders open", and promised a "$12-billion security blanket" (Ottawa Citizen, December 11, 2001).

We are at an interesting crossroads in Canada. On the one hand we see a greater focus on early childhood, a recent discovery of the real importance of the early years. It would appear that more and more of those in political power are beginning to realize that the effects of childhood last a lifetime. At the same time, our political leaders are responding to the events of September 11, 2001, and trying to assure Canadians that we can participate in the "war against terrorism" and make the world, and Canada, a safer place.

I offer these as separate examples of the push-pull on governments to respond to national priorities. And that is, in fact, the problem—the needs of our nation’s children are too often separated out and identified as part of the whole package of competing needs—the push-pull on governments resources. We have yet to move to a place where the needs of our children are met as an ongoing priority, where a recognition that the health and education of a nation's young is the real determinant of the type of security blanket the nation will wear in the future. This is our real hope for progress in an uncertain world.

Because of this, we have made little progress in the "solving of the child care crisis” in Canada. We are even still battling the notion that children should be at home, a notion which then seems to justify not investing in the environments where the majority of children really are—in some form of child care or preschool services. And indeed, just read the kinds of articles that hit the papers when there is any discussion of a national child care program:

The Edmonton Sun (Editorial/Opinion, October 1, 2000): "This is not a triumph of modern society but a condemnation of a long succession of mostly liberal, left-wing governments which skewed the tax system in favour of institutionalizing children."

The National Post (Editorial/Opinion, October 2, 2000): "The best way to improve the quality of child-rearing in this country is not to over-educate our nation's child care professionals. Rather, Ottawa should concentrate on raising the after-tax income of parents. With more money in their pockets and more time on their hands, parents would be more likely to raise their own children instead of out-sourcing the task."

The Calgary Sun (Editorial/Opinion, October 4, 2000): "But by the same token, it is shocking only one in five parents choose to remain at home with their kids. Who, after all, can have a greater impact on a child's well-being better than a mom or dad? ...the danger here is the emergence of some “nanny-state” program that makes it even more difficult for parents to stay home with their babies. ...The prospect of parents forced by economic necessity to thrust their children into a state-controlled, institutionalized day-care setting without other options is a disturbing one."

This last editorial goes on to state: "If you tally up the costs of regulating and enforcing national day-care standards, imagine the tax incentives that could be offered to parents who want to care for their own kids."

There are three major errors in logic and assumption here. First, we are the state. The quality of care that children receive in any system is reflective of the priority that the voting public attaches to the issue. If everybody thought that child care should only be of the highest quality, then we would have it. The state isn't some nebulous dark force lurking out there, waiting to pounce, snatching up children and purposely throwing them into poor quality child care in order to "institutionalize" them.

Second, parents have never been expected to undertake the enormous task of rearing children on their own. Child care has always been, in some way, shape or form, a community responsibility. We know that children thrive in communities (including extended families) where there is a collective sense of responsibility for children; communities where children recognize that there are many significant adults in their lives who care for and about them. But times do change and our society is much more complex. Families are scattered across the continent, workplaces are not on the family farm or even close to home, families move every few years. We need solutions that reflect what children and parents need now. High quality affordable, accessible child care is one of Canada’s greatest unmet needs.

My third point is the ridiculous notion that a change in tax policy would "fix the problem." Practically speaking, does anyone seriously think that our economy could function if all the mothers stayed home? There are more than 2-million mothers with children under the age of six and more than 60 per cent of them are in the paid labour force. And what if they did? If you combine the loss of tax revenue with the amount of money needed to actually provide enough in tax incentives so that they could all afford to stay home, a rough calculation would have the remaining taxpayers coughing up an additional $37.5-billion annually. And what about the developmental costs to children when there are not sufficient supports for them or their parents in the system? We know from the research that these costs are substantial.

So this is the crossroads we are at in Canada. How will we secure progress in an uncertain world? Will we take the path that keeps the children leading us to the future. Or will we choose the path that leaves children behind, trusting somehow that they will catch up later, and will understand when we explain, "we simply did not have the money to spend on you".

The National Children's Agenda invites us to imagine a society: “that values children for who they are, and that provides opportunities for every child to achieve his or her full potential"; that recognizes that "children are everyone's responsibility and everyone's future"; "where all children grow up to be responsible, productive, healthy and caring”; where “no child is left behind." Many of us have a difficult time imagining we are on the right path to becoming that imagined society when we hear about a leaked government document in Ontario describing substantive cuts to the Ontario child care budget, or when we hear that the new government in BC has announced cuts of up to 30 per cent in ministry budgets, including the ministry that houses child care programs, and foreshadowing substantive cuts to programs for children with special needs.

The good news is that a number of provinces have made substantive investments in early childhood care and learning this past year. The recent federal budget included an additional $185-million over two years to help aboriginal children. HRDC continues to fund innovation in child care through social development partnership grants. With this support, the CCCF continues to develop and disseminate resources to support your work at the provincial/territorial level in order to help realize the visions articulated in the National Children Agenda's and in the First Ministers' Early Childhood Development Agreement. The need has never been greater for each of us to try to make a difference within our own spheres of influence.

By now, members will have received the resource kit, Nurture Nourish Neurodevelopment: Neurodevelopmental Research: Implications for Caregiver Practice. This kit clearly explains the importance of the early years. Offer to give a presentation to your parent groups, to your city council, to other community groups, to provincial or territorial governments. Find ways to work with sister organizations in your community, province or territory on behalf of children. Watch for new material being developed this year as part the CCCF's "Advancing an Early Childhood Agenda" project. This project was developed with you in mind—to help you make a world of difference—and a difference in the world.

"People say I'm a dreamer — but I'm not the only one…"
from "Imagine" by John Lennon

Sandra Griffin is the executive director of the CCCF.

Interaction, Vol. 16, No. 1, Spring 2002, p. 6-7.