comparative family policy: six provincial stories
TRANSCRIPT
Comparative Family Policy:Six Provincial Stories
Jane Jensonwith Sherry Thompson
CPRN Study No. F|08
ISBN 1-896703-44-5© Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc., 1999
Available from:Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd.
5369 Canotek RoadOttawa, ON K1J 9J3Tel.: (613) 745-2665Fax: (613) 745-7660
Home Page: http://www.renoufbooks.com
The findings of this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors and, as such,have not been endorsed by the agencies mentioned throughout this publication.
Foreword v
Executive Summary vii
Preface xi
Policies in the Post-war Era 2The Family Allowance Act 1944: Canada’s First Universal Social Program 3CAP: Publicly Funded Day Care for Low Income Families 3The Legacies of CAP in the Era of the CHST 5
Other Programs for Balancing Work andFamily Responsibilities 12
Handling Child Care Costs 12Programs for Balancing Working Time and Family Time 13
Rethinking Income Security 20Income Security and Taxation 21Income Tested Benefits for Families with Children 24Ensuring the Financial Responsibility of Noncustodial Parents 29Increasing Parental Labour Force Attachment 31
Several Ounces of Prevention 36
Summing Up 38
Going Forward 38
��������
iii
AppendicesA – Key Dates: The Government of Canada and Six Provinces 45B – Key Informants 53C – Key Informant Interview Framework 55D – Research Projects – Best Policy Mix for Children 61
Notes 63
References 65
CPRN Funding Sources 69
iv
������
One of the challenges in a decentralized federation like Canada is to understand thedifferences and the commonalities in public policy across jurisdictions. This isespecially true of policies for families and children that have been undergoingrestructuring throughout the 1990s. This research study provides a comprehensiverecord of where six Canadian provinces and the federal government stand onpolicies for children at the end of the 20th century. It also provides examples ofpolicy diversity that can serve as examples of best practices as other jurisdictionsmake new and renewed commitments to serving Canada’s youngest children andtheir families.
The study was commissioned as part of the three-year research project designedto address the multi-faceted question, What Is the Best Policy Mix for Canada’sChildren? The ultimate goal of the project is to help set the foundation for anoverarching societal strategy for children and their families. CPRN hopes tostimulate new thinking about the kinds of interdependent and integrated programsand policies that could improve child outcomes in Canada.
To achieve this, greater understanding is required about policy and programinterventions and the outcomes that these interventions produce for children.However, a concrete understanding of child outcomes alone is insufficient to enableconclusions to be drawn about what the “best” mix of policies for children andfamilies might be. In order to choose among options, and provide valid justificationfor those choices, decisions must be firmly rooted in the values held by citizens whowill be affected by those decisions. Thus the Best Policy Mix for Children projectalso builds upon earlier work by CPRN on Canadian values and refines thisunderstanding by linking values to child outcomes. Other components of the BestPolicy Mix for Children project include comparisons with other countries, identifi-cation of positive outcomes for children, and an analysis of the tax treatment offamilies. A full list of publications appears in Appendix D.
In this report, Jane Jenson, with the assistance of Sherry Thompson, has pro-duced a comparative analysis of the policies and programs provided for children andfamilies by six provinces and the federal government. The study examines three
v
policy realms in which these governments have historically and are presentlyaddressing the needs of families or children: income security, balancing work andfamily, and developmental programs aimed at the early years. This analysis, and thecomparative policy inventories that support it, provide a rich resource for govern-ments and other policymakers in the development of a best mix of policies tosupport societal strategy for children.
I want to thank Jane Jenson, who undertook this project as an independentcontractor and completed it after she took up the position of Director of the FamilyNetwork of CPRN, and Sherry Thompson, who was working with us as ResearchFellow in the first half of 1999. I also want to thank our funders, especially theCanadian foundations that provided most of the financing for the project, along witha number of federal and provincial agencies. They are listed at the end of this study.In addition, I want to acknowledge the contributions of the Best Policy Mix forChildren Advisory Committee members and the external reviewers whose adviceand constructive criticism helped shape the research program.
Judith MaxwellNovember 1999
vi
��� �������������
Policies towards children and families are a loosely defined category, with amultitude of possible goals. Practically everything that governments do will have asubstantial effect, positive or negative, on the well-being of children and theirfamilies. This study examines three policy realms in which six provincial govern-ments (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and NewBrunswick) and the federal government are currently and actively addressing theneeds of families or children. These are income security, balancing work and family,and developmental programs.
Income security has always had a significant amount of “family” content. Inrecent years, governments have again undertaken major reforms of their incomesecurity programs. In doing so, most have changed the goals of the programs,actively encouraging labour force participation rather than defining some categoriesof the population as exempt from seeking paid work. As well, over the last decadesthe labour force participation rate of women, especially those with young children,has increased dramatically. Therefore, issues of how to balance employment andfamily, and who is responsible for doing so, have become central. The third policyrealm has taken on new dimensions in recent years. Historically, provincial govern-ments maintained institutional machinery for taking children “into care” when theirparents were not capable of caring for them, as well for dealing with youngstersrunning afoul of the law. The policy challenge in recent years in several jurisdictionshas become that of “preventing problems from arising, via early intervention.”
In 1945, two universal programs recognized that families with dependent childrenfaced higher costs than families without children, or single people. They were thetax deduction for dependent children (in place since 1919) and family allowances.There were also a number of social assistance programs designed to meet the needsof poor families or those without a male breadwinner. By 1966, these programs wereconsolidated into the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP).
This cost-shared program had a profound effect on policies towards children insubsequent years, particularly in the area of nonparental child care. The financingprovisions set down by the federal government fostered a public child care system
vii
that was more accessible to low income families. Middle and upper income familiescould claim a tax deduction that recognized the costs of employment (via the ChildCare Expense Deduction, provided by Ottawa). However, the lack of adequate childcare spaces and limited subsidies have meant that such families have had difficultyfinding spaces for their children at a price they can afford.
A number of provinces are now addressing the issue of cost. In particular,Quebec reformed its Family Policy in 1997 and made the commitment to provide aspace to any child whose parents wanted one, for a flat rate of $5 per day (less forpoorer families).
Other policies for balancing family and employment include maternity andparental leaves, as well as general family leaves. Paid leaves are available throughthe Employment Insurance regime, for those who meet the eligibility requirements.All provinces provide unpaid leaves, although in Alberta only maternity leaves areavailable. The overview of the situation provided here leads to the conclusion that,under current circumstances, parents are forced to make difficult choices, withpotential long-term costs for their children and themselves. Better leave provisionswould help them avoid such difficulties.
Income security is also moving away from its early designs, in two ways.Universal family allowances have been eliminated, as has the tax deduction fordependent children. In their place, by 1993, the federal government had created aChild Tax Benefit and Working Income Supplement. Then, following the cuts intransfer payments that the federal government brought in with the Canada Healthand Social Transfer in 1995, a new set of programs began to take pride of place as abasis for income security. The federal government as well as the provinces haveinstituted the National Child Benefit, intended to provide direct income transfers toparents, as well as to foster reinvestment by the provinces in services. Theseprograms mark the separation of income security regimes for families from thosefor children and other Canadians.
New measures to ensure that noncustodial parents assume their responsibility forsupporting their children after separation and divorce have accompanied thesereforms. All provinces have developed new machinery in this area, as has the federalgovernment.
Limiting spending on social assistance was the goal of another set of programs,in the area of employability, which have consequences for children and families.Requirements that parents engage in employment or training (workfare) as well asprograms to foster such involvement mean that provinces are called on to makesupplemental investments in child care. Coordination of these programs has oftenbeen neglected, however, such that sufficient services that are of high quality are notavailable.
Finally, the provinces as well as Ottawa have begun to pay significant newattention to monitoring and evaluating development signposts so that children “atrisk” of developmental difficulties, whether for physiological or social reasons, will
viii
be identified in time to take preventive and early remedial action. In many cases,these programs combine educationally appropriate preschool services with healthmonitoring.
This study documents the emergence across six provinces, as well as within thefederal government, of new interest in directly providing for the needs of children.The greatest coherence, if insufficient money, marks the field of income security,where child tax benefits, transfers and income supplements are providing newsources of income to families with children.
There is also growing attention to the developmental needs of young children,reflected in the concerns of health policy networks as well as those traditionallyresponsible for social services. They rely on current scientific literature and arecognizant of the contribution of early childhood education provided by high qualityday care, community resource centres and kindergartens, as well as by parents.
Nonetheless, the study concludes that there is insufficient attention to coordina-tion across these two policy domains. In addition, it identifies mounting pressures asfamilies struggle to balance family and employment. With stress and poor healthbecoming a rising risk among parents, the study also concludes that all Canadiangovernments would do well to devote even more attention to the varied needs of allchildren and their families.
ix
����� �
A concern for child outcomes prompted the Canadian Policy Research Networks toundertake a three-year multi-staged project, which asked, What Is the Best PolicyMix for Canada’s Children? Several interrelated strands of research examinedpolicy practices, policy thinking, public values, and the outcomes achieved bychildren in Canada and a number of comparable countries.
This study examines the policy instruments that have been used historically inCanada to support families with children. It also describes the ways in whichpolicies have changed in recent years, federally and in six provinces: BritishColumbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. Thechoice of provinces was mediated by funding constraints but they are nonetheless agood representation of the current Canadian situation. The six provinces studiedspan the country, include large and small population bases, have a mixture of urbanand rural communities, and enjoy varying degrees of prosperity.
The initial intent of this study was to develop individual policy stories for eachprovince that would describe how different governments have responded to similarchallenges over time. This was achieved by reviewing Internet and documentarymaterial to create a sense of each province’s child and family policy history. Thesepolicy histories were explored in greater depth through interviews with key infor-mants in each jurisdiction drawn from the policy, academic and advocacy communi-ties. This preliminary research was conducted by Sherry Thompson (in Alberta) andJane Jenson (in Quebec). The key informants who were interviewed for this researchare listed in Appendix B and the interview framework used appears here asAppendix C.
Further research was undertaken by Jane Jenson to develop the historical andcomparative analysis of these distinct policy stories that is presented in the mainbody of this report. This material is augmented with a series of 11 comparativepolicy tables, which permit interprovincial comparisons “at a glance” for the sixprovinces studied. The material originally collected has been revised and updated toreflect the rapidly changing policy environments in the provinces, current toOctober 1999. In addition, time lines for the federal government and each province
xi
illustrate the timing and direction of particular policy shifts, again current toOctober 1999. These key dates in each jurisdiction’s story appear in this report asAppendix A.
All of this work, and the earlier research that preceded it, has been used to informthe policy recommendations made to support young children and their parents andimprove child outcomes. The CPRN reports that describe these recommendationsare A Policy Blueprint for Canada’s Children and the more detailed study What Isthe Best Policy Mix for Canada’s Young Children? For more information on all ofthe Best Policy Mix for Children reports, please visit the Family Network website athttp://www.cprn.org
xii
Comparative Family Policy:Six Provincial Stories
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 1
Policies towards children and families are a looselydefined category, with a multitude of possible goals.Practically everything that governments do willhave a substantial effect – positive or negative – onthe well-being of children and their parents. Yetfew Canadian governments, until recently, evenclaimed to have anything called a “family policy” inthe European sense of the word, that is, a set ofcoherent policies that take families and their needsas the central focus. Therefore, this study mustbegin by establishing some boundaries around itsanalysis. It examines in most detail three policyrealms in which the federal and six provincial gov-ernments are currently and actively addressing theneeds of families or children. These are balancingwork and family, income security and developmentalprograms.
Why these three? Income security has always hada significant amount of “family” content. Mothers’Allowances for example were one of the first publicprograms of social assistance established in theCanadian provinces, in 1917 in Saskatchewan andin 1919 in Alberta. Even before UnemploymentInsurance was instituted and well before needs-based assistance programs were put into place,mothers of young children who had insufficientmeans of support, because they were widows orotherwise “deserving,” could receive a modicum ofassistance from the government to help them raisetheir children.
Eventually, and as a result of varying twists andturns along each province’s policy trajectory, in the1960s such allowances became social assistanceprograms providing basic support for single moth-ers as well as to poor two-parent families. Thus, inaddition to providing a thin safety net to protectagainst the extremes of poverty, social assistancebecame a central policy instrument for addressingthe consequences of the significant social changesthat over the last decades have led to, among manyother things, high rates of divorce and less shunningof unmarried parents.
Throughout the post-war years, children gainedaccess to social assistance via their parents’ relation-
ship to the labour market. Parents of dependentchildren as well as other adults deemed unavailablefor work were allocated a minimum level of incomeas well as access to a range of services and special-ized benefits. For example, in Ontario until veryrecently, single mothers with children under the ageof 16 were not required to seek work or participatein training. Other families in the category of theworking poor could obtain access to social assis-tance if their income were below a designated cut-off point.
In recent years, governments have again under-taken major reforms of their income security pro-grams. In doing so, most have changed the structureof the programs, actively encouraging labour forceparticipation rather than defining some categoriesof the population as exempt from seeking paidwork.1 At the same time, governments haverethought how to deal with the thousands of chil-dren now living on welfare and in poverty. Severalhave explicitly set out the goal of removing chil-dren from social assistance, by which they meancreating new programs that both increase the in-come of families with children and deliver benefitsfor children outside of social assistance programs.If the responses have been similar, not all governmentshave pursued the same path, however. The differ-ences as well as similarities will be compared here.
A second major social change that has occurredover the last decades is the rapidly rising labourforce participation of mothers of young children.This is a dramatic shift. In 1965, 31 percent of womenwere in the paid labour force. In 1996, the statisticstood at 65 percent. For women with children agedthree to five, the number rose from 40 to 70 percent(Bach and Phillips, 1997, 237). Moreover, attitudi-nal data reveal that there is a strong commitment onthe part of Canadians to this participation, in thename of their own well-being. Three-quarters of thewhole Canadian population and two-thirds ofwomen agree with the notion that having a job isimportant for one’s personal happiness. Moreover,any differences in the responses of women and menvirtually disappear in the youngest age groups(Ghalem, 1997, 16).
2 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Such a dramatic change in labour market be-haviour raises an obvious challenge: who will carefor preschool children? Is there any public responsi-bility for these children or is the burden of findingquality day care solely a parental one? While thechallenge is clear, the answer is not. Governmentsin Canada have displayed ambivalence over thisissue for decades.
A third issue is that of child development andprotection. Historically, provincial governmentshave maintained institutional machinery for takingchildren “into care” when their parents were notcapable of caring for them, as well as for dealingwith youngsters running afoul of the law. Inseveral jurisdictions, the policy challenge in re-cent years has become that of preventing prob-lems from arising, through early intervention.Thus increasing attention goes to programs for theearly years, which will ensure that all children arebetter prepared to start school. As we will seebelow, this third area of policy is currently balloon-ing, as the definition of prevention expands toinclude health and education for young children toprevent school failure and marginalization, whichmight lead to future social problems and their highcosts.
In the past, these three realms have tended to bequite distinct, with their own philosophical princi-ples, groupings of experts, and forms of interven-tion. In other words, they have been addressed bydifferent policy communities.2 Despite recognizingthat such distinctiveness has not been completelyeliminated, this study makes two claims.
The first is that these three realms – balancingwork and family, income security and developmen-tal programs – are increasingly bumping up againsteach other, although policy communities are notalways adapting to this proximity. Childhood andchildren have come to preoccupy policymakers,especially those in the public sector. Indeed, onemight even assert that concerns about young chil-dren and their citizenship are emerging as the cen-tral responsibility of government and are replacingthe post-1945 focus on the citizen as worker.
The second claim of this analysis is thatprovinces have exhibited a capacity to innovate thatbelies any analysis in terms of “path dependency.”The arrival of new actors, such as new parties ingovernment, has dramatically shifted policy thinking.Canada has a multitude of governments – federal,provincial and territorial – each of which pursuesits own policy path. The goals promoted and thesolutions proffered have always differed, evenacross Canadian provinces, because each has devel-oped its particular regime over time (Boychuk,1998). Therefore, considerable space for choiceabout future directions exists.
Policies in the Post-war Era
After 1945 and at the height of Ottawa’s unilat-eralism, the federal government was clearly the leadgovernment in policies affecting children and fami-lies, both through its own actions and in the way itmanaged fiscal federalism. This is no longer thecase since the watershed budget of 1995 and theprovinces’ efforts in the lead-up to the Social UnionFramework agreement to force Ottawa into a moreconsultative relationship (Boismenu and Jenson,1998). Nonetheless, legacies from the post-war eraremain.
We can see these legacies in two quite differentways. One is in the slow but steady move away fromuniversal programs towards targetted child bene-fits. The other legacy is in the lingering effects ofthe Canada Assistance Plan (CAP), which definedpublicly supported child care as a service targettedto low income families and left middle class parentsto find and finance high quality developmental daycare when they needed it.
Both of these legacies reflect the fact thatCanadian governments, until recently, had cometo limit their own responsibility for children tohelping low income parents. In recent years, how-ever, thinking has shifted somewhat, as we will seebelow, and Canadian governments are beginning– sometimes hesitantly, sometimes enthusiastically,sometimes not at all – to see their role as one of
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 3
sharing with parents in the responsibility for thewell-being of all children.
The Family Allowance Act 1944 :Canada’s First Universal Social Program
Labour markets can never take the number of awage earner’s dependents into account. A wage is awage, no matter how many mouths it has to feed.Therefore, as early as 1919, fiscal policy recog-nized the need partially to compensate wage-earners for the extra costs they inevitably facedwhen they had dependents. Tax exemptions wereavailable for dependents, including non-earningspouses (Guest, 1985, 130).
However, in the midst of World War II, socialpolicy analysts became aware that this tax exemp-tion was insufficient to meet the real needs offamilies with dependent children. A benefit wasalso needed. During the war, studies of income andnutritional needs had uncovered the fact that evenin the midst of the booming wartime economy withfull employment, only 44 percent of families of wageearners (except in agriculture) had sufficient incometo guarantee a nutritionally satisfactory diet. More-over, Canada’s infant mortality rate was the highestamong the Commonwealth’s White Dominions andthe United Kingdom.
Therefore, in the midst of the war, LeonardMarsh produced his vision of a world at peace. Itincluded a proposal to pay family allowances tocover the basic needs of all Canadian children.Scaled to the number of children, this would be asecond policy instrument designed to compensateparents for the extra costs incurred by child rearing.Marsh’s proposal was to pay a single benefit tofamilies with children. It would have consolidatedall the supplements available for children in otherprograms (workmen’s compensation, mothers’ al-lowances, public assistance, and so on) and putthem into a universal benefit whose level was calcu-lated according to the real costs of raising a child.
This policy coherence was not to be, primarilyfor constitutional reasons since most of the social
programs were within provincial jurisdiction andfor political reasons, since the Conservatives didnot agree (Guest, 1985, 133). The family allowanceregime that was created was much more restricted:$200 million on a national income of $12 billion. At$5.95 per month for a family with two children, theallowance was about 5 percent of an average month-ly family income (Dominion Bureau of Statistics,1950 and 1951). Nonetheless, despite being only2 percent of government spending, the $200 millionexceeded all welfare expenditures by all units ofgovernment in Canada, including public health andunemployment aid, in any typical year from 1936 to1939 (Guest, 1985, 130).
This first universal benefit program, importantas it was at the time, lacked the vision and over-arching principle of the Marsh Report, that is, tocover the extra costs associated with raising thenext generation. The focus on families with depen-dent children has re-emerged in recent years, in theform of a variety of child benefits, to be discussedin detail below. With rare exceptions, however, theyhave not included the universal coverage that thepost-war policymakers considered essential to cre-ating a sense of national identity and cohesion.
CAP: Publicly Funded Day Care forLow Income Families
The rest of social assistance was not redesignedat the end of the war. It remained a piecemeal set ofprograms to combat specific risks such as unem-ployment, old age, sickness, and unemployability.Moreover, the universal principle of family al-lowances was quickly downplayed as Canadamoved towards a residual and needs-based, low-endwelfare state. Wage increases tied to productivityand post-war development had put more moneyinto the pockets of many workers and a risingpercentage were able to provide adequately for theirfamilies. Attention to social spending centred onthe non-employed.
In the first post-war decades, Canada’s socialpolicy regimes, as those of most other countries,conceptualized a clear border between being in the
4 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
labour force and being out of it. In the latter situa-tion, there were several possible sources of incomefor adults. First, one could be dependent upon an-other earner, as was the case for stay-at-homewives. Second, one could receive either unemploy-ment insurance as a bridge until the next job or aretirement pension to recognize past contributions.Third, one could receive social assistance. BecauseCanada’s welfare state(s) were always on the lowend of generosity, the third solution was usually theleast desirable in terms of income.
Entry to social assistance depended upon whetheror not one was deemed capable of earning a salary.Social assistance benefits were adjusted upwardwhen dependent children were present, but accessto benefits depended exclusively on the situation ofthe adults.
These practices began to alter in several signifi-cant ways in the late 1960s and early 1970s inresponse to a new policy environment and changingfamily behaviour. The establishment of the CanadaAssistance Plan (CAP) in 1966 dramatically alteredthe policy environment of all provinces. Although afederal government program, it marked a crucialdecision point in the policy stories of the other10 governments. Ottawa offered to pay half thecosts of social programs, which were designed toconform to its policy preferences and financingregulations.
CAP targetted low income Canadians. It institu-tionalized a major shift in thinking about incomesecurity by eliminating the categorical approach,according to which claimants had to fit into aparticular category (blind, disabled, widowed, aged,and so on). No matter the reason for being poor, onewas eligible for CAP’s co-financed programs on thebasis of need. Moreover, CAP began to blur thedistinction between work and non-work by allowingthe working poor to be recipients of social assis-tance. Canada’s low-end welfare state was beingconsolidated (Myles, 1991, 363).
This was a sharp break with the public assistancetradition which invariably restricted its help topersons without any means of support. The Canada
Assistance Plan was designed to extend financialand other assistance to include individuals andfamilies who were likely to fall into dependencyunless granted aid. This was generally taken tomean that, where income from work was clearlyinsufficient to meet basic needs, public assistancecould be used to supplement the income of theworking poor (Guest, 1985, 116).
In addition to the income security dimension inthis redesign of social assistance, CAP provided animportant service dimension. Its rules permitted thefunding of certain services that could be defined asfacilitating labour force participation. Day care wasdefined as one such service. As part of the fightagainst the “risk of dependency,” it offered cost-shared dollars to provinces that provided individualsubsidies or operating grants for day care centres, aslong as they were nonprofits (Moscovitch, 1988,287). The number of centres receiving CAP fundingrapidly increased in the 1970s, setting down the basicinstitutional infrastructure of nonparental, regulatedchild care for low income Canadian families.
Overall, one result of the CAP era was to send amessage that publicly supported child care serviceswere part of the income security regime. Access tosubsidies was income tested, as required by CAPguidelines, while operating grants to centres de-pended on identifying a contribution to reducingrisk.
All six of the provinces studied here respondedto the messages inscribed in CAP’s funding re-quirements. In Alberta, for example, where somemunicipalities had already been providing PreventiveSocial Services programs, the new CAP funds allowedthem to extend their child care services as a wayof “preventing welfare dependency.” Municipalitieswere not required to provide services but, in somecommunities, the nonprofits eligible for fundingrapidly expanded the number of spaces in highquality, nonprofit services (Bella, 1978). In Ontario,too, where since 1946 the Day Nurseries Act hadbeen regulating day care programs, the new fundsencouraged expansion of day care as a “welfareservice for those in social or financial need” (Leroand Kyle, 1991).
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 5
A positive side of this philosophy of fundingwas that it legitimated the political actions of com-munity groups that sought to develop day careservices in poor neighbourhoods and to use childcare centres as focal points for community develop-ment. Extra funds were even made available forsuch initiatives through the federal government’sLocal Initiatives Program, which operated between1970 and 1973 (Childcare Resource and ResearchUnit, 1997, i; Lévesque, 1992).
At the same time, relatively high cut-off pointsfor defining need in some provinces meant thatsubsidies could reach upward towards the middleclass. Further, all children in a centre benefittedfrom the centre’s operating grant. The provincialtime lines at the end of this study clearly show thatthere was a flurry of initiatives as provinces set upregulatory mechanisms and extended services in theperiod after CAP was established in 1966 (seeAppendix A).
These two important policies in the early yearsafter 1945 reflected quite different philosophiesabout supporting families and children. The FamilyAllowance initiative was both universal and explic-itly directed towards families with children. CAPwas targetted to low income families and individu-als. It also had indirect effects on the way servicesneeded by families would be financed and provided,as well as on the way they were represented inpolicy communities as well as among the generalpublic. We will explore the lingering effects of CAP,discuss measures to help balance employment withfamily life, and then examine the invention of target-ted child benefits to replace the Family Allowanceregime.
The Legacies of CAP inthe Era of the CHST
The origin in CAP of public funding for day carecentres was still visible in the way nonparentalchild care was provided in Canada in 1995 whenCAP was replaced by the Canada Health and SocialTransfer (CHST). As we will see below, by far the
most common form of nonparental child care wasinformal care. This means it was provided by un-licensed babysitters, other family members, nannies,neighbours and so on. Unregulated child care is stillthe most common form of remunerated child care inCanada across all age groups. According to datafrom the National Longitudinal Survey of Childrenand Youth, in the mid-1990s, approximately 34 per-cent of children under the age of 12 who were notcared for by their parents were in an unregulatedfamily child care arrangement (Beach, Bertrand, andCleveland, 1998, 22).
Centre based care and family day care were thetwo most usual forms of licensed care, for whichprovincial governments established regulations (henceit is called regulated child care). These regulationsestablished the maximum number of children al-lowed, the training requirements for providers andeducators, the safety of the facilities, and so on(details are available in Childcare Resource andResearch Unit, 1997). Providers were sometimesprofit-making, or what we term commercial, whileothers were nonprofit businesses run by govern-ment agencies, the voluntary sector, parent groups,and so on.
Patterns of Child Care
Over the years, each province had made slightlydifferent choices among all these components ofregulated care. Some put the emphasis on non-profits, while others sought a mix of nonprofit andcommercial care. In some provinces, more centrebased care developed because of policy choices orpatterns of parental demand, while in others, familyday care become the norm. Nonetheless, in allcases, the legacy of CAP’s targetting of low incomefamilies remained visible, both in the infrastructureof care and in the behaviour of families.
While all provinces provided subsidies for childcare, they also all targetted these to low incomefamilies. This means that most middle income parentshad to pay the full costs of child care (although, as wewill see below, a tax deduction has been availableto help defray some of these costs). For example,
6 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
the parent or parents of an infant or toddler inBritish Columbia need to find, on average, $659every month to cover the cost of paying for care,and then wait for their tax refund (Ministry ofSocial Development and Economic Security, 1999,6), which will only partially cover their costs. Anaverage family with two preschoolers would haveto pay almost one-quarter of its income up front forchild care prior to receiving any tax refund (Beach,Bertrand, and Cleveland, 1998, 28).
Low income and middle income families havedistinctly different options for child care, except inQuebec, and there only since 1997. All provincesstill provide subsidies to low income parents, paiddirectly to the child care provider (see Table 1). Inmost cases, provinces limit the kinds of providersthat can receive the subsidy, requiring that they belicensed or regulated. In British Columbia, how-ever, unlicensed family child care providers mayalso access the subsidy. In some cases, such as NewBrunswick, subsidies for low income parents arevirtually the only form of public funding of daycare services. In several provinces, however, indi-vidual subsidies are combined with substantial op-erating or other grants to providers (see Table 2).
The result is a deep income cleavage. In themid-1990s, 35 percent of families on social assis-tance had children in centre based and regulatedcare, while only 19 percent of other families with amother who was employed or studying did. Fully31 percent of children in families with an incomeunder $30,000 versus 17 percent of children in fami-lies with higher incomes were in a child care centre.In other words, middle class parents have difficultygaining access to the form of care widely consid-ered to be the best quality – regulated care in a childcare centre with a preschool educational program.3
Other legacies are found in the structure of thesystem. CAP-based funding for child care set downtwo requirements. Money could go only to non-profit operators and subsidies could go only to li-censed caregivers. In 1995, when CAP was abruptlyand unilaterally terminated by Ottawa and replacedwith the CHST, these pan-Canadian regulations
disappeared. In effect, the federal government waswithdrawing from the child care field, leaving it tothe provinces. Thereafter, divergence in child careincreased among the provinces.
Nonetheless, the system has not been completelyremade. The infrastructure of care developed dur-ing the CAP years and its legacy lives on, both inthe way services are provided and, particularly, inthe way the issues are debated. We examine two ofthese ongoing legacies: debates about the mix ofnonprofit and commercial provision and the ques-tion of regulated versus informal nonparental care.
The issue of support for commercial providershad already surfaced in several provinces before1995 and the current situation is a mixed one.Under the CAP funding regime, nonprofit or mu-nicipal centres expanded rapidly, while commercialoperators remained the “poor cousins.” Becausefor-profit providers were ineligible for CAP operat-ing funds, the provinces had strong incentives toinvest their 50-cent dollars in nonprofits.4 Thelegacy of this emphasis on nonprofit provision is ahotly debated contemporary controversy over theadvantages and disadvantages of nonprofit versuscommercial provision.
At one end of the spectrum are Saskatchewanand Quebec. Saskatchewan has a long tradition offavouring nonprofit provision rather than centralized“public” provision, in the name of community. Thisconsensus, which has been labelled a “populist”one, exists across the political divide of NDP andConservative parties, and produced a day care sys-tem that was publicly funded but privately deliv-ered (O’Sullivan and Sorenson, 1988, 79-82). In1995, fully 98 percent of regulated child care wasprovided by a nonprofit operator. The province wasfar and away the least supportive of commercialoperations (Childcare Resource and Research Unit,1997, 85). Through its Action Plan for Children,Saskatchewan is investing substantial amounts inboth Child Care Grants (especially for children atrisk) and Child Care Wage Enhancement, but theseare only available to centres and providers regis-tered as nonprofits (see Table 2).
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 7
Tab
le 1
Sub
sidy
for
Low
Inco
me
Par
ents
’ Chi
ld C
are
Cos
ts P
aid
Dire
ctly
to S
ervi
ce P
rovi
der
Pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Bri
tish
Co
lum
bia
Alb
erta
Sas
katc
hew
anO
nta
rio
Qu
ebec
New
Bru
nsw
ick
• P
rogr
am n
ame
Ch
ild C
are
Su
bsi
dy
Ch
ild C
are
Su
bsi
dy
Ch
ild D
ay
Ca
reS
ub
sid
yC
hild
Ca
re F
ee
Su
bsi
dy
Su
bsi
dy
for
Ch
ildC
are
1D
ay
Ca
re A
ssis
tan
ceP
rog
ram
• D
epar
tmen
tre
spo
nsi
ble
for
po
licy
Min
istr
y fo
r C
hild
ren
and
Fam
ilies
Min
istr
y o
f Fam
ilyan
d S
oci
al S
ervi
ces
Sas
katc
hew
an S
oci
alS
ervi
ces
Min
istr
y o
fC
om
mu
nity
an
dS
oci
al S
ervi
ces
Min
istè
re d
e la
Fam
ille
et d
el’E
nfa
nce
Dep
artm
ent
of
Hu
man
Res
ou
rces
Dev
elo
pm
ent-
NB
• A
dm
inis
trat
ive
resp
on
sib
ility
Ch
ild C
are
Tea
mR
egio
nal
Ch
ild a
nd
Fam
ily S
ervi
ces
Au
tho
rity
Inco
me
Sec
urit
yP
rogr
ams
Div
isio
nM
un
icip
al a
nd
regi
on
algo
vern
men
ts,
app
rove
dco
rpo
ratio
ns,
Nat
ive
Ban
ds
• E
ligib
ility
Low
inco
me
par
ents
and
par
ents
at
wo
rk,
atte
nd
ing
sch
oo
l or
intr
ain
ing,
act
ivel
yse
ekin
g w
ork
or
inm
edic
al t
reat
men
t.
Low
inco
me
par
ents
wh
o n
eed
at
leas
t5
0h
ou
rs o
f ch
ildca
rep
er m
on
th.
Par
ents
mu
st b
eem
plo
yed
, lo
oki
ng
for
wo
rk,
in s
cho
ol o
rtr
ain
ing,
with
a c
hild
un
der
sev
en a
nd
no
tye
t in
Gra
de
1.
Low
inco
me
par
ents
wh
o n
eed
at
leas
t3
6h
ou
rs o
f ch
ildca
rep
er m
on
th.
Par
ents
mu
st b
eem
plo
yed
, lo
oki
ng
for
wo
rk,
in s
cho
ol o
rtr
ain
ing,
with
a c
hild
un
der
13
.
Low
inco
me
par
ents
and
On
tario
Wo
rks
par
ticip
ants
.
Wh
en c
hild
car
e at
$5
a d
ay is
no
tav
aila
ble
. Lo
w a
nd
mid
dle
inco
me
par
ents
wh
o a
reem
plo
yed
, en
rolle
d in
trai
nin
g o
r ed
uca
tion
,se
ekin
g w
ork
, o
rre
ferr
ed b
y a
soci
alag
ency
.
Low
inco
me
par
ents
wh
o a
re w
ork
ing,
atte
nd
ing
sch
oo
l,u
nd
ergo
ing
med
ical
trea
tmen
t o
rd
isab
led
.
• B
enef
itsS
ub
sid
y m
ay b
ed
irect
ed t
oar
ran
gem
ent
of
cho
ice
(lice
nse
d o
rn
ot,
pre
sch
oo
l, o
ut
of
sch
oo
l, in
ho
me,
ou
to
f ho
me)
.
Su
bsi
dy
may
be
dire
cted
to
lice
nse
dd
ay c
are
cen
tres
or
app
rove
d fa
mily
day
care
ho
mes
.
Su
bsi
dy
may
be
dire
cted
to
lice
nse
dch
ild d
ay c
are
cen
tres
and
lice
nse
d fa
mily
child
car
e h
om
es.
Su
bsi
dy
may
be
dir
ecte
d t
o n
on
pro
fito
r fo
r-p
rofit
ser
vice
pro
vid
ers.
Su
bsi
dy
may
be
dire
cted
to
lice
nse
dp
rovi
der
s, b
oth
no
np
rofit
(ce
ntr
esan
d fa
mily
day
car
e)an
d fo
r-p
rofit
.S
om
e lic
ense
dp
rovi
der
s m
ay n
ot
be
elig
ible
for
sub
sid
ies.
Su
bsi
dy
may
be
dir
ecte
d t
o r
egu
late
dn
on
pro
fit o
r fo
r-p
rofit
ch
ild c
are
cen
tres
or
com
mu
nity
day
car
eh
om
es (
fam
ily d
ayca
re).
8 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Tab
le 1
(C
ont
’d)
Pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Bri
tish
Co
lum
bia
Alb
erta
Sas
katc
hew
anO
nta
rio
Qu
ebec
New
Bru
nsw
ick
• T
ests
Inco
me
test
edN
eed
s te
sted
Inco
me
test
edN
eed
s te
sted
Inco
me
test
edN
eed
s te
sted
• A
mo
un
t o
fsu
bsi
dy
A m
axim
um
su
bsi
dy
is s
et.
Par
ents
pay
th
ed
iffer
ence
.
A m
axim
um
su
bsi
dy
is s
et.
Up
to
90
per
cen
t o
fac
tual
fee.
Par
ents
pay
th
e d
iffer
ence
.
Up
to
10
0 p
erce
nt
of
actu
al fe
e b
ut
mu
nic
ipal
ities
may
set
oth
er li
mits
.
Up
to
10
0 p
erce
nt
of
actu
al fe
e.E
xact
am
ou
nt
of
sub
sid
y u
na
vaila
ble
.P
aren
ts p
ay t
he
diff
eren
ce.
1P
rogr
am
me
d’e
xon
éra
tion
et
d’a
ide
fina
nci
ère
pou
r la
ga
rde
des
en
fan
ts.
Qu
ebec
’s s
ub
sid
y p
rogr
am
is b
ein
g p
ha
sed
ou
t. In
Sep
tem
ber
19
99
, p
are
nts
with
ch
ildre
n u
nd
er t
wo
wer
e n
o lo
nge
rel
igib
le if
th
ey h
ad
a s
pa
ce in
a C
entr
e fo
r E
arly
Ch
ildh
ood
Ed
uca
tion
or
fam
ily d
ay
care
at
$5
per
da
y or
in a
priv
ate
, fo
r-p
rof
it ce
ntr
e th
at
ha
d s
ign
ed a
n “
ente
nte
” w
ith t
he
min
istr
y.S
ourc
e: A
da
pte
d fr
om t
he
Ch
ildh
ood
Res
ourc
e a
nd
Res
earc
h U
nit
(19
99
) a
nd
rel
eva
nt
pro
vin
cia
l web
site
s.
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 9
In 1997, Quebec made a dramatic change to itschild care system, in part in response to concernsabout commercial child care. This policy shift rep-resents the only one of all the financial benefitslinked to child raising examined for this project thathas become more general rather than more target-ted. It is available to all citizens rather than just topoor citizens.
After the 1994 election, the Office des servicesde garde à l’enfance ceased issuing new licenses forday care centres because the Minister of Educationwas concerned about the rapid increase in commer-cial operators. Then, as part of an effort to resolvethis and several other issues, the government issuedits 1997 White Paper, Les enfants au coeur de noschoix. The White Paper and subsequent legislationpromised universal access to a space in regulatedcare for a flat fee of $5 per day. Places are availablein the day care centres (garderies) of a newlycreated institution, the Early Childhood Centre(Centre de la petite enfance), or in regulated familyday care.5
This reform means that as of September 1999when the program was applied to them, the parentsof a two-year-old in day care for five days a weekpaid $100 per month (in contrast to the $659 per
month paid, on average, by the same parent inBritish Columbia, as noted above).6 This marked asignificant reduction in out-of-pocket costs for mid-dle income parents, while poor parents pay evenless.7
The initial White Paper would have effectivelycut commercial providers out of the new system inQuebec. After a mobilization by commercial opera-tors, and mounting fear that the system could notabsorb the loss of spaces that their withdrawal ofservices might imply, a compromise was reached.Commercial operators are encouraged to converttheir governance structure to a nonprofit corpora-tion and to join the network of Early ChildhoodCentres. Those that choose not to do so, but werein existence before the reform process began, arealso eligible for subsidies to close the gap betweenthe $5 per day that parents pay and the actual costas calculated by the province. They are not eligiblefor operating and infrastructure grants, however. Inmany ways this compromise is similar to the situa-tion that prevailed in Ontario between 1987 and1995.
At the other end of the spectrum is Alberta,which has supported commercial operators on anequal footing since 1980, when the Conservative
Table 2
Subsidies Available to Child Care Providers
Key: � = Program exists in that province.X = Program does not exist in that province.
Program descriptionBritish
Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan Ontario QuebecNew
Brunswick
• Individual subsidies � � � � �1
�
• Operating subsidies �2 X � X2
� X2
• Wage enhancementsubsidies � X � � � X
1 Quebec’s subsidies are being phased out (see Table 1).2 Operating subsidies in British Columbia are only available to nonprofit providers. In New Brunswick and Ontario, some operating funds are
available for spaces for children with special needs.Source: Adapted from the Childhood Resource and Research Unit (1999) and relevant provincial websites.
10 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
government, under pressure from commercialoperators, made direct operating grants availableto commercial as well as to nonprofit and munici-pal operators.8 The result was that, over the decadeof the 1980s, the level of commercial spaces inAlberta rose to be second only to Newfoundlandand Labrador, which has very little child care atall (Childcare Resource and Research Unit, 1997,85).
In Ontario, the Conservative government re-jected the notion that priority in public fundingshould go to nonprofits. The 1996 Report ImprovingOntario’s Childcare System (the Ecker Report) rec-ommended allowing for-profit operators to access awider range of provincial grants. Government pol-icy has since moved in the direction of what itdescribes as equal treatment for the private andnonprofit sectors.
Advocates line up on different sides of thisissue. The choice of nonprofits is obvious to thosewho push for greater community and parental in-volvement, as well as for democracy, since non-profits are governed by parental boards. In addition,the fear is that commercial operators, as any en-trepreneur, will be more concerned with the bottomline than with quality care and child development.As their profit margins are squeezed, they will haveevery incentive to skimp on programs. On the otherside are commercial providers who see unfair ad-vantages going to their competitors and who arguethat lack of provincial funding makes it difficult forthem to provide quality services.
In these debates, philosophical principles aboutthe role of markets versus the public sector tend totake precedence over questions of child care quality. Inaddition, political pressure exerts an influence. InQuebec in 1997, as in Alberta in 1980, intensepressure from the commercial lobby forced theprovincial government to compromise. However,ideology is probably the deciding factor (Andrew,1998).
From the perspective of the current Ontario gov-ernment, commercial operators, as representatives
of “the market” are, by definition, good. Similarly,for Ontario’s NDP government, and for PartiQuébécois governments since 1976, commercialoperators are highly suspect for the very samereason. Child care advocates were profoundlycritical of the Mulroney Conservative govern-ment’s Child Care Act (Bill C-144), which wouldhave allowed federal funds to subsidize for-profitcare and which failed to provide “national stan-dards.” The bill died on the order paper when the1988 election was called (Bach and Phillips, 1997,238).
It is difficult to read consequences in either levelof provision or quality directly off the form of careprovided, however. In 1995, Quebec, with four ofevery five spaces in nonprofit care, and BritishColumbia, with three of every five spaces in non-profit care, had the same level of coverage as didAlberta with more than three of every five spacesin a commercial centre (Childcare Resource andResearch Unit, 1997, 84-85). At the same time,Quebec’s allowable staff-to-children ratio for three-year-olds was the highest in the country (at 1 to 8),while Alberta’s 1 to 6 ratio was right in the middleof Canada’s 12 jurisdictions (Childcare Resourceand Research Unit, 1997, 94).
The same confusion does not exist about thechoice between formal and informal care, the sec-ond issue related to the legacy of CAP funding.Child development experts as well as advocates forchild care have marshalled an impressive body ofevidence to demonstrate the importance of intellec-tual stimulation and socialization for preschoolchildren. The pay-offs come in the form of schoolreadiness and therefore success in the early grades.In turn, lowered rates of school failure providelonger-term benefits in the form of lowered rates ofdelinquency in adolescence.
Quality has been equated in the eyes of manywith regulation and licensing. There is, of course, noguarantee that regulation will in and of itself trans-late into quality preschool programs. It does improvethe odds, however. The arguments for emphasizingregulated care can be summarized this way:
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 11
The concern about unregulated care is that qualitycan be highly variable. . . . Without the aid ofgovernment regulation and licensing, parents maynot be able to monitor adequately the specificconditions or quality of the service they are pur-chasing (Bach and Phillips, 1997, 238).
A recent discussion paper from the governmentof British Columbia also takes on this issue bystating:
We are not meeting the real needs of many childrenin our community. There is a strong relationshipbetween the quality of child care environmentsand child developmental outcomes. Overall 79 percent of children in child care in B.C. are in un-licensed, unregulated care arrangements. This kindof care can be of high quality. However, poorquality care environments are much more likelyto be found in the unlicensed, unregulated childcare sector (Ministry of Social Development andEconomic Security, 1999, 5).
Because rising demand is not being adequatelymet by centre based care or regulated family daycare, most children are in unregulated care.9 More-over, some governments are encouraging this kindof care to flourish. For example, British Columbiaallows its child care subsidies to be used in theunregulated sector. Similarly, in its reinvestmentplans filed as part of the National Child Benefitprocess, New Brunswick reserved 400 child caresubsidies for unlicensed child care, to be used byparents whose jobs or school schedules make itimpossible to access the services of a centre. In arecent interview about the availability of servicesfor Ontario Works participants, Social ServiceMinister John Baird said, “There could be more useof informal care, such as having friends or relativestake care of children while the Ontario Worksrecipient is not at home” (Mackie, 1999).
As the last quotation makes clear, the efforts byprovinces to get parents receiving social assistanceinto the paid labour force often include a child caresubsidy, also frequently directed to informal andunregulated caregivers. No reliable figures areavailable about these programs, but experts termthem not an insignificant portion of the total spend-
ing on child care although they do not appear inwhat is usually designated the “child care budget.”
One study found that Saskatchewan was spendingthe equivalent of 10 percent of its subsidy budgeton these types of supports, while New Brunswickreported spending the equivalent of 85 percent of itssubsidy budget this way. The federal governmentalso includes funds for such dependent allowancesin its Employment Insurance sponsored trainingprograms. Parents are “encouraged to use a form ofchild care that they can sustain after they leave theprogram, thereby discouraging the use of more costlycare” (Beach, Bertrand, and Cleveland, 1998, 30).
One argument made for using unregulated care,which is used in New Brunswick, is inflexibility inthe operating hours of day care centres, which arenot designed to meet the needs of parents workingnights, part-time or on weekends. In response to thisproblem, rather than subsidizing informal care,Quebec decided to extend the hours of its EarlyChildhood Centres which may be open 24 hours aday, 7 days a week.
The basic argument, however, is one of cost.Informal care, much of it in the black market, issimply cheaper than formal care provided bytrained early childhood educators in speciallyequipped centres or well supplied family day caresettings.
There is a certain irony in governments nowopting for lower quality care, especially for thechildren of those parents the same provincial gov-ernments are striving so hard to get to overcomesupposedly poor work habits and other blockagesto labour force participation via workfare programs.Failure to invest in early childhood development,and simply to opt for a “place to stick the kids,”seems counterproductive in the eyes of those whoare looking farther forward to the future of thenext generation. The goals of policy communitiesthat are promoting the transition from welfare toemployment and the goals of those promoting earlychildhood initiatives for child development (to bediscussed below), are sometimes seriously at odds.
12 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Other Programs forBalancing Work andFamily Responsibilities
By the early 1970s, it was becoming clear that thetraditional gender division of labour was changingrapidly. At the same time, however, the CAP-basedfunding provisions, instead of framing publiclyfunded child care as a program for all children,targetted it to the “needy.” This representation ofthe situation left higher income parents on theirown, both in meeting their child care needs and inmaking difficult decisions about how to reconciletheir need for employment with their responsibilityfor bringing up their children.
Handling Child Care Costs
Pressure was mounting in the 1970s for publicsupport for all parents. At its founding meeting in1965, the Fédération des femmes du Québec in-cluded public child care (“création de garderiesd’État”) on its list of six principal demands(Collectif Clio, 1992, 464). Similarly, the report ofthe Royal Commission on the Status of Women,released in 1970, stated that “the time is past whensociety can refuse to provide community child careservices in the hope of dissuading mothers fromleaving their children and going to work” (quoted inPence, 1993, 65).
Therefore, the federal government started asecond track alongside CAP to help defray some ofthe costs of employment incurred by parents,whether in lone-parent or two-parent families. In1972, the federal government introduced the ChildCare Expense Deduction (Clark, 1998, 2). It permit-ted parents who incur child care expenses in orderto work or study to deduct some of the costs fromtheir federal income tax. The deduction has to betaken by the parent with the lower income, which,in the vast majority of cases, was the mother. Sucha deduction for an employment expense is similar todeductions made for business and office expenses thatare incurred by professionals or the self-employed(Krashinsky and Cleveland, 1999).
The Child Care Expense Deduction (CCED) isnow the major universal program available to par-ents to help defray the costs of child rearing. About800,000 families claimed the deduction in 1996,when the estimated cost was about $335 million inforgone revenue to Ottawa and another $194 mil-lion to the provinces (Clark, 1998, 8). The maximumreceipted deduction is $7,000 for a child under 7 and$4,000 for children aged 7 to 16.
Being a tax deduction, the value to parentsvaries by tax bracket. “As a result, the deductionprovides greater federal and provincial tax savingsfor higher income families than it does for lowerincome families because the higher income earnersgenerally have higher marginal tax rates, so a de-duction against their taxable income leads to greatertax benefits” (Clark, 1998, 9).10
In addition, two provinces provide their ownchild care expense deduction. In 1997, Ontariocreated the Ontario Child Care Tax Credit, whichprovides a maximum $400 deduction and is admin-istered by Revenue Canada. The allowable ex-penses are the same as those for the CCED. Quebechas had a refundable tax credit for child care for anumber of years. One of the trade-offs involved indeveloping its $5 per day child care program, andone way of financing it, was the elimination overtime of this tax deduction for child care expenses.Early Childhood Centres, family day care providersand after school child care programs that charge$5 per day no longer issue tax receipts, therebymaking parents’ fees ineligible for either a provincialor federal deduction. Only parents without access to a$5 per day space may claim Quebec’s tax credit.
Despite such tax deductions or credits for expensesincurred in order to work or study, paying for childcare remains a very expensive proposition formiddle and upper income parents outside Quebec.Without access to a subsidy, reserved in allprovinces for low income families, “an average-income family with two preschool children wouldhave had to spend approximately $10,000, or about23 percent of its gross annual income, on regulatedcare” (Beach, Bertrand, and Cleveland, 1998, 28).
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 13
Among the provinces analyzed for this project,Quebec decided first to confront the concerns ofsuch families directly and as part of a major coordi-nated reform. Although sufficient spaces are not yetavailable to meet the rapidly rising demand, thesymbolic importance of the shift to $5 per day childcare has captured the imagination of the public.From being a financial burden for many families,requiring careful calculations about how manydays, if any, to purchase, child care has become nomore expensive than lunch in a student cafeteria.
At the same time, the Quebec governmentsought to reduce the financial burden of the reformon its own coffers. It reallocated resources withinthe family policy sector by cancelling the generousbirth bonuses that had been in place for severalyears to prompt a higher birth rate. It also shiftedrevenue from the tax credit for child care expensesto subsidize the new spaces. In addition, it calcu-lated that it would gain in general tax revenues, asblack market babysitters lost their cost advantageand therefore shifted to becoming regulated familyday care providers and taxpayers.
Other provinces have also been active in the areaof child care costs, especially since 1995. For exam-ple, in Fall 1999, British Columbia’s Ministry ofSocial Development and Ministry of Women’sEquality launched a major joint consultation basedon the discussion paper Building a Better Futurefor British Columbia’s Kids. The document stressesthe need to address the child care cost factor formiddle income families as well as for those withlow incomes. In accordance with the philosophy of“first things first,” it proposes improvements to thecurrent system. In addition to increasing thesubsidy rate for low income parents, these wouldinvolve raising income thresholds and reducing the“clawback” rates (Ministry of Social Developmentand Economic Security, 1999, 17-18).
Programs for BalancingWorking Time and Family Time
In 1971, the federal government also chose toprovide a paid maternity leave through the Unem-
ployment Insurance regime. This leave was laterextended to cover 15 weeks of maternity leave and10 weeks of paid parental leave, the latter beingavailable to fathers as well as mothers. Parentalleave can be shared between parents or taken byonly one of them. Adoptive parents may take paidparental leave for 10 weeks.11 In its October 1999Throne Speech, the federal government promised toextend paid parental leave to a full year.
Maternity and parental benefits are calculated onthe basis of income earned the previous year, with acap at 55 percent of insured earnings or $413 aweek, whichever is lower. There is also a “claw-back” for those with an annual income above$48,750 (O’Hara, 1998, 9). Since maternity leave ismodelled on the experience of unemployment, thefirst two weeks have never been covered. Quebec,however, developed its own maternity benefit,PRALMA (programme complémentaire d’allocationde maternité) for those two weeks to help cushionthe financial shock to parents as the new arrivaljoins the family (see Table 3).
The provinces have been active in the area ofmaternity and parental leave as well although, withthe exception of Quebec’s two-week allowance,they provide only unpaid leave. In the 1970s, theprovinces adjusted their labour standards legislationto guarantee most new mothers, even those noteligible to paid leave under Unemployment Insurancerules, the right to an unpaid maternity leave (seeTable 3). In addition, all provinces except Albertainstituted unpaid parental leave, which covers fa-thers and adopting parents as well as biologicalmothers (see Table 4). Such leaves are obviouslyuseful because they usually incorporate some rightto return to the same or an equivalent job. Nonethe-less, being unpaid, they leave it to the family toabsorb the costs of lost income.
The replacement of the Unemployment Insurancesystem by Employment Insurance has had significantconsequences for maternity and parental leaves.Eligibility depends on having worked 700 hoursin the previous 52 weeks. This is more than doublethe number of hours required by the pre-1996
14 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Tab
le 3
Unp
aid
Mat
erni
ty L
eave
Pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Bri
tish
Co
lum
bia
Alb
erta
Sas
katc
hew
anO
nta
rio
Qu
ebec
New
Bru
nsw
ick
• P
rogr
am n
ame
Pre
gn
an
cy L
ea
veM
ate
rnity
Lea
veM
ate
rnity
Lea
veP
reg
na
ncy
Lea
veM
ate
rnity
Lea
ve1
Ma
tern
ity L
ea
ve
• D
epar
tmen
tre
spo
nsi
ble
for
po
licy
Lab
ou
rLa
bo
ur
Lab
ou
rLa
bo
ur
Lab
ou
rLa
bo
ur
• A
dm
inis
trat
ive
resp
on
sib
ility
Em
plo
ymen
tS
tan
da
rds
Act
Em
plo
ymen
tS
tan
dar
ds
Co
de
La
bo
ur
Sta
nd
ard
sA
ctE
mp
loym
en
tS
tan
da
rds
Act
La
bo
ur
Sta
nd
ard
sA
ct (
la L
oi s
ur
les
no
rmes
du
tra
vail)
Em
plo
ymen
tS
tan
da
rds
Act
• E
ligib
ility
Pre
gnan
t w
om
en.
No
min
imu
m p
revi
ou
sem
plo
ymen
t.
Pre
gnan
t w
om
en.
Mu
st b
e co
ntin
uo
usl
yem
plo
yed
with
sam
eem
plo
yer
for
at le
ast
12
mo
nth
s.
Pre
gnan
t w
om
en.
Mu
st b
e in
th
eem
plo
ymen
t o
f her
emp
loye
r fo
r a
tota
lo
f 20
wee
ks o
f th
e5
2w
eeks
pre
ced
ing
the
day
on
wh
ich
th
ere
qu
este
d le
ave
is t
oco
mm
ence
.
Pre
gnan
t w
om
en.
Mu
st b
e o
n t
he
job
at
leas
t 1
3 w
eeks
bef
ore
du
e d
ate.
Pre
gnan
t w
om
en.
Pre
gnan
t w
om
en.
• B
enef
its1
8 w
eeks
18
wee
ks1
8 w
eeks
17
wee
ks1
8 w
eeks
17
wee
ks
• S
tart
tim
eM
ay s
tart
no
ear
lier
than
11
wee
ks b
efo
reex
pec
ted
du
e d
ate.
At
leas
t 6
wee
ks m
ust
be
take
n a
fter
del
iver
y.
Co
mm
enci
ng
at a
ny
time
du
rin
g th
ep
erio
d 1
2 w
eeks
imm
edia
tely
pre
ced
ing
the
du
ed
ate.
Can
beg
in a
ny
time
up
to
17
wee
ksb
efo
re d
ue
dat
e.
Can
beg
in a
ny
time
up
to
16
wee
ksb
efo
re d
ue
dat
e.
May
beg
in u
p t
o1
1w
eeks
bef
ore
du
ed
ate.
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 15
Tab
le 3
(co
nt’d
)
Pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Bri
tish
Co
lum
bia
Alb
erta
Sas
katc
hew
anO
nta
rio
Qu
ebec
New
Bru
nsw
ick
• D
ura
tion
May
en
d n
o e
arlie
rth
an 6
wee
ks a
fter
del
iver
y (u
nle
ssem
plo
yee
req
ues
ts it
).A
n a
dd
itio
nal
6w
eeks
may
be
take
naf
ter
del
iver
y, o
nd
oct
or’
s ce
rtifi
catio
n.
An
ad
diti
on
al 3
wee
ks m
ay b
e ta
ken
afte
r d
eliv
ery,
on
do
cto
r’s
cert
ifica
tion
.
An
ad
diti
on
al 6
wee
ks m
ay b
e ta
ken
on
do
cto
r’sce
rtifi
catio
n.
If n
ot
elig
ible
for
par
enta
l lea
ve,
6w
eeks
may
be
take
naf
ter
del
iver
y, e
ven
ifth
is e
xten
ds
the
pre
gnan
cy le
ave
bey
on
d 1
7 w
eeks
.
1Q
ueb
ec h
as
a m
ate
rnity
allo
wa
nce
ca
lled
PR
ALM
A (
pro
gra
mm
e c
om
plé
me
nta
ire
d’a
lloca
tion
de
ma
tern
ité).
It is
a fl
at
rate
on
e-tim
e p
aym
ent
of $
36
0,
pa
id t
o n
ew m
oth
ers
wh
ose
fam
ilyin
com
e is
un
der
$5
5,0
00
an
d w
ho
are
elig
ible
to
rece
ive
a m
ate
rnity
ben
efit
thro
ugh
Em
plo
ymen
t In
sura
nce
. It
is in
ten
ded
to
top
-up
th
at
ben
efit,
cov
erin
g th
e tw
o w
eeks
not
cov
ered
by
Em
plo
ymen
t In
sura
nce
.
16 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Tab
le 4
Unp
aid
Par
enta
l Lea
ve
Pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Bri
tish
Co
lum
bia
Alb
erta
Sas
katc
hew
anO
nta
rio
Qu
ebec
New
Bru
nsw
ick
• P
rogr
am n
ame
Pa
ren
tal L
ea
veN
o P
rog
ram1
Pa
ren
tal L
ea
veP
are
nta
l Lea
veP
are
nta
l Lea
ve(c
on
gé p
are
nta
l)P
are
nta
l Lea
ve
• D
epar
tmen
tre
spo
nsi
ble
for
po
licy
Lab
ou
rLa
bo
ur
Lab
ou
rLa
bo
ur
Lab
ou
r
• A
dm
inis
trat
ive
resp
on
sib
ility
Em
plo
ymen
tS
tan
da
rds
Act
La
bo
ur
Sta
nd
ard
sA
ctE
mp
loym
en
tS
tan
da
rds
Act
La
bo
ur
Sta
nd
ard
sA
ct (l
a L
oi s
ur
les
no
rmes
du
tra
vail)
Em
plo
ymen
tS
tan
da
rds
Act
• E
ligib
ility
New
par
ents
(mo
ther
s, fa
ther
s,b
irth
an
d a
do
ptin
g).
Birt
h p
aren
ts,
prim
ary
care
give
r,ad
op
tive
par
ent.
New
par
ents
(mo
ther
s, fa
ther
s,b
irth
an
d a
do
ptin
g).
New
par
ents
(mo
ther
s, fa
ther
s,b
irth
an
d a
do
ptin
g).
New
par
ents
(mo
ther
s, fa
ther
s,b
irth
an
d a
do
ptin
g).
• B
enef
its1
2 w
eeks
12
wee
ks fo
r p
aren
tal
leav
e; 1
8 w
eeks
for
ado
ptio
n
18
wee
ks5
2 w
eeks
12
wee
ks
Birt
h m
oth
ers
mu
stta
ke it
imm
edia
tely
afte
r p
regn
ancy
leav
e, u
nle
ssem
plo
yer
and
emp
loye
e ag
ree
oth
erw
ise.
Birt
h m
oth
ers
and
ado
ptin
g p
aren
tsh
ave
to s
ub
mit
thei
rap
plic
atio
n a
t le
ast
4w
eeks
bef
ore
th
een
d o
f th
eir
mat
ern
ityo
r ad
op
tive
leav
es.
Birt
h m
oth
ers
mu
stta
ke it
imm
edia
tely
afte
r p
regn
ancy
leav
e.
Th
e 5
2 w
eeks
mu
stb
e co
ntin
uo
us,
bu
tm
ay b
e ta
ken
an
ytim
ew
ithin
70
wee
ks o
fth
e ar
riva
l of t
he
child
.
Birt
h m
oth
ers
mu
stta
ke it
imm
edia
tely
afte
r p
regn
ancy
leav
e.
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 17
Tab
le 4
(co
nt’d
)
Pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Bri
tish
Co
lum
bia
Alb
erta
Sas
katc
hew
anO
nta
rio
Qu
ebec
New
Bru
nsw
ick
• B
enef
its (
con
t’d)
Fat
her
s an
d a
do
ptin
gp
aren
ts m
ust
tak
e it
with
in 5
2 w
eeks
of
the
child
’s a
rriv
al.
Fat
her
s an
d a
do
ptin
gp
aren
ts m
ust
tak
e it
with
in 3
5 w
eeks
of
the
child
’s a
rriv
al.
Fat
her
s an
d a
do
ptin
gp
aren
ts m
ust
tak
e it
with
in 5
2 w
eeks
of
the
child
’s a
rriv
al.
Em
plo
yer
mu
st b
eco
vere
d b
y th
eE
mp
loym
en
tS
tan
da
rds
Act.
Em
plo
yer
mu
st b
eco
vere
d b
y th
eE
mp
loym
en
tS
tan
da
rds
Act.
Em
plo
yer
mu
st b
eco
vere
d b
y th
eE
mp
loym
en
tS
tan
da
rds
Act.
Em
plo
yer
mu
st b
eco
vere
d b
y th
eE
mp
loym
en
tS
tan
da
rds
Act.
Sen
iori
tyac
cum
ula
tes.
Ret
urn
to s
ame
job
(u
sual
ly).
Sen
iori
tyac
cum
ula
tes.
Fo
rle
aves
of l
ess
than
12
wee
ks, s
ame
job
guar
ante
ed;
for
mo
reth
an 1
2 w
eeks
,si
mila
r jo
b.
Sen
iori
tyac
cum
ula
tes.
Ret
urn
to
sam
e o
req
uiv
alen
t jo
b.
1W
hile
pa
ren
tal l
eave
is n
ot a
vaila
ble
in A
lber
ta,
ad
optiv
e p
are
nts
with
at
lea
st 1
2 m
onth
s of
sen
iorit
y a
re e
ntit
led
to
8 w
eek
s of
lea
ve.
If b
oth
pa
ren
ts w
ork
for
the
sam
e em
plo
yer,
on
ly o
ne
pa
ren
t m
ay
take
th
e le
ave
.
18 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Unemployment Insurance system. Thus, whileEmployment Insurance now covers part-time work-ers (many of whom are women), the number ofhours that must be worked to qualify has increaseddramatically.
As a result, some new mothers find they are noteligible for paid maternity leave, particularly if theyhave chosen to space their children closely togetherand have taken somewhat more than the paid andunpaid leaves to which they are entitled for theprevious child. For example, if a woman stayed outof the labour force for a year to care for a youngchild, she would then be treated like a youngworker who had never contributed to EmploymentInsurance and would have to work 910 hours beforemaking a claim. Further, self-employed workers arenot covered because they do not pay EmploymentInsurance premiums, even though self-employmentis a fast-growing category in the labour force. Finally,parents who are studying are not eligible for paidleave unless they have accumulated EmploymentInsurance eligibility.
All of these changes affected who had access tomaternity and parental benefits. Less than half of allfamilies with a newborn (49 percent) were eligiblefor a paid maternity or parental leave in 1998,whether by the mother’s or father’s contributions toEmployment Insurance. The rest had no incomesupport to compensate for earnings lost if a leavewere taken (Corak, 1999).
Such gaps in coverage prompted the Quebec gov-ernment to propose establishing a Parental Insuranceregime as part of its 1997 family policy reforms. Theelements of the proposed change are such that:
• Parental insurance would be open to any parentwho earned at least $2,000 the previous tax year,whether employed or self-employed. This is anextension of coverage to persons not covered byEmployment Insurance and eligibility is based onflat-rate earnings rather than number of hours worked.
• Fathers would have an exclusive right to fiveweeks leave.
• The paid leave would be for 30 weeks (18 mater-nity, 5 paternal and 7 potentially shared).
• Parents of an adopted child would have 12 weeksleave, rather than the 10 weeks available throughEmployment Insurance.
• The benefit level would be a nontaxable 75 percentof net earnings, rather than the current 55 percentof insured earnings (65 percent in the case oflow income families).
• Parental insurance would eliminate the currenttwo-week gap in payment of the EmploymentInsurance benefit, now covered by Quebec’smaternity allowance, PRALMA (Lepage andMoisan, 1998, 129-30).
The shift to an “income” rather than “workingtime” basis would thereby cover virtually all salariedworkers, the self-employed and many students. Itwould also establish an exclusive period of five weeksleave for fathers, something that a few Europeancountries have instituted. However, establishment ofParental Insurance is dependent on the federal gov-ernment agreeing to remit a portion of EmploymentInsurance payments collected in Quebec. Negotia-tions continue over the matter of how much shouldbe remitted, with about $200 million separating thetwo parties. In the meantime, the government ofQuebec is mobilizing employers and unions to maketheir own contributions to the new regime, so that itcan go forward in the year 2000 (Cloutier, 1999).
Saskatchewan, too, is actively addressing theissue of leaves. It recently undertook an initiativeon Balancing Work and Family. This Task Forceassessed the situation in a province that has a higherthan average female labour force participation rateand concluded that stress about balancing work andfamily is the number one issue. Lack of comprehen-sion by employers as well as an absence of work-place programs and public services were identifiedas a most serious problem in public consultationsand by expert analysis. The Task Force recommendsthat employers create “family-friendly workplaces”and contends they need to pay much more attention
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 19
to the caring needs of their employees by permittingthem to have flexible hours and some leave forfamily responsibilities (Saskatchewan Labour, 1998).But even leave for family responsibility has been slowin coming. As Box 1 shows, only British Columbia,Saskatchewan and Quebec provide a right to anyleave for family responsibilities, even unpaid.
The other provinces are giving the issue ofleaves, especially paid leaves, much less attention.For example, in its 1999 discussion paper, BritishColumbia focusses on child care services andlumps improved maternity and parental benefits ina long list of “what needs to be done” (Ministry ofSocial Development and Economic Security, 1999,12-16). In Ontario, The Early Years Study came outstrongly on these issues (McCain and Mustard,1999, chapter 7). It called on the provincial govern-ment to negotiate with Ottawa to extend parentalleave and eliminate the two-week waiting period inEmployment Insurance. However, when the reportwas released, the government said nothing aboutthis in all its news releases and interviews follow-ing the launch of the report. For its part, as noted
above, Ottawa promised in October 1999 to extendpaid parental leave within the Employment Insuranceregime to one year, but there is, as yet, very littlemovement in the area of other kinds of leave forfamily reasons.
Under current circumstances, parents are forcedto make difficult choices, with potential long-termcosts for their children and themselves. Recent datareleased by Statistics Canada reveal that 60 percentof the new mothers who were back at work within amonth of giving birth had received no benefits fromthe Employment Insurance system. Further, fully80 percent of self-employed workers (that is, thosenot covered by the Employment Insurance regime)were back at work within a month. The studyconcludes that “potential loss of income” accountsfor the early return of the self-employed and othersineligible for benefits. The availability of benefitsalso explains the average length of a leave, which issix months – the same amount of time for whichpaid leave exists (Marshall, 1999).
All of this means that it is difficult for mothersto maintain the labour force participation uponwhich real autonomy and equality must be built.Many are forced out of the labour force to care foryoung children because they cannot afford to payfor child care or they do not have sufficient guaran-tees of return to employment. Conversely, othersare virtually forced back into employment becausethey cannot sustain the income loss associated withtaking even a limited unpaid parental leave.
Attitudinal data also reveal just how difficultthese choices are and, therefore, how ambivalentmany Canadians appear to be. Most believe thatwomen not only have a right to work but should doso. At the same time, many also believe that youngchildren suffer when their parents are not there tocare for them (Michalski, 1999). As Table 5 shows,many Canadians fear that preschool children willsuffer when both parents are employed. Neverthe-less, in all six provinces as well as across Canada,women are less fearful than men of the conse-quences of dual-earning families for children(Statistics Canada, 1999a; Ghalem, 1997).
Box 1
Family-related Leave Relevant to Young Children
British Columbia: An employee is entitled to up to five daysof unpaid leave per employment year to meet responsibilitiesrelated to the care, health or education of any member of theemployee’s immediate family. “Immediate family” includesthe spouse, child, parent, guardian, sibling, grandchild orgrandparent of an employee or anyone who lives with theemployee as a member of the family.
Saskatchewan: An employee is entitled to five days ofunpaid leave annually for pressing necessity and familyresponsibilities, which are broadly defined. Fathers are enti-tled to one day of paternity leave.
Quebec: An employee is entitled to up to five days of unpaidleave per employment year to meet responsibilities related tothe care, health or education of a minor child. An employeeis entitled to five days of leave at the moment of the birth oradoption of a child. After two months of employment, thefirst two days of leave are paid. However, if the employee isadopting the child of his or her spouse, only two days ofunpaid leave are available.
20 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Rethinking Income Security
As we noted at the beginning of this study,Leonard Marsh’s proposals for a post-1945 socialpolicy included a family allowance, which wouldbe sufficiently large to compensate parents for allthe extra costs they face because they are raisingchildren. He considered such a benefit necessarybecause salaries paid to workers as individuals cannever take into account the fact that parents havehigher expenses than do those who are withoutdependents.
In the 1950s, this difference was less visible,since a booming economy raised the wages of manyworkers. However, in recent years, the problem ofthe relationship between earned income and thecost of families has again become acute. Campaign2000, in its 1998 National Report Card, observedthat, in the 1990s, while the unemployment rate fell,the rate of child poverty rose because it was oftenpart-time jobs that were being created. Even full-time but low paying minimum wage jobs do notsuffice. For example, in 1976, a Canadian parentwith one child had to work 41 hours a week atminimum wage in order to push the family abovethe poverty level. However, by 1994, that same
parent would have had to work 73 hours a week toachieve the same result (Hanvey et al., 1994). Putbluntly, it is clear that a full-time job no longermeans an escape from poverty. Therefore, wereturn to the insights of the famous studies of WorldWar II, which:
recognized that there is a fundamental problem inthe relation between employment compensationand the income requirements to raise a family.Even with full employment and a good minimumwage, it is not realistic to expect low incomeearners to earn enough to support a family, letalone a large family. Yet the basic social safetynet program (i.e., what we call “welfare”) has topay benefits sufficient to sustain a family. Thismeans that low income earners might be better offto go onto the safety net program, and hence couldbe deprived of their basic human right to raise afamily in dignity, with full participation in commu-nity life, through their own effort (Battle, 1998, 6).
This issue of the “welfare wall” will be addressedshortly.
In 1947, the political decision was not to im-plement Marsh’s recommendation but the FamilyAllowance program as it was instituted nevertheless
Table 5
Preschool Children and Parental Employment Survey Data
Percent disagreeing that“Preschool children suffer if both parents are employed”
Location Total responses Women’s responses
Canada 34 38
New Brunswick 35 40
Quebec 33 35
Ontario 35 39
Saskatchewan 33 38
Alberta 31 35
British Columbia 34 39
Source: Statistics Canada (1999a).
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 21
did provide some recognition that the financialburden of parents with dependent children is higherthan that of adults with no dependents. So, too, didthe universal tax exemption for families with chil-dren, in place since 1919. Thus, in the post-waryears, social as well as fiscal policy recognized theexpenses of caring for children and undertook toprovide a modicum of income security to all fami-lies. This is no longer the case.
Income Security and Taxation
As we noted above, Canadian policymakers un-derstood early that the tax regime could be used togenerate some degree of “horizontal equity” be-tween families with dependent children and thosewithout. Taxes are particularly important for theincome situation of middle and upper income fami-lies. This is because, with the exception of healthcare and education, there is not a strong Canadiantradition of providing universal programs. Middleand upper income families often are paying, viatheir taxes, for public services and programs forwhich they are not eligible. Therefore, the amountof disposable income they have after taxes is theirsource of income security.
Until 1978, the federal government provided auniversal tax exemption for adults with dependentchildren. Its decision to eliminate this mechanismfor the purpose of inserting horizontal equity intothe tax system meant that, in effect, the tax regimewas treating the decision to have and raise childrenas it would any other consumption decision, paid forout of after-tax dollars (Krashinsky and Cleveland,1999).
The provinces have not all followed preciselythe same road, however. They provide a range ofprograms that address the tax situation of familieswith children (see Table 6). For example, five ofthe six provide a tax reduction for families. Thesetax reductions tend to be targetted to low and insome cases middle income taxpayers. In addition,Ontario and Quebec provide sales tax credits,credits for home ownership, and so on. The federal
government, for its part (and acting for the provincein the case of New Brunswick), provides a taxcredit for the Goods and Service Tax (GST) to lowincome Canadians. The level of the benefit is adjustedaccording to the number of dependent children.
Issues of horizontal equity in the tax systemhave been raised recently in at least two of ourprovinces, and two quite different proposals have beenmade by the expert commissions charged withstudying the matter. The government of Albertapromised in its 1999 Budget to move towards a“flat tax” system, following the advice of the TaxReform Commission it established. By January2002, all taxpayers in Alberta will pay at a singlerate of 11 percent on their taxable income. A mea-sure of vertical equity will be maintained by raisingboth the basic personal exemption and the spousalexemption in a significant fashion (from the current$6,456 and $5,380, respectively, to $11,620 each).However, the reform will not provide any addi-tional tax relief for families because they havechildren, since there are still only personal andspousal exemptions. In addition, because one of thedriving goals of the reform was simplifying the taxregime, it will remove the one particular tax advan-tage low income families have now, that is, theSelective Tax Reduction (see Table 6).
The effects of this reform will be felt differentlyby different kinds of families and some will benefitmore from the change than others. The proposals ofthe Tax Reform Commission, adopted almost intheir entirety by the government, will result insignificant tax savings for one kind of family(although the total taxes paid by different kinds offamilies may vary significantly).12 At all incomelevels, a one-earner family with two children willhave substantially higher tax savings than similartwo-earner families or single people and seniors.
Indeed, in the examples elaborated by the TaxReform Commission, the biggest tax saving wouldgo to a one-earner family with two children and anincome over $100,000 (with a saving of $2,555).13
In contrast, a two-earner family with two children atthe same income level would only see its taxes
22 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Tab
le 6
Tax
Ben
efits
for
Fam
ilies
with
Dep
ende
nt C
hild
ren
Pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Brit
ish
Co
lum
bia
Alb
erta
Sas
katc
hew
anO
nta
rio
Qu
ebec
New
Bru
nsw
ick
• P
rogr
am n
ame
Su
rta
xR
ed
uct
ion
Sele
ctiv
eT
ax
Red
uct
ion
Sa
ska
tch
ew
an
Ch
ild T
ax
Red
uct
ion
On
tario
Ta
xC
red
itsO
nta
rio
Ta
xR
ed
uct
ion
Refu
nd
ab
le t
ax
cred
its (
incl
ud
ing
Fir
st H
om
e, S
ales
Tax
, A
do
ptio
nex
pen
ses)
Qu
eb
ec
Ch
ild T
ax
Cre
dit
(Cré
dit
d’im
pô
tsp
ou
r en
fan
ts)
Ta
xR
ed
uct
ion
for
Fa
mili
es
Sa
les
Ta
xR
ed
uct
ion
(HS
T)1
• D
epar
tmen
tre
spo
nsi
ble
for
po
licy
Fin
ance
an
dC
orp
ora
teR
elat
ion
s
Tre
asu
ryS
aska
tch
ewan
Fin
ance
Fin
ance
Fin
ance
Fin
ance
Fin
ance
Fin
ance
Rev
enu
eC
anad
a
• A
dm
inis
trat
ive
resp
on
sib
ility
Rev
enu
eC
anad
aR
even
ue
Can
ada
Rev
enu
eC
anad
aR
even
ue
Can
ada
Rev
enu
eC
anad
aF
inan
ceF
inan
ceF
inan
ceR
even
ue
Can
ada
• D
escr
iptio
nR
edu
ces
the
surt
axp
ayab
le fo
rth
ose
with
dep
end
ent
child
ren
.
Red
uce
sp
rovi
nci
alta
xes
for
fam
ilies
with
low
taxa
ble
inco
me.
Red
uce
sp
rovi
nci
al t
axes
pay
able
for
low
and
mid
dle
inco
me
fam
ilies
with
ch
ildre
n.
Ref
un
dab
le t
axcr
edits
for
On
tario
resi
den
ts o
ver
16
, b
ased
on
fam
ily in
com
e.In
clu
des
Sal
esT
ax C
red
it an
dO
nta
rio H
om
eO
wn
ersh
ipP
lan
.
Red
uce
s ta
xes
for
low
erin
com
eta
xpay
ers,
elig
ible
peo
ple
with
ch
ildre
n 1
8o
r u
nd
er,
or
dis
able
dch
ildre
n o
f an
yag
e.
Pro
vid
es r
efu
nd
able
tax
cred
its t
ofa
mili
es w
ithd
epen
den
t ch
ildre
n.U
nive
rsal
tax
cred
it fo
r fa
mili
esw
ith c
hild
ren
.M
axim
um
is p
aid
to t
wo
-par
ent
fam
ilies
with
inco
mes
of
$2
1,8
25
($
15
,33
2fo
r si
ngl
e p
aren
t).
No
t in
com
e te
sted
,n
on
-ref
un
dab
le.
Tax
red
uct
ion
for
low
an
dm
idd
lein
com
ew
ork
ing
fam
ilies
with
dep
end
ent
child
ren
.
Pro
vid
es a
sale
s ta
xcr
edit
tofa
mili
esw
ithch
ildre
n.
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 23
Tab
le 6
(co
nt’d
)
Pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Brit
ish
Co
lum
bia
Alb
erta
Sas
katc
hew
anO
nta
rio
Qu
ebec
New
Bru
nsw
ick
• B
enef
itsM
axim
um
ben
efit
is$
50
per
child
.
Red
uct
ion
of
$2
50
per
ch
ildp
er y
ear
to a
max
imu
m o
f$
1,0
00
per
yea
rfo
r fa
mili
esw
ith in
com
esb
elo
w $
40
,00
0.
Sal
es T
axC
red
it p
rovi
des
$5
0 fo
r eac
hd
epen
den
tch
ild.
Bas
ic a
mo
un
t is
$1
61
per
dep
end
ent
child
plu
s an
add
itio
nal
$3
31
for
each
elig
ible
dep
end
ent.
Th
e am
ou
nt
vari
esb
y th
e p
artic
ula
rcr
edit.
Max
imu
m o
f $5
98
for
the
first
ch
ildan
d $
48
0 t
o $
55
2fo
r su
bse
qu
ent
child
ren
. S
ingl
ep
aren
ts r
ecei
ve a
nex
tra
$2
60
.
1T
he
Atla
ntic
pro
vin
ces
pa
rtic
ipa
te in
th
e H
arm
oniz
ed S
ale
s T
ax
(HS
T)
pro
gra
m,
wh
ich
mer
ges
the
pro
vin
cia
l sa
les
tax
an
d t
he
fed
era
l gov
ern
men
t’s G
ood
s a
nd
Ser
vice
s T
ax
(GS
T).
Th
us
fam
ilies
rec
eive
a s
ale
s ta
x re
du
ctio
n in
ea
ch A
tlan
tic p
rovi
nce
, d
eliv
ered
via
th
e H
ST
.
24 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
reduced by $475. For middle income groups (thatis, those earning $55,000), the difference betweenfamily types is even greater. The single incomefamily would save $1,138 while the two incomefamily would save only $171 compared to thecurrent provincial tax regime. Indeed, under theCommission’s proposals, single people and seniorswould all gain more than two-earner families withtwo children.
Therefore, in addition to simplifying the taxregime and reducing taxes in general, the Albertaflat tax as it is designed will put most of thesavings in the hands of higher income Albertans,whether single people or single-earner families. Indoing so, it also substantially reduces the tax gapbetween single-earner and two-earner families. Forexample, whereas the current gap for a family withtwo children and an income of $100,000 is $2,217,it would be only $238 under the flat tax. This“harmonization” is presented as an issue of fair-ness, treating the two kinds of families similarly.On the other hand, it does not consider the highercosts that two-income families with children face inorder to work, as discussed above with respect tothe Child Care Expense Deduction.
The recent Avis published by Quebec’s Conseilde la famille et de l’enfance (1999) takes anothertack. It calls on the Quebec government to live up toits rhetoric of putting children and families at theheart of its thinking. The Conseil argues strongly formaintaining vertical equity in the general tax regimeby retaining the current system of progressive taxrates. At the same time, it insists on the need tosimplify the current system, just as the AlbertaCommission did. As Table 6 shows, Quebec has avariety of different programs directed towards fam-ilies with dependent children. According to theConseil, simplification would be achieved by merg-ing the various tax credits and advantages into asingle tax credit. The third dimension of its thinkingthen comes to the fore. It calls for the governmentto set this credit sufficiently high to ensure it willcover the real costs of raising the child. This pro-posal reflects the group’s concern with horizontalequity.
Moreover, in an interesting move, the Conseilproposes paying the credit in the name of the child.Rather than depending on the parent’s income taxstatus, each child in Quebec would receive a creditpaid to the person responsible for his or her care.The credit would move with the child as he or shewas cared for by one parent or the other.
These two reform proposals (which in the caseof Alberta is being implemented) reflect differentways to use the tax system to provide a measure ofincome security to children and their parents, espe-cially middle and upper income families. In onemodel, the primary goal is to reduce taxes, espe-cially those paid by higher income groups, while“evening out” the tax burden and thereby support-ing a particular type of family. In the other model,the situation of the parents is made increasinglyirrelevant. The main goal is to find a way to makethe tax regime transparent and doubly redistribu-tive. Therefore, the proposal is for a tax credit thatwould go to anyone with a dependent child andwhich would, indeed, “belong” to the child.
As deficits are wrestled under control, changesin tax regimes will come increasingly into publicdiscussions and the array of choices is wide. Asthese two examples show, they go beyond simpledecisions about whether to cut taxes or not. Just asimportant are the choices about who will benefitfrom any cuts or from any new spending. Not allchoices will have the same consequences for theincome security of children, particularly those liv-ing in the middle income families that have beenmost battered by years of public sector belt tighten-ing and service reductions.
Income Tested Benefits forFamilies with Children
A major policy for meeting the income securityneeds of poor families is social assistance. Firstthrough Mothers’ Allowances, then through CAP,social assistance programs have recognized thatfamilies with children are often among the poor.They need significant income transfers, as well as
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 25
services, in order to lower all the risks associatedwith poverty. Thus, by the late 1960s, a range ofpolicy instruments sought to address the needs ofpoor families. Indeed, the Family Allowance pro-gram, developed to lighten the load of all families,was also turned into an income security measure forlower income families.
As early as 1972, a federal government proposalsought to replace universal Family Allowances witha Family Income Security Plan, which would havedirected higher benefits to the lowest income fami-lies. Under the plan, 30 percent of families wouldhave lost the benefit altogether, 60 percent wouldhave received increased benefits, but only 20 per-cent would have been eligible for full benefits.Mobilization of opposition to this reform, in thename of universality, stopped it temporarily (Guest,1985, 175-76).
In a subsequent reform, however, Family Al-lowances were tripled in value, but also taxedand indexed to the cost of living. Thus the writingwas on the wall. Over the next 15 years, FamilyAllowances were allowed to wither by being onlypartially indexed to inflation. Then in 1989, theywere “clawed back” so upper income familiesgained nothing from them. Finally, in 1993, FamilyAllowances were eliminated altogether.
At the same time, the federal governmentdeveloped two other instruments that had conse-quences for the income security of families. Thefirst was the Refundable Child Tax Credit, whichwas introduced in 1978 and targetted at low andmiddle income families. The second transformedthe tax exemption for families with children into anonrefundable tax credit. These refundable andnonrefundable tax credits, along with the FamilyAllowance, were rolled together in 1993 to formthe single, income tested Child Tax Benefit, whichincluded a Working Income Supplement (for moredetails see Guest, 1985, 175-76 and Clark, 1998,2-3).
From 1972 until 1993, the direction of thesechanges was clear and consistent, although not
necessarily transparent. First, child benefits werebeing directed towards low income families,whether they were on social assistance or earningwages. As the family’s income rose to a certaincut-off point, the full benefit was gradually reduceduntil it disappeared completely. Second, the ChildTax Benefit, as with the tax credits that preceded it,linked delivery to the tax system, basing it on theprevious year’s income tax return (including thenecessity of filing one). This characteristic bothminimized transparency and shifted policy influ-ence towards ministries of finance.
These mechanisms meant that low incomehouseholds would pay few taxes on their incomeand would receive income supplements from thegovernment, delivered in the form of a tax credit.Such reforms marked a steady move towards target-ting and the use of “negative income tax” or“guaranteed income” policy instruments for a widerange of social policies, including those for seniors(Myles and Pierson, 1997). After 1975, targettedbenefits rose from one-fifth to more than half of thebenefits provided by governments in Canada(Banting, 1997).
The most recent moves in this direction, includingefforts to lower the “welfare wall,” have comewithin the context of the negotiations leading to theSocial Union Framework accord. The NationalChild Benefit (NCB), launched in July 1998, aimsto create a more stable base of income for lowincome families who face frequent job changes orwho move on and off social assistance. It aims totreat all poor children the same way, whether or nottheir parents are employed or receiving EmploymentInsurance, social assistance or maintenance pay-ments from a noncustodial parent.
The NCB initiative is fuelled by sizable federalfunds, delivered via the Canada Child Tax Benefitand the accompanying National Child BenefitSupplement. It is part of a federal-provincial-territorial agreement that includes provincial andterritorial investments and reinvestments in servicesand benefits that are directed to low income familiesand that promote healthy child development.
26 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
The basic Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) ispaid to families with children under the age of 18. Itis an income tested benefit, with reductions begin-ning at a net family income of $25,921. The federalgovernment’s other major contribution to the NCBis the National Child Benefit Supplement. The fullsupplement goes to families with incomes under$20,921 but disappears at $27,750 (this limit willrise to $29,590 in July 2000).
The maximum possible benefit is paid for a childunder seven to a family whose income is not higherthan $20,091 and when no Child Care ExpenseDeduction is taken. Thus, for a family with twochildren under seven and a net income of $20,921,the combination of the two benefits is almost $320per month or $3,835 per year. For families with onechild under seven, the maximum is $168 per month,or $2,018 per year. The basic benefit for a childunder 18 is $85 per month, or $1,020 per year.14
The support received by low income familiesdoes not cover the actual costs of raising children(Battle and Mendelson, 1997, 7). Researchers’ esti-mates of the annual cost of raising one child (in1995 dollars), exclusive of child care, range from$4,000 (Battle and Mendelson, 1997) to $5,700(Canadian Council on Social Development, 1995).When child care is included, the cost rises to $8,600(Canadian Council on Social Development, 1995).The maximum CCTB plus the Supplement is lessthan either of these figures. Moreover, the basicCCTB is reduced when family net income exceeds$25,921, with a 2.5 percent reduction for a one-child family and a 5 percent reduction for a familywith two or more children (Revenue Canada, 1998).Yet, this family income is one which StatisticsCanada categorizes as “poor” since it falls below itsdefined low income cut-off.15
Nor has the shift to the NCB transformed theincome situation of families on social assistance,due to the way that Ottawa and the provinces imple-mented the shift. As the federal government trans-ferred a benefit to a family on social assistance, theprovince was permitted to reduce its own paymentto that family by the same amount. All provinces
except New Brunswick and Newfoundland engagedin such reductions. The idea behind this shift infunding was that provinces could use the dollarsthereby “saved” to reinvest in other programs forchildren.
There is great diversity in the ways in which theprovinces have chosen to contribute to the NCB,each reflecting provincial priorities and values.While some provinces pay benefits parallel to theCanada Child Tax Benefit (see Table 7), all of themnow supplement the income of those families whohave low, but earned, income (see Table 8).
Saskatchewan, for example, renamed its incomesecurity strategy Building Independence: Investingin Families. Under this umbrella, the province pro-vides its own Child Benefit to all families with anincome below $15,921. This goes to approximately40,000 low income families with children. In addi-tion, as part of its strategy to make “work theright choice again for families” and eliminate barri-ers associated with “traditional social assistance,”the province provides Family Health Benefits andthe Saskatchewan Employment Supplement to par-ents with low earned income or child maintenancepayments. The latter is available to parents whohave an income from earnings or child maintenanceas low as $1,500 a year. It is explicitly designed toremove the barriers of the “welfare wall” by provid-ing families with children with health and otherbenefits.
Quebec’s Parental Wage Assistance Program(APPORT in French) is somewhat similar, requir-ing that parents earn only $100 a month before theybecome eligible to receive the supplement. Quebecprovides Family Allowances to low income parentsat rates that are comparable to those available inSaskatchewan, at least for two-parent families (seeTable 7).16 In addition, it has a nonrefundable ChildTax Credit, the only universal child credit inCanada (see Table 6).
In contrast, Alberta has chosen to provide onlya Family Employment Tax Credit, reaching about130,000 families. This benefit rewards strong
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 27
Tab
le 7
Pro
vinc
ial C
hild
and
Fam
ily B
enef
its: I
ncom
e S
ourc
e N
eutr
al
Pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Bri
tish
Co
lum
bia
Alb
erta
Sas
katc
hew
anO
nta
rio
Qu
ebec
New
Bru
nsw
ick
• P
rogr
am n
ame
BC
Fa
mily
Bo
nu
sN
o p
rog
ram
Sa
ska
tch
ew
an
Ch
ildB
en
efit
No
pro
gra
mF
am
ily A
llow
an
ceN
B C
hild
Ta
x B
en
efit
• D
epar
tmen
tre
spo
nsi
ble
for
po
licy
Fin
ance
an
dC
orp
ora
te R
elat
ion
sS
oci
al S
ervi
ces
Rég
ie d
es R
ente
s d
u Q
uéb
ecN
B F
inan
ce
• A
dm
inis
trat
ive
resp
on
sib
ility
Rev
enu
e C
anad
aR
even
ue
Can
ada
Rég
ie d
es R
ente
s d
u Q
uéb
ecR
even
ue
Can
ada
• E
ligib
ility
All
low
inco
me
fam
ilies
with
ch
ildre
nu
nd
er 1
8,
with
net
inco
me
bel
ow
$1
8,0
00
for
max
imu
m b
enef
it.
All
low
inco
me
fam
ilies
with
ch
ildre
nu
nd
er 1
8,
with
net
inco
me
bel
ow
$1
5,9
21
for
max
imu
m b
enef
it.
All
low
inco
me
fam
ilies
with
child
ren
un
der
18
, w
ith n
etin
com
e b
elo
w $
15
,00
0 fo
r a
sin
gle
par
ent
and
$2
1,0
00
for
two
-par
ent
fam
ilies
.
All
low
inco
me
fam
ilies
with
dep
end
ent
child
ren
un
der
18
, w
ith n
etin
com
e b
elo
w$
20
,00
0.
• B
enef
itsT
ax-f
ree,
max
imu
m$
10
5 a
mo
nth
for
each
ch
ild un
der
18
.
Tax
-fre
e, m
axim
um
mo
nth
ly b
enef
it fo
rfa
mili
es w
ith:
On
e ch
ild –
$7
5T
wo
ch
ildre
n –
$1
67
Th
ree
– $
26
5F
ou
r –
$3
63
.
Tax
-fre
e m
axim
um
mo
nth
lyb
enef
it fo
r sin
gle
-pa
ren
t fa
mily
with
:O
ne
child
– $
19
0T
wo
ch
ildre
n –
$2
71
Th
ree
– $
35
2F
ou
r –
$4
33
Eac
h a
dd
itio
nal
$8
1.
Tw
o-p
are
nt
fam
ily:O
ne
child
– $
81
Tw
o c
hild
ren
– $
16
3T
hre
e –
$2
44
Fo
ur
– $
32
5E
ach
ad
diti
on
al $
81
.
Tax
-fre
e, m
axim
um
$2
0.8
3 p
er m
on
thp
er c
hild
.
28 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Tab
le 8
Pro
vinc
ial W
orki
ng In
com
e S
uppl
emen
ts to
Fam
ilies
with
Ear
ned
Inco
me
Pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Bri
tish
Co
lum
bia
Alb
erta
Sas
katc
hew
anO
nta
rio
Qu
ebec
New
Bru
nsw
ick
• P
rogr
am n
ame
Ea
rned
In
com
eB
en
efit
Fa
mily
Em
plo
ymen
tT
ax
Cre
dit
Sa
ska
tch
ew
an
Em
plo
ymen
tS
up
ple
men
t
Ch
ild C
are
Su
pp
lem
en
tfo
r W
ork
ing
Fa
mili
es
Pa
ren
tal W
ag
eA
ssis
tan
ce P
rog
ram
(AP
PO
RT
: A
ide
aux
par
ents
po
ur
leu
rsre
ven
us
de
trav
ail)
Wo
rkin
g In
com
eS
up
ple
men
t
• D
epar
tmen
tre
spo
nsi
ble
for
po
licy
Fin
ance
an
dC
orp
ora
te R
elat
ion
sT
reas
ury
So
cial
Ser
vice
sC
om
mu
nity
an
d S
oci
alS
ervi
ces
Min
istr
y o
f So
cial
So
lidar
ityF
inan
ce
• A
dm
inis
trat
ive
resp
on
sib
ility
Rev
enu
e C
anad
aR
even
ue
Can
ada
So
cial
Ser
vice
sF
inan
ceR
even
uR
even
ue
Can
ada
• E
ligib
ility
Fam
ilies
with
child
ren
un
der
18
and
ear
ned
inco
me
of
mo
re t
han
$3
,75
0.
Max
imu
m t
o fa
mili
esw
ho
se n
et in
com
ed
oes
no
t ex
ceed
$2
0,9
21
.
Fam
ilies
with
child
ren
un
der
18
an
d a
t le
ast
$6
,50
0 in
earn
ed in
com
eb
ut
less
th
an$
50
,00
0.
Max
imu
m t
ofa
mili
es w
ithin
com
e u
nd
er$
25
,00
0.
Fam
ilies
with
ch
ildre
nan
d in
com
e b
etw
een
$1
25
an
d $
2,2
50
per
mo
nth
em
plo
ymen
tin
com
e ($
1,5
00
an
d$
27
,00
0 p
er y
ear)
, o
rch
ild s
up
po
rt,
or
net
inco
me
fro
m fa
rmin
go
r se
lf-em
plo
ymen
t p
erm
on
th.
Fam
ilies
with
ch
ildre
nu
nd
er 1
8 a
nd
ear
ned
inco
me
abo
ve $
5,0
00
or
atte
nd
ing
edu
catio
n o
rtr
ain
ing
pro
gram
.M
axim
um
to
fam
ilies
with
inco
me
un
der
$2
0,0
00
.
Fam
ilies
with
ch
ildre
nu
nd
er 1
8,
earn
ing
at le
ast
$1
00
/mo
nth
($
1,2
00
ann
ual
ly)
bu
t n
o m
ore
than
$2
2,0
00
($
15
,00
0fo
r si
ngl
e p
aren
ts),
an
das
sets
un
der
$4
5,0
00
for
ren
ters
an
d u
nd
er$
90
,00
0 fo
r h
om
eow
ner
s.
Fam
ilies
with
child
ren
un
der
18
and
ear
ned
inco
me
grea
ter
than
$3
,75
0b
ut
un
der
$2
5,9
21
.M
axim
um
to
fam
ilies
with
inco
me
un
der
$2
0,9
21
.
• B
enef
itsT
ax-f
ree
mo
nth
lyp
aym
ents
. M
axim
um
ben
efit
is $
50
.41
per
mo
nth
for
a fa
mily
with
on
e ch
ild,
$8
4.1
6 fo
r tw
och
ildre
n,
$1
11
.66
for
thre
e ch
ildre
n,
and
ano
ther
$2
7.5
0 p
erm
on
th fo
r ea
chad
diti
on
al c
hild
.
Tax
-fre
e se
mi-
ann
ual
pay
men
t.M
axim
um
ann
ual
cre
dit
is $
50
0 p
erch
ild o
r$
1,0
00
for
fam
ilies
with
2o
r m
ore
child
ren
.
Tax
-fre
e su
pp
lem
ent
up
to
$1
75
per
mo
nth
for
on
e ch
ild,
$2
10
per
mo
nth
for
two
child
ren
. S
lidin
g sc
ale,
max
imu
m a
t $
12
,00
0an
nu
al in
com
e.
Max
imu
m a
nn
ual
ben
efit
of $
1,0
20
($
85
per
mo
nth
) fo
r ea
ch c
hild
un
der
sev
en.
Ben
efits
can
be
up
to
$3
,78
4 p
er y
ear,
dep
end
ing
on
fam
ily s
ize
and
circ
um
stan
ces.
Acc
ess
to c
hild
car
e fo
r$
3 p
er d
ay fo
r ch
ildre
nu
nd
er t
wo
(1
99
9).
Max
imu
m $
25
0p
er fa
mily
.
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 29
labour force participation, requiring an earned in-come of at least $6,500 per year and disappearingonly at $50,000 a year. However, it is only one-quarteras generous as the Saskatchewan EmploymentSupplement.
British Columbia and New Brunswick provideworking income supplements as well. Like Alberta,they are at the lower end of generosity but they areless stringent about the amount that must be earned.In addition, these two provinces augment the CCTBwith their own benefits available to any family withchildren under 18, delivered in one cheque fromOttawa.
Ontario, like Alberta, has not added its ownchild benefit to that paid by the federal government.It does, however, have a working income supple-ment, which is somewhat unusually named. ItsChild Care Supplement for Working Families goesto families with at least $5,000 in earned income orto families with a parent in school or a trainingprogram. It does not necessarily cover child carecosts because there is no requirement that child carecosts be incurred. Rather, it is a classic supplementfor the working poor.
Most of the programs described in Tables 7 and 8are new, having been created, except in Quebec, aspart of the move towards the Social Union Frameworkagreement and its testing ground, the NationalChild Benefit. After 1995, and the dramatic shiftin federal-provincial financial arrangements, theprovinces all had to rethink their social assistanceprograms if they were not already doing so. Thesubsequent discussions among all governmentsgave rise to the agreements on the NCB as well asOttawa’s commitment to redesign its tax benefitsfor families with children.
With the CCTB and its Supplement in place by1998, the provinces then had to choose how to spendtheir own money. Many, as we will see below,strengthened programs that encouraged and enabledtheir citizens to increase their reliance on labourforce participation. As part of that encouragement,they redesigned their social spending to put money
into the pockets of parents of dependent children.The child benefits described in Tables 7 and 8 arethe result.
The creation of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, aswell as the provinces’ reinvestment plans in thecontext of the National Child Benefit, signal a majorchange in the way that governments are thinkingabout family, employment and social assistance.The key shifts in policy thinking, which are graduallyworking their way through the system, are twofold:
• Low income families are treated in a similarfashion, whether their income stems from em-ployment, social assistance or child mainte-nance. The presence of children in the householdunlocks a range of tax credits and direct pay-ments that are the same for all low incomefamilies. Individuals and families without chil-dren under the age of 18 do not have access tothese benefits and this spending.
• Children are being removed from the “formal”social assistance system. In lieu of social assis-tance, children are entitled to a series of new, verypositively named, non-stigmatized child benefitspaid in their name. Thus social assistance pro-grams are becoming a regime of last resort,intended only for adults with no children and nojob, and sometimes for those who are disabled.
Despite the fact that all the governments studiedare “singing from the children’s songbook,” children’sproblems have not yet been solved. The challengefor all Canadian governments is to pay benefits thatare sufficiently generous to ensure that thousandsof children are not consigned to poverty. This hasyet to be done.
Ensuring the Financial Responsibility ofNoncustodial Parents
Another strategy for improving the incomesecurity of children involves efforts to foster thefinancial responsibility of both parents. All provinceshave instituted machinery to enforce the financial
30 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Tab
le 9
Chi
ld M
aint
enan
ce E
nfor
cem
ent
Pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Bri
tish
Co
lum
bia
Alb
erta
Sas
katc
hew
anO
nta
rio
Qu
ebec
New
Bru
nsw
ick
• P
rogr
am n
ame
Fa
mily
Ma
inte
na
nce
En
forc
em
en
tP
rog
ram
Ma
inte
na
nce
En
forc
em
en
tP
rog
ram
Ma
inte
na
nce
En
forc
em
en
tP
rog
ram
Fa
mily
Resp
on
sib
ility
an
d S
up
po
rt A
rrea
rsE
nfo
rcem
en
t
Rég
ime d
e p
erc
ep
tion
des
pen
sio
ns
alim
en
tair
es
Fa
mily
Su
pp
ort
Ord
ers
Serv
ice
• D
epar
tmen
tre
spo
nsi
ble
for
po
licy
Att
orn
ey G
ener
alJu
stic
eJu
stic
eA
tto
rney
Gen
eral
Rev
enu
an
d,
in a
lim
ited
nu
mb
er o
f cas
es,
Just
ice
Just
ice,
inp
artn
ersh
ip w
ithH
um
an R
eso
urc
esD
evel
op
men
t-N
B
• E
ligib
ility
An
y p
aren
t w
ith a
nex
istin
g m
ain
ten
ance
ord
er o
r re
gist
ered
agre
emen
t.
An
y p
aren
t w
ithco
urt
ord
ered
mai
nte
nan
ce.
An
y p
aren
t w
ith a
cou
rt o
rder
,m
ain
ten
ance
or
wri
tten
agr
eem
ent.
Par
ent
with
ch
ildsu
pp
ort
co
urt
ord
er,
do
mes
tic c
on
trac
ts a
nd
pat
ern
ity a
gree
men
tsfil
ed w
ith t
he
fam
ilyre
spo
nsi
bili
ty o
ffice
.
All
sep
arat
ed p
aren
ts.
An
y p
aren
t w
ith a
fam
ily s
up
po
rto
rder
or
agre
emen
t.
• B
enef
itsP
rovi
des
en
forc
emen
tfo
r an
d m
on
itorin
g o
fag
reem
ents
/ord
ers.
Fam
ily M
ain
ten
ance
Ince
ntiv
e en
cou
rage
sn
on
cust
od
ial p
aren
tso
n w
elfa
re t
o p
rovi
de
fam
ily m
ain
ten
ance
pay
men
ts o
n t
ime.
Pro
vid
esen
forc
emen
t.F
amily
an
dS
oci
al S
ervi
ces
hel
ps
clie
nts
on
soci
al a
ssis
tan
ceo
bta
in o
rder
s.
Pro
vid
esen
forc
emen
t to
ensu
re c
om
plia
nce
.
Pro
vid
es e
nfo
rcem
ent
toen
sure
co
mp
lian
ce.
Pro
vid
es e
nfo
rcem
ent
and
can
als
o a
dva
nce
pay
men
t.
Pro
vid
esen
forc
emen
t to
ensu
re c
om
plia
nce
and
als
o a
ssis
tsp
aren
ts o
n s
oci
alas
sist
ance
to
ob
tain
a ch
ild s
up
po
rto
rder
.
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 31
contributions noncustodial parents make towardsthe income of the family members that are caringfor the child (see Table 9). Punishment for paymentdefault has become increasingly more severe, withseveral provinces confiscating drivers’ licenses.While most provinces put a provincial institutionbetween the custodial and noncustodial parent, onlyQuebec explicitly recognizes the danger for womenbeing forced to seek maintenance from previouslyviolent spouses and, thus, also reinforces the pro-gram’s protective dimension.
With the development of this variously namednew machinery – perhaps Ontario announces thegoal most clearly by calling its agent the FamilyResponsibility and Support Arrears EnforcementOffice – a third source of family income is added tothe basket, which already included employmentearnings or social assistance. The degree to whichthese new maintenance enforcement policies haveprovided lone-parent families with more income is,as yet, unknown.
The federal government has also been activein this area. In 1997, new legislation establishedFederal Child Support Guidelines and enforcementmechanisms to ensure that maintenance orders andagreements are respected. In particular, the SupportGuidelines identify a set of rules and provide tablesfor calculating the amount of money that a non-custodial parent should be contributing to the sup-port of his or her child.
A number of provinces have adopted thesefederal guidelines as their own (British Columbia,Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick) whileAlberta distributes them to divorcing or separatingparents. In 1997, Quebec adopted its own guidelinesfor use by divorcing or separating parents. The goalin all of this is to provide fair support settlements,whether they are arrived at by court order or byagreement.
Increasing Parental Labour Force Attachment
The final strategy for dealing with income secu-rity that will be considered here is one that involves
a more active promotion of employment. Afterseveral decades during which many provinces rec-ognized being a sole support parent as a legitimatereason not to seek employment and, therefore, toobtain social assistance, thinking has been changing(Boychuk, 1998). All provinces have decided thatalmost all recipients of social assistance, except insome cases those who are disabled, should be in thepaid labour force. These philosophical changeshave had particularly important consequences forlone mothers who must secure reliable and appro-priate child care and find time to balance the stressof being an employed lone parent.
The program NB-Works, a six-year joint federal-provincial initiative that recently ended, providedjob training and other intensive case-by-case sup-ports to move New Brunswickers, and especiallysingle mothers, into the labour force. Alberta devel-oped an elaborate machinery to “deflect” potentialclients and transform its Supports for Independenceprogram from one of financial assistance to onereturning employable clients to the workforce. Quebecremoved young people from eligibility for socialassistance and tightened regulations requiring jobseeking.
Beginning in the late 1970s, a number of prov-inces shifted their definitions of when social assis-tance recipients were eligible for employment (seeTable 10). For example, Alberta decided that lonemothers were available for employment once theyoungest child reached two years of age. Ontario,however, maintained its exemption for lone moth-ers with children under 16 well into the 1990s.However, after 1995, participation in workfare be-came compulsory for lone mothers with childrenover the age of six.
The provinces also began to institute programs topropel welfare recipients into the labour force (seeTable 11). For example, BC Benefits has two sepa-rate programs. Youth Works is for 19- to 24-year-olds on social assistance while Welfare to Workprovides training and other supports for older socialassistance recipients. Participation is mandatory, asit is for social assistance recipients in Saskatchewan’s
32 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Tab
le 1
0
Soc
ial A
ssis
tanc
e
Pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Bri
tish
Co
lum
bia
Alb
erta
Sas
katc
hew
anO
nta
rio
Qu
ebec
New
Bru
nsw
ick
• P
rogr
am n
ame
BC
Ben
efit
sS
up
po
rts
for
Ind
ep
en
den
ceS
ask
atc
hew
an
Ass
ista
nce
Pla
nO
nta
rio
Wo
rks:
Fin
an
cia
l Ass
ista
nce
Inco
me S
ecu
rity
Pla
n(S
écu
rité
du
rev
enu
)E
xten
ded
Ben
efit
s,T
ran
sitio
na
lA
ssis
tan
ce (T
AP
S),
Inte
rim
Ass
ista
nce
(IA
), a
nd
Inco
me
Su
pp
lem
en
t
• D
epar
tmen
tre
spo
nsi
ble
for
po
licy
Hu
man
Res
ou
rces
Fam
ily a
nd
So
cial
Ser
vice
sS
oci
al S
ervi
ces
Co
mm
un
ity a
nd
So
cial
Ser
vice
sM
inis
ter
of S
oci
alS
olid
arity
Hu
man
Res
ou
rces
Dev
elo
pm
ent
• A
dm
inis
trat
ive
resp
on
sib
ility
Pro
vin
ceP
rovi
nce
Pro
vin
ceLo
cal g
ove
rnm
ent
Pro
vin
ceP
rovi
nce
• E
ligib
ility
Nee
ds
test
edN
eed
s te
sted
Nee
ds
test
edN
eed
s te
sted
Nee
ds
test
edN
eed
s te
sted
• S
ingl
e p
aren
ts a
reco
nsi
der
ed e
ligib
lefo
r w
ork
wh
enyo
un
gest
ch
ild is
wh
at a
ge?
Sin
gle
par
ent
isco
nsi
der
edem
plo
yab
le w
hen
you
nge
st c
hild
isse
ven
yea
rs o
ld o
ro
lder
.
Sin
gle
par
ent
isco
nsi
der
edem
plo
yab
lew
hen
yo
un
gest
child
is s
ixm
on
ths
or
old
er.
Sin
gle
par
ent
isco
nsi
der
edem
plo
yab
le w
hen
you
nge
st c
hild
istw
o y
ears
old
or
old
er.
Ch
ild s
ix y
ears
or
old
er,
sin
gle
par
ent
req
uir
ed t
op
artic
ipat
e in
On
tari
oW
ork
s em
plo
ymen
tas
sist
ance
.
Ph
ased
red
uct
ion
s o
ver
five
year
s. I
n 2
00
0,
it w
illre
ach
tw
o-y
ear-
old
s.
Cas
e b
y ca
sed
ecis
ion
. N
ofo
rmal
crit
erio
n fo
rag
e o
f ch
ild a
tw
hic
h s
ingl
e p
aren
tis
co
nsi
der
edem
plo
yab
le.
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 33
Tab
le 1
1
Pro
gram
s T
hat P
rom
ote
the
Ear
ning
Cap
abili
ties
of P
aren
ts
Pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Bri
tish
Co
lum
bia
Alb
erta
Sas
katc
hew
anO
nta
rio
Qu
ebec
New
Bru
nsw
ick
• P
rogr
am n
ame
BC
Ben
efit
s: Y
ou
thW
ork
s (1
9-2
4)
and
BC
Ben
efit
s: W
elfa
reto
Wo
rk (
24
-65
)
Em
plo
ymen
t In
itia
tives
Sa
ska
tch
ew
an
Tra
inin
g S
tra
teg
y:B
rid
ges
toE
mp
loym
en
t
On
tario
Wo
rks:
Em
plo
ymen
t A
ssis
tan
ceA
PT
E: A
ctio
ns
Po
sitiv
es
po
ur
leT
rava
il et
l’Em
plo
i
Tra
inin
g a
nd
Em
plo
ymen
tO
ptio
ns
• D
epar
tmen
tre
spo
nsi
ble
for
po
licy
Min
istr
y o
f Ad
van
ced
Ed
uca
tion
, T
rain
ing,
and
Tec
hn
olo
gy a
nd
Min
istr
y o
f Hu
man
Res
ou
rces
Fam
ily a
nd
So
cial
Ser
vice
sM
inis
try
of P
ost
-S
eco
nd
ary
Ed
uca
tion
and
Ski
lls T
rain
ing
Co
mm
un
ity a
nd
So
cial
Ser
vice
sM
inis
ter
of
So
cial
So
lidar
ityH
um
anR
eso
urc
esD
evel
op
men
t-N
B
• A
dm
inis
trat
ive
resp
on
sib
ility
Tra
inin
g is
pro
vid
edb
y co
llege
s,em
plo
yers
, p
riva
tetr
ain
ing
cen
tres
,co
ntr
acto
rs.
Em
plo
ymen
t re
late
dac
tiviti
es in
volv
ep
rivat
e, p
ub
lic,
and
no
np
rofit
em
plo
yers
.
Can
ada/
Alb
erta
Car
eer
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Cen
tres
do
ass
essm
ents
of
elig
ibili
ty.
Co
mm
un
ityag
enci
es,
colle
ges,
etc
.p
rovi
de
trai
nin
g.
Imp
lem
ente
d w
ith a
varie
ty o
f par
tner
s,in
clu
din
g re
gio
nal
colle
ges,
New
Car
eers
Co
rpo
ratio
n,
emp
loye
rs,
no
ngo
vern
men
tal
org
aniz
atio
ns,
an
dA
bo
rigi
nal
com
mu
niti
es.
Mu
nic
ipal
ities
an
d F
irst
Nat
ion
s co
mm
un
ities
with
th
e p
rovi
nce
pay
ing
80
per
cen
t o
f pro
gram
cost
s an
d 5
0 p
erce
nt
of
adm
inis
trat
ion
co
sts.
Min
iste
r o
f So
cial
So
lidar
ity,
pri
vate
sect
or
and
no
np
rofit
sect
or.
Hu
man
Res
ou
rces
Dev
elo
pm
ent-
NB
• E
ligib
ility
Par
ticip
atio
n is
com
pu
lso
ry fo
r so
cial
assi
stan
ce r
ecip
ien
tsu
nle
ss a
tem
po
rary
exem
ptio
n is
ob
tain
ed.
Sin
gle
par
ents
with
ad
epen
den
t ch
ildu
nd
er s
even
may
be
tem
po
raril
y ex
cuse
d.
Su
pp
ort
s fo
rIn
dep
end
ence
(so
cial
assi
stan
ce)
clie
nts
,E
mp
loym
ent
Insu
ran
cere
cip
ien
ts,
and
Em
plo
ymen
t In
sura
nce
reac
h-b
ack
clie
nts
are
elig
ible
for
fun
din
gd
uri
ng
trai
nin
g fr
om
the
resp
ectiv
ep
rogr
ams.
New
Car
eers
Co
rpo
ratio
n p
rogr
ams
are
avai
lab
le o
nly
to
soci
al a
ssis
tan
cere
cip
ien
ts.
All
oth
erp
rogr
ams
are
op
en t
oal
l elig
ible
Sas
katc
hew
anre
sid
ents
. A
llp
rogr
ams
are
volu
nta
ry e
xcep
t th
eY
ou
th F
utu
res
pilo
t.
Eve
ry e
mp
loya
ble
reci
pie
nt
of O
nta
rioW
ork
s fin
anci
al b
enef
itsis
iden
tifie
d a
s a
par
ticip
ant,
with
th
e go
alo
f tak
ing
“th
e sh
ort
est
rou
te t
o p
aid
emp
loym
ent.
”P
artic
ipat
ion
is n
ot
com
pu
lso
ry fo
r si
ngl
ep
aren
ts w
ith a
dep
end
ent
child
un
der
six
.
Req
uir
ed fo
rre
cip
ien
ts 1
8 t
o 2
4,
volu
nta
ry fo
r o
ther
emp
loya
ble
peo
ple
.Le
vel o
f su
pp
ort
for
cou
ple
s w
ith c
hild
ren
varie
s, d
epen
din
g o
nav
aila
bili
ty fo
r an
dw
illin
gnes
s to
tak
ep
aid
em
plo
ymen
t (o
rem
plo
ymen
tm
easu
res)
.
So
cial
ass
ista
nce
reci
pie
nts
,E
mp
loym
ent
Insu
ran
cecl
aim
ants
, an
dE
mp
loym
ent
Insu
ran
ce r
each
-b
ack
clie
nts
are
elig
ible
for
the
pro
gram
s.
34 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Tab
le 1
1 (c
ont
’d)
Pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Bri
tish
Co
lum
bia
Alb
erta
Sas
katc
hew
anO
nta
rio
Qu
ebec
New
Bru
nsw
ick
• D
etai
led
pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Yo
uth
Wo
rks
pro
vid
es y
ou
th 1
9 t
o2
4 w
ith a
livi
ng
allo
wan
ce a
nd
pro
gram
s an
dse
rvic
es t
o e
nab
leth
em t
o m
ove
into
emp
loym
ent.
Em
plo
yab
ility
Ski
llsin
clu
de
trai
nin
g, p
ost
-se
con
dar
y ed
uca
tion
,w
ork
exp
erie
nce
s.
Wel
fare
to
Wo
rko
ffers
em
plo
ymen
t-re
late
d p
rogr
ams,
to
adu
lts 2
5 y
ears
old
or
old
er o
n in
com
eas
sist
ance
.
Th
e p
rogr
ams
are
ph
ased
, b
egin
nin
gw
ith S
elf-
Dir
ecte
dJo
b S
earc
h(m
axim
um
sev
enm
on
ths)
, A
ssis
ted
Jo
bse
arch
(m
axim
um
tw
om
on
ths)
, an
dE
mp
loya
bili
ty S
kills
(no
tim
e fr
ame)
.
Fu
nd
ing
for
bas
icfo
un
dat
ion
ski
lls(a
cad
emic
up
grad
ing,
liter
acy,
En
glis
h a
s a
seco
nd
lan
guag
e) is
thro
ugh
th
e S
tud
ents
’F
inan
ce B
oar
d,
sup
po
rted
by
gran
ts.
Po
stse
con
dar
yed
uca
tion
su
ch a
sco
llege
or
un
iver
sity
isth
rou
gh lo
ans,
gra
nts
, o
rp
art-
time
loan
s o
rb
urs
arie
s.
Th
e E
mp
loym
ent
Alte
rnat
ives
Pro
gram
,Jo
b P
lace
men
t P
rogr
am,
Tra
inin
g o
n t
he
Job
,In
tegr
ated
Tra
inin
g,E
mp
loym
ent
Ski
llsP
rogr
am,
Alb
erta
Co
mm
un
ityE
mp
loym
ent
Pro
gram
,an
d A
lber
ta J
ob
Co
rps
all p
rovi
de
life
skill
s,em
plo
ymen
t su
pp
ort
s,an
d w
ork
exp
erie
nce
.
Ass
essm
ent,
car
eer
cou
nse
llin
g,u
pgr
adin
g, jo
bre
adin
ess,
etc
.
Wo
rk P
lace
men
t o
ffers
wag
e su
bsi
die
s an
dem
plo
ymen
t re
late
dsu
pp
ort
s to
em
plo
yers
to h
ire
elig
ible
emp
loye
es a
nd
pro
vid
eo
n-t
he-
job
tra
inin
gle
adin
g to
emp
loym
ent.
Co
mm
un
ity W
ork
sp
rovi
des
wag
esu
bsi
die
s an
d s
up
po
rts
to c
om
mu
nity
-bas
edo
rgan
izat
ion
s an
dm
un
icip
aliti
es t
o h
ire
elig
ible
em
plo
yees
for
pro
ject
s th
at b
enef
itth
e co
mm
un
ity a
nd
pro
vid
e o
n-t
he-
job
trai
nin
g an
d w
ork
exp
erie
nce
.
Tra
inin
g al
low
ance
so
ffere
d fo
r p
eop
le o
nb
asic
ed
uca
tion
or
rela
ted
co
urs
es.
Ele
men
ts o
f po
st-
seco
nd
ary
edu
catio
nar
e in
clu
ded
.
Clie
nts
mu
st p
artic
ipat
ein
act
ive
job
sea
rch
,ap
pro
ved
ed
uca
tion
or
self-
emp
loym
ent,
acce
pt
offe
rs o
fem
plo
ymen
t,em
plo
ymen
t o
rco
mm
un
ity p
lace
men
ts,
or
sub
stan
ce a
bu
sere
cove
ry.
Em
plo
ymen
tsu
bsi
die
s ex
ist.
Em
plo
ymen
tin
tegr
atio
n a
ssis
tan
ce(w
age
sub
sid
ies,
wo
rkex
per
ien
ce in
com
mu
nity
, jo
bex
per
ien
ce).
Sel
f-em
plo
ymen
tsu
pp
ort
an
dem
plo
ymen
tp
rep
arat
ion
(ad
vice
to
job
-see
kers
,vo
catio
nal
gu
idan
ce,
pla
cem
ents
ser
vice
san
d t
rain
ing)
.
Vo
lun
teer
wo
rk is
reco
gniz
ed a
s a
soci
alin
sert
ion
mea
sure
for
peo
ple
un
able
to
wo
rk.
Ed
uca
tion
alu
pgr
adin
g,re
ferr
al t
o s
ho
rt-
term
emp
loym
ent,
sub
sid
ized
emp
loym
ent,
and
gre
ater
reci
pie
nt
resp
on
sib
ility
for
trai
nin
g p
ast
hig
h s
cho
ol.
Car
eer
exp
lora
tion
pro
gram
offe
rsw
ork
exp
erie
nce
and
mo
nth
lytr
ain
ing
allo
wan
ce.
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 35
Tab
le 1
1 (c
ont
’d)
Pro
gram
des
crip
tion
Bri
tish
Co
lum
bia
Alb
erta
Sas
katc
hew
anO
nta
rio
Qu
ebec
New
Bru
nsw
ick
• D
imen
sio
n o
fp
rogr
am t
hat
targ
ets
par
ents
Co
mp
ensa
tion
for
wo
rk-r
elat
ed c
ost
s,ch
ild c
are
sub
sid
y o
rex
pen
ses,
sup
ple
men
tary
hea
lthca
re.
Ear
nin
gsex
emp
tion
s an
d c
hild
sup
po
rt p
aym
ent
exem
ptio
ns.
Mai
nte
nan
ce g
ran
ts u
pto
$6
,00
0 a
re a
vaila
ble
to s
ingl
e p
aren
ts a
nd
dis
adva
nta
ged
ind
ivid
ual
s. P
artic
ipan
tsm
ay b
e el
igib
le fo
r a
child
car
e su
bsi
dy.
Incl
ud
es c
hild
car
ean
d h
ealth
ben
efits
.C
hild
car
e su
bsi
die
s,em
plo
ymen
t co
sts.
Ed
uca
tion
alu
pgr
adin
g, s
up
po
rtfo
r si
ngl
e p
aren
ts t
oen
roll
inp
ost
seco
nd
ary
edu
catio
n (R
eto
ur
au
x étu
des
po
stse
con
da
ires
po
ur
les
chefs
de f
am
ille
mo
no
pa
ren
tale).
Incl
ud
es c
hild
care
exp
ense
sub
sid
ies.
• A
pp
eal
No
ne
esta
blis
hed
.A
pp
eals
pro
cess
avai
lab
le t
o a
ll S
up
po
rts
for
Ind
epen
den
cecl
ien
ts a
nd
ap
plic
ants
.
Var
ies
with
ind
ivid
ual
pro
gram
s an
d b
yd
eliv
ery
agen
t.
Inte
rnal
rev
iew
bef
ore
app
lyin
g to
So
cial
Ben
efits
Tri
bu
nal
.
Ap
pea
l pro
cess
an
dle
afle
t.P
artic
ipan
tsm
ust
dire
ct t
hei
rco
nce
rns
top
eop
le a
t a
hig
her
leve
lw
ithin
th
eo
rgan
izat
ion
alh
iera
rch
y.
Sou
rce:
Ad
ap
ted
from
Gor
lick
an
d B
reth
our
(19
98
) a
nd
rel
eva
nt
pro
vin
cia
l web
site
s.
36 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Training Strategy: Bridges to Employment programand in the Ontario Works program, unless recipientsare lone parents with young children.
These programs can be distinguished accordingto how much “compulsion to work” they entail (seeTable 11). Young people are particularly likely tobe singled out for compulsory participation, as theyare in Quebec, British Columbia, and in the experi-mental Saskatchewan program, the Youth Futurespilot project. Despite the variation in design, how-ever, there is consensus around two ideas. First,priority should go to fostering employability as anintegral component of social assistance. Second, inorder to trace the shortest possible route to employ-ment, “any job is a good job.”
While such programs reflect the desire to reduceboth “welfare rolls” and dependency, their actualsuccess at doing so depends on providing a range ofservices to support job seeking and employment.Because many of the clients of such programs areyoung lone mothers, chief among these services isadequate child care. In this sense, “employability”is also a matter for family policy although the supportis not always there.
As Table 11 documents, all of these transition-to-employment programs provide some sort of as-sistance with the costs of child care. This usuallygoes beyond the child care subsidy for which all lowincome working families are eligible. However,eligibility and availability are not the same thing.
A recent evaluation of Ontario Works found thatthe lack of coordination between those budgetingfor child care subsidies and spaces and those imple-menting the province’s welfare-to-work programwas producing a series of unintended consequencesand perverse effects. A chronic shortage of childcare spaces sometimes meant, for example, that asparents on Ontario Works received child care subsi-dies (and because municipalities were required toprovide places for them), already employed lowincome parents were forced lower down the waitinglist and even out of the labour market because theyhad no space. Another unintended consequence was
that parents ending their Ontario Works trainingperiod might find themselves without a child carespace and, therefore, unable to take a job. Theywould return to social assistance and again qualifyfor Ontario Works, thus repeating the cycle.17
Overall, we see that new ideas about how tomanage the work-welfare boundary have taken holdin policy communities in Canada in the last severaldecades. These have led to the development of twobasic instruments for managing the work-welfareinterface. One instrument involves forcing socialassistance recipients into the paid labour force, atrisk of losing their benefits. This is the punitivestrategy, sometimes termed “workfare.”
The other instrument involves moving childrenaway from social assistance by providing supplementsto their families’ income. Parents’ benefits thus de-pend on the presence of children in the household. Aswith the vision of the wartime Marsh Report, the ideais to take children off social assistance and to providebenefits that compensate for the costs of raising afamily. This instrument includes the wide variety ofprograms associated with the National Child Benefitand other provincial initiatives. With provincial pro-grams, the boundary between employment and non-employment is even more blurred, as is the boundarybetween the working poor and those receiving socialassistance.
In most cases, governments are developing bothinstruments simultaneously. In doing so, there hasbeen a shift in the policy networks within gov-ernments that are responsible for overseeing thechanges. Departments of Finance have becomemore important because the second instrument usu-ally involves delivery via tax deductions and credits. Inaddition, welfare departments and employment ser-vices are being integrated into one department(Gorlick and Brethour, 1998, 3-5) while new agenciesare being established with responsibility for children.
Several Ounces of Prevention
Child welfare is the third policy domain examinedin this study. Since the 19th century, the provinces
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 37
have developed institutions responsible for caringfor children whose parents were incapable of pro-viding a safe and nurturing environment. Theseservices were often contracted out. For example,the Ontario government’s relationship with Children’sAid Societies dates from 1893.
In recent years, protection services have comeunder scrutiny because of several high profile exam-ples of children dying while under surveillance bychild protection services. New Brunswick, Ontarioand British Columbia have all recently conductedmajor reviews of their services and found thatreduced funding associated with cutbacks anddeficit fighting have contributed to the problem.Similarly, in Saskatchewan, the Action Plan forChildren grew out of one such tragedy and is nowan initiative involving seven government depart-ments and one secretariat, and which includes ma-jor new commitments of funds.
In addition to traditional concerns about childprotection, there is also a movement afoot in sev-eral provinces to develop a wide range of newservices for children at risk of developmental fail-ures. These prevention or early intervention focussedactions are sometimes termed “early childhood ini-tiatives.” They are designed to identify and meet thedevelopmental needs of children through specialprograms. There is an emerging consensus that riskfactors include not only the personal characteris-tics of parents (their age, training, physical andmental health) but also the family’s economic situa-tion and environmental or community conditions.Thus poverty has been defined as a risk factor, ashas living in a disadvantaged community.
The federal government has developed a numberof such programs around health and communitydevelopment. In response to the 1990 World Summitfor Children, the federal government establishedBrighter Futures: Canada’s Action Plan for Childrenand set up a Children’s Bureau within HealthCanada. The task was to ensure the effectiveness offederal policies and programs that affect childrenand to coordinate these activities across federaldepartments.
Canada ratified the United Nations Conventionon the Rights of the Child in 1991 and introduced aChild Development Initiative in 1992 to respond tothe needs of children at risk, with a $500 millioninvestment over a five-year period. The initiativeincluded funding community groups that were ad-dressing the developmental needs of children inhigh-risk communities and Aboriginal communities.
The Community Action Program for Children(CAP-C) was established by Health Canada in1992. It pioneered innovative prevention and earlyintervention programs for high risk children under theage of six in selected communities across Canada.Managed intergovernmentally, one of its key goals isto innovate in the area of coordinated programming.The provinces have also been innovators. Programsare too numerous to detail here, but three examples ofstrategies can be sketched. For other initiatives seethe provincial time lines presented in Appendix A.
• Saskatchewan provides an example of a wide-net program addressing a variety of discreteproblems. It launched its Action Plan for Childrenin 1993, which “acknowledges the importance ofstrong support for children in their early yearsand promotes the development of prevention andearly intervention services.”18
Over $53 million in funds are committed across awide array of programs, including $18 million forthe Saskatchewan Child Benefit and Unemploy-ment Supplement described above. These fundsinclude grants to child care centres for services,programming and wage enhancement. The 1998-99 Plan also includes more than $4.5 million tothe Department of Education (the largest singleticket item among direct program expenditures) toprovide programs for “vulnerable children,” in-cluding pre-kindergarten services and early inter-vention for three- and four-year-olds. In addition,money goes into health spending through FamilyHealth benefits, nutrition programs, early skillsdevelopment, and so on.
• New Brunswick provides a second example. Itchose a more narrow program, targetting by age
38 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
based on a clear developmental vision. Its EarlyChildhood Initiatives program is a province-wide,integrated service delivery system for preventionfocussed childhood services, targetting “priority”preschool children and their families. Prioritychildren are defined as those from the prenatalstage to five years of age whose development isat risk due to physical, intellectual or environ-mental factors (including socio-economic factors).
The primary goal of the Early Childhood Initia-tives is to improve school readiness throughhealth and educational initiatives. In addition tousing the public health system to identify new-borns at risk, all three-and-a-half-year-olds areassessed. Goals include lowering infant mortal-ity, raising birth weights, increasing breast feed-ing rates, and identifying physical problems re-lated to hearing, sight and learning disabilities asearly as possible.
• Quebec provides the third example. In additionto a range of specialized programs, for examplefor teen parents, it has put most of its investmentinto the educational component of Early Child-hood Centres and kindergarten. The new familypolicy extended kindergarten to a full day forfive-year-olds, and instituted junior kindergartenfor children living in disadvantaged urban neigh-bourhoods.
After defining child care as a universal service,the province developed curricula for all age lev-els from infants to four-year-olds. The emphasis isa universal rather than a targetted strategy formeeting the developmental needs of children.
Other provinces have similar strategies, each pick-ing and choosing among programs that emphasizehealth or socialization skills and variously emphasiz-ing targetted or universally accessible delivery. Noneof these programs are inexpensive, although theyare all presented as measures that will save moneyin the future. Most provincial programs are too newto evaluate and many are experimental. Nonethe-less, they reflect an appreciation of the need forspending for prevention and early intervention.
Summing Up
We have observed that a variety of policy instru-ments have been developed over time to meet diversefamily policy goals. The current situation, federallyand in the six provinces reviewed, is summarized inBox 2.
Going Forward
This study has documented the emergenceacross six provinces, as well as within the federalgovernment, of new interest in directly providingfor the needs of children. The greatest coherence, ifnot insufficient money, is in the field of incomesecurity, where child tax benefits, family allowancesand income supplements are providing new sourcesof income to families with children.
The emerging new institutional actors on thisscene are ministries of finance, which have takenover responsibility for program design. Identifiablemost obviously at the federal level, where Financewas the originator of the “cap on CAP,” its actionseventually led to the creation of the Canada ChildTax Benefit. These initiatives have helped remakethe face of social assistance and have changed theway we think about income security and families inthe broadest sense.
Such shifts in departmental responsibility indicatethat there is a more general change going on, whichwill have consequences for democratic politics.Therefore, this is a shift to be monitored. Advocatesfor children and families have long nurtured theirties to the ministries and agencies providing socialservices, and vice versa. If these policy networksare cut out of the loop or invited in only late in thegame, as several key informants suggested is happen-ing, the representational process may suffer. There-fore, one message about the new way of deliveringbenefits to children and family is that change mayalso require adjustments among policy communities.
There is also growing attention to the develop-mental needs of young children, reflected in the
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 39
Box 2
Current Status of Policy Instruments, Federally and in Six Provinces1
Programs Recognizing the Costs of Raising Children
• Quebec provides a universal tax credit for dependent children.• One of the goals of the income tested Canada Child Tax Benefit is to “help with the cost of raising children.”
Child Benefits
• The National Child Benefit (NCB) provides the framework for child benefits. It is composed of: (1) the basic Canada Child TaxBenefit, (2) a low income supplement, and (3) provincial reinvestment commitments.
• Provinces are permitted to deduct the amount of the supplement from the payments made to social assistance recipients so theirincomes remain stable. New Brunswick has chosen not to do so.
• The federal government provides the basic Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) of $1,020 per child under 18, plus $213 per childunder 7 if the Child Care Expense Deduction is not claimed (see below). It also pays the National Child Benefit Supplementto low income families at $785 for one child and $1,370 for two children. Both the basic benefit and the low income supplement(and therefore the maximum benefit) are available to families whose incomes are under $20,921. The basic benefit begins to bereduced at $25,921 and the low income supplement disappears at $27,750.2 Alberta has its own payment schedule for the CCTB.
• Revenue Canada administers several provincial child benefit programs. In the six provinces studied, they are the BC FamilyBonus and BC Earned Income Supplement, the Alberta Family Employment Tax Credit, the Saskatchewan Child Benefit, andthe NB Child Tax Benefit. Quebec administers its own Family Allowance.
• Benefits in the form of working income supplements are available in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebecand New Brunswick.
• Extended health benefits are provided within parental work programs in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Tax Deductions to Cover Some of the Costs of Employment
• The federal government provides a Child Care Expense Deduction (CCED) to employed parents. Costs for receipted child carecan be deducted up to a maximum of $7,000 for a child under 7 and up to $4,000 for children aged 7 to 16. In two-parentfamilies, the deduction must be claimed by the parent with the lower income. The CCED can be used for both formal regulatedchild care or unregulated care for which receipts are issued.
• The Ontario Child Care Tax Credit provides a maximum $400 deduction per child. It has the same rules about receipts as theCCED.
• Quebec’s child care expense deduction is being phased out for many parents as the province moves towards the flat rate paymentof $5 per day for child care, for which receipts are not provided.
Regulated Child Care Services3
• All provinces provide subsidies, paid to the provider, for low income parents needing child care. Most require the subsidies to beused for regulated child care, either centre-based or in family day care.
Educational Requirements for Child Care Providers:
• No province requires family day care providers to have advanced training in early childhood education. Their care work issupervised, however, and they are required to have first aid training.
• British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec all require at least some of the staff in centres to have training inearly childhood education.
Curriculum:
• In Quebec, Early Childhood Centres and family day care providers must follow a common provincial curriculum.
Kindergarten:
• Publicly funded kindergarten is available for five-year-olds. New Brunswick and Quebec provide full-day programs.• Saskatchewan provides half-day pre-school programs for three- and four-year-olds in some high risk communities and Quebec
does the same for four-year-olds.• Following release of The Early Years Study in 1999, Ontario made new commitments for junior kindergarten and kindergarten.
40 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Box 2 (cont’d)
Maternity and Parental Leaves (Paid and Unpaid) and Family Leaves
• Paid maternity and parental leaves are available for parents covered by Employment Insurance if they meet the eligibilityrequirements. Birth mothers are entitled to 15 weeks of paid leave, and either parent may take an additional 10 weeks. Benefitsare 55 percent of insurable earnings. Recipients earning more than $48,750 must pay back a portion of the EmploymentInsurance benefit. Low income supplements are available for those whose income is below $20,921, raising the replacementlevel of lost income. The maximum supplement is $431 per week. The first two weeks of leave are not covered by these benefits.
• Quebec pays a flat rate “maternity allowance” to mothers earning less than $55,000. It is intended to partially cover the twoweeks not included in the Employment Insurance benefit.
• Employed parents, meeting certain minimal conditions, have a right to unpaid maternity leaves (which varies between 17 and 18weeks) and to unpaid parental leaves (of about 12 weeks) in most of the provinces studied. Alberta has no unpaid parental leave,while Quebec’s unpaid parental leave is 52 weeks.
• Some birth leave for fathers is available: one day unpaid paternity leave in Saskatchewan and five days unpaid leave in Quebecat the moment of birth or adoption,4 with the first two days paid if the new parent has been employed for two months.
• Unpaid leaves of five days per year can be taken for family reasons in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Quebec.
Flexible Work Hours and Schedules
• Employment Insurance now covers part-time workers. Therefore, they may also be eligible for maternity and parental benefits ifthey have worked enough hours to qualify for them.
Programs for Child Well-being and Healthy Development
• Specialized health, education and developmental services are available across Canada. Access to programs depends on needs(e.g., disabilities) and can vary by location within and between jurisdictions.
• Various federal and provincial programs support Aboriginal children and families, including the federal government’s FirstNations-Inuit Child Care Initiative and the Aboriginal Head Start Program. Provincial programs differ widely in terms ofprogram content.
• Numerous prevention and early intervention programs, generally directed to “at risk” families, are funded federally andprovincially. Federal programs include the Child Development Initiative (previously known as the Brighter Futures project),Child Care Visions, the Canada Prenatal Nutrition Program, and the Community Action Program for Children (CAP-C).Individual provincial initiatives are too numerous to list but include New Brunswick’s Early Childhood Initiatives, Ontario’sBetter Beginnings, Better Futures, and a range of programs under larger program banners such as Alberta’s Child and FamilyServices Authorities, Saskatchewan’s Action Plan for Children, and Quebec’s CLSCs (community resource centres).
• Universal health care insurance is available across Canada.• Universal public education is available across Canada.• Recreation and related programs are available across Canada but the extent depends on location, and user fees often apply.
Community Resource Centres
• Health and other assessments and community development programs are available through CLSCs in Quebec. In addition, EarlyChildhood Centres are community anchors supporting family day care providers and offering some general services for all parents.
• In New Brunswick, 13 federally funded Family Resources Centres target services to low income families.• Between 1980 and 1996, about 180 Family Resource Centres were created in Ontario, which are used mainly by non-employed
parents and informal caregivers. Quality varies by municipality, based on community investment and resources.• Proposals for Early Childhood Development and Parenting Centres, with developmental preschool child care as a central
component, were made in 1999 in Ontario’s Reversing the Real Brain Drain: The Early Years Study Final Report.• Mixed-use community-based family resource centres are being implemented by several of Alberta’s 18 regional Child and
Family Services Authorities to provide integrated information, assessment and referral services for children and families.
1 Provincial programs are indicated only for the six provinces studied during the Best Policy Mix for Children project: BritishColumbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick.
2 In July 2000, the National Child Benefit Supplement will be paid to families with incomes up to $29,590.3 Child care data are taken from the Childcare Resource and Research Unit (1999), supplemented with additional data on kindergarten from
Johnson and Mathien (1998, 9-10).4 In Quebec, if an employee is adopting the child(ren) of his/her spouse, only 2 days of unpaid leave are available.
COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES | 41
concerns of health policy networks as well as thosetraditionally responsible for social services. Theyrely on current scientific literature reported in advi-sory documents such as Camil Bouchard’s UnQuébec fou de ses enfants (1991) and the 1999Early Years Study prepared for Premier Harris ofOntario by Margaret McCain and Fraser Mustard.
These policy communities are cognizant of thecontributions of early childhood education providedin high quality child care centres, resource centresand kindergartens, as well as by parents. Yet, theyseem not to be consulted by those who advocateusing workfare and other employment promotingsubsidies for purchasing informal child care. Whilethere may be more bang for the buck in the shortrun, the developmental community has much to sayabout the longer term costs.
There are also two relatively silent figures thathave emerged from this project, two groups whosereal needs are being addressed less than theyshould be. The first are middle income parents indual-earner families who are being squeezed bythe system. Performing according to what isoften used as a measure of good citizenship – thatis, assuming responsibility for their families andcontributing to the economy through employment –the price they pay in terms of money spent andstress experienced is not always being discussed inthe policy communities. The issue of balancingwork and family was a domain of stunning silence
in five of the six provincial studies. The federalgovernment, moreover, by getting out of the childcare business, has contributed its own silent voice.There is an issue here that is not solved by extend-ing tax deductions to stay-at-home parents, as somewould have it.
Finally, the second silent figure is the school-agechild. No province, with the partial exception ofSaskatchewan, is paying attention to these children.Specialized and innovative developmental pro-grams stop at age eight at the oldest (in Ontario)and, more often, at age five. Schools are beingpressed to concentrate on “the basics” and cut outthe “frills” of special needs and education. Teachersare being squeezed by public service cutbacks andslashed budgets. After school and holiday childcare services are thin on the ground and not welldesigned for older children.
Yet these are the children of the nearest future.They are the brothers and sisters of the healthy,well-adjusted, much stimulated youngsters suppos-edly benefiting from programs for the “early years.”They are being left to their own resources, just asthe younger ones risk being left when they turnfive. If their problems have not all been “solved” bythen, there is very little provided for them until theygraduate into adolescence, confronting school fail-ure, delinquency and teen pregnancy. Clearly, aspolicy communities continue to move forward,these silent voices will need to be heard.
42 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
APPENDIX A | 43
����������
44 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
APPENDIX A | 45
Key Dates in theFederal Government’s Story
• 1919 – Tax exemption for families with childrenimplemented.
• 1942 – Dominion-Provincial War-Time Agree-ment initiated the first federal intervention inchild care; 50 percent cost-sharing instituted toallow provinces to provide child care for chil-dren whose mothers were working in war-related industries. Only Ontario and Quebecparticipated. After the war, the federal govern-ment withdrew.
• 1945 – The Family Allowances Act providedallowances for parents on behalf of children up to15 years old.
• 1966 – Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) initiatedwith 50-50 cost-sharing of assistance and welfareservices, including child care, to persons in need.
• 1970 – Federal job-creation project, the LocalInitiatives Projects (LIP), provided a significantimpetus to the expansion of nonprofit child carecentres in many provinces. LIP ended in 1973.
• 1971 – Maternity and sickness benefits added toUnemployment Insurance, requiring 20 weeks ofinsurable earnings to qualify. Maternity benefits
available for up to 15 weeks but terminated sixweeks after the birth.
• 1971 – Child Care Expense Deduction includedin the Income Tax Act.
• 1973 – Family Allowances nearly tripled andindexed to Consumer Price Index to protectagainst inflation.
• 1984 – The Unemployment Insurance Act allowedpayment of 15 weeks of benefits to adoptive parents.
• 1988 – Maternity benefits extended to fathers ifmother deceased or disabled.
• 1988 – As part of National Strategy on ChildCare, federal government announced the ChildCare Initiative Program. The $100 million, seven-year program funded research, training programs,and innovative child care pilot projects. The pro-gram ended in 1995.
• 1989 – Members of the House of Commons votedunanimously to eliminate child poverty by the year1999.
• 1990 – Under the “Cap on CAP,” federal contri-butions to the three non-equalization-receivingprovinces under the Canada Assistance Plan lim-ited to an annual growth of 5 percent per year.Limit subsequently extended until 1995.
�
��� ����
������������������� � � � ����������������
46 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
• 1990 – Health Canada initiated a number of pro-grams in response to the 1990 World Summit forChildren.
• 1991 – The federal government introduced parentalbenefits under Unemployment Insurance, availableto either the mother or father and to both biologi-cal and adoptive parents.
• 1991 – Canada ratified United Nations Conventionon the Rights of the Child.
• 1993 – Child Tax Benefit and Working IncomeSupplement announced.
• 1995 – Community Action Program for Children(CAP-C) established to provide financial supportto community coalitions to deliver health andcommunity services to at-risk children aged six andunder. Federal-provincial-territorial joint manage-ment committees established to set regional prior-ities and approve projects.
• 1995 – Aboriginal Head Start program estab-lished as an early intervention strategy to provideculturally appropriate education, health and socialservices to Aboriginal children aged six and un-der and their families living in urban areas andlarge northern communities.
• 1996 – Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST)replaced CAP with a block fund that included fed-eral funding for health, postsecondary educationand social services. Pan-Canadian conditions at-tached to spending eliminated. Federal governmentidentified child care as a provincial responsibility.
• 1997 – Federal government announced NationalChildren’s Agenda (NCA), a “comprehensivestrategy to improve the well-being of Canada’schildren.” Responsibility given to the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Council on Social PolicyRenewal, established in 1996. Four initiativesassociated with the NCA: (1) the National ChildBenefit, (2) Centres for Excellence for Children’sWell-being, funded to undertake research, buildnetworks and provide policy advice related to
children’s well-being, (3) development of Learn-ing Readiness Indicators, and (4) extension ofAboriginal Head Start to on-reserve First Nationschildren.
• 1998 – National Child Benefit launched, with thefederal government putting funds into the CanadaChild Tax Benefit and Supplementary Benefits.Provinces and territories developed “reinvestmentplans.”
• 1999 – National Children’s Agenda report De-veloping a Shared Vision released by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Council on Social PolicyRenewal. Discussion paper focussed on four goalsto ensure children are healthy physically andemotionally, safe and secure, successful in learn-ing, and socially engaged and responsible.
• 1999 – In the October Speech from the Throne,federal government promised to increase theCanada Child Tax Benefit and to extend paidparental leave to one year to those eligible underEmployment Insurance.
Key Dates inBritish Columbia’s Story
• 1910 – City Creche established in Vancouver as achild care service and employment agency.
• 1943 – Welfare Institutions Licensing Act amend-ed to govern creches, nursery play schools, andkindergartens.
• 1945 – Comprehensive Social Assistance Act im-plemented.
• 1981– B.C. Day Care Action Coalition established.
• 1991 – Task Force on Child Care released Show-ing We Care: A Child Care Strategy for the 90’s.
• 1992 – Child Care Branch, Ministry of Women’sEquality established. Director of Community CareFacilities established.
APPENDIX A | 47
• 1993 – Special Needs Day Care Review Boardreleased Supported Child Care. BC 21 plannedto create 7,500 new child care spaces in publicbuildings.
• 1995 – Implementation of Strategic Initiatives, a$32 million, four-year provincial-federal initia-tive designed to test new approaches to variousaspects of child care policy and programs. In-cluded funding for transition to supported childcare, different approaches to service delivery, onestop access, and a series of community demon-stration projects. The initiative ended in March1999.
• 1995 – Wage supplement made available to for-profit child care programs.
• 1996 – BC Benefits (Child Care) Act introducedchild care fee subsidies for parents seeking jobsor retraining.
• 1996 – Report of the Gove Inquiry into ChildProtection recommended massive changes inchild welfare practice and consolidation of allchild and youth programs into a single ministry.
• 1996 – BC Family Bonus created to take childrenoff social assistance.
• 1996 – BC Healthy Kids provided dental andoptical services for children in low income work-ing families.
• 1996 – Ministry for Children and Families createdto include all child and family programs withinone ministry. Child care moved from Ministryof Women’s Equality. Ministry of Social Ser-vices became Ministry of Human Resources.Child care subsidy program administered byMinistry of Human Resources on behalf ofMinistry for Children and Families. Responsi-bility for licensing and monitoring programsand individuals remained with Ministry ofHealth.
• 1996 – Creation of Children’s Commission.
• 1997 – Dispute Resolution Office created to ex-pand alternative dispute resolution options forfamily disputes and to expand “parenting afterseparation” program to 50 sites.
• 1997 – Early Intervention Program created.
• 1998 – BC Earned Income Benefits created toprovide benefits to low income working familieswith children.
• 1999 – Release of Building a Better Future forBritish Columbia’s Kids by Ministry of SocialDevelopment and Economic Security and Min-istry of Women’s Equality.
Key Dates in Alberta’s Story
• 1966 – Preventive Social Services Program intro-duced, funded 80 percent by the province and20 percent by municipalities and local govern-ments. Preventive Social Services Act delegateddecision-making authority for child care to mu-nicipalities. Public and nonprofit day care centresreceived subsidies for eligible low income families.
• 1971 – Health and Social Development Actintroduced.
• 1975 – Department of Social Services andCommunity Health created. Responsible for so-cial services, community health, rehabilitativeservices, and mental health.
• 1978 – Social Care Facilities Licensing Actincluded first legislated child care regulations.Funding changed from child care program grantsto fee subsidies for low income families.
• 1980 – Day Care Operating Allowance intro-duced to encourage growth of day care.
• 1981 – Family and Community Support ServicesAct introduced to strengthen the family and com-munity, promote volunteerism, and involve citizensin service provision.
48 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
• 1981 – Decentralization to regional service deliv-ery began for child welfare, income support, daycare, and community health.
• 1984 – Alberta Family and Social Services cre-ated Office for the Prevention of Family Violence.
• 1985 – New Child Welfare Act introduced, em-phasizing principle of “least intrusiveness” andreflecting government’s belief in autonomy of thefamily unit.
• 1986 – Alberta’s privatization model announced.
• 1988 – Statement of social policy Caring andResponsibility emphasized targetting programs tothose most in need, promoting self-reliance, andincorporating public involvement in the develop-ment, design, delivery and evaluation of socialpolicy.
• 1989 – Children’s Advocate introduced withproclamation of the Child Welfare AmendmentAct of 1988.
• 1990 – Premier’s Council in Support of AlbertaFamilies established.
• 1990 – Social assistance program became Supportsfor Independence, stressing active assistance andself-sufficiency over passive assistance.
• 1990 – Meeting the Need White Paper released onday care policy. Proposed reduction in operatinggrants and reallocation of funds to expand daycare subsidies for low income families.
• 1991 – Family Policy Framework announced andFamily Policy Grid released to guide developmentof policies and programs that affect families.
• 1993 – Commissioner of Services for Childrenappointed to hold province-wide consultationsand design an integrated, community-based sys-tem of support for children and families. Titlelater changed to Commissioner of Services forChildren and Families.
• 1993 – Social assistance rates cut. Active measuresimplemented to support client self-sufficiency.
• 1994 – Family Day established.
• 1994 – Focus on Children: A Plan for Effective,Integrated Community Services for Children andTheir Families released. Established four pillarsof reform: community-based services, early inter-vention, improved services for Aboriginal childrenand families, and integrated services. Province an-nounced that services for families and childrenwould be delivered through regional Child andFamily Services Authorities.
• 1994 – Deficit Elimination Act passed, legislatinga balanced budget within four years.
• 1995 – $50 million in funding provided to helpcommunities develop early intervention initiativesover a three-year period. Program ended in 1998.
• 1996 – Minister without Portfolio Responsible forChildren appointed. Child and Family ServicesAuthorities Act received royal assent.
• 1997– Family Employment Tax Credit introducedas a working income supplement for low incomefamilies.
• 1998 – Child and Family Secretariat created tosupport Child and Family Services Authorities.Secretariat released Alberta Children’s Initiative:Agenda for Joint Action. Joint business plan re-leased involving six ministries in coordinatingservices for children and accepting joint account-ability for outcomes. Initiatives developed for thereduction of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome for studentand child health benefits, and for children in-volved in prostitution.
• 1999 – Child and Family Services Authoritiesassumed responsibility for the delivery of AlbertaFamily and Social Services’ programs for children.
• 1999 – Department of Children’s Services cre-ated to provide programs and services for child
APPENDIX A | 49
protection, adoption, day care, family court andmediation, family violence prevention, handi-capped children, and early intervention.
Key Dates inSaskatchewan’s Story
• 1917 – Mothers’ Allowances implemented.
• 1960s – Several child care centres established inmajor cities.
• 1970 – First child care regulations established byan Order in Council under the Child Welfare Act.
• 1973 – NDP government promised to provide13,500 day care spaces by 1979 (only 3,500 werecreated).
• 1974 – Family Income Plan created.
• 1983 – A Productive Welfare System for theEighties: A Review of the Saskatchewan Assis-tance Plan released.
• 1990 – Child Care Act and Regulations pro-claimed, requiring licensing of all child care centres.
• 1992 – Report Breaking New Ground in ChildCare identified three guiding principles: (1) par-ents should be free to choose their preferred childcare, (2) affordability should not be a barrier tochoice, and (3) child care should be community-based and provide responsive programming.
• 1993 – Grants introduced to encourage employment-related child care.
• 1993 – First Children’s Action Plan drafted andcirculated for public input.
• 1994 – Saskatchewan Council of Children createdas a part of the Action Plan for Children.
• 1995 – Children’s Advocate appointed, responsibleto the Legislative Assembly instead of to a Minister.
• 1996 – Ministry for Children and Families created.
• 1997 – Our Children, Our Future – SaskatchewanAction Plan for Children Four Years Later wasreleased.
• 1997 – Provincial Training Allowance was imple-mented.
• 1998 – The Saskatchewan Child Benefit and theSaskatchewan Employment Supplement imple-mented an additional Family Health Benefit aspart of the Saskatchewan Action Plan for Children.
• 1998 – The Task Force on Balancing Work andFamily reports its findings.
Key Dates in Ontario’s Story
• 1946 – Day Nurseries Act created to license andregulate day care. Services primarily directed tofamilies “in need.”
• 1972 – Ministry of Community and Social Servicescreated.
• 1974 – First major policy statement on child caretermed it a “welfare service for those in social orfinancial need.”
• 1980 – Ministry of Community and Social Ser-vices instituted a series of Day Care Initiatives, laterrenamed Child Care Initiatives. Included supportsfor the informal (unregulated) child care sector.
• 1987 – New Directions for Child Care recom-mended treating child care as a comprehensiveservice for all Ontario families.
• 1992 – Child Care Reform in Ontario: Settingthe Stage identified quality, affordability, accessi-bility, and sound management as four guidingprinciples.
• 1996 – Improving Ontario’s Child Care Systemrecommended “more choice, more flexibility and
50 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
more equity when it comes to paying for, using ordelivering child care.”
• 1996 – Introduction of Ontario Works program,requiring recipients of social assistance (exceptsome disabled and elderly recipients) to “work forwelfare.” For the first time, lone parents withchildren under 16 required to seek employment.
• 1996 – Family Responsibility and Support ArrearsEnforcement Act created the Family Responsibil-ity Office and toughens enforcement powers withrespect to maintenance payments.
• 1996 – Ministry of Health and Ministry ofCommunity and Social Services created HealthyBabies, Healthy Children as a joint initiative,eventually to be directed by the Office of Inte-grated Services for Children.
• 1997 – Introduction of the Ontario Child CareTax Credit.
• 1997 – Office of Integrated Services for Childrencreated, focussing on prevention, intervention, andintegration of policy and programs for children agedeight and under across four Ministries: Health,Community and Social Services, Education andTraining, and Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.
• 1998 – Social Assistance Reform Act and ServicesImprovement Act came into effect. Involved astep-by-step transfer of provincial program re-sponsibilities to municipalities, including deliv-ery of social assistance through Ontario WorksAct and Ontario Disability Support Program Act.
• 1998 – Proclamation of Ontario Works Act, amandatory work-for-welfare program.
• 1998 – Child Care Supplement for WorkingFamilies created for low and middle incomefamilies with children under seven, includingfamilies with one stay-at-home parent.
• 1998 – Workplace Child Care Tax Deductioncreated to cover 30 percent of the capital costs of
companies that build or expand on-site child careor contribute to other facilities.
• 1999 – Learning, Earning and Parenting (LEAP)launched as a mandatory program under OntarioWorks requiring teen parents on social assistanceto stay in school and take parenting courses.
Key Dates in Quebec’s Story
• 1961 – Creation of Ministry of the Family andWelfare (ministère de la Famille et du Bien-être).
• 1966 – Commission on Health and Social Welfare(Castonguay-Nepveu Commission) established.
• 1971 – Creation of the Health and Social ServicesAct, setting up universal health care and creatinga local health and social services agency, the CLSC(Centre local des services communautaires).
• 1967 – First family allowances established.
• 1978 – Maternity Allowance created to cover firsttwo weeks of maternity leave left unpaid by federalgovernment’s Unemployment Insurance system.
• 1984-85 – Green paper developed: Pour lesfamilles québécoises.
• 1987 – Statement of family policy adopted: Lapolitique familiale : Énoncé des orientations et dela dynamique.
• 1988 – Creation of the Conseil de la famille(Council for Families) and the Secrétariat à lafamille (Family Secretariat).
• 1990 – Unpaid parental leave extended to 34 weeksafter the birth or adoption of a child.
• 1997 – White Paper on Family Policy released:Les enfants au coeur de nos choix.
• 1997 – Ministère de la Famille et de l’Enfance(Ministry of the Family and Childhood) created
APPENDIX A | 51
by merging the Secrétariat à la famille and theOffice des services de garde à l’enfance (ChildCare Bureau).
• 1997 – Early Childhood Centres (Centres de lapetite enfance) established by new legislation.Responsible for housing day care centres, super-vising family day care providers, and providingother services with an educational and develop-mental emphasis.
• 1997 – New “integrated” family allowance cre-ated, merging three previously separate benefits.Children removed from social assistance (sécuritéde revenu).
• 1997 – Unpaid parental leave extended to 52 weeksafter the birth or adoption of a child.
• 1999 – Negotiations with Ottawa over proposedParental Insurance and the Employment Insuranceregime.
Key Dates inNew Brunswick’s Story• 1967 – Program of Equal Opportunities established.
• 1974 – Enactment of Day Care Act, includinglicensing provisions and a fee subsidy program.
• 1986 – Department of Health and CommunityServices created.
• 1987 – Introduction of policy to integrate disabledchildren in schools.
• 1989 – Minister of State for Childhood Servicesappointed. Office of Childhood Services set upwithin Department of Health and CommunityServices (the first in Canada).
• 1990 – Operating grants made available toproviders of child care services.
• 1991 – Universal public kindergarten programestablished.
• 1991 – Creating New Options: The Future ofIncome Support and Employment Related Ser-vices released, launching the reform of socialassistance programs.
• 1992 – All support orders or agreements made inNew Brunswick automatically filed with FamilyCourt Services. Process managed by the FamilySupport Orders Service.
• 1992 – NB-Works launched as a six-year demon-stration project, designed by Human ResourcesDevelopment–New Brunswick, the Departmentof Advanced Education and Labour, and HumanResources Development Canada. The first crite-rion for acceptance into the program was to havedependent children.
• 1993 – Early Childhood Initiatives program im-plemented.
• 1994 – A Minister of State for the Family named.Family Policy Secretariat created.
• 1994 – New Directions: Child Care Reformplaced emphasis on expanding access to subsidiesfor low income families. Grants to child careservice providers ended.
• 1995 – Department of Human Resources Devel-opment-NB created, “dedicated to client self-sufficiency.” Family Income Security Act proclaimed.
• 1995 – New Brunswick Family Weekend, an annualevent for celebrating family life, proclaimed by thepremier.
• 1997 – New Brunswick Child Tax Benefit andWorking Income Supplement announced in budget.
• 1997 – Minister of State for Family and Commu-nity Services hosted the Atlantic Symposium onCommunity Action for Children and Youth.
• 1999 – Discussion document Building TomorrowTogether released on process of social policyrenewal.
52 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
APPENDIX B | 53
Federal
Phyllis ColvinDirector, Health Policy DivisionPolicy and Consultation BranchHealth CanadaOttawa, Ontario
British Columbia
Jane BeachResearcherVictoria, British Columbia
Dyan Dunsmoor-FarleyAssistant Deputy Minister, Policy DivisionMinistry of Children and FamiliesGovernment of British ColumbiaVictoria, British Columbia
John RichardsAssociate ProfessorFaculty of Business AdministrationThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, British Columbia
AlbertaTom LangfordProfessorDepartment of SociologyUniversity of CalgaryCalgary, Alberta
Liz O’NeilMuttart FoundationEdmonton, Alberta
David SteevesDeputy Clerk of the Executive CouncilCEOChild and Family Services SecretariatGovernment of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta
Paula TylerAssistant Deputy MinisterChildren’s ServicesFamily and Social ServicesGovernment of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta
Saskatchewan
Rosemary BolariaResearcherSaskatchewan Institute on Prevention of HandicapsSaskatoon, Saskatchewan
Bonnie DurnfordAssistant Deputy Minister (Policy)Saskatchewan Social ServicesGovernment of SaskatchewanRegina, Saskatchewan
�
�����������
54 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Judith MartinExecutive DirectorWork and Family IssuesSaskatchewan Social ServicesGovernment of SaskatchewanCurrently on Fellowship at the University of ManchesterManchester, United Kingdom
Peter PrebblesCoordinatorSaskatoon Communities for ChildrenSaskatoon, Saskatchewan
Ailsa WatkinsonAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Social WelfareSt. Andrew’s CollegeSaskatoon, Saskatchewan
Ontario
Martha FriendlyCoordinatorChildcare Resource and Research UnitCentre for Urban and Community StudiesUniversity of TorontoToronto, Ontario
Jessica HillAssistant Deputy MinisterIntegrated Services for ChildrenMinistry of Community and Social ServicesGovernment of OntarioToronto, Ontario
Lucille RochAssistant Deputy MinisterChildren, Family and Community ServicesMinistry of Community and Social ServicesGovernment of OntarioToronto, Ontario
Laurel RothmanDirectorCampaign 2000Toronto, Ontario
Quebec
Claude BilodeauCentraideMontreal, Quebec
Nicole BoilyPrésidenteConseil de la famille et de l’enfanceMontreal, Quebec
Camil BouchardChercheur, Laboratoire de recherche en écologie humaine et socialeUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontreal, Quebec
Ruth Rose LizéeProfesseureDépartement des sciences économiquesUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontreal, Quebec
New Brunswick
Doug BradshawDirectorMoncton Youth ResidencesMoncton, New Brunswick
Edith DoucetDirectorOffice for Family and Prevention ServicesDepartment of Health and Community ServicesGovernment of New BrunswickFredericton, New Brunswick
Janet ThomasActing Director, Policy and PlanningHuman Resources Development–New BrunswickGovernment of New BrunswickFredericton, New Brunswick
J. Douglas WillmsAtlantic Centre for Policy Research in EducationFaculty of EducationUniversity of New BrunswickFredericton, New Brunswick
APPENDIX C | 55
PROJECT: What Is the Best Policy Mix for Canada’s Children?
STUDY: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories
Framework for Discussion
Policies that touch on families with young children (aged 11 and under) are often administratively situated indifferent ministries and departments. To ensure that we do not miss any important policy areas, we havedivided our research into the following policy categories:
1. Economic Supplements (transfer system, tax deductions, tax credits, tax rates for families)
2. Promoting the Earning Capabilities of Parents
3. Balancing Work and Family (day care, parental leave)
4. Child Care and Early Education
5. Parenting Supports
6. Child Development
7. Child Maintenance, and
8. Community Spaces and Supports.
What follows are a number of questions intended to stimulate thinking about each of these policy categories.We conclude by providing a series of discussion questions that relate to the coherence of policies forchildren and families in your province.
�
���������������� ����������
56 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
1. – 6. The Development and Delivery of Support for Families with ChildrenThe same questions apply to six of our eight policy categories. In each case, we are interested in how yourprovince provides policies and the goals such policies are designed to meet. Our questions are presented in amatrix on the following two pages to enable similarities and differences to be easily considered andcompared. Questions related to our final two policy categories appear below.
7. Child MaintenanceDoes your province enforce orders for child support? Does your province collect support payments? Doesyour province cover unpaid support, with or without collecting payment for it? Does your province intervenein the process of divorce and, if so, how?
8. Community Spaces and SupportsWho are the main providers of community spaces and supports for families with young children (ministries,departments, government agencies, nonprofit groups, community groups, etc.)?
APPENDIX C | 57
1 2 3Questions Related to Each Policy CategoryShown to the Right
EconomicSupplements
Promotingthe EarningCapabilitiesof Parents
BalancingWork and
FamilyWho are the key players involved in the debate and,ultimately, in the policy making process in this policyarea (women’s groups, experts, advocates, employers,labour unions, religious groups, etc.)?• What perspectives do they bring to the table?• How are these different perspectives brokered?Which department or ministry takes the lead indeveloping this type of policy in your province?Which department or ministry in your province takes thelead in delivering programs or services for this policy area?• Are programs or services coordinated across
ministries, departments, agencies, etc. and, if so, how?• Are these policies, programs or services evaluated and,
if so, in what ways and how often?• Are appeal processes available for citizens?Has your province made any changes in the way servicesfor children and families are delivered in this policy area?• If so, how have services been restructured?• What was the objective for restructuring?• Have the results of service delivery changes been
assessed and, if so, how (monitoring, evaluation,public progress reports, etc.)?
Does your province regularly incorporate citizeninvolvement into the policy making process in thispolicy area?• If so, how are citizens involved during policy
definition and development?• How are citizens involved in the assessment of policy?• How are citizens involved in the definition, delivery
and evaluation of programs or services?
Can any lessons be drawn for the rest of Canada fromyour province’s experience in this policy area?• Are there aspects of the policy discourse and decision
making process that cannot be adapted for elsewherein Canada and, if so, why?
Is your province’s policy flexibility constrained by otherjurisdictions?
Question Matrix for Policy Categories 1, 2 and 3
The Development and Delivery of Support for Families with Children
(continued)
58 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
4 5 6Questions Related to Each Policy CategoryShown to the Right Child Care
and EarlyEducation
ParentingSupports
ChildDevelopment
Who are the key players involved in the debate and,ultimately, in the policy making process in this policyarea (women’s groups, experts, advocates, employers,labour unions, religious groups, etc.)?• What perspectives do they bring to the table?• How are these different perspectives brokered?Which department or ministry takes the lead indeveloping this type of policy in your province?Which department or ministry in your province takes thelead in delivering programs or services for this policy area?• Are programs or services coordinated across ministries,
departments, agencies, etc. and, if so, how?• Are these policies, programs or services evaluated and,
if so, in what ways and how often?• Are appeal processes available for citizens?Has your province made any changes in the way servicesfor children and families are delivered in this policy area?• If so, how have services been restructured?• What was the objective for restructuring?• Have the results of service delivery changes been
assessed and, if so, how (monitoring, evaluation,public progress reports, etc.)?
Does your province regularly incorporate citizeninvolvement into the policy making process in thispolicy area?• If so, how are citizens involved during policy
definition and development?• How are citizens involved in the assessment of policy?• How are citizens involved in the definition, delivery
and evaluation of programs or services?
Can any lessons be drawn for the rest of Canada fromyour province’s experience in this policy area?• Are there aspects of the policy discourse and decision
making process that cannot be adapted for elsewherein Canada and, if so, why?
Is your province’s policy flexibility constrained by otherjurisdictions?
Question Matrix for Policy Categories 4, 5 and 6
The Development and Delivery of Support for Families with Children
APPENDIX C | 59
The Coherence of Policies for Children and Families
Is there an explicit or implicit overall strategy for child and family policy in your province or have policiesbeen developed in an ad hoc or reactive way?
• Do strategies or policies tend to focus on families, on children, or on some other objective (women’sequality in the labour force, population policy, etc.)?
• Are strategies or policies clearly reflected in official government publications and, if so, how are theypresented or characterized?
Have child and family policies been put into place with a view to how they intersect or complement otherprograms? In other words, do such policies provide a coordinated and comprehensive web of policy supportfor families?
• Do such policies emphasize income support, services, or a mixture of both?
• Who is responsible for the delivery of child and family programs (federal, provincial or municipal levelsof government, nongovernmental organizations, community associations, etc.)?
Does research or program evaluation have a role in your province in the debate and development of policiesfor families with children?
Are strategies or policies for children and families linked to measurable outcomes?
• If so, how are “good outcomes” defined and identified?
• In turn, how are defined outcomes measured and reported?
• Are governments and/or some other players held accountable in any way for the achievement ofoutcomes defined for child and family strategies or policies?
How are provincial values brought to bear in decision making about child and family policies?
• Which values are seen to be the most important and why?
• How are issues about children and families framed by politicians, experts, advocates, and the media inyour province?
60 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
APPENDIX D | 61
• Jenson, Jane, and Sharon M. Stroick. 1999. A PolicyBlueprint for Canada’s Children. REFLEXIONNumber 3. Ottawa: Canadian Policy ResearchNetworks Inc.
• Jenson, Jane, with Sherry Thompson. 1999.Comparative Family Policy: Six ProvincialStories. CPRN Study No. F|08. Ottawa: CanadianPolicy Research Networks Inc.
• Krashinsky, Michael, and Gordon Cleveland.1999. “Tax Fairness for One-Earner and Two-Earner Families: An Examination of the Issues.”Discussion Paper. Ottawa: Canadian PolicyResearch Networks Inc.
• Michalski, Joseph H. 1999. “Values and Preferencesfor the ‘Best Policy Mix’ for Canadian Children.”Discussion Paper No. F|05. Ottawa: CanadianPolicy Research Networks Inc.
• O’Hara, Kathy. 1998. Comparative Family Policy:Eight Countries’ Stories. CPRN Study No. F|04.Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research NetworksInc.
• Phipps, Shelley. 1999. An International Compari-son of Policies and Outcomes for Young Children.CPRN Study No. F|05. Ottawa: Canadian PolicyResearch Networks Inc.
• Phipps, Shelley. 1999. “Outcomes for YoungChildren in Canada: Are There Provincial Differ-ences?” Discussion Paper. Ottawa: CanadianPolicy Research Networks Inc.
• Stroick, Sharon M., and Jane Jenson. 1999. WhatIs the Best Policy Mix for Canada’s YoungChildren? CPRN Study No. F|09. Ottawa: CanadianPolicy Research Networks Inc.
• Thompson, Sherry, with Judith Maxwell, andSharon M. Stroick. 1999. “Moving Forward onChild and Family Policy: Governance and Ac-countability Issues.” Discussion Paper. Ottawa:Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc.
• Tipper, Jennifer, and Denise Avard. 1999.“Building Better Outcomes for Canada’s Children.”Discussion Paper No. F|06. Ottawa: CanadianPolicy Research Networks Inc.
�
���������������
������������������������
The following 10 research reports embody the findings of the CPRN Family Network research project,What Is the Best Policy Mix for Canada’s Children? Several of these reports are available on-line at:http://www.cprn.org
62 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
NOTES | 63
1 The one exception to this move towards employabil-ity is for the disabled.
2 Such policy communities are sometimes called policynetworks (Bradford, 1998). We prefer to call themcommunities with the idea that they are loose group-ings, in which people are not necessarily in directcontact, although they share general policy proclivi-ties and values.
3 “National studies have shown that many parentsusing unregulated arrangements would prefer regu-lated settings, while the reverse is not generally true”(Beach, Bertrand, and Cleveland, 1998, 18).
4 Provinces usually allowed individual CAP subsidies,attached to low income parents, to go to commercialcentres. For the current situation, see Table 2.
5 The Early Childhood Centres have responsibility fora variety of services, including the oversight offamily day care providers in their respective neigh-bourhoods.
6 Quebec’s $5 per day child care program was incre-mentally instituted. It began with four-year-olds inSeptember 1997 and was applied each year there-after to the next youngest group. All age groups ofpreschoolers will be covered by 2001. A fixed pricewas also set for after school care.
7 Those involved in the Parental Wage Assistanceprogram (APPORT) can receive a tax credit for theirchild care expenses, while parents on social assis-tance are entitled to two and a half days per week ofchild care at no cost.
8 In 1999, the Alberta government eliminated operatingsubsidies altogether (see Table 2).
9 While the condition of the homes or the quality ofthe care is not regulated, the number of children whocan be taken in by unregulated family day careproviders is limited by all provinces. The maximumranges from four in Manitoba to eight in Saskatchewan.
10 This high income advantage partially explains the“kerfuffle” in spring 1999 about the Child CareExpense Deduction. Suddenly, families with a stay-at-home mother and a high income spouse receivedgreat media visibility. When the Reform Party raisedthe issue in the budget debate, such families wereclaiming the same right to having their taxesreduced. A number of articles in The Globe and Mailin early March 1999 drew attention to this with, forexample, quotes from a lawyer’s wife and a stock-broker’s wife on the unfairness of the CCED. Not allof them were non-employed, although none of themclaimed the CCED. As Krashinsky and Cleveland(1999) show, it is only at family incomes greaterthan $120,000 that the tax situation of families re-ceiving the CCED can be measured as more advanta-geous than to families without it.
11 If a newborn is ill and requires special care, bothnatural and adoptive parents may take an additionalfive weeks of paid parental leave.
12 All the data cited here are from Alberta (1999, 4).
13 The next largest savings reported by the Tax Com-mission would go to a single senior with an incomeover $100,000 whose “savings” would be $2,031.
�����
64 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
14 Note that supplements apply to each child under theage of seven: (1) $213 annually, less a 25 percentreduction of the amount claimed for child care ex-penses on the tax return, and (2) $75 annually for thethird and each additional child. The Alberta govern-ment has its own schedule of benefits: $935 per yearfor children under the age of 7, $1,004 for childrenaged 7 to 11, $1,133 per year for children aged 12 to15, and $1,205 for children aged 16 to 17 (RevenueCanada, 1998).
15 As defined by Statistics Canada, “poor” families arethose with an annual family income that ranges from$23,303 to $31,071 and, therefore, falls between 75and 100 percent of Statistics Canada’s low incomecut-off (Statistics Canada, 1999b).
16 Quebec’s Family Allowance, targetted to low in-come families, was created by combining threeallowances that existed before 1997. Out of thefour that had existed, two remain: the FamilyAllowance described here and one for disabledchildren.
17 These examples are from the press release about aconsultant’s report to the Ministry of Communityand Social Services. The consultant was KPMG(Mackie, 1999).
18 See Saskatchewan’s 1998-99 initiatives described inits budget documents at http://www.gov.sask.ca
REFERENCES | 65
Alberta. 1999. Tax Reform Commission. Final Report andRecommendations. Available at http://www.treas. gov.ab.ca
Andrew, Caroline. 1998. “Le gouvernement Harris et lagarde des enfants : la privatisation, la municipalisationou autre chose ?” In Dandurand, Renée B- et al.Quelle politique familiale à l’aube de l’an 2000 ?Paris: L’Harmattan.
Bach, Sandra, and Susan D. Phillips. 1997. “Constructinga New Social Union: Child Care Beyond Infancy?” InSwimmer, Gene, ed. How Ottawa Spends 1997-98.Seeing Red: A Liberal Report Card. Ottawa: CarletonUniversity Press.
Banting, Keith. 1997. “The Social Policy Divide: TheWelfare State in Canada and the United States.” InBanting, Keith, George Hoberg, and Richard Simeon,eds. Degrees of Freedom: Canada and the UnitedStates in a Changing World. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press: 267-309.
Battle, Ken. 1998. “The National Child Benefit: AnotherHiccup or Fundamental Structural Reform?” Paperpresented to the Conference on the State of LivingStandards and the Quality of Life in Canada, Ottawa,30-31 October, 1998.
Battle, Ken, and Michael Mendelson. 1997. Child BenefitReform in Canada: An Evaluative Framework andFuture Directions. Ottawa: Caledon Institute of SocialPolicy. Available at http://www.caledoninst.org/cbr-toc.htm
Beach, Jane, Jane Bertrand, and Gordon Cleveland. 1998.Our Child Care Workforce: From Recognition toRemuneration. Main Report. A Human Resource Study
of Child Care in Canada. More than a Labour of Love.Ottawa: Child Care Resources Steering Committee.
Bella, Leslie. 1978. The Origins of Alberta’s PreventiveSocial Service Program. Research Report funded byHealth and Welfare Canada, Welfare Research GrantsDivision. Ottawa: Health Canada.
Boismenu, Gérard, and Jane Jenson. 1998. “A Social Unionor a Federal State? Intergovernmental Relations in theNew Liberal Era.” In Pal, Leslie, ed. How OttawaSpends 1998-99. Balancing Act: The Post-DeficitMandate. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.
Boychuk, Gerard William. 1998. Patchworks of Purpose:The Development of Provincial Social AssistanceRegimes in Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queen’sUniversity Press.
Bradford, Neil. 1998. Commissioning Ideas. Toronto:Oxford University Press.
Campaign 2000. 1999. The 1998 National Report Card.Toronto: Campaign 2000.
Canadian Council on Social Development. 1999. Posi-tion Paper: CCSD Response to Recent Developmentof Welfare-to-Work Programs. Ottawa: CanadianCouncil on Social Development.
——. 1995. Estimated Cost of Raising a Child to 18 Yearsof Age, 1995. Available at http://www.ccsd.ca/fs_rais.htm
Canadian Institute of Child Health. 1994. The Health ofCanada’s Children: A CICH Profile, 2nd ed. Ottawa:Canadian Institute of Child Health.
����������
66 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
Childcare Resource and Research Unit. 1999. Child Carein Canada: Provinces and Territories, 1998. Toronto:Childcare Resource and Research Unit, Centre forUrban and Community Studies, University ofToronto. All data cited are from the June 1999 draftreport.
——. 1997. Child Care in Canada: Provinces and Territo-ries 1995. Toronto: Childcare Resource and ResearchUnit.
Clark, Christopher. 1998. Canada’s Income SecurityPrograms. Ottawa: Canadian Council on SocialDevelopment.
Cloutier, Mario. 1999. “Congés parentaux : Québec ira del’avant avec son projet.” Le Devoir (15 October 1999).
Collectif Clio, le. 1992. L’Histoire des femmes auQuébec depuis quatre siècles. Montreal: Le Jour.
Conseil de la famille et l’enfance. 1999. Avis : Unefiscalité au service de la famille. Quebec: Conseil dela famille et l’enfance.
Corak, Miles. 1999. “Employment Insurance Supportto Families with Newborns.” Statistics Canada. TheDaily (25 October 1999). Available at http://www.statcan.ca:80/Daily/English/991025/td991025.htm
Dominion Bureau of Statistics. 1951. Distribution ofNon-Farm Incomes in Canada. Catalogue 13-503.
——. 1950. Canada Year Book 1950. Ottawa: DominionBureau of Statistics.
Ghalem, Nancy Zukewich. 1997. “Attitudes TowardWomen, Work and Family.” Canadian Social Trends(Autumn).
Gorlick, Carolyne, and Guy Brethour. 1998. Welfare-to-Work Programs in Canada: A Discussion Paper.Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development.
Guest, Dennis. 1985. The Emergence of Social Securityin Canada. 2nd revised ed. Vancouver: The Universityof British Columbia.
Hanvey, Louise, Denise Avard, Ian Graham, KirstenUnderwood, Joan Campbell, and Carrie Kelly. 1994.The Health of Canada’s Children: A CICH Profile.2nd ed. Ottawa: Canadian Institute of Child Health.
Johnson, Laura C., and Julie Mathien. 1998. Early Child-hood Services for Kindergarten-Age Children in FourCanadian Provinces: Scope, Nature and Modelsfor the Future. Ottawa: Caledon Institute of SocialPolicy.
Krashinsky, Michael, and Gordon Cleveland. 1999. “TaxFairness for One-Earner and Two-Earner Families:An Examination of the Issues.” Discussion Paper.Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc.
Lepage, Francine, and Marie Moisan. 1998. “L’assuranceparentale : la nouvelle politique québécoise et lesprestations réservées aux pères.” In Dandurand,Renée B-, et al. Quelle politique familiale à l’aube del’an 2000 ? Paris: L’Harmattan.
Lero, Donna, and Irene Kyle. 1991. “Families and Childrenin Ontario.” In Johnson, Laura C., and Dick Barnhorst,eds. Children, Families and Public Policy in the 90s.Toronto: Thompson.
Lévesque, Benoît. 1992. “Québec : des expériences àl’institutionnalisation.” In Eme, Bernard, and J.-L.Laville. Cohésion sociale et emploi. Paris: Desclée deBrouwer.
Mackie, Richard. 1999. “Study Finds Workfare NotWorking. Shortage of Child-Care Spaces Pulls JobSeekers Back to Welfare.” The Globe and Mail (25September 1999).
Marshall, Katherine. 1999. Employment After Childbirth.Available at http://www.statcan.ca/english/indepth/75-001/perthi_2.htm
McCain, Margaret N., and J. Fraser Mustard. 1999.Reversing the Real Brain Drain: The Early Years StudyFinal Report. Available at http://www.childsec.gov.on.ca
Michalski, Joseph H. 1999. “Values and Preferencesfor the ‘Best Policy Mix’ for Canadian Children.”Discussion Paper No. F|05. Ottawa: Canadian PolicyResearch Networks Inc.
Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security.1999. Building a Better Future for British Columbia’sKids. Discussion Paper. Available at http://www.sdes.gov.bc.ca
Moscovitch, Allan. 1988. “The Canada Assistance Plan:A Twenty Year Assessment, 1966-1986.” In Graham,
REFERENCES | 67
Katherine A., ed. How Ottawa Spends 1988-89. TheConservatives Heading into the Stretch. Ottawa:Carleton University Press.
Myles, John. 1991. “Post-Industrialism and the ServiceEconomy.” In Drache, Daniel, and Meric S. Gertler, eds.The New Era of Global Competition: State Policy andMarket Power. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s UniversityPress.
Myles, John, and Paul Pierson. 1997. “Friedman’s Revenge:The Reform of ‘Liberal’ Welfare States in Canada andthe United States.” Politics and Society Vol. 25, No. 4:443-472.
O’Hara, Kathy. 1998. Comparative Family Policy: EightCountries’ Stories. CPRN Study No. F|04. Ottawa:Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc.
O’Sullivan, Michael, and Sandra Sorenson. 1988.“Saskatchewan.” In Ismael, J. S., and Yves Vaillancourt,eds. Privatization and Provincial Social Services inCanada. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press.
Pence, Alan R. 1993. “Canada.” In Cochran, Moncrieff ,ed. International Handbook of Child Care Policiesand Programs. Westport, CN: Greenwood.
Revenue Canada. 1998. Your Canada Child Tax Benefit.Available at http://www.rc.gc.ca/E/pub/o.tg/t4114ed/.htm
Saskatchewan Labour. 1998. Towards More Work-Family Balance in Saskatchewan: The Report of thePublic Task Force on Balancing Work and Family.Available at http://www.labour.gov.sk.ca
Statistics Canada. 1999a. Special statistical run conductedfor the Canadian Policy Research Networks based onthe 1995 General Social Survey. Ottawa: StatisticsCanada (Housing, Family and Social Statistics).
——. 1999b. Unpublished data on “children with emotionalproblems by income category” from the NationalLongitudinal Survey of Children and Youth.
Thelen, Kathleen, and Sven Steimo. 1992. “HistoricalInstitutionalism in Comparative Politics.” In Steimo,Sven, et al. Structuring Politics: Historical Institu-tionalism in Comparative Analysis. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press.
Tremblay, M. 1994. “La pauvreté : facteurs économiques.”In Dumont, F., S. Langlois, and Y. Martin, dirs.Traité des problèmes sociaux. Montréal: Institutquébécois de recherche sur la culture.
68 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES
CPRN Core Funders
�� Canadian International Development Agency�� Citizenship and Immigration�� Environment Canada�� Fisheries and Oceans�� Health Canada�� Human Resources Development Canada�� Public Works and Government Services
Canada (1998-2000)�� Transport Canada
CPRN Funding Sponsor
�� Royal Bank of Canada Charitable Foundation
CPRN Funding Supporters
�� The Government of New Brunswick�� Hongkong Bank of Canada�� IPSCO Inc.�� The Mutual Group�� NOVA Corporation�� Power Corporation of Canada�� Scotiabank�� Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada�� The Toronto-Dominion Bank
Family Network Funding Sponsor
�� Canadian Pacific
Project Funders
�� The Atkinson Charitable Foundation�� Health Canada�� Hospital for Sick Children Foundation�� Human Resources Development Canada�� Laidlaw Foundation�� Lawson Foundation�� The provincial governments of:
– British Columbia– Ontario– Saskatchewan
������������ �����
CPRN projects are funded by a mix of federal, provincial, foundation and corporate sponsors.