comparative family policy: six provincial stories

84
Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories Jane Jenson with Sherry Thompson CPRN Study No. F|08

Upload: others

Post on 07-Nov-2021

5 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

Comparative Family Policy:Six Provincial Stories

Jane Jensonwith Sherry Thompson

CPRN Study No. F|08

Page 2: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 3: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 4: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 5: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

������

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

Page 6: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 7: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

��� �������������

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

Page 8: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 9: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 10: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories
Page 11: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

����� �

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

Page 12: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 13: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

Comparative Family Policy:Six Provincial Stories

Page 14: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories
Page 15: 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).

Page 16: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 17: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 18: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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).

Page 19: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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,

Page 20: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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).

Page 21: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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).

Page 22: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 23: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 24: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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:

Page 25: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 26: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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).

Page 27: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 28: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 29: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

.

Page 30: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 31: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

.

Page 32: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 33: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 34: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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).

Page 35: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 36: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

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.

Page 37: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

.

Page 38: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 39: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 40: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 41: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

.

Page 42: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

.

Page 43: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 44: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

.

Page 45: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 46: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 47: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 48: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 49: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 50: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 51: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 52: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 53: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 54: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 55: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 56: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

42 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES

Page 57: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

APPENDIX A | 43

����������

Page 58: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

44 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES

Page 59: 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.

��� ����

������������������� � � � ����������������

Page 60: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 61: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 62: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 63: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 64: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 65: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 66: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

52 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES

Page 67: 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

�����������

Page 68: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 69: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

���������������� ����������

Page 70: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.)?

Page 71: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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)

Page 72: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 73: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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?

Page 74: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

60 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES

Page 75: 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

Page 76: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

62 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES

Page 77: 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.

�����

Page 78: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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

Page 79: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

����������

Page 80: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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,

Page 81: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

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.

Page 82: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories

68 | COMPARATIVE FAMILY POLICY: SIX PROVINCIAL STORIES

Page 83: 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.

Page 84: Comparative Family Policy: Six Provincial Stories