Child care is Trudeau Liberals’ greatest legacy, but everyone appears to have moved on

CHELSEA, QUE.—Ten years from now—perhaps sooner—the national child-care program launched by the federal Liberals last year, and finalized in recent months, could well be celebrated as the country’s most important social and economic reform since medicare. If it survives. So why isn’t anyone talking about it, “anyone” being most political pundits, opposition parties, provincial leaders—even federal Liberals? Why isn’t the preservation of this hard-won federal-provincial agreement uppermost in the mind, in the speeches, in the tweets, of every Liberal cabinet minister? Why isn’t mainstream media tracking the implementation of various provincial plans as assiduously as reporters follow every sexual abuse scandal in the military, every ill-advised remark by a provincial premier, every facile assertion from Pierre Poilievre? Perhaps because when the final child-care deal was concluded with Ontario, only weeks ago, we all turned our attention to other urgent matters—rising inflation, the war in Ukraine, the persistent pandemic, and sundry smaller concerns that are the salt and pepper of the parliamentary diet. Perhaps, because once all provinces signed on, some eagerly, some after registering pro-forma complaints—the conflict was over and so was the story. Or does the lack of attention to this potentially life-changing initiative reflect a political culture that is still pre-dominantly male, older (than the child-care demographic, at least), wealthier than the national average and more personally engaged with other issues from inflation, to climate change, to housing affordability. All are important, of course, but, unlike the child-care agreements, there is nothing very substantial to defend by way of government actions, and, no immediate benefit to ordinary families. Yet someone must be interested. If $10-a-day child care didn’t have widespread social appeal, conservative ideologues like Jason Kenney, and hardy right-leaning crustaceans, like Doug Ford, would never have signed on. They did, after requisite grumbling, because the federal offer was too tempting to refuse—all that new cash—but mostly because they would have been hammered by the electorate had they refused. (Ford signed at the last moment, with a provincial election pending on June 2. Kenney is embroiled in a leadership review to conclude in May, and needs, at the least, not to aggravate anyone else. If he was any lower in the polls he would have to wear hip waders to work.) Meanwhile, at least two federal Conservative leadership contenders—Jean Charest and Patrick Brown—have embraced the federal program and even promised to improve it. Charest—who, early on, said child care is “not a partisan issue”—wants to expand parental leave to two years, rebate 75 per cent of child-care expenses to low-income earners who cannot access subsidized spaces, and extend federal child care benefits to pregnant women. When Ford finally signed on, Charest congratulated the premier and tweeted: “Accessible and affordable child care is a win for all Canadian families.” Quebec’s pioneering program (now $8.50 a day) predated Charest’s time as premier of that province by six years—time enough, he says, to measure its economic value as Quebec women joined the workforce in record numbers. As for Brown, he, too, would keep the Liberal plan and add a provision for new Canadians to bring parents from abroad to mind the children while both parents work. This is already a common arrangement, particularly in Brown’s Brampton, Ont., neighbourhood. As for the front-runner, Brown accuses Poilievre of having “regressive views on families and child care," an accusation the Ottawa-area MP has done nothing to dispel. In December, Poilievre tweeted, without a shred of evidence: “Liberals have made child care more expensive than ever. The more they spend, the more it costs.” That will come as news to Canadian families who have already received rebates for often-substantial child-care costs—or will by the end of this calendar year. The deals signed with all provinces and territories have a couple of common ambitions: lowering costs over five years to $10-a-day for children under six, and increasing the number of available, regulated spaces. There are slight differences in emphasis and timing from province to province. British Columbia, the first to sign on, is aiming to create 30,000 new spaces over five years and halve fees for regulated spaces by the end of this year. Yukon, with extra federal assistance, is committed to $10-a-day over five years and a $30-per-hour minimum for child-care workers—the most generous wage provision in the country. In return for $3.8-billion, Alberta will cut fees in half by the end of this year at all types of child-care facilities, en route to $10-a-day. Nunavut promises to get to $10-a-day by 2024 and create spaces in high schools and empty buildings, since most of the territory’s 25 communities have no facilities at all. Manitoba set a $25 floor for child-care workers in that province. Ontario’s $10.2-billion deal allows it to cut fees in half this year, with rebates coming as early as May, retroactive to April 1. (Election? What election?) Quebec, which has long had subsidized child care, gets $6 billion to spend as it will. Newfoundland and Labrador, beside the regular deal, gets federal help to set up four-year-old kindergarten. And so on. As parents start getting cheques and provinces start creating more spaces—a job-booster in itself—this program will only become more popular. While it won’t immediately address all the shortcomings in child care, it could lift some families out of poverty, save middle-income earners considerable daily stress, and make life more affordable for single parents. This puts Poilievre on the spot. While he is clearly a leader in the technology and techniques of the modern political campaign, he is a policy dinosaur in many areas—harkening back, as he does, to economic truisms that were never really true, even in Ronald Reagan’s era. If he does produce a child-care program, expect it to be a throwback to Stephen Harper’s $1,200 direct payments to parents of young children. Maximum freedom of choice is the neo-Conservative gospel, ignoring a few reality checks. Freedom of choice means nothing, if there aren’t enough child care spaces available—and in many communities, especially rural and northern, there aren’t. There are also fewer families like Poilievre’s (or Trudeau’s, or Jagmeet Singh’s), earning enough income so that one spouse can stay home when kids are young. And, while most contemporary grand-parents don’t mind helping out in emergencies, many are still working, infirm, or too over-extended to take on full-time child rearing. A national, affordable system that offers adequate spaces, with fairly-paid staff, has been a long time coming. Now that it is almost here, is no time for complacency. One way, or the other—and, no doubt, by indirect means—a Poilievre government would destroy the promise. Time for Liberals—and all who will benefit from this humane and fruitful program—to wake up to the danger. Susan Riley is a veteran political columnist who writes regularly for The Hill Times. The Hill Times