Here is the panel discussion on CTV's Canada AM with myself, AnjumChoudhry Nayyar, and Elizabeth Booth. We discuss whether all this talk of "focusing on the family" will really pay off for Canada's political parties.
What role should the federal government have in child care? There is a constant debate between putting in place a structure of affordable daycare versus providing funds directly to parents (read: baby bonus, family allowance, etc). Stephen Harper's conservative government has opted for the latter.
The Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) will send monthly cheques to all Canadian families for each child under the age 18. For any family who had registered for the program prior to May 15th 2015, the first cheques will arrive in July; those families who register after that date will have an appropriate delay in receiving their payments. The first cheques will include payments retroactive to January 1st 2015.
For each child ages newborn to 6-years-old, the monthly allowance will be $160.00. For 6-to-17-year-olds, the monthly payment will be $60.00. As of today (May 17th, 2015), the federal government claims 200,000 eligible families are still not registered to receive the payment. If you have not yet applied for the benefit (and have one or more children under 18-years-of-age) you can register online at www.canada.ca/taxsavings.
The program is not without its critics. One of those criticisms is that, since the plan—and the amount of the payouts—is universal regardless of a family's income, a family earning millions will receive the same contributions as one earning in the five-figure range. On Friday, I spoke with Pierre Poilievre, Minister of Employment and Social Development and asked him about millionaires receiving equal benefits as a family struggling to make ends meet:
The Universal Child Care Benefit helps 100% of families with kids. It gives them almost $2,000.00 a year for kids under 6 and $720.00 for kids 6 through 17. Now, the point is, it’s universal. Everyone gets it. Regardless of what you make, or the child care you choose, you get the money. The Liberals and the NDP would take away the Child Care Benefit, and even after they do that, they have billions of dollars in shortfall in their own plans. So the message is, with our approach, people know what they get and they can count on it, regardless of their income or the choices they make in child care.
As far as the cost of the program to the federal government (about $1.1 billion in 2014-15 and $4.4 billion in 2015-16), Minister Poilievre says the money will come directly from the general revenues of the Government of Canada. These funds, he says, are available thanks to the Prime Minister's balanced budget.
I also asked him specifically to comment on a common point of view held by residents of Quebec—my home province. In Quebec, we have a "Universal Daycare" program. The daily cost of the program to parents is anywhere from $7.30 per child for a family earning $100,000 or less, up to a maximum rate of $20.00 per child if the family income is greater than $150,000. This new sliding scale, instituted by our provincial government, has been scorned by many middle-income earners. However, the real challenge of the program was—and still is—a lack of space and a waiting list which can be as long as two years or more. I asked Minister Poilievre about the decision to use government funds in the form of cheques sent directly to parents versus using that money to create more daycare spaces:
If we put all the money into government run license daycare spaces, that would exclude about 90% of families. If you have a stay-at-home parent, you get nothing; if you have a grandparent who takes care of the kids, you get nothing; if you have a neighborhood family, you get nothing; if you rely on a private daycare, you get nothing. So the approach of putting all the money into government run license daycare would exclude at least 90% of families. The other thing I would point out is, the Liberal Party promised for 13 years that they would create such a program nationally; they spent billions on it and it didn’t create a single daycare space. All the money was vaporized by bureaucracy, researchers and lobbyists. None of it actually delivered daycare spaces. Even if people want a licensed daycare, the chances that the Government will produce it by the time their kids are still young enough to benefit are next to none. The simplest, easiest way is to put the money in the mail and send it to the parent.
One motivation for our provincial government to provide relatively inexpensive daycare is that it encourages both parents to return to the workforce, thereby generating more taxable income. When asked whether the UCCB will instead encourage one parent to stay home with their child to the potential detriment of government coffers, he said:
Any politician that wants to make child care policy that can maximize how much money the government can take out of people’s pockets deserves to be defeated. I think we should let parents make child care choices in the interests of their children, not in the interest of the taxman.
Minister Poilievre insisted the timing of this program's rollout was not done intentionally to coincide with Canada's federal election in October, but rather he insists this was only now possible due to the balanced budget. When asked whether the program was contingent on the Conservatives being re-elected:
Yes. The Liberals have said they would take away the UCCB. They would cancel it and spend it on a child care bureaucracy, so the only way that these child care payments would continue is with a re-elected Conservative majority.
****
Note: The Liberal Party, as well as the NDP, were contacted and given an opportunity to react to these statements. Comments from both parties should be forthcoming and will be published in this space.
In January, I wrote this post about a Master of Public Policy student at Simon Fraser University who, as part of her thesis, was studying Canadian fathers' use of parental leave.
Now a graduate of the programme, Xiaoyang Luo completed her thesis "Organisational Factors Impacting Fathers’ Use of Parental Benefits in Canada". Some of those conclusions have been summarized in this article she wrote for the Vancouver Sun. It is another set of findings which further support what more and more dads are accepting as fact: an involved father enriches his children's lives and also builds a stronger relationship with the other parent.
I'm often amazed how one week parents are thrilled to be nearing the end of the school year grind, yet a few days later they express worry about an overbooked summer.
On yesterday's appearance on City TV's Breakfast Television, I talk with Joanne Vrakas about how parents can, with their kids help, keep control of their summer schedule, as well as their sanity:
I had lunch yesterday with a friend I had not spoken with in more than 20 years. We filled in the gaps of the past two decades: our marriages, our children, our careers. She said she was surprised I was not a stay-at-home dad. "Why do you say that?" I asked. "Because," she replied "it was what you said you always wanted to be."
I remember always wanting children, but I don't remember hoping to marry a good provider who would enable be to stay home and take care of our children full time. I don't remember having said it, but it doesn't surprise me that I did.
I am 42 years old. If I did, as a teenage boy in the eighties, want to focus (and make public) my intentions of becoming a stay-at-home father, how would that have manifested itself?
During the 1950's, a young woman would be encouraged to seek out a 'good provider'. The understanding was, once married, their husband would earn the household's only income, and the woman would housekeep, raise children, and take care of their spouse. There was nothing unusual about verbalizing those intentions. In fact, expressing an interest in becoming a career woman was largely discouraged.
According to a U.S. Census quoted here by the National At-Home Dad Network, there were 214,000 Stay-at-Home Dads in 2013, more than double the number from the 2000 census.
Might young men begin to voice aspirations of becoming a full-time caregivers to their children? Today's future fathers have the social freedom women of 50's did not: they are admired whether they choose to have successful careers or also if they commit themselves to the care of their children full time. How would society react to 17-year-old boys openly admitting that marrying a woman with strong career potential was a high priority? What if they kept their eye out for a good provider?
I am an advocate for hands-on, present, in-the-home parenting; whether by a mom or a dad. But how would I react if my son said "I don't want to strive to have a professional career; I want to raise my children." My reaction, in 2014, would be similar whether that point of view was expressed by my son or my daughter. I would encourage them both to have a marketable skill which they can set aside if they choose - and have the luxury to be able - to take care of their children full time.
There are two reasons I don't predict a wave of young men bucking their career search and instead advertising their interest in finding a rich wife. First, society's pendulum is far from having swung away from 1950, and second, the new normal is becoming a household with two working parents rather than a working mother and a stay-at-home father.
According to HealthyChildren.org, a household with two working parents has its benefits:
When both parents are occupied with their jobs for eight or more hours per day, there are obvious effects on the family. On the positive side, the family has an increased income and thus fewer financial stresses. Also, when both parents work, there is a potential for greater equality in the roles of husband and wife. Depending on the nature of the parents' work, as well as the family's values, fathers may assume more responsibility for child care and housework than has traditionally been the case.
So how about that young aspiration of becoming a Stay-at-Home Dad?
Logically, I would never counsel any individual to not work towards skills which can eventually be transformed into a lifelong career. However, if my son - while hopefully excelling at school - said "This is great, but I really home to be a Stay-at-Home Dad." I would consider that a source of pride, perhaps more so even than being half of a successful pair of working parents.
Could it be I don't remember my high school declaration about wanting to be at home with my kids full time because even I didn't take myself seriously? If my son echo's that sentiment when he is in the 9th grade, I'll be sure to hear him out. The question is: will the rest of the world be ready to listen?
You're a blogger. As a time management exercise, you and your spouse have agreed to set aside one day weekly during which you have the house to yourself to focus strictly on your writing. Now, there should be no excuses. Why is it then, after nine hours you're still behind schedule?
I have just returned to the latter half of a Canadian winter, after the kinetic warmth of the Dad 2.0 Summit in New Orleans. Last year, I wrote about my angst leading up to and my exhilaration heading home from the second annual summit in Houston. For the 2014 conference, I wasn't sure what to expect from this "opportunity to learn the tools and tactics used by influential bloggers to create high-quality content, build personal brands, and develop business idea". Even more destabilizing, I wasn't sure what to expect from myself.
I will include two videos in this post. The latter is somewhat self-promoting in nature (although both are closely related to the summit). In case I lose you before then, in case you only have four more minutes to give me, watch this first video only. It is a fantastic amalgamation of sound and images put together by XY Media, the Summit's organizing body. Nothing more acutely embodies the spirit and intention of not only this conference, but a new movement of modern dads everywhere:
A few of the great writers in attendance have already done a fine job recapping the weekend's events. If you're interested, you can read these posts by Buzz Bishop or Carter Gaddis.
My takeaways from those forty-eight hours were concise, and very personal. A special thank you to Isabel Kallman, founder of Alphamom.com for reminding me not to look ahead, behind, or to my left and right attempting to measure myself against the competition. Stick to your path, she said, and be true to your work.
Another common message I absorbed (the real challenge being not to let it leak away within the first week home) was...work. To achieve any level of success as a writer (or anything else, for that matter), I can't lose sight of the work involved in getting there.
What is truly magical about Dad 2.0 is how it moulded itself and its messages to each attendee. If you were to ask each father (and mother!) to talk about the Summit's strengths, they would have drastically different answers. They would surprise each other, and then most likely agree with each other. The Summit is like emotional and intellectual putty. Sculpted, made to measure, directed at nobody in particular and everyone simultaneously.
If you have children, and you have the opportunity, I recommend attending next year's meeting (No, I am not on anybody's payroll!). It can uplift you, recharge you, and I guarantee, no matter your perspective, you will find someone who agrees with you, and yet others who challenge you. You will return home a better partner, and a better parent.
Finally, here I am on Montreal's Breakfast Television, 48 hours after returning home, discussing the Summit's lasting impressions.
I was recently contacted by a Master of Public Policy student at Simon Fraser University who, as part of a thesis is studying Canadian fathers' use of parental leave. The student included a survey to be completed by fathers with at least one child born or adopted since 2010, and who lived and worked in Canada at the time. The survey should take around 15 minutes to complete.
From the survey's author:
The purpose of this survey is to explore fathers’ use of parental leave in Canada since 2010. In particular, this survey focuses on the extent to which employment and organisational factors impact fathers’ decisions to take parental leave.
By examining work--‐related barriers and facilitators, this study seeks to identify ways to better support fathers who want to take parental leave. All recent fathers aged 19 and over are encouraged to participate in the survey regardless of whether or not they have taken parental leave in the past.
A special thank you to the Montreal Gazette's Fatima Arkin for having the interest and taking the time to feature a local parenting blogger. This piece is another feather in the cap of Dads everywhere: