Canada
(Last updated August 2005) |
|||||||||||||||||
Introduction and OverviewIn a detailed overview, two Canadian scholars sum up as follows: "As the Canadian government has created no explicit family policy, policies affecting families are embedded within legislation or regulations of broader social or economic programs. This means that any change to family policies necessarily require reform to many economic and social programs, including laws taxation systems, and empowerment programs" (Baker & Phipps, 1997, p. 197). The exception is the Province of Quebec, with an explicit, more extensive, and more generous family policy system in the French tradition, including a strong pronatalism. In the range of social policy approaches characteristic of modern industrial societies, Canadians share with the others in the Anglo-American family a historical preference for a minimalist welfare state, means-testing over universalism, an attraction to market rather than bureaucratic and institutionalized solutions and individual-case rather than public goods responses to poverty, family problems and special needs, as modern demographic shifts have occurred and been acknowledged. However, some critical responses have been made with reference to parental leaves and (more limited) to child care needs in particular. On the other hand, the Canadians have tended to follow a European approach to infrastructure, especially with regard to health and education programs (Baker & Phipps, 1997). |
|||||||||||||||||
HighlightsClick here to view or print country highlights in PDF format. |
|||||||||||||||||
Government AgenciesUnder Canadian federal structure (nine provinces, two territories, two languages, two different legal systems), the federal government's main social policy roles involve income support, while the provinces have considerable power and autonomy with regard to services. Broadly defined, the above-described diversity along with major geographic differences is reflected in political, attitudinal and cultural differences and thus a very pluralistic social sector. Indeed, provincial differences have tended to increase and federal influence to weaken under recent political and economic circumstances.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Demographic and Other Social TrendsCanada is a vast country with a total area unmatched in the OECD, except by the United States, which is slightly smaller. Its population of a bit over 32 million (2003) is exceeded by both mid-size and large OECD countries. It has slightly more under-15's, and slightly fewer over-65's than the EU or OECD average, but is "older" than the less developed of the OECD countries. As in other advanced industrialized countries, Canada's demographic patterns have shifted markedly, especially since the end of World War II, in the direction of "smaller households, lower rates of legal marriages, declining fertility, more mothers in the labor force, rising divorce rates, an increase in births outside of marriage, more one-parent households, and rising life expectancy." These trends both challenge and reflect policy (Baker & Phipps, 1997, p. 108). Of interest, Canada's total fertility (1.5, 2001) is among the rates of the lower, but not lowest European tier, well below the U.S. (2.1). Since the baby boom of the 1960's and the large young immigration of recent decades, there has been no pronatalism widely advocated, except in Quebec where it has political-cultural roots (and a still lower birth rate). As have other countries, Canada has experienced an increase in lone-mother families, as a percentage of families with children, since 1960. Of all Canadian children, 10 percent were in lone-parent families in the late 1990's and 16 percent in 2003, rates exceeded in the Scandinavian countries, U.S, UK and Australia, and much of Europe. Cohabitation has also grown, especially in Quebec. These increases have come more through divorce and separation than as a result of out-of-wedlock births. Nonetheless, the latter rate also has significantly increased, but remains below rates in the U.S, U.K, the Nordic countries, and much of Europe. Twenty percent of lone parent families had at least one child under age 6. Child poverty rates in these families are high (see below). Below the Nordic counties, but at about the same level as the U.S., Canada has relatively high female labor force participation rates; 64 percent for women with children under the age of 3 in 1998 and 70 percent for those with children aged 3 to 5. Rates for lone mothers with children under age 3 are much lower than rates for married mothers, 47% in 2002 in contrast to 63 percent of mothers in husband/wife families. Its part-time component is less than the EU average. A high percentage of employed married mothers with children work full time, several percentage points more so than do lone mothers with children. Canada was among the high unemployment, recession-impacted countries of the 1990's, facts which contributed to social policy constraints and cutbacks. Youth unemployment was not particularly high, comparatively. |
|||||||||||||||||
Social ProtectionCanada has all the social protection programs of a modern industrial society, their specifics reflecting some of the factors outlined above. "Infrastructure" programs are universal and have European-style coverage (health, education). Income supports are means-tested, not generous. Services are developed by the provinces and the voluntary sector and therefore very varied. Provinces have directed family services to low-income families and those in crisis, only recently turning attention to the needs of mothers as care providers, according to Baker (Baker & Phipps, 1997, p. 171). The pattern of the late 1990's has been to cut back, urge and require work for lone mothers with children; poverty is approached more as a problem of individual deficits than of under-or un-employment and poor human capital. In 2004, Parliament enacted a law legalizing same sex marriage. In Canada, the earnings supplement experiment, "Welfare to Work" established 10 years ago, was concluded in 2002. Low wage workers, who worked at least 30 hours per week, were entitled to benefits worth half the difference between the recipient's income and two times the average wage of a low wage worker. Thus, supplemental income is largest for the poorest. The evaluation of the program found that former welfare recipients were better off with regard to earnings, income, poverty reduction, job retention, and cost-benefit ratio (Bertelsmann, Issue 7, 2003). Canada has a larger public sector (proportionately) than U.S., U.K., Ireland and higher tax burdens than the Anglo-American groups-but not the U.K. Applying the U.S. "absolute" ("breadbasket") poverty line, Canada, with the 5th best per capita GDP, had the seventh lowest (the tenth highest) child poverty rate among 16 OECD countries, at 9.5 percent (1995). By the more commonly used international rate (households with incomes below 50 percent of the country median), it had the 5th highest rate (the 14th lowest) among 25, at 15.5 percent in 1995 and 16.5 percent in 2002. The latter measure is most sensitive to income distribution. Canada's poverty rate for children in lone parent families was 39 percent, whereas it was 6.0 percent for children in other families (UNICEF, 2001, Figures 1, 2, 3; UNICEF, 2005; OECD, 2004). As an indication of the impact of income transfer policies, we note that Canada's child poverty rate decreased from 22.8 as a result of these programs, considerably more than the impact of similar programs in Italy, USA, or UK. But this impact is very small when contrasted with Europe's generous welfare states (UNICEF, 2001, Figure 9; UNICEF, 2005, Figure 9). Overall the UNICEF comparative "report card" for industrial states rate USA, U.K., Ireland and Canada as the "worst performing countries" at that time (UNICEF, 2001, Figure 10). Canada announced a target in 1990 of eliminating child poverty by 2000, but clearly did not achieve it. Aborigines population and the Inuit are especially vulnerable to poverty. Canada's per capita GDP compares favorably in the industrialized
world, above both EU and OECD averages, if well below the leaders,
Luxembourg, the U.S., and Norway. Its total health expenditures as a percent
of GDP is exceeded only by France, Germany, Switzerland, and the
U.S. (2001). Its education investment compares favorably with the
rich countries. However, in overall social welfare expenditures
as a percentage of GDP, it is, as already noted, in the low-ranging
Anglo-America group - with U.K. more like continental welfare states.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Child, Youth and Family Policy RegimesMaternity, Paternity, Parental, and Family LeavesEmployment Insurance (EI) Maternity and Parental Benefits. The
Government of Canada has been providing Employment Insurance to
working Canadians against the loss of income due to childbirth for
close to 30 years. Employment Insurance maternity and parental benefits
ensure that, at a time when needs are greatest, working Canadians
have the income support they need while caring for their infant
children. Maternity and parental benefits under the Employment Insurance
program are one of the ways that the Government of Canada is helping
parents balance work and family responsibilities to help ensure
that their children get the best possible start in life. As of 2001, Canada doubled the length of its paid maternity/parental leave to eligible parents through the Employment Insurance Program (previously called Unemployment Insurance) from six months to one year. This applies both to newborn and to adopted children. This is accomplished by increasing the parental portion of the leave from 25 to 50 weeks. Benefit levels were unchanged: 55 percent of average weekly earnings to a set maximum; 80 percent for low earners. Relatively high earners will repay a portion. The maximum work requirement for eligibility was reduced from 700 to 600 hours. And, as is the case with Employment Insurance, a recipient may work part-time and earn 25 percent of the wage, to a maximum (Bertelsmann Foundation, 2000 and 2004). The preliminary results for 2001 show that in the first year since the enhancements to maternity and parental benefits, there was a substantial increase in the number of parents staying at home with their newborn child in the critical first year of life (Human Resources Development Canada, Press Release, 11/6/02). The positive results reinforce the Government of Canada's commitment to provide Canadians with the support they need by replacing their income and protecting their job while on maternity and parental leave. The changes to maternity and parental benefits also help working parents better balance their work and family responsibilities. Most importantly, these changes improve the health and well-being of children by allowing parents to spend time with them during the critical first year of their life when parental involvement is so important. Findings in 2001. Overall, more than 200,000 Canadians accessed
maternity and parental benefits in 2001
The improved sharing of benefits led to an increase in the number of parental claims by fathers by about 80% (from 12,010 in 2000 to 21,530 in 2001). This is evidence that the new rules have indeed resulted in improved sharing of benefits between partners. With both parents sharing the waiting period, close to 7,000 fathers did not have to serve a waiting period. By improving the duration of benefits:
The Employment Insurance system will now include a six week compassionate family care leave benefit to allow employees to care for a gravely ill or dying child, parent or spouse. See also page 25 of OECD: Early Childhood Education and Care Policy, Country Note. OECD, Paris, 2004/2005. |
|||||||||||||||||
Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC)As was the case in a number of countries, Canada's ECCE developments come out of two systems, both still present (Baker & Phipps, 1997). Childcare services developed out of a welfare tradition that sought to assist neglected children and to protect children of low-income women who had to go out to work or morally endangered children of the poor. Public kindergartens and nursery schools came out of child development or education philosophies attractive to the middle class. There was, by the past World War II period, a day care system, mostly welfare-based for the very young, fee-charging centers and nursery schools for the 3-5 year olds, and a kindergarten system. Care of children while mothers work became politically important as an issue in the 1980's, but despite platform promises, commissions and task forces, Canadian experts regard the public response as inadequate to this point. There is free, universal kindergarten for the 5-6 year olds, largely part-day. The under-5's are served in a fragmented system with uneven coverage and many supply shortages, mostly in non-profit center care and in family day care, but unregulated family day care is the most prevalent form of ECCE. Center-based care, commercial or not-for-profit, is the most common regulated care. Data are inadequate given the fragmented nature of the provinces-based system. By the early 1990's, 3.2 percent of children under 1-1/2 were in care; 9.6 percent of those 1-1/2 - 3; 10.8 percent of the 3-5's; also 40 percent of the 4-5's, were kindergarten (Baker & Phipps, 1997). We find reasonable an estimate that about half of the under 5's are now in center care or family day care. Almost 80 percent of subsidized child care is care provided by private non-profit centers (OECD, 2004). 40% of child care is accounted for by Quebec. Overall, the rate of coverage is 15% for 0-6 year olds and 24% those with working mothers (OECD Canada Background Report for Canada, Table 6. See also Bertelsmann, February 2005, ECEC p.5). Childcare is seen as one of the soft spots in Canadian family policy. Parent fees are the major source of finance, as well as province allocations to "welfare" programs out of their block grant. More recently, an upgraded childcare tax credit was enacted and is of help to better-off families mostly, since it is forfeited by those without adequate taxable income (Baker, 1995). Federal funding will be made available to help provincial and territorial governments invest in early childhood development programs in four areas: promote healthy pregnancy, birth and infancy; improve parenting and family supports; strengthen early childhood development, learning and child care; strengthen community supports. The federal government has committed to $5 billion over 5 years (2005-2010) to extend and enhance early learners and child care nationally. A debate about whether ECEC should be publicly provided or not continues but at present, the dominant funding sources are the NGOs and parent fees. Quebec has launched the most ambitious ECEC policy and program initiatives in North America, developing a universal program that is heavily subsidized. Other than Quebec, there has been no significant increase in access and coverage of ECEC and long waiting lists exist. |
|||||||||||||||||
Family and Child AllowancesThe third annual Progress Report for the National Child Benefit provides the first quantitative analyses of the impact of the ongoing government reform of child benefits. It also updates related investments by the provinces and territories in family-related programs. According to Bertelsmann (Issue 7, 2003; see also February 2005, p. 18ff),
Universal child benefits, killed in 1991, are still dead (Bertelsmann, February 2005, p. 21). |
|||||||||||||||||
Child and Family Tax BenefitsNational Child Benefit. In Canada the reform of the two existing child benefit systems seeks to provide an equal, income-tested, and tax-delivered child benefit to all low-income families with children . Up to 1997, the year when the first stage of the reform was implemented, welfare families received about double the amount of child benefits as other low-income families, because they received provincial welfare benefits for their children as well as federal child benefits. Working poor received the latter only. Therefore in the old system the child benefit was part of the "welfare trap", decreasing the incentive for employment. In the new National Child Benefit System the federal Child Tax Benefit and the welfare-delivered child benefits will be replaced by a Canada Child Tax Benefit. Provincial and territorial governments can redirect their welfare savings - resulting from increased federal child benefits - to spending on other programs for low-income families with children (e.g., income support, health, social and employment services). Overall, the National Child Benefit is the first positive initiative of the new "Social Union Framework" (i.e., new federalism) involving close federal-provincial collaboration in Canada and an example of the way in which duplications and overlaps in family and welfare programs on the federal and provincial/territorial level could be removed to begin a fundamental restructuring of income security policy for families. According to the OECD Country Report (2004, p. 24, paragraph 28):
|
|||||||||||||||||
Child SupportThe Constitutional jurisdiction for child support is shared between the federal and the provincial and territorial governments in Canada. The federal government's jurisdiction is limited to individuals who divorce. Child support guidelines have been adopted either through legislation or through practice in all provinces and territories. A joint federal/provincial/territorial committee in the early to mid 1990s developed the prevalent child support formula. The tax inclusion/deduction treatment for child support was abolished in 1997 to coincide with the introduction of guidelines. Support enforcement is a matter of provincial/territorial jurisdiction.
All provinces and territories have support enforcement programs.
The federal government plays a coordinating role and administers
a federal enforcement program to assist the provincial and territorial
programs. The federal government also has two enforcement statutes,
one relating the suspension of certain federal licenses for chronic
support defaulters and certain Crown monies, and the other permitting
the garnishment of a support debtor's salary and/or pension where
that person is a federal employee.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Other Child Conditioned Income TransfersThe unemployment insurance income replacement rate rises in the case of low- income claimants with dependants (from 55 percent of average gross earnings to 80 percent in 2000). Provinces paying social assistance were not permitted to decrease payments to families with children under the new 1998 child tax benefit to a point where any family has a decrease in income. Some provinces continue social assistance with their own funds, supplementing the federal child benefit program. There is a child supplement to earnings-related disability benefits and an orphan survivor benefit as well under the "old age, disability" system. Varying by province, there are child survivor benefits under the work-injury system. The new Child Disability Benefit will help low- and modest-income families cope with the often onerous financial burden of raising children who have a severe and prolonged physical or mental disability. |
|||||||||||||||||
Child and Adolescent HealthUnder Canada's 1998 reform, provinces receive funding for their universal health insurance ("Medicare") as a part of the block grant, Canada Health and Social Transfer. Hospitals and physicians negotiate their funding arrangements or fee schedule with provincial governments, although many Quebec doctors in public clinics are salaried. Province supplement block grant money and spend one-third or more of their budgets on health services. Federal funding rules ensure universal access and comprehensive services, but provinces vary with regard to such things as optometry and dental services. Canada, with U.S. and Germany, is one of the three high-health spending countries. In this context, Medicare fully funds prenatal and postnatal health care, related family education and support activity, well-baby clinics and family planning services. Public authorities and non-profit organizations also operate clinics, often targeting services to adolescents. Provision for medical and dental examination of all children is usually included in provincial public health or education legislation. Some -but not all- provinces mandate compulsory child immunization and provide it as a free service (Baker & Phipps, 1997, pp. 165-169). Canadian maternal, child, and adolescent health indicators (and life expectancy rates) compare well in the industrial world. However, low-income--and especially aboriginal children lag behind.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Housing BenefitsExcept for special, but quite limited help to social assistance recipients in the provinces, there is no family or child oriented housing program. There is little social housing.
|
|||||||||||||||||
School-Aged Children: Policies and ProgramsCompulsory school ages, usually 6 - 16 years..
|
|||||||||||||||||
YouthIn a document prepared for the Lisbon "World Conference of Ministers Responsible for Youth" (August, 1998), Canada noted the major role of provinces and territories. In general the provinces deal with education, social assistance and health, while the federal government "manages a range of economic, social and cultural issues." There are diverse provincial structures and at the federal level many agencies and departments are involved. A Secretary of State for Children and Youth has the lead role in Human Resources Development Canada. Reporting mostly in generalities and citing some illustrations, the report listed the following as youth priorities: unacceptable unemployment in the 18 - 25 group, health, environment, discrimination, and treatment of young offenders. There is interest in promoting youth "participation" and "well-being" (Government of Canada, 1998). Depending on the issues, according to the report, the youth span can cover ages from 12 to 30. § School age programs are targeted at 12 - 19. Canada was one of the fourteen countries participating in the OECD thematic review, From Initial Education to Working Life - Making Transitions Work. For more detail on the transition to working life in Canada, see OECD's background report on Canada.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Reconciliation of Work and Family LifeSee above re: ECCE and parental leaves. Relatively little attempt to achieve workplace or worktime flexibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||
ReferencesBaker, M. & Tippin, D. (1999). Poverty, social assistance, and the employment of mothers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Baker, M. & Phipps, S. (1997). Canada. In S. B. Kamerman and A. J. Kahn (Eds.), Family change and family policies in Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. England: Oxford University Press. Baker, M. (1995). Canadian family policies: Cross-national comparisons. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bertelsmann Foundation. (1999). International Reform Monitor, 1. Germany: Author. Bertelsmann Foundation. (2000). International Reform Monitor, 3. Germany: Author. Bertelsmann Foundation. (2003). International Reform Monitor, 7 & 8. Germany: Author. Friendly, M., & Beach, J. (2005). Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada. Toronto, CA: University of Toronto. Government of Canada. (1998, August). Youth measures and related issues in Canada. Prepared for the World Conference of Ministers Responsible for Youth, Lisbon Portugal. Human Resources Development Canada, Press Release, 11/6/02 OECD. (2000). From initial education to working life-Making transitions work. Paris: Author. OECD. (2000). Thematic review of the transition from initial education to working life: Canada background report. Paris: Author. OECD (2004). Background Report and Country Note Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada. UNICEF. (2000). A league table of child poverty in rich nations. Innocenti Country Report Card, 1. Florence: UNICEF International Child Development Centre. UNICEF. (2005). A league table of child poverty in rich nations. Innocenti Country Report Card, 5. Florence: UNICEF International Child Development Centre. Willms, J. Douglas (ed.) (2002). Vulnerable Children. Edmonton, Alberta, CA: The University of Alberta Press. |
|||||||||||||||||
ContactsWashington Embassy
Ministry
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
