Kid alert.

When the government thought it could do all things for all people, a national child-care program became an election promise. That's history now as governments back away from all social programs to save money

It was back in 1984 when the federal Conservative government promised a multibillion-dollar national child-care program. In 1992, it abandoned the program saying the money was needed in other areas such as a campaign against child abuse.

Then, the Liberals started making election promises. If elected, the party would put millions into child care. Its Red Book of campaign promises pointed out how important the issue was:

"Quality, accessible child care is an economic advantage for Canada. It enables single parents to end dependence on welfare and food banks by re-entering the workforce. It provides direct jobs for Canadians, particularly for women, on average, one person is employed for every five child-care spaces created ... In each year following a year of 3% economic growth, a Liberal government will create 50,000 new child-care spaces to a total of 150,000."

In 1995, the Liberals pledged $630 million, spread over three to five years, to expand childcare services for those six and younger in provinces willing to share the investment. Instead, the number of child-care spaces available has shrunk and the government has cut funds to the provinces leaving them less to spend on child-care.

Initially, government programs to fund child care were designed to help women, particularly low-income women, find work. There also was the hope of giving the poorest children extra learning to help them enter school on a better footing with more affluent children.

Now, some believe that child care is a private-sector responsibility and government should not pay for it. Others argue that high-quality child care is a social good that taxpayers ought to support for the sake of children; they think what Canada needs is a system of universal care financed by government.

Certainly, the impact on children of good child care compared with that of bad child care is enormous. According to long-term studies in the United States, every $1 spent on quality pre-school child care saves $7 that would have been spent down the road on welfare, policing, social services, and prisons. Studies in Canada and the United Kingdom confirm that the quality of child care can be a major influence on a child's future.

So, to many it was bad news when the Ontario government announced in September 1996 that it wanted to eliminate wage subsidies for day-care workers, increase staff-to-child ratios, and reduce inspections of licenced centres. The government felt the $125 million spent annually to boost child-care workers' wages would be better spent on direct fee subsidies to parents.

The transfer of money, along with raising the staff-to-child ratio, would create 12,000 new subsidized child-care spots with little or no impact on the quality of care, according to a government report.

But, a major study of 227 child-care centres in five U.S. states found that the proportion of children receiving inappropriate care soared as the number of children being looked after by a caregiver increased.

The percentage of pre-schoolers considered to be "not receiving appropriate care-giving" jumped to 52% from 9% when the ratio changed from one adult for every eight children to one for every nine. That's the same change in ratio proposed in Ontario.

A lot of people think inadequate child care is one of the main reasons why many single mothers stay out of the paid workforce and go on welfare instead. And, there's more and more evidence that while children can thrive with good care, the ill effects of mediocre care can last a lifetime.

The problems often start in school. Children not nurtured or stimulated in child care may have more problems than their peers with social relationships, language skills, and intellectual ability once they reach school age. And, this happens to the children of married, middleclass parents with university degrees just as it does to the children of single parents on welfare.

Dr. Donna Lero is a childcare researcher and professor of family studies at the University of Guelph. She warns that downgrading child care will compromise children's health and safety. "We'll see kids whose learning and emotional needs are not being met," she says. "In the very best case, children simply are not going to get the kind of attention they deserve.

"As Canadians, we should have a sense of collective sharing for our children. We all contribute through the tax system to pay for education whether we're parents or not, because we recognize that investment. We all contribute to the health system, whether we're sick or not, because we want that for ourselves collectively when we need it. It should be no different for child care."

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES.

1. According to The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, more than 9,000 child-care subsidies were lost in the first year of Mike Harris's Conservative government. That's because the province shifted 20% of the cost of provincial subsidies to municipalities, many of which could not afford the extra costs.

In Metropolitan Toronto alone, 11 child-care programs closed as a result and thousands more disappeared in September 1996 when grants from Ottawa expired too. How does this compare with what's happening in your community? Appoint a team of students to investigate and report.

2. Regulated, quality child care is a fundamental building block of a healthy society. Discuss this statement and debate the pros and cons of public versus private child-care programs.