Petr Varmuza, University of Toronto; Linda A. White, University of Toronto, and Michal Perlman, University of Toronto

Many parents, economists and and child-care advocates celebrated the signing of Ontario’s early learning and child-care agreement with the federal government at the end of March.

The agreement means a substantial infusion of federal government funding to allow an immediate 25 per cent reduction of child-care fees, followed by a further reduction to 50 per cent at the end of 2022. A final reduction to an average of $10 per day is set to happen by 2026.

As researchers with combined expertise in public policy and its effectiveness, and applied psychology and human development and preschool-aged children, we believe universal access to early learning and child care should mean an equitable treatment of every child, where every child receives the support they need. But this isn’t the case with Ontario’s agreement.

Something that deserves scrutiny and redress is how Ontario’s new early learning and child-care deal creates inequities for children in the most economically disadvantaged families.

Issues with the agreement

Only a few days after Ontario’s agreement was signed, significant cracks began to emerge. Child-care researchers and advocates raised concerns about the agreement’s provisions that allow proportional expansion of the for-profit sector and the lack of commitment to living wages and benefits for child-care workers.

The proposed expansion of 86,000 spaces beyond the 2019 licensed capacity falls overwhelmingly short of the forecasted demand that will be generated by lower child-care fees.

Expert analysis suggests that as many as 200,000 additional licensed child-care spaces may be required as a result of demand spurred by halving parents’ child-care fees. By 2026, when the full fee reduction must be implemented, yet another 100,000 spaces may be required.

Every unique early learning and child-care agreement Canada has signed across the country leaves it up to provinces or territories to determine how the average $10 fee will achieved.

Subsidy rules

In Ontario, the agreement provides for the $10 provincial average to be created by the combination of a flat $12 fee combined with lower fees paid by families receiving child care subsidies. Those subsidies are subject to availability and aren’t guaranteed to every family who meets established social need criteria. Criteria include being employed, attending school or having a certified child or parent with a special need.

These conditions are reminiscent of Victorian-era attitudes that obscure the policy and systemic roots of poverty and which restrict state aid for the “deserving” poor — those who are considered gainfully employed, “productive” or working to improve their economic situations.

In Ontario, the amount of the financial subsidy is the difference between full fees and a family’s own contribution as determined by an income test defined by provincial regulation. The payment is calculated by excluding net taxable family income under $20,000, charging a 10 per cent of income between $20,000 and $40,000 and rising to 30 per cent for income above $40,000.

If a parent’s child-care provider agrees to participate in Ontario’s new early learning and child care agreement, 25 per cent fees parents have paid after April 1, 2022, would be retroactively refunded. The new rate would apply going forward. Providers have up to Sept. 1 to sign up.

For fully employed families, whether they pay full fees or receive a subsidy, the child-care cost may be further reduced by claiming the Child Care Expense Deduction and the Ontario Childcare and Affordable Relief from Expense tax credit.

Access isn’t universal

Ontario’s agreement thus creates a universal, flat-fee child care for medium and high-income families. Subject to limited funding availability, Ontario retains subsidized child-care for a portion of the subsidy eligible parents for low-income people under stringent conditions.

Higher-income families have no eligibility requirements or a maximum income cap to take advantage of the reduced child-care fees.

But for those low-income families who meet the subsidy eligibility criteria, access will become unfortunately harder: Ontario’s April 2022 provincial funding guidelines reduce transfers to municipalities for subsidy funding by 25 per cent. They also specifically prohibit the use of the new early learning and care agreement funding from increasing the number of subsidies, despite long waiting lists in many areas of Ontario.

Many low-income families won’t be eligible

Decades of research demonstrates that the most disadvantaged children can benefit most from access to high-quality licensed child care.

The very tool that can improve the life chances and reduce the inter-generational transfer of poverty is, by the Ontario government’s exclusionary policy, systemically less available to many of the most disadvantaged children.

There is substantial international and Canadian evidence that well-off families living in well-off communities have better access to better-quality child-care programs. Without attention to equitable access, universalization of child-care access leads to over-representation of children from relatively more affluent families. This can be seen in Québec’s experience with implementing what was launched as $5-a-day child care more than 20 years ago, as well as in the experience of several European Union member states.

Universal access should mean an equitable treatment of every child, where every child receives the support they need.

Next steps

In Ontario, the obvious next steps are the removal of the subsidy system’s restrictive eligibility criteria.

Ontario needs to introduce a guarantee access to full early learning and care experiences for children from low-income families. Right now, the $12 flat fee should be replaced by an income-tested fee reflecting family incomes. The income test mechanism should be flexible enough to meet the conditions of the new agreement.

Reducing the inequity gap should be at the top of agenda for implementation of the new early learning and care agreement. If this is not addressed, this policy direction will have consequences affecting the life chances of disadvantaged populations possibly for generations to come.

Petr Varmuza, Assistant researcher, Perlman Lab, Ontario Institute for the Studies of Education, University of Toronto; Linda A. White, RBC Chair and Professor, Department of Political Science and Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, and Michal Perlman, Professor of Applied Psychology and Human Development, University of Toronto

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Alana Cattapan, University of Waterloo and Holly Ann McKenzie, University of Saskatchewan

The province of Saskatchewan leads the country in preventable, opportunistic illnesses enabled by poverty. With new changes to income support programs and increased housing instability, things are getting worse.

Saskatchewan has the highest rate of HIV in Canada, with cases more than three times the national average. New cases are occurring via what’s known as vertical transmission (from mother to child), largely unseen in wealthier nations because such cases are preventable with the use of anti-retroviral drugs.

Injection drug use is the most common mode of transmission in the province, and the numbers are highest among Indigenous people where ongoing legacies of colonialism, policy-induced poverty, intergenerational trauma and substance use are woven together.

Indigenous people have met these challenging conditions with resistance, mobilizing Indigenous-led responses to HIV and advancing Indigenous ways of knowing. But these efforts continue to be undermined by limited funding and provincial government failures to provide sufficient income assistance for those living in economic precarity.

Syphilis epidemic

Increasing HIV rates in Saskatchewan are occurring alongside a new epidemic of syphilis.

This is not surprising, because syphilis increases susceptibility to HIV; it’s a harbinger of more HIV infections to come. Syphilis cases are increasing exponentially, to more than 800 cases in 2021, from five cases in 2016. The disease is extremely infectious in its less severe early stages and can, like HIV, be transmitted in pregnancy.

When transmitted in pregnancy (congenital syphilis), syphilis can have dire consequences, including stillbirth and babies born with a range of health issues, among them skeletal and facial anomalies, deafness, blindness and significant neurological problems. In 2016, there were four cases of congenital syphilis in Saskatchewan; four years later there were more than 50.

Both HIV and syphilis are opportunistic infections made more likely by the realities of living in poverty. They are both asymptomatic in their early stages, so people may not know they’re infected. The stress of poverty and substance use can contribute to people engaging in more HIV- and syphilis-risk behaviours than they might otherwise.

Once infected, both syphilis and HIV can be treated, but treatment can be intense — syphilis during pregnancy can require multiple appointments and HIV requires daily medication. When people are living without reliable housing and existing on insufficient income, they have to come up with creative strategies to survive and being screened, tested or treated for new infections is not always a top priority.

Benefits reduced

Inadequate rates of social assistance in Saskatchewan have long contributed to the problem, now exacerbated by changes that have recently reduced the total amount of benefits.

Unlike its predecessor, the new program does not fund the actual cost of utilities, instead providing an insufficient fixed amount. Other supports were reduced or eliminated, such as those for clothing, furniture and school supplies.

The new program also got rid of direct payment to landlords, which previously ensured that no matter what, rent was always paid. These changes have meant that more people than ever are being evicted, with the Saskatchewan Landlord Association reporting that 30 per cent of people on social assistance did not or could not pay their rent in the months after the change took effect.

In November 2021, the Ministry of Social Services stated it would pay rent and utilities directly for recipients who are at risk of homelessness, but housing organizations say this still isn’t happening.

More precarity, fewer resources

The increasing rates of syphilis and HIV are made worse by these changes to income assistance because people have more precarity and fewer resources than previously.

Although pregnant people and new parents often use various strategies to get what they and their children need to get by, their efforts are undermined by a fragmented system of care, lack of culturally responsive services and limited access to existing interventions. That includes screening and testing for asymptomatic, unidentified and/or untreated infections.

Providing adequate rates of social assistance is key to public health. We should need no other reason to ensure people have enough to live on than reducing the rates of entirely preventable, infectious diseases. But it also makes economic sense.

The costs of treating people who have contracted these diseases, and particularly children, cost substantially more over time than providing adequate social assistance. Slashing rates of social assistance is a costly mistake and the most marginalized pay the most dearly.

People living in poverty work hard to make ends meet and find creative strategies to make the most out of every dollar, but there is a limit. Without sufficient social assistance to meet people’s basic needs, more people are ending up in precarious circumstances, needing to access to more intensive and long-term interventions.

There is a vicious cycle in Saskatchewan of cutting public funding for social assistance to support people experiencing difficulty, only to intervene when things are much, much worse.

Alana Cattapan, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Waterloo and Holly Ann McKenzie, Postdoctoral Fellow, Medicine, University of Saskatchewan

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

R. Blake Brown, Saint Mary’s University

The recent mass shooting that killed 19 children and two teachers at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, has sparked another round of the gun control debate.

The shooter reportedly used an AR-15-type rifle, bought just after he turned 18. The AR-15 has been controversial in the United States and Canada for decades, and, in 2020, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government prohibited the weapon.

Assault-style rifle characteristics

Several characteristics of the AR-15 make it dangerous in the wrong hands. It is a semi-automatic firearm, meaning it can be fired repeatedly — once for each pull of the trigger. And it can be reloaded in seconds by removing its cartridge magazine and replacing it with a loaded one.

A less frequently commented upon feature of the AR-15 is that it usually fires a version of the ammunition used by many NATO soldiers to kill enemy troops. As shown in Texas, and many other mass shootings, that ammunition is also extremely effective at harming civilians. The Texas killer purchased 1,600 rounds of the ammunition.

Journalists have debated whether to detail the bodily harms experienced by mass shooting victims. Some believe that failing to describe the physical effects of rifle bullets sanitizes mass shooting events, and suggest that greater public knowledge about victims’ injuries might affect the gun control debate.

Dangerous high-velocity ammunition

Ammunition is often defined by its calibre — that is, by the diameter of the projectile fired. Firearm calibres are designated in millimetres or inches. The .223-inch calibre ammunition (or 5.56mm) used in most AR-15s is smaller than the rounds employed in many rifles traditionally used for hunting game, like the .308.

However, the small size of the .223 ammunition doesn’t mean it’s safe. It was developed in response to the American military’s desire in the post-Second World War period to create a small-calibre, high-velocity weapon. The .223 round was light, meaning that soldiers could easily carry many rounds for their rifles.

The firearms industry mass-marketed semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, and such weapons became increasingly popular by the late 20th century. Unfortunately, rifles firing .223 ammunition also frequently became a favourite weapon of mass shooters.

Defenders of the AR-15 sometimes downplay the dangers of such guns. For example, in 2020, the vice-president of a Canadian gun lobby group, the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, tweeted a picture of her AR-15 and called it a “a low-powered sport rifle.”

However, doctors who have treated the victims of mass casualty events have described the serious injuries inflicted by ammunition fired from assault-style rifles.

Graphic detail of injuries and damage

While gun advocates generally avoid discussing the harm that assault-style rifles can cause, there are exceptions.

Before he became

Giltaca introduced his 2013 video, focused on wound characteristics, by stating that there was “some misconception about the .223 cartridge” and that he wanted to show “how dangerous that cartridge still is, even though, yes, it’s a small bullet.” He pointed out that unlike rounds fired from handguns, the “.223 travels really, really fast, and that creates some problems should you get hit with it.”

Giltaca detailed the various “problems” a human body experienced if shot with a .223 rifle bullet.

For example, he said the bullet produces a “little shockwave,” which leads to a “temporary stretch cavity.” If the bullet strikes a thigh, for example, “it’s going to suck a bunch of air in there.” This leads to “massive tissue disruption and tissue death” because “your skin has been pulled apart and it tears, and it collapses back together again.”

Giltaca concluded by offering his “bottom line.” Rifles firing ammunition like .223 rounds “are really, really dangerous,” for if “you get hit with a rifle round, you’re not coming back.”

Americans have been reminded of this over and over again in mass shootings committed with assault-style rifles. And, unfortunately, Canadians have also learned about the dangers of such guns.

The rifle used in the Montréal massacre in 1989, the now prohibited Mini-14, fired .223 ammunition. Fourteen young women died as a result.

R. Blake Brown, Professor, History, Saint Mary’s University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Tony Wood, Grattan Institute

Gas users and the incoming government are describing Australia’s sudden east coast energy crisis as “apocalyptic” and “a perfect storm”.

There is no doubt that a rare combination of international and domestic events, together with long-term policy shortcomings, have led to a very nasty position from which there is no easy way out.

Four events have led to the immediate crisis.

1. Coal-fired generators have been failing

First, outages at coal-fired power stations have meant that gas has been called on more than usual.

More than one quarter of coal-fired plants have been offline for much of the year so far, which is far from usual.

The system is designed so that when that happens, gas generators take their place.

2. Australia is running low on gas

Second, the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) has been warning of gas supply shortages in the southeast for some time as traditional gas resources, mainly in offshore Victoria, run low.

Onshore gas development in Victoria has been prevented by a succession of state government decisions, and input terminals have been either rejected on environmental grounds or delayed due to financial barriers.

In 2012 the Gillard government rejected the idea of reserving a certain proportion for domestic consumption, as happens in Western Australia.

The history of cheap and plentiful gas in Victoria has made Victorian households and firms more dependent on gas than other Australians, and there has been little move towards electrification.

3. Europe wants non-Russian gas

Third, in their desperation to reduce their dependence on piped Russian gas, European countries have been pushing the international price of liquefied natural gas sky high, buying from countries such as Australia, Qatar and the United States.

Some Australian exporters have received prices four times or more times higher than normal.

4. Suddenly, there’s a cold snap

Finally, a cold snap on Australia’s east coast has brought forward the winter spike in demand for gas for heating.

The immediate impact of the combination of these four events has been a looming shortage of gas on the east coast, including gas to supply power stations.

Industrial gas consumers who do not have the protection of a fixed contract are facing potentially destructive prices.

Thankfully there is no immediate price impact for households using gas, as their retailers have gas supply contracts, although many households are suffering higher electricity prices because gas-fired power stations have had to be pushed into service to replace coal-fired stations.

Quick actions

AEMO has taken action, partly by imposing a wholesale price cap of $40 per gigajoule ahead of forecasts the spot price in Victoria was set to climb $382.

The “shadow price” used to indicate what would have happened were it not for the cap, hit $800 on Tuesday.

And AEMO has triggered the so-called Gas Supply Guarantee Mechanism to secure gas for power generators.

These actions have worked, even though a price of $40 per gigajoule is financially crippling for large industrial consumers, and AEMO cannot magically source gas that isn’t there.

But no overnight answer

Chris Bowen, the new minister for climate change and energy, is already working closely with AEMO and his state and territory counterparts and industry to get complete information and advice.

But as Treasurer Jim Chalmers said on Tuesday, there’s no overnight answer.

The Turnbull Government introduced the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism in 2017 in response to concerns that exports of liquefied natural gas from Queensland might one day create domestic shortages.

It was also concerned that gas producers were selling gas overseas at lower prices than they were asking for at home. The threat of government intervention has generally ensured supply.

But the mechanism is unlikely to be effective in addressing the current problem, for two reasons. First, there are physical limits on getting gas awaiting export in Queensland to Victoria where it is needed.

And second, to the frustration of many gas customers, the mechanism can’t bring down prices, which are set internationally. It deals only with supply.

Thankfully, no false promises

The current crisis illustrates the fundamental policy connection between electricity supply, gas markets, and climate change.

The decision to immediately convene a meeting of the national energy and resources ministers and the relevant agencies is the right first step, but only the beginning of a journey that will involve urgent and sustained reforms to the way Australia’s markets work.

The new government has indeed come to power in the face of a perfect storm, and there are more challenges ahead. Its approach so far has been constructive, measured, and cooperative – and it has resisted the temptation to make promises it can’t keep.

It is to be hoped that this new approach will enable it to navigate through to what will almost certainly be somewhat calmer waters ahead.

Tony Wood, Program Director, Energy, Grattan Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.