betsy

Because it is up to the parents to find and decide on a caregiver that offers what coincides with the parents' idea of what "quality" ought to be. Some parents just don't like their children insitutionalized in what looked like a cold setting of a building from day one. They want their very young children enjoying a home setting...the warmth and coziness, and flexibility that comes along with it. Some parents believe that learning at an early age ought to be done through play. Let children be children. So of course they'll go for a care provider who shares the same views and offers what the parents deem as right for their child.

But the frequency of caregiver turnover is not the same when you compare an institution to a private care. Parents will have an idea what the chances are of a private caregiver suddenly quitting and looking for a much better income. You're only dealing with one caregiver. When a caregiver is in the business for 10 years or so, chances are she'd still be around much longer. But it's a risk that everyone will have to take....for no one can predict what could happen down the road. However, the institution has a "revolving door"....and we're not talking about children dealing with only one caregiver. We're talking about children dealing with several, depending on varying shifts and hours. The bonding and sense of loss felt by children will be more likely to be frequent....the psychological effects will be more devastating! So we up the wages. To how much? And if we do, will it stay capped for a few years...or will Union demand more? The main cause of people quitting is what they call "burn-out." And too much bureaucracy is one of the reason why a lot of staff are burnt out.

I would like to pursue another branch of this topic...that focus on the what children really learn from daycares and how it affects them later in life and us in society. I will have to make another topic for it.

Oh I agree about the existence of positive effects on children who attend early daycare. However, this does not mean that chilkdren would not benefit from home. All it takes is a knowledgeable and dedicated parent who will make it a point that her children will learn those. Granted, I agree that not all mothers have the patience and the inclination to do those. But a lot do. There are Group Play centres and parks where children and caregivers can meet and intermingle with others....so it's not like there will be no way to learn how to socialize. My points are: 1. Why do you assume ALL parents are incapable of good judgement as far as making daycare decisions? That the liberal-thinkers ought to make the decisions for them? 2. In the same token, why do we automatically assume that ALL home daycares are inferior, quality-wise? We've seen public-funded daycares have had their shares of questionable standards/procedures...and yet you still maintain that ALL home daycares are not good for children. 3. We see what's happening to Quebec National Childcare. That is the blueprint for the National Childcare they want to open nationwide. Standards have already been lowered btw! We see it failing...and wanting to be injected with more cash! How much "transfusion" will it require? 4. The new studies show that children in Quebec National Childcare are WORSE OFF. You can say that you don't really agree with Quebec Childcare system....but this plan of the Liberals/NDP is modeled after Quebec! Why do we want to spend astronomical amount of money on a failing system? 5. There will be ample spaces available from the current public daycares existing now, especially if Harper will go ahead with his plans. Public-funded agency operating in my area have a shortage of children actually...and this had been going on for years! Either they really pick-and-choose the kind of working parents (with ideal working schedules) they accomodate, or parents are avoiding them! They seem to be saving their limited spaces for parents with regular hours! So there is really no cause for worry as far as spaces go! Just make it mandatory that these public funded agencies/daycares accomodate people with non-regular schedules...for these are the people that needs the most help! Isn't this why we finance such places? So there will be help for those parents who are not in any enviable position of having coshy 9-5 jobs...or any full-time hours for that matter? 6. Do you know how many daycare providers (mostly women, if this makes any difference at all) will be probably out of an income nation-wide? A lot of these people have chosen this career for a reason. So most join the ranks of un-employed! What of my friend who had done childcare for almost 20 years just so she can stay with her mentally-challenged daughter? She can't be the only one who is in this kind of predicament. Don't say that we can all apply for a job at the institutionalized version of a daycare. 7. It's the bureacracy! That is the main reason why public daycares have a hard time keeping staff! We've experienced firsthand the ridiculous amount of bureacracy...that's why at one point, careproviders had left the agency in droves!

The Liberals are fueling this. As M Duffy quipped, "they've got lots of time on their hands."

Yes, and also I read from another old article that they have increased the ratio of children per adult. This is also one of my concern....that eventually, the standard will be lowered...and they will end up like our bloated classrooms with so many students per teacher. If the National Childcare is already in place, would it matter how much we complain about the lowered standard? We'll end up stuck with it. I'm all for quality care. And I'm all for quality care that includes the introductions of good values to young children....didn't we learn these from home?

I was thinking of parenting/attachment when I mentioned age three. You're right, they'll still need daycare after that. If I am a working mother who earns minimum wage....if I consider all my expenses (car/gas, clothing, travel time, daycare, etc.), not to mention the hectic schedule and stress this will bring, affecting the quality of life at home for everyone.....it may be wiser to just stay at home with my children than work. A lot of mothers are in that kind of position. These are usually the ones who need subsidy. Btw, with Harper's plan what will happen with the daycare spaces in public daycares existing now? I assume that they'll still be around?

Mrs. Chambers from Youth Services said during an interview with M Duffy that this National Childcare will prepare children for grade 1. What happened to Kindergarten?

It's not like mothers are being told not to have careers. One sensible option is to postpone having a career for let's say at least 3 years so mothers can spend those early years with their children.....or postone having a child until one can readily afford to. What is a "quality system", btw? One's idea of "quality" may not be the same as another's definition of it. A lot of people are thinking that a National daycare offers quality care....but they do ignore one glaring flaw that has a negative effects on children: the frequent bonding and sense of loss children feel due to the frequent coming and going of various caregivers in an institution. If it is supposed to be a quality system, why then does the most recent study of Quebec National Childcare show that "children are worse off" in this quality system?

Besides, people from Vancouver who knows about politics and trade all seem to applaud having Emmerson on board. They say right now people should just hold their noses on the stink and wait, for in the end they'll see the wisdom in Harper's decision. This Emmerson crossing did not happen to bring a government down, unlike Belinda's. It happened for it will benefit Canada.

They're citing the ruling of the Ethics Commission on the Grewal-Dosanghj affair. Something about luring a person to cross the floor with promise of personal gain or reward. What can come out of this?

"One might as well ask, "How does my printing counterfeit $20 bills hurt your wallet?" Or to use another example, can you imagine a building where every carpenter defined his own standard of measurement? A man and a woman joined together in holy matrimony is the time-tested "yardstick" for marriage. One cannot alter the definition of marriage without throwing society into confusion any more than one can change the definition of a yardstick. Homosexual marriage is an empty pretense that lacks the fundamental sexual complementariness of male and female. And like all counterfeits, it cheapens and degrades the real thing. The destructive effects may not be immediately apparent, but the cumulative damage is inescapable. The eminent Harvard sociologist, Pitirim Sorokin, analyzed cultures spanning several thousand years on several continents, and found that virtually no society has ceased to regulate sexuality within marriage as defined as the union of a man and a woman, and survived.33" http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BC04C02&v=PRINT

There may be gay unions...but never heard of any gay marriages in history. Can you give an example as to when or where in history? Just curious.

Here's one! Liberals say Emmerson scuttled a deal with Softwood lumber! But I don't know if this "dirt" belongs to the Conservative....after all, Emmerson supposedly scuttled the deal while being a Liberal.....and the Liberals are only crying about it now, after all those months of silence and compliance.

Please, let's not try to turn this into a feminist battle cry. What the Conservatives plan is telling is that, you women who would like to stay at home with your children can freely do so. You have a choice. The $6 a day may not be that much...but it is a symbolical gesture that we acknowledge your effort in homemaking and considere it as important to this nation. Why do we look down on women who choose to stay at home to look after their own children? You want me to ask myself where businesses would be if all the women of childbearing age were not there. IMO the answer is simple: Those businesses would still be there! ------------------------ "Pushing for choice Other parents and experts stress the positives of care outside the home. The environment can be more educationally and socially stimulating, some argue, and professionally trained caregivers may be up on the latest research. But providing money to people in the form of a guaranteed income would allow them to make choices like staying home with their kids. "It's really sad that the only people who're talking about families are right wing," says L'Hirondelle. "I'm not sure why there's such a focus on 'women's liberation means a job'." We need to give people the option of caring for their own kids, if that's what they want to do, says L'Hirondelle. If we are going to encourage "attachment parenting," we need to make it economically possible for women to do that, she adds. "I think that's one of the reasons a lot of mothers might be alienated from feminism in a way, because we haven't talked about this enough." http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/11/23/ChildcareHome/

Experts say 'attachment parenting' is vital. But so far the Liberals' childcare plan has nothing to offer the full time mom or dad. By Andrew MacLeod Published: November 23, 2004 In Quebec -- a model for the federal plan as it is the only province with a universal childcare program -- the government offers some 181,000 publicly funded childcare spaces for which users pay $7 a day. It costs about $1.4 billion a year to do that. A number of critics point out that the actual cost of such a program nationally is likely to be much, much higher. They also say when the government supports one form of care, it leaves many parents who make other choices out of luck when it comes to being reimbursed for their childcare expenses "I feel the whole western world has gone in the wrong direction on [childcare]," says Jan Hunt, a child psychologist who is the director of the Oregon-based Natural Child Project. Funding for daycare may meet parents' needs for income, she says, but it won't meet children's needs. "To meet the child's needs, children should be with their parents, at least for the first three years." An advocate for attachment parenting, she says, "The most damaging part of daycare is they have so many caretakers . . . This constant bonding and losing is very damaging." "It's just astonishing how many different caretakers a child will have over just a few years," says Hunt. Over time, she says, children become less open to relationships, less able to form bonds and less trusting. "If governments could just pay mothers to stay home that would work out much better . . . There should be a non-welfare kind of salary to have women at home, and give them training. It's the most important job in the world and it doesn't require any kind of licence." http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/11/23/ChildcareHome/

All quiet on the Olivia Chow front. I didn't hear anything...did you?

But in a way, there is that implication that people who do not approve of the National Childcare are insensitive to the plights of those who cannot afford daycares. But there is discrimination on people like me who operate quality daycares from our homes. Sweeping statements are made bluntly stating ALL private home daycares are inferior as far as quality goes! Betsy, in a national childcare program like the Liberals or NDP support, what would happen to your home daycare? Would you be put out of business through being undercut severly or would the government just tell you to close up shop? Both can happen I guess. Or I'll be told that I have to be under an agency in order to operate.

Yes. Everyone's concerned about fighting child exploitation, pornography, etc. One example was given when a man was arrested for trying to lure a 13 year old girl online. His rationale was that that age is okay in Canada. Something associated with the close in gap in the current AoC. The chiefs of police association had strongly endorsed this move too.

M Duffy is speculating that it will be along the lines of "you better support the National Childcare or else..." He couldn't bait the NDP Strategist though...he remained tightlipped and just said, "wait and see." Do you have the feeling that Harper might sell-out some of his plan? Particularly childcare...you know, with all these continuing criticism going on. What if the NDP calls for an election? It might be worth it for them....who knows, they may end up sitting in power!

I am feeling disappointed too. This better be worth it.

But in a way, there is that implication that people who do not approve of the National Childcare are insensitive to the plights of those who cannot afford daycares. But there is discrimination on people like me who operate quality daycares from our homes. Sweeping statements are made bluntly stating ALL private home daycares are inferior as far as quality goes!

But that is exactly how women feel! They feel they are entitled to be supported in raising their children! $5/day is not even enough for them....they're even saying how much "entitlement " they should have! Mrs Chambers from Youth Services was asked by Mike Duffy...."Harper is creating 225,000 seats...will you be willing to work with the government on that?" She did not give a straight answer. She just insisted, "the Liberals already signed a 5 year deal...it should be honored." I doubt this attitude is really for the benefit of the children. How can one dismiss a new concept so readily without giving it a chance? WHEN IN FACT, NEW QUEBEC STUDIES SHOW CHILDREN ARE WORSE OFF after the universal daycare was implemented!

Encouraging more parents to stay home and look after their children would be great, but the amount of money required to make up even 25% of a second income would be outrageously expensive and, therefore, prohibitive. Actually we do need kids to maintain the society, otherwise we'll have a total economic collapse in 30 years. We could boost immigration dramatically to make up for it, but I would prefer a society where it's economically feasible for people to have children. I think most people would agree with me on that. But the point is parents will have a choice! Those who have other means of babysitting can use whatever means they feel they want. Be it a realtive or a friend or a private caregiver they've known for sometime. Some might be fortunate to find daycares at their place of work! Those who really feel that they need daycares can go bring their children to daycares. A lot of moms do not make a lot of money working outside the homes. How many gets minimum paying job? All things considered, from gas/car maintenance/insurance, travel time, daycare expense, food expense, clothings for work...plus the quality of life at home.....for a lot of moms, it is better to stay at home. Harper's incentive, may not be as much...but for a lot of moms out there, that $5/day can make a lot of difference. Actually this is the best scenario! For moms to stay at home...at least during the first 3 years of their childrens' life.

Here's another interesting article regarding Quebec National Childcare. When Quebec first unveiled its subsidized daycare program, few could have foreseen some of the eventual problems. Increased subsidies mean increased government control. "The system is designed for a nine-to-five, full-time environment," says epidemiology professor Robert Platt, who is president of the McGill Daycare's board of directors. He adds that this does not reflect the needs of students or faculty. Besides scheduling, the government restricts the number of placements available. Currently, the McGill Daycare has limited slots for children under two-and-a-half years old. The SSMU daycare offers no spaces for children under 18 months. Most smaller, home-based operations don't even offer infant care. The government also determines other elements of the services offered. In some cases, they have attempted to cut back on the quality of service by increasing the number of children per educator. So far, the McGill Daycare has resisted those measures, but the increased expense must be absorbed by parents. http://www.mcgill.ca/reporter/37/14/daycare/ Please take note of this: In some cases, they have attempted to cut back on the quality of service by increasing the number of children per educator.