Daycare

[jdobbin]

This was not the part of the Tory plan that I was referring to. I was referring to the tax cuts that made existing spaces more affordable, exactly like they should of done.

You know, you keep chanting over and over about these 125,000 non-created spaces. At no point did I ever say I was a Tory, nor that I supported that part of their program, nor that I actually thought it would actually work. I am dealing only with the Liberal plan, its flaws, and how I think tax cuts are a preferred way to go. (Even if the Tories did not include tax cuts in their program, I still would favor them over direct spending.)

I don't think I claimed you were a Tory.

I also support deep tax cuts. I just don't think they will produce the available daycare that you seem to think it will.

I know its easier for you to keep on harping on those 125,000 non-created spaces, rather than actually dealing with the flaws in the Liberal plan. But its a rather lame way to try to prove your point.

Really? And I thought it just emphasized that the Liberal plan had more favour and seemed to work better than the Tory one. Moreover, the Liberal income tax cut helped more people as well than the Tory GST cut and income tax rise.

Frankly, I think it was just you trying to cloud the issue.

Or to contrast the policy with something that most people have expressed dissatisfaction with in polls.

My argument was that bringing in some sort of national daycare program, only to have the program end, would cause all sorts of problems. (Downloading expenses onto the provinces, loss of any control over standards, provincial/federal conflicts, etc.)

That may be. Cutting expenses and programs and redirecting money elsewhere has to be a priority for any government.

Rather than dealing with those potential problems, you either A: pretended it wasn't a 'national program', or B: attempted to sidestep the issue.

The fact that you didn't hear the term 'national program' used doesn't mean that it wasn't.

I don't care much if it was used really. As for the potential problems, governments can't run scared from changing priorities. The Tories didn't car when they cancelled the Liberal policy, did they? Did they care how it would hurt the provinces? Did they offload?

In addition to the throne speech, you could also go right to the Liberal web site:

http://timfugard.liberal.ca/p986_e.aspx : The Conservatives replaced the Liberal National Child Care program.

Fine, it was a program. The Tories should have been ashamed of themselves for cancelling it and offloading to the provinces. Surely they must have known that once you put funding like this in place, it is there forever.

[segnosaur]

I don't think I claimed you were a Tory.

No, you didn't... but post after post you keep bringing up the Tory record as if a failure by the Conservatives means that the Liberal plan is automatically a winner.

I also support deep tax cuts. I just don't think they will produce the available daycare that you seem to think it will.

I never tax cuts would create daycare... I said they would make existing care solutions (which even you agree, people seem to eventually find) more affordable.

That may be. Cutting expenses and programs and redirecting money elsewhere has to be a priority for any government.

I never said governments shouldn't be willing to cut programs. However, cuts to programs can have serious implications (such as how cuts to health care increased waiting lists and caused friction between the federal and provincial governments.)

So, one of 2 things is going on here... either A: you were wrong about the Liberal daycare plan going "only" to 2011, or B: You are oblivious to the problems that would happen once such funding ended.

You never did indicate what you think what would happen if funding did end in 2011...

Would:

- Federal Funding continue?

- Day care spaces start to disappear?

- Increased fighting between provinces and the feds as the provinces demand continued funding?

- Daycare workers decide to work for free?

Fine, it was a program.

Great... it only took a dozen posts, and 2 direct references to statements by the Liberals themselves to convince you.

[jdobbin]

No, you didn't... but post after post you keep bringing up the Tory record as if a failure by the Conservatives means that the Liberal plan is automatically a winner.

I think I said clearly in early posts that it was preferred over the Tory plan in the Decima poll. I also said that other polls showed many women were still reluctant to vote for the Tories now based on a number of issues including daycare.

I never tax cuts would create daycare... I said they would make existing care solutions (which even you agree, people seem to eventually find) more affordable.

I do agree. I also think that the government can assist in helping provinces create daycare space.

I never said governments shouldn't be willing to cut programs. However, cuts to programs can have serious implications (such as how cuts to health care increased waiting lists and caused friction between the federal and provincial governments.)

There is always friction from one government that receives transfers from another government or share authority on various issues like health and immigration.

So, one of 2 things is going on here... either A: you were wrong about the Liberal daycare plan going "only" to 2011, or B: You are oblivious to the problems that would happen once such funding ended.

The agreement was to 2011. I have no doubt it would have continued but at what cost and what changes, I don't know. Since the Tories won, it didn't even make it to 2007. Were the Tories oblivious to the problems they would create?

You never did indicate what you think what would happen if funding did end in 2011...

My feeling is the program would have been renegotiated unless it turned out to be a failure.

Would:

- Federal Funding continue?

- Day care spaces start to disappear?

- Increased fighting between provinces and the feds as the provinces demand continued funding?

- Daycare workers decide to work for free?

I have no idea since the Tories cancelled it.

Great... it only took a dozen posts, and 2 direct references to statements by the Liberals themselves to convince you.

And why is it important anyway? I have already indicated the Liberals have cancelled programs in the past. You still haven't even acknowledged that total program spending went down under the Liberals. Yes, it offloaded and yes, the provinces offloaded to the municipalities and yes, they postponed, cancelled and elimiinated dozens of programs.

And you know what? The public supported it all even as they grumbled because the mindset was that deficit had to be defeated.

I was always concerned that a federally administered plan was going to be like EI or OAS and require a huge bureaucracy. Signing agreements with the provinces was the right way to go and allowed flexibility to renegotiate changes or even elimination when they ended. The Liberals had already shown they weren't going to tolerate what happened with the diagnostic fund they negotiated. When Quebec banked the money and other provinces bought lawnmowers, the Liberal government cancelled it.

[Bryan]

The agreement was to 2011. I have no doubt it would have continued but at what cost and what changes, I don't know. Since the Tories won, it didn't even make it to 2007. Were the Tories oblivious to the problems they would create?

The Tories cancelled the other guys program. They were well aware that it was financially unworkable, so they got out while they could, BEFORE it became a problem. That's good management. And they made getting out a promise in the election. People knew the Liberal plan was going to be cancelled, and voted for the CPC anyway.

Don't forget, the Liberals voted against BOTH the Universal Child Care Benefit, and the $250 Million tax credit for people who create new spaces.

This is what Liberals do, they promise the moon, and never deliver. All the while they vilify their opposition for actually doing something, only because it's less than what their pie-in-the-sky-never-delivered policy promised. Even signed agreements have rarely meant anything as far as the Liberals ever delivering on a promise. Less in reality is always better than more as a fantasy. CPC in reality did more for daycare in their first year, than the Liberals did in 13.

I understand why Liberals wanted institutionalized daycare funded, seeing themselves as Big Brother and all, but why did they want to take the UCCB away from people who it was helping so much? Unlike government sanctioned kiddie warehouses, at least the UCCB benefits everyone equally. If their issue is that it's not enough, why not propose to make the benefit larger rather than taking it away? THE CPC plan is the only one that actually gives choices to Canadian parents, the Liberal one is dead set against people having options.

[jdobbin]

The Tories cancelled the other guys program. They were well aware that it was financially unworkable, so they got out while they could, BEFORE it became a problem. That's good management. And they made getting out a promise in the election. People knew the Liberal plan was going to be cancelled, and voted for the CPC anyway.

That is your opinion, of course. We do know that Solberg said his own plan was not working though.

Don't forget, the Liberals voted against BOTH the Universal Child Care Benefit, and the $250 Million tax credit for people who create new spaces.

This is what Liberals do, they promise the moon, and never deliver. All the while they vilify their opposition for actually doing something, only because it's less than what their pie-in-the-sky-never-delivered policy promised. Even signed agreements have rarely meant anything as far as the Liberals ever delivering on a promise. Less in reality is always better than more as a fantasy. CPC in reality did more for daycare in their first year, than the Liberals did in 13.

That is not what the Decima poll showed when people were asked what their preference was.

As for breaking a promise: Income trusts. Excise tax.

I understand why Liberals wanted institutionalized daycare funded, seeing themselves as Big Brother and all, but why did they want to take the UCCB away from people who it was helping so much? Unlike government sanctioned kiddie warehouses, at least the UCCB benefits everyone equally. If their issue is that it's not enough, why not propose to make the benefit larger rather than taking it away? THE CPC plan is the only one that actually gives choices to Canadian parents, the Liberal one is dead set against people having options.

Why did the Tories promise 125,000 daycare spaces if they were against this kind of care?

[Bryan]

Why did the Tories promise 125,000 daycare spaces if they were against this kind of care?

They didn't.

[jdobbin]

They didn't.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/na...-childcare.html

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said on Friday his party's child-care plan would create 125,000 spaces over the next five years.

What was this promise then?

[Bryan]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/na...-childcare.html

What was this promise then?

Notice that part is NOT quoted?

CPC did not promise 125,000 new spaces. They offered a tax credit to those who wanted to take the initiative to create the spaces themselves. What they estimated (and yes, they very clearly used the word ESTIMATE), was that the $250 million they were offering in tax credits had the potential of creating up to 125,000 new spaces over five years if those taking the credit used it to their full advantage.

The $250 Million was what was promised. They delivered on that promise. The Liberals voted AGAINST giving that $250 million.

That those organizations did not use those available credits to their advantage is a damnation on the daycare system, not the government. Like most left wing social policies, no matter what you give them, they just light the money on fire, hold their hands out for more, and blame the government for their lack of resources. Just further proof that government involvement in daycare should be cut altogether.

[jdobbin]

CPC did not promise 125,000 new spaces. They offered a tax credit to those who wanted to take the initiative to create the spaces themselves. What they estimated (and yes, they very clearly used the word ESTIMATE), was that the $250 million they were offering in tax credits had the potential of creating up to 125,000 new spaces over five years if those taking the credit used it to their full advantage.

I don't recall this policy as being sold as a potential increase in space. It was promised to create 25,000 space a year.

Where is the word "Estimate" used?

The $250 Million was what was promised. They delivered on that promise. The Liberals voted AGAINST giving that $250 million.

That those organizations did not use those available credits to their advantage is a damnation on the daycare system, not the government. Like most left wing social policies, no matter what you give them, they just light the money on fire, hold their hands out for more, and blame the government for their lack of resources. Just further proof that government involvement in daycare should be cut altogether.

It was to be used by corporations as well. The plan was a total failure.

Are you saying the Tory plan was left wing?

[Bryan]

I don't recall this policy as being sold as a potential increase in space. It was promised to create 25,000 space a year.

Where is the word "Estimate" used?

Conservative Party 2006 election platform: http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2590/

Page 31:

Help employers and communities create child care spaces in the workplace or through cooperative or community associations by allocating $250 million a year in tax credits to employers who cover the full cost of creating spaces. We will provide similar support to non-profit associations to create spaces. We estimate that this program will create 125,000 new child care spaces over five years and make it easier for working people to juggle child care and work responsibilities. The program will be designed to ensure that small business and rural communities will be able to access it as well as larger employers and cities.

(bold is mine)

In other words, If you get off your ass and build it, we'll help. But if you just sit around and cry about funding, no soup for you.

Again, this is just good management. Why would you just hand over money with no specific expectations? Obviously the people doing all the public whining are not as serious about creating childcare spaces as they claim, and it's a damn good thing they DID NOT hand the money over without expectations.

[jdobbin]

Again, this is just good management. Why would you just hand over money with no specific expectations? Obviously the people doing all the public whining are not as serious about creating childcare spaces as they claim, and it's a damn good thing they DID NOT hand the money over without expectations.

And subsequently the plan was a total failure. So much for the private option.

[Bryan]

And subsequently the plan was a total failure. So much for the private option.

The private option is still there, and those people who use it get better care that the garbage that passes for subsidized daycare.

There are lots of private spots available. It's just the lazy failures as parents who sit around with their hands out who have gotten the rude awakening that they just might have to get off their butts and actually do something for themselves instead of expecting the government to take care of their kids.

I call that a resounding success.

[jdobbin]

The private option is still there, and those people who use it get better care that the garbage that passes for subsidized daycare.

There are lots of private spots available. It's just the lazy failures as parents who sit around with their hands out who have gotten the rude awakening that they just might have to get off their butts and actually do something for themselves instead of expecting the government to take care of their kids.

I sure hope the Tories take the same stand in the coming election. Be sure to use the word lazy a lot.

[Oleg Bach]

I sure hope the Tories take the same stand in the coming election. Be sure to use the word lazy a lot.

Daycare? Where was it 70 years ago and why did we do without it them but suddenly need it now? Has the quaility of life increased for infants and woman and fathers since the advent of daycare? I don't see any impovement in life in general...maybe it would be better to pass a law that states...If you do not want to raise your own children - get sterilized and just go to work like a good little girl boy slave. - AND take your Prozac or get drunk on friday night and call it a life style. Day care and the soviet style daycare is a nighmare for humanity.

[jdobbin]

Daycare? Where was it 70 years ago and why did we do without it them but suddenly need it now?

Probably because we closed the orphanages.

[Argus]

Probably because we closed the orphanages.

I think kids would probably be better off in well-run orphanages than with the current system of foster care, where they're bounced from one home to another, looked after by people who are mainly not very well-off and simply need the money.

[Argus]

While I believe it's important for there to be adequate daycare for pre-school children, I don't think government-run day care is the way to go. I believe we've already seen sufficient evidence that the costs would be substantially higher than in the private sector without any concomitant improvement in services or supply.

Parents are responsible for their children's care. If they want to put them into daycare, that's up to them. The taxpayer already gives parents substantial tax refunds in recognition of the costs of raising a child, along with monthly subsidy cheques. If people feel this is insufficient we ought to look at either improving subsidies to the working poor, and/or improving the environment of daycare operators insofar as making it easier to set up such a centre, and providing tax advantages to help in profitability. Another possibility would be to encourage stay-at-home mothers to look after extra children by lowering the taxation level on the extra income earned.

[Dig]

The problem is that we shouldn't be sending kids to daycare. We should be raising them ourselves and we should be able to do so on one income. 50 years ago, you could do just that and live quite well, now, its a struggle for a lot of poeple with two incomes.

How a truck is worth $60000 I don't know. How a house is worth $350000, is insane. To me, we should be finding out how we can get back to one person working and one person staying at home instead of throwning money at something that in my opinion only serves to further degrade our society.

[Argus]

The problem is that we shouldn't be sending kids to daycare. We should be raising them ourselves and we should be able to do so on one income. 50 years ago, you could do just that and live quite well, now, its a struggle for a lot of poeple with two incomes.

How a truck is worth $60000 I don't know. How a house is worth $350000, is insane. To me, we should be finding out how we can get back to one person working and one person staying at home instead of throwning money at something that in my opinion only serves to further degrade our society.

Part of the problem is that the value of work depends on they scarcity of labour. Ironically, the fact so many women work now gives us more workers, yet without increasing consumption to match. This lowers the general wage level. Add in foreign competition to the mix, which is MUCH more of a problem than it was 50 years ago, and our consumer society, and one wage doesn't cut it. Mind you, people can do it, they can get by without all those nifty electronics, they can even rent instead of buying, take the bus instead of owning two cars, buy cheaper goods and less processed food - but many people seem to have lost their ability to make the distinction between things which are necessary and things which are merely nice - if you can afford it.

[Dig]

- but many people seem to have lost their ability to make the distinction between things which are necessary and things which are merely nice - if you can afford it.

Well said

[jdobbin]

I think kids would probably be better off in well-run orphanages than with the current system of foster care, where they're bounced from one home to another, looked after by people who are mainly not very well-off and simply need the money.

I think I saw the orphanages policy proffered by Newt Gringrich a couple of elections ago.

[jdobbin]

While I believe it's important for there to be adequate daycare for pre-school children, I don't think government-run day care is the way to go. I believe we've already seen sufficient evidence that the costs would be substantially higher than in the private sector without any concomitant improvement in services or supply.

We've gone over this before. I know don't too many daycares in my area that are directly run by the government. In most cases, the daycares receive some sort of subsidy to operate are not government run as they are say with schools.

Parents are responsible for their children's care. If they want to put them into daycare, that's up to them. The taxpayer already gives parents substantial tax refunds in recognition of the costs of raising a child, along with monthly subsidy cheques. If people feel this is insufficient we ought to look at either improving subsidies to the working poor, and/or improving the environment of daycare operators insofar as making it easier to set up such a centre, and providing tax advantages to help in profitability. Another possibility would be to encourage stay-at-home mothers to look after extra children by lowering the taxation level on the extra income earned.

There are several programs out there most certainly but availability of daycare space remains an issue. If we continue to believe in and support both men and women working then the issue of childcare won't go away. One spouse may stay at home but if there is economic hardship or if it is difficult for them to join the workforce afterward, it discourages people from having children altogether. The government will have to decide if lack of children being born is an economic issue just as much as supporting children is.

[Argus]

I think I saw the orphanages policy proffered by Newt Gringrich a couple of elections ago.

The thing about an orphanage is it offers security and continuity. Yes, teachers and caregivers come and go, but when you've got ten of them, there are always a bunch there you're familiar with, and who are familiar with you. You have your room, you have the other kids you're living with, you have continuity. Foster care - nice for the short term, but I've read too many cases of kids who've been bounced to 15-25 different foster homes, always the outsider, always knowing that if they act up at all they can be out the door, off to a new school, new area, new foster "family". I don't see how that is an improvement on anything.

[jdobbin]

The thing about an orphanage is it offers security and continuity. Yes, teachers and caregivers come and go, but when you've got ten of them, there are always a bunch there you're familiar with, and who are familiar with you. You have your room, you have the other kids you're living with, you have continuity. Foster care - nice for the short term, but I've read too many cases of kids who've been bounced to 15-25 different foster homes, always the outsider, always knowing that if they act up at all they can be out the door, off to a new school, new area, new foster "family". I don't see how that is an improvement on anything.

The foster care system run by the provinces has had its share of problems but then so have the orphanages such as Mount Cashel.

I do know that Newt Gringrich's idea on orphanages was rejected in part because it was estimated that it would cost $30,000 per child to house, educate and provide care to each child. That would have been borne mostly by government.

I suppose a private organization could run orphanages today but I don't know that their costs would be any lighter. They'd probably have to be monitored closely by government. I think the last thing anyone wants is to have to apologize and compensate a generation of children who went to a poorly run place that ended up abusing them.

The talk of foster care, however, is a separate issue than daycare. If the government believes that support for families and children is an important economic issue, they will have to do more than such provide tax room. They will have to provide better rules on family leave, space for children where needed and retraining for those who decide to stay at home for the early years.

Edited July 2, 2008 by jdobbin