Daycare

[jdobbin]

Your statement makes several false assumptions. It assumes that home or government supported daycare are the only options. Some women do manage to earn enough income to pay for their own daycare.

I'm sure that's true. It doesn't make what I said a false assumption. It just means that some women have different situations.

Secondly, it assumes that such daycare schemes would be targeted at those that need it most... the single parent. However, in the Quebec system, it is often the successful 2 parent families who get the best daycare spots, while single parents often end up on waiting lists.

Quebec will have to answer for that since they control how space is allocated to the population.

[jdobbin]

I'd rather see them cut back the funding for both, drastically. Welfare is far too available (especially here in Manitoba), it turns the government into an enabler for generational problems. It should take a lot of work to get on welfare, so much so that it's just not worth it because getting a job is easier.

That is up to each province. There are always prices to be paid in terms of policy for every action. Pushing people out of medicare would probably see some take jobs, others would end up the streets or in jail.

Homelessness increased when mental care facilities started closing their doors. Many of those released were not capable of jobs, had no family to go to and no place where they were welcome. They ended up on the streets in many places.

[jdobbin]

And a lot of Families in Quebec, when the instituted their universal plan years ago, have found it difficult (if not impossible) to find spots.

Do you have any current information later than 2005. A lot of federal money went into Quebec that year and through 2006.

So, in Quebec, many people still can't get this nice, cheap day care. (Of course, those people stuck in private daycare end up helping to pay for those people lucky enough to find publicly sponsored care... doesn't exactly sound like a very fair system to me.)

Do you have any more recent information?

Hey, that's quite possibly true. But then, whether we support or reject public day care should depend only on whether its a good policy or not.

I believe it was a good policy.

But the, I wonder how many people would change their opinions if they were told "Do you want to have $X added to your tax bill to fund day care", or how many would change their opinions if they head about the problems in the Quebec system. Its easy to say "I want free stuff". Its a bit more difficult to say "I want stuff that I have to pay for and have no control over".

Since the Liberals decreased tax the same year this policy came out, I'd say the argument that it raises taxes is not there.

Your right, the Liberal plan was to basically turn the money over to the provinces. But then, there would have been 2 possibilities:

- The cost per space or demand would have been higher than expected, and as a result, many people would end up on a waiting list,

- The provinces start demanding more money

The Tories realized their program wasn't working and they too are now transferring money to the provinces for daycare.

http://www.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/30032007/n1.shtml

The government’s budget laid out plans to transfer $250 million in day care funding to the provinces, a departure from the Conservatives’ initial plan to work with the private and non-profit sectors and offer tax credits in exchange for new day care spaces.

We may never know whether the Liberal plan would have worked. However, the experience with the Quebec plan should cause people to question the wisdom of large-scale public daycare subsidies.

Monte Solberg indicated that the Tory plan was not working and the daycare space that was created in 2006 came as a result of Liberal financing.

[segnosaur]

Do you have any current information later than 2005. A lot of federal money went into Quebec that year and through 2006.

...

Do you have any more recent information?

How about this:

Of the 392,000 children younger than 5 in child care in Quebec in 2008, 93,000 are in private daycare at a cost of about $25 a day, compared with the popular and overcrowded public system that costs only $7 a day.

From: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...fc-cb927eaaab24

But the, I wonder how many people would change their opinions if they were told "Do you want to have $X added to your tax bill to fund day care", or how many would change their opinions if they head about the problems in the Quebec system. Its easy to say "I want free stuff". Its a bit more difficult to say "I want stuff that I have to pay for and have no control over".

Since the Liberals decreased tax the same year this policy came out, I'd say the argument that it raises taxes is not there.

Ok, by using the phrase "added to your tax bill", I meant having your taxes higher than they would otherwise be. But, that's rather wordy. (Note that I deliberately didn't use the term "raising taxes" for just that reason.)

Publicly funded daycare is a government expense. It costs money. It doesn't just appear out of thin air. Somewhere along the line money will come out of the taxpayer's pocket.

The Tories realized their program wasn't working and they too are now transferring money to the provinces for daycare.

I'm not a member of the Tory government. I do not have a part in their social policies, nor do I agree with everything that they do. I think a universal public system is a bad idea, regardless of who implements it. I prefer tax reductions, and if there is any need to provide direct daycare, it should be specifically targeted to those who need it.

[segnosaur]

Secondly, it assumes that such daycare schemes would be targeted at those that need it most... the single parent. However, in the Quebec system, it is often the successful 2 parent families who get the best daycare spots, while single parents often end up on waiting lists.

I'm sure that's true. It doesn't make what I said a false assumption. It just means that some women have different situations.

Quebec will have to answer for that since they control how space is allocated to the population.

However, Quebec's day car system (with its universality) is often suggested as the model for day in Canada... universal, substantial government funding, publicly run (or at least substantial government control), etc. (That may not be what you want from a daycare system, but others do.)

[jdobbin]

How about this:

Of the 392,000 children younger than 5 in child care in Quebec in 2008, 93,000 are in private daycare at a cost of about $25 a day, compared with the popular and overcrowded public system that costs only $7 a day.

Seems to me that the Quebec program is doing exactly what the government wanted which is getting the population to have children. They are upping their funding accordingly.

Ok, by using the phrase "added to your tax bill", I meant having your taxes higher than they would otherwise be. But, that's rather wordy. (Note that I deliberately didn't use the term "raising taxes" for just that reason.)

Publicly funded daycare is a government expense. It costs money. It doesn't just appear out of thin air. Somewhere along the line money will come out of the taxpayer's pocket.

Never disagreed with that statement. I just believe there are other costs involved in not supporting daycare. In Quebec's case, support has meant more children which was a concern.

I'm not a member of the Tory government. I do not have a part in their social policies, nor do I agree with everything that they do. I think a universal public system is a bad idea, regardless of who implements it. I prefer tax reductions, and if there is any need to provide direct daycare, it should be specifically targeted to those who need it.

I never saw the Liberal plan as universal daycare. It wasn't set up as a federal program. Considering that the Tories are now doing what the Liberals did and transferring money to the provinces, I suspect they are realizing this is a better way to do thing.

[jdobbin]

I'm sure that's true. It doesn't make what I said a false assumption. It just means that some women have different situations.

Quebec will have to answer for that since they control how space is allocated to the population.

However, Quebec's day car system (with its universality) is often suggested as the model for day in Canada... universal, substantial government funding, publicly run (or at least substantial government control), etc. (That may not be what you want from a daycare system, but others do.)

I think under Martin's plan, each province set things up according to their needs. You disagree with that?

[segnosaur]

ow about this:

Of the 392,000 children younger than 5 in child care in Quebec in 2008, 93,000 are in private daycare at a cost of about $25 a day, compared with the popular and overcrowded public system that costs only $7 a day.

Seems to me that the Quebec program is doing exactly what the government wanted which is getting the population to have children.

There are a lot of factors that go into a couple having children. I don't think the availability of childcare is the major concern.

Consider: in 2002, the Quebec birth rate was below that of the Canadian average (despite the fact that they had subsidized daycare at the time, although not as many spaces as they have now). Their birth rate has gone up recently, but that seems to coincide with an increase in mandatory parental leave.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040419/d040419b.htm

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Never disagreed with that statement. I just believe there are other costs involved in not supporting daycare.

And there are costs to society (some financial, some not) which are part of subsidized daycare.

Keep in mind I brought up this issue over the claim that the Liberal daycare plan was popular.. I still stick by my opinion that it wouldn't have been as popular had people understood the impact on their taxes and/or the problems in government subsidies.

I never saw the Liberal plan as universal daycare. It wasn't set up as a federal program.

You're right, the liberal plan was to give money to the provinces. But it was advertised as a daycare plan, and it would be expected that the money would involve some sort of direct public funding.

Considering that the Tories are now doing what the Liberals did and transferring money to the provinces, I suspect they are realizing this is a better way to do thing.

The more likely explanation is that its a crass political move, in order to be seen as doing something to "help the children", regardless of whether its a good idea or not.

[segnosaur]

However, Quebec's day car system (with its universality) is often suggested as the model for day in Canada... universal, substantial government funding, publicly run (or at least substantial government control), etc. (That may not be what you want from a daycare system, but others do.)

I think under Martin's plan, each province set things up according to their needs. You disagree with that?

Depends on what exactly you mean by "disagree with that". You referring to Martin allowing each province to set things up the way they want, or whether its a good idea.

Yes, the Liberal plan was to transfer the money to the provinces. I agree with that.

As for whether it was a good idea:

It is a good idea to allow the provinces to set up their own daycare system. However I think each province should be willing to fund the programs themselves. I don't think its right that the citizens in province A should have to pay for a daycare system that is wanted only in province B. Let the federal government worry about the stuff it should worry about: defense, international relations, etc. Let the provinces worry about social services.

[jdobbin]

There are a lot of factors that go into a couple having children. I don't think the availability of childcare is the major concern.

It was one of the things that governments in Quebec heard the most. Given some of the evidence, I'd say that daycare has been a factor in seeing more children being born.

Consider: in 2002, the Quebec birth rate was below that of the Canadian average (despite the fact that they had subsidized daycare at the time, although not as many spaces as they have now). Their birth rate has gone up recently, but that seems to coincide with an increase in mandatory parental leave.

And additional supports from provincial and federal governments on space. Mandatory parental leave eventually ends. Daycare is needed after that.

And there are costs to society (some financial, some not) which are part of subsidized daycare.

Keep in mind I brought up this issue over the claim that the Liberal daycare plan was popular.. I still stick by my opinion that it wouldn't have been as popular had people understood the impact on their taxes and/or the problems in government subsidies.

Since the poll in question came out after the Liberal plan has already been in effect and the Tory plan was in place, I'd say people were siding with the old plan knowing what it cost.

You're right, the liberal plan was to give money to the provinces. But it was advertised as a daycare plan, and it would be expected that the money would involve some sort of direct public funding.

The more likely explanation is that its a crass political move, in order to be seen as doing something to "help the children", regardless of whether its a good idea or not.

Or as a good policy in federal/provincial relations.

[jdobbin]

It is a good idea to allow the provinces to set up their own daycare system. However I think each province should be willing to fund the programs themselves. I don't think its right that the citizens in province A should have to pay for a daycare system that is wanted only in province B. Let the federal government worry about the stuff it should worry about: defense, international relations, etc. Let the provinces worry about social services.

Each province did fund the program themselves. The federal contribution allows each province to shape the program as they want to fill the need for daycare. The provinces handle this social service and the federal government contributes in transfers as per agreement and within constitutional parameters.

[M.Dancer]

While not quite daycare per se, I signed my 9 year old up for a City of Toronto day camp for august. She will be at her school from 9 to 5....cost?

$81 per week...I was floored! I had been expecting to pay closer to $150 a week....

This is the first year she has gone to camp, she never wanted to before and is only going 'cause 3 of her school mates are in the same programme...

[BubberMiley]

I agree with publicly funded education...If you can't afford em, don't have em, kids that is.

You don't see the contradiction there?

[segnosaur]

Each province did fund the program themselves. The federal contribution allows each province to shape the program as they want to fill the need for daycare.

Ummm.... no.

If the federal government is making a contribution (in this case to daycare programs), then by definition the provinces are not "funding the programs themselves". Funding the program themselves would involve the province taking the money from only the taxpayers in their own province, using whatever mechanisms the local government uses to generate revenue.

[scribblet]

For those who believe that institutionalized public day care is the b all to end all, read this:

http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2008/06/...920106-sun.html

A decade after Quebec instituted universal, heavily subsidized care, costing parents $7 a day (originally $5), a paper by Massachusetts Institute of Technology economists makes clear that none of these assertions stand up to reality.

Studies on Quebec's new child-care regime show its young children are significantly more likely, compared with kids in other provinces, to show signs of hyperactivity and anxiety, and suffer more nose and throat infections.

It isn't only the children in day care who are affected. Parenting practices are worse in families that use Quebec's day-care system. Using widely accepted measures of parent-child interactions, the MIT researchers found a decline in consistent parenting and a rise in hostility between parents and children.

Why would parents want a child-care system that increases problem behaviour in their kids and worsens their own parenting practices? Not surprisingly, most don't. When researchers ask parents how they would like their children to be cared for, institutional child care is consistently the last-choice option.

FORMAL CARE

A new British study shows that more than half of parents prefer never to use formal care for children from infancy to 14 years old. And the majority of families with a parent at home do so by choice, not because they can't find a day care spot.

The economic argument for universal daycare falls apart on examination, too. Advocates claim that parents of young children would like to rejoin the paid workforce, but can't without appropriate childcare. If the state arranged child care, they reason, more parents would return to work and boost tax revenues.

Quebec's experience disproves this theory. The number of children in formal day care increased by about a third after the policy was implemented, but the workforce participation of married mothers of young children increased by less than half that amount.

cont...

[segnosaur]

It was one of the things that governments in Quebec heard the most. Given some of the evidence, I'd say that daycare has been a factor in seeing more children being born.

You have provided no evidence to support your conclusion.

Once again: in the early 2000s, before changes in parental leave, Quebec had a birth rate below the Canadian average. Given the fact that a child is likely to spend more time in daycare (as compared to the time they would spend on parental leave), you'd expect their birth rate to be higher than the national average because of all this cheap daycare. It wasn't.

Of course, all this is assuming that the recent increase in Quebec's birth rate isn't: 1) Just a one time anomaly which may reverse itself in later years, and 2) isn't due to some factor we haven't considered yet.

Since the poll in question came out after the Liberal plan has already been in effect and the Tory plan was in place, I'd say people were siding with the old plan knowing what it cost.

Ummm... no.

Sadly, people are incredibly ignorant when it comes to knowing costs and details. Yes, the Liberals said their plan would cost $11 billion, but at no point did they ever indicate exactly how much it would impact each individual taxpayer, which was what my initial statement was. (Perhaps they did, in which case perhaps you can provide a link where the Liberals claimed "This will add $X to your tax bill".)

Just some rough calculations... According to the CIA World Fact book, the number of Canadians between 15-64 (the main taxpayer base) is approximately 23 million. Given the proposed $11 billion cost of the Liberal daycare plan, this works out to $480 for your average taxpayer. (And this is only a rough estimate... given the fact that many low income people pay little or no tax to begin with, the average taxpayer will probably end up paying well over $500/person.) Its easy to support a plan when you think the $billions are coming from some magic government money machine. Probably be a different story if they're told "This will mean more than $500 out of your pocket".

And hey, even you, champion of the Liberal plan, didn't even know about the problems with waiting lists in the Quebec system. (Or perhaps you did, but in that case why did you keep asking for recent data?)

You're right, the liberal plan was to give money to the provinces. But it was advertised as a daycare plan, and it would be expected that the money would involve some sort of direct public funding.

The more likely explanation is that its a crass political move, in order to be seen as doing something to "help the children", regardless of whether its a good idea or not.

Or as a good policy in federal/provincial relations.

Even if the government did decide to increase daycare transfers in order to improve federal/provincial relations, it means they're using taxpayer money in a deceptive way. It was done under the label of "child care", not "provincial equalization".

[jdobbin]

For those who believe that institutionalized public day care is the b all to end all, read this:

I suspected we would get advocates for income splitting for families.

It is hugely expensive and treats singles unfairly.

If the right wing wants to support families with children and not create daycare space, they should stop pretending it is cheap or simple.

[jdobbin]

You have provided no evidence to support your conclusion.

I said it was a factor. There have been a number of things to the government has done that have likely facilitated the birthrate.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/191237

Since taking office in 2003, the Quebec Liberal government has put in place three major initiatives to try to get ahead of the aging curve.

First, it continued the Parti Quebecois' affordable day-care program, raising the fee to $7 from $5 a day but creating 35,000 new spots.

Then in January of 2005, the government instituted a new child benefit, a monthly non-taxable amount paid to families. Parents receive $2,100 a year for the first child and $1,045 for the second and third child and $1,600 for a fourth, to a maximum of $5,700.

And in another innovation just a year ago, Quebec opted out of the federal government's employment insurance plan for parental leave and implemented its own more generous provincial plan. In its first year, nearly 98,000 new mothers and fathers took advantage of the plan, which, unlike Ottawa's applies to self-employed parents.

Your conclusion is that none of this has helped?

Once again: in the early 2000s, before changes in parental leave, Quebec had a birth rate below the Canadian average. Given the fact that a child is likely to spend more time in daycare (as compared to the time they would spend on parental leave), you'd expect their birth rate to be higher than the national average because of all this cheap daycare. It wasn't.

It was 2003 when the Liberal plan was put into place as seen above.

Of course, all this is assuming that the recent increase in Quebec's birth rate isn't: 1) Just a one time anomaly which may reverse itself in later years, and 2) isn't due to some factor we haven't considered yet.

Given the long term trend prior in Quebec, I would say that the Liberal government work has certainly hasn't hurt. However, you are welcome to think that Quebec is just experiencing a season of love and family.

Ummm... no.

That's your opinion.

Sadly, people are incredibly ignorant when it comes to knowing costs and details. Yes, the Liberals said their plan would cost $11 billion, but at no point did they ever indicate exactly how much it would impact each individual taxpayer, which was what my initial statement was. (Perhaps they did, in which case perhaps you can provide a link where the Liberals claimed "This will add $X to your tax bill".)

Just some rough calculations... According to the CIA World Fact book, the number of Canadians between 15-64 (the main taxpayer base) is approximately 23 million. Given the proposed $11 billion cost of the Liberal daycare plan, this works out to $480 for your average taxpayer. (And this is only a rough estimate... given the fact that many low income people pay little or no tax to begin with, the average taxpayer will probably end up paying well over $500/person.) Its easy to support a plan when you think the $billions are coming from some magic government money machine. Probably be a different story if they're told "This will mean more than $500 out of your pocket".

And hey, even you, champion of the Liberal plan, didn't even know about the problems with waiting lists in the Quebec system. (Or perhaps you did, but in that case why did you keep asking for recent data?)

I have no idea of the vagaries of each provincial system. I didn't champion Quebec's program nor run it down. I said that the Feds were assisting provinces in building daycare spaces under the Liberals while not running the program themselves.

The demand for daycare will not go down whatever the Tories say. It is likely one of the reasons why the party continues to lose women in polling compared to 2006.

Even if the government did decide to increase daycare transfers in order to improve federal/provincial relations, it means they're using taxpayer money in a deceptive way. It was done under the label of "child care", not "provincial equalization".

It is all perfectly acceptable under our constitution and hardly deceptive. It is based on agreements by the Feds and the provinces for specific programs.

[segnosaur]

I said it was a factor. There have been a number of things to the government has done that have likely facilitated the birthrate.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/191237

Since taking office in 2003, the Quebec Liberal government has put in place three major initiatives to try to get ahead of the aging curve.

First, it continued the Parti Quebecois' affordable day-care program

...

Then in January of 2005, the government instituted a new child benefit

...

And in another innovation just a year ago, Quebec opted out of the federal government's employment insurance plan for parental leave and implemented its own more generous provincial plan.

Your conclusion is that none of this has helped?

The issue here is whether subsidized day care was a significant factor in increased birth rates in Quebec... bringing in other parts of the Quebec government's plans doesn't exactly support that argument.

Once again: in the early 2000s, before changes in parental leave, Quebec had a birth rate below the Canadian average. Given the fact that a child is likely to spend more time in daycare (as compared to the time they would spend on parental leave), you'd expect their birth rate to be higher than the national average because of all this cheap daycare. It wasn't.

It was 2003 when the Liberal plan was put into place as seen above.

I suggest you go back and read the information you yourself posted. The Quebec childcare plan did not start in 2003... in fact, it was started years earlier under the PQ. (The Liberals just continued it, and changed some of the details.)

If the birthrate was low with subsidized daycare in place, but only increased after other measures were put in place.

Just to repeat again... Quebec had subsidized day care before the Liberal plan. They still had a low birth rate. Their birth rate didn't increase until other policies were put into place not directly related to subsidized daycare.

Of course, all this is assuming that the recent increase in Quebec's birth rate isn't: 1) Just a one time anomaly which may reverse itself in later years, and 2) isn't due to some factor we haven't considered yet.

Given the long term trend prior in Quebec, I would say that the Liberal government work has certainly hasn't hurt. However, you are welcome to think that Quebec is just experiencing a season of love and family.

I never claimed it had hurt. Just that there is no evidence that it has actually helped increase the birth rate.

However, you are welcome to think that Quebec is just experiencing a season of love and family.

1 year does not necessarily indicate a trend.

To give you the benefit of the doubt, I have assumed that the birth rate has increased. But there is no evidence that child care availability has contributed to it.

Yes, the Liberals said their plan would cost $11 billion, but at no point did they ever indicate exactly how much it would impact each individual taxpayer, which was what my initial statement was. (Perhaps they did, in which case perhaps you can provide a link where the Liberals claimed "This will add $X to your tax bill".)

Just some rough calculations... Given the proposed $11 billion cost of the Liberal daycare plan, this works out to $480 for your average taxpayer....Its easy to support a plan when you think the $billions are coming from some magic government money machine. Probably be a different story if they're told "This will mean more than $500 out of your pocket".

And hey, even you, champion of the Liberal plan, didn't even know about the problems with waiting lists in the Quebec system. (Or perhaps you did, but in that case why did you keep asking for recent data?)

I have no idea of the vagaries of each provincial system.

That isn't the issue here... At one point you suggested that the liberal plan was 'popular'. I was pointing out that the 'popularity' may be due to a lack of understanding about how exactly such a plan affects taxpayers on an individual level. (And I should point out you haven't provided any evidence to suggest the Liberals made attempts to explain that to taxpayers.)

I also find it ironic that you would champion a Liberal daycare plan that involves relying on the provincial systems, without even knowing what those provincial systems entail.

The demand for daycare will not go down whatever the Tories say.

And where exactly did the conservatives say that the demand for childcare will go down? By giving tax breaks to the parents themselves, all parents will be able to find their own solutions (whether through actual daycare systems or more informal babysitting services). If more institutionalized daycare is necessary, people will better be able to afford it.

It is likely one of the reasons why the party continues to lose women in polling compared to 2006.

Quite possible. But as I've said before, the fact that a program is popular does not necessarily make it a good policy.

And also, as I've explained before, people (in this case women) may end up supporting plans because they simply don't know the details.

Even if the government did decide to increase daycare transfers in order to improve federal/provincial relations, it means they're using taxpayer money in a deceptive way. It was done under the label of "child care", not "provincial equalization".

It is all perfectly acceptable under our constitution and hardly deceptive.

Ummm... being constitution does not necessarily mean something isn't deceptive.

The conservatives increased funding to the provinces for child care. You suggested that it was because their own plans failed. I suggested that it was just a crass political move in order to be seen as doing something "for children". You countered it could also have been an attempt to improve federal/provincial relations.

Here's the thing... we were told it was to provide daycare. If the underlying motive is to improve support or improve provincial relations, then it is deceptive, even if such transfers are being done legally.

[jdobbin]

The issue here is whether subsidized day care was a significant factor in increased birth rates in Quebec... bringing in other parts of the Quebec government's plans doesn't exactly support that argument.

I said it was a factor. The article mentions that it is factor. And you haven't indicated anything that says it hasn't been a factor.

I suggest you go back and read the information you yourself posted. The Quebec childcare plan did not start in 2003... in fact, it was started years earlier under the PQ. (The Liberals just continued it, and changed some of the details.)

Important details. 35,000 more daycare spaces. The subsidy alone wasn't enough if there wasn't enough spaces.

If the birthrate was low with subsidized daycare in place, but only increased after other measures were put in place.

Such as the additional spaces that I have already outlined.

Just to repeat again... Quebec had subsidized day care before the Liberal plan. They still had a low birth rate. Their birth rate didn't increase until other policies were put into place not directly related to subsidized daycare.

And just to repeat again. More daycare spaces under the Liberal after 2003.

I never claimed it had hurt. Just that there is no evidence that it has actually helped increase the birth rate.

1 year does not necessarily indicate a trend.

To give you the benefit of the doubt, I have assumed that the birth rate has increased. But there is no evidence that child care availability has contributed to it.

There isn't anything to assume. Statcan bears the numbers out and it wasn't just a one year boost. I keep telling you that subsidized daycare means nothing if it doesn't come with spaces. The Tories haven't learned that lesson.

That isn't the issue here... At one point you suggested that the liberal plan was 'popular'. I was pointing out that the 'popularity' may be due to a lack of understanding about how exactly such a plan affects taxpayers on an individual level. (And I should point out you haven't provided any evidence to suggest the Liberals made attempts to explain that to taxpayers.)

The Tories did their best to explain why it was bad and the Canadian public still liked it better than their plan.

I also find it ironic that you would champion a Liberal daycare plan that involves relying on the provincial systems, without even knowing what those provincial systems entail.

The agreements for funding were set up for specific goals.The funding from Ottawa was contingent on achieving those goals. In other words, the money wasn't put in place to buy lawnmowers.

all[/i] parents will be able to find their own solutions (whether through actual daycare systems or more informal babysitting services). If more institutionalized daycare is necessary, people will better be able to afford it.

Motel Solberg already said that the Tory plan was not making it possible for people to find daycare spaces since none were being created. And that is why they said they started the program in the first place.

Quite possible. But as I've said before, the fact that a program is popular does not necessarily make it a good policy.

Again your opinion. We have already seen large aspects of the Tory plan collapse. Solberg admitted the Tory program was not creating spaces as promised.

And also, as I've explained before, people (in this case women) may end up supporting plans because they simply don't know the details.

Blame the Tories then.

Ummm... being constitution does not necessarily mean something isn't deceptive.

I still don't see it as being deceptive. That is your opinion.

The conservatives increased funding to the provinces for child care. You suggested that it was because their own plans failed. I suggested that it was just a crass political move in order to be seen as doing something "for children". You countered it could also have been an attempt to improve federal/provincial relations.

Here's the thing... we were told it was to provide daycare. If the underlying motive is to improve support or improve provincial relations, then it is deceptive, even if such transfers are being done legally.

If the provinces are not using the money to fulfill the promise of daycare spaces, it is a failure of the Tory policy. The Liberal agreement was actually creating spaces according to the stats that Solberg showed.

[segnosaur]

I suggest you go back and read the information you yourself posted. The Quebec childcare plan did not start in 2003... in fact, it was started years earlier under the PQ. (The Liberals just continued it, and changed some of the details.)

Important details. 35,000 more daycare spaces. The subsidy alone wasn't enough if there wasn't enough spaces.

There still aren't enough spaces... despite the 35,000 more spaces, there are still huge waiting lists. In fact, that number of daycare spaces only represents approximately 10% of the children in day care, and only about 1/4 of those who were stuck in private daycare at the time.

Anyone who thought it would be 'safe' to have children because of all the new daycare spaces would have been a moron. Do you really think its really a good idea to encourage those people to reproduce?

Once again... despite all those 'new' daycare spaces, the total number provided was only a small fraction of that required.

The Tories did their best to explain why it was bad and the Canadian public still liked it better than their plan.

...

Blame the Tories then.

Yes, I am blaming this partly on the conservatives, since I don't ever remember the tories explaining the cost per-taxpayer either.

Frankly, I think all politicians should be forced to explain how much each of their election promises would cost the each taxpayer. Of course, if the Tories did that to the Liberal plans, they'd be forced to lay out the cost of their own plans.

I still don't see it as being deceptive.

Well, being a Liberal supporter I'm not suprised that you have trouble with deception...

(Ok, I know... cheap shot. My apologies...)

If the provinces are not using the money to fulfill the promise of daycare spaces, it is a failure of the Tory policy.

I never said the recent increase in payouts to the province wouldn't create daycare spaces. What I said was that the underlying motivation was not "Lets help the children"... it was just as likely "Lets increase an already bloated government program because we want to be seen as doing something."

You know, you keep pointing out that the Liberal plan was "creating space" while the conservative plan was not. But that isn't really an accurate representation of what's happening. The Liberal plan may have 'created' subsidized daycare spaces, but it may not have necessarily created more total space, as many people may have simply switch from the private to subsidized system, or from a non-professional babysitter to a daycare service. (I've tried to find stats on this but have been unable to.) The end result? No more childcare is available, just more taxpayer money being funneled around.

Consider this: Quebec has approximately ~93,000 children stuck in private daycare. Future government efforts are not necessarily going to increase the total number of spaces, but they are going to turn the private spaces into subsidized spaces. From: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...fc-cb927eaaab24 : The biggest measure in yesterday's budget was $85 million over five years to level the playing field between the costs of private vs. subsidized daycare.

So, tell me, do you think its far that, under the Liberal plan, a single parent who could not use public or subsidized day care (because they worked evening/nights, or were not close to a population center with such daycare provided) still has to pay taxes to subsidize other parent's daycare on top of their own child care expenses?

Edited June 19, 2008 by segnosaur

[jdobbin]

There still aren't enough spaces... despite the 35,000 more spaces, there are still huge waiting lists. In fact, that number of daycare spaces only represents approximately 10% of the children in day care, and only about 1/4 of those who were stuck in private daycare at the time.

Anyone who thought it would be 'safe' to have children because of all the new daycare spaces would have been a moron. Do you really think its really a good idea to encourage those people to reproduce?

It is up to each province to tailor the needs of their program to their province's needs. If Quebec believes it needs policies to encourage children, that is up to them.

Once again... despite all those 'new' daycare spaces, the total number provided was only a small fraction of that required.

I wonder if that will help federal Liberal fortunes in the next election since more spaces would have happened under their policy.

Yes, I am blaming this partly on the conservatives, since I don't ever remember the tories explaining the cost per-taxpayer either.

A refreshing stand from most posters here.

Frankly, I think all politicians should be forced to explain how much each of their election promises would cost the each taxpayer. Of course, if the Tories did that to the Liberal plans, they'd be forced to lay out the cost of their own plans.

And the effectiveness of their plan.

Well, being a Liberal supporter I'm not suprised that you have trouble with deception...

(Ok, I know... cheap shot. My apologies...)

Ah, there's the attack of the right wing we are all familiar with. And people wonder why each debate degenerates into bile and hatred.

I never said the recent increase in payouts to the province wouldn't create daycare spaces. What I said was that the underlying motivation was not "Lets help the children"... it was just as likely "Lets increase an already bloated government program because we want to be seen as doing something."

You know, you keep pointing out that the Liberal plan was "creating space" while the conservative plan was not. But that isn't really an accurate representation of what's happening. The Liberal plan may have 'created' subsidized daycare spaces, but it may not have necessarily created more total space, as many people may have simply switch from the private to subsidized system, or from a non-professional babysitter to a daycare service. (I've tried to find stats on this but have been unable to.) The end result? No more childcare is available, just more taxpayer money being funneled around.

Consider this: Quebec has approximately ~93,000 children stuck in private daycare. Future government efforts are not necessarily going to increase the total number of spaces, but they are going to turn the private spaces into subsidized spaces. From: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...fc-cb927eaaab24 : The biggest measure in yesterday's budget was $85 million over five years to level the playing field between the costs of private vs. subsidized daycare.

So, tell me, do you think its far that, under the Liberal plan, a single parent who could not use public or subsidized day care (because they worked evening/nights, or were not close to a population center with such daycare provided) still has to pay taxes to subsidize other parent's daycare on top of their own child care expenses?

Each province crafts their own program and the Feds agreed to help finance provincial run programs with the aim to bring more affordable daycare spaces into each province. When Monte Solberg analyzed the numbers in 2007, he found there was early evidence in 2006 that the Feds had created more total space but by 2007, evidence revealed almost no space created.

To answer your last question, consider this: The Tory program subsidizes parents to do provide whatever care they want to provide for their children. Do you think it is fair for childless singles to pay for someone else's children?

[Bryan]

It is up to each province to tailor the needs of their program to their province's needs. If Quebec believes it needs policies to encourage children, that is up to them.

I wonder if that will help federal Liberal fortunes in the next election since more spaces would have happened under their policy.

I never said the recent increase in payouts to the province wouldn't create daycare spaces. What I said was that the underlying motivation was not "Lets help the children"... it was just as likely "Lets increase an already bloated government program because we want to be seen as doing something."

Each province crafts their own program and the Feds agreed to help finance provincial run programs with the aim to bring more affordable daycare spaces into each province.

The first year funding at the same rate the Liberals wanted did not create any spaces? The Liberals plan, that the CPC honored for the first year, did not do what it was designed to do? What did they do with the money? It was for spaces, and they used it for something else. If anything, all that proves the CPC were correct in canceling it, before the provinces came forward with their hands out again. "it wasn't enough, we need more".

The Tory program subsidizes parents to do provide whatever care they want to provide for their children. Do you think it is fair for childless singles to pay for someone else's children?

For DAYCARE? No, it's not fair. I don't deserve the CPC benefit. I'm just happy that if the public thinks the government is somehow responsible for funding childcare (at least partially), that it's at least being handed out in a method that's a more fair to everyone with kids to care for, rather than just to those who send their children to be warehoused.

[madmax]

$100/month, directly. That $100 accounts for nearly 25% of my child care costs.

Your child care costs are $400 per month. What do you receive for the $400 in child care.

That's pretty substantial in my book, and I can't see how (on a per child basis) anyone could argue that it's not enough.

That is why I am asking the question above. Could you explain what you are receiving? I assume paying out of your own pocket, previously, and now receive $100 from the government to aid your child care costs

[jdobbin]

The first year funding at the same rate the Liberals wanted did not create any spaces?

I've already said Solberg said it did. The media pointed that out to him in 2007. He admitted the Tory program would not be able to create the spaces they said their program would and that the spaces that had been created came from the one year of the Liberal plan.

The Liberals plan, that the CPC honored for the first year, did not do what it was designed to do? What did they do with the money? It was for spaces, and they used it for something else. If anything, all that proves the CPC were correct in canceling it, before the provinces came forward with their hands out again. "it wasn't enough, we need more".

I think you should look back at what I wrote on this subject. And the provinces were not asking for more. They asked for a continuation of the program as the Liberals had designed it.

I'm sure the Tory program works for you. It doesn't seem to be the chosen method for other Canadians who support the Liberal program at the rate of 3 of 4 families.