Daycare

Bryan · June 20, 2008

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

It's a little more than $400/mo. (I said nearly 25%)

Regardless:

That is for full-time, full days, as needed. I try to minimize the number of hours she's there by dropping off late, picking up early, or just keeping her with me on as many days as I can, but we are paying the full-time rate. There are 4 children in total being cared for, but seldom more than 3 at a time. They are supplied lunch and snacks. Meals are of our choosing, and that was a big one for us, as our daughter is a picky eater. Peanut butter is one of the few things you can get her to eat every time and all the govt daycares had peanut bans. They get to go outside as often and as long as weather permits. This was also huge. I can't even count the number of times I picked my son up from daycare when he had not been outside all day. The sitter has lots of fun structures and such in her fenced yard for the kids to play on. They also go to the park, play groups, the library, the Zoo, etc, several times per week. She can bring whatever she wants to the babysitter, so she can bring books, toys, dress-up clothes, a movie, etc.

If there's an institutional daycare that can match this level of service, I've sure as heck never seen it. Not in Manitoba anyway.

Bryan · June 20, 2008

And the provinces were not asking for more.

Are you on glue? The provinces are ALWAYS asking for more. And more, and more, and more.

A new national social program. That's what Martin said over and over again. The provinces would keep their hands out until that's what it truly was. It HAD TO be cancelled.

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.

Well, 3 of 4 is about right. That pretty close to the ratio of people I meet on the street who are irretrievably stupid. The same people who think that TV they got with their new bed was actually free, that their cell phone plan is really just $20/mo, or that the used car dealer is really giving them that car for below his cost.

jdobbin · June 20, 2008

Are you on glue? The provinces are ALWAYS asking for more. And more, and more, and more.

It was a fixed program with a fixed price and a fixed time.

A new national social program. That's what Martin said over and over again. The provinces would keep their hands out until that's what it truly was. It HAD TO be cancelled.

It was a program negotiated with each province. It was not nationally run.

Well, 3 of 4 is about right. That pretty close to the ratio of people I meet on the street who are irretrievably stupid. The same people who think that TV they got with their new bed was actually free, that their cell phone plan is really just $20/mo, or that the used car dealer is really giving them that car for below his cost.

You see, this is why the right wing has a tough time getting majorities since they get angry and call the votes stupid.

Bryan · June 20, 2008

It was a fixed program with a fixed price and a fixed time.
It was a program negotiated with each province. It was not nationally run.

Yet. A national program was what was promised repeatedly. The fixed time has never stopped the provinces from coming forward with more money demands.

You see, this is why the right wing has a tough time getting majorities since they get angry and call the votes stupid.

The reason the right has trouble getting majorities in Canada is because most people ARE stupid.

segnosaur · June 20, 2008

Are you on glue? The provinces are ALWAYS asking for more. And more, and more, and more.

It was a fixed program with a fixed price and a fixed time.

Ummm.... just out of curiosity, what do you think would happen at the end of that 'fixed time' frame?

Would the federal government continue the program? If so, so much for your 'fixed time' claim.

Would the feds end the program and expect the provinces to continue funding it themselves (much like health care)? Possibly... Of course, that's basically equivalent to provincial downloading.

Would the program be cancelled outright? Hmmm... wonder how many daycare spaces that would create?

Or do you magically assume that all those daycare workers (many of whom will be unionized because they are run directly by governments) would begin to work for free? And that all the ongoing infrastructure costs would magically vanish? Maybe (had the Liberal plan been put in place) after the funding period had ended, they could simply let the kids run free in the forest. Free range daycare.

Really... if you're going to claim how many daycare spots the Liberal plan 'successfully' created, you have to assume there's going to be some ongoing costs, and any suggestion that there won't be expectations for money in the future from the provinces in order to continue a "successful" daycare system is, well, not too rational.

You see, this is why the right wing has a tough time getting majorities since they get angry and call the votes stupid.

Honesty is the best policy.

I suggest you rent the movie Idiocracy.

segnosaur · June 20, 2008

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.

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.

Totally misses the point. I was pointing out that the number of daycare spaces was so small (compared to the number needed) that it would have been pretty much insignificant in people deciding to have children.

Yeah, the Quebec government can do things it thinks will increase its birthrate. Heck, if they wanted, they could fund some pagans to sacrifice a live chicken in honor of some fertility goddess in order to increase the birthrate. Whether their actions have any effect is questionable.

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.

Ok, first of all, my comment was made in jest. Thought that was rather obvious with the 'cheap shot' comment.

Secondly, I am not 'right wing'. For the most part, I take a libertarian stance. I even pointed that out in this very thread on Jun 13 2008.

Lastly, having you complain about "attack of the right wing" is extremely hypocritical of you, considering some of the posts you have made.

You know, under other circumstances, I might have apologized for being insulting. But given the blatant hyporacy and all around mistakes with your comments I do not believe an apology is warranted.

The Liberal plan may have 'created' subsidized daycare spaces, but it may not have necessarily created more total space
example of quebec daycare deleted...

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.

Wait a second... here you're claiming that the goal is to bring 'more affordable' daycare spaces. Bringing in 'more affordable' isn't necessarily the same as 'creating' daycare spaces.

So which is it? You claiming the goal is to 'create' daycare spaces (where none existed before)? In that case, you have to address the fact that many of those 'created' daycare spaces aren't really new, they're just existing spaces with slightly different funding (as I pointed out in the real live Quebec example).

Or are you claiming that the goal is to take existing spaces and just make them "more affordable"? In that case, you have to justify why a direct government subsidy is better than a tax cut (because after all, both allow parents to better afford daycare; the difference is that the parents get more options with the tax cuts.)

So which is it? Or are you going to once again ignore the question or descent into irrelevancies?

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?

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?

You know, its quite revealing that, instead of actually answering my question, you choose to avoid the issue all together. Is your position so weak that you are unable to actually answer that basic question?

However, I will take the high road and answer your question... Do I think its fair for childless singles to pay for someone else's children? I'm assuming you're referring to daycare only.

The answer is no, I don't think its totally fair. However, I feel that tax cuts directed at families to be less unfair than the Liberal plan. Rather like if I had the choice between ebola and the flu... I'd rather have neither, but if I had to have either, I'd definitely pick the one that caused the least problems, whether it be the flu or the Conservative tax cuts for families.

So, once again, I ask: do you think its fair that, under the Liberal plan, a single parent who could not use subsidized day care (because they worked evening/nights, etc.) still has to pay taxes to subsidize other parent's daycare on top of their own child care expenses?

jdobbin · June 20, 2008

Totally misses the point. I was pointing out that the number of daycare spaces was so small (compared to the number needed) that it would have been pretty much insignificant in people deciding to have children.
Yeah, the Quebec government can do things it thinks will increase its birthrate. Heck, if they wanted, they could fund some pagans to sacrifice a live chicken in honor of some fertility goddess in order to increase the birthrate. Whether their actions have any effect is questionable.

Demand is high. The Quebec Liberal plan was to increase space by 35,000 spaces. The Liberal initiative was to help Quebec create space beyond that. It is too bad the Tories cancelled the program as it would probably have done more to meet the demand.

Quebecers have been taking advantage of several initiatives that encourage children. Daycare is one of those things. I've never said it was the primary factor but it is a factor nonetheless.

Ok, first of all, my comment was made in jest. Thought that was rather obvious with the 'cheap shot' comment.
Secondly, I am not 'right wing'. For the most part, I take a libertarian stance. I even pointed that out in this very thread on Jun 13 2008.

Lastly, having you complain about "attack of the right wing" is extremely hypocritical of you, considering some of the posts you have made.

In jest or not, I hear right wing attacks daily that personalize. I have never personalized with you but you felt the need to.

The right wing view I am referring to is based on many libertarian tenets.

You know, under other circumstances, I might have apologized for being insulting. But given the blatant hyporacy and all around mistakes with your comments I do not believe an apology is warranted.

Where have insulted you? Where have I personalized with you?

Wait a second... here you're claiming that the goal is to bring 'more affordable' daycare spaces. Bringing in 'more affordable' isn't necessarily the same as 'creating' daycare spaces.

Actually, that was what each province said was their goal. The Feds simply said they were helping to create more spaces.

So which is it? You claiming the goal is to 'create' daycare spaces (where none existed before)? In that case, you have to address the fact that many of those 'created' daycare spaces aren't really new, they're just existing spaces with slightly different funding (as I pointed out in the real live Quebec example).
Or are you claiming that the goal is to take existing spaces and just make them "more affordable"? In that case, you have to justify why a direct government subsidy is better than a tax cut (because after all, both allow parents to better afford daycare; the difference is that the parents get more options with the tax cuts.)

So which is it? Or are you going to once again ignore the question or descent into irrelevancies?

The provinces made it a goal for a affordable daycare. The Feds made it a goal to create more spaces over five years.

Given that the Tories ended the program, we only know that total spaces had increased according to Monte Solberg.

You know, its quite revealing that, instead of actually answering my question, you choose to avoid the issue all together. Is your position so weak that you are unable to actually answer that basic question?

To be short and simple: I have no problem people paying tax and not receiving the service the tax is for. Many private students across the country pay taxes and go to a private school and don't get money to subsidize it.

The government sets up objectives and there are many examples of people paying for something that they don't receive.

However, I will take the high road and answer your question... Do I think its fair for childless singles to pay for someone else's children? I'm assuming you're referring to daycare only.
The answer is no, I don't think its totally fair. However, I feel that tax cuts directed at families to be less unfair than the Liberal plan. Rather like if I had the choice between ebola and the flu... I'd rather have neither, but if I had to have either, I'd definitely pick the one that caused the least problems, whether it be the flu or the Conservative tax cuts for families.

And this is where I disagree because tax cuts don't build daycare spaces.

Tax cuts don't build schools either.

The choice that Harper talked about from the tax credit just wasn't as helpful to as many people as providing actual daycare space.

So, once again, I ask: do you think its fair that, under the Liberal plan, a single parent who could not use subsidized day care (because they worked evening/nights, etc.) still has to pay taxes to subsidize other parent's daycare on top of their own child care expenses?

That is pretty specific. No care for nights in Quebec?

I say the program is fair since it provides for the greatest amount of people who need the service.

I hear the same argument against OAS and EI all the time as well. I'll never collect it so why do I have to pay into it? The reason is that one is insurance and the other provides for many people in need.

jdobbin · June 20, 2008

Ummm.... just out of curiosity, what do you think would happen at the end of that 'fixed time' frame?

If a province had a lower amount of children, I suspect a reduction in money if the program was renewed. We see similar things in school divisions when schools are closed and there are fewer students.

Would the federal government continue the program? If so, so much for your 'fixed time' claim.

There are no guarantees for renewal. In fact, once the goals are met, the provinces would have to make a case for why payment should continue.

Would the feds end the program and expect the provinces to continue funding it themselves (much like health care)? Possibly... Of course, that's basically equivalent to provincial downloading.
Would the program be cancelled outright? Hmmm... wonder how many daycare spaces that would create?

If the program had fulfilled its goals or the province took over responsibility for the program, the Feds might not renew a program. That is what the Liberals did in 1993 when they ended the Crow Rate subsidy.

Or do you magically assume that all those daycare workers (many of whom will be unionized because they are run directly by governments) would begin to work for free? And that all the ongoing infrastructure costs would magically vanish? Maybe (had the Liberal plan been put in place) after the funding period had ended, they could simply let the kids run free in the forest. Free range daycare.
Really... if you're going to claim how many daycare spots the Liberal plan 'successfully' created, you have to assume there's going to be some ongoing costs, and any suggestion that there won't be expectations for money in the future from the provinces in order to continue a "successful" daycare system is, well, not too rational.

Which daycares are unionized?

I suspect that the programs would eventually be fully run by the provinces at some point. You don't think that is realistic?

Honesty is the best policy.
I suggest you rent the movie Idiocracy.

I hope the Conservatives are that honest in the election and make sure they call the public idiots.

jdobbin · June 20, 2008

Ummm.... just out of curiosity, what do you think would happen at the end of that 'fixed time' frame?

If a province had a lower amount of children, I suspect a reduction in money if the program was renewed. We see similar things in school divisions when schools are closed and there are fewer students.

Would the federal government continue the program? If so, so much for your 'fixed time' claim.

There are no guarantees for renewal. In fact, once the goals are met, the provinces would have to make a case for why payment should continue.

Would the feds end the program and expect the provinces to continue funding it themselves (much like health care)? Possibly... Of course, that's basically equivalent to provincial downloading.
Would the program be cancelled outright? Hmmm... wonder how many daycare spaces that would create?

If the program had fulfilled its goals or the province took over responsibility for the program, the Feds might not renew a program. That is what the Liberals did in 1993 when they ended the Crow Rate subsidy.

Or do you magically assume that all those daycare workers (many of whom will be unionized because they are run directly by governments) would begin to work for free? And that all the ongoing infrastructure costs would magically vanish? Maybe (had the Liberal plan been put in place) after the funding period had ended, they could simply let the kids run free in the forest. Free range daycare.
Really... if you're going to claim how many daycare spots the Liberal plan 'successfully' created, you have to assume there's going to be some ongoing costs, and any suggestion that there won't be expectations for money in the future from the provinces in order to continue a "successful" daycare system is, well, not too rational.

Which daycares are unionized?

I suspect that the programs would eventually be fully run by the provinces at some point. You don't think that is realistic?

Honesty is the best policy.
I suggest you rent the movie Idiocracy.

I hope the Conservatives are that honest in the election and make sure they call the public idiots.

jdobbin · June 20, 2008

Yet. A national program was what was promised repeatedly. The fixed time has never stopped the provinces from coming forward with more money demands.

The failure of the Liberals during the Chretein era to deliver a program was an embarrassment.

Liberals know how to say no: See Crow Rate.

The reason the right has trouble getting majorities in Canada is because most people ARE stupid.

Hope to hear that a lot from the right during the campaign.

segnosaur · June 23, 2008

Demand is high. The Quebec Liberal plan was to increase space by 35,000 spaces. The Liberal initiative was to help Quebec create space beyond that. It is too bad the Tories cancelled the program as it would probably have done more to meet the demand.
Quebecers have been taking advantage of several initiatives that encourage children. Daycare is one of those things. I've never said it was the primary factor but it is a factor nonetheless.

Of course, you're entitled to believe whatever you want. However, I'm the type of guy who actually likes to consider real actual facts and evidence. And the fact is, Quebec birthrates continued to be below the Canadian even after subsidized daycare began, and waiting lists continue to exist (and be quite lengthy) even now that their birthrate has gone up. There appears to be no co-relation. But the, you can continue believing whatever you want at the alter of Liberal daycare.

In jest or not, I hear right wing attacks daily that personalize. I have never personalized with you but you felt the need to.

I never claimed that you personally attacked me. I pointed out that you have engaged in partisan politics and made broad attacks like that in general.

And this is where I disagree because tax cuts don't build daycare spaces.

Correction.... tax cuts don't build public subsidized daycare spaces. They may however make private spaces more affordable (something you seem to be ignoring), or give parents the opportunity to provide more informal services (e.g. through babysitters, family, etc.), something that won't be counted as a 'daycare space', but still provides the necessary function of caring for young children.

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears, does it make a sound? Or in this case, if a parent manages to find the best care they can for the child, but it doesn't get payed for by the government, is the child still taken care of?

on certain people who need assistance but not getting it...
To be short and simple: I have no problem people paying tax and not receiving the service the tax is for. Many private students across the country pay taxes and go to a private school and don't get money to subsidize it.

First of all, comparing daycare to the private/public school system is not an accurate comparison. A person who works nights may have no option to use public daycare, whereas if a person decides to use private schools is truly an option (and if they decide to use public schools that option is always available to them.)

Secondly, you do realize that the people I'm referring to (those who are unable to use subsidized daycare due to hours of work) are often the poorest and most in need of assistance?

Perhaps that's why I'd never make a good Liberal. I have this strange idea: I believe that if we do have social programs, they should either A: help those that need it most, or B: help all people equally. The Liberal plan failed to help many of those that needed it most, and it certainly wouldn't help all people. In fact, the Liberal plan was Robin Hood in reverse... money taken from people most in need in order to subsidize those who might have been able to afford their own daycare.

So what Liberal policies do we have to look forward to? Saving animals by hunting endangered species? Managing our forests by burning down old growth trees?

The choice that Harper talked about from the tax credit just wasn't as helpful to as many people as providing actual daycare space.

Actually, just the opposite... it was actually helpful to more people to help them afford childcare (i.e. no waiting lists, no mis-allocation of space). It wouldn't have paid the entire portion of day care, but it would have been equitable.

You know, over and over again, you keep making the claim that the conservatives 'failed' to create child care spaces. I don't yet have the figures for the past 2 years, but if you look at the decade prior to that, the number of daycare spaces (and the number of children occupying those spaces) has gone up, in pretty much every part of the country (even outside Quebec). For example, the number of children in daycare went from 42% in 1994 to 54% in 2003. So daycare spaces were being created, even without the vaunted Liberal daycare policy. So before you go making the claim about how "no daycare spaces were created", please do some research.

http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/89-...-MIE2006003.pdf

So, once again, I ask: do you think its fair that, under the Liberal plan, a single parent who could not use subsidized day care (because they worked evening/nights, etc.) still has to pay taxes to subsidize other parent's daycare on top of their own child care expenses?

That is pretty specific.

Actually, not, its not 'pretty specific'. In fact, its quite a common situation.

Those people who are perhaps at the biggest disadvantage (e.g. single parents, perhaps lacking marketable skills) are usually the ones that are forced to take jobs where the working hours outside the core 9-5 business hours. (Janitorial, security jobs, retail, food service, etc.) And because these jobs are unskilled, they also tend to have lower wages. However, because they are night-jobs, "official" daycare is typically not available for them.

So, you have the poorest section of society, the ones who are in most need of help, yet they are the ones who get passed over, yet end up helping pay for others who need help.

No care for nights in Quebec?

Not that I'm aware of. I'm not in Quebec so I can't speak for the situation there (although I'd be very surprised if they did, given the fact that many are run directly by the government.)

However, I do know people who use daycare here in Ontario (some private, some government subsidized). None of them are open in the evening. (I also did a quick google search for hours of operation for daycares in Canada, and the only services I could find that were available in the evening were private babysitters, the type that the Liberal program would not help with.)

I say the program is fair since it provides for the greatest amount of people who need the service.

Except it doesn't. It ignores a large portion of low wage earners who need the service but can't get it.

The conservative plan actually provided the help to the greatest amount of people in need (even if it didn't provide full funding), since anyone with children could be in line for the tax cuts/rebates, regardless of what hours they worked, and regardless of availability of space.

I hear the same argument against OAS and EI all the time as well. I'll never collect it so why do I have to pay into it? The reason is that one is insurance and the other provides for many people in need.

Again, not a good comparison...

First of all, regardless of how secure your job is, there is still a chance you may need EI. But if you work nights your totally out of luck with regards to public daycare.

Secondly, I've pointed out that public daycare fails to assist a good portion of people who have the greatest need. However, even though you or I may not use OAS, it still may be justified as helping the less advantaged.

Would the feds end the program and expect the provinces to continue funding it themselves (much like health care)? Possibly... Of course, that's basically equivalent to provincial downloading.
Would the program be cancelled outright? Hmmm... wonder how many daycare spaces that would create?

If the program had fulfilled its goals or the province took over responsibility for the program, the Feds might not renew a program.

You know, I almost wish that the Liberals had won the last election... it would have been amusing to see what exactly would happen after the 'magic' money runs out.

Do you honestly not see the problems here? Do you really think that there won't be problems down the line when the federal money runs out? This is kind of like the Iraq war of daycare policy... no exit strategy. Nothing that happens at the end of that term would be good....

- Program continued? So much for your claim of a 'fixed' time frame and costs

- Program cancelled? So much for all those 'created' daycare spaces. All those parents are going to be scrambling to find ther space

- Provinces take over funding? Not only could it damage federal/provincial relations, but then the federal government looses all control over exactly how daycare money is spent.

Or do you magically assume that all those daycare workers (many of whom will be unionized because they are run directly by governments) would begin to work for free?

Which daycares are unionized?

Pretty much anything directly run by the government is unionized.

For example:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/20...ke20070227.html

Remember, with the extra regulation that comes with government subsidized daycare, you do have certain requirements for training, etc.

I suspect that the programs would eventually be fully run by the provinces at some point. You don't think that is realistic?

And just what type of national daycare system would we have then?

And just wondering... if provinces could afford such programs now, and they thought it was important to have such programs, why haven't they already started creating such programs using their provincial tax base already?

Edited June 23, 2008 by segnosaur

jdobbin · June 23, 2008

Of course, you're entitled to believe whatever you want. However, I'm the type of guy who actually likes to consider real actual facts and evidence. And the fact is, Quebec birthrates continued to be below the Canadian even after subsidized daycare began, and waiting lists continue to exist (and be quite lengthy) even now that their birthrate has gone up. There appears to be no co-relation. But the, you can continue believing whatever you want at the alter of Liberal daycare.

I will. Thanks.

I never claimed that you personally attacked me. I pointed out that you have engaged in partisan politics and made broad attacks like that in general.

I am partisan but I never personalized and appreciate disposing of insults.

Correction.... tax cuts don't build public subsidized daycare spaces. They may however make private spaces more affordable (something you seem to be ignoring), or give parents the opportunity to provide more informal services (e.g. through babysitters, family, etc.), something that won't be counted as a 'daycare space', but still provides the necessary function of caring for young children.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears, does it make a sound? Or in this case, if a parent manages to find the best care they can for the child, but it doesn't get payed for by the government, is the child still taken care of?

If there are private spaces. The problem is that there are not enough overall spaces. A tax cut is not very useful if there is no daycare space.

First of all, comparing daycare to the private/public school system is not an accurate comparison. A person who works nights may have no option to use public daycare, whereas if a person decides to use private schools is truly an option (and if they decide to use public schools that option is always available to them.)
Secondly, you do realize that the people I'm referring to (those who are unable to use subsidized daycare due to hours of work) are often the poorest and most in need of assistance?

As far as I can tell there are options in many places in regards to care in off hours. That would include Quebec.

Actually, just the opposite... it was actually helpful to more people to help them afford childcare (i.e. no waiting lists, no mis-allocation of space). It wouldn't have paid the entire portion of day care, but it would have been equitable.

Citation that it was doing the job?

You know, over and over again, you keep making the claim that the conservatives 'failed' to create child care spaces. I don't yet have the figures for the past 2 years, but if you look at the decade prior to that, the number of daycare spaces (and the number of children occupying those spaces) has gone up, in pretty much every part of the country (even outside Quebec). For example, the number of children in daycare went from 42% in 1994 to 54% in 2003. So daycare spaces were being created, even without the vaunted Liberal daycare policy. So before you go making the claim about how "no daycare spaces were created", please do some research.

They were being created with provincial programs in general. Even then, the provinces were asking for assistance. It wasn't until Martin got into office that he negotiated agreements to help create more spaces.

That is pretty specific.
Actually, not, its not 'pretty specific'. In fact, its quite a common situation.

Those people who are perhaps at the biggest disadvantage (e.g. single parents, perhaps lacking marketable skills) are usually the ones that are forced to take jobs where the working hours outside the core 9-5 business hours. (Janitorial, security jobs, retail, food service, etc.) And because these jobs are unskilled, they also tend to have lower wages. However, because they are night-jobs, "official" daycare is typically not available for them.

Do you have numbers of those who can't get daycare in off hours? I seem to recall Quebec having daycare available in off hours.

Not that I'm aware of. I'm not in Quebec so I can't speak for the situation there (although I'd be very surprised if they did, given the fact that many are run directly by the government.)

This document mentions daycare in off hours.

http://www.childcarecanada.org/pubs/op17/op17ENG.pdf

How many in Quebec are run directly by the government versus just being subsidized? How many are unionized.

I don't know of any centers unionized in Manitoba.

However, I do know people who use daycare here in Ontario (some private, some government subsidized). None of them are open in the evening. (I also did a quick google search for hours of operation for daycares in Canada, and the only services I could find that were available in the evening were private babysitters, the type that the Liberal program would not help with.)

2% of daycares operate weekends and night. I'm not sure how high the demand is for other hours. Do you know?

Except it doesn't. It ignores a large portion of low wage earners who need the service but can't get it.

Do you have a citation for how many can't get care for off hours?

The conservative plan actually provided the help to the greatest amount of people in need (even if it didn't provide full funding), since anyone with children could be in line for the tax cuts/rebates, regardless of what hours they worked, and regardless of availability of space.

Ah, there is that availability of space problem again.

Again, not a good comparison...

That's a quick dismissal. Right wingers complain regularly about paying into something they won't get.

still[/i] a chance you may need EI. But if you work nights your totally out of luck with regards to public daycare.

Again, what are the stats on those in need here?

You know, I almost wish that the Liberals had won the last election... it would have been amusing to see what exactly would happen after the 'magic' money runs out.

The Liberals stopped the Crow Rate. The freespending Tories didn't get it done.

Pretty much anything directly run by the government is unionized.

Your link doesn't tell me total numbers. I'd say the majority of daycares are not unionized. They certainly aren't here. Most are government run either.

And just what type of national daycare system would we have then?

It isn't a national daycare program. It a provincial run program.

And just wondering... if provinces could afford such programs now, and they thought it was important to have such programs, why haven't they already started creating such programs using their provincial tax base already?

They have as your own numbers have shown but demand has been very high. The Feds have assisted with provincial agreements.

segnosaur · June 25, 2008

If there are private spaces. The problem is that there are not enough overall spaces. A tax cut is not very useful if there is no daycare space.

Just wondering... where is your proof that there is 'not enough overall space'? You keep making the claim. I've been letting it slide. There may not have been as many government-run (or subsidized) spaces, but that does not mean that there "are not enough overall spaces". (Or if there are shortages, that subsidies would help, rather than just shift the funding round)

Secondly, before you start laying the blame, keep in mind that a lot of private for-profit daycares (ones who might be willing to create those daycare spaces) have often been discriminated against in Canada by politicians and unions.

...many provincial and municipal governments actively discriminate against the licensed for-profit sector... (from http://www.childcaretoday.ca/News_Release_May17_06.pdf )

Ontario's Ministry of Children and Youth Services isn't rolling out the red carpet for big corporate daycare....said ministry spokesperson Tricia Edgar.

http://www.thestar.com/article/268752

So, it almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy... for-profit daycares are discriminated against, they don't create any spaces, and then the politicians go and demand more subsidized daycare because the private operators aren't creating the spaces.

They were being created with provincial programs in general. Even then, the provinces were asking for assistance. It wasn't until Martin got into office that he negotiated agreements to help create more spaces.

So, the provinces were demanding assistance for years... and you somehow think that, had the Liberals gotten into power and started their 'national' program, that the provinces would not have expected continued funding after the supposed 'expiry' date?

This document mentions daycare in off hours.
http://www.childcarecanada.org/pubs/op17/op17ENG.pdf

You're right, that document does mention nighttime daycare available in Quebec. Of course, it also mention...

...because government funding is limited and remains focused on basic care and development, child care programs do not have the leeway to explore arrangements to meet the atypical needs of a growing number of families: irregular work schedules, evening, night and weekend shifts, part-time or casual employment, siblings, children with special needs,

etc.

...

...only full-day centre-based and family child care ... are eligible for MFE funding

And where it does mention government funded programs to provide off-hours care, it always says these are pilot programs, so they are not available to all, nor is there any guarantee they will be continued.

So, while someone may actually have access to evening daycare, it appears its not government funded, and my point stands... there are people who are socially disadvantaged who can't use a government service, but subsidize wealthier people who do.

How many in Quebec are run directly by the government versus just being subsidized?

Why exactly does that matter? Even if its just subsidized (and not directly run by the government) it will still have to maintain certain standards.

How many are unionized.

Again, why exactly is that relevant?

Ok, I was the one that brought up unions... but I did not do so because I wanted you to become fixated on them. I did so because I was highlighting how ridiculous it was to assume that once federal funding stops that somehow everything would continue as it was. (I mentioned unions as they are typically very aggressive in protecting wages, but all workers would want to fight to protect their jobs.)

still[/i] a chance you may need EI. But if you work nights your totally out of luck with regards to public daycare.
Again, what are the stats on those in need here?

Why don't you just look at the Quebec stats, which show (if I remember correctly) 1/4 of people who are unable to get subsidized daycare, despite paying into it.

It isn't a national daycare program. It a provincial run program.

Ahem.... "The time has come for a truly national system..." (From the Liberal throne speech... http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/)

So obviously the Liberals at the time were considering it a "national" program (even though it was administered by the provinces.) It was presented as a 'national' program (much the same way that health care is a 'national' program). People understood it to be a national program. The Liberal party itself labeled it as a "national system".

Really, I continue to be amazed that you did not expect any problems with the Liberal when the funding was 'officially' supposed to end. Astounding. Almost awe-inspiring. You'd figure the last few decades of provincial demands for federal cash for various social programs would have given enough of a warning that simply ending federal cash flows is going to be messy.

Edited June 25, 2008 by segnosaur

jdobbin · June 25, 2008

Just wondering... where is your proof that there is 'not enough overall space'? You keep making the claim. I've been letting it slide. There may not have been as many government-run (or subsidized) spaces, but that does not mean that there "are not enough overall spaces". (Or if there are shortages, that subsidies would help, rather than just shift the funding round)

Each province has their own way of reporting and assessing demand. In Manitoba, they list who wants daycare of any kind and whether there is space available. The government subsidizes spaces here. I don't know of any government run or with union members.

Secondly, before you start laying the blame, keep in mind that a lot of private for-profit daycares (ones who might be willing to create those daycare spaces) have often been discriminated against in Canada by politicians and unions.

I haven't laid blame. The Tories tried to get corporations to provide more daycare in Canada in their 2006 budget and it really wasn't used by them. It was scrapped by Solberg because of lack of interest.

...many provincial and municipal governments actively discriminate against the licensed for-profit sector... (from http://www.childcaretoday.ca/News_Release_May17_06.pdf )
Ontario's Ministry of Children and Youth Services isn't rolling out the red carpet for big corporate daycare....said ministry spokesperson Tricia Edgar.

http://www.thestar.com/article/268752

I can't speak for Ontario in this matter. People there might have a case.

So, it almost becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy... for-profit daycares are discriminated against, they don't create any spaces, and then the politicians go and demand more subsidized daycare because the private operators aren't creating the spaces.

Once again I can't speak for Ontario. I know the Tories tried to get this going in 2006 and it didn't go over well.

So, the provinces were demanding assistance for years... and you somehow think that, had the Liberals gotten into power and started their 'national' program, that the provinces would not have expected continued funding after the supposed 'expiry' date?

Sure, they ended the Crow Rate when the Tories wouldn't. Why continue a program if it is fulfilled its mandate?

You're right, that document does mention nighttime daycare available in Quebec. Of course, it also mention...
...because government funding is limited and remains focused on basic care and development, child care programs do not have the leeway to explore arrangements to meet the atypical needs of a growing number of families: irregular work schedules, evening, night and weekend shifts, part-time or casual employment, siblings, children with special needs,

etc.

Of course this document came out eight years ago. It would be interesting to see if there has been progress in this area.

...only full-day centre-based and family child care ... are eligible for MFE funding
And where it does mention government funded programs to provide off-hours care, it always says these are pilot programs, so they are not available to all, nor is there any guarantee they will be continued.

Once again, it would be interesting to see if there has been progress. If not, still more work for the provincial program to do.

So, while someone may actually have access to evening daycare, it appears its not government funded, and my point stands... there are people who are socially disadvantaged who can't use a government service, but subsidize wealthier people who do.

Guess more need for the government to help build atypical space for families.

Why exactly does that matter? Even if its just subsidized (and not directly run by the government) it will still have to maintain certain standards.
Again, why exactly is that relevant?

Ok, I was the one that brought up unions... but I did not do so because I wanted you to become fixated on them. I did so because I was highlighting how ridiculous it was to assume that once federal funding stops that somehow everything would continue as it was. (I mentioned unions as they are typically very aggressive in protecting wages, but all workers would want to fight to protect their jobs.)

I know of no unions in my province in daycare. I have no idea if there are big numbers where you are. I assume not.

Daycares typically have lower wages.

Why don't you just look at the Quebec stats, which show (if I remember correctly) 1/4 of people who are unable to get subsidized daycare, despite paying into it.

I'd still have to see the reason why this is happening. Could be numerous reasons.

Ahem.... "The time has come for a truly national system..." (From the Liberal throne speech... http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/)
So obviously the Liberals at the time were considering it a "national" program (even though it was administered by the provinces.) It was presented as a 'national' program (much the same way that health care is a 'national' program). People understood it to be a national program. The Liberal party itself labeled it as a "national system".

You know, I think I know what a federal program is. It is CPP. It is EI.

This is not a federal program because it is not federally administered.

Really, I continue to be amazed that you did not expect any problems with the Liberal when the funding was 'officially' supposed to end. Astounding. Almost awe-inspiring. You'd figure the last few decades of provincial demands for federal cash for various social programs would have given enough of a warning that simply ending federal cash flows is going to be messy.

Why would it be? The Crow Rate ended fairly painlessly.

Edited June 25, 2008 by jdobbin

segnosaur · June 26, 2008

Just wondering... where is your proof that there is 'not enough overall space'? You keep making the claim. I've been letting it slide. There may not have been as many government-run (or subsidized) spaces, but that does not mean that there "are not enough overall spaces". (Or if there are shortages, that subsidies would help, rather than just shift the funding round)

Each province has their own way of reporting and assessing demand. In Manitoba, they list who wants daycare of any kind and whether there is space available.

So, in other words you don't have any proof that there are a significant number of people who lack any daycare, just

The government subsidizes spaces here. I don't know of any government run or with union members.

First of all, I never said that all daycare is run by union members, only that some are (of which I provided proof).

Secondly, I've already explained in a previous post why ultimately its not important.

I haven't laid blame.

Could have suprised me. The way you're crucifying the tories over the issue suggests otherwise.

...keep in mind that a lot of private for-profit daycares (ones who might be willing to create those daycare spaces) have often been discriminated against in Canada by politicians and unions.

...many provincial and municipal governments actively discriminate against the licensed for-profit sector...

Ontario's Ministry of Children and Youth Services isn't rolling out the red carpet for big corporate daycare....said ministry spokesperson Tricia Edgar.

I can't speak for Ontario in this matter. People there might have a case.

First of all, it wasn't just the Ontario government. The first article specifically mentioned provincial and city governments (note the plural). I've also seen other references to Saskatchewan and Quebec (not to mention city governments, and those are only the ones I've seen...there may be more.). I only quoted the Ontario politician because the quote was so demonstrative of their attitude.

Once again I can't speak for Ontario. I know the Tories tried to get this going in 2006 and it didn't go over well.

Might have gone differently if more provinces and cities were willing to be supportive of for-profit daycare.

Guess more need for the government to help build atypical space for families.

Why exactly do you think the government is the only one who can provide?

I know of no unions in my province in daycare. I have no idea if there are big numbers where you are. I assume not.
Daycares typically have lower wages.

Again, you've totally missed the point... and after I explained things quite explicitly in my last point...

You are under the bizzare belief that once federal daycare funding ends there will be no repercussions. Some daycare postions are unionized, some are not. But even if there were absolutely no daycare unions, it would not change the fact that those daycare workers would still need to be paid. That is the issue.

Why don't you just look at the Quebec stats, which show (if I remember correctly) 1/4 of people who are unable to get subsidized daycare, despite paying into it.

I'd still have to see the reason why this is happening. Could be numerous reasons.

Actually, its pretty clear... you have a Quebec program that offers something with supposedly a very low cost. Not any more surprising than if my local 7/11 sold out of bread when they have them on for half price. (The difference is, if my local store is sold out of a certain product, I don't end up paying for other people who have bought the product.)

Ahem.... "The time has come for a truly national system..." (From the Liberal throne speech... http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/)

You know, I think I know what a federal program is. It is CPP. It is EI.

This is not a federal program because it is not federally administered.

The daycare program would have been A: Largely funded by the federal government, B: would have had certain restrictions/requirements placed on the use of the money. (Much like our health care system). If you don't consider that a 'national' program, then you're probably the only person who doesn't.

So, if its not a national program, just why did the Liberals label it as a 'national system'? Why are you disagreeing with the party that you seem to be supporting?

Why would it be? The Crow Rate ended fairly painlessly.

You know, you have this bizarre infatuation with the Crow rate, as if simply mentioning it will magically ward of all evil.

The problem is, it doesn't really have any relevance here.

First of all, the Crow Rate didn't involve the provinces themselves receiving money. (Perhaps some farmers may have complained about the loss of subsidies, but they are not as powerful a lobby group as the provincial premiers.)

Secondly, there were a lot of people in Western Canada who were opposing the subsidies anyways (since it meant raw material was being exported instead of remaining in the region for further processing).

So the Crow rate was supported by only a very small number of people, and opposed by an even larger group of people. Cancelling such a program is not going to cause many problems.

Compare that to daycare, where you are dealing with a very large lobby group (the Provinces) who will be expected to pick up the costs after the federal funding ends... a totally different set of circumstances.

jdobbin · June 26, 2008

So, in other words you don't have any proof that there are a significant number of people who lack any daycare, just

Only have the word of the provinces that they have waiting lists for people desperate for daycare. I'm sure people find something if they have children.

First of all, I never said that all daycare is run by union members, only that some are (of which I provided proof).

And I said I'm not even aware if it is a large enough number to even matter. I know of none around here.

Secondly, I've already explained in a previous post why ultimately its not important.

Good. I didn't see its relevance at all either unless it was a factor in not having spaces.

Could have suprised me. The way you're crucifying the tories over the issue suggests otherwise.

I'm going based on what Solberg himself said about the program not fulfilling its goals which was 125,00o spaces. That was an election promise, by the way.

First of all, it wasn't just the Ontario government. The first article specifically mentioned provincial and city governments (note the plural). I've also seen other references to Saskatchewan and Quebec (not to mention city governments, and those are only the ones I've seen...there may be more.). I only quoted the Ontario politician because the quote was so demonstrative of their attitude.

And I said I can't speak for provinces I don't live in about how the programs are managed.

Might have gone differently if more provinces and cities were willing to be supportive of for-profit daycare.

How so? Does it work better in the U.S.?

Why exactly do you think the government is the only one who can provide?

Mainly because the Tories put it to companies to provide daycare in 2006 and found it didn't work.

You are under the bizzare belief that once federal daycare funding ends there will be no repercussions. Some daycare postions are unionized, some are not. But even if there were absolutely no daycare unions, it would not change the fact that those daycare workers would still need to be paid. That is the issue.

I guess we can say the same thing about the Conservative program of tax credit for daycare. How will the Tories ever get rid of those? They will be permanent.

Actually, its pretty clear... you have a Quebec program that offers something with supposedly a very low cost. Not any more surprising than if my local 7/11 sold out of bread when they have them on for half price. (The difference is, if my local store is sold out of a certain product, I don't end up paying for other people who have bought the product.)

And the solution is the Tory plan? Why did it fail in the end then?

The daycare program would have been A: Largely funded by the federal government, B: would have had certain restrictions/requirements placed on the use of the money. (Much like our health care system). If you don't consider that a 'national' program, then you're probably the only person who doesn't.
So, if its not a national program, just why did the Liberals label it as a 'national system'? Why are you disagreeing with the party that you seem to be supporting?

It was a funding agreement. Every announcement made it clear it would help with provincial programs. It has no administration in Ottawa as other federal programs do.

You know, you have this bizarre infatuation with the Crow rate, as if simply mentioning it will magically ward of all evil.
The problem is, it doesn't really have any relevance here.

I guess that is your opinion.

First of all, the Crow Rate didn't involve the provinces themselves receiving money. (Perhaps some farmers may have complained about the loss of subsidies, but they are not as powerful a lobby group as the provincial premiers.)

Given the Liberals cut everything including transfers in the 1990s, I think it shows programs can be cut or even ended.

Compare that to daycare, where you are dealing with a very large lobby group (the Provinces) who will be expected to pick up the costs after the federal funding ends... a totally different set of circumstances.

The Liberals cut funding for healthcare to cut the deficit.

I'm not sure what we're arguing here. I think we have seen which government can cut spending when needed and which spends like drunken sailors.

segnosaur · June 26, 2008

Only have the word of the provinces that they have waiting lists for people desperate for daycare. I'm sure people find something if they have children.

Doesn't that rather defeat your whole argument there? You're admitting people "find something".... therefore, child care spaces are available (even if they're not subsidized or government run).

And I said I can't speak for provinces I don't live in about how the programs are managed.

I've provided enough evidence to show that enough provinces/cities (incorporating a majority of the population of Canada) would have been hostile to for-profit daycare; that should be enough to show that any plan that isn't either directly government run or not-for-profit will be at a disadvantage and thus less likely to create spaces in Canada as a whole, even if you don't know the particular details in every other province.

How so? Does it work better in the U.S.?

Not sure, but in Britian about 85% of all daycare is handled by for-profit daycare centers.

I guess we can say the same thing about the Conservative program of tax credit for daycare. How will the Tories ever get rid of those? They will be permanent.

Nobody is claiming otherwise. (Heck, we had the baby bonus for many many years; no reason to expect them to end soon.)

However, it was you who was claiming the Liberal plan would magically end in 2011, with no problems.

And the solution is the Tory plan? Why did it fail in the end then?

The Tory plan may not have been able to directly create the daycare spaces they were predicting, but that does not mean the overall plan was a failure. Low income people can now better afford childcare even if the space itself is not a subsidized daycare space.

The daycare program would have been A: Largely funded by the federal government, B: would have had certain restrictions/requirements placed on the use of the money. (Much like our health care system). If you don't consider that a 'national' program, then you're probably the only person who doesn't.
So, if its not a national program, just why did the Liberals label it as a 'national system'? Why are you disagreeing with the party that you seem to be supporting?

It was a funding agreement. Every announcement made it clear it would help with provincial programs. It has no administration in Ottawa as other federal programs do.

It was a funding agreement that involved certain standards be met. It was not simply a block of money given to provinces to do anything with. They couldn't use the money to build roads, or give tax cuts.

So, once again... if it wasn't a 'national program', then why did the Liberals label it as such in the throne speech?

Once again, you seem to be the only person in the universe who doesn't consider it a 'national' system.

Given the Liberals cut everything including transfers in the 1990s, I think it shows programs can be cut or even ended.
The Liberals cut funding for healthcare to cut the deficit.

Yes, and as a result of Liberal cuts to health care, there was A: Significant conflicts between the provinces and the federal government, and B: general shortages in available medical care. Martin had to go and give more money to the provinces to 'fix' the problem. Not a very successful withdrawl of funds now, was it.

So if you're pointing to health care cuts as a way the federal government can pull out of a program, you've just illustrated why such a plan wouldn't work.

I'm not sure what we're arguing here. I think we have seen which government can cut spending when needed and which spends like drunken sailors.

At the risk of getting off topic, the Liberal's record on controlling spending is greatly overinflated.

First of all, while it is true that they eliminated the deficit, they also had the benefit of 1) lower interest rates (when compared to the previous Mulroney years) and 2) a very strong economy

Secondly, many of their cuts were in either health care/provincial transfers (basically downloading the problem to the provinces), or defense. However, most Canadians actually WANT health care, and the lack of spending on defense caused significant deterioration of our forces, which NOW have to be made up. When you look at direct spending on government services/programs, I believe overall spending by the federal government actually went up during the Chretien years.

jdobbin · June 26, 2008

Doesn't that rather defeat your whole argument there? You're admitting people "find something".... therefore, child care spaces are available (even if they're not subsidized or government run).

It doesn't if it means that people end up having inferior care or care that doesn't meet their needs. That is like saying people usually found some sort of healthcare before medicare while ignoring the fact that it was often inferior.

I've provided enough evidence to show that enough provinces/cities (incorporating a majority of the population of Canada) would have been hostile to for-profit daycare; that should be enough to show that any plan that isn't either directly government run or not-for-profit will be at a disadvantage and thus less likely to create spaces in Canada as a whole, even if you don't know the particular details in every other province.

I don't know how many daycares are government run. I don't think as many as you seem to think. Most are non-profit.

I know the Tories tried for companies to provide more private daycare but most would not bite even to provide for their own needs. And I don't think it was hostility in their communities. Solberg said it just wasn't an initiative that they were interested in.

I'd certainly be willing to hear how more private would benefit us. I'd also like to hear why private care is rejected by some communities? Any answers? If the right wing believes in them so much, why didn't they lobby hard the last two years?

Not sure, but in Britian about 85% of all daycare is handled by for-profit daycare centers.

How does their system work? Is there money provided to parents? Are their daycare workers not certified?

If you are going to drop some info in here about Britain, it would be good to hear if their care needs are all being met or if they are even a worse situation than Canada.

Nobody is claiming otherwise. (Heck, we had the baby bonus for many many years; no reason to expect them to end soon.)
However, it was you who was claiming the Liberal plan would magically end in 2011, with no problems.

I said that it was not guaranteed to continue. In fact, the Tories cut it if you remember. Unlike transfer payments which are constitutionally guaranteed, the daycare funding was not.

The Tories chose to give money directly to parents.

The Tory plan may not have been able to directly create the daycare spaces they were predicting, but that does not mean the overall plan was a failure. Low income people can now better afford childcare even if the space itself is not a subsidized daycare space.

If they can find the space at all or have someone willing to take care of a child for less than a hundred a month. And don't forget the Tories clawed back a lot of their incomes in other ways in 2006 by raising income taxes.

It was a funding agreement that involved certain standards be met. It was not simply a block of money given to provinces to do anything with. They couldn't use the money to build roads, or give tax cuts.
So, once again... if it wasn't a 'national program', then why did the Liberals label it as such in the throne speech?

Once again, you seem to be the only person in the universe who doesn't consider it a 'national' system.

Each province had to sign on separately. Each administered the money themselves. A report of how the money was used was to be provided to the Feds and if it wasn't meeting the needs or was being used to buy things like lawnmowers, the Feds could pull out just as they had to pull out of the special fund that was set up to buy diagnostic equipment.

That agreement that was set up on a province by province basis was a failure when some provinces like Quebec banked the money rather buy MRIs.

So yes, agreements can end when the Feds say they will, especially when they tend to be abused like the diagnostic fund.

Yes, and as a result of Liberal cuts to health care, there was A: Significant conflicts between the provinces and the federal government, and B: general shortages in available medical care. Martin had to go and give more money to the provinces to 'fix' the problem. Not a very successful withdrawl of funds now, was it.

In this case, the Feds went too far as even some on the right wing admit.

However, funding for things like diagnostic equipment was cancelled outright due to abuse.

So if you're pointing to health care cuts as a way the federal government can pull out of a program, you've just illustrated why such a plan wouldn't work.
At the risk of getting off topic, the Liberal's record on controlling spending is greatly overinflated.

Really? Well, we certainly know that the Tories can't control themselves. Flaherty has blown past his promise on spending on every budget.

First of all, while it is true that they eliminated the deficit, they also had the benefit of 1) lower interest rates (when compared to the previous Mulroney years) and 2) a very strong economy

I see to remember a recovery going during the Muloney years which coincided with Reagan's stampeding economy. The problem is that Mulroney did not much to cut spending and the deficit increased.

Secondly, many of their cuts were in either health care/provincial transfers (basically downloading the problem to the provinces), or defense. However, most Canadians actually WANT health care, and the lack of spending on defense caused significant deterioration of our forces, which NOW have to be made up. When you look at direct spending on government services/programs, I believe overall spending by the federal government actually went up during the Chretien years.

I'm afraid that that statement is the most incorrect yet. Please look it up. Federal spending during Chretien's years went down dramatically as even the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation readily admits.

In any event all this talk about the daycare funding raises an important issue: Is what the Tories are offering what the voters want or will it continue to a bone of contention that keeps them from getting their majority. Fewer women now are as supportive of the Tories compared to when they won. That has been borne out looking at several polls from several companies. There are various reasons for this but one reason that came up in the Decima poll was that more people found the Liberal daycare policy more favourable than the Tory one.

segnosaur · June 26, 2008

I'd certainly be willing to hear how more private would benefit us. I'd also like to hear why private care is rejected by some communities? Any answers? If the right wing believes in them so much, why didn't they lobby hard the last two years?

I really have no idea why some areas are so opposed to for-profit daycare. Likely just a philosophical thing... you don't want your child to be "Wal-marted". There are occasional claims of problems within for-profit daycare, but then there are also occasional problems in non-profit and government run daycare. I guess it just doesn't look as bad if some non-profit organization screws up compared to a for-profit company.

If they can find the space at all or have someone willing to take care of a child for less than a hundred a month.

Why exactly is it necessary to find someone to care for the child for 'less than $100/month'? The conservative plan was give some assistance, and it could in theory apply to everyone, as opposed to a subsidized space which is great for one family, but sucks for whomever is stuck on a waiting list.

And don't forget the Tories clawed back a lot of their incomes in other ways in 2006 by raising income taxes.

Your right... some parents didn't see the benefit of child tax credits due to raised taxes. But guess what? Income taxes hit higher income Canadians harder. If you want a 'progressive' social program, shouldn't they be the ones you hit?

Oh, and remember, while they did 'raise' income taxes, they also reduced the GST, which tends to affect lower-income Canadians more. So, pretty much a wash there.

It was a funding agreement that involved certain standards be met. It was not simply a block of money given to provinces to do anything with. They couldn't use the money to build roads, or give tax cuts.

So, once again... if it wasn't a 'national program', then why did the Liberals label it as such in the throne speech?

Each province had to sign on separately. Each administered the money themselves. A report of how the money was used was to be provided to the Feds and if it wasn't meeting the needs or was being used to buy things like lawnmowers, the Feds could pull out ...

You know, you're actually helping prove my point... Although the province handles the details, the Feds still had control over how the money was spent. That type of control makes it a federal program in much the same way that medicare is a federal program.

And once again, why won't you answer my question: if it wasn't a 'national program', then why did the Liberals label it as such in the throne speech?

So yes, agreements can end when the Feds say they will, especially when they tend to be abused like the diagnostic fund.

In this case, the Feds went too far as even some on the right wing admit.

However, funding for things like diagnostic equipment was cancelled outright due to abuse.

Really? Well, we certainly know that the Tories can't control themselves. Flaherty has blown past his promise on spending on every budget.

I see to remember a recovery going during the Muloney years which coincided with Reagan's stampeding economy.

Actually, although the economy did OK during Regan's tenure, it did not grow at the rate that it did under Clinton.

Plus, interest rates were higher in the 80s than in the late 90s. That makes a big difference when you're trying to control debt.

I'm afraid that that statement is the most incorrect yet. Please look it up. Federal spending during Chretien's years went down dramatically as even the Canadian Taxpayer's Federation readily admits.

As I explained before, the bulk of Chretien's cuts were in areas like defense and health care, areas where people probably didn't want cuts, where the costs were passed on to other levels of government, or which have lead to long term problems.

Direct spending on government programs themselves however, did increase.

In any event all this talk about the daycare funding raises an important issue: Is what the Tories are offering what the voters want or will it continue to a bone of contention that keeps them from getting their majority.

That may be your issue, but its not mine. A bad program is still a bad program, regardless of the number of people who support it. I'm arguing against the liberal plan on its merrits (or lack of them) rather than on electability.

jdobbin · June 26, 2008

I really have no idea why some areas are so opposed to for-profit daycare. Likely just a philosophical thing... you don't want your child to be "Wal-marted". There are occasional claims of problems within for-profit daycare, but then there are also occasional problems in non-profit and government run daycare. I guess it just doesn't look as bad if some non-profit organization screws up compared to a for-profit company.

I never did hear why the Tory plan to get companies and corporations to provide daycare didn't work. They didn't seem very interested.

Why exactly is it necessary to find someone to care for the child for 'less than $100/month'? The conservative plan was give some assistance, and it could in theory apply to everyone, as opposed to a subsidized space which is great for one family, but sucks for whomever is stuck on a waiting list.

You forget that the Tory promise was that this help would provide 125,000 spaces. Solberg admits it didn't work at all.

Your right... some parents didn't see the benefit of child tax credits due to raised taxes. But guess what? Income taxes hit higher income Canadians harder. If you want a 'progressive' social program, shouldn't they be the ones you hit?

If you've read enough of my posts here, you'll know I have said that all income taxes should down as much as 10%.

I even think it should be done on top of the carbon shift.

Oh, and remember, while they did 'raise' income taxes, they also reduced the GST, which tends to affect lower-income Canadians more. So, pretty much a wash there.

The GST rebate helped lower income people.

Every major economist and I mean every major one said that income tax cuts are better than GST cuts. I believe that now more than ever.

You know, you're actually helping prove my point... Although the province handles the details, the Feds still had control over how the money was spent. That type of control makes it a federal program in much the same way that medicare is a federal program.

If it helps for you to think of it as a program then think of it as a program. What does it matter in the end?

And once again, why won't you answer my question: if it wasn't a 'national program', then why did the Liberals label it as such in the throne speech?

I never heard the word "program" used. And if they did, what does it matter?

Actually, although the economy did OK during Regan's tenure, it did not grow at the rate that it did under Clinton.
Plus, interest rates were higher in the 80s than in the late 90s. That makes a big difference when you're trying to control debt.

It certainly helped but so did keeping spending down.

As I explained before, the bulk of Chretien's cuts were in areas like defense and health care, areas where people probably didn't want cuts, where the costs were passed on to other levels of government, or which have lead to long term problems.

Once again the CTF disagrees. They showed the cuts were in every department across the board. It was the first contraction of government spending in decades.

Direct spending on government programs themselves however, did increase.

I don't know how many times that statement here has be shown to be incorrect. Billions were cut in program spending. In 1993, the spending was $120 billion a year and the Liberals reduced it to $109 billion. That was government programs. You can check CTF's website for that info.

That may be your issue, but its not mine. A bad program is still a bad program, regardless of the number of people who support it. I'm arguing against the liberal plan on its merrits (or lack of them) rather than on electability.

If the Tory program was considered a good policy, it would help them win over the votes of women.

Bryan · June 27, 2008

It doesn't if it means that people end up having inferior care or care that doesn't meet their needs. That is like saying people usually found some sort of healthcare before medicare while ignoring the fact that it was often inferior.

If people were at all concerned about inferior care for their kids, they wouldn't be lining up for the crap-fest that's offered by subsidized/regulated daycares. They'd be using quality private care, or taking care of their own kids.

jdobbin · June 27, 2008

If people were at all concerned about inferior care for their kids, they wouldn't be lining up for the crap-fest that's offered by subsidized/regulated daycares. They'd be using quality private care, or taking care of their own kids.

They are doing that and asking for better.

noahbody · June 27, 2008

Every major economist and I mean every major one said that income tax cuts are better than GST cuts. I believe that now more than ever.

So you must now believe more than ever that Mulroney was a true visionary for implementing the GST in the first place and Chretien was a fool for promising to scrap it.

jdobbin · June 27, 2008

So you must now believe more than ever that Mulroney was a true visionary for implementing the GST in the first place and Chretien was a fool for promising to scrap it.

I have said the Chretien was wrong to say he would scrap it a few times in this forum.

I also said that Mulroney was blowing smoke when he downplayed that there wouldn't be a whole new layer of bureaucracy when the tax was introduced.

segnosaur · June 27, 2008

Why exactly is it necessary to find someone to care for the child for 'less than $100/month'? The conservative plan was give some assistance, and it could in theory apply to everyone, as opposed to a subsidized space which is great for one family, but sucks for whomever is stuck on a waiting list.

You forget that the Tory promise was that this help would provide 125,000 spaces. Solberg admits it didn't work at all.

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 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.

If it helps for you to think of it as a program then think of it as a program. What does it matter in the end?

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

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.)

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