A plank in some political party's campaign

[Argus]

Referencing the thread on this subject, would people be prepared to pay the cost to provide this as a model to private industry, an experiment to see whether it would be worth the cost, and a precursor to ordering the same for private industry?

[Who's Doing What?]

Referencing the thread on this subject, would people be prepared to pay the cost to provide this as a model to private industry, an experiment to see whether it would be worth the cost, and a precursor to ordering the same for private industry?

Whoa, isn't this along the lines of the CPC's total failure of a childcare plan?

Tax breaks for providing daycare, has generated, oh about zero daycare spaces. As an aside, if the govt. is going to give tax breaks to big business to provide daycare spaces, isn't that basically the same as funding them in the sense that the Govt. will be getting less revenue due to the tax breaks? Either way cost's the Govt. money.

But now you think it is a good idea for govt. to run daycares? Was that a fish or did you just flip-flop?

Edited September 18, 2009 by Who's Doing What?

[Alta4ever]

Simple solution reduce taxes on the family unit through income spliting, make it afforable for us to have more children.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Alta4ever

[madmax]

Simple solution reduce taxes on the family unit through income spliting, make it afforable for us to have more children.

Ban condoms and birth control pills....

[M.Dancer]

Ban condoms and birth control pills....

....and masterbation and oral sex too.

[OddSox]

Referencing the thread on this subject, would people be prepared to pay the cost to provide this as a model to private industry, an experiment to see whether it would be worth the cost, and a precursor to ordering the same for private industry?

Huh? Lots of private sector organizations already offer this - but I don't think it's free, and it shouldn't be.

"Almost one-third of the Best Companies (33) offer an onsite child-care center." - http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/bes...child_care.html

Is this just another way for (all you lefties who are too cheap to pay for it yourself) to get free childcare, seeing as the Liberal government never came through on their ridiculous promises?

Maybe you can move to Quebec? Where transfers from the rest of Canada are funding their childcare system...

[M.Dancer]

One of the contributers to having fewer kids is that we wait longer to get married. We wait, becuase we can. If a man or woman want a casual relationship they can. We can date one person or 20 in a month. No one will think worse of us if we bring a different date to a party than the date we brought last month.

With more and more people getting married in the late 20s and early 30s we are basically foregoing the time it takes toi have 1 or 2 kids...so we start in our late 20s early 30s...by the time you have had 2 kids..you basicaly say, well thats enough for me thanks, I'm pushing 40...

I don't think it's about money...it's about lifestyle.

My wife wanted a 3rd child but I said no. ..I believed I was too old to responsibly raise a 3rd child as I was nearing 50 at the time (she was 39). Now, had I known at 22 what I know now, the unmitigated joy of having children, maybe I wouldn't have eagerly maintained my singlehood and instead of spending my time chasing girls I would have concentrated on catching one.

But I doubt it. As much as I love my kids, waiting till I was in my late 30s to get married helped shape who I am now and is in part why I'm mature enough to raise 2 kids.

Besides, 20 years of b achelorhood and chasing skirts is a good run....some men have to wait till they 55 to put in that effort

[jdobbin]

Referencing the thread on this subject, would people be prepared to pay the cost to provide this as a model to private industry, an experiment to see whether it would be worth the cost, and a precursor to ordering the same for private industry?

In some cases, I think that offering a service without the hassle of collecting fees saves time and effort. For example, basic medical care has less administrative hassle than trying to collect deductibles or sending people separate bills.

For childcare, the debate will always be over home care versus daycare. I think it is probably better to make deals as was done with the provinces to increase daycare spaces in general while at the same time trying to increase maternity and paternity leaves to longer lengths of time.

My other thought is that some school divisions offer nursery prior to Kindergarten. It is worth considering how this could be expanded.

I'm not entirely sure Kindergarten is offered everywhere. I think even making efforts to deal with that on a federal/provincial level would help families.

Would this increase the amount of children being born? Somewhat. If we encourage kids to stay in school and keep telling them that they won't get a good job unless they have high school and some post education, we will see young men and women graduate at 21 to 25 in greater numbers. This already cuts back how many children might be born based on the 10 years when they are most likely to have kids.

One approach is not going to work. The social, cultural, fiscal, functional and educational reasons for a lower birthrates have to be looked at.

Lastly, some people might ask why would we encourage a higher birthrate? The argument might be that immigration might be able to address the issue of supporting an older population. For Japan, they are looking at whether there is a technological solution. Silly as it might sound at first, they are looking at robotics.

[Keepitsimple]

The responsibility for delivering education belongs to the provinces and by far the majority of funding should come from the provinces so they can deliver the services as they see fit and accoring to their own urban/rural and demographic challenges. A good example is a proposal that was put forward to the Ontario Government by a panel of experts to use elementary schools for early childhood learning centers for 4 and 5 year olds. This is especially relevant due to the fact that hundreds of schools are slated for closing due to declining enrollment. Parents - who usually know best - have for some time embraced this idea - so it's about time the "experts" took notice. Parents with several children could see them all in the same location - easy to monitor and pick up. Daycare can easily become early childhood learning because they are already in an educational environment - and the transition from early childhood learning to kindergarten is seamless. I could see the Feds chipping in with some infrastructure funding to help upgrade the schools but year-to-year operational funding should be with the province - as is all primary and secondary education.

Link: http://www.thestar.com/parentcentral/article/650780

Edited September 18, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Argus]

Whoa, isn't this along the lines of the CPC's total failure of a childcare plan?

All efforts at a national daycare so far have been total failures. Quebec's plan is somewhat less than a total disaster, but is very, very far from a success.

Tax breaks for providing daycare, has generated, oh about zero daycare spaces. As an aside, if the govt. is going to give tax breaks to big business to provide daycare spaces, isn't that basically the same as funding them in the sense that the Govt. will be getting less revenue due to the tax breaks? Either way cost's the Govt. money.

Lot of things cost the government money and are not worth as much.

Require large businesses provide daycare ON SITE, and reimburse them their costs through tax measures. This way the government itself isn't running daycare, except of course, in its own buildings, where presumably, it would hire a private sector company to do it for them.

This isn't just about providing guaranteed daycare, but about providing it close to where the parents work which would enormously simplify the task of picking up and dropping the kids off, as well as enabling them to see them during the day.

But now you think it is a good idea for govt. to run daycares? Was that a fish or did you just flip-flop?

I have always been in favour of national daycare. I'm sure if you look back you'll see that I have spoken for this in the past. I did not favour the Liberals "plan" because it wasn't a plan of any sort.

[Argus]

The responsibility for delivering education belongs to the provinces and by far the majority of funding should come from the provinces so they can deliver the services as they see fit and accoring to their own urban/rural and demographic challenges.

Daycare is not education. I would be willing to let the provinces administer it if they agree, but I do not want a hodgepodge of different systems. I want one national system. The provinces cannot afford this as they don't have the tax resources for it. And it doesn't matter to me who pays for it as the money comes from the same pockets in the end.

A good example is a proposal that was put forward to the Ontario Government by a panel of experts to use elementary schools for early childhood learning centers for 4 and 5 year olds. This is especially relevant due to the fact that hundreds of schools are slated for closing due to declining enrollment. Parents - who usually know best - have for some time embraced this idea - so it's about time the "experts" took notice. Parents with several children could see them all in the same location - easy to monitor and pick up. Daycare can easily become early childhood learning because they are already in an educational environment - and the transition from early childhood learning to kindergarten is seamless. I could see the Feds chipping in with some infrastructure funding to help upgrade the schools but year-to-year operational funding should be with the province - as is all primary and secondary education.

I don't have a problem with this either. Not all parents work for large organizations, after all, so an alternative should be available.

[Argus]

In some cases, I think that offering a service without the hassle of collecting fees saves time and effort. For example, basic medical care has less administrative hassle than trying to collect deductibles or sending people separate bills.

I agree. We don't charge at schools. We don't charge at hospitals. This should be similar. It is the responsibility of all of society to look after kids.

For childcare, the debate will always be over home care versus daycare. I think it is probably better to make deals as was done with the provinces to increase daycare spaces in general while at the same time trying to increase maternity and paternity leaves to longer lengths of time.

I don't trust the provinces, and I don't want a hodgepodge of different availabilities and different rules and different costs depending on where you live.

One approach is not going to work. The social, cultural, fiscal, functional and educational reasons for a lower birthrates have to be looked at.

Yes, as I said in the other thread. I'd like to see a combination of tax incentives, graduated subsidies for parents depending on how many children they have, a scheme which would allow, where possible, young mothers to work part-time at their jobs, as well as guaranteed daycare.

Lastly, some people might ask why would we encourage a higher birthrate? The argument might be that immigration might be able to address the issue of supporting an older population.

We are bringing in too many immigrants too fast. We are replacing us with them, and no one knows what the end result will be. But taking people from other nations year after year, decade after decade because we have a system which does not allow for sustained replacement births due to poor economics and child care is idiocy.

[jdobbin]

I agree. We don't charge at schools. We don't charge at hospitals. This should be similar. It is the responsibility of all of society to look after kids.

I am wondering to what extent people will believe that though. While there is support for the public school system, I don't know that there is that support from 0 to 6 years of age for daycare.

I don't trust the provinces, and I don't want a hodgepodge of different availabilities and different rules and different costs depending on where you live.

The provinces may in fact have Constitutional standing on this issue. It might be possible to do it nationally like OAS but you might run into problems with challenges in the court.

Yes, as I said in the other thread. I'd like to see a combination of tax incentives, graduated subsidies for parents depending on how many children they have, a scheme which would allow, where possible, young mothers to work part-time at their jobs, as well as guaranteed daycare.

As long as no one pretends that there is one answer, it might actually have a chance of working.

We are bringing in too many immigrants too fast. We are replacing us with them, and no one knows what the end result will be. But taking people from other nations year after year, decade after decade because we have a system which does not allow for sustained replacement births due to poor economics and child care is idiocy.

Canada can have a special immigration intake from select countries if that helps.

[Moonlight Graham]

Daycare is not education.

Yes it is. I've worked at a daycare as an assistant. They are run by Early Childhood EDUCATORS.

And much of what you teach young children isn't ABC's and 1-2-3's either.

Though i think it's always better for the child to be with a parent, at least until pre-school.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

You want to solve this problem? Give Canadians massive tax breaks for having kids, especially with someone with 3+ kids. Do this instead of bringing in the kind of immigrants that have little education or transferable education/skills who end up sucking the system and yet haven't spent their life (or their parents spent their lives either) paying into the system.

Why not give more incentives to Canadians to have more kids instead of just bringing in more immigrants? i don't understand it. it doesn't make economic or social sense.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Moonlight Graham

[punked]

I just wanted to come into this thread to point the Liberals promised policy and a policy book by June. It is now September.

[Who's Doing What?]

I agree. We don't charge at schools. We don't charge at hospitals. This should be similar. It is the responsibility of all of society to look after kids.

YA, I don't like that idea. Why should I, who have no children, nor plans for any, have to pay taxes to support Mary Jane and Billy Bob's gaggle of 8 kids?

People get free money and tax breaks for having kids. This is absurd since these kids are going to be using the systems that we are paying our taxes into. Shouldn't these families be paying more taxes to help offset the future cost their brood is going to be needing as they suckle at the teat of govt. services?

We've got young women who don't want to work getting knocked up so they can get a cheque in the mail every month. Don't tell me it doesn't happen because I can take a 5 minute walk and find 20-30 situations just like this. The area is locally known as "welfare square".

Did you know your taxes are going to be buying my friends kid a new pickup truck when he is 16? Got to love the CPC's childcare cheques that come every month.

[Molly]

What a stunningly tribal set of assumptions!

First, we'd best define the 'we' that is being outnumbered in the breeding race.

If immigrants and their children are undesireable Canadians, what about those of us who are grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of immigrants? (Or are most of us okay, because our grandparents were pink and Christian, and a whole schwack of them chose English for a common language?)

How is the world a better place if its resources are overwhelmed by native born Canadians, instead of folks born elsewhere?

[Molly]

If you seriously do think that we have a baby shortage, the most effective way to 'remedy' it is to deny education to your own daughters.

Ignorance breeds.

[Argus]

YA, I don't like that idea. Why should I, who have no children, nor plans for any, have to pay taxes to support Mary Jane and Billy Bob's gaggle of 8 kids?

I don't use the BC ports or the airport in Gander but I still pay for them. They're part of a national infrastructure which, in its totality, benefits all Canadians.

You don't have kids. Fine. But the society which allows you to enjoy life requires kids. So unless you're prepared to go live in a log cabin out in the woods aid to families in order to encourage them to have kids is definitely in your interest.

[Argus]

What a stunningly tribal set of assumptions!

First, we'd best define the 'we' that is being outnumbered in the breeding race.

If immigrants and their children are undesireable Canadians, what about those of us who are grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of immigrants? (Or are most of us okay, because our grandparents were pink and Christian, and a whole schwack of them chose English for a common language?)

Yes, that's basically it. I bet you'd cry real tears at the thought of some tribe in the Amazon that has bones in its nose disappearing, but you are aghast at the thought anyone ought to be at all concerned for the present "tribe" of Canadians simply fading into history and being replaced by a mass of foreign cultures.

I always find it odd how determined the left is to protect all cultures except ours, even dismissing ours as non-existent while enjoying the benefits and freedoms of living in it.

[Argus]

Yes it is. I've worked at a daycare as an assistant. They are run by Early Childhood EDUCATORS.

And much of what you teach young children isn't ABC's and 1-2-3's either.

Though i think it's always better for the child to be with a parent, at least until pre-school.

They can call themselves whatever they want. I call them babysitters, and that's basically all they are.

What are you going to teach a one year old? To change his own diaper?

[August1991]

Lot of things cost the government money and are not worth as much.

Require large businesses provide daycare ON SITE, and reimburse them their costs through tax measures. This way the government itself isn't running daycare, except of course, in its own buildings, where presumably, it would hire a private sector company to do it for them.

I'm with Oddsox above. Argus, however you dress it up, your proposal is just another scheme to get other people to pay for something you want or some cause that you want to advance.

Daycare is not education. I would be willing to let the provinces administer it if they agree, but I do not want a hodgepodge of different systems. I want one national system.

Why? Life is not smooth and neat. It has edges.

For childcare, the debate will always be over home care versus daycare. I think it is probably better to make deals as was done with the provinces to increase daycare spaces in general while at the same time trying to increase maternity and paternity leaves to longer lengths of time.

I agree to a degree.

------

First of all, it seems to me that the world does not lack for children. It lacks educated children.

Secondly, I have an idea Argus. Let's go with your scheme to install day care centres in all federal office buildings - but the federal government will pay for them through a special levy on all federal government employees. The people who benefit from this policy will then rightly pay for it.

Finally, I think that it's wrong to consider this debate as being between "home care" and "daycare". In fact, when we think of government intervention, we shoudl really be thinking about the children who would benefit most.

IMV, there are too many children born to parents who are irresponsible, inept or incapable of raising children. IOW, government money should go to help children who need this help the most. Argus' scheme would use government money to help children who are probably the least likely to need the help.

It would be like subsidizing airport limos while ignoring airport bus shelters.

Edited September 19, 2009 by August1991

[Argus]

I'm with Oddsox above. Argus, however you dress it up, your proposal is just another scheme to get other people to pay for something you want or some cause that you want to advance

That's a very American notion. Apply it to health care and we'd have no national health care system. And a network of private schools you have to pay for.

What I'm trying to address is the demographic problems which are only getting worse. I think guaranteed daycare combined with a variety of tax incentives for parents of multiple children would help address that. And btw, it seems to me that Quebec has been moving in exactly this direction for exactly the same reason, but without the money or organization to make it work.

First of all, it seems to me that the world does not lack for children. It lacks educated children.

I'm not concerned about the world. I'm concerned about Canada.

Finally, I think that it's wrong to consider this debate as being between "home care" and "daycare". In fact, when we think of government intervention, we shoudl really be thinking about the children who would benefit most.

No, we shouldn't. This isn't about helping the poor and disadvantaged. It's about helping and encouraging people to have more children.

[Smallc]

I just wanted to come into this thread to point the Liberals promised policy and a policy book by June. It is now September.

No they didn't. They promised that they would have one ready by then. They didn't say that they'd show anyone.