Five years on, children still wait for quality care

[Shwa]

Here is the story from the Star:

Five years on, children still wait for quality care

On Thursday in the Commons, Harper’s human resources minister, Diane Finley, rubbed salt in the wound when she said reviving the national child-care program would force parents “to have other people raise their children.”

The remark, which drew outrage in Ottawa and across the country, has propelled the issue back onto the political agenda with the Liberals and NDP vowing to make child care an issue in the next federal election.

Without a national child-care plan, Canada seems doomed to remain a child-care laggard on the international stage.

A 2008 study by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) ranked Canada dead last with Ireland in early learning and child-care services among 25 developed countries.

(I am really surprised by the quality of this article actually, not with any sort of bias, but because it is so poorly written and all over the place. If it was designed to convince, it didn't do so with me. So when you read it beware a sense of incoherency. And using that poor child who was killed in Mississauga last month to "drive home" the point about unlicensed daycare is not only specious, but sickening. But I digress...)

Do we need a national day care program? I think standards is fine, even some sort of licensing requirements is a good thing; but do we need to subsidize daycare outside of the present childcare options and benefits? Do we want laissez-faire child care?

Do we want Plato's Republic or should the first 3 or 4 years of a kids life be spent doing something else, being raised by family or friends or *gasp* the mother?

It is a tricky issue that will turn into a hot one for any election. It won't be long before someone is tying in traditional family roles and values with the new economy - as the article suggests. We lag behind compared to the rest of the word, but is that a problem? That is, is our lagging behind a sign that we are doing something wrong or doing something right?

TL;DR - national daycare could be an election issue. How do you feel about it?

[Esq]

better other people than no one.

group care costs less than individual care. Some families actually need both parents working to make ends meat, and thats without quality time.

Obviouslly Diane Finley doesn't know what it is like to come from a poor working class family.

Some parents are plain neglectful or come from the school of hard love.

This doesn't prepare children for life. Early Childhood development years are some of the most important... and some young children don't have parents to raise them.

Perhaps if Diane Finley had an alternative to neglect it might be reasonable.

If I have the choice between paying someone direct to stay at home or paying someone to raise 5 children the 5 child option is a better deal for my dollar. Having 5 neglected children does no one any good.

That means 4 of 5 people are working instead of 5 of 5 people not.

Child care is a better option for Canadians.

Just paying people to have kids turns them into a commodity. Child support doesn't raise kids.

This is a public issue though, but some parents just suck at being parents.

I'm talking neglect not abuse in itself. Some parents really dont have a clue or have bad social values, or neglect to prepare their children for life.

There ought to be more social insight to preparing children for life, and some parents don't do, or don't know how to do that. It doesn't take a genious to pump out a kid.

This of course isn't forced care, but it does provide time.

I think this is impotant for urban areas - with high population density where poverty is pervasive.

It may only be feasable as an extension of the education system though in rural areas. - but I think this is an urban issue, not a rural one.

Both could benefit though - but there are private day care providers. The bottom line is ... who isn't getting it that needs it.

It is a bad bullet to bite, but those are the facts.

This isn't forced day care, so the whole "children being raised by other people" arguent is nonsense. Don't do it if you don't want it.

But poor people can't pay for private daycare. and they can't afford to stay at home either. and even if they are there they may not have anything to provide for their children, maybe not even a nutritious diet.

Then what do you have a cost inflated children's aid?

Who is taking care of the child then?

Maybe Diane Finley doesn't understand poverty.

Maybe you can take away her bank accounts and paycheck from the government, give her $600 a month to support herself and her children - including her living area, and her food, all her bills, clothing and goods for her children etc.. in vancover, toronto halifax or montreal, give her 4 children to raise and see what she has to say about national childcare.

You can't get ahead very easily with 4 children no job and no education.

Its not about choices that were made, it is about choices that are now available.

Keeping people locked in poverty is good for no one.

(It is a provincial issue in my opinion though)

Edited February 5, 2011 by Esq

[Keepitsimple]

(It is a provincial issue in my opinion though)

You're right there.....Education is the domain of the provinces. But it's a complicated and expensive proposition because inevitably, it brings the Teacher's Union into the picture - and that brings the big expense as they grapple for more money, more benefits and less work......at least, that's the way it seems in Ontario. The Liberals' "plan" for National Daycare was just a sop to the provinces and a feverish pandering for votes. Their $5 billion was a drop in the bucket against the total cost of daycare across Canada - a cost that would be borne by the provinces - who of course will never refuse money from the feds with as few strings atttached as the Liberal National Daycare Plan. I think Canadians are starting to better understand the roles and responsibilities of the Federal and Provincial governments.

Edited February 5, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[bjre]

The solution is very easy, cut evil CAS, there will be more than enough money for the real need of child care.

[Moonlight Graham]

edit; double post

Edited February 6, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

Nationalized daycare is a disgusting slippery slope. There should be some social/economic help for poor parents, especially single mothers, but for a family with 2 parents, one of them should stay at home. Parents should raise their own damn kids, or at least have the grandparents or other family member help out, not hand them over to strangers and/or the State and have them raise our kids.

It SICKENS me. Along with this prospect that both parents wish to work in order to afford whatever material goods they feel they need or to maintain/pursue their careers. F*** careers, f*** "material wants". The #1 priority for parents should be their children, and the best thing for children (unless there is abuse/dangerous neglect) is for them to be raised by their parents, at least in the first few essential years of life until they are old enough for kindergarten. If a family has go without cable TV, a nice car, summer vacation out of country, cigarettes, or the latest Blu-Ray release etc. in order to stay home with their kids for their first few years of life, then that seems like a very reasonable sacrifice.

I'm very glad that women have more rights and opportunities now because of the modern women's movement, but this same movement is also responsible for helping to corrode the family unit. Women now want full careers and a family. They want to have their cake and eat it too. As long as one parent (mother or father) is home with a young child, that's 100% fine with me. But let's face it, a child needs its mother. If people think that's sexist, that's because it is. Kids don't come out of a man's vagina or suck on their father's boobs for a reason. But a father staying home is still 100% preferable to handing the kid over to a stranger/the state for the majority of their day. That's sick, it's not natural, it's not socially/developmentally healthy.

I like the stance that the CPC has taken on the childcare issue. Letting them have a choice is good. But parents may need more money from the tax benefit.

Just paying people to have kids turns them into a commodity. Child support doesn't raise kids.

This is a public issue though, but some parents just suck at being parents.

I'm talking neglect not abuse in itself. Some parents really dont have a clue or have bad social values, or neglect to prepare their children for life.

That is a separate issue. If a child is being abused and/or neglected, then that is an issue for the authorities such as CAS or whomever. The solution is NOT to simply shovel children off to be raised by strangers in daycare because some people are "bad parents". You're essentially calling for part-time foster care. These parents who have not learned how to properly care for a child should then have access to government programs where they can learn these skills while still being able to raise their children at home. There should also be adequate economic assistance and any other social assistance they need.

I think many of your solutions to problems on this matter are ass-backwards. Daycare should be a measure of last resort for parents, and parents raising their children should be priority #1. Unfortunately many do not think like this anymore.

This whole topic just sickens me.

[bloodyminded]

I'm very glad that women have more rights and opportunities now because of the modern women's movement, but this same movement is also responsible for helping to corrode the family unit. Women now want full careers and a family. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

???

So do men.

[fellowtraveller]

My plan is to spray sperm indiscriminately and let the state sort it all out.

It's their job after all.

[scribblet]

The Red Star cannot be trusted to present issues in a neutral light, or even accurately at times.

A poll recently showed that most Canadians are more interested in health care and the economy than state run day care, Ignatieff bitches about the deficit but wants 6 billion nationalized day care More nannystate programs, what's next :angry:

[bjre]

I'm very glad that women have more rights and opportunities now because of the modern women's movement, but this same movement is also responsible for helping to corrode the family unit. Women now want full careers and a family. They want to have their cake and eat it too. As long as one parent (mother or father) is home with a young child, that's 100% fine with me. But let's face it, a child needs its mother. If people think that's sexist, that's because it is. Kids don't come out of a man's vagina or suck on their father's boobs for a reason. But a father staying home is still 100% preferable to handing the kid over to a stranger/the state for the majority of their day. That's sick, it's not natural, it's not socially/developmentally healthy.

The time before modern women's movement, women have their cake to eat, they did not be killed by hunger.

After that movement, too many men can no longer afford their family alone, women need to work too if family want a house to live in.

The result of women's movement did not liberate women, it remove lots of women's freedom because they have to make some money too to support family. So women has actually less time for free arrangement.

The result of women's movement is only make banks to take more from the mortgage interests and government to take more tax dollars for evil CAS and other bad services.

Edited February 5, 2011 by bjre

[Moonlight Graham]

???

So do men.

The difference is that traditionally women stayed home to raise the kids while men provided income or worked to provide goods/services. Now both men and women work, leaving the kids to be raised by daycare centers.

The rising cost of living has certainly compounded this problem, but at the same time the rising cost of living is due in part to the extra income afforded by dual-income families. The cycle helps feed itself.

The rising "cost of living", compared to say 60 years ago, is also due to everybody wanting material things that are deemed "essential" now, whereas 60 years ago people got along just fine without them. ie: televisions & cable in multiple rooms, microwaves (along with tons of other electric kitchen appliances), VCR's/DVD/Blu-Ray players, video games systems, cellphones, ipods etc.

[bjre]

The difference is that traditionally women stayed home to raise the kids while men provided income or worked to provide goods/services. Now both men and women work, leaving the kids to be raised by daycare centers.

The rising cost of living has certainly compounded this problem, but at the same time the rising cost of living is due in part to the extra income afforded by dual-income families. The cycle helps feed itself.

The rising "cost of living", compared to say 60 years ago, is also due to everybody wanting material things that are deemed "essential" now, whereas 60 years ago people got along just fine without them. ie: televisions & cable in multiple rooms, microwaves (along with tons of other electric kitchen appliances), VCR's/DVD/Blu-Ray players, video games systems, cellphones, ipods etc.

No that is not the reason. If no women's movement, men can of cause afford those. If they can not afford those, that will be called product has no market, so that bosses will not be able to sell goods, and they will not be able to take profit. They will try to adjust the price to make your husband be able to buy it.

The reason why need both husband and wife work for that is because the boss calculated that you can live on that salary, that is called the price of labor. previously the price of labor is for support a family, now only for half of the family, the rest of the value is the part of profit that bosses talk away from workers and the banker's take away by mortgage, and tax dollars that gov takes away.

That is to say, if no women's movement, your husband's salary will certainly cover all those you mentioned.

Now the bosses can pay less because your husband has competitors due to the womem's movement.

And it is the same for democracy and freedom, any good aspect that you fight though "democracy" will at last profit for bankers, gov supported industry, and bosses, not you.

Edited February 6, 2011 by bjre

[Jonsa]

I agree that day care should be a provincial responsibility.

I also beleive that it is to our collective benefit that safe responsible child care is available to any parent(s) that need it. Licensing should be mandatory and standards of care enforced.

For those who beleive that the parents should raise their own kids, day care doesn't absolve them of the resposibility, and for those who lament the deterioration of the family unit, I can only say that the family unit is held together by its members.

The classic Leave it to Beaver family of the 50's is long gone and thankfully nothing is going to bring it back. Of course I suppose there are a lot of men who long for the days when their women were totally dependent on them, kept the place clean, took care of the kids and had dinner ready when he got home - all this while wearing pearls with perfectly coifed hair.

There are over a million single parent families in this country. then there are another couple of million families where both parents work full time - that's nearly 50% of all families with kids.

You can be snide about why both parents work, but for many there is no choice. It just makes economic and social sense to provide these people with affordable quality daycare. I'm not sure of the best way to do it - that's for people with a lot more expertise than me in the field.

[Keepitsimple]

This "plank" of the Liberal platform demonstrates again that Ignatieff is not in control of the Liberal Party.....Iggy's background of US politics makes him a natural Conservative - probably further Right than Stephen Harper. Left to his own devices, he would never stick "National Daycare" in the platform. If any party had a "hidden agenda", it's the Liberals - because even THEY don't have a clue as to where they want to go. We're just supposed to trust them.

[Scotty]

The classic Leave it to Beaver family of the 50's is long gone and thankfully nothing is going to bring it back. Of course I suppose there are a lot of men who long for the days when their women were totally dependent on them, kept the place clean, took care of the kids and had dinner ready when he got home - all this while wearing pearls with perfectly coifed hair.

Depending on the province, between 12% and 23% of Canadian families have a stay-at-home parent looking after the kids. So I'm afraid you're quite mistaken. Such families are not long gone. The problem with some sort of institutional daycare program is it would be extremely expensive, but would completely ignore those families who have decided to make the economic sacrifice necessary to keep one of the parents home with the kids. That hardly seems fair. I know one such family, and they are far from rich. They could make more money by having the father, who stays at home, go out and get work to contribute. But they sacrifice the added income for their kids. I similarly know another family where the father earns over $90k per year but the mother still goes out to work, and because they both work long hours the kids are often at daycare for 12hrs a day. Why should they get the benefit of government funding while the first family don't?

[Bonam]

Depending on the province, between 12% and 23% of Canadian families have a stay-at-home parent looking after the kids. So I'm afraid you're quite mistaken. Such families are not long gone. The problem with some sort of institutional daycare program is it would be extremely expensive, but would completely ignore those families who have decided to make the economic sacrifice necessary to keep one of the parents home with the kids. That hardly seems fair. I know one such family, and they are far from rich. They could make more money by having the father, who stays at home, go out and get work to contribute. But they sacrifice the added income for their kids. I similarly know another family where the father earns over $90k per year but the mother still goes out to work, and because they both work long hours the kids are often at daycare for 12hrs a day. Why should they get the benefit of government funding while the first family don't?

Absolutely agreed. Any national funding for health care must benefit families that have a stay at home parent at least as much (if not more) as ones that do not, otherwise such a program would only further contribute to the disintegration of the family unit.

Personally, I am not in favor of "nanny state" ideas, but if the government must get involved in this, I'd prefer something like: any parent that stays at home with their child(ren) from the age of 0 to around 12 or 13 can be paid by the government as if they have an 8 hour/day job, at some reasonable rate like $10 / hour. This would obviously be limited to one parent (at a time) per family. This will encourage parents to actually have and raise children.

[Jonsa]

Depending on the province, between 12% and 23% of Canadian families have a stay-at-home parent looking after the kids. So I'm afraid you're quite mistaken. Such families are not long gone. The problem with some sort of institutional daycare program is it would be extremely expensive, but would completely ignore those families who have decided to make the economic sacrifice necessary to keep one of the parents home with the kids. That hardly seems fair. I know one such family, and they are far from rich. They could make more money by having the father, who stays at home, go out and get work to contribute. But they sacrifice the added income for their kids. I similarly know another family where the father earns over $90k per year but the mother still goes out to work, and because they both work long hours the kids are often at daycare for 12hrs a day. Why should they get the benefit of government funding while the first family don't?

Yes, something around 1/2 the families with kids have a stay at home parent. My "long gone" comment related to the apple pie, atomic age families of the fifties.

You raise a valid point wrt the not benefiting those families where one of the parents stays home. Certainly I wouldn't want to see any program that would "punish" in/directly those families. Any program should have some type of means test to ensure that higher two income families would have to pay some or all of their own freight.

My wife quit her career to stay home and raise our four kids. We sacrificed a great deal economically, but I think we all benefitted enormously from that decision. Fortunately, we were in a position to make it happen, too many other families are not.

[Esq]

You're right there.....Education is the domain of the provinces. But it's a complicated and expensive proposition because inevitably, it brings the Teacher's Union into the picture

wrong. False dichotomy. Not all employees at schools are teachers. Not all day care Early Childhood development individuals need be teachers.

Quite the contrary - teachers are usually taught to actually teach in elementary and secondary schools. Education is directed to those professions, not daycare.

You simply arn't looking at it the right way.

While educational activities are not out of the question - and some teachers may be suited for this - actually only in underserviced schools (and most schools are overfilled) would teachers potentially have additional time, and not all teachers would necisarily even be qualified.

You are stating a false truth on early childhood education - it doesn't need to be synonymous with "teachers" or teachers unions at all. It is a form of daycare that might have educational benefits.

Education is only one aspect, it is actually a form of social support. Education is still a big part of it, but "teacher" need not be the term, it could simply be program provider. Some areas would be suited for schools others would not.

There are different needs in different communities - but substantial cost sharing can be achieved by nationalizing the umbrella. Including materials, oversight (re: red tape/beurocracy) all things that local schools boards have made worse in terms of funding in creating multiple administrations - creating tax overheads for the public. That isn't going to change, for political reasons, but that is the reality.

Voluntary local assitance is good, but tax overheads arn't in the public interest for paper pushing. It is only when politics attempts to constrain liberties does politiking become required. We already have a very clear analysis of what is required in education systems. It is startling that these no brainer situations are so constrained by politics limiting expression.

While it is true many people who are qualified to be teachers might get hired on by such a program ---- it need not be a requirement to be a teacher for early childhood development.

You need to look at what the actual training programs are. for say a daycare provider, as opposed to a professional teacher.

We might even be looking at simply subsidizing already existing private companies and insuring they meet certain criteria to qualify where they exist.

Fact is the chances are slim such a program would be rolled, out. People don't care enough about children to attempt to prevent bad quality of care by negligent parents. and children don't vote, nor do they pay taxes, yet. Parents would rather have money in their pocket and a neglected child than no money in their pocket. They get support for the same stuff anyway in many cases, just through different streams. ISn't that what TV, videogames and the internet is for?

I support such a program, but I'm also in tune with Canadian values.

Edited February 6, 2011 by Esq

[Moonlight Graham]

Absolutely agreed. Any national funding for health care must benefit families that have a stay at home parent at least as much (if not more) as ones that do not, otherwise such a program would only further contribute to the disintegration of the family unit.

I completely agree. This is the only way i see a national childcare program working.

Personally, I am not in favor of "nanny state" ideas, but if the government must get involved in this, I'd prefer something like: any parent that stays at home with their child(ren) from the age of 0 to around 12 or 13 can be paid by the government as if they have an 8 hour/day job, at some reasonable rate like $10 / hour. This would obviously be limited to one parent (at a time) per family. This will encourage parents to actually have and raise children.

I think that is a bit much. I would definitely cut back on the years of such a plan. By the age of 6, kids are already in school all day anyways. This would still be so expensive, i don't know how we would fund it.

[Black Dog]

Nationalized daycare is a disgusting slippery slope. There should be some social/economic help for poor parents, especially single mothers, but for a family with 2 parents, one of them should stay at home. Parents should raise their own damn kids, or at least have the grandparents or other family member help out, not hand them over to strangers and/or the State and have them raise our kids.

Yet later you claim you support the idea of "choice." So are you a liar or a hypocrite?

It SICKENS me. Along with this prospect that both parents wish to work in order to afford whatever material goods they feel they need or to maintain/pursue their careers. F*** careers, f*** "material wants". The #1 priority for parents should be their children, and the best thing for children (unless there is abuse/dangerous neglect) is for them to be raised by their parents, at least in the first few essential years of life until they are old enough for kindergarten. If a family has go without cable TV, a nice car, summer vacation out of country, cigarettes, or the latest Blu-Ray release etc. in order to stay home with their kids for their first few years of life, then that seems like a very reasonable sacrifice.

Is there any actual evidence that kids who spend time in day care are worse off than those raised at home? Let's see it.

Also: is there any basis to your claim that dual income families are only pursuing that lifestyle to accumulate extraneous possessions and not, say, provide a better quality of life for their kids? I find it hard to believe that more than 80 per cent of families are adopting the two-income model out of lust for new iPads.

I'm very glad that women have more rights and opportunities now because of the modern women's movement, but this same movement is also responsible for helping to corrode the family unit. Women now want full careers and a family. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

So?

As long as one parent (mother or father) is home with a young child, that's 100% fine with me. But let's face it, a child needs its mother. If people think that's sexist, that's because it is. Kids don't come out of a man's vagina or suck on their father's boobs for a reason. But a father staying home is still 100% preferable to handing the kid over to a stranger/the state for the majority of their day. That's sick, it's not natural, it's not socially/developmentally healthy.

Again: prove it.

[fellowtraveller]

I agree that day care should be a provincial responsibility.

I don't.

I think it is my responsibility.

My kid, my pay.

Which I have done, twice.

[Moonbox]

Is there any actual evidence that kids who spend time in day care are worse off than those raised at home? Let's see it.

What sort of evidence do you need? Do you not feel that having a loving parent at home devoting one-on-one attention to a child is beneficial for both mental and emotional growth???

Also: is there any basis to your claim that dual income families are only pursuing that lifestyle to accumulate extraneous possessions and not, say, provide a better quality of life for their kids? I find it hard to believe that more than 80 per cent of families are adopting the two-income model out of lust for new iPads.

You're likely right but I'm sure there are plenty of parents who ARE guilty of that.

[ironstone]

I'm confused... a national daycare program?We already have one don't we?Correct me if I'm wrong,but wasn't a national daycare program in the Liberal Red book way back in 1993?The Liberals put it in writing and had no less than three majority governments and we know the Liberals always keep their promises.

[punked]

I'm confused... a national daycare program?We already have one don't we?Correct me if I'm wrong,but wasn't a national daycare program in the Liberal Red book way back in 1993?The Liberals put it in writing and had no less than three majority governments and we know the Liberals always keep their promises.

Haven't you heard it is Jack Layton's fault if he didn't vote down the Liberal government Paul Martin would have created the program it sometime in the next 75 years.

[bloodyminded]

The difference is that traditionally women stayed home to raise the kids while men provided income or worked to provide goods/services. Now both men and women work, leaving the kids to be raised by daycare centers.

Yes, but we might sanely say, "Fuck tradition."

You said "women want to have their cake and eat it too," that "they want careers and family."

That's exactly the same as men. There's no difference.

Unless you think, for some unstated reason, that men are more....deserving of such things.