National Day Care Programme

[August1991]

Melanie posted this elsewhere:

I don't have faith in Harper because I see him pushing an agenda that would take women back 50 years in time. I understand the Conservative value that women are responsible for caring for their children at home, but unfortunately that is not the reality for many women. Tax breaks are not going to allow me to stay at home; replacing my income will, and I don't see that happening. Nor do I want it to. I think I still have something to offer as a working taxpayer despite the fact that I have children. I am not looking for a free ride, I am willing to pay for my child care, but I want it available in a setting that is safe, nurturing, and respectful of my children and my needs as a working mother. Harper's idea that giving the money to families will give them more choice is false - I am not interested in finding patchwork child care that is vulnerable to caregiver's illnesses and their own changing lives. Centre based well funded child care is really the only option, and I don't see Harper as someone who will buy in to this. Luckily, I live in Manitoba, where child care is given good supports already, but I am very much in favour of a national program that will be available to families who need it, when they need it. This is not to say every child should be in care, just that good care is available when it is needed.

Melanie, you seem to be under the illusion that people who work at home in unpaid employment and not paying taxes are somehow not contributing to the Canadian economy. This is unfortunately a common misconception.

I happen to think that household work should be included in GDP statistics. Most often, this work is done by women and the fact that it is ignored by official statistics leads to many false conclusions. When a woman takes care of her own child or someone else's child, when a woman cares for her older father or mother, regardless of whether any money changes hands, Canada's economy benefits.

One consequence of this confusion is that paid employment, for some reason, receives more attention from politicians than unpaid work.

----

I don't see why the government should favour parents who send their children to daycare over those parents who keep their children at home. By subsidizing daycare but not providing an equivalent amount to stay-at-home parents, the government creates an incentive to send kids away.

Reading your posts, Melanie, I get the impression that you would like some "security". You want to know your child is safe and you want to have one thing less to worry about. The idea that the government will provide daycare is seductive. In reality, I'm not certain it will work so well.

Lastly, you seem like a caring parent but I know there are many parents who are not. As a society, should we not somehow ensure that all young children have a safe, clean place where they can be well treated and develop into normal adults? Is a national day care programme the best way to achieve that?

[last_niceguy]

I happen to think that household work should be included in GDP statistics. Most often, this work is done by women and the fact that it is ignored by official statistics leads to many false conclusions. When a woman takes care of her own child or someone else's child, when a woman cares for her older father or mother, regardless of whether any money changes hands, Canada's economy benefits.

The GDP is measure in Canadian dollars. How can we measure unpaid work in a figure that measure in dollars?

[fellowtraveller]

No, we don't 'need' it, not as a universal right/entitlement.

And if it is implemented and universal, we'll pour billions into a fiscal sinkhole so that middle class people can pay off their mortgages quicker.

For most people having children is a choice, and comes complete with financial sacrifice. No reason for others to pay for my lifestyle choices. I do support subsidized daycare for those who have no options, but definitely not as a universl program.

[August1991]

The GDP is measure in Canadian dollars. How can we measure unpaid work in a figure that measure in dollars?

It would require an imputed market value. This is done now for owner-occupied housing. (If you own your own home, this year's GDP will include an estimate of what you would have to pay if you were renting. The purpose is to estimate the housing services you receive this year even though there is no market transaction this year.)

For most people having children is a choice, and comes complete with financial sacrifice. No reason for others to pay for my lifestyle choices. I do support subsidized daycare for those who have no options, but definitely not as a universl program.

Do you agree with universal public education? Why do we start universal publicly-financed kindergarten at 5 years of age and not earlier? (In some provinces, it starts at 4 years.)

Do you think that the cost of having children should be borne entirely by parents when the cost of retirement is shared with others?

[Black Dog]

In theory, universal daycare would be boon to the economy. Think about it. A single parent is more likely to require social assistance and less likely to be able to find work outside the home due to the requirements of parenthood. A national daycare program would enable people to get off social assistance and work while ensuring their children are safe and well-llooked after. Employment, in turn means more money being circulated into the economy. That's the theory.

And if it is implemented and universal, we'll pour billions into a fiscal sinkhole so that middle class people can pay off their mortgages quicker.

Middle class people already pay for day care. But if financial solvency for families is a big beef of yours, perhaps the program should be indexed to income, so that we don't replace the mythical "single mom on welfare" with "SUV-driving child care abusers".

[Argus]

I don't see why the government should favour parents who send their children to daycare over those parents who keep their children at home.  By subsidizing daycare but not providing an equivalent amount to stay-at-home parents, the government creates an incentive to send kids away.

Well, how about a higher tax incentive for parents? An increase in both refundable and non-refundable tax credits to help defray the cost of raising kids?

[fellowtraveller]

Middle class people already pay for day care. But if financial solvency for families is a big beef of yours, perhaps the program should be indexed to income, so that we don't replace the mythical "single mom on welfare" with "SUV-driving child care abusers".

Perhaps.

Financial solvency is not a beef, but I fail to see why I should pay for middle class families to have others raise their children. I chose to have my children. It changed my family finances, but that did not come as any surprise, how could it?

Single moms on welfare aren't a myth, they exist and should be taken care of with financial support and retraining.

I have no objection to middle class people paying for their own day care, that's their choice. I have no objection to paying for day care for the 'mythical' single mom, so she can get back on her feet.

But universal daycare- nope, not on my watch.

[Melanie_]

One of the common misconceptions about a national child care program is that "universal" means that every child should go. What it really means is that good care is available, regardless of where you live, how much money you make, or the disability of your child. Right now, finding good care is one of the biggest challenges any parent faces, even when they are able to afford it. There is a shortage of people willing to care for children in their homes, and you don't want to just take the first person who says they'll do it. A regulated system means that there are checks and balances in place - child abuse registry, first aid certification, some level of understanding of how to work with several children at the same time.

I absolutely agree that people who are at home are making a contribution to our society, and I am sorry I gave the impression I didn't value them. I stayed at home with my own 4 children for several years, but also managed to stay in my career as well, by flexing my hours around my husband's schedule. That is much harder than it sounds, and certainly cost me in terms of advancing in my profession. But, I chose to have 4 children, and that requires a trade off, one which I was happy to make. Now, as they are in school and beyond and I am back full time in the work force, I fully expect to pay for the younger ones' care, and do so willingly when I know that I am getting a service they benefit from and I feel secure with.

In my view, the national program's primary objective is getting facilities built; the need for care is high. Equally important, though, is that the people working in those facilities are nurturing and trustworthy; we could never monitor that in an unregulated system where families were settling for whatever care was available. If we are putting public money into the system, accountability must be built in as well.

[Bakunin]

If its a copy of the quebec program, there is only 1 thing that i find interesting, its the CPE (centre de la petite enfance), wich is more professional, a little bit like a school where your children devellop his brain. It better than a place where you park your children.

In other word, we could have a better quality child care.

But if we look at the money the liberal will spend on that project, it wont work... Quebec province alone spend more money on its child care program right now than what martin want to spend for the whole country...

[Pateris]

Melanie et al,

I guess my big problem with creating ANOTHER large government program is that I have lost all trust in any level of government to efficiently deliver services with my tax dollars. Therefore I want to pay less taxes and fend for myself.

The health care system is a disaster BECAUSE of the government, as are pretty much EVERY OTHER government run program.

So I don't want to give them another place to waste my money.

[Bakunin]

The problem with those kind of program is the philosophy behind it. There are unlimited need but limited ressources to take care of it. Id prefer we decide to build specialized childcare center (cpe) and work with the market price over trying to lower the childcare cost for evryone.

[kimmy]

One of the common misconceptions about a national child care program is that "universal" means that every child should go.

No, I don't think many people are concerned that children will be ripped away from their mothers and taken to government buildings for 8 hours a day. I think people are mostly concerned that it could wind up being an administrative and financial nightmare on a scale that could make the gun registry look tame by comparison.

In theory, universal daycare would be boon to the economy. Think about it.  A single parent is more likely to require social assistance and less likely to be able to find work outside the home due to the requirements of parenthood. A national daycare program would enable people to get off social assistance and work while ensuring their children are safe and well-llooked after. Employment, in turn means more money being circulated into the economy. That's the theory.

That's the theory. In practice, it could wind up costing more to impliment than the corresponding economic benefits. I think that it could be a good idea, if well implemented... or a terrible idea if poorly implemented.

My view is "it depends". If the plan is to shut down private daycares and replace them with buildings that have the Maple Leaf and "National Department of Daycare" on the front, providing universal, free to everyone daycare, then I think there's a great potential for it turn out poorly.

How I would do it:

-I just looked in the phonebook and found 8 pages of private daycares. I'd make use of this resource.

-if necessary, I'd provide beefed up standards enforcement, some means of qualifying a daycare space as being government approved.

-I'd provide vouchers for the poor so they could afford qualified daycare. I'd make daycare a tax deduction.

-I'd provide incentives for people to create qualified daycare spaces in places where there are shortages.

I think it could be done in a manner that doesn't require a massive investment of government capital to get going. I think it could be done largely by cooperating with the existing private daycare in our country.

-kim

[Melanie_]

Kimmy, I don't see universal free care as a viable option, either. Let good care be available, and parents will pay for it. If they are unable to pay, a regulated system of subsidy, based on income, should be in place. The money needs to go to creating spaces, training staff, and supporting families who need financial assistance. Private and non profit centres alike would need to meet the standards in order to receive any public money.

[August1991]

I hope this post fits within the discussion.

In Quebec, it costs about $35/day to take care of one pre-schooler. Since parents pay $7, the Quebec government subsidizes the $28 difference. To do this, the government eliminated every other form of family child subsidy or tax credit. All available money was put into the "CPE" (Centre de la Petite enfance, daycare centre) network.

When sociologist Jennifer Fosket was offered a McGill faculty position in 2003, Quebec's $7-a-day daycare system was far better than what was available in her home of San Francisco. However, her child still doesn't have a place in the McGill Daycare and she is not hopeful that she'll have an easier time getting a spot for the second baby she has on the way.

McGill newspaper

This quote happens to be in English but there are many more in French. The joke is that as soon as a woman is pregnant, she must put the as-yet unnamed child's name on a CPE waiting list.

At present, the workers in these centres are not unionized and earn around $14/hour. There are ongoing efforts to unionize the workers and negotiate a collective agreement with the government.

I have yet to hear of stories where parents request special treatment for pre-schoolers. Such requests, typically based on children's learning difficulties, are common in the elementary and secondary school systems. (I know that requests to enrol children in special, immersion programmes are common outside of Quebec. The Supreme Court recently said Quebec is under no obligation to provide English immersion, just as it rtecently said that governments need not provide for autistic children.)

-----

I mention all this because I happen to think that when the government gets involved in providing a service for "free", many people obviously want to use the service and then complicated rules must be created to decide who can or cannot get to use this "free" service. Too often, the squeeky wheel gets the grease. The organized parent with contacts or telephone skills ensures their child gets a place.

At the same time, I sense that many women in Quebec - whether mothers or daycare workers - prefer the current system despite all its flaws. Working mothers, whether single or potentially single, know that in general they pay less tax than the $28 subsidy they receive. Women easily overcome the inconvenience of waiting lists by making phone calls to other women to find out where to put their child.

Perhaps most surprisingly, women - whether mothers or employees of the CPE - feel better that the system has the stamp of approval of the State. It provides a measure of security. Employees feel their job is more secure and mothers feel their children are in safer, "official" hands. I wonder whether the State is replacing the role of a good husband.

[segnosaur]

One of the common misconceptions about a national child care program is that "universal" means that every child should go.

Actually, I don't think that's what opponents of "universal day care" programs are assuming. The assumption is that it will be available to everyone (even if they choose not to use it.)

There is a shortage of people willing to care for children in their homes, and you don't want to just take the first person who says they'll do it. A regulated system means that there are checks and balances in place - child abuse registry, first aid certification, some level of understanding of how to work with several children at the same time.

Last time I checked, there were already regulations in place in many (probably all) areas of Canada, although regulations are done at a provincial level.

For example, Ontario has the 'Day Nurseries Act'...

http://www.childcarelearning.on.ca/prospective_operator/orientation-package-en.pdf

In my view, the national program's primary objective is getting facilities built; the need for care is high.

If there is a demand, then private companies can step in and build the required facilities.

I do feel sympathy to people who are disadvantaged and truly need assistance (such as single mothers wanting to return to the work force), and the government should step in to help those people. But implementing a "universal" health care system is not necessarily the best solution. Instead, target assistance to those who are actually in need.

[Topaz]

I always wondered why companies don't have daycare centers for their workers? Are there any in Canada, should we have them?

[M.Dancer]

I always wondered why companies don't have daycare centers for their workers?

Some do. CN has some, so does Toronto Hydro, york U...

should we have them?

"We"? as in your company? feel free to get your HR department to look in to it...

[Muddy]

What is the matter with people! My Mrs. and I had kids(3) when we felt we could afford them and give them the upbringing and nurturing we thought our little charges would deserve. We turned down the baby bonus because we did not want the state thinking that they had some claim on the kids, My Mrs. did not go on maternity leave or collect Unemployment insurance either. I worked my dog off making sure we had the necessities of life. We never had the big fancy house, just an old farmhouse that we still live in ,and the kids are all grown and gone, and we never bought a new car. We wanted quality time with our kids and we never wanted a stranger caring for them in those formidable years. We lived within our means. If your going to have kids bloody well raise them. If you want a big house and new cars don`t have kids. Parenting is a full time job. It is sacrifice and if your not willing to sacrifice don`t have the little darlings.

My son had a child ,who is now a year and a half. I asked him if his wife planned to go back to work. No says he. I want my child raised the way I was.He will never come home to an empty house. I sure am proud of that statement.

Oh yes ,we created two successful business`while raising that family.

If your going to have kids raise the darlings ,don`t expect me or my kids to pay your freight. Why should we have to do without so others can live the high life. Take ownership of your family.

[Bonam]

I agree with Muddy. What's the point of having kids if you're never gonna see them, and let someone else raise them? One of the parents should stay home with the kids, least until they are off to school. In some cases grandparents can help out. But sending them off to some stranger for 8 hours a day? That just seems crazy, I don't know how any parent could entrust some daycare to take care of their infant(s).

If some parents want to do this and pay for it via private childcare that's fine, but using taxpayer's money to encourage horrible parenting is the last thing I'd support.

Edited April 29, 2010 by Bonam

[Argus]

We have tons of retired people and will soon have many, many more. Many of them retired in thei 50s and soon became bored. We're making little use of such people. Most people in my generation were minded by relatives or friends or neighbors. When it was a regular occurance, ie, my mother worked, they were given a small stipend as well. This all worked fairly well.

Once you start having government step in with its regulatory framework and its inspections, once you make it a "national program" you radically increase the expense. Now everyone involved will have to be properly trained in early childhood education, be cleared by police, have psychological and health screening, and their renumeration and benefits will have to rise accordingly. Suddenly what was fairly easily and cheap becomes much more expensive and limited.

[Muddy]

Your right Argus! I am so very happy my children all live within two minutes of my house.When they need a baby sitter the family is close by and Grandma, Uncles and Aunts are ready to pitch in. That is what family is all about! The state should not be in the baby sitting business. Second rate baby sitters at that. We already supply baby sitting for prekindergarten so parents can abdicate their responsibility to nurture and parent their off spring.

Prekindergarten perpetuated more unionized teachers that we did not need.

[xul]

It would require an imputed market value. This is done now for owner-occupied housing. (If you own your own home, this year's GDP will include an estimate of what you would have to pay if you were renting. The purpose is to estimate the housing services you receive this year even though there is no market transaction this year.)

I don't know who invented this method, but it does sound like a great idea for all politicians who are in power.

All American nuclear missiles laid in their holes in somewhere of Nevada would create GDP because pentagon has to rent some if they were not built.....

I can't imagine how those statistical officials compute the imputed market value. Let's assume there is a Canadian town with 100 families. Each family has two house--one for their won residency another for their dogs. One day communist dude xul came to the town, and there was a smartest one of the 100 families who lent one of his two house to xul by the price of $10 thousand a month, so these statistical officials added 100*2*10,000*12=$24 million into the GDP of the town. Next month every folks in the town had found the easy way to get a windfall and kicked their dogs into where they were supposed to live, then everyone offered a house for rent, would the GDP still be $24million? I guess the GDP would drop to 100*2*10*12=$24 thousand because xul would not pay more than $10 a month for the house he rented if there were so many houses being put into market.

Edited April 30, 2010 by xul