Child Care

[scribblet]

This is actually a decent debate in recent memory on an important issue. The institutionalization of daycare by the government is a scary prospect however.

Norman bringing decriminalization of pot into this discussion is just ...well ...sad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed.

The institutionalization of daycare by the government is reminiscent of the Russian system, you know, take away the kids at an early age, put them into kindergarten gulags, educate and brainwash them. Put them under the tutelage of social engineers paid for and indoctrinated by a government whose lack of scruples was evident by the Adscam and a record of broken promises, is this what we want for our children?

Stephen Harper's proposal is a welcome antidote to the Liberals' Nanny-State approach to day care and gives parent choices and maybe an opportunity to stay home.

Next thing you know, the Liberals will ban stay at home moms, heck doesn't the nanny-state know best !!

[Chimera]

This is actually a decent debate in recent memory on an important issue. The institutionalization of daycare by the government is a scary prospect however.

Norman bringing decriminalization of pot into this discussion is just ...well ...sad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed.

The institutionalization of daycare by the government is reminiscent of the Russian system, you know, take away the kids at an early age, put them into kindergarten gulags, educate and brainwash them. Put them under the tutelage of social engineers paid for and indoctrinated by a government whose lack of scruples was evident by the Adscam and a record of broken promises, is this what we want for our children?

Stephen Harper's proposal is a welcome antidote to the Liberals' Nanny-State approach to day care and gives parent choices and maybe an opportunity to stay home.

Next thing you know, the Liberals will ban stay at home moms, heck doesn't the nanny-state know best !!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now we're just getting ridiculous. Comparing government funded daycare to russian gulags is simply assinine. Why not make an accurate comparison. It will become like a mix of our public education and public healthcare systems. Both of which are underfunded and in shambles.

[scribblet]

This is actually a decent debate in recent memory on an important issue. The institutionalization of daycare by the government is a scary prospect however.

Norman bringing decriminalization of pot into this discussion is just ...well ...sad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed.

The institutionalization of daycare by the government is reminiscent of the Russian system, you know, take away the kids at an early age, put them into kindergarten gulags, educate and brainwash them. Put them under the tutelage of social engineers paid for and indoctrinated by a government whose lack of scruples was evident by the Adscam and a record of broken promises, is this what we want for our children?

Stephen Harper's proposal is a welcome antidote to the Liberals' Nanny-State approach to day care and gives parent choices and maybe an opportunity to stay home.

Next thing you know, the Liberals will ban stay at home moms, heck doesn't the nanny-state know best !!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Now we're just getting ridiculous. Comparing government funded daycare to russian gulags is simply assinine. Why not make an accurate comparison. It will become like a mix of our public education and public healthcare systems. Both of which are underfunded and in shambles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Might be a bit over the top, but its not far off point. Heck isn't it now 'Anti-Canadian' to disagree with aLliberal, isn't it now, 'you can only be Canadian if you have Liberal values' ? Really, they might not be the equivalent to Russian gulags, but it a further step towards more and more state control over everything we do.

The Conservative way? A plan to effectively and efficiently solve a problem, while being fair to ALL parents.

The Liberal way? The usual inefficiency and ineffectiveness we have witnessed for decades, while indoctrinating your children the way the state wants. Sure sounds to me like the way of the old Soviet Union! What's next, red shirts and salutes! Not to mention that the Liberal plan excludes the families who have chosen to have one parent stay at home to provide adequate care to their children.

Not to mention another huge billion dollar Liberal boondoggle.

[Melanie_]

First of all, most of your data is either incorrect or misinterpreted. 70% of women with preschool children are in the workforce (according to Kids First, Parents Association of Canada, a group decidedly against day care) and for most of them child care is a patchwork arrangement of who can babysit today. Harper's plan calls for more of the same. What good does it do anyone to have $1200 if there is no place to take them?

Child care is not the institutionalized place so many of you seem to think it is. When was the last time you were in a child care program? My work takes me in and out of centres regularly, and while I will not say they are perfect, they are full of caring people who invest themselves daily in these kids. Child care is also not limited to centre based care - family based day care homes also are included in the funding of the Liberals. I have to laugh every time I read this 9 to 5 garbage the conservatives constantly accuse the national program of supporting. In Manitoba, the only limits placed on the care provided are that the people providing it must be regulated - other than that, they can be centre or family based, standard hours or extended, evening, weekend, overnight - whatever the family needs can be accomodated in the funding structure. Anyone can provide the care as long as they are willing to submit to a child abuse registry check, a criminal records check, obtain some basic first aid, and pass a home inspection. Is that too much to ask, when it is public money going into their hands?

I understand the argument that home is the best place for kids, and I won't disagree. I was at home when my two youngest were little, and I loved it. I also believe that it was very good for them, and for my two older children to have me there when they returned from school. But that isn't always possible for families to do, and it certainly caused a lot of financial strain in my home. It also meant that my career was put on hold for many years, although I found ways to keep my fingers in the pie from home. Sure, $1200/year would have helped, and maybe we do need to find more ways to support stay at home moms. This isn't it. This program is for families who do need child care. Lets not turn this into an argument over who is the better parent, or what is the right way to raise your kids. Some families need child care. The Liberal plan provides support to them.

[scribblet]

The most significant difference between the Conservative proposal and the Liberal proposal is that the greater part of the Liberal-proposed funds will be absorbed by administration of the program, whereas the Conservative funds are administered directly, per child, by the parents.

[Melanie_]

The money is going to create spaces, which you might see as administration. Of the current year's installment, in Manitoba 1650 spaces have been created in Winnipeg; 699 spaces have been created in Brandon and rural Manitoba; 68 spaces have been created in the North; 750 spaces have yet to be allocated. Many of those spaces are being created using surplus space in schools, although some of the money does go into renovations and upkeep of buildings.

Creating a space means providing an operating grant to cover some of the costs. Parents still pay daily rates of $18.80, but the province adds some money to help cover the costs of rent, salaries, toys and equipment, food, etc. Even if several families were to pool their $1200/year, they wouldn't get this for their money.

[Chimera]

Melanie,

You make some very good points. However, I worry when PM PM says that childcare is now a right, like healthcare. Given what is happening in healthcare, I would prefer not to have my children involved in a similarly run program. Also, this would mean that the standards level for the caregivers would possibly vary greatly between the provinces as it will be them to set standards, dole out money, etc. Manitoba may be very good at this, but I suspect my home province of Ontario would find a way to F@ck it up even if the responsibility came with idiot-proof instructions.

[Chimera]

BTW, under the liberal plan, Daycare would receive approx $1B/yr. Using a (IMV) conservatively guesstimated number of 200000 families having children under 6, this equates to $96/wk or $14/day.

[Riverwind]

You make some very good points.  However, I worry when PM PM says that childcare is now a right, like healthcare.

This is exactly why the Liberal plan should never see the light of day. Not only does it create yet another expensive entitlement program that intrudes on provincial jurisdictions it also encourages people to do the exact opposite what they should do: stay home and take care of their own kids.

[sharkman]

You make some very good points.  However, I worry when PM PM says that childcare is now a right, like healthcare.

I couldn't believe the PM had the gall to compare it to healthcare, with its long waiting lists, huge cost structure and overworked employees. Only he would think it's a good idea to relate the two.

[justcrowing]

No word on how Canadian families and families the world over have been able

to fumble through that whole “family” thing lo these hundreds or thousands

of years without the aid of the ha-yuge benevolent government

child-bringer-upper social programs (and “early learning” centers—wink!).

The Liberals have warned proudly proclaimed that they intend to model the

state-run Soviet-style child-rearing and liberal indoctrination centers

after Canada’s North-Korean-style healthcare system. Yes, that’s the North

Korean-style healthcare system that the liberal-left invented and insist we

live—and die—by today. They said it with a straight face.

But I think this whole package of socialist plug ’n play childcare gets

funding from the Ministry of Multiculturalism since it involves Canada,

North Korea, and the former Soviet Union (the collapse of which still haunts

the liberal-left in Canada). So we can eagerly await the appearance of the

official Liberal Party (and taxpayer!) Sponsorship Logo () being applied to

the state-run l’il liberal mini-me centers—and I would imagine your children

will be required to wear one as well since if the liberal-left get

re-elected, they will be brought to you by... the Canadian Liberal

government.

[scribblet]

So far, the Conservative party has shown more faith in democracy than the ruling Kleptokrats. From child care, in which the parents would decide how to spend the money as opposed to state-regulated daycare, to a free vote on same-sex marriage (as opposed to Cabinet being forced to vote one way), the Conservatives are establishing themselves as the more democratic party.

The Liberals, by way of contrast, have

1) passed laws restricting democratic expression during this election,

2) centralized power in the office of the prime minister, and

3) moved the decision making on important social issues out of the hands of the people and into the hands of undemocratic appeals courts, while dismissing the instincts of the democratic majority as "oppressive." or, unintelligent. Not a good move to call people who oppose liberal views 'unintelligent' .

[southerncomfort]

According to Prime Minister Paul Martin, institutional-style child care is the only option "agreed to by the vast majority of people who are knowledgeable." Okay, I might be in the minority wanting to stay home and lookafter my kids but really am I really in the minority in terms of knowledge concerning what is best for my children? I would not trust Mr. Martin to babysit any of my children for 10 minutes. And I trust him even less to make any good decisions concerning their welfare.

[Melanie_]

I am really tired of hearing about how this is about choice, implying that those who don't stay at home are bad parents. Some of you are basically saying that you should stay at home, here is a few bucks to replace your salary, and if you don't stay home you are a bad parent anyway so substandard care is all your kid deserves.

Kids, you should all be raised by self sacrificing martyrs, who gladly wear rags and eat Kraft Dinner every night just so they don't miss a second of Precious Pookie's childhood!

OK, that's a bit over the top, but it's late and I'm irritated. I will be more rational tomorrow.

[Riverwind]

I am really tired of hearing about how this is about choice, implying that those who don't stay at home are bad parents.

The issue is why should people who choose to work get subsidized by taxpayers when people who choose to stay at home get nothing? Why should I get a tax deduction for paying someone else to take care of my kid but I am not allowed to pay my own wife to do the same job? Why should a family with one income earner pay 30% more tax than a family with two earners producing the same income?

The system is unfair to people to stay at home as it is. The Liberal daycare plan simply exacerbates this unfairness. I don't have any issues with gov't subisized daycares if the system is changed to remove the unfairness first.

[Guest eureka]

You wast good time, Melanie. These who think they are conservatives have only to be told they are free to choose what will be done with "their" money and they will cast multiple votes for anyone who makes the promise no matter how absurd it is.

Sparhawk, though, is a little different on this. He has concerns even though they are not really part of this question.

[August1991]

First of all, most of your data is either incorrect or misinterpreted. 70% of women with preschool children are in the workforce (according to Kids First, Parents Association of Canada, a group decidedly against day care) and for most of them child care is a patchwork arrangement of who can babysit today. Harper's plan calls for more of the same. What good does it do anyone to have $1200 if there is no place to take them?

According to StatCan, about half of Canadian pre-schoolers stay at home with someone in their immediate family, about a quarter go to organized day care and the remaining quarter stay with a neighbour.

No one is saying that $1200 will pay for day care. But at the moment, and under the Liberal plan, people who choose to stay at home to take of their kids get nothing. In effect, there is an incentive, a bias, encouraging people to place their children in day care.

In Quebec, it costs only $7 per day for a parent to leave a child in day care. To do this, all money, tax credits previously allocated for children were eliminated and the funds used for the day care network. The federal Liberal scheme seems to aim towards something similar across Canada. (BTW, in Quebec, only half of children can find a place in a day care because of limited spaces. Most day cares have long waiting lists.)

I am really tired of hearing about how this is about choice, implying that those who don't stay at home are bad parents.

I don't think that is the argument here. I think most studies show that whether children go to day care or not has little effect on their development. Children start to socialize around age 3 so being exposed to others then may be helpful but this need not be in a day care setting.

The relevant idea is choice. Go back to the Ambrose interview: she said that the first choice is staying at home, second is something small and convenient near home and third is an organized day care. Each family is different but I think that generalization is roughly correct.

Let me state it this way: if parents received $1200 per child, and this money came by reducing the subsidies for organized day care, I bet some parents would choose to stay at home. At present, those parents return to work earlier even though this is not their true preference. A bad government policy is one that encourages people to do something that they wouldn't normally choose to do.

The government program under discussion is "child care" I thought... not "general tax refunds", etc... We don't elect governments to give us our money back as their top priority... we elect them to provide us with services that as individuals, we cannot provide adequately.

The issue at stake here, err, is essentially Leftist and so you should understand it well. The government is proposing, in effect, to tax people without children and transfer that money to people with children. We are debating how that transfer should occur. IOW, how best to get the money to the families with children - should it be a direct grant or should it be provided as a service or some combination of the two?

[Riverwind]

(BTW, in Quebec, only half of children can find a place in a day care because of limited spaces.  Most day cares have long waiting lists.)

August, you illustrate the problem with any free/low cost entitlement program: without a cost to restrict demand the only thing the gov't can do is restrict supply. The net result is you end up with an unfair system where the benefits are not fairly distributed.

[August1991]

(BTW, in Quebec, only half of children can find a place in a day care because of limited spaces.  Most day cares have long waiting lists.)

August, you illustrate the problem with any free/low cost entitlement program: without a cost to restrict demand the only thing the gov't can do is restrict supply. The net result is you end up with an unfair system where the benefits are not fairly distributed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, but in the case of child care, the demand is restricted by the fact that you have to have a child. (Agricultural subsidies work the same way - you have to own land to get the subsidy.)

I suspect this explains why publicly-financed education can exist for so long (you have to be a kid to get it) but publicly-financed health care is eventually untenable (or, as you put it, the benefits are not fairly distributed) because the demand is open-ended.

Our publicly-financed education is going this way as parents request special education, special needs or immersion programmes.

[Riverwind]

I suspect this explains why publicly-financed education can exist for so long (you have to be a kid to get it) but publicly-financed health care is eventually untenable (or, as you put it, the benefits are not fairly distributed) because the demand is open-ended.

Actually, they have the same waiting list problem in German universities which are free for all to attend. It takes 7 years to complete a 4 year degree because of lack of space in the required courses. Primary education, unlike healthcare, does not have exponentially growing costs as new technology is developed that has to be purchased immediately.

[Guest eureka]

Since you bring up education, what about those who would prefer to Home School their kids?

Would all those who choose to stay home actually do a better job than the schools?

[Riverwind]

Would all those who choose to stay home actually do a better job than the schools?

Depends, some would, some wouldn't. Mandatory public education is a critical part of a knowledge based society. Extending the public education system to provide junior kindergarten and other early childhood services would be a useful thing to do, however, junior kindergarten cannot replace daycare which typically has to provide much longer hours.

[lovecanada]

Why does noone talk about how single parents/lower incomes parents are already subsidized by the provincial governments? Single moms are paying way less than working moms already. I paid the full price because I was working but other Mom's paid way less cause they were on social security. How does this encourage me to work? I should just claim welfare because I am better off by doing it!

[err]

No one is saying that $1200 will pay for day care.  But at the moment, and under the Liberal plan, people who choose to stay at home to take of their kids get nothing.  In effect, there is an incentive, a bias, encouraging people to place their children in day care.

Most mothers would love to stay home with their children. Unfortuantely, the majority of mothers cannot afford to do so, and have to got to work.... Those who get to stay at home are either very fortunate to be able to do so, or are stuck with no recourse, often on social assistance. So most of them dont "get nothing"... they get to stay with their child, while other mothers have to suffer a day at the grindstone.... As for your suggestion that people would put their kids in daycare because they dont "get nothing".... are you on drugs....

The federal Liberal scheme seems to aim towards something similar across Canada.  (BTW, in Quebec, only half of children can find a place in a day care because of limited spaces.  Most day cares have long waiting lists.)

And $25/week is going to fix this ???? It would appear that creating daycare spaces would be a more appropriate solution....

Let me state it this way: if parents received $1200 per child, and this money came by reducing the subsidies for organized day care, I bet some parents would choose to stay at home. 

Are these CPC people who you would would stay home because the extra $25/week would make it truly worthwhile and affordable???

The government program under discussion is "child care" I thought... not "general tax refunds", etc... We don't elect governments to give us our money back as their top priority... we elect them to provide us with services that as individuals, we cannot provide adequately.

The issue at stake here, err, is essentially Leftist and so you should understand it well. The government is proposing, in effect, to tax people without children and transfer that money to people with children. We are debating how that transfer should occur. IOW, how best to get the money to the families with children - should it be a direct grant or should it be provided as a service or some combination of the two?

I would think that the most cost-effective method that actually produces the intended result would be the best way. Providing a cheque that is insufficient to pay for a single day out of five will only help people who can afford to pay for the other four days. Thus, the CPC solution does little to accomplish the intended end, and should therefore be struck from serious consideration (at least by intelligent people).

[sharkman]

The couples who have a family member or friend looking after their kids get nothing, couples living in rural areas where there is no day care get nothing and couples who want the child to bond with an actual parent during the crucial first few years get nothing.

The only way to get a benefit from the Liberal plan is do do what they want you to do with your kids. Stick them in a Government approved day care. And err, it doesn't take intelligence to see something this obvious.