Why we must prevent Harper from becoming PM

[betsy]

Just want to point out that I have had parents who used to be with licensed agencies...and found them not satisfactory. I also know of parents who have no wish to send their kids to licensed agencies for either they've had negative experiences with them or have heard unfavorable feedbacks from others.

Some parents resent giving all sorts of private information and the tremendous amount of paperworks involved when applying to a licensed agency.

Quality home daycares, especially those who have been in the business for too long usually get clients through WORD OF MOUTH. They hardly have the need to advertise. They are usually referred to by current or previous clients.

I referred an unemployed single mom who attended school (referred to me by her own sister) to an agency since I know she will be qualified for subsidy. Later, she called me to ask if I had a space availabe, which I do not have at the time. I asked her how come she's not with the agency anymore. She said, "I got this job at the grocery store....the agency said they can't keep me because of my irregular hours."

If they cannot accomodate irregular schedules of working parents right now.....what more in a National childcare when all employees are unionized?

Single mom who's trying to enter the workforce....there are millions like her out there. Isn't she supposed to be the very type whom you say the Liberals are trying to help?

Helloooo? Are we on the same planet?

[betsy]

One irate parent called the Lowell Green radio talk on CPAC and was really fuming, asking how come suddenly she, as an at-home mom is not deemed eligible by the Liberals and NDP to take care of her own child?

She said..."yeah, they want to raise our children so they can raise them as "little Liberals!"

My thoughts exactly.

Isn't it odd that the Liberals are really pushing for this National childcare that will actually benefit only a minor segment....would not even address the situation of the segment that needs the most help (like the mom mentioned above)...and would cost far more than what they say it would.

Beware, there is more to this than meets the eye. I say, the Liberals have a hidden agenda.

[Melanie_]

Part of the problem here is we are talking about 10 provinces and 3 territories, each with a different system. The examples given by Betsy would not happen in Manitoba, for example, because the systems are so different - obviously the system in her province doesn't favour the working poor. That doesn't have to be the system adopted by a national program.

If they cannot accomodate irregular schedules of working parents right now.....what more in a National childcare when all employees are unionized?

Who said all employees would be unionized? Who said irregular schedules can't be accommodated? I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over in this thread, but licensed family day care homes and licensed centres can operate with extended hours, evenings, weekends, and overnight care. And unionization can happen in private or public child care centres, if it does come to pass.

The Conservative plan will do nothing to create spaces in rural Canada. It will do nothing to create affordable, accessible spaces for the working poor. It does nothing to ensure that children with disabilities will be able to access care. It does nothing to ensure that a caregiver won't just take in more and more children, and park them in front of the TV all day. And before you say, "Well, the parents need to make sure their children are being cared for properly", remember that the Conservative plan doesn't create any spaces, so parents will be left to take whatever arrangements they can find. There is no point in giving someone $1200 and saying "go find child care" when there is no care to be found.

[Guest eureka]

shoop, it was not going too far! I carefully distinguished Freedom from Freedom of Choice. There is no such protectable freedom as Freedom of Choice.

Freedom of choice for what is all that can be discussed.

I do not appreciate lame and unthinking responses about my supposed non-support of freedom and silly references to abortion. I have in the past written hundreds of thousands pf words about the very ossue of Freedom of Choice; but in a proper context.

Freedom of Choice as a freedom has no relevance to this: it is a choice and where there is a choice there is always freedom to choose. The point is, as I was claiming, that there is no choice and no freedom to choose for hundreds of thousands under the Conservative proposal.

It is not a daycare plan.

[Wilber]

Freedom of choice is not the issue here, it is freedom of government to tell you how your money will be spent.

I'm missing something here. When did licensing a program come to mean it had to be paid for out of the public purse. I require two Federally issued licenses to do my job but have never received a paycheck from government or worked for a company that ever got more than a small percentage of its income from government.

Let's face it, the Federal government is the most expensive and least accountable branch of government we have. The closer to home we can get the people who are responsible for spending the majority of our tax dollars the more control we will have over how they are spent.

[Slim MacSquinty]

hear hear Wilbur!

Both sides are saying the other won't create spaces, why and the hell would you want the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to create daycare spaces, that is ridiculous!

Why can't people in these communities create their own daycare spaces, geez what are we a country of people so completely void of initiative that we have to lean on the federal government to wipe our highnees?

[The Honest Politician]

I'm missing something here. When did licensing a program come to mean it had to be paid for out of the public purse. I require two Federally issued licenses to do my job but have never received a paycheck from government or worked for a company that ever got more than a small percentage of its income from government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is the people who administer the licenses, and tests, and work in the offices that are paid for by the govt. . Not to mention the people the Govt. will have to hire to create a new realistic license test or course. It is a serious possibility that an entire new wing of the govt will need to be created to to deal with childcare licensing, standards and complaints.

Don't worry there are more than enough back door expenses to ensure this is truly another Federal Govt. money pit.

[scribblet]

How about we take care of our own kids or pay for our own child care instead of insisting the nanny state pay for everything?  Anyone remember the French language debate last month where the guy in Vancouver asks (from his obviously upper middle class home) for the government to pay for his kid's child care in French?  This is offensive to me.  Why should we pay money so already wealthy people can have their double income to have an extra BMW and go to Bermuda for Christmas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually child care is not a federal responsibility, I wonder if the provinces will commit in writing to only spend the liberal's promised child care money on actually creating new spaces- is there an agreement as to how many spaces will be created annually and how much parents will have to pay and considering its a nationalized program that means a well to do mom can leave her kid at the centre while she goes to the spa.

A bigger question is will the child care workers be unionized (if they are part of the gov't union they will be) and what happens when they strike for higher wages and benefits? What do parents do then?

What will their hours be and will they accomodate shift and part time workers, will they be typically union workers.

How many kids to an adult and will these children have a loving, nuturing environment when they are warehoused in a room?

Personally I don't trust them with the money, but this is just more liberal arrogance telling us we don't know how to raise our own children.

[Wilber]

Much of it is now user pay courtesy of Mr. Martin's cutbacks. Whenever I have a medical which my job requires by law (every 6 months and which is not covered under Medicare), renew a license, get an endorsement to an existing license or write an exam for a new license, I get processing bill from the government. Usually between $50 and $100.

When you look at the amount of stuff that has either been privatized or had user fees tacked on plus the fact the lowest interest rates in 60 years have made servicing the debt easier than it has ever been, it's easy to see where their surpluses come from. My question is, where the hell is all this money going?

I'm sure you are right however, there is too much money involved in such a program and too many votes to be bought in some part of the country by putting the new bureaucracy there.

[Guest eureka]

It does not work that way, Wilber. Closer to home does not mean greater accountability or less cost. Most commonly, it is the reverse.It means a multiplicity of procedures and processes; it means several bodies doing the same work over that one has already done: and it means more questions buried in more places.

Part of the reason our medicare is more expensive than it might be is the proliferation of authorities and the different requirements and coverages. As weel the extra cost of less than bulk purchasing.

[shoop]

Please define a *wing* of the government.

What is with your fascination with the *back door*?

It is a serious possibility that an entire new wing of the govt will need to be created to to deal with childcare licensing, standards and complaints.

Don't worry there are more than enough back door expenses to ensure this is truly another Federal Govt. money pit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[The Honest Politician]

Please define a *wing* of the government.

What is with your fascination with the *back door*? 

It is a serious possibility that an entire new wing of the govt will need to be created to to deal with childcare licensing, standards and complaints.

Don't worry there are more than enough back door expenses to ensure this is truly another Federal Govt. money pit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A wing, could be anything from a whole new ministry or simply the new division/branch/agency within an existing ministry. It realy depends on how bad and how fast the conservative plan starts to crumble. The faster it implodes, the bigger the damage control team will have to be.

Back-door refers to all the costs Harper isn't telling the public about up front.He wants to parade this so-called cost effective plan in front of Canadians to win votes without telling them about all the additional expenses which are going to arise. He makes the offer of money in your pocket when in reality it will end up costing you more than it ever has, through the back-door expenses.

[Wilber]

It does not work that way, Wilber. Closer to home does not mean greater accountability or less cost. Most commonly, it is the reverse.It means a multiplicity of procedures and processes; it means several bodies doing the same work over that one has already done: and it means more questions buried in more places.

Part of the reason our medicare is more expensive than it might be is the proliferation of authorities and the different requirements and coverages. As weel the extra cost of less than bulk purchasing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Closer to home always means greater accountabiltiy and usually means lower cost, if for no other reason than there is more accountability.

[shoop]

Wow listen to all the gloom and doom.

The Liberals have been *planning* to offer a daycare programme for 12 years.

There is no evidence that conservative tax credits, to parents and businesses, will create a slew of unintended costs.

Ohhh, I forgot the Liberals are trying to play the hidden agenda card. So is part of the hidden agenda a highly expensive daycare plan? If this hidden agenda is so well known to party insiders why didn't Belinda or Scott Brison spill the beans when they crossed the floor?

Sad, sad grasping for straws. The Liberals truly were a proud party at one point.

Back-door refers to all the costs Harper isn't telling the public about up front.He wants to parade this so-called cost effective plan in front of Canadians to win votes without telling them about all the additional expenses which are going to arise. He makes the offer of money in your pocket when in reality it will end up costing you more than it ever has, through the back-door expenses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[The Honest Politician]

I have already pointed out where there will be substantial cost after the conservative plan is put in place.

The cost will either come from needed regulation of the slew of new daycares to ensure child safety, or it will come in the cost of children themselves, as the poverty of their parents leaves them in substandard and potentially hazardous daycare situations.

[betsy]

.

refers to all the costs Harper isn't telling the public about up front].He wants to parade this so-called cost effective plan in front of Canadians to win votes without telling them about all the additional expenses which are going to arise. He makes the offer of money in your pocket when in reality it will end up costing you more than it ever has, through the back-door expenses.

I'll gamble on Harper. At least he has no track record of not being upfront with the public.

It's amazing how short the memory is for some regarding the bungled gun registry that went way, way, way beyond what the cost was supposed to be. And it ain't working.

And it's still here! And taxpayers are still stuck with it. This is the Liberal you're talking about....the one who allegedly cares for the common people???

With the Liberal plan, you can be sure it will be another fiasco!

[betsy]

=Melanie_,Jan 4 2006, 08:09 PM]

If they cannot accomodate irregular schedules of working parents right now.....what more in a National childcare when all employees are unionized?

Who said all employees would be unionized? Who said irregular schedules can't be accommodated? I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over in this thread, but licensed family day care homes and licensed centres can operate with extended hours, evenings, weekends, and overnight care. And unionization can happen in private or public child care centres, if it does come to pass.

It's hard to imagine that employees doing the same job will not have equal pay and benefits in a nationalized scenario run by the government. They'll be screaming pay equity! And who can blame them? Unionization is a sure thing.

The Conservative plan will do nothing to create spaces in rural Canada.

Oh yes they will! The choices will range from stay-at-home moms, grandparents, neighbors, institutionalized daycares like we have now that deals with counties and rural areas and private homedaycare providers. Actually, there'll be an abundance of spaces!

It will do nothing to create affordable, accessible spaces for the working poor.

Oh yes, it will. Same as the answer above.

The working poor nowadays mean working irregular hours. They are mostly like the mom I was referring to...single mom trying to enter the work force, working as a casual cashier at a grocery store. And they are the ones who desperately need daycare spaces that will suit their needs.

It does nothing to ensure that children with disabilities will be able to access care.

Conservatives are not abolishing the public daycares we now have. Children who needs special care should be cared for by people with special training anyway.

It does nothing to ensure that a caregiver won't just take in more and more children, and park them in front of the TV all day.

One caregiver who was under an agency was caught with 11 children under her care. Oh yes, the agency was doing their "inspection"....but for some reasons she was able to hide the truth from them. You know how she got caught?

Her neighbor was backing out of her driveway and nearly hit a child. That was it. The neighbor reported on her.

Rotten apples exist everywhere. But that doesn't mean everyone is rotten.

"Well, the parents need to make sure their children are being cared for properly"

,

Very true. And they ought to make damn sure, first-hand...and not just rely on someone's assurances.

It is easy for parents to know if their child is receiving quality care, especially if the careprovider had already been referred to by somebody else.

The child's attitude and inter-action with the careprovider, the hygiene of the child,

care-provider's interaction with the parents etc...,

A simple "What did you do today, sweetpea?" can say a lot too.

There is no point in giving someone $1200 and saying "go find child care" when there is no care to be found.

This is exactly the whole point. Parents having choices...and not being dictated to by the government how to raise their children!

There are lots of spaces right now....but you know why the working poor are having such a hard time finding one? Because they cannot bring their subsidies to careproviders of their choice! They are limited to agencies who have the monopoly on those subsidies...but not many of these agencies can actually deliver the kind of care that is actually needed by those who need it most.

[hiti]

Don't offer only families with children under the age of six years $25 per week and call it day-care. It's not day-care. It's a baby bonus. How stupid do you think Canadians are?

And what are families suppose to do with their seven year olds? Their eight year olds? ETC???

'' BELGIUM: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch.

Under the 1994 constitution, autonomy was granted to the Walloon region (Wallonia), the Flemish region (Flanders), and the bilingual Brussels-Capital region; autonomy was also guaranteed for the Flemish-, French-, and German-speaking “communities.” The central government retains responsibility for foreign policy, defense, taxation, and social security.'' ( SOURCE: © 2000–2005 Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease)http://www.infoplease.com/pages/copyright.html

Canadian voters, do you want a ''Belgium-ized Canada'' -- that is, a country divided up into autonomous provinces/territories?''

That's what you can expect IF you were to ever elect HARPER and the Reform/Alliance Conservatives!! But Harper does NOT tell you this in plain words. He just glibly suggests that Canada might adopt the Belgium model of federal government; that he would give more powers to the provinces/territories, especially Quebec and reduce the role of the federal government, without spelling out the details. His hidden agenda are in the details.

Here are some of the details: Harper supports an elected SENATE highly influenced by the provinces. An elected Senate would trump the primary parliamentary function and responsibilities of the House of Commons -- just as it does the House of R. in the USA.

You would be paying very large salaries to Harper and his caucus for doing little work-- (remember when Harper and his neo-con caucus refused to show-up in the H or C for one of the readings of Godale's finance bill?, or when they refused to show up for work in committees? and when Stockwell Day suggested that the H of C should shut down from Thursdays through Mondays? -- and for their vastly reduced responsibilities --four in total, ''a la Harper's Belgium model,'' expressed some months ago: (1) foreign policy, (2) defence; and Harper and his western group would only (3) collect your taxes to build up and maintain the Armed forces (to help George Bush); and his ''soc-con'' policies would probably make it very difficult for you to get (4) social security benefits (Harper and the ''soc-cons'' are promising you reduced taxes, but they don't tell you ( hidden agenda) that if they let you keep more in your pocket to spend, then you are going to have to look after yourself and families by paying much more than you are allowed to keep, for ALL the services and health benefits that you may/will need.

The federal civil service would be drastically reduced since ALL other federal government services but these four areas, would be handed over to the provinces. Imagine Canadians having NO federal department of Justice, no Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC would be useless since each autonomous province would be administering and pronouncing on its own laws), of health, of immigration, of employment/unemployment insurance, of fisheries, of agriculture, of human resources, of public works, of communications and transportation, of language, culture/Arts and bilingualism, of security, RCMP, and CiSIS; and all the other federal departments now in existence!!

When Harper and his Reform-Alliancers/Neo-cons went out this past Summer trying to re-design and soften his ice-cold, angry, straight-jacket, stoic image, just remember what's behind the fake smile, the nice guy, the smoothe, it's-okay-to-trust-me image. Just recall the Harris ''common-nonsense Revolution, and the anguished legacy that that government left for Ontarians. Recall the Harris-Manning 'think-tank' report on Canada's health system, as opposed to the Romanov report!!

If we elect (Harper to govern), we will deeply regret it!!!

[betsy]

hiti,Jan 5 2006, 06:47 AM]

Don't offer only families with children under the age of six years $25 per week and call it day-care. It's not day-care. It's a baby bonus. How stupid do you think Canadians are?

What's in a name really? Call it baby-bonus, tax-cut, daycare, whatever....itis still practical, sensible and attainable.

And what are families suppose to do with their seven year olds? Their eight year olds? ETC???

Same as you would with a 6 or 4 or 3 year old or toddlers and infants. Go get a daycare of their choice.

I just had a call about a 10 year old...and still have a 12 year-old coming here every now and then, for crying out loud.

Btw, aren't they supposed to be in school most of the time?

As for division of Canada, they were discussing at Count Down last night that if the Liberals will win again, you can almost be sure of saying bye-bye to Quebec....and the western part apparently is thinking along those lines.

When Harper and his Reform-Alliancers/Neo-cons went out this past Summer trying to re-design and soften his ice-cold, angry, straight-jacket, stoic image, just remember what's behind the fake smile, the nice guy, the smoothe, it's-okay-to-trust-me image.

The same could be said for all politicians out door, depending on who's watching:

You can't believe anything Martin says! Liberals have the habit of breaking their promises.

NDP's are confused by some to Communism for their very socialistic approach.

Just recall the Harris ''common-nonsense Revolution, and the anguished legacy that that government left for Ontarians.

Just recall the most recent strings of fiasco that the government smeared on the whole nation. Chretien! Gagliano! AdScam! Human Resources scandal! Did anybody see any jail time?

Auditor General is still doing her job btw....another possible scandal about CIDA may erupt.

Recall the Harris-Manning 'think-tank' report on Canada's health system, as opposed to the Romanov report!!

Romanow report....ddidn't that come out years back? Where's the solution? After billions injected, It only got worse!

If we elect (Harper to govern), we will deeply regret it!!!

At least we're giving a shot at something new.

We've had Liberals for more than a decade and nothing but the same-old, same-old is happening. We are not only regretting it, but we are lamenting and suffering for it.

If the Liberals still win after all these corruptions....it is hopeless! It only means that corruption is accepted as normal way of system. It will be hard to change the kind of mentality that is used to this kind of system. You can kiss goodbye to the good old Canada and embrace a new Banana Republic. And that is the legacy you'll bequeath to the future generation!

[scribblet]

The Conservative plan will do nothing to create spaces in rural Canada.

Oh yes they will! The choices will range from stay-at-home moms, grandparents, neighbors, institutionalized daycares like we have now that deals with counties and rural areas and private homedaycare providers. Actually, there'll be an abundance of spaces!

It will do nothing to create affordable, accessible spaces for the working poor.

Oh yes, it will. Same as the answer above.

The working poor nowadays mean working irregular hours. They are mostly like the mom I was referring to...single mom trying to enter the work force, working as a casual cashier at a grocery store. And they are the ones who desperately need daycare spaces that will suit their needs.

It does nothing to ensure that children with disabilities will be able to access care.

Conservatives are not abolishing the public daycares we now have. Children who needs special care should be cared for by people with special training anyway.

It does nothing to ensure that a caregiver won't just take in more and more children, and park them in front of the TV all day.

One caregiver who was under an agency was caught with 11 children under her care. Oh yes, the agency was doing their "inspection"....but for some reasons she was able to hide the truth from them. You know how she got caught?

Her neighbor was backing out of her driveway and nearly hit a child. That was it. The neighbor reported on her.

Rotten apples exist everywhere. But that doesn't mean everyone is rotten.

"Well, the parents need to make sure their children are being cared for properly"

,

Very true. And they ought to make damn sure, first-hand...and not just rely on someone's assurances.

It is easy for parents to know if their child is receiving quality care, especially if the careprovider had already been referred to by somebody else.

The child's attitude and inter-action with the careprovider, the hygiene of the child,

care-provider's interaction with the parents etc...,

A simple "What did you do today, sweetpea?" can say a lot too.

There is no point in giving someone $1200 and saying "go find child care" when there is no care to be found.

This is exactly the whole point. Parents having choices...and not being dictated to by the government how to raise their children!

There are lots of spaces right now....but you know why the working poor are having such a hard time finding one? Because they cannot bring their subsidies to careproviders of their choice! They are limited to agencies who have the monopoly on those subsidies...but not many of these agencies can actually deliver the kind of care that is actually needed by those who need it most.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed Betsy good post.

[daniel]

=Melanie_,Jan 4 2006, 08:09 PM]

There is no point in giving someone $1200 and saying "go find child care" when there is no care to be found.

This is exactly the whole point. Parents having choices...and not being dictated to by the government how to raise their children!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some choice when one of the options isn't there. You can have any colour of Model-T as long as it's black.

[betsy]

=Melanie_,Jan 4 2006, 08:09 PM]

There is no point in giving someone $1200 and saying "go find child care" when there is no care to be found.

This is exactly the whole point. Parents having choices...and not being dictated to by the government how to raise their children!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some choice when one of the options isn't there. You can have any colour of Model-T as long as it's black.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eh?

[emailforcanada]

Well - clearly Harper's Day care plan is not sitting well with many moms... another reason not to pick him as leader.

Have you ever noticed the way that election ads are run in

the US. Always very viscous and always attacking their opponents with

negative and exaggerated statements. With his first shot across the bow,

Harper shows yet again that he would like to see Canada to be more like the US.

I say let's be proud of what we have, stay with our Canadian values and let's have political

ads that have something constructive to say about why we should vote

for someone. Harper again loses huge amounts of credability using this

immature approach. This is the action of a bitter desperate politician

who is trying to win back a loss. It illusrates that Harper cabn act

very unprofressional and that would be reason #9 why he should never be

PM. This type of approach shows he is willing to say anything just to

try and get elected...the very same type of behaviour that he is

accusing others of, while hypicrotically claiming to be so pure and

ethical.

=Melanie_,Jan 4 2006, 08:09 PM]

There is no point in giving someone $1200 and saying "go find child care" when there is no care to be found.

This is exactly the whole point. Parents having choices...and not being dictated to by the government how to raise their children!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some choice when one of the options isn't there. You can have any colour of Model-T as long as it's black.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eh?

[scribblet]

=Melanie_,Jan 4 2006, 08:09 PM]

There is no point in giving someone $1200 and saying "go find child care" when there is no care to be found.

This is exactly the whole point. Parents having choices...and not being dictated to by the government how to raise their children!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some choice when one of the options isn't there. You can have any colour of Model-T as long as it's black.

Huh ?

Guess you don't know he's also talking about funding additional day care spaces.

[betsy]

Well - clearly Harper's Day care plan is not sitting well with many moms... another reason not to pick him as leader.

Have you ever noticed the way that election ads are run in

the US. Always very viscous and always attacking their opponents with

negative and exaggerated statements. With his first shot across the bow,

Harper shows yet again that he would like to see Canada to be more like the US.

I say let's be proud of what we have, stay with our Canadian values and let's have political

ads that have something constructive to say about why we should vote

for someone. Harper again loses huge amounts of credability using this

immature approach. This is the action of a bitter desperate politician

who is trying to win back a loss. It illusrates that Harper cabn act

very unprofressional and that would be reason #9 why he should never be

PM. This type of approach shows he is willing to say anything just to

try and get elected...the very same type of behaviour that he is

accusing others of, while hypicrotically claiming to be so pure and

ethical.

Well I don't know where you got your polls about your moms. My moms are all excited about Harper's plan!

I do agree, let's have the good old Canadian values back. Get rid of the corruptions...especially those who reek of it. Corruptions is not part of our values!

Wouldn't it be hyprocritical, don't you think if on one hand we talk about staying with Canadian values, then on the other hand we accept the corruptions and the lies and the mob...as part of our own?

Is corruption so intricately ingrained in our younger set that they no longer see anything wrong with it? Worse, they embrace it as one of the great values of Canada?

=Melanie_,Jan 4 2006, 08:09 PM]

There is no point in giving someone $1200 and saying "go find child care" when there is no care to be found.

This is exactly the whole point. Parents having choices...and not being dictated to by the government how to raise their children!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some choice when one of the options isn't there. You can have any colour of Model-T as long as it's black.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eh?