Is it just me or have the Liberals around here fallen silent all of a

[betsy]

Okay, just to make sure I get this right....Melanie, what does Martin exactly means by early childhood learning?

Just to be clear, I'm giving my interpretation of what has been said by the Liberals - I believe this to be what Martin means. Early childhood learning recognizes that children are learning throughout childhood; learning doesn't start when they turn 5 and go to kindergarten. But the learning is not the academic education the school system provides; it is physical, social, and emotional, as well as cognitive. No one is saying that parents and grandparents can't provide this. But the majority of children will not spend all of their time at home with a parent before entering the school system, and more and more grandmothers (such as myself) are still in the workforce, or living too far away. Quality child care means that, when you care for groups of children, you need to understand how to meet the needs of the group while still meeting individual needs, and provide activities and experiences that will be age appropriate and foster learning.

This is not limited to child care centres. Family child care providers are a natural choice for many parents, as it allows children to be in a homelike setting. Another option is part time Nursery school. Early learning happens in all settings, its more about ensuring that there are some standards and accountability for the public money that goes to support child care.

Climbing off of my soapbox......

It's good...and I agree about the need for encouraging the physical, cognitive and social development of a child. Do you know that hose can be achieved now by providing specially-designed toys for such purposes. The variety of planned activities by a creative parent, grandmother, babysitter can stimulate a child.

What I'm trying to say is.....parenting and childcaring is getting help in meeting those needs.

A lot of care-givers in the private sectors had taken workshops. Some had experiences in the teaching field.

While others, though lacking in those kind of formal training....have achieved their own style of "teaching" through the natural understanding of children. Some just have this magical, natural way with children.

I am not reassured by the word "ensure." For I can easily point out that with all the "ensuring" that went on in our government system....the sponsorship scandal still managed to happen....and before that, the Human Resources scandal....and most recently, allegations about Income Trust Leak...and Options Canada....and the bribery scandal by a Liberal candidate.

Another important matter too is that sometime before the last election, childcare advocates were saying that they have a big problem. They were losing qualified care providers in public daycares at a fast rate. They want to lure them to stay by raising their salaries.

It is the bureacracy that's driving the staff out of their field. They are burning out fast. If there is a demand for ECE personnel....check out your local ads and you'll see somebody with ECE advertising as a private home daycare. Why would they rather work as private home daycares than fill up positions in public daycares?

This fast turn-over of staff is definitely not good for the children. They'll always be adjusting to somebody new. There is no stability.

And this does not bode well for the taxpayers either. Here comes the dreaded Union. And we'll be held hostage.

[betsy]

throwing them into a big institutionalized child cookie cutter isn't really a good thing for childhood development.

Yet this is what Harper proposes by opening the door for the big box Walmart sized daycares waiting for the go ahead to come up from the US. When he talks about tax breaks for corporations to set up daycares, who do you think that will mean? Small businesses aren't going to take him up on that - the tax break isn't worth it to them.

What's wrong if the big companies open up their daycares? Obviously they'll have to meet the approved standards.

So what if the small business don't take him up on that? They get a break from other areas...such as capital gains tax.

And it's not a cookie-cutter...because an amployed parent can still choose if she wants to use her company's daycare or get somebody else.

[mar]

Good points Betsy, I don't see how Martin or Laytons plan cover any of these aspects.

Quality

There is no higher quality then a mother/father raising their child at home, however, competition in the private daycare section insures that poor quality centres close their doors quickly, and the good quality ones are where you send your kids. Since when has a federal institution ever provided quality? Why would anyone think it would change now.

Universality

Stay at home parents, grandparents, people already having their kids in private care all don't see anything from this plan. It's insulting to many stay at home moms and dads.

Accesibility

Only would be accessible for urban Canandians. Do you actually believe that efficient care can be provided to all the children in some remote rural communities? Private care and parents do a far better job of this.

Development

Taking kids out of their current situation with loving parents or daycare providers and throwing them into a big institutionalized child cookie cutter isn't really a good thing for childhood development.

What about all those thousands of people that's sole income is from daycare? Do we kick these people out to the curb as well?

What a ridiculous vote buying system. I don't support Harper's plan either by the way, though its the ONLY plan that makes sense right now. Why do we even need a daycare plan? Thats what it comes down to in my mind. When will we get to the point where everything is provided by the government? Let parents make choices with THEIR money, and stop bribing them with Brave New World type educational centres or bribing them with their own cash.

This might have been an acceptable argument in the 1950's when it was possible for middle income earners to live on a single income without immense sacrifice but has little to do with now.

Since the fifties we have seen multi-thousand percent increases in the cost of living that has vastly outstripped income growth. In the late 1950's $10,000 was a nice middle class income from a single job and you could buy a brand new car for $2,000, a house in a middle class suburb for a bit over $20,000. You would have to make over $200,000 now for an average family sedan to account for merely 20% of your annual income.

Without reform of the world economic system - yeah, that's gonna happen - day care is a reality for the forseeable future and claiming that turning family and neighbours into some sort of less than minumum wage day care system is insulting both to canada's children and these draftees in the cause of child care.

As to the "institutions" you people keep talking about, nobody is advocating creating some kind of day care megacentre where children are herded together for institutional care. What the Liberal plan does is provide both funding and standards for facilities and each province can implement that in their own way.

It should be a matter of shame to Canadians that we think so little of our children that we think giving the parent a few hundred bucks a year and forcing them to try and turn their friends and neighbours into semi-slave labour is something to advocate.

Nothing in the Liberal plan limits at home care for those who can afford it or are able to make the sacrifice to stay at home. The unfortunate reality is that few can afford it and sweeiping that under the rug and saying take your $100 a month and shut up is appalling.

And gee! Could it be the great conservative "triumph" of eliminating Family Allowance is being proposed in another form. Party haven't even been elected and already they've flip flopped on what they described as a major victory. But being the honourable people they are, I bet they're gonna give all those people who lost their family allowance a lump sum retroactive payment to make up for it, right? And maybe an apology?

[shoop]

The Conservative plan makes it more affordable for parents to stay home with their children.

Not all parents see it as a *sacrifice* to stay home with their children. Many would actually prefer to do so if they could.

Nothing in the Liberal plan limits at home care for those who can afford it or are able to make the sacrifice to stay at home.

[mar]

The Conservative plan makes it more affordable for parents to stay home with their children.

Not all parents see it as a *sacrifice* to stay home with their children. Many would actually prefer to do so if they could.

Nothing in the Liberal plan limits at home care for those who can afford it or are able to make the sacrifice to stay at home.

That's playing with words. It is an economic sacfrifice unless 1 person's income is sufficient to maintain the family. I am not saying people are saying "to heck with the kids, I want a new SUV" I am saying it is very difficult for ordinary working people to live on a single income (and by live I mean own a home in a reasonable neighbourhood, have at least 1 car and sufficient income for necessities and enough savings for a small cushion against unemployment or other disasters).

Nobody is against children being cared for in the home. In fact, in the 1970's before feminism became a dirty word to some in Canada in the U.S. one of the principal demands you heard was that women or men who chose to remain in the home to raise children should be deemed by society to be doing important work for the benefit of the country and should be paid a salary. So if the Conservatives are so keen on women in the home, why don't they introduce that as a policy? Or do they think they already have (lessee here: I get $100 a month and I put in about an 18 hour day so that's 18 hours times an average 30 days per month and . . .

[geoffrey]

That's playing with words. It is an economic sacfrifice unless 1 person's income is sufficient to maintain the family. I am not saying people are saying "to heck with the kids, I want a new SUV" I am saying it is very difficult for ordinary working people to live on a single income (and by live I mean own a home in a reasonable neighbourhood, have at least 1 car and sufficient income for necessities and enough savings for a small cushion against unemployment or other disasters).

Nobody is against children being cared for in the home. In fact, in the 1970's before feminism became a dirty word to some in Canada in the U.S. one of the principal demands you heard was that women or men who chose to remain in the home to raise children should be deemed by society to be doing important work for the benefit of the country and should be paid a salary. So if the Conservatives are so keen on women in the home, why don't they introduce that as a policy? Or do they think they already have (lessee here: I get $100 a month and I put in about an 18 hour day so that's 18 hours times an average 30 days per month and . . .

Couple of things.

That $100/month is 20 times what the Liberals are giving in their lowest bracket tax cut. Do the math, its more money. (I don't agree with either proposal, just pointing this out to the Liberal people)

And whatever happened to people budgeting and making sure they can afford children before they decide to have them? I simply can't agree that most people need these bonuses, wait a couple years to get more established in your occupation and there ya go, no extra money needed.

Eventually people are going to start asking for an allowance from the government to plant a garden, or have a pet, or money to quit smoking, or have the government buy them a car because they feel entitled to it.

Its not just the Liberal party that has a culture of entitlement. You simply can't have everything just because you want it. Sometimes you have to work too. People should stop assuming the government should give them money for everything they do.

[Canuck E Stan]

Canada is a country of immigrants. Immigrants don't think Warehouse kidcare.

They think one parent stays at home to take care of the kids.

They believe in raising their own kids,just as their parents did in the old country.

Dad may work two jobs,Mom stays home.Mom works cleaning offices at night,Dad stays home .

Has anybody done a analysis on who uses daycare?

Bet the majority of users aren't immigrants or new Canadians.

I would say most of these people would rather raise their kids at home because that's the way they believe it should be.

The hardship these people endure with language problems and just trying to adapt in coming to a new country tells me $100 will be more appreciative in helping raise their kids than Warehouse kidcare.

[geoffrey]

Canada is a country of immigrants. Immigrants don't think Warehouse kidcare.

They think one parent stays at home to take care of the kids.

They believe in raising their own kids,just as their parents did in the old country.

Dad may work two jobs,Mom stays home.Mom works cleaning offices at night,Dad stays home .

Has anybody done a analysis on who uses daycare?

Bet the majority of users aren't immigrants or new Canadians.

I would say most of these people would rather raise their kids at home because that's the way they believe it should be.

The hardship these people endure with language problems and just trying to adapt in coming to a new country tells me $100 will be more appreciative in helping raise their kids than Warehouse kidcare.

I agree. I'd also say that most people to benifet from the Liberal system are those that work the downtown big shoot 9-5 jobs. Those working 2 jobs to pay the rent and put food on the table can't use the daycare system. Or people that work the night shift or whatever.

Those that actually need help (arguably), are the last ones that will get it from this system. It's simply a nice happy policy the Liberals can put out there to gain a few votes in Quebec.

[betsy]

I agree. I'd also say that most people to benifet from the Liberal system are those that work the downtown big shoot 9-5 jobs. Those working 2 jobs to pay the rent and put food on the table can't use the daycare system. Or people that work the night shift or whatever.

Those that actually need help (arguably), are the last ones that will get it from this system. It's simply a nice happy policy the Liberals can put out there to gain a few votes in Quebec.

So true! For the last 3 years, needs of parents had changed dramatically. Most of our parents are working shifts or have irregular schedules.

And I've described somewhere the plight of the single mom who is trying to enter the workforce....working as a cashier (casual) at a grocery store with varying hours....the government-funded agency dropped her saying they cannot accomodate her schedules. She is typical of a lot of single parents (men and women) trying to survive out there....they're the ones who need the help most.

The last time I heard, she quit her job.

Now, that's truly progressive.

[Melanie_]

Part of the problem, as I've said before, is that you are talking about one system, and I am talking about something else completely, yet when we use the words "child care" we assume we are both talking about the same thing. Child care is a provincial responsibility, and each province has different standards and regulations, so what you experience in Alberta is completely different from what I experience in Manitoba. For example, your statement below doesn't necessarily apply in Manitoba; there are licensed family child care homes and child care centres that operate overnight care for shift workers, that have extended hours so farmers can get their crops off the field, etc. Family child care is a necessary part of the system.

I'd also say that most people to benifet from the Liberal system are those that work the downtown big shoot 9-5 jobs. Those working 2 jobs to pay the rent and put food on the table can't use the daycare system. Or people that work the night shift or whatever.

Canuck E Stan, I agree that there should be more support for parents who stay at home. But we are confusing two seperate issues here. Giving parents a tax benefit is a great idea, but it doesn't build a system of child care for those who legitimately need it.

[Hydraboss]

Why are we debating this?

"Child care is a provincial responsibility,"

You're damn right.

I know the need for federal government, but why won't they stay the hell out of areas they don't belong. I voted for my provincial government, and I will trust them (yes, I can kind of trust some government) to do what is needed in my province. Big Brother has enough to do without 'a messin about' with matters that are not theirs to screw up.

[mar]

Why are we debating this?

"Child care is a provincial responsibility,"

You're damn right.

I know the need for federal government, but why won't they stay the hell out of areas they don't belong. I voted for my provincial government, and I will trust them (yes, I can kind of trust some government) to do what is needed in my province. Big Brother has enough to do without 'a messin about' with matters that are not theirs to screw up.

I dunno Hydroboss, Ol' Ralph may just decide they should "shoot, shovel and shut up." That'd solve the child care problem!

"Big Brother has enough to do without 'a messin about' with matters that are not theirs to screw up."

But didn't 10 provinces/territories sign on? Was there a gun to their heads?

My understanding is the Liberal program is about standards and funding.

[Hydraboss]

Have the Lib's ever promised to fund and then shut up? Have we heard the details? No.

Ralph is impotent in Alberta. Of course, he thinks that means he gets seated right away in fancy restaurants.

I have no doubt that if there weren't tag lines to transfer payments for other programs, you wouldn't see half the participation. The fed's want to send money? Then do it. And then let the proper people administer it.

I may be making this up.

[BubberMiley]

The feds have had increasing involvement in consititutionally defined provincial issues since the income tax was established in WWI. That's because they have more power of taxation. And It hasn't hurt the country at all. It makes sense to have Canadian standards for education, health care, etc. Without a reasonably level playing field you would have even more exodus from the poorer regions to the wealthy areas, and Alberta can only take so many Maritimers and Quebecers.

[Melanie_]

Hydraboss - that is the Liberal plan. Send the money to the provinces, have them administer it, based on the bilateral agreeements signed. That's why we are talking about so many different systems. Harper has already said he will only honour the bilateral agreements until June of this year, and then the money won't go to the provinces, but will be reorganized into money directly to parents and tax breaks for corporations.

[mar]

Have the Lib's ever promised to fund and then shut up? Have we heard the details? No.

Ralph is impotent in Alberta. Of course, he thinks that means he gets seated right away in fancy restaurants.

I have no doubt that if there weren't tag lines to transfer payments for other programs, you wouldn't see half the participation. The fed's want to send money? Then do it. And then let the proper people administer it.

I may be making this up.

No Viagra for Ralph?

I actually lived in Alberta under Peter the Great when Ralph was merely the loudmouth mayor of an embarrassed Calgary.

Oh I agree with you about the funding - offer them money for mosquito cloning they'll take it.

All weak kidding aside, Martin's "this is the first new social program of a new generation" does kinda resonate with me (and I have never found much else he says resonant).

Its about 30 years past time, but I really think child care is a much better prioroty for federal funding than most things.

The reality is the single income family is dead (or on life support pending world economic reform) and we have to do something about it. I have no problem with provincial jurisdiction, though I would hope there is some control on them actually spending the money on child care.

I honestly don't understand how some religious groups seems ot have linked child care to an assault on the family. I would think two peopoe trying to scrape by on one salary in the current "multi-career" employment life cycle or trying to pay for high priced unsubsidized child care puts a lot more stress on the family than having affordable child care available.

[Hydraboss]

People move for economic realities. Paying someone to sit on their ass just so they won't move to another province is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I hire about 4-5 guys from the east coast every week (in Alberta), and I respect them for it. I've heard them say more than once that working out here is better than being "on the package" (EI).

I have no doubt that the provinces will be expected to administer the program, but WHO sets the guidelines for the program?

As for corporate tax breaks, I may only work for this company, but I can tell you that high taxes have a direct effect on our hiring practices. More tax = less jobs. I don't claim to speak for the entire corporate world, but I can knowledgably speak for one.

[Melanie_]

I don't claim to speak for the entire corporate world, but I can knowledgably speak for one.

Do you think your corporation would take advantage of the tax breaks Harper is offering for corporations to start daycare centres for their employees?

[Hydraboss]

I have no problem with funded child care either. But realities in different provinces are just that...different. I would never try to tell an east coast fisherman how to work his nets. I have no idea how to. Neither does the federal government. They are there to set policy on federal matters, not instruct on provincial matters.

Mosquito cloning.....it's all starting to make sense somehow....

[Hydraboss]

"Do you think your corporation would take advantage of the tax breaks Harper is offering for corporations to start daycare centres for their employees?"

Amazingly enough, yes, I think they would. Which would suck because I would probably have to get everything going. Screw Harper....I'M THE SCARY ONE!

[Melanie_]

Well, at least you know you can count on this forum for direction.... Hydraboss? Are you still here? Hydraboss???????

[Hydraboss]

I'm here. You're there. Can't we just learn to get together?

[Hydraboss]

Want to see something REALLY scary?

Me. In charge of Early Childhood Learning. In cities. Canadian cities. Idiots with chalkboards. In Canada. Choose your pudding.

Can I teach the NDP kids????????

[Melanie_]

[Hydraboss]

"The reality is the single income family is dead (or on life support pending world economic reform) and we have to do something about it. I have no problem with provincial jurisdiction, though I would hope there is some control on them actually spending the money on child care."

Generally, I agree, but for selfish reasons. I don't want my tax dollars going for....say....a new fountain in a riding. And I also agree that the single family income IS dead. Which is probably a lot worse if you happen to be a single parent.

But WHO SETS THE POLICY? Harper? Martin? Happy Jack? Sponge Bob?