Liberal Daycare Program A Myth

[Hicksey]

Your take?

Contrary to myth, Paul Martin did not create a "national daycare program" before losing last month's election. That's what Liberals promised to build starting in 1993, but never did.

Only when they were in their death throes did they finally sign a series of individual deals with the provinces, providing them with cash the provinces could spend pretty much as they liked, as long it was somehow related to daycare.

Some provinces, for example, planned to use the money to increase daycare workers' salaries, good for the workers, perhaps even laudable. But it won't create more daycare spaces.

Originally, the Liberals promised the provinces $5 billion over five years. When Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives announced their popular $10.8 billion child care package during the election, the Grits responded by tacking on five more years to their $5 billion promise, starting in 2010, to bring the total program to $11 billion over 10 years.

Why? So they could claim their new, $11 billion "daycare" program -- which absurdly assumed they would be in power until 2015 -- was bigger than the Tories' $10.8 billion one.

The Conservative plan pays parents $1,200 a year (subject to taxation) per child under the age of six, plus provides $1.25 billion over five years to create more daycare spaces.

What premiers like Ontario's Dalton McGuinty and Quebec's Jean Charest are really after when they talk about continuing the so-called Liberal "daycare" program is more money. If Harper offers them enough to fix what he has described as the fiscal imbalance, they'll shut up about daycare.

Critics say the Tory plan would only provide parents with a small fraction of the money needed to purchase daycare. True. But the Liberal plan does nothing at all for the majority of Canadian families who don't, in fact, use institutional daycare.

In Quebec's heavily-subsidized, $7-a-day daycare program, which the Liberal plan was intended to mimic, costs are spiralling and most of the scarce daycare spaces go to wealthy and middle class families, not the poor. A recent study by the C.D. Howe Institute found that while the program allowed more women to enter the workforce, children in daycare tended to be more aggressive and their mothers more depressed. It said results were mixed, at best.

[tml12]

Your take?

Contrary to myth, Paul Martin did not create a "national daycare program" before losing last month's election. That's what Liberals promised to build starting in 1993, but never did.

Only when they were in their death throes did they finally sign a series of individual deals with the provinces, providing them with cash the provinces could spend pretty much as they liked, as long it was somehow related to daycare.

Some provinces, for example, planned to use the money to increase daycare workers' salaries, good for the workers, perhaps even laudable. But it won't create more daycare spaces.

Originally, the Liberals promised the provinces $5 billion over five years. When Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives announced their popular $10.8 billion child care package during the election, the Grits responded by tacking on five more years to their $5 billion promise, starting in 2010, to bring the total program to $11 billion over 10 years.

Why? So they could claim their new, $11 billion "daycare" program -- which absurdly assumed they would be in power until 2015 -- was bigger than the Tories' $10.8 billion one.

The Conservative plan pays parents $1,200 a year (subject to taxation) per child under the age of six, plus provides $1.25 billion over five years to create more daycare spaces.

What premiers like Ontario's Dalton McGuinty and Quebec's Jean Charest are really after when they talk about continuing the so-called Liberal "daycare" program is more money. If Harper offers them enough to fix what he has described as the fiscal imbalance, they'll shut up about daycare.

Critics say the Tory plan would only provide parents with a small fraction of the money needed to purchase daycare. True. But the Liberal plan does nothing at all for the majority of Canadian families who don't, in fact, use institutional daycare.

In Quebec's heavily-subsidized, $7-a-day daycare program, which the Liberal plan was intended to mimic, costs are spiralling and most of the scarce daycare spaces go to wealthy and middle class families, not the poor. A recent study by the C.D. Howe Institute found that while the program allowed more women to enter the workforce, children in daycare tended to be more aggressive and their mothers more depressed. It said results were mixed, at best.

Quebec daycare has many problems...like this one: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...b6-768ced9a44de

The CPC plan is probably the best for Canada.

[August1991]

It is against the rules of this forum to copy and paste entire copyrighted material. You should provide a short quote and a link to the original source.

----

The editorial has two key points: First, the Liberals have been promising a national day care policy for over 10 years and it is still a promise. (True, Martin managed to negotiate individual financing deals with the provinces during the last parliament. Day care is a provincial jurisdiction.)

Second, Quebec's day care system is far from ideal or a model. Every cent previously allocated to children's welfare was directed to the day care network. There are no more child tax credits in Quebec. As it is, there are long wait lists for day cares and generally, the well-connected get a spot. Others make do with nothing. It is a subsidy to smart mothers in urban areas.

Incidentally, it has been suggested that Quebec will raise the daily cost to parents from $7 to $12 and capture the $1200 Harper has promised for each kid.

----

Education and day care are provincial jurisdictions and so it is meaningless to speak of a "national" day care policy. Each province should decide how to deal with this issue. Canada is a federal state precisely because different solutions work best in different parts of the country. The federal government should get as far away as possible from deciding child care policies.

With that said, every six year old in Canada goes to school. Ignoring immigrants who arrive here after the age of six, we all receive in a sense this government largesse of "free" primary school. That seems fair. I might quibble with how primary schools are organized (why does the State have to do this?) but local council schools seems a good proxy for publicly-funded private schools.

OTOH, not all three year olds go to day care. If the government finances day care, then there is an implicit transfer from parents who stay at home to parents who don't. To a degree, I can understand why the government would take money from rich people and give it to poor people but I don't understand why it would take money from stay-at-home parents and give it to out-and-about parents. That's as arbitrary as taxing people with brown hair and giving the money to people with black hair.

[betsy]

Experts say 'attachment parenting' is vital. But so far the Liberals' childcare plan has nothing to offer the full time mom or dad.

By Andrew MacLeod

Published: November 23, 2004

In Quebec -- a model for the federal plan as it is the only province with a universal childcare program -- the government offers some 181,000 publicly funded childcare spaces for which users pay $7 a day. It costs about $1.4 billion a year to do that. A number of critics point out that the actual cost of such a program nationally is likely to be much, much higher. They also say when the government supports one form of care, it leaves many parents who make other choices out of luck when it comes to being reimbursed for their childcare expenses

"I feel the whole western world has gone in the wrong direction on [childcare]," says Jan Hunt, a child psychologist who is the director of the Oregon-based Natural Child Project. Funding for daycare may meet parents' needs for income, she says, but it won't meet children's needs. "To meet the child's needs, children should be with their parents, at least for the first three years."

An advocate for attachment parenting, she says, "The most damaging part of daycare is they have so many caretakers . . . This constant bonding and losing is very damaging."

"It's just astonishing how many different caretakers a child will have over just a few years," says Hunt. Over time, she says, children become less open to relationships, less able to form bonds and less trusting. "If governments could just pay mothers to stay home that would work out much better . . . There should be a non-welfare kind of salary to have women at home, and give them training. It's the most important job in the world and it doesn't require any kind of licence."

http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/11/23/ChildcareHome/

[Melanie_]

Only three provinces ended up signing 5 year deals - Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba. The rest signed one year deals, so they probably will just not be renewed - the 5 year deals should be honoured. The money was to supplement the provinces' budgets, as the child care system is different in each province, and can best be managed at the provincial level. I assume that Quebec poured their share into their $7.00/day program (not the best model, in my opinion, although I realize many others do think it is); I don't know what Ontario did with theirs, they may have sent it on to municipalities, who I believe administer child care.

In Manitoba, $11.5 million went to increase operating grants to centres and family child care providers to increase wages, hopefully keeping people in the jobs; 2.9 million went to recruitment, training, and student aid to attract people to the field; $5.75 million went to open 3100 new child care spaces; and $2.75 million has been set aside to help renovate or build new facilities. Parents still pay $18.80/day for care - it is not free, which is another point many of you choose to ignore.

One of the biggest problems traditionally has been that child care is a low paying job. Parents can't afford to spend their whole paycheque giving someone else a paycheque, so the people who work with the kids are the ones who subsidize the system. This leads to inconsistency of care for children, because caregivers take higher paying jobs doing something else as soon as they can.

The $1200 (taxable) is a great idea, and I hope it goes through. Lets call it something like... oh, I don't know... Family Allowance? But lets not call it a child care cheque, because it isn't about child care.

Giving a company a $10,000 tax credit to build a centre will hardly scratch the surface; I don't see it as much of an incentive. Construction alone, with the kind of safety standards required, will be 10 times this tax credit, never mind the ongoing maintenence and overhead. How many small businesses with 30 employees are going to take that on?

The Conservatives plan doesn't address the real needs of families - instead it tells mothers they really shouldn't be in the workforce anyway, so stay home pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen. Next time any of you are in a bank, school, office building, factory, etc, look around and ask yourself where this business would be if all the women of childbearing age were not there. And don't come back and tell me that you support fathers staying home, too - the climate this program creates is definitely aimed at mothers, and I doubt very much that fathers are prepared to stay home until their children are old enough to be left alone (in most provinces, I believe legally that is age 12).

[August1991]

The Conservatives plan doesn't address the real needs of families - instead it tells mothers they really shouldn't be in the workforce anyway, so stay home pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen. Next time any of you are in a bank, school, office building, factory, etc, look around and ask yourself where this business would be if all the women of childbearing age were not there.

One of the most unfortunate economic fallacies is to believe that someone doing housework is not in the workforce.

The effort and services provided around the house are just as important to the economy as the services produced while working in a bank. Unfortunately, we don't have a monetary measure of household services. Worse, we have a bias in the system which encourages people to leave household work and choose paid employment (which may well be of less economic value to society).

Melanie, it would be prohibitively expensive (Canadian taxpayers are not prepared to fork over the money) to have a day care spot for every child in Canada. By creating a partial system, we are in effect taxing the stay-at-home parents and subsidizing the out-and-about parents. Do you think that's fair?

If subsidy there must be, should it not go to poor parents?

[betsy]

The Conservatives plan doesn't address the real needs of families - instead it tells mothers they really shouldn't be in the workforce anyway, so stay home pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen. Next time any of you are in a bank, school, office building, factory, etc, look around and ask yourself where this business would be if all the women of childbearing age were not there. And don't come back and tell me that you support fathers staying home, too - the climate this program creates is definitely aimed at mothers, and I doubt very much that fathers are prepared to stay home until their children are old enough to be left alone (in most provinces, I believe legally that is age 12).

Please, let's not try to turn this into a feminist battle cry. What the Conservatives plan is telling is that, you women who would like to stay at home with your children can freely do so. You have a choice. The $6 a day may not be that much...but it is a symbolical gesture that we acknowledge your effort in homemaking and considere it as important to this nation.

Why do we look down on women who choose to stay at home to look after their own children?

You want me to ask myself where businesses would be if all the women of childbearing age were not there. IMO the answer is simple: Those businesses would still be there!

------------------------

"Pushing for choice

Other parents and experts stress the positives of care outside the home. The environment can be more educationally and socially stimulating, some argue, and professionally trained caregivers may be up on the latest research.

But providing money to people in the form of a guaranteed income would allow them to make choices like staying home with their kids.

"It's really sad that the only people who're talking about families are right wing," says L'Hirondelle. "I'm not sure why there's such a focus on 'women's liberation means a job'."

We need to give people the option of caring for their own kids, if that's what they want to do, says L'Hirondelle. If we are going to encourage "attachment parenting," we need to make it economically possible for women to do that, she adds. "I think that's one of the reasons a lot of mothers might be alienated from feminism in a way, because we haven't talked about this enough."

http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/11/23/ChildcareHome/

[shoop]

Good post August.

That is the problem, your out-and-about parents are the Starbucks crowd. The people who are going to be helped most by the Conservatives plan are the Tim Horton's crowd.

The Conservatives are under no obligation to honour the Liberals desperate, last-minute deal and shouldn't do it.

Melanie, it would be prohibitively expensive (Canadian taxpayers are not prepared to fork over the money) to have a day care spot for every child in Canada. By creating a partial system, we are in effect taxing the stay-at-home parents and subsidizing the out-and-about parents. Do you think that's fair?

If subsidy there must be, should it not go to poor parents?

[Bryan]

The Conservatives are under no obligation to honour the Liberals desperate, last-minute deal and shouldn't do it.

Absolutely. In fact, a large part of why I voted Conservative is because I EXPECT them to drop the Liberal's daycare plan. I much prefer to be given the choice of how I raise my children, and to be given a little help financially is good too. IMO, all funding to daycare institutions should be stopped. Not one dime. If the government is going to put any money at all into childcare, give it directly to the parents and let THEM decide how the kid is going to be raised.

[Hicksey]

The Conservatives plan doesn't address the real needs of families - instead it tells mothers they really shouldn't be in the workforce anyway, so stay home pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen. Next time any of you are in a bank, school, office building, factory, etc, look around and ask yourself where this business would be if all the women of childbearing age were not there. And don't come back and tell me that you support fathers staying home, too - the climate this program creates is definitely aimed at mothers, and I doubt very much that fathers are prepared to stay home until their children are old enough to be left alone (in most provinces, I believe legally that is age 12).

Please, let's not try to turn this into a feminist battle cry. What the Conservatives plan is telling is that, you women who would like to stay at home with your children can freely do so. You have a choice. The $6 a day may not be that much...but it is a symbolical gesture that we acknowledge your effort in homemaking and considere it as important to this nation.

Why do we look down on women who choose to stay at home to look after their own children?

You want me to ask myself where businesses would be if all the women of childbearing age were not there. IMO the answer is simple: Those businesses would still be there!

------------------------

"Pushing for choice

Other parents and experts stress the positives of care outside the home. The environment can be more educationally and socially stimulating, some argue, and professionally trained caregivers may be up on the latest research.

But providing money to people in the form of a guaranteed income would allow them to make choices like staying home with their kids.

"It's really sad that the only people who're talking about families are right wing," says L'Hirondelle. "I'm not sure why there's such a focus on 'women's liberation means a job'."

We need to give people the option of caring for their own kids, if that's what they want to do, says L'Hirondelle. If we are going to encourage "attachment parenting," we need to make it economically possible for women to do that, she adds. "I think that's one of the reasons a lot of mothers might be alienated from feminism in a way, because we haven't talked about this enough."

http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/11/23/ChildcareHome/

I thought that's what feminism was all about--giving women choices. Before, women didn't have the choice to work most of the time, it was just expected she should stay home and take care of the kids. What I thought feminism did was give them the chance to work outside the home, and if they so chose to work in the home it would be their own choice to do so.

[Hicksey]

It is against the rules of this forum to copy and paste entire copyrighted material. You should provide a short quote and a link to the original source.

Duly noted. Sorry about that.

[Melanie_]

The Conservatives plan doesn't address the real needs of families - instead it tells mothers they really shouldn't be in the workforce anyway, so stay home pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen. Next time any of you are in a bank, school, office building, factory, etc, look around and ask yourself where this business would be if all the women of childbearing age were not there.

One of the most unfortunate economic fallacies is to believe that someone doing housework is not in the workforce.

The effort and services provided around the house are just as important to the economy as the services produced while working in a bank. Unfortunately, we don't have a monetary measure of household services. Worse, we have a bias in the system which encourages people to leave household work and choose paid employment (which may well be of less economic value to society).

Melanie, it would be prohibitively expensive (Canadian taxpayers are not prepared to fork over the money) to have a day care spot for every child in Canada. By creating a partial system, we are in effect taxing the stay-at-home parents and subsidizing the out-and-about parents. Do you think that's fair?

If subsidy there must be, should it not go to poor parents?

OK, I'll admit I was over the top yesterday with the "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen" comment. August, I do value the work that goes in to maintaining a household - it takes up just as much time as my day job, and I take pride in doing it (of course, I wouldn't mind if my husband and kids also took some pride in doing it, but I digress). But I also need my income, seeing as how no one is offering to pay me to stay home; and I think I can contribute to society by combining both.

In answer to your question, yes, subsidy should go to poor parents. The $1200 doesn't do that - in fact, the people who benefit from it the most are the single income two parent families earning in excess of $100,000 per year. I've posted the link to the Caledon Institute of Social Policy twice already in other threads about this.

I really don't think we need a spot for every child in Canada. What we need is a system that is flexible enough to meet the needs of those families who do need care; what I really hate here is how we've created a dichotomy of parenting, equating "good" parents with those who stay home and "bad" parents with those who work to support their families.

When we talk about government involvement, what is it that we mean? For me, the most important consideration is that the people who care for the kids are warm and nurturing, which can't be regulated, but also that there are standards that are met - Criminal Records checks, Child Abuse Registry checks, fire and safety precautions taken, and an understanding of what is best for children. The Conservative plan has no accountability for how the money is spent, and I keep hearing people like Bryan here saying the government shouldn't put one penny into child care. No regulation at all is not good for the kids, and no subsidies at all is just going to strain the welfare system.

Just to be clear, I have no children in child care, as they are past the age of needing it. I have a grandchild who may need it in the future, and I hope it will be available for her if the need arises.

[Hicksey]

I really don't think we need a spot for every child in Canada. What we need is a system that is flexible enough to meet the needs of those families who do need care; what I really hate here is how we've created a dichotomy of parenting, equating "good" parents with those who stay home and "bad" parents with those who work to support their families.

I didn't think that was what was said. What we said was that families with two incomes are the ones that would obstensibly be able to afford daycare and as such poor single imcome families would be the best place to allocate funds if that's how we're going to do it. What people like me have been trying to get people to recognize is that staying home with your children is a form of daycare as well, and with the economy geared to the dual income family--a costly one. As such they should gain some recognition and help instead of just being forgotten and left to struggle on their own. Creating daycare spaces like the Liberals and the NDP suggest, helps almost singularly dual income families--the highest income earners. If we're going to help people we should be helping the poorer end first or everyone equally.

[Melanie_]

I didn't think that was what was said. What we said was that families with two incomes are the ones that would obstensibly be able to afford daycare and as such poor single imcome families would be the best place to allocate funds if that's how we're going to do it. What people like me have been trying to get people to recognize is that staying home with your children is a form of daycare as well, and with the economy geared to the dual income family--a costly one. As such they should gain some recognition and help instead of just being forgotten and left to struggle on their own. Creating daycare spaces like the Liberals and the NDP suggest, helps almost singularly dual income families--the highest income earners. If we're going to help people we should be helping the poorer end first or everyone equally.

Dual income families still pay the cost of daycare, so thier income goes down considerably. And thats OK, they should pay the cost. What I want to see is that the care that is available is of good quality, and that comes from a regulated system.

The $1200 doesn't really help the poorer people anyway, as they will lose it in their taxes, in their reduced GST cheques, and in their reduced Child Tax Benefit cheques. It will probably even cause the subsidized parent's child care fees to increase, as their subsidy is based on their taxable income, which will rise, so there will be little net benefit to the poor.

[Hicksey]

I didn't think that was what was said. What we said was that families with two incomes are the ones that would obstensibly be able to afford daycare and as such poor single imcome families would be the best place to allocate funds if that's how we're going to do it. What people like me have been trying to get people to recognize is that staying home with your children is a form of daycare as well, and with the economy geared to the dual income family--a costly one. As such they should gain some recognition and help instead of just being forgotten and left to struggle on their own. Creating daycare spaces like the Liberals and the NDP suggest, helps almost singularly dual income families--the highest income earners. If we're going to help people we should be helping the poorer end first or everyone equally.

Dual income families still pay the cost of daycare, so thier income goes down considerably. And thats OK, they should pay the cost. What I want to see is that the care that is available is of good quality, and that comes from a regulated system.

The $1200 doesn't really help the poorer people anyway, as they will lose it in their taxes, in their reduced GST cheques, and in their reduced Child Tax Benefit cheques. It will probably even cause the subsidized parent's child care fees to increase, as their subsidy is based on their taxable income, which will rise, so there will be little net benefit to the poor.

So what you're saying is that since none of the current proposals will help the poor, they should be left behind?

Personally I think that is something that should be regulated, but not funded by government. But if we are to have some kind of program it should be about more than just making more spots available. The biggest hurdle that separates those I talk about and those families you speak of is the inability of the single income/parent homes to get ahead because they cannot afford to bear the costs of childcare unless the second job is both a good paying and one of the two a 9-5 job. Here, I couldn't find affordable day care so my wife could be available during all store hours (requirement for the job) and what we could find during the daytime hours was so expensive that it would cost us all the net income from her $11/hr job to send our kids to daycare. At that rate why bother? It ended up making more sense financially to take her buyout when her Zehrs store closed and switched to a Real Canadian superstore.

[Melanie_]

So what you're saying is that since none of the current proposals will help the poor, they should be left behind?

Personally I think that is something that should be regulated, but not funded by government. But if we are to have some kind of program it should be about more than just making more spots available. The biggest hurdle that separates those I talk about and those families you speak of is the inability of the single income/parent homes to get ahead because they cannot afford to bear the costs of childcare unless the second job is both a good paying and one of the two a 9-5 job. Here, I couldn't find affordable day care so my wife could be available during all store hours (requirement for the job) and what we could find during the daytime hours was so expensive that it would cost us all the net income from her $11/hr job to send our kids to daycare. At that rate why bother? It ended up making more sense financially to take her buyout when her Zehrs store closed and switched to a Real Canadian superstore.

No, I'm saying the current Conservative proposal is leaving the poor behind, not that it I advocate it. And if child care is to be regulated, who but the government should do it? I'm open to another system, perhaps building on an independent accreditation system (Manitoba is exploring the possibility right now), but that is years away, and the Conservatives cancelling the bilateral agreement might pull the plug on the project anyway.

I understand your dilemma, and it is why I stayed home for a number of years when my two younger children were small. Despite making at the time $30,000/year, paying for child care was too expensive for me to work full time. I was able to teach evening courses, and do consulting work around my children's and husband's schedules, but that meant managing a timetable that I look back on and cringe. Reading your story, I wonder if the Conservative plan to encourage companies to open centres would really benefit anyone - do you think Superstore is going to buy in to it?

I agree the costs are prohibitive - so what is the solution? Increases to subsidy levels? Many here will scream that its just going to fund those selfish trips to the Carribean. All women staying home? August makes a good point that we don't value the work done in the home enough, but I also think I spent all those years in University so that I could have the opportunity to make use of my education, and I do believe the work I do now is also valuable. Don't have kids unless you can afford them? My crystal ball is cloudy right now, I don't know what I will be able to afford as my kids grow up. Life happens, and I think people do their best with what they've got (cue the violins). Investing in young, growing families will return more money through taxes than people think, and investing in a quality system will make sure we aren't just warehousing 3 year olds in front of someone's TV.

[betsy]

I agree the costs are prohibitive - so what is the solution? Increases to subsidy levels? Many here will scream that its just going to fund those selfish trips to the Carribean. All women staying home? August makes a good point that we don't value the work done in the home enough, but I also think I spent all those years in University so that I could have the opportunity to make use of my education, and I do believe the work I do now is also valuable. Don't have kids unless you can afford them? My crystal ball is cloudy right now, I don't know what I will be able to afford as my kids grow up. Life happens, and I think people do their best with what they've got (cue the violins). Investing in young, growing families will return more money through taxes than people think, and investing in a quality system will make sure we aren't just warehousing 3 year olds in front of someone's TV.

It's not like mothers are being told not to have careers. One sensible option is to postpone having a career for let's say at least 3 years so mothers can spend those early years with their children.....or postone having a child until one can readily afford to.

What is a "quality system", btw? One's idea of "quality" may not be the same as another's definition of it.

A lot of people are thinking that a National daycare offers quality care....but they do ignore one glaring flaw that has a negative effects on children: the frequent bonding and sense of loss children feel due to the frequent coming and going of various caregivers in an institution.

If it is supposed to be a quality system, why then does the most recent study of Quebec National Childcare show that "children are worse off" in this quality system?

[betsy]

Mrs. Chambers from Youth Services said during an interview with M Duffy that this National Childcare will prepare children for grade 1.

What happened to Kindergarten?

[tml12]

Betsy,

"If it is supposed to be a quality system, why then does the most recent study of Quebec National Childcare show that "children are worse off" in this quality system?"

I don't have kids but I think Quebec daycare sucks. We read all about 13 month old kids being left outside and unions complaining about this and that (if I were a CEO, I would be out of North America so fast...) that I think the Conservative plan is so much better.

[Melanie_]

It's not like mothers are being told not to have careers. One sensible option is to postpone having a career for let's say at least 3 years so mothers can spend those early years with their children.....or postone having a child until one can readily afford to.

What is a "quality system", btw? One's idea of "quality" may not be the same as another's definition of it.

A lot of people are thinking that a National daycare offers quality care....but they do ignore one glaring flaw that has a negative effects on children: the frequent bonding and sense of loss children feel due to the frequent coming and going of various caregivers in an institution.

If it is supposed to be a quality system, why then does the most recent study of Quebec National Childcare show that "children are worse off" in this quality system?

And what will they do with the child after they turn three? There will still be a need for child care with this proposal. If you read my post, you will see that I did put my career on semi-hold while my younger children were small, but not everyone can afford to do this.

Quality has been defined in many ways, and you are right that caregiver turnover is an indicator of poor quality of care. But that isn't restricted to child care centres; unlicensed caregivers also often decide to look for other employment. The solution is to have good wages so people can actually earn a decent living, and to ensure that the ratios are such that caregivers aren't overloaded with too many children, leading not only to staff burnout but also to less individualized care.

I am not a defender of Quebec's system, so I can't answer your last question. I suspect the problem is in trying to expand the system far too quickly, without the necessary infrastructure and training to support it.

[betsy]

And what will they do with the child after they turn three? There will still be a need for child care with this proposal. If you read my post, you will see that I did put my career on semi-hold while my younger children were small, but not everyone can afford to do this.

Quality has been defined in many ways, and you are right that caregiver turnover is an indicator of poor quality of care. But that isn't restricted to child care centres; unlicensed caregivers also often decide to look for other employment. The solution is to have good wages so people can actually earn a decent living, and to ensure that the ratios are such that caregivers aren't overloaded with too many children, leading not only to staff burnout but also to less individualized care.

I was thinking of parenting/attachment when I mentioned age three. You're right, they'll still need daycare after that.

If I am a working mother who earns minimum wage....if I consider all my expenses (car/gas, clothing, travel time, daycare, etc.), not to mention the hectic schedule and stress this will bring, affecting the quality of life at home for everyone.....it may be wiser to just stay at home with my children than work. A lot of mothers are in that kind of position. These are usually the ones who need subsidy.

Btw, with Harper's plan what will happen with the daycare spaces in public daycares existing now? I assume that they'll still be around?

[betsy]

Betsy,

"If it is supposed to be a quality system, why then does the most recent study of Quebec National Childcare show that "children are worse off" in this quality system?"

I don't have kids but I think Quebec daycare sucks. We read all about 13 month old kids being left outside and unions complaining about this and that (if I were a CEO, I would be out of North America so fast...) that I think the Conservative plan is so much better.

Yes, and also I read from another old article that they have increased the ratio of children per adult. This is also one of my concern....that eventually, the standard will be lowered...and they will end up like our bloated classrooms with so many students per teacher.

If the National Childcare is already in place, would it matter how much we complain about the lowered standard? We'll end up stuck with it.

I'm all for quality care. And I'm all for quality care that includes the introductions of good values to young children....didn't we learn these from home?

[Melanie_]

Betsy,

"If it is supposed to be a quality system, why then does the most recent study of Quebec National Childcare show that "children are worse off" in this quality system?"

I don't have kids but I think Quebec daycare sucks. We read all about 13 month old kids being left outside and unions complaining about this and that (if I were a CEO, I would be out of North America so fast...) that I think the Conservative plan is so much better.

Yes, and also I read from another old article that they have increased the ratio of children per adult. This is also one of my concern....that eventually, the standard will be lowered...and they will end up like our bloated classrooms with so many students per teacher.

If the National Childcare is already in place, would it matter how much we complain about the lowered standard? We'll end up stuck with it.

I'm all for quality care. And I'm all for quality care that includes the introductions of good values to young children....didn't we learn these from home?

tml, if any child is left outside, it is a crime, and whoever is responsible needs to be stripped of their license (assuming they are licensed) and charged with negligence. But that isn't indicitive of child care in general, just someone being incompetent. That is why ensuring quality is so important - incompetence in some jobs will just result in a minor blunder, but in child care it can have devastating results. I wonder, though, how you think the Conservative plan will guard against this kind of practice? Reducing the money going to wages, reducing the money going into training programs, reducing the money going into licensing and regulating bodies, is likely to have an even more detrimental effect. And regardless of $1200, families will still need child care.

Betsy, when you are worried about standards being lowered, think about what Harper has said about standards. Nothing. He is just giving money to parents and saying find whatever is out there.

You asked earlier about the public child care that is already available. Each province also has a budget for child care, and I expect that they will maintain that, despite the loss of the money from the bilateral agreements. What I find ironic here is Harper's rhetoric about more power to the provinces, and then he goes around them in making a federal program for child care, rather than just transferring the money as the Liberals were doing.

[geoffrey]

Betsy,

"If it is supposed to be a quality system, why then does the most recent study of Quebec National Childcare show that "children are worse off" in this quality system?"

I don't have kids but I think Quebec daycare sucks. We read all about 13 month old kids being left outside and unions complaining about this and that (if I were a CEO, I would be out of North America so fast...) that I think the Conservative plan is so much better.

Yes, and also I read from another old article that they have increased the ratio of children per adult. This is also one of my concern....that eventually, the standard will be lowered...and they will end up like our bloated classrooms with so many students per teacher.

If the National Childcare is already in place, would it matter how much we complain about the lowered standard? We'll end up stuck with it.

I'm all for quality care. And I'm all for quality care that includes the introductions of good values to young children....didn't we learn these from home?

tml, if any child is left outside, it is a crime, and whoever is responsible needs to be stripped of their license (assuming they are licensed) and charged with negligence. But that isn't indicitive of child care in general, just someone being incompetent. That is why ensuring quality is so important - incompetence in some jobs will just result in a minor blunder, but in child care it can have devastating results. I wonder, though, how you think the Conservative plan will guard against this kind of practice? Reducing the money going to wages, reducing the money going into training programs, reducing the money going into licensing and regulating bodies, is likely to have an even more detrimental effect. And regardless of $1200, families will still need child care.

Betsy, when you are worried about standards being lowered, think about what Harper has said about standards. Nothing. He is just giving money to parents and saying find whatever is out there.

You asked earlier about the public child care that is already available. Each province also has a budget for child care, and I expect that they will maintain that, despite the loss of the money from the bilateral agreements. What I find ironic here is Harper's rhetoric about more power to the provinces, and then he goes around them in making a federal program for child care, rather than just transferring the money as the Liberals were doing.

When has the government ever provided a quality social service?

[Melanie_]

When has the government ever provided a quality social service?

Hope springs eternal.