Harper Makes Child Care a Confidence Vote

[Drea]

What I think needs to be done is encouraging more people to open daycares/eveningcares.

Any ideas on how that could be done?

LOL

I wish I knew.

Just like anything else I suppose. When we need more military recruits we do a marketing campaign -- so maybe a marketing campaign on becoming a care provider?

IMO a short term marketing program would be cheaper in the long run than handing everyone $1200. The Great Baby Payment Plan will go on forever and cost us taxpayers more and more each year. A marketing campaign would be perhaps a year long and be a "one off" expense.

We have a single mom where I work and she is finding it very stressful to work fulltime and look after her kidlets. She is really unhappy at work and wishes she could just stay home. I am encouraging her to take on a couple of children so she can be at home and have less stress.

[shoop]

The Government made a promise. There was a demand for some sort of action on daycare.

To address another post of yours, the Government's plan also includes the use of tax incentives to create private daycare spaces.

Gee I must be more rightwing than I thought -- rightwingers here are advocating paying people (all people) all they have to do is have sex and produce a baby. The family that earns $100 grand a year whining "Oh, Mr. Harper, I need to get away from the children for an hour or two a day, can you pay me for this? My life is just sooo busy and such I can't seem to find any time away from my children, please help me offset the cost of staying at home."

I attacked the issue, not the poster.

This is a political forum and issues and opinions will be attacked. Far different than attacking a person IMO.

The plan (not a person, not a poster on this board) is idiot pie in the sky. It, (the plan) is a lame excuse for a daycare plan. I stand by my comment.

Seeing as how you were so quick to cry foul, let's take another look at the forum rules.

Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious.

If you really want to appeal to the rules, best to stick by them yourself.

[scribblet]

The Government made a promise. There was a demand for some sort of action on daycare.

To address another post of yours, the Government's plan also includes the use of tax incentives to create private daycare spaces.

I'm getting tired of the bleating by socialists nanny staters, and day care lobbiest who think that given a choice, nearly all parents would put their children into institutionalized daycare centres. I do not believe that to be true.

A study released by the Vanier Institute last year found that 90% of Canadians believe that in two-parent families, one parent should, ideally, stay at home and raise the children. Institutionalized daycare centres rated only 5th in preference, behind parents, grandparents, other relatives and home daycare.

What parents really what is real choice and not where the State dictates what is best for their families and at least the Tory's plan takes into account parents who choose to stay at home to raise their kids.

Neither plan is perfect, but the actual cost of a true nationalized daycare program has been estimated at $10 billion a year, not $5 billion over five years as the Grits say, sorta like the gun registry.

Harper is hoping to get the cheques in the mail by July 1st, a promise kept if he can get it through. The daycare lobbiest and this culture of entitlement that usually accompanies these type of people, is quite apparant.

[Renegade]

No the same principals do not apply.

I have a child, my choice.

I am born (and therefor need medical care), not my choice (my parents' choice).

By that same justification, I am born (and therefor need shelter), so the government should provide universal shelter (and to the same standard). By that same justification, I am born, (and therefore need food), so the government should provide universal food (and to the same standard).

Is that your position?

How often do I see my chiropractor? More than once a month and it comes right out of my pocket. How often do I see a medical doctor? Once a year, because they make me go. I pay for it by the way -- comes off my paycheque as I have blue cross.

We can deny childcare benefits, but we cannot deny healthcare. Healthcare I might add, that is offset by those such as myself who have private insurance through employment.

We can't deny healthcare? Why not? I don't understand the rationale that we can deny childcare but not healthcare.

Should we deny coverage to those who don't work for companies that have private insurance?

Of course not.

I don't really want to spin this thread into a discussion on healthcare, but you assume that the only alternative to the universal government-paying model we have now is one in which people get private insurance through their workplace (ie the US model). There are many other models.

Should we deny work for the low income family because they need a subsidy? (Oh you can't go earn $8.50 an hour because there is no one to look after your children, so you can just stay home on welfare -- good luck later in life when you have no job experience -- you stayed home! and can't get welfare as your children are grown and moved out!)

Of course not.

So then can I assume by your statement above that you only advocate subsidized childcare to those on welfare and as a means to get off welfare?

Should we pay parents for having children?

Of course not.

I agree, but we already pay people for having children. Its called the Child Tax Benefit and the Childcare deduction. Would you be ok removing those as well?

[justcrowing]

The Government made a promise. There was a demand for some sort of action on daycare.

To address another post of yours, the Government's plan also includes the use of tax incentives to create private daycare spaces.

I'm getting tired of the bleating by socialists nanny staters, and day care lobbiest who think that given a choice, nearly all parents would put their children into institutionalized daycare centres. I do not believe that to be true.

A study released by the Vanier Institute last year found that 90% of Canadians believe that in two-parent families, one parent should, ideally, stay at home and raise the children. Institutionalized daycare centres rated only 5th in preference, behind parents, grandparents, other relatives and home daycare.

What parents really what is real choice and not where the State dictates what is best for their families and at least the Tory's plan takes into account parents who choose to stay at home to raise their kids.

Neither plan is perfect, but the actual cost of a true nationalized daycare program has been estimated at $10 billion a year, not $5 billion over five years as the Grits say, sorta like the gun registry.

Harper is hoping to get the cheques in the mail by July 1st, a promise kept if he can get it through. The daycare lobbiest and this culture of entitlement that usually accompanies these type of people, is quite apparant.

Thumbs up for a good post. Agreed!

[betsy]

What I think needs to be done is encouraging more people to open daycares/eveningcares.

As I've said before, out tenant looks after children so there are 3 extra spaces now in our little city.

Then, Harper's plan is the answer! It will encourage daycares such as that provided by your tenant. Competition is the name of the game...and Harper is encouraging that! And with competition....think of the evening cares that will surely sprout just so to be ahead of the game. Private enterprises will surely offer these!

[Teddy Ballgame]

- In his typically incisive fashion, Toronto Sun Assocaite Eeditor Lorrie Goldstein's column today cuts through the left wing special interest groups' smoke screens and cant and self-interest on the day care front and reveals several points that the left wing big government day care lobby has tried mightily to keep hidden.

- The column is found under

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie

Here are just a few of the excellent points Lorrie raises:

- The largest single group of young children in Canada by far, 46%, continues to be cared for by a parent in the home.

- Of the remaining 54% in child care, fewer than one in three (just 28% of the 54%) are in institutional daycare, the only type of care that would benefit under the defeated Liberal government’s five-year, $5-billion daycare promise.

- Daycare remains the least popular of the three major child care options chosen by parents. More than twice as many children in child care (60% of the 54%) are cared for by a relative or non-relative. Parents choosing these types of child care, and stay-at-home-parents, are ignored by the Liberal plan.

- In a major poll released last year, the Vanier Institute of the Family found 90% of Canadians believe that in two-parent families, one parent should, ideally, stay at home to raise the children. Daycare centres ranked a distant fifth when people were asked who should care for pre-school children, behind parents, grandparents, other relatives and home daycare.

Good work, Lorrie. Clearly nocrap and the daycare lobby is just out of touch with the thinking of most people on this issue — people who want daycare to be one option available for parents, but certainly not the only one promoted (and funded) by the state. No matter how much the daycare lobby tries to pretend otherwise.

[betsy]

We have a single mom where I work and she is finding it very stressful to work fulltime and look after her kidlets. She is really unhappy at work and wishes she could just stay home. I am encouraging her to take on a couple of children so she can be at home and have less stress.

I have a mom who's pregnant again, and is moving out of town. She doesn't want any institution for a daycare...wanting a home environment for her kids. She's thinking about staying home and taking on a couple of kids.

You'll see that this Harper daycare plan will induce a lot of moms opening up daycare spaces in their homes.

Btw, come to think of it, all of my parents do not want institutionalized daycare. Some of them do not even want to know whether they are qualified for sibsidy or not.

[Drea]

We have a single mom where I work and she is finding it very stressful to work fulltime and look after her kidlets. She is really unhappy at work and wishes she could just stay home. I am encouraging her to take on a couple of children so she can be at home and have less stress.

I have a mom who's pregnant again, and is moving out of town. She doesn't want any institution for a daycare...wanting a home environment for her kids. She's thinking about staying home and taking on a couple of kids.

You'll see that this Harper daycare plan will induce a lot of moms opening up daycare spaces in their homes.

Btw, come to think of it, all of my parents do not want institutionalized daycare. Some of them do not even want to know whether they are qualified for sibsidy or not.

The issue I have with Harper's plan, Betsy, is that it goes to even those parents who are "rich".

If I had a baby, I would of course get the money, even though last year our family income was over $100,000 and we really don't need a government hand-out.

At my income level there is just no way it would be feasible for my family to lose it if I had a baby and decided to stay home. I would have no issue paying a daycare out of my own pocket -- I would be concerned about finding a space to put my child.

What I'd like to know, is those news reports that tell us there are no spaces, do they include home day/evening cares or care like the YMCA provides? In our little city we have some daycare providers that are advertising that they have space.

Renegade,

Yes, I believe subsidies should only be used by low income families. Yes, they should be used to help a family get off welfare (and stay off).

[Renegade]

Renegade,

Yes, I believe subsidies should only be used by low income families. Yes, they should be used to help a family get off welfare (and stay off).

If by low income you mean low enough that they are on welfare, then yes I agree. I also beleive this can be a self-funding plan if the amount they save on welfare is at least as much as what it cost for the child-care subsidy. As welfare is a provincial responsibility, there is no need for a federal plan or funding in this area.

[Renegade]

What I'd like to know, is those news reports that tell us there are no spaces, do they include home day/evening cares or care like the YMCA provides? In our little city we have some daycare providers that are advertising that they have space.

Drea, do you have an links to the stories or reports of the lack of spaces? I know a lot of parents with children who need childcare. To date every single one has been able to find childcare if they have been willing to pay the cost. So, I'm simply perplexed at these continuing reports about the lack of spaces.

[Drea]

Renegade,

Yes, I believe subsidies should only be used by low income families. Yes, they should be used to help a family get off welfare (and stay off).

If by low income you mean low enough that they are on welfare, then yes I agree. I also beleive this can be a self-funding plan if the amount they save on welfare is at least as much as what it cost for the child-care subsidy. As welfare is a provincial responsibility, there is no need for a federal plan or funding in this area.

Actually a person on welare has no need for daycare so we can't really subsidize welfare-daycare now can we? We need to subsidize daycare for the poor sap who works at Wal-Mart, not the mom sitting at home in her quarter million dollar house, nor the mom sitting on her butt on welfare -- just because these two moms "need a break" from their kids, it's not up to us taxpayers to support their "breaks".

[Renegade]

Actually a person on welare has no need for daycare so we can't really subsidize welfare-daycare now can we? We need to subsidize daycare for the poor sap who works at Wal-Mart, not the mom sitting at home in her quarter million dollar house, nor the mom sitting on her butt on welfare -- just because these two moms "need a break" from their kids, it's not up to us taxpayers to support their "breaks".

Then I am failing to understand your argument. Is not your reasoning that by providing the low-income family childcare, we keep them off welfare?

Clearly, if they are low-income and working (but not on welfare), they have already found a childcare solution which allows them to work. Thus no government support is nessary to keep them off welfare.

If they are too poor to afford childcare, and are already on welfare, then this is a category, you don't feel they need an additional subsidiy anyway.

[betsy]

We have a single mom where I work and she is finding it very stressful to work fulltime and look after her kidlets. She is really unhappy at work and wishes she could just stay home. I am encouraging her to take on a couple of children so she can be at home and have less stress.

I have a mom who's pregnant again, and is moving out of town. She doesn't want any institution for a daycare...wanting a home environment for her kids. She's thinking about staying home and taking on a couple of kids.

You'll see that this Harper daycare plan will induce a lot of moms opening up daycare spaces in their homes.

Btw, come to think of it, all of my parents do not want institutionalized daycare. Some of them do not even want to know whether they are qualified for sibsidy or not.

The issue I have with Harper's plan, Betsy, is that it goes to even those parents who are "rich".

If I had a baby, I would of course get the money, even though last year our family income was over $100,000 and we really don't need a government hand-out.

At my income level there is just no way it would be feasible for my family to lose it if I had a baby and decided to stay home. I would have no issue paying a daycare out of my own pocket -- I would be concerned about finding a space to put my child.

What I'd like to know, is those news reports that tell us there are no spaces, do they include home day/evening cares or care like the YMCA provides? In our little city we have some daycare providers that are advertising that they have space.

Think past whether they can afford it or not. Who's to know who really needs help or not? There are folks that by outward appearances seem to have it all...and yet, you'd be surprised that they're up to their eyeballs in debts. Don't forget, we live in a society when materialism and posturing are the norm. So anyway as you'd said before, $1200 is peanuts....are you going to fret and grumble over this? Just because people whom you think do not need the money are going to get it anyway?

I do not have children of my own. I will not benefit from this. Harper's plan is actually going to multiply my competition God knows by how may folds, whereas now I find it's easy to compete with the current government-funded home daycare we have in our area since they seem to have a bad rap here.

And yet I support it. Because it gives the parents the freedom to choose.

And believe me, it will raise the standard of daycare....don't believe the propaganda of the so-called experts and childcare advocates. They are just fighting to ensure they've got a coshy well-paying job with all the perks and all that comes naturally to those who had acquired and developed a liking for the culture of entitlement.

[Drea]

Then I am failing to understand your argument. Is not your reasoning that by providing the low-income family childcare, we keep them off welfare?

It IS my reasoning that providing the low income family with daycare subsidy will prevent them from being on welfare.

Clearly, if they are low-income and working (but not on welfare), they have already found a childcare solution which allows them to work. Thus no government support is nessary to keep them off welfare.

If they are too poor to afford childcare, and are already on welfare, then this is a category, you don't feel they need an additional subsidiy anyway.

For instance...

a single mother currently on welfare. Welfare says "get a job". She says "Ok" and proceeds to get a job at WalMart. She now needs daycare! She now needs daycare subsidy!

If the gov't said "sorry, no daycare subsidy for you" then she would not be able to work.

[Renegade]

For instance...

a single mother currently on welfare. Welfare says "get a job". She says "Ok" and proceeds to get a job at WalMart. She now needs daycare! She now needs daycare subsidy!

If the gov't said "sorry, no daycare subsidy for you" then she would not be able to work.

How about we just make the daycare subsidy only available to welfare applicants who get a job? That way it is targeted at easing people off welfare as opposed to everyone who is considered "low income". I think that by targeting only those on welfare, you direct the funds to where they will be most effective.

[betsy]

Then I am failing to understand your argument. Is not your reasoning that by providing the low-income family childcare, we keep them off welfare?

It IS my reasoning that providing the low income family with daycare subsidy will prevent them from being on welfare.

Clearly, if they are low-income and working (but not on welfare), they have already found a childcare solution which allows them to work. Thus no government support is nessary to keep them off welfare.

If they are too poor to afford childcare, and are already on welfare, then this is a category, you don't feel they need an additional subsidiy anyway.

For instance...

a single mother currently on welfare. Welfare says "get a job". She says "Ok" and proceeds to get a job at WalMart. She now needs daycare! She now needs daycare subsidy!

If the gov't said "sorry, no daycare subsidy for you" then she would not be able to work.

What could be the reason why a single mom on welfare is not qualified for subsidy?? Do you mean, real welfare...not something to do with education assistance?

FYI, I had a mom getting into the entry level...not on Walmart, but Independent Grocery as a cashier. Of course she works shift...and being new, you bet she had the oddest schedules. I referred her to a gov-funded agency dealing with home daycares. Sorry, they could not accomodate her sked...they want only regular full-timers. Now why is that??? This was under the Liberal government, mind you...just happened last summer.

[lost&outofcontrol]

What could be the reason why a single mom on welfare is not qualified for subsidy?? Do you mean, real welfare...not something to do with education assistance?

FYI, I had a mom getting into the entry level...not on Walmart, but Independent Grocery as a cashier. Of course she works shift...and being new, you bet she had the oddest schedules. I referred her to a gov-funded agency dealing with home daycares. Sorry, they could not accomodate her sked...they want only regular full-timers. Now why is that??? This was under the Liberal government, mind you...just happened last summer.

I agree with you that the Liberal system was not adequate but how will the Tory system help? $100 a month barely makes a dent in the cost of daycare. In Ottawa, the average cost is just under $800 a month per child! If she's working at close to minimum wages, half her monthly income is going straight to daycare payments!

[Renegade]

$100 a month barely makes a dent in the cost of daycare. In Ottawa, the average cost is just under $800 a month per child! If she's working at close to minimum wages, half her monthly income is going straight to daycare payments!

Did you factor the benefit of tjhe childcare deduction? So the parent is getting money on top of the subsidy they were already getting.

[Drea]

What could be the reason why a single mom on welfare is not qualified for subsidy?? Do you mean, real welfare...not something to do with education assistance?

FYI, I had a mom getting into the entry level...not on Walmart, but Independent Grocery as a cashier. Of course she works shift...and being new, you bet she had the oddest schedules. I referred her to a gov-funded agency dealing with home daycares. Sorry, they could not accomodate her sked...they want only regular full-timers. Now why is that??? This was under the Liberal government, mind you...just happened last summer.

The reason a single mother on welfare does not qualify for daycare subsidy is that she is not working and thus does not require someone to look after her children.

Now, if she is going to some type of retraining then she should recieve the daycare subsidy.

The lady you speak of would have been better off simply looking in her local newspaper for someone to care for her child. Most "official" daycares (the YMCA for example) do not have shift care, for shift care you would need a homebased childcare situation.

[lost&outofcontrol]

$100 a month barely makes a dent in the cost of daycare. In Ottawa, the average cost is just under $800 a month per child! If she's working at close to minimum wages, half her monthly income is going straight to daycare payments!

Did you factor the benefit of tjhe childcare deduction? So the parent is getting money on top of the subsidy they were already getting.

No, didn't they get the Childcare deduction before the Tory .gov too?

[betsy]

I agree with you that the Liberal system was not adequate but how will the Tory system help? $100 a month barely makes a dent in the cost of daycare. In Ottawa, the average cost is just under $800 a month per child! If she's working at close to minimum wages, half her monthly income is going straight to daycare payments!

Then she's got to weigh her options and do what is best in her situation. For some, the best solution is to postpone going back to work until your child is of school age. That $100 is there whether she wants to stay at home, take part-time jobs etc.., At least she's got the flexibility to maneuver as best she could in her circumstances, with that $100 providing some help. When you're counting pennies, everything adds up.

[Renegade]

No, didn't they get the Childcare deduction before the Tory .gov too?

Yes they did, but when you criticize $100 a month as "barely makes a dent in the cost of daycare" you have to also consider that it is incremental to the benefit already given. It is not the sole amount used to address childcare.