Liberal party shows Ignorance and Arrogance

[geoffrey]

Carolyn Bennett showcased the ignorant view of the Liberal party on the childcare portfolio today during quesiton period. She proposed a question to Diane Finley (Minister of Social Development) asking why the government isn't going to continue with the institutionalised daycare system. Reasonable question, Diane handled it well. The follow up, after Diane returned with a question about Bennett's comments on the previous day, was far more disturbing. Bennett actually stated that parents are a danger to their chidlren. The transcipts will be posted on the parliment website at parl.gc.ca tomorrow.

Does anyone in Canada actually believe that parents being with their children is a threat to our future security?

Do Canadians actually believe that all children should be raised in government institutions from birth, and that those that chose other methods of raising kids are creating future criminals?

Why does the media not showcase the wack-jobs of the Liberal Party? It seems they believe that the CPC is full of extremist freaks, but right there, we have an example of the most intolerant comments heard from an MP, and it doesn't make the news.

I can imagine if Myron Thompson came out with his cowboy hat and said 'gay parents are not fit to raise kids' there would be media backlash for weeks. Yet the Liberals can say 'NO parents are fit to raise kids'.

How disgusting.

[BubberMiley]

You like to take these things out of context to suit your partisan agenda. Her point was that good daycare is good for kids.

[August1991]

You like to take these things out of context to suit your partisan agenda. Her point was that good daycare is good for kids.

Ergo, kids staying at home with their parents is bad.

I think the federal government should subsidize underground parking spaces in high rise office buildings. In fact, the federal government should have a National Office Underground Parking Policy so that everyone working in a high rise office building can park their car for only $7/day at their place of work.

If our government, in its wisdom, decides to subsidize parking spaces, so be it. But I don't see why the subsidy should go only to underground spaces in high rise office buildings.

Excuse me while I get very cynical. The federal government doesn't have enough money to subsidize all parking spaces but it does have enough money to subsidize underground parking spaces in high rise office buildings. As it turns out, people who park their cars in underground office garages tend to work in cities, tend to make alot of noise and tend to vote Liberal.

[Black Dog]

QUOTE(BubberMiley @ May 3 2006, 04:52 PM)

You like to take these things out of context to suit your partisan agenda. Her point was that good daycare is good for kids.

Ergo, kids staying at home with their parents is bad.

Oh puh-leeze. Apples are good for me. Therefore oranges are bad?

[August1991]

QUOTE(BubberMiley @ May 3 2006, 04:52 PM)

You like to take these things out of context to suit your partisan agenda. Her point was that good daycare is good for kids.

Ergo, kids staying at home with their parents is bad.

Oh puh-leeze. Apples are good for me. Therefore oranges are bad?

I haven't read the Hansard quote but apparently that's Bennett's reasoning. The Liberals want to subsidize apples but see no reason to subsidize oranges.

[Black Dog]

I haven't read the Hansard quote but apparently that's Bennett's reasoning. The Liberals want to subsidize apples but see no reason to subsidize oranges.

Nor have I, so this is really just hearsay. But I don't follow the logic that says child care funding must be all or nothing. The issue of child care is bigger than deciding who does and does not deserve a handout. IMV, it's about setting up a system that is accessible to all who choose to use it, a system that will enable the development of children. There's private pre-schools and private daycares that afford such opportuunities: why not provide the same opportunities to all?

[shoop]

Because it isn't the role of Government.

A system you outline penalizes parents who choose to stay at home with their children or have friends/family proved childcare.

The Government's policy is the fairest possible. It truly does allow for choice in childcare.

Nor have I, so this is really just hearsay. But I don't follow the logic that says child care funding must be all or nothing. The issue of child care is bigger than deciding who does and does not deserve a handout. IMV, it's about setting up a system that is accessible to all who choose to use it, a system that will enable the development of children. There's private pre-schools and private daycares that afford such opportuunities: why not provide the same opportunities to all?

[BubberMiley]

A system you outline penalizes parents who choose to stay at home with their children or have friends/family proved childcare.

How are they penalized?

[shoop]

They are penalized because they do not benefit from any childcare dollars. The only people who would have benefitted under the Liberal plan are the people who chose to put their children in institutional daycare. Yet those parents who chose to stay at home with children, or have friends/family members supply their daycare are still expected to pay the same taxes as those people who would utilized institutional daycare.

How are they penalized?

[geoffrey]

Proper fruit and vegetables are important to peoples' future success in life. We should start a government program that delivers these to peopel at home!!

AND!! So is physical activity, considering most of our population is grossly overweight. So we need a government program where people come to your house, pick you off your couch and take you for a run!

What else is essiential... hmmm... clothing!! Free clothes for all!!

See my point? Where do we draw the line? If it can be provided through a market solution, it should be.

[betsy]

The day the budget was actually announced, Carolyn Bennet was a guest of Mike Duffy, along with Olivia Chow. That day Bennett made a very insulting statement.

"Out of spite, Harper scrapped all the Liberal plans for daycare and early childhood education. It is good that Harper is getting and arming our law enforcers and building up more prisons. We'll surely need those."

Even Duffy was surprised with the implication of the comment. He laughingly said "you saying children not raised in universal daycares will end up becoming criminals?"

In the same interview, Bennett gave me the impression that she might be sort of a highly-strung person.

Not only was she screeching and mad about it (which could've been posturing)....but when Chow criticicized the inaction of the Liberals (after Bennet's tirade), and Duffy refrained Bennett from interrupting....you see Bennet looked mad and suddenly clamped her lips shut , and the way she was doing it looked like she was battling with herself not to "lose it."

They mentioned something about a "teddy bear incident" connected with Bennett not too long ago....apparently another insulting gesture.

So what's with these two prominent Liberal "flappers" (Hedy Fry will announce hers today)....both medical doctors at that. Did they go to the same school I wonder.

[betsy]

You like to take these things out of context to suit your partisan agenda. Her point was that good daycare is good for kids.

What is "good daycare?"

The rep of the Childcare Choice Advocate said she saw two gov-funded daycares in Toronto.

"I'll quit my job before I send my kids there!" that's what she said. Apparently majority of parents do not like the universal plan. They see it as another big waste of money.

Her point is just being typically the Liberal that she is: "I know what's good for you and so you'll do it my way!"

[Guest Warwick Green]

What is "good daycare?"

In the eyes of Jolly Jack and the Rev Billy? One run by the government at huge expense to the taxpayer. At the very best the government should be providing incentives for others to run day care services. The government has no more business running day care centers than they do cutting hair or selling used cars.

[BubberMiley]

How about schools?

[Black Dog]

Because it isn't the role of Government.

Well, there's widespread acceptance that the government has a role in providing for the education of children. Otherwise we wouldn't have a puiblic school system. Why not apply the same principle to early childhood development?

A system you outline penalizes parents who choose to stay at home with their children or have friends/family proved childcare.

O.K.: how? There's nothing saying they can't continue to stay home, or send their kids to the childcare of their choosing. Nothing is being taken away from anyone, therefore, noone is penalized.

They are penalized because they do not benefit from any childcare dollars. The only people who would have benefitted under the Liberal plan are the people who chose to put their children in institutional daycare. Yet those parents who chose to stay at home with children, or have friends/family members supply their daycare are still expected to pay the same taxes as those people who would utilized institutional daycare.

I don't have kids, so am I being penalized by paying taxes that go to education, despite not using it?

The Government's policy is the fairest possible. It truly does allow for choice in childcare

The Governmen't policy is not a childcare policy. It's a handout. As for this rubbish about "choice" there's nothing about a universal childcare system that restricts choice.

Proper fruit and vegetables are important to peoples' future success in life. We should start a government program that delivers these to peopel at home!!

AND!! So is physical activity, considering most of our population is grossly overweight. So we need a government program where people come to your house, pick you off your couch and take you for a run!

What else is essiential... hmmm... clothing!! Free clothes for all!!

See my point? Where do we draw the line? If it can be provided through a market solution, it should be.

There's no reason whatsoever the two an't co-exist. It's not a zero sum game.

[scribblet]

I can't imagine anyone wanting Bennett as a leader, she's on a par with Hedy Fry. Quite a crop of wannabe leaders the liberals have.

One thing in our favour, they have until December to keep on showing the public what they are really like. I'm disgusted that she would actually insinuate that we are not fit to raise our own kids, cos if we do, they'll end up in prison. Typical liberal arrogance, keep it up Carolyn baby, maybe the rest of the country will find out what you are all really about. Loose lips sink ships

[Nocrap]

Oh for Heaven's sake. She did not say that stay at home parents raised criminals. Her point was that for most Canadians who can't afford to stay home; their children did better in properly run facilities, geared to stimulating young minds, rather than at $1.00 per hour babysitters. Her answer to Finley was "Research shows that for every dollar we spend on early learning and childcare, we will save $ 7.00 later on special education and corrections, and you know that!"

She challenged Ms Finley to think for herself and not waste her education and experience, spouting the party line. Anyone can read.....C'mon Diane. Use your head.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Well, there's widespread acceptance that the government has a role in providing for the education of children. Otherwise we wouldn't have a puiblic school system. Why not apply the same principle to early childhood development?

Day care isn't education. It's baby sitting.

Do you think the parents give a rat's ass if the kids are taught calculus or Shakespeare's tragedies? They are just looking for a place to park the kid while they are at work.

[Black Dog]

Day care isn't education. It's baby sitting.

I'll remember that next time someone talks about the trials and tribulations of the stay at home parent: really, they're just glorified babysiters anyway, so who cares. Why should they get money for turning on "Treehouse" and sitting around eating bonbons all day?

Do you think the parents give a rat's ass if the kids are taught calculus or Shakespeare's tragedies? They are just looking for a place to park the kid while they are at work.

Hmmm...probably true, which explains a lot.

[Rovik]

Day care isn't education. It's baby sitting.

Do you think the parents give a rat's ass if the kids are taught calculus or Shakespeare's tragedies? They are just looking for a place to park the kid while they are at work.

What you are saying is so wrong in my opinion. Most daycares require ECEs. Early Childhood Educators have to go to school for at least two to three years and complete courses from child psychology to nutrition. In most daycares a child's day is very structured and optimized to meet children's needs (social and developmental.) These early years are critical in a child's development and ECEs are there to help make as much of a positive impact as possible. I have a good friend who is an ECE and she works very hard each day. ECEs are often underpaid compared to other professions and will not be helped by the Conservative's new daycare policies. And by the way, I'm pretty sure she would be pretty disgusted hearing that she is being compared to a babysitter.

And yes I truly believe parents care what kind of environment their kids are in at a very critical age and about the learning they receive.

[scribblet]

Oh for Heaven's sake. She did not say that stay at home parents raised criminals. Her point was that for most Canadians who can't afford to stay home; their children did better in properly run facilities, geared to stimulating young minds, rather than at $1.00 per hour babysitters. Her answer to Finley was "Research shows that for every dollar we spend on early learning and childcare, we will save $ 7.00 later on special education and corrections, and you know that!"

She challenged Ms Finley to think for herself and not waste her education and experience, spouting the party line. Anyone can read.....C'mon Diane. Use your head.

As I said - she insinuated it by inferring that by not putting children in regulated daycare, there would be more criminals - you better put more money into jails - hmmmm I get the message.

quote:

"There's actually no plan for early learning and child-care spaces. So it's a good job they're putting more money for prisons in the budget, because we're going to need them if we don't get this early childhood right." unquote

Winnipeg Sun editorial: The charge from Liberal MP Carolyn Bennett that the Conservatives are condemning children to a life in crime by refusing to fund the national daycare program is an insult to every family that has decided to raise their children on their own. This hysterical rhetoric will not get the Liberals re-elected (WSun 10 and TSun 18).

[Guest Warwick Green]

What you are saying is so wrong. Most daycares require ECEs. Early Childhood Educators have to go to school for at least two to three years and complete courses from child psychology to nutrition. In most daycares a child's day is very structured and optimized to meet children's needs (social and developmental.) These early years are critical in a child's development and ECEs are there to help make as much of a positive impact as possible. I have a good friend who is an ECE and she works very hard each day. ECEs are often underpaid compared to other professions and will not be helped by the Conservative's new daycare policies. And by the way, I'm pretty sure she would be pretty disgusted hearing that she is being compared to a babysitter.

The people pushing institutionalized day care are not even attempting to argue that it's part of the educational system, merely that it is an alternative to a stay-at-home parent that should be susidized by the state. The operative word here is "care" which connotes a custodial, not an educational, function. What a parent does is to care for the kids, and that's what a day care service does too.

[betsy]

These early years are critical in a child's development and ECEs are there to help make as much of a positive impact as possible. I have a good friend who is an ECE and she works very hard each day. ECEs are often underpaid compared to other professions and will not be helped by the Conservative's new daycare policies. And by the way, I'm pretty sure she would be pretty disgusted hearing that she is being compared to a babysitter.

And yes I truly believe parents care what kind of environment their kids are in at a very critical age and about the learning they receive.

There's no denying that the early years are critical in a child's development...early childhood education had always been there! Parents are still involved with their children! It's only the odd ones that don't really give a hoot!

This so-called "new" early childhood education being touted is nothing more than just practical understanding and practical approach to children....in a fancy packaging. And actually some of their methods are questionable! Some of their approach...especially when it comes to "discipline" suggests that either these new methods are engineered by those who don't understand children at all...or they're out to lunch!

In some public daycares, they do not want to be involved with any disciplinary methods at all. Some parents are called from work to handle their kid when the "teachers" cannot "reason" with a toddler.

It takes more than just having a diploma to be effective with children. Especially when the motivating factor in getting that diploma is a unionized job with excellent pay-rate.

[Guest Warwick Green]

There's no denying that the early years are critical in a child's development...early childhood education had always been there! Parents are still involved with their children! It's only the odd ones that don't really give a hoot!

This so-called "new" early childhood education being touted is nothing more than just practical understanding and practical approach to children....in a fancy packaging. And actually some of their methods are questionable! Some of their approach...especially when it comes to "discipline" suggests that either these new methods are engineered by those who don't understand children at all...or they're out to lunch!

In some public daycares, they do not want to be involved with any disciplinary methods at all. Some parents are called from work to handle their kid when the "teachers" cannot "reason" with a toddler.

It takes more than just having a diploma to be effective with children. Especially when the motivating factor in getting that diploma is a unionized job with excellent pay-rate.

The purpose of a day care center is to "take care" of children, as an alternative to parental care. And that is the way the Martin/Dryden model was sold to the public.

I don't doubt that it takes some training to work in a day care center just as it takes training to look after the residents in an old folks home. But that doesn't make either of them educational institutions.

[Rovik]

The people pushing institutionalized day care are not even attempting to argue that it's part of the educational system, merely that it is an alternative to a stay-at-home parent that should be susidized by the state. The operative word here is "care" which connotes a custodial, not an educational, function. What a parent does is to care for the kids, and that's what a day care service does too.

I disagree. I consider it an essential part of the educational system. A daycare teaches the children social skills and interaction. Children who attend daycare are more prepared for Kindergarden than children that haven't attended daycare. One could almost call it pre-Kindergarden.

In addition, if a parent wants to stay at home to look after their children, they are not obliged to put their children in daycare. Often you have both parents working and there is often no alternative, the only option would be to force one of the parents to give up working and perhaps even his/her career to look after the children. And in many cases, parents who have bills to pay can't afford to give up work. The yearly $1200 TAXED benefit will not help these people when daycare costs are often more than $500/month.