Tories' child-care plan falls flat, poll says

[M.Dancer]

OTTAWA — The Conservative government's $1,200 child-care payouts are seen as a nice gesture from Ottawa that will ultimately have little impact, according to the government's own public opinion research.

The Department of Human Resources and Social Development contracted polling firm Ipsos-Reid to conduct 16 focus groups of 10 people each across the country to get feedback on the government's child-care plan, which promises to create 125,000 new spaces in addition to monthly payments of $100 to parents for each child under the age of 6.

"The government's proposed child-care plan is viewed quite favourably by the majority of focus-group participants," the researchers write in the report.

But the government also heard that child care is so expensive that the money will likely be spent on other things instead.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

No kidding. My 2 1/2 will be starting nursery school/daycare next week. 2 days a week, 8:30 to 3:30.

Cost: $320.00 per month

Now I'm not saying I want the government to hand me more money, the $100. we get now is $100.00 more than we got for our daughter.....it's just that, well, $100.00 is fine but lets not pretend it;s childcare cash it's bleeding mental health money....we spend it on date night...dinner, wine, baby sitter and consensual marital sex.....

But there is a real issue here....that the gov't pandered and bought votes.....in a time when daycare spaces are sorely needed ...this cash going into my pocket creates zero spaces.

[geoffrey]

My tax dollars don't have any obligation to pay for your parenting choices. I'm opposed to any and all forms of a 'child care' plan.

If the government took a few billion less in taxes, we wouldn't need them to hand us back our own money. Canadians need to realise the transfer system that exist just merely gives more power to a already overly powerful government. They control your financial life, it needs to end, cut transfers and taxes in half and watch your freedom increase...

Where's Charles the anarchist to help me out on this one...

[Renegade]

But there is a real issue here....that the gov't pandered and bought votes.....in a time when daycare spaces are sorely needed ...this cash going into my pocket creates zero spaces.

It seems the biggest complaint on the plan is the naming. People are happy with the plan, they just don't want it called "childcare", so that they can continue to complain that the government is doing nothing about childcare.

You claim daycare spaces are sorely needed, yet it doesn't seem to be an issue for you. You have found a space for your child. In fact I'm having trouble finding anyone who could not find a daycare space provided they were willing to pay the freight.

[Melanie_]

I don't think there are that many people happy with the plan. People pay for child care. That won't change under either plan - one of the biggest misconceptions about the Liberal plan was that it would provide free care - that was never part of the proposal.The Liberal plan went to developing a system that would serve many children over generations; the Conservative plan has no accountability, no structure, no plan for quality child care services. It is a thinly veiled slap at working mothers, saying that a hundred dollars a month gives them the choice to stay home, if they were good mothers they would make that choice.

For those interested in some statistics (I know you all were hoping for statistics, right?) here's some facts and figures from StatsCan about the numbers of children in care, and the types of care they use. I've talked about the flexibility of the child care system here in Manitoba in other threads; that flexibility may account for the increased numbers the article shows.

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060405/d060405a.htm

Over the past eight years, the proportion of children in child care has increased significantly. This increase has been accompanied by shifts in the use of different types of care arrangements, according to a new report.

In 2002-2003, 54% of children aged six months to five years were in some form of child care, up from 42% in 1994-1995.

In 2002-2003, three forms of care (daycare centres, care outside the home by a non-relative, and care by a relative either inside or outside the home) each accounted for around 30% of all children in child care. The remaining small proportion consisted of children in care in their own home with a non-relative, such as a nanny, and in other forms of care such as nursery schools or preschools.

[geoffrey]

Care to have taxpayer funded grocery stores next?

[Charles Anthony]

I believe the major opposition to this plan is a result of the fact that there is less opportunity for child-care industry workers to bilk the tax-payer with behind the scenes grants or subsidies or handouts or advertizing contracts or wasted money. This is just an extension of the problem with education. As soon as a goverrnment announces cuts to education funding, the first people to complain are teacher's unions.

I have compassion for poor people. What I do not have is compassion for people who are not poor relative to their neighbors but still expect the tax-payer to fund their expenses when there are true poor people who get nothing.

But there is a real issue here....that the gov't pandered and bought votes.....in a time when daycare spaces are sorely needed ...this cash going into my pocket creates zero spaces.

I agree. Compared to lowering taxes, a cheque of "free" money in the mail appears concrete. It is buying votes.

However, the only government expenses which are NOT buying votes are expenses like golf courses and hotels and advertizing contracts and whatever whereby the money goes directly into the pockets of "friends" of the government.

Where's Charles the anarchist to help me out on this one...

Ah ha! What do you want me to say?? You guys reap what you sow!!

You want big government, you get big taxes!

In fact I'm having trouble finding anyone who could not find a daycare space provided they were willing to pay the freight.

I encountered that too. Last year, one lady was trying to explain to me how she and her husband were having trouble finding childcare for their toddler. Her explanation was somewhat unclear to me. Naively I asked if her child had health problems or need special attention throughout the day. At that point, the truth came out: they were looking for a subsidy. Fine.

If people truly can not afford child-care, eliminate the taxes on daycares and babysitters. Eliminate (or at the very least reduce) the taxes of parents with pre-school children. [Parents of school-age children would be exempt because we already have ample state-run babysitting.] If that is still not enough, let your socialist hearts bleed and then give money to the parents.

Unless a government reduces the taxes of the person in need, I do not trust the motives of that government -- they are buying votes. Reduce taxes first; hand-outs after.

one of the biggest misconceptions about the Liberal plan was that it would provide free care - that was never part of the proposal.The Liberal plan went to developing a system that would serve many children over generations;

That does not sound very concrete. Actually, it sounds like you mean a government bureaucracy.

the Conservative plan has no accountability, no structure, no plan for quality child care services.

Quality care??? Come one. I have never heard of anybody asking for "quality care". People just want a free lunch -- even at the expense of their kids.

It is a thinly veiled slap at working mothers, saying that a hundred dollars a month gives them the choice to stay home, if they were good mothers they would make that choice.

As it should. Considering the fact that people who stay at home (got nothing! but still had to) pay the taxes to support "quality" bureaucracy, I think it is fair to expose it that way.

Care to have taxpayer funded grocery stores next?

Yes! Sign me up!

Why not pay for my boots and my water bill too. I can not live in Canada without boots nor water.

Hey, how about doing my laundry and brushing my teeth while you are at it??

[M.Dancer]

You claim daycare spaces are sorely needed, yet it doesn't seem to be an issue for you. You have found a space for your child. In fact I'm having trouble finding anyone who could not find a daycare space provided they were willing to pay the freight.

We found a space because: We only wanted part time daycare, 2 days a week as opposed to 5, ending at 3:30 PM. In the same location as my daughter' public school.

We would have had a tougher time if; our daughter didn't go to school there, if we needed full time care.

...and our anecdotal story has no relevance on the rest of Canada. To be fair, you are right, if money is not the object, daycare is not a problem. In fact, for those who can afford to I wholely recomend they keep their children at home.....but for those who have little choice, the single parents, the families struggling with two incomes, daycare is not a luxary.

[M.Dancer]

Care to have taxpayer funded grocery stores next?

No, schools, hospitals and hockey arenas will do.....

[fellowtraveller]

What I don't understand is:

a) how the federal government arrived at the point where they feel responsible for child care for all Canadians

b)how entire generations of Canadians feel such a sense of entitlement that they think the government at any level should somehow be involved in their personal parenting choices.

I noticed the OP is not so opposed to the Conservative plan that he sent the money back......

[M.Dancer]

What I don't understand is:

a) how the federal government arrived at the point where they feel responsible for child care for all Canadians

b)how entire generations of Canadians feel such a sense of entitlement that they think the government at any level should somehow be involved in their personal parenting choices.

I noticed the OP is not so opposed to the Conservative plan that he sent the money back......

I believe it has become an economic reality where a sizable chunk of Canadian families feel they need two incomes to survive. At that point, the Feds feel that the welfare of children becomes an issue.

Personally I see it as an evolution. At one time the same arguments against daycare (i don't feel daycare should be a handout) were used against creating public schools....but the reality of creating a literate society compelled local governments to step in.

I don't think that governments should directly pay people to send kids to daycare, but I think they should be involved in creating the infrastructure necessary to increase the number of daycares available and to regulate to a degree the quality of daycares along with the relevant safety issues.

[Charles Anthony]

I believe it has become an economic reality where a sizable chunk of Canadian families feel they need two incomes to survive. At that point, the Feds feel that the welfare of children becomes an issue.

I disagree. If that was the only driver, it could be solved in a flash: reduce taxes and increase tax credits.

However, I believe the true reason is that over time Canadians want more and more. Decades of Trudeaumania have created people who think that money grows on trees and all we have to do is order the government to pick it for us and hand it out.

Canadians commonly do not want to pay their own way but rather they want their neighbors to pay. Therefore, we must maintain a higher tax base otherwise we will not be able to steal from Peter to give to Paul.

Personally I see it as an evolution. At one time the same arguments against daycare (i don't feel daycare should be a handout) were used against creating public schools....but the reality of creating a literate society compelled local governments to step in.

I think those same arguments against public schools are equally valid. I think the "literate society" deal is a mask.

Our public schooling is a make-work program for people who call themselves teachers but can not make a living in the private sector. If public schooling is truly "necessary" the government would hand out school vouchers/coupons to everybody who wants to go to school.

I don't think that governments should directly pay people to send kids to daycare, but I think they should be involved in creating the infrastructure necessary to increase the number of daycares available and to regulate to a degree the quality of daycares along with the relevant safety issues.

I do not think tax-payers should pay for daycare either. However, if we are going to do that, I insist that it be done by minimizing how much money you have to take from the tax-payers.

Safety: daycares are just buildings. They can follow the same safety regulations as shopping malls or restaurants. No need for extra bureaucracy.

Historically, I understand our previous governments may have been complete cereal-box-prize-winning economists but there is no excuse today. If it costs $X to send a kid to a school/daycare, give the parent $X TOWARDS school/daycare either in the form of a coupon or cash. Do not give the $X directly to the school/daycare and force the kids to attend. The market mechanics of giving the money directly to the school/daycare permits waste and competes with private school/daycare schools -- making them more expensive.

[M.Dancer]

I believe it has become an economic reality where a sizable chunk of Canadian families feel they need two incomes to survive. At that point, the Feds feel that the welfare of children becomes an issue.

I disagree. If that was the only driver, it could be solved in a flash: reduce taxes and increase tax credits.

I'm afraid that is a wee bit too simplistic. When lower income families are already paying next to zero in taxes, lowering taxes won't make much of an impact, not if they needtwo incomes to make ends meet.

However, I believe the true reason is that over time Canadians want more and more. Decades of Trudeaumania have created people who think that money grows on trees and all we have to do is order the government to pick it for us and hand it out.

Yeah.....If that's what you believe

Canadians commonly do not want to pay their own way but rather they want their neighbors to pay. Therefore, we must maintain a higher tax base otherwise we will not be able to steal from Peter to give to Paul.

Commonly eh? I'm sure there;s some empiracle data out there that supports you .....somewhere

Personally I see it as an evolution. At one time the same arguments against daycare (i don't feel daycare should be a handout) were used against creating public schools....but the reality of creating a literate society compelled local governments to step in.

I think those same arguments against public schools are equally valid. I think the "literate society" deal is a mask.

Our public schooling is a make-work program for people who call themselves teachers but can not make a living in the private sector. If public schooling is truly "necessary" the government would hand out school vouchers/coupons to everybody who wants to go to school.

Okay (looks behind for the door, steps cautiously backwards....)

I don't think that governments should directly pay people to send kids to daycare, but I think they should be involved in creating the infrastructure necessary to increase the number of daycares available and to regulate to a degree the quality of daycares along with the relevant safety issues.

I do not think tax-payers should pay for daycare either. However, if we are going to do that, I insist that it be done by minimizing how much money you have to take from the tax-payers.

Safety: daycares are just buildings. They can follow the same safety regulations as shopping malls or restaurants. No need for extra bureaucracy.

Historically, I understand our previous governments may have been complete cereal-box-prize-winning economists but there is no excuse today. If it costs $X to send a kid to a school/daycare, give the parent $X TOWARDS school/daycare either in the form of a coupon or cash. Do not give the $X directly to the school/daycare and force the kids to attend. The market mechanics of giving the money directly to the school/daycare permits waste and competes with private school/daycare schools -- making them more expensive.

And thats how we have come to have an extra $100 in every parents hands.....which does not address the problems

BTW....schools are not just buildings, they aren't malls...nor are they condos...they are places where we educate our children, as such their building codes are a little more stringent than the average building.

[Charles Anthony]

And thats how we have come to have an extra $100 in every parents hands.....which does not address the problems

No. I am suggesting handing out the FULL cost to parents and cancelling handing out money to the daycare/schools. You can not point to the $100 and counter my argument. The $100 is just a fraction of the cost. As you mentioned, it is to buy votes.

BTW....schools are not just buildings, they aren't malls...nor are they condos...they are places where we educate our children, as such their building codes are a little more stringent than the average building.

Do they need different bureaucracy? No. They just need different ink on paper. For example, local building codes are a book with subsections. Some subsections deal with electrical, some subsections deal with plumbing, some deal with ventilation. Some subsections deal with bungalows and some deal with double story houses while others deal with multi-household dwellings.

Either way, safety regulations are a side issue compared to the market of "public" schools and funding. Whatever safety regulations exist today for private schools/daycares can simply be applied. Would you expect there to be a difference between the two?

[M.Dancer]

And thats how we have come to have an extra $100 in every parents hands.....which does not address the problems

No. I am suggesting handing out the FULL cost to parents and cancelling handing out money to the daycare/schools. You can not point to the $100 and counter my argument. The $100 is just a fraction of the cost. As you mentioned, it is to buy votes.

BTW....schools are not just buildings, they aren't malls...nor are they condos...they are places where we educate our children, as such their building codes are a little more stringent than the average building.

Do they need different bureaucracy? No. They just need different ink on paper. For example, local building codes are a book with subsections. Some subsections deal with electrical, some subsections deal with plumbing, some deal with ventilation. Some subsections deal with bungalows and some deal with double story houses while others deal with multi-household dwellings.

Either way, safety regulations are a side issue compared to the market of "public" schools and funding.

I wish I knew how you formatted your reply...I bow to your l33tn3ss....

Well, I for one don't need the cash...But I wouldn't sniff at it either. I am not sure how I feel about a universal solution.

When I spoke of gov't regulation, I meant that I wouldn't want a crop of unregulated baby minders in rat infested fire traps springing up just because need couple with gov't funding created an impetis....I would want the gov't's input on curriculum and programme, as well as a "Trustee" to ensure compliance with heath and safety issues. Whether that is through an existing department or not only depends on who can best effect the goal

[Hicksey]

What I don't understand is:

a) how the federal government arrived at the point where they feel responsible for child care for all Canadians

b)how entire generations of Canadians feel such a sense of entitlement that they think the government at any level should somehow be involved in their personal parenting choices.

I noticed the OP is not so opposed to the Conservative plan that he sent the money back......

I believe it has become an economic reality where a sizable chunk of Canadian families feel they need two incomes to survive. At that point, the Feds feel that the welfare of children becomes an issue.

Personally I see it as an evolution. At one time the same arguments against daycare (i don't feel daycare should be a handout) were used against creating public schools....but the reality of creating a literate society compelled local governments to step in.

I don't think that governments should directly pay people to send kids to daycare, but I think they should be involved in creating the infrastructure necessary to increase the number of daycares available and to regulate to a degree the quality of daycares along with the relevant safety issues.

Why don't we try taxing people less so the second parent doesn't need to go to work? Then if people choose to send a second parent to work it would be solely their choice and expense.

[Charles Anthony]

When I spoke of gov't regulation, I meant that I wouldn't want a crop of unregulated baby minders in rat infested fire traps springing up just because need couple with gov't funding created an impetis....

That is not a reasonable fear because we already have private daycares and private schools. Whatever regulations govern their safety now can govern them without public funding.

Why don't we try taxing people less so the second parent doesn't need to go to work?

I support that.

[M.Dancer]

When I spoke of gov't regulation, I meant that I wouldn't want a crop of unregulated baby minders in rat infested fire traps springing up just because need couple with gov't funding created an impetis....

That is not a reasonable fear because we already have private daycares and private schools. Whatever regulations govern their safety now can govern them without public funding.

Why don't we try taxing people less so the second parent doesn't need to go to work?

I support that.

No it is reasonable becasue we have lots of unregulated daycares....

[Charles Anthony]

No it is reasonable becasue we have lots of unregulated daycares....

Simply create a Quality Recognition protocol. For example:

Each private daycare pays for an inspector to confirm safety standards every month or every year. After the daycare passes the inspection, the daycare is issued a certificate or a license. Parents ask to see the proof before registration.

Parents who do not care to have their children in certified daycares should still have the choice.

[Renegade]

To be fair, you are right, if money is not the object, daycare is not a problem. In fact, for those who can afford to I wholely recomend they keep their children at home.....but for those who have little choice, the single parents, the families struggling with two incomes, daycare is not a luxary.

Yes, I agree with you, daycare is not a luxary, however it is an essential cost of being a working parent. Given that you accept that daycare spaces is not an issue if a parent is willing to pay the going rate, the question then becomes, why should it be anyone but the parent's responsibilty to fund that daycare?

Is it not irresponsible for parents to have kids which they cannot afford and have to rely on the public purse to support?

[Melanie_]

Simply create a Quality Recognition protocol. For example:

Each private daycare pays for an inspector to confirm safety standards every month or every year. After the daycare passes the inspection, the daycare is issued a certificate or a license. Parents ask to see the proof before registration.

Parents who do not care to have their children in certified daycares should still have the choice.

This is very much what is already in place in Manitoba. The provincial government licensing body inspects licensed daycares every three months; non-profit centres that pass the inspection get a small operating grant that supplements the fees the parents pay. This allows the rate to stay affordable, at $18.80/day for preschool children, and $27.50/day for children under 2. Parents whose incomes are below a certain level (I believe it is $30,000, but I could be mistaken) qualify for a sliding scale subsidy. Private, or profit making, centres are inspected but are not eligible for the grant, and can set their fees as high as they want.

Unlicensed daycares are uninspected and unregulated.

[Melanie_]

From Charles Anthony, earlier in the thread...

I believe the major opposition to this plan is a result of the fact that there is less opportunity for child-care industry workers to bilk the tax-payer with behind the scenes grants or subsidies or handouts or advertizing contracts or wasted money.

Actually, the people who work in child care are among the lowest paid in the country, with generally poor benefits. If you care to wade through the facts and figures, this link takes you through each province's regulated system, and shows average wages of child care staff, as well as tables showing how tax dollars are spent.

http://www.childcarecanada.org/ECEC2004/index.html#toc

[M.Dancer]

To be fair, you are right, if money is not the object, daycare is not a problem. In fact, for those who can afford to I wholely recomend they keep their children at home.....but for those who have little choice, the single parents, the families struggling with two incomes, daycare is not a luxary.

Yes, I agree with you, daycare is not a luxary, however it is an essential cost of being a working parent. Given that you accept that daycare spaces is not an issue if a parent is willing to pay the going rate, the question then becomes, why should it be anyone but the parent's responsibilty to fund that daycare?

Is it not irresponsible for parents to have kids which they cannot afford and have to rely on the public purse to support?

It is irresponsible of society* to make the cost of children prohibitive. I'm 48 next month. I can remember when a man making an average salary could afford to raise his family on one income. Today in Toronto the Average personal income (200) is just over $34,000. That means the cost of an average home is about 10 years salary. In 1966 the multiplier would have been between 2 and 3 times.

*By society I mean all of us.

[M.Dancer]

Parents who do not care to have their children in certified daycares should still have the choice.

Like drivers who use uncertified vehicles?

No one whould be rewarded for endangering lives.

[Charles Anthony]

Parents who do not care to have their children in certified daycares should still have the choice.

Like drivers who use uncertified vehicles?

Actually, no. That is a false analogy. I see it as freedom and a right to property.

No one whould be rewarded for endangering lives.

There is no reward. The term "reward" is as relevent as going to a store and buying something. After you pay, the store clerk is not rewarding you by giving you the merchandise.

You do not own the road, therefore, you do not own the right to drive on it. To drive on it, you must abide by the rules of property owner or get out.

[M.Dancer]

Still seems to me that unlicenced daycares are nothing more that underground businesses that are more akin to boozecans than places that care for children. And by allowing them it will take a fire or a similar disaster before we wake up.