Conservatives Admit that Daycare Progam

[jdobbin]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070926/...ild_care_crunch

A much-touted promise by the federal Conservatives to create 125,000 new child-care spaces may not be doable, suggests Social Development Minister Monte Solberg.

The Conservatives have been slammed by critics who say the government's approach won't create nearly that many spaces over five years.

"We have to be realistic," Solberg said Wednesday when asked if an election vow made 18 months ago can be kept.

He then firmly passed the buck to his provincial cousins.

"You know, the people who are the primary deliverers of child-care spaces are the provinces.

"The approach we're taking is working with the provinces based on what (they) are telling us they think is important. In some cases it's about about creating spaces, in other cases they have other priorities."

Alberta, for example, wants to focus in part on enhancing child-care workers' salaries which, in much of Canada, languish below $10 an hour. Other provinces want to improve training and existing services.

That said, Solberg cited new plans for 7,000 spaces in Ontario, 1,250 in Manitoba, 500 in Saskatchewan and 750 in New Brunswick.

"I would argue that a lot of that had to do with the fact that they got extra support from us," he said.

Daycares all over the country have lost funding since the Tories have come into power. It has not helped create the daycare spots promised and likely never will. Blaming the provinces is not likely going to sit well with families interested in seeing a program create actual daycare spots.

[Melanie_]

The Conservatives didn't have a hot clue what "creating daycare spaces" was all about when they made this promise. At first they said they were going to give companies tax incentives to create spaces for their employees, but of course that made no sense - as I've stated before on this forum, you can't expect every Canadian Tire across the country to open its own worksite daycare for just it's employees.

Solberg's statement above, trying to pass off the problem to the provinces, is laughable, particularly this statement:

You know, the people who are the primary deliverers of child-care spaces are the provinces.

"The approach we're taking is working with the provinces based on what (they) are telling us they think is important. In some cases it's about about creating spaces, in other cases they have other priorities."

How does that differ from what Ken Dryden did in 2005? Remember the bipartisan agreements, signed with every province, that the Conservatives promptly discarded when they took office? Here's some news, Monte - the provinces have already been consulted, they have already established their priorities, and they would have been two years closer to meeting the needs of Canadian families if the bipartisan agreements had been honoured.

[jdobbin]

The Conservatives didn't have a hot clue what "creating daycare spaces" was all about when they made this promise. At first they said they were going to give companies tax incentives to create spaces for their employees, but of course that made no sense - as I've stated before on this forum, you can't expect every Canadian Tire across the country to open its own worksite daycare for just it's employees.

Solberg's statement above, trying to pass off the problem to the provinces, is laughable, particularly this statement:

How does that differ from what Ken Dryden did in 2005? Remember the bipartisan agreements, signed with every province, that the Conservatives promptly discarded when they took office? Here's some news, Monte - the provinces have already been consulted, they have already established their priorities, and they would have been two years closer to meeting the needs of Canadian families if the bipartisan agreements had been honoured.

Philosophically, the Tories wanted to appeal to its base that wants money given out to parents to do what they please. Unfortunately, it doesn't create daycare spaces.

The Liberals would do well to run on the same program that Dryden put together. It is an issue that appeals to many people with families.

[geoffrey]

Scrap the program. Completely. I don't want to pay for daycare. It's absurd to ask me too. Will the State provide the baby formula and clothes tomorrow? Why draw the line at daycare? It makes no sense for the State to intervene in a market situation that is perfectly functional and where state intervention is unlikely to improve anything.

Unfortunately, now that they have it, it's here to stay. You can't take $100 away from someone and still expect their vote. So what to do? Can the CPC set this up for the Liberals take the fall? Have them vote against an extension or something that when the bill fails, effectively eliminates the program? Then not propose new legislation.

The sad part is that everyone with a kid under 5 will be up in arms anyways. That's a big demographic. I wouldn't want them hating me.

An across the board tax cut is the most effective social program. Or how about eliminate corporate taxes? Maybe they'll even make their own daycares.

[Shakeyhands]

Or how about eliminate corporate taxes? Maybe they'll even make their own daycares.

hahaha... yes, those savings would get passed along to the consumer, damn the shareholder's pennies.

[M.Dancer]

I agree that set up currently in place is a joke. Why were we getting baby sitting money when we had no childrn in daycare? Sure it got added to my wifes income, but when you work 3 shifts a week, an extra $600 didn't add a lot to the taxable column.

So like the Liberal wag predicted, we spent it on a babysitter and dinner out.

The money would have been better used had it been injected into a national jr kindergarten programme.

[jdobbin]

Or how about eliminate corporate taxes? Maybe they'll even make their own daycares.

Doubtful. They can't even pass savings on from exchange rates.

[Borg]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070926/...ild_care_crunch

Daycares all over the country have lost funding since the Tories have come into power. It has not helped create the daycare spots promised and likely never will. Blaming the provinces is not likely going to sit well with families interested in seeing a program create actual daycare spots.

How about just being responsible for your own kids - or not having them if you cannot afford tham?

The last place I would want my kids is in a government sponsored daycare (read brainwashing) facility.

Can't raise them?

Then do not have them.

Borg

Edited September 27, 2007 by Borg

[mikedavid00]

The Conservatives didn't have a hot clue what "creating daycare spaces" was all about when they made this promise.

Don't forget about the ethnic/religoius daycare spaces.

[jdobbin]

How about just being responsible for your own kids - or not having them if you cannot afford tham?

The last place I would want my kids is in a government sponsored daycare (read brainwashing) facility.

Can't raise them?

Then do not have them.

The same could be said of any government program or operation. So are you not going to vote for the Tories next time because they have a daycare program?

Edited September 27, 2007 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

There is no need for the government to make raising families easier as long as we can outsource population growth.

On that note, I am reminded of a monty python/eric idle song.........

http://www.mwscomp.com/sounds/mp3/chinese.mp3

[geoffrey]

hahaha... yes, those savings would get passed along to the consumer, damn the shareholder's pennies.

I know! Damned shareholders. I mean, none of us pay into CPP or have pension funds! Fat cats! All of them.

Doubtful. They can't even pass savings on from exchange rates.

Do you feel like you need the government to hold your hand at the grocery store? Just shop elsewhere or buy across the border.

--

No reason to be paying for daycare. There is no reason other than buying votes IMO. It's provided adequately by the private sector and no justification can be made for it to socially paid for.

[Melanie_]

Scrap the program. Completely. I don't want to pay for daycare. It's absurd to ask me too. Will the State provide the baby formula and clothes tomorrow? Why draw the line at daycare? It makes no sense for the State to intervene in a market situation that is perfectly functional and where state intervention is unlikely to improve anything.

Unfortunately, now that they have it, it's here to stay. You can't take $100 away from someone and still expect their vote. So what to do? Can the CPC set this up for the Liberals take the fall? Have them vote against an extension or something that when the bill fails, effectively eliminates the program? Then not propose new legislation.

The sad part is that everyone with a kid under 5 will be up in arms anyways. That's a big demographic. I wouldn't want them hating me.

An across the board tax cut is the most effective social program. Or how about eliminate corporate taxes? Maybe they'll even make their own daycares.

The $100/month per child isn't the issue here. There were two prongs to the Conservative plan - the UCCB (Universal Child Care Benefit), and the creation of 125,000 new spaces over 5 years. Its the promise of spaces that is being called into question, not the money to parents.

I understand that you don't want to pay for daycare, but the reality is that it doesn't work well as a private industry. The focus of any private industry is to make a profit, which means that parents pay far more for the service than it actually costs, and Early Childhood Educators are paid a pittance. Sure, they can leave and get higher paying jobs elsewhere, but that means young children are coping with new caregivers constantly, at an age where they really need consistency and continuity. A public system where parents pay a reasonable amount (in Manitoba it is $376/month), with a sliding scale of subsidies for those who need assistance, makes the most sense. And of course, any system needs to be monitored for health and safety standards, ratios of # of children per adult, training of staff, etc.

The last place I would want my kids is in a government sponsored daycare (read brainwashing) facility.

One of the fallacies I see often on this board is that there is some sort of brainwashing going on in child care facilities. Are there specific techniques you are aware of? Specific practices/thoughts/ideologies being taught? I go to centres regularly as part of my job, and I have yet to see a manual from the government telling centres what to brainwash children with. There is wide variety in programming and philosophy - the only thing the government monitors is that centres are upfront with parents. In fact, public daycares are generally run by a Board of Directors made up of parents, who determine the goals of the centre. Parents have much more input into public daycare than they do into private daycares run by an individual owner, or (as we see in Australia) the large private daycare franchises where some fat cat sits in an office in Melbourne and decides everything for 500 centres. BTW, that fat cat is Canadian, and would love to see a series of Walmart sized centres open up in Canada, all directed from that same office in Melbourne. That is the way private care is headed.

[ScottSA]

The $100/month per child isn't the issue here. There were two prongs to the Conservative plan - the UCCB (Universal Child Care Benefit), and the creation of 125,000 new spaces over 5 years. Its the promise of spaces that is being called into question, not the money to parents.

I understand that you don't want to pay for daycare, but the reality is that it doesn't work well as a private industry. The focus of any private industry is to make a profit, which means that parents pay far more for the service than it actually costs, and Early Childhood Educators are paid a pittance. Sure, they can leave and get higher paying jobs elsewhere, but that means young children are coping with new caregivers constantly, at an age where they really need consistency and continuity. A public system where parents pay a reasonable amount (in Manitoba it is $376/month), with a sliding scale of subsidies for those who need assistance, makes the most sense. And of course, any system needs to be monitored for health and safety standards, ratios of # of children per adult, training of staff, etc.

One of the fallacies I see often on this board is that there is some sort of brainwashing going on in child care facilities. Are there specific techniques you are aware of? Specific practices/thoughts/ideologies being taught? I go to centres regularly as part of my job, and I have yet to see a manual from the government telling centres what to brainwash children with. There is wide variety in programming and philosophy - the only thing the government monitors is that centres are upfront with parents. In fact, public daycares are generally run by a Board of Directors made up of parents, who determine the goals of the centre. Parents have much more input into public daycare than they do into private daycares run by an individual owner, or (as we see in Australia) the large private daycare franchises where some fat cat sits in an office in Melbourne and decides everything for 500 centres. BTW, that fat cat is Canadian, and would love to see a series of Walmart sized centres open up in Canada, all directed from that same office in Melbourne. That is the way private care is headed.

I have an idea! Why don't moms raise their kids?

[geoffrey]

I have an idea! Why don't moms raise their kids?

Correction: Why can't parents be responsible for their kids?

[jdobbin]

No reason to be paying for daycare. There is no reason other than buying votes IMO. It's provided adequately by the private sector and no justification can be made for it to socially paid for.

The private sector doesn't really make allowances for the childcare. They, as you do, believe it is the responsibility of the parents.

I can't buy across the border in many cases because corporations such as Nissan, Honda and GM won't sell to Canadians in the U.S. to protect their higher prices in Canada.

[Melanie_]

Correction: Why can't parents be responsible for their kids?

How do you envision this responsibility? Sometimes, the most responsible thing is to go out to work, to support your family. That means finding some form of out of home care for your child, and a parent's biggest concern at that point is to find care that is going to provide their child with the best environment possible. Sometimes there is a grandparent or other family member available, and that's great. Sometimes parents are able to flex their hours so that one parent is always at home with the children, and that's great too. But most often, it means two parents, or a single parent, working and the child attending some form of care. A responsible parent makes sure their child is getting quality care.

[Fortunata]

Correction: Why can't parents be responsible for their kids?

Feeding and housing children is pretty responsible, especially if the parent is single and trying to make it on his/her own without resorting to welfare. I can't imagine welfare is anything but a dirty word to you, so what would your suggestion be in that case? Welfare or responsible child care services?

[geoffrey]

I can't buy across the border in many cases because corporations such as Nissan, Honda and GM won't sell to Canadians in the U.S. to protect their higher prices in Canada.

Then don't buy from those companies. Someone will sell you a car at a reasonable price. It's your choice.

How do you envision this responsibility? Sometimes, the most responsible thing is to go out to work, to support your family. That means finding some form of out of home care for your child, and a parent's biggest concern at that point is to find care that is going to provide their child with the best environment possible. Sometimes there is a grandparent or other family member available, and that's great. Sometimes parents are able to flex their hours so that one parent is always at home with the children, and that's great too. But most often, it means two parents, or a single parent, working and the child attending some form of care. A responsible parent makes sure their child is getting quality care.

Ok sure Melanie. I see your point, don't get me wrong. Childcare is expensive and people want the best for their kids. But you know what else is expensive? Buying proper breakfast cereal so your school aged kids can get a hearty meal before class. Or signing them up for soccer so that they can have a healthy body for that healthy mind and not die at age 30. Do you not think that a kid like me that had access to Discovery and National Geographic channel at a young age was advantaged over those with... huh... only "basic" cable. God forbid.

Or how about University. I still claim that any kid can pay for it themself if they want it (I did, in today's society, and I'm a slacker, living on my own). However, if we take the crying pleas of the incapable, we are somehow under the assumption that it's expensive. Should the government cover the whole cost? Or does an individual eventually have a responsibility for themself.

Where do we draw the line? I tend to draw it ahead of you. Someone I get looked at as some inhumane being for doing so. I don't think so. People in Canada (and most of the world) have to stop looking to the government as the big solution to all their problems and look at themselves.

After all, that free childcare is not free at all. If we keep expanding these social programs to include every possible thing you need, eventually we won't have any jobs for single mothers to go to after they drop their kids off at daycare.

Feeding and housing children is pretty responsible, especially if the parent is single and trying to make it on his/her own without resorting to welfare. I can't imagine welfare is anything but a dirty word to you, so what would your suggestion be in that case? Welfare or responsible child care services?

Welfare need not be a dirty word. I may disagree with it in principle, but in today's society, it's needed for some people that can genuinely not help themselves (the truly disabled, which is very few... and uh, that's about it).

The choice shouldn't have to be made. Parents should be responsible when having kids. Don't have them if you can't afford them. You can get free condoms at any public health establishment, this isn't Alabama.

There are a few situations where parents truly can't make ends meet. But very very few. Most of the time, state subsidized child care just goes towards the Land Rover over the Rav4 or the 1600sq. ft 2 story over the smaller bungalow.

If there were a household income cut off, I may be convinced. That cutoff should be no higher than $30,000 or $40,000 a year. I lived off that going to school, my tution was about the same as childcare for a year and I still had a bit left in the kitty for a beer or two with my friends at the end of the week. Anyone can do it if they want to. I'm not a fan of paying for others to take the easy way out.

If the household makes more than that, tough shit. Your on your own.

[jdobbin]

Then don't buy from those companies. Someone will sell you a car at a reasonable price. It's your choice.

Sometimes there is no choice. That is why the Competition Act exists.

[geoffrey]

Sometimes there is no choice. That is why the Competition Act exists.

Do you honestly believe that? Buy used then?

[ScottSA]

Correction: Why can't parents be responsible for their kids?

Sure, whatever. Crying to the government to fix things is not the answer. I happen to believe that as a matter of expediency it behooves the government to encourage parents to have as many kids as possible, just to ensure that the Canadian kids who DO exist don't become minorities in their own land, but offering to raise them too is a bit too much. Seems to me that we have to slow down the support of "me" and start supporting the kids. We have all too much evidence of what happens when parents don't make the time to take care of their own kids. Daycare is not the answer.

[jdobbin]

Do you honestly believe that? Buy used then?

The used market is definitely one choice most certainly.

As for whether the new car market is fixed, I guess that is what a court will decide. I do know that for many car companies, you cannot buy a new car in the U.S. if you are a Canadian. Many legal experts say that amounts to anti-competitive practices in Canada. Hence, the civil suit. We'll see if it has merit.

[geoffrey]

If it's true you can't buy a car in the States being Canadian, then I'll give your views some credit.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. The news has tons of stories of Canadians going south to buy.

Withholding a warranty (this is true on all products, not just cars) is not enough to convince me of anti-competitive practices. A policy of withholding sales to Canadians, though, maybe enough.

[jdobbin]

If it's true you can't buy a car in the States being Canadian, then I'll give your views some credit.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. The news has tons of stories of Canadians going south to buy.

Withholding a warranty (this is true on all products, not just cars) is not enough to convince me of anti-competitive practices. A policy of withholding sales to Canadians, though, maybe enough.

Reg Sherren of the CBC National tried to buy new cars from a few dealers in the States and was told they were not to sell to Canadians or lose their dealer licence. That was happening as of this Friday when the report aired. It isn't just holding back on the warranties, the suit is about limiting vehicles crossing the border by banning sales to Canadians. It is an anti-competitive practice.