Conservatives Admit that Daycare Progam

[old_bold&cold]

The whole issue of childcare spaces is more for political gain, not for any real gain for parents with children. It never has been the responsibility of any level of government to pay for childcare, and it really should not be so even today. While we do need a rising birthrate to survive in Canada, we also need responsible parents to be raising these children. I dislike the argument that single mothers just can not afford to work and raise a small child with out help from welfare. That really burns me due to tow things. One why is the single mother having children she can not afford to raise, and secondly unless there was immaculate conception, there is a father out there some where, that needs to be paying child support. The only valid reason for a single mother to be raising a child on her own is if the father is dead, and in that case yes we as the state should help in the costs. It is all our tax dollars and most old people have already raised and paid for our children to be raised and educated. I see no reason for us to pay further because some young people could not understand birth control etc..

I looked at the Harper plan as nothing more then a $1,200.00 bonus per child as more of an added baby bonus etc. There are no real needs that should be associated with this. I do not support government funded daycare period. I do say though provincial governments should be the inspectors of all daycare in their provinces and that they should set certain standards for this kind of thing. The Federal government should give tax breaks to all the people, if they want more money back in the pockets of the people. They should not be in the babysitting business in any way shape or form. If they wish to get into this kind of thing they should maybe plan to give a set amount for each child born in Canada. Say $1,000.00 for the first $2,000.00 for the second and $3,000.00 for every child there after. They may even make that per year until the child enters kindergarten. To me, that would make this much more feasible and also have a pro-birth stimulus. But they should never under any circumstances be involved in the daycare of those children. If there is a demand for something, then it should be up to the general business community and entrepreneurs to supply such services. It is not that that hard to see that this should be a workable scheme. It also will help show to the kids today that if you want to be able to get the good things in life, you will need an education to get them, if not you will just live a life that is full of just working to get by. That message is something the federal government should be making sure it gets out to all children right from an early age.

[Fortunata]

I dislike the argument that single mothers just can not afford to work and raise a small child with out help from welfare. That really burns me due to tow things. One why is the single mother having children she can not afford to raise, and secondly unless there was immaculate conception, there is a father out there some where, that needs to be paying child support.

All that is great in a perfect world. Unfortunately it doesn't always work that way.

The only valid reason for a single mother to be raising a child on her own is if the father is dead, and in that case yes we as the state should help in the costs.

What about the father (or mother for that matter) gambles, is abusive, drinks, drugs, runs around? Should the partner have to stay and take this until either she is dead or he is? There are so many variables to why there are single parents.

I looked at the Harper plan as nothing more then a $1,200.00 bonus per child as more of an added baby bonus etc.

Of course it is; to paint it as anything other was deliberately deceptive on the part of the CPC.

If they wish to get into this kind of thing they should maybe plan to give a set amount for each child born in Canada. Say $1,000.00 for the first $2,000.00 for the second and $3,000.00 for every child there after. They may even make that per year until the child enters kindergarten. To me, that would make this much more feasible and also have a pro-birth stimulus.

You can buy an awful lot of beer and popcorn for that kind of money. And we still wouldn't be any further ahead. Much of the population growth that was a result of just getting this bonus could accelerate the problems we now have regarding child care.

[old_bold&cold]

All that is great in a perfect world. Unfortunately it doesn't always work that way.

What about the father (or mother for that matter) gambles, is abusive, drinks, drugs, runs around? Should the partner have to stay and take this until either she is dead or he is? There are so many variables to why there are single parents.

Of course it is; to paint it as anything other was deliberately deceptive on the part of the CPC.

You can buy an awful lot of beer and popcorn for that kind of money. And we still wouldn't be any further ahead. Much of the population growth that was a result of just getting this bonus could accelerate the problems we now have regarding child care.

If the young woman in the case has relations with a drunkabusive person or even a drug user etc., then why is she having children with this type of person. I would still enforce the child support orders and yes jail the man on weekends until he has paid his full support. If the woman is still living with this person then even more reason to make sure. There is no reason for woman to have unwanted children in todays society where birth control can be had for free, through many different agencies. The excuse that the conom broke is just silly and we do have morning after pills available, not just for rape etc. The trouble is that we now accept the single mothers of the world as victims when they were just as much at fault as to their behaviour as the man, and in many cases even more so. If a mother is struggling that badly she can have the child adopted, and rasie by responsible people. There is a shortage of babies for adoption purposes in Canada right now. It is a lot harder after the struggling mother screws up the child's life and then puts them for adoption. So yes, you are right when you say that these things are not working this way, but I say they should be and strictly enforced if need be. Then we will be better off for it.

You seem to think that a person being a low life degenerate is a god given right. But we can do something about that and it would make for a better country if we would start doing so, instead of just throwing money at that person or their enablers. It will only change when society takes a strong stand against this kind of thing, and puts an end to its acceptance. I can feel sorry for some single mothers, but I sure do not have to support the reasons they ended up where they are, unless rape was the issue, and then we have the justice system for that and again the morning after pill, will sensure no unwanted events springing from such an event.

[jdobbin]

Of course it is; to paint it as anything other was deliberately deceptive on the part of the CPC.

I think if people in the next election want to have daycare spaces, they should vote other than Conservative. Their promise on creating spaces cannot be met under their current plan according to the minister responsible.

You'll never convince many of the right of the need for daycare in the first place so it is probably hopeless to think their policy will provide for spaces.

[Melanie_]

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

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.

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.

I have never advocated that child care should be free. Parents can and should pay for their childcare if they are above a certain income, and if they are below they can get a subsidy based on a sliding scale. Your figure of $30,000 is the current cut off point in Manitoba for subsidy; any income above that and you pay the full daily fee of $18.80, or $376 every 4 weeks. Child care centres do still get an operating grant from the province of just over $2000 per year per child, which seems like a pittance when you think about the support it provides to families. That $2000 per year per child is the money that we are talking about to fund new spaces, plus capital costs to build new centres or renovate/expand existing ones to allow for more children to attend. (Capital costs are often offset by fundraising, grants, and individual investments, so its not like the government is totally funding them, but they are a contributor.)

The other role of the government in child care is to license and inspect centres on a regular basis. This doesn't mean they set the program, it simply means they ensure that all standards are met.

[Fortunata]

You seem to think that a person being a low life degenerate is a god given right.

Now you're being totally ridiculous since I didn't say that nor imply that in any way. As for the rest of your post: Shit happens. Take a look around your community. If you don't see it you you live a very insular life or wear blinders.

[Peter F]

...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....

Canadian kids in Canada cannot possibly become a minority. I think you are probably referring to White Canadian kids. Please be specific.

[ScottSA]

The whole issue of childcare spaces is more for political gain, not for any real gain for parents with children. It never has been the responsibility of any level of government to pay for childcare, and it really should not be so even today. While we do need a rising birthrate to survive in Canada, we also need responsible parents to be raising these children. I dislike the argument that single mothers just can not afford to work and raise a small child with out help from welfare. That really burns me due to tow things. One why is the single mother having children she can not afford to raise, and secondly unless there was immaculate conception, there is a father out there some where, that needs to be paying child support. The only valid reason for a single mother to be raising a child on her own is if the father is dead, and in that case yes we as the state should help in the costs. It is all our tax dollars and most old people have already raised and paid for our children to be raised and educated. I see no reason for us to pay further because some young people could not understand birth control etc..

I looked at the Harper plan as nothing more then a $1,200.00 bonus per child as more of an added baby bonus etc. There are no real needs that should be associated with this. I do not support government funded daycare period. I do say though provincial governments should be the inspectors of all daycare in their provinces and that they should set certain standards for this kind of thing. The Federal government should give tax breaks to all the people, if they want more money back in the pockets of the people. They should not be in the babysitting business in any way shape or form. If they wish to get into this kind of thing they should maybe plan to give a set amount for each child born in Canada. Say $1,000.00 for the first $2,000.00 for the second and $3,000.00 for every child there after. They may even make that per year until the child enters kindergarten. To me, that would make this much more feasible and also have a pro-birth stimulus. But they should never under any circumstances be involved in the daycare of those children. If there is a demand for something, then it should be up to the general business community and entrepreneurs to supply such services. It is not that that hard to see that this should be a workable scheme. It also will help show to the kids today that if you want to be able to get the good things in life, you will need an education to get them, if not you will just live a life that is full of just working to get by. That message is something the federal government should be making sure it gets out to all children right from an early age.

Excellent post. As a rule I'm for as little governmental interference as possible, but I think encouraging birthrates with cash is important just from the POV of survival.

[M.Dancer]

Excellent post. As a rule I'm for as little governmental interference as possible, but I think encouraging birthrates with cash is important just from the POV of survival.

An epiphany......

[Michael Bluth]

I think if people in the next election want to have daycare spaces, they should vote other than Conservative. Their promise on creating spaces cannot be met under their current plan according to the minister responsible.

You'll never convince many of the right of the need for daycare in the first place so it is probably hopeless to think their policy will provide for spaces.

Anybody who bases their vote choice on daycare spaces as their one and only deciding factor in choosing who to vote for isn't going to vote Conservative anyway. Probably never has or will.

The Conservative's plan has provided spaces, just not as many as they thought it would. Yet, you make it sound like the plan doesn't provide any spaces at all.

Hopeless?

That would be asking you to debate honestly and not mischaracterize everything the Government does.

Will your seething continue when Stephane Dion becomes the first Liberal leader in 100 years not to become PM?

[Melanie_]

The Conservative's plan has provided spaces, just not as many as they thought it would. Yet, you make it sound like the plan doesn't provide any spaces at all.

From the OP article:

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.

Liberal MP and child-care critic Ruby Dhalla scoffed at that idea.

"I think Minister Solberg is forgetting that any spaces created are thanks to money that was booked and committed under the Liberals. Not a single new space has been created under this government."

The Conservatives still haven't decided how they should go about allocating money for creating spaces. Transferring it to the provinces seems just a bit too close to the original plan put forward by Ken Dryden, which they scrapped. They wanted to give it to private businesses, in the form of tax credits, to open centres for their employees, but there was no interest expressed by businesses. No spaces have yet been directly created as a result of the Conservative promises - regular transfer payments that the provinces then choose to apply to their existing child care programs doesn't count as the 125,000 spaces promised. Saying that the new spaces are due to "extra support" is not the same as creating spaces themselves.

As a refresher, here's what they promised during the election:

A Conservative government will:

Create 125,000 new child care spaces over five years;

Provide $10,000 in assistance to employers, including businesses and non-profit institutions, for each new child care space created;

Make it easier for working parents to juggle child care and work responsibilities;

Help employers create child care spaces in the workplace by allocating $250 million a year in tax credits to employers who cover the full cost of creating spaces; and

Design the program to ensure that small business and rural communities will be able to access it as well as larger employers and cities.

Still waiting.....

[jdobbin]

The Conservatives still haven't decided how they should go about allocating money for creating spaces. Transferring it to the provinces seems just a bit too close to the original plan put forward by Ken Dryden, which they scrapped. They wanted to give it to private businesses, in the form of tax credits, to open centres for their employees, but there was no interest expressed by businesses. No spaces have yet been directly created as a result of the Conservative promises - regular transfer payments that the provinces then choose to apply to their existing child care programs doesn't count as the 125,000 spaces promised. Saying that the new spaces are due to "extra support" is not the same as creating spaces themselves.

Still waiting.....

For parents who might support the Tories, the lack of spaces is a major sticking point. Dryden was able to create a plan supported by the provinces but Harper is committed to tax credits. Even the minister says it won't create 125,000 spaces.

[Visionseeker]

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.

Why draw the line at kindergarten? Hell, let’s get rid of the line altogether and scrap public education. Let parents be responsible for paying for their kid’s schooling in a market environment.

Utter nonsense! The economic model that shapes our education system stems from the 19th century. Our economy already faces remarkable labour shortages – just ask the RCMP about their latest recruitment drive – and sticking to an agrarian education model isn’t going to help. We need to look at year-round schooling as well as early childhood education. Our economic survival demands it.

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.

You campaign on early childhood education and, when elected, nix the $100 to help pay for it.

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.

Most will be happy to give-up a $100 check when it reduces their $600 - $1,000 a month sitter/daycare bill to $200 - $400.

An across the board tax cut is the most effective social program. Or how about eliminate corporate taxes?

At $14 billion in surplus and now on pace for $18 billion, we can afford a childcare care program and tax cuts.

Maybe they'll even make their own daycares.

Yeah, right. Just like they did with the Conservative incentive.

[geoffrey]

I have never advocated that child care should be free. Parents can and should pay for their childcare if they are above a certain income, and if they are below they can get a subsidy based on a sliding scale. Your figure of $30,000 is the current cut off point in Manitoba for subsidy; any income above that and you pay the full daily fee of $18.80, or $376 every 4 weeks.

Seems reasonable.

The other role of the government in child care is to license and inspect centres on a regular basis. This doesn't mean they set the program, it simply means they ensure that all standards are met.

Again, reasonable.

Still not guarnteed free for everyone National Childcare Program as per Chretien/Martin though. Which is good. That would be a disaster.

Why draw the line at kindergarten? Hell, let’s get rid of the line altogether and scrap public education. Let parents be responsible for paying for their kid’s schooling in a market environment.

Voucher system? And how well it's worked for Alberta giving more people than ever access to Charter and private institutions?! Great!

At $14 billion in surplus and now on pace for $18 billion, we can afford a childcare care program and tax cuts.

We can afford tax cuts. The economy cannot afford another wretched bureaucracy like Health Canada.

Yeah, right. Just like they did with the Conservative incentive.

I'm against that as well.

[Melanie_]

Still not guarnteed free for everyone National Childcare Program as per Chretien/Martin though. Which is good. That would be a disaster.

I agree, free national daycare would be a disaster, and totally unnecessary. There are plenty of parents willing and able to pay for good care for their children. Free child care was Layton's proposal, not Chretien/Martin/Dryden's. The bilateral agreements simply provided money for provinces to expand their current systems in whatever way they felt best, as long as they were meeting the QUAD principles: Quality (there had to be some measure of the quality of the programs); Universality (available to whoever needs it); Accessibility (inclusive of children with special needs; available even in remote areas); and Developmental (providing developmentally appropriate programming). I think the confusion stems from the use of the word "Universal". This was never meant to mean that all children should go, or that it would be free, but rather that it would be universally available for those who need it.

Manitoba's system, which I've outlined in this thread, works quite well, but there just aren't enough spaces out there to meet the needs of families. If the bilateral agreements hadn't been cancelled, we would be that much closer to meeting those needs. Instead, the Conservatives now are "consulting" with the provinces, and will eventually find out that they should just have left well enough alone.

[Melanie_]

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.

Here's an update on the private care model of child care.

The Toronto Star

The largest daycare corporation in the world – often criticized for cutting care to raise profits – is bringing its controversial form of big-box privatized child care to Canada.

Nicknamed "Fast Eddy," Australian-based entrepreneur Edmund Groves, who holds Canadian citizenship, is behind a move to purchase daycares in Ontario, Alberta and B.C.

~snip~

The Sydney Morning Herald published a story about Groves with the headline: "Cradle Snatcher." Last year, Labour MP Michael Danby attacked Groves in federal parliament, saying the daycare king has become rich by "milking government (child care) subsidies."

In a 2006 report by the Australian Institute, a respected Australian think-tank, researchers said poor food quality and cost-cutting have compromised quality even as ABC has amassed a fortune from public child care subsidies given to parents.

The report was based on a survey of employees at daycares across Australia. The report singled out ABC, saying that despite an estimated $172 million in government subsidies, the daycare giant fell short in most areas of quality care when compared to community based, non-profit centres.

[Drea]

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

So we can safely assume that you are pro-choice then?

Darn that YMCA daycare! Indoctrinating children into fitness! The Horror of it! Teaching 3 and 4 year old to cooperate and share (OMG!). We should get those commie Y's shut down and quick!

Daycare is an issue that many families face. Not all families are lucky enough to have one income earner. Many (if not most) have both parents working.

This is not about "giving daycare money". It's about creating the space so a parent can PAY for someone to look after their child while they earn the money to pay their mortgage. Low income parents recieve daycare SUBSIDY already. And it comes from provincial coffers...

Naaahhh. Let's force all mom's to stay home and watch the foreclosures -- that'd be fun!

(sarcasm)

Edited October 23, 2007 by Drea

[stevoh]

Isn't the original topic about the creation of spaces in the day care system?

I am quite willing to pay for day care for my daughter. However, I have had to put her name on various waiting lists, waiting lists that are at least a year long.

For me, its not about having to pay for the space, its finding the space in the first place.

[mikedavid00]

Daycares all over the country have lost funding since the Tories have come into power.

THe gov't should not be in the daycare business.

They should only give out monies to those families who cannot afford it and work and the families can spend it on the daycare of their own choice. This is how it's done in the US.

Do not confuse the latter with being in the healthcare business. Canada trying to 'create spots' and manage some centralized daycare system is something we should all know that our country is not capable of doing and none of us should be looking at Big Brother to look after us.

Do you want Ignatieef being your dady?

Let politicians do their role and get out the Daycare/healthcare business.

[mikedavid00]

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

That's how it's done in the US. Each state pays for childcare. But make no mistakes, they are NOT in the childcare business. There's a big difference between a supplemental handout, and being in the daycare business.

I don't mind paying a handout if someoene is working and needs it. I refuse to have my gov't in the daycare business.

[mikedavid00]

I am quite willing to pay for day care for my daughter. However, I have had to put her name on various waiting lists, waiting lists that are at least a year long.

GEEE.. WHAT DOES THAT SOUND LIKE...

SOUNDS LIKE OUR.......... (you know the rest)

(guyers?)

[M.Dancer]

GEEE.. WHAT DOES THAT SOUND LIKE...

SOUNDS LIKE OUR.......... (you know the rest)

(guyers?)

Demand outpacing supply

[mikedavid00]

Demand outpacing supply

And why is that?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

[mikedavid00]

Demand outpacing supply

You know I gotta ask you.

You've been around for a while and seen everything. Why do you still beleive that Canada is capable of running any kind of functioning social system?

Where does this belief come from that maybe one day we'll get it 'right'.

Do you HONESTLY, HONESTLY beleive that our gov't and politicians are capable of running a centralized daycare system when they can't even run a damn gun registry?

Get with it.

[Melanie_]

You know I gotta ask you.

You've been around for a while and seen everything. Why do you still beleive that Canada is capable of running any kind of functioning social system?

Where does this belief come from that maybe one day we'll get it 'right'.

Do you HONESTLY, HONESTLY beleive that our gov't and politicians are capable of running a centralized daycare system when they can't even run a damn gun registry?

Get with it.

MikeDavid, read the thread. Where is a centralized daycare system being advocated? Guess what - the guy from Australia, with his "naturalized" Canadian citizenship, is an IMMIGRANT! Go get him!!!

There is not going to be some "centralized daycare system" in any proposal I have ever read. Ottawa isn't about to set up some national registry. The goal of most child care advocates is simply to have a regulated system, meaning the government insures there are standards in place and these standards are monitored. Government dollars would go to provide subsidies on a sliding scale for families who can't afford the full costs, and grants would be available to non-profit organizations for start up costs and minimal ongoing expenses - most expenses are covered by parent fees (Quebec's system of $7/day child care is becoming recognized more and more as being unrealistic). Grants may also be available to cover additional costs required to provide care for children with special needs. Each non-profit centre is independent, and is run by a parent elected Board of Directors, not some government bureaucracy. The government will not be running daycare!

Edited, to remove a pretty snarky comment, with apologies to MikeDavid.

Edited October 26, 2007 by Melanie_