babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Feds cancel day-care funding plan

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Feds cancel day-care funding plan
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 24 February 2006 01:44 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In a letter sent out this week, Diane Finley, minister of human resources and social development, said Ontario would only get another $250 million of the money promised by Ottawa when Paul Martin's Liberal party was in power.

Mary Anne Chambers, provincial minister of children and youth services, says she tried to talk to Finley about the decision, but her call wasn't returned.

cbc.ca



From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 24 February 2006 02:20 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Great. $100 a month.

When my daughter was a toddler (almost a decade ago) it cost me at least $30 a day for daycare. I'm sure costs have gone up since then. This plan is such a joke.


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
mamitalinda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5510

posted 24 February 2006 02:28 PM      Profile for mamitalinda   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It costs me $28 dollars a day in Halifax. Also, the supplementary funding we were receiving in NS is running out at the end of March. The new deal was supposed to compensate for the loss of that funding. Now, child care centres are forced to choose between giving poorly-paid staff a pay cut, and raising prices for parents who are already squeezed pretty damned tight. $1200 won't even make up for the price hike most parents will face.

In short: thanks a lot for nothing, Harper!

Really, I think at some point early learning and child care workers will need to stage a massive strike. Then people will realize how important child care is.


From: Babblers On Strike! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 24 February 2006 02:39 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
More here: Tory plan to scrap Liberal child care system is full steam ahead: minister

Politicians exploit babies to get elected. It's time to demand that they do some of the hard work, if they are unwilling to support working mothers and fathers, and be concerned about the welfare of children.


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 24 February 2006 03:24 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Didn't we know this would happen?
They're not Tories; they're the Reform Party that ate the PC. The press made a point of forgetting that during the election, and so, apparently, did a lot of voters.
These are the people who believe that if God had intended women to work, He would have made them rich enough to hire a nanny.
A strike won't help: the workers will be ordered back, fined and fired.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 24 February 2006 03:29 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"It's full-time or nothing. We're actually encouraging the parents to go back to work and to leave their kids at a time when it's important to spend as much time as possible with them, and when those parents want to spend the time with their children.

"There have been many studies that show that the best people to raise children are the parents.''


Sounds like something straight out of an "r.e.a.l. women" press release.

So is the government prepared to put a whole whack of single parents on welfare for the sake of their staying home and raising their kids? How many children already live in poverty in this country???


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 24 February 2006 03:35 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm thinking about something very different from a strike. How about challenging the politicians to live by their words?

$3 a day for childcare - Okay, ask MPs to take the kids for that rate.

They kiss the babies to get elected. Now they can take care of 'em - either by providing a decent childcare program, or by taking them into the House.


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
RP.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7424

posted 24 February 2006 03:44 PM      Profile for RP.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Would you trust them to look after your children?

..on the other hand, $100/mo. is better than we were getting before on PEI, despite there being a "deal" with the feds... I don't know what the deal was, but it didn't make child care any more affordable.


From: I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 24 February 2006 03:46 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says his government has a mandate to scrap the child-care deals with the provinces in favour of a tax credit for parents.

... It was unclear if Flaherty misspoke or was signalling a departure from the election promise when he referred to the payment as a tax credit.

Canadian Press


quote:
At least two premiers want to raise the thorny issue of day-care funding when they meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Ottawa on Friday night.

cbc.ca



From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pinko525
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10361

posted 24 February 2006 04:10 PM      Profile for Pinko525     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To be sure some low income single parent families will be greatly impacted by this $100 a month policy in a very positive way.

And every family will have $100 more a month minus any taxes owed than they would have.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 24 February 2006 04:12 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
At a corporate breakfast Friday attended by Flaherty, Toronto Mayor David Miller said his city will suffer a major blow under the new federal child care plan.

"The people of Toronto are being short-changed," Miller said.

He said the $1,200 won't replace the 6,000 spaces the city was going to create in some of Toronto's poorest neighbourhoods.

CTV.ca



From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 24 February 2006 04:13 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pinko525:
To be sure some low income single parent families will be greatly impacted by this $100 a month policy in a very positive way.

And every family will have $100 more a month minus any taxes owed than they would have.


What they won't get is any more affordable child care spaces than presently exist. This $100 per month is just a vote-buying scheme. Which I don't object to in principle, provided voters get what they're actually promised.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 February 2006 04:16 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"time to transition" - excuse me while I go to open a vein.

Do the Tories absolutely have to murder the English language while they proceed about their other destructive business?

And these people are spouting theory about child-care?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 24 February 2006 04:19 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do the Tories absolutely have to murder the English language while they proceed about their other destructive business?

Yes -- it's essential to their essentially destructive business.

quote:
Despite assurances that the political elite is interested only in what works, this is the most intensely ideological period of government we have known in more than a hundred years. The model of market-managerialism has largely destroyed all alternatives, traditional and untraditional. Its most powerful weapon has been its vocabulary. We are familiar with the way this language has carried all before it. We must sit on the cusp, hope to be in a centre of excellence, dislike producer-dominated industries, wish for a multiplicity of providers, grovel to our line managers, even more to the senior management team, deliver outcomes downstream, provide choice. Our students are now clients, our patients and passengers customers. It is a language which was first devised in business schools, then broke into government and now infests all institutions. It has no real historical predecessor – there was no equivalent ‘Keynesian’ vocabulary in the 1940s and 1950s – and is peculiarly seductive. It purports to be neutral: thus all procedures must be ‘transparent’ and ‘robust’, everyone ‘accountable’. It is hard-nosed but successful because the private sector on which it is based is hard-nosed and successful. It is efficient; it abhors waste; it provides all the answers. It drove Thatcher’s enterprise culture. It lies behind Cameron’s social entrepreneurs.

It is more powerful than the kind of language Flaubert satirised in the Dictionnaire des idées reçues since, however ridiculous it might be, it determines the way our political (and economic) elites think of the world.


Yes, that article is about New Labour. It makes very little difference.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
mamitalinda
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5510

posted 24 February 2006 04:20 PM      Profile for mamitalinda   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"To be sure some low income single parent families will be greatly impacted by this $100 a month policy in a very positive way.
And every family will have $100 more a month minus any taxes owed than they would have."


No, see, because there was this child care agreement with the provinces that would have created more spaces and cut the cost of existing spaces. So, combined with nothing to mitigate the loss of the five year funding and the resulting rate increases, we will actually be worse off.

Now, if Harper will just fund my mother's early retirement, I'm sure she will be pleased to look after my son day in and day out in exchange for $1200. No, wait, I'm not sure.

Truth be told, were it an ideal world, I'd like to work about 50 or 60% of the time and look after my son the rest of the time. Partly because I *enjoy* my job, and partly because my son gets a lot out of his early learning program. But guess what: $1200 a year ain't gonna cut it. So I would rather fight for a national early learning and child care program, and enjoy the time I have with my son. I'd like to think that his growth and development as a human being is valued by our government. But I guess not.

[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: mamitalinda ]


From: Babblers On Strike! | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 24 February 2006 04:29 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
HEY, OTTAWA

There's a vigil at 24 Sussex Drive at 6:00 p.m. TONIGHT.

Join child care workers and activists, parents, and children as they demonstrate while provincial premiers meet and eat with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Paul Moist, national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, plans to attend.

[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 24 February 2006 04:48 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
'lance: What a blast of brilliance that article is.

You should start a separate thread from it. Although: what would be left to say?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 24 February 2006 04:55 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
You should start a separate thread from it.

Done.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 24 February 2006 04:55 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Daycare for arborboy is $50 a day. If he's sick, he can't go (but we have to pay anyway). If we take vacation, we pay to keep the space. If the grandparents come to visit for a day or a week, we still pay for daycare.

I understand - the daycare needs to be paid for the space. It still hurts though - we've paid for 3 days this week that we didn't use, instead taking days off work and working very wacky hours to keep things moving.

Harper's $100 a month is a fucking joke. We were so close, for the first time in decades, to a real functioning child care system. Shit. Shit Shit Shit. We pay almost $8000/year for child care. For all intents and purposes, I work 2 days a week to pay for child care. Fuck. At least we are both employed in flexible jobs - the idea of being a single parent, or even just working fixed schedules and trying to manage this fills me with awe.

Politics has become personal, again. Killing daycare is the most effective way of pushing (mostly) women out of the workforce and into the home, where the Conservatives prefer they remain. Fuckers.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Olly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3401

posted 24 February 2006 05:15 PM      Profile for Olly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
To be sure some low income single parent families will be greatly impacted by this $100 a month policy in a very positive way.

The Caledon Institute did a review of the payment, and a low-income family would net only about $400 of the $1,200. Not just because of taxes, but reductions in other income benefits including, ironically, the National Child Benefit Supplement. Harper would be better off raising the base Child Tax Benefit than this abysmal payment.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 24 February 2006 05:21 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Listening to the Premier's conference on education and Charest and McGuinty ramble on about how a NATIONAL program is needed, a NATIONAL concensus is needed, NATIONAL standards and NATIONAL funding, its rather ironic that today we see the NATIONAL CHILD CARE AND EARLY EDUCATION program officially cancelled, isn't it?

PENTICTON: Changes concern child care providers

quote:
When the Conservative government follows through on its plan to phase out child care transfer funding it will make a difficult local situation even worse, says Kim Lyster, executive director of the Penticton and District Community Resources Society.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said during the federal election campaign that he would like to replace the transfer payment program put in place by the Liberal government with a $1,200 a year taxable child tax credit.

If those subsidies are replaced by the $1,200 a year child care allowance, it will “significantly jeopardize” parents’ ability to pay, said Lyster.
“The thing that is most alarming about Mr. Harper’s agenda of offering families $100 a month is that it doesn’t equal, in any way, shape or form, the real cost of child care,” she said.



LONDON: Harper child-care plan hits poor families, council told

quote:
A study by the Caledon Institute of Social Policy shows a couple that together earn $30,000 a year and who now get subsidies worth $3,000 would, under the Harper plan, be left with only $460, because the $1,200 promised would be taxed as a benefit and offset by the loss of other child benefits.

The same study shows a windfall for a couple that has one parent at home and the other earning $100,000. Instead of getting nothing, as is now the case, the couple could keep $1,032 a year as there would be no other benefits to lose and the $1,200 would be taxed at the rate of the stay-at-home parent.

"It's going to be the most vulnerable and the most in need of child care who will receive the smallest benefit," Eagle said.

By a vote of 18-1, council authorized Mayor Anne Marie DeCicco to write Harper, as most Ontario mayors are doing, to ask him to continue subsidizing child care at the rate promised by the previous Liberal government.

Only Coun. Rob Alder objected. "The other side of the coin


(looks like Alder needs de-electing himself)

LEEDS-GRENVILLE: Future of child-care initiative here unclear

quote:
Proponents of the area's Best Start child-care initiative hope not to see it come to a sudden stop any time soon.

But with a new federal government elected partially on a distinct child-care platform, the future of the program after one year is anything but clear.


(Sudden stop? So far, the brakes are on...)


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 24 February 2006 05:21 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
I'm thinking about something very different from a strike. How about challenging the politicians to live by their words?

$3 a day for childcare - Okay, ask MPs to take the kids for that rate.

They kiss the babies to get elected. Now they can take care of 'em - either by providing a decent childcare program, or by taking them into the House.


writer, this is exactly what I was thinking when I was listening to the radio this morning with clenched teeth. Time for parents to take their children to Conservative politicians' constituency offices, and let them run around there. All day long. Dump the lunch on the desk and tell them to feed their kids when they get hungry. Then sit there and watch while the kid goes nuts in the office (i.e. let the staff get the kids away from the papers and the desks, don't lift a finger to do a thing to take care of the children). Obviously you don't want to drop them off there, or the cretins will claim you abandoned them (and who would want to leave children with Conservatives anyhow?).

Everywhere those fuckers are, bring your kids. For hours. Change shitty diapers on their desks. Let the kids scream and yell.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 24 February 2006 05:28 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pinko525:
To be sure some low income single parent families will be greatly impacted by this $100 a month policy in a very positive way.

And every family will have $100 more a month minus any taxes owed than they would have.


Please do some basic math.

Even assuming it will be $100, (which it won't becuase it is taxed) That works out to 100/4.33 (Converts months into weeks) equals $23.09 a week.

I do most of the day time childcare in our family. However, my work schedule is only so flexible and then there is the reality of seeding and farm work. $23.09 does not even cover a single full day of childcare for us. Even in informal care it would hardly do it. Nor will it do anything to help keep small town and rural childcare spaces open.

This is stupid ideology trumping what is best for families. I found it interesting that the people who thought this was a good idea during the election fell into two camps. Camp one. Don't need child care anymore. Camp two. Already at home, often home schooling.
For those who have had to make the hard decision to be in the workforce while we raise our children we could see it was unworkable.

[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: Bookish Agrarian ]


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 24 February 2006 05:28 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Exactly, Michelle. I've already registered the domain name - kissthebaby.ca.

It would also be nice to get testimonials from adults who went to day care, from those who go to day care (they would be children), from parents whose kids go to day care, from people who teach at daycare, and from those who are DESPARATE for day care.

Anybody wanting to get involved in this, please do PM me.

[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 24 February 2006 05:32 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I might want to get involved myself; I'm an opponent of Harper's plan (which was pure electioneering but also speaks to his makeup, twisted as it is).

I'm already getting heat from the party (the Conservative party) for speaking out constantly on the Emerson and Fortier affair. I wrote this in response.

quote:
What I am is a Canadian first, Conservative Party member second, which is as all members should be. Who should be surprised that there are differing voices within the party? I would worry more if there were none.

Political parties are not homogeneous pools of opinion – dissent within the party is important. In our history, dissent has played an important role in shaping this country. Dissent keeps us honest and on our toes. Dissent helps us all strive to do a little bit better, next time. Dissent is healthy.

Conservatives should not succumb to group think, and automatically and unquestioningly go along with what the leadership or cabinet says or does. Father does not always know best.

Conservatives should not assume that our party will always be on the correct side of an issue.

Conservatives ought not to believe that principle matters only when we are not in government, nor should we relax our ethical standards for the sake of expediency, by approving the wrong-headed notion that the end justifies the means.

Conservatives should not believe that criticizing the government of the day is a job only for the opposition.


Anyway, I'll certainly do testimonials from the perspective of a parent that used govt co-funded day care and also found private day care lacking or uneven in quality; my kids might even throw a word in (6 and 8 years old); and I know many parents who will speak out.

As far as I'm concerned, early ed is where its at. The kids in Kindergarten that tend to have problems are those who have never experienced early ed, **with other kids in a group setting**.

[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: Michael Watkins ]


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 24 February 2006 05:35 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Quote from article above:
"There have been many studies that show that the best people to raise children are the parents.''


This attitude enrages me. When you send your child to daycare, you are still raising him!!!! He will still spend more time with you than he does in daycare, and your influence will still be the most important one is his life. This inentionally exaggerated language designed to make mothers feel guilty.

From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 24 February 2006 05:44 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michael - please send the testimonials my way if you feel comfortable doing so. And others too! I'm not sure how quickly I'll be able to get the site up, but I do know this is urgent.
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 24 February 2006 05:47 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is stupid ideology trumping what is best for families.

Yes, several sorts of ideology conflated, in fact. Asked during the campaign how this would create more day-care spaces, Harpoons came back with a fusillade of styrofoam in which only three words were intelligible: "choice" and "free market."

They appeared to believe, or to believe they could get the voters to believe, that this massive injection of money into the Canadian economy would inspire a new generation of child-care entrepreneurs to leap into action and find ways to provide care -- at $3 per child per day (before taxes).

Even by mod Cons standards, it was insulting to the intelligence to be told this, or to hear it implied in public.

[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: 'lance ]


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 24 February 2006 05:48 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Watkins:
I As far as I'm concerned, early ed is where its at. The kids in Kindergarten that tend to have problems are those who have never experienced early ed, **with other kids in a group setting**.

[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: Michael Watkins ]



This was a significant impetus behind the push for daycare in Quebec, when many kindergarten teachers noted that a lot of children from impoverished families were having trouble in school right from the start.

As well, in France, kids start public schooling at age 3. Not formal schooling, of course, but socialization, play and learning. Socialization doesn't happen so easily when you have only one kid at home under the age of 5.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
solarpower
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7609

posted 24 February 2006 05:58 PM      Profile for solarpower   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
posted by cmkl and i moved it over here:
child care petition
I've signed already.

From: that which the creator created from | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 24 February 2006 06:04 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The NDP position should be that parents get a choice of the $1200 (lots of rural folks could never use a daycare because of population density, and some stay at home types don't use daycare in any case) or use a gov't funded daycare. Best of both worlds, everyone wins, and it cuts the feet out from both the Liberal and CPC positions.
From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 February 2006 06:21 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by retread:
The NDP position should be that parents get a choice of the $1200 (lots of rural folks could never use a daycare because of population density, and some stay at home types don't use daycare in any case) or use a gov't funded daycare. Best of both worlds, everyone wins, and it cuts the feet out from both the Liberal and CPC positions.

I can't believe anyone can seriously entertain this Conservascam.

Daycare is about unchaining women from the kitchen and nursery so they can work and take their rightful place in the society. It is an obligation that society owes to the fight for equality between men and women, nothing else.

If rural folks and voluntary stay-at-homes don't need daycare, why exactly are we giving them money??? Wait, I know: How about getting rid of medicare and give every Canadian $10,000 per year??? That way it's fair for the people that need it (the sickies -- provided they don't get too sick), and the healthy ones too!

By the way, here's a letter from the CAW to Harper on the issue:

Buzz Hargrove to Stephen Harper re child care

[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
nonsuch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1402

posted 24 February 2006 07:23 PM      Profile for nonsuch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Everywhere those fuckers are, bring your kids.

I love it!
Especially press conferences and federal-provincial meetings.
Only... most of the people who need to be there can't afford the busfare.

From: coming and going | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 24 February 2006 07:52 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by nonsuch:

I love it!
Especially press conferences and federal-provincial meetings.

I think that would be a very effective protest.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 24 February 2006 08:08 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It's not just the weasling out of this programme... let's face it, we knew they would! It's the bald faced hypocrisy of these reformist nasties...they don't approve of birth control, they're dead set against abortion, they talk about kids being a gift from God while behaving as if they're also a punishment for loose morals, and then they mean heartedly move against the very kids they claim they are dedicated to protecting.

I really do think there is plenty of evidence to support a claim that they are, by and large, very mentally ill.

But they'll have all the money needed to buy into "Star Wars" and any other type of war mongering crud the amurikkkan eagle can come up with!!


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 February 2006 08:17 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
I really do think there is plenty of evidence to support a claim that they are, by and large, very mentally ill.

I agree with your sentiments, and I'm sure you didn't mean to use "mentally ill" as a synonym for "extremely reactionary", and I hope you don't think I'm being picky, but I believe it's really important to remove usages like this from our language. Because many people do suffer from illnesses without becoming anti-human after the fashion of the Harper neocon ideologues.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Toedancer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10934

posted 24 February 2006 08:50 PM      Profile for Toedancer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
To be extremely reactionary myself, not only does it keep women at home with their toddlers, but I'd bet money it's meant to keep women out of the boardroom and out of the Canadian political scene.

Find out when your MP is in the constitutency office, book them now for the 20 minutes they allow, bring the toddlers, and book til the next election.

kissthebaby.ca

[ 24 February 2006: Message edited by: Toedancer ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 24 February 2006 09:56 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, I did not mean "reactionary", that goes without saying. I meant "mentally ill", as in paranoid schizophrenic, sociopathic, irrational and downright fekkin nutbar.
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 February 2006 10:29 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
No, I did not mean "reactionary", that goes without saying. I meant "mentally ill", as in paranoid schizophrenic, sociopathic, irrational and downright fekkin nutbar.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Toedancer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10934

posted 24 February 2006 10:34 PM      Profile for Toedancer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yes Anne, thank you for clarifying, for some reason, I thought I was being 'reactionary'. Duh?
From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 24 February 2006 10:36 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Note the divisive language:

quote:
Finley countered that daycare "institutions'' often aren't available in rural areas or are too inflexible to offer night or part-time care.

"It's full-time or nothing. We're actually encouraging the parents to go back to work and to leave their kids at a time when it's important to spend as much time as possible with them, and when those parents want to spend the time with their children.


Of course to most of us, these are arguments in favour of expanding daycare services so that there are more services in rural areas and for night shift workers.

Its playing to the "politics of envy" and attempting to pit folks in rural areas (the main base of Conservative support...particularly in Ontario) against folks in urban areas.

They're hoping that folks in rural areas will think "gee, I'll never get a daycare centre...but at least I'll get an extra hundred bucks a month".

That's the game that the reformatories are going to play...and of course the undercurrent is also playing to the conservative evangelical types who think of daycare as a vast socialist secular humanist conspiracy to poison the minds of young children.

Anyway, left progressive folks will need to be ready to combat the reformatory propaganda. Also, I think this is a "bring down the government" issue.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Toedancer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10934

posted 24 February 2006 10:42 PM      Profile for Toedancer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by radiorahim:
Note the divisive language:
Also, I think this is a "bring down the government" issue.



It most certainly is going to be The Issue, that brings down this government. In my family, we wrote out in a hat, what the issues would be, and that was No. 1 !

From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Arctic Pig
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11568

posted 24 February 2006 10:54 PM      Profile for Arctic Pig   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've been trying to figure this one out, and I'll tell you what. I think you're right. I don't know how a throne speech with this backtrack on childcare in it, or any money bill with these changes in it, will ever pass in the House. Harpo's playing a confidence game! (Sorry...)

This is a stupid, stupid situation, and if Harpo and the Cons keep up the good work, the government will fall by May.

The question is, what then? Back to the polls? Maybe not. The G-G is certainly aware how election-weary we are. Maybe she will ask other party leaders in the House to attempt to form a government with a reasonable expectation of confidence.

But the Liberals are leaderless. Having a separatist as PM would be too postmodern even for Canada. So the only possible candidate for PM after Harpo blows his horn is...

Jack Layton!

(Or, at least this seemed plausible over beers with my NDP friend...!)


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Toedancer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10934

posted 24 February 2006 11:48 PM      Profile for Toedancer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Drink more beer or not. We are being assaulted. Personally I will not put up that what kind of old style 50's bullshit.

I am disgusted with my own imagination of how dinners go at Sussex Ave. It friggin freaks me out.


From: Ontario | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 25 February 2006 07:38 AM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I oppose the Tory paln and favour a fully public system but let's get real. The Liberals promised this in every election over the last 25 years and never delivered.

They too must think it is only a gift to the mythical "welfare mom" syndrome.

Under the old system you could still recoup through tax credits 75% of the cost. That is still in place only now the government will add another $100.00 to the kitty. Hardly socialism but $100.00 more than the Liberals gave - ever.

And it is symbolic benefit as well and people could lobby for it being increasedto $500/mo per child. That would make a dent in the problem parents face.

Hargrove is lame.


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Thrasymachus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5747

posted 25 February 2006 08:08 AM      Profile for Thrasymachus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Anyway, left progressive folks will need to be ready to combat the reformatory propaganda. Also, I think this is a "bring down the government" issue.
I agree that this issue might bring the governtment down but I think that there is a very easy way out for Harper and if you read between the lines it is already happening. Finney's comments were just stupid (attacking the value of early ed), but Harper's point about the provinces having the right to continue the plan are absolutely the way he'll get out of this (if he's smart). All he has to do is take a page from Paul Martin and and make CHST style arguments (provinces receive cash from the feds, and they can do with it as they please). So if he does something towards addressing "the fiscal imbalance", he will be able to say that he has delivered on his promise for $1200 a year and given provinces every opportunity to continue the to create child care spaces if they so choose.

Quite frankly, a big part of me doesn't want the provinces to be left of the hook on this one. Remember, Quebec did it without Fed support. I'll be damned if I'm going to let McGuinty off the hook on this one. As soon as the extra cash for provinces bit is hammered out, Hampton should go on the offensive, demanding that the provincial Liberals follow through on child care anyway. Manitoba is going ahead anyway, other provinces should follow suit.

BTW, I think that baby occupations of Federal Tory offices are a great idea, but there's no friggin way that I'm going to let Baird near my child.


From: South of Hull | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 25 February 2006 08:43 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It does sound to me that the Cons want to balance their first budget on the backs of babies. Time to start the protests nationwide. Get Sharon, Lois, and Bram (if they're still around) to head up some fundraisers. There should be a National Day of Action for Better Day Care. Use MP's offices for day care. Chain yourselves to tables, desks, in protest. Use the grounds of 24 Sussex and Parliament Hill for the first National Day Care Centres. Be noisy. Make sure the media is present. Embarrass the Cons to such an extent they back down and, with the provinces, put in place subsidized and affordable day care for all.

[ 25 February 2006: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 25 February 2006 10:59 AM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

I can't believe anyone can seriously entertain this Conservascam.

Daycare is about unchaining women from the kitchen and nursery so they can work and take their rightful place in the society. It is an obligation that society owes to the fight for equality between men and women, nothing else.


No, daycare is about helping poor parents raise their children. The rich don't need gov't daycare, and they don't need financial help. The middle class and poor need both. But if you're rural and not rich (most rich people are urban btw), you won't live anywhere close to a daycare center ... there are people who don't live in cities. Some of us pretend (at least to ourselves) we matter too. Unless you're thinking the gov't should create daycare centers everywhere were any parent needs one ... maybe every farm since that'd be convenient? Cheaper to give the $1200 in remote areas.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 February 2006 11:20 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by retread:
No, daycare is about helping poor parents raise their children. [...] Unless you're thinking the gov't should create daycare centers everywhere were any parent needs one ... maybe every farm since that'd be convenient? Cheaper to give the $1200 in remote areas.

No, daycare is about releasing women from the home. Poor parents don't need "help" raising children. They need money, which means good jobs, which means the freedom to leave the house and go to work, so they can get out of the poverty cycle.

And yes, I was indeed thinking that the gov't should facilitate daycare wherever parents need it. Just like health care and education. Thank you for putting it in such a clear form. And no, it's not "cheaper" to give $1200 instead. It's cheaper to give people $0, and put all the available money in creation of daycare.

There -- how much money did I just save the taxpayers?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 25 February 2006 11:20 AM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm sixtyseven, and a grandma. Yesterday, for a number of reasons, I was "kid care" for three grandchildren aged 5, 4, and 17 months. I love these kids, I'm told I "spoil" them and "indulge" them. I enjoy their company and I'm made humble by their gallantry and courage. And after three and a half hours I was just about wiped out! After lunch we had us a "snoozie", which is NOT to be confused with a nap because some of us are big little grrrls and too old for naps, now. Nobody slept. But we did all lie down and compare feet. The girlfriends are absolutely fascinated by the fact Grandma's feet are as white on the top as they are on the bottom. Their feet are white on the bottom and "bwown" on top. Big discussion as to why that was. Five year old decided Grandma has been around so long she has faded, like her blue shirt did.

Finally, dad came home. Snoozy over, and time for some ice cream and dad made Grandma a much needed cup of coffee...

and child care workers get minimum wage? How do they DO it? I can't imagine surviving a 40 or 50 hour week with , say, ten of the little treasures.

It isn't just this pack of neo-con nutbars who tell lies about how they truly feel toward children. The LiEbrals have years of underhanded hidden oppression of the children of this nation. And I'm sorry, I saw how committed to kids the NDP was when they were in the driver's seat in B.C., and it was underwhelming.

Education has been slashed, bashed, and cut back to the point it is almost irrelevant in terms of public schools. It's "dumb'em down time", the fewer informed people we have the easier it is for the shitheads to acquire more wealth. And how smart do they have to be to march lefty righty into the jaws of death? How much education will they need to be blown to grue in pursuit of more oil, more control, more more more?

And too many sit in their warm living rooms watching bullshit like last night's "Wanted" where sociopaths employed in law enforcement went over the border into Mexico, broke Mexican law, assaulted and kidnapped a "perp" and took him back to the Hew Hess Hay for "justice" ... and were made to look like heroes doing it!! But we aren't supposed to realize that programme is brainwashing our youth to accept that the mangy bird can do what it wants where it wants when it wants. It and "24" and several other propogandic pieces of crap! And we'll just dumb'em down, put them in such straitened circumstances they see joining the military as a step UP in the world... have them so desperate for a job they'll take anything and swallow the shit sandwiches..

It is no accident that those who have had power for most of our lives have ignored and abused generations of children. Children, if they survive childhood, become adults, and adults have to be herded and conditioned because if you don't keep'em in line the buggers get unruly and then, pray tell me, where would we be? Why profit might stop pouring into the pockets of less than four per cent of the population and it might find it's way into the pockets of the 96 per cent and we cannot have that.

Get those goddam women back into the kitchen, barefoot, pregnant, subservient and silent, and get those goddam men out there hewers of wood and drawers of water and get back to the good old days where they tipped their raggedy caps when the NICE people passed.

No day care for anybody! No education, no NOTHING AT ALL.

Cause God said so, so there.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 February 2006 11:28 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
No day care for anybody! No education, no NOTHING AT ALL.

Cause God said so, so there.


This just in:

quote:
OTTAWA - In a surprise development that has pundits scratching their heads, God announced today that he was crossing the floor to accept a Conservative cabinet post as Minister for Alternative Daycare Delivery.

"I simply got tired of being on the side of the angels," a beleaguered Deity intoned, clearly bemused at the unexpected media attention generated by his sudden switch.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was unapologetic at having recruited God. "I've asked Him to personally take charge of finding creative ways of giving people back part of their tax dollars instead of pooling them to provide necessary social services," Harper said. "God knows, the Church has been doing just that for centuries."



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 25 February 2006 03:06 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What's the big crisis? This is what he said he was going to do.
From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 25 February 2006 03:09 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
... and it was a bad idea when he said it, and it's a worse idea now that he's starting to implement it, and people want to pressure him not to, and rally opposition to this government which will likely prove to be a disastrous one for social programs. What's wrong with that?
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 25 February 2006 03:11 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
What's the big crisis? This is what he said he was going to do.

God said he would cross the floor? Musta missed that.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 25 February 2006 03:12 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No question, He works in mysterious ways, His political wonders to perform.

Take Stockwell Day.

Please.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 25 February 2006 03:14 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It was a terrible idea at the time. It also was a popular one. I don't think you can ask people to change election promises.

I probably shouldn't have posted though - it wasn't constructive so I will drop out now.


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 25 February 2006 05:52 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The really sad fact is that neither the Paul Martin plan or the Harper plan will actually create new day care spots to reduce the waiting lists.

What is needed is multi-year funding for both infrastructure and programatic to ensure that new spaces are created and then that the organizations that run the facilities have the funds to continue to operate.

Neither Martin or Harper think long-term.

1 year of funding does nothing if no new spaces are created.

$1200 in the pockets of the parents does nothing if there are no day care spaces for the parent to use the money towards.

We need money for capital and infrastructure NOW!!!! to build upwards of 35,000 new day care spaces.

We need money to ensure long-term success of the facilities that manage the new spaces NOW!!!

We do not need either the Liberals or the Cons trying to play with numbers and figures but do nothing to change the situation that parents face today and tomorrow.

Build the new day care spaces. Fund the programs that run the spaces.

Make it easier for parents


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 25 February 2006 08:19 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The best way of doing it would be to treat daycare like school ... have buses pick up the kids (in the country), take them to a school (or daycare), have well paid people take care of them. The whole cost covered by the gov't. And if that was what was on the table, most rural discontent would dissappear. But no one is proposing that (none of the parties ... too expensive apparently ). What has been proposed are various plans to increase the number of daycare centers ... its not universal, and it won't help rural people. Is it really so strange most rural folks would rather take the $1200 than get no help at all? Maybe living in the cities you think rural means huge estates with six car garages, horses and the like, but the average rural income is less (not more) than urban.

Make a universal daycare which helps all parents and everyone's happy. Give a bit of money to help subsidize some parents but not others and you create division and dissention - who knows, maybe that's what the CPC and Liberals want? Both parties have an us-against-them attitude.


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 26 February 2006 02:16 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We also need to have longer maternity/parental benefits and include self-employed folks in those benefits. IIRC the stats on so-called "self-employment" are that women are making up the bulk of those who are "self-employed".

I know of one woman who is "self-employed" doing home daycare. She has her ECE credentials but also has two pre-school children. Its a way to make some money and deal with her own daycare issues.

I think she'd much prefer to be working in a licensed unionized daycare centre and be able to have her children in a licensed centre too...but can't afford it.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 26 February 2006 03:22 AM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
What's the big crisis? This is what he said he was going to do.
You're absolutely right, and you can't blame Harper for doing what he campaigned for. But, in a sense, the problem lies in our electoral system rather than in the Harper government's actions. 36% of voters cast ballots for a party that wanted to scrap the new national daycare plan. About 60% of voters cast ballots for a party that wanted to keep the new daycare plan in place, or improve it. (I'll leave the Greens out of it). The real shame is that the 36% party gets to dismantle what the 60% parties wanted.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 February 2006 07:08 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albireo:
The real shame is that the 36% party gets to dismantle what the 60% parties wanted.

Yes, make that 36 percent of voters who bothered to turn out on election day. To make matters worse, I don't think the Tories garnered 24 percent support of the total registered electorate across Canada due to voter apathy. Democracy is broken in Canada, and it suits our two old line parties just fine.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 26 February 2006 07:40 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by miles:
The really sad fact is that neither the Paul Martin plan or the Harper plan will actually create new day care spots to reduce the waiting lists.

What is needed is multi-year funding for both infrastructure and programatic to ensure that new spaces are created and then that the organizations that run the facilities have the funds to continue to operate.

Neither Martin or Harper think long-term.

1 year of funding does nothing if no new spaces are created.


But I thought that the Liberal plan was a five-year plan, yes/no? Is that not what Harper is cancelling? He is proposing to pay for the first year, so that the provinces can, in Finley's ugly expression, "transition," but then he's junking the long-term agreements?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 26 February 2006 08:30 AM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you think about the welfare mom with two kids you will realize that getting a cash benefit would be better than having the money go as a supplement to the daycare. She would never see the money. Most would be absorbed by profit and administrative overhead.

To get her kids into daycare would be problematical unless some method of allowing her to work, get wages and still be supplemented by social assistance is provided for.

I really abhor these "chicken little" Liberal laments.

The Conservative plan wil give cash to needy parents. A welfare mom with two kids getting a thousand a month on the dole will immediately see a 20% increase in her income.The Liberal plan would give her nothing.

The NDP's plan is infinitely better - a completely public system of daycare linked to the education system. This way the FEDs could work jointly with the provinces to build new schools and daycare centres as common facilities. Parents with a number of kids would have "one-stop- shopping" for pre-schoolers and school-aged kids.It is already being done on an ad-hoc basis. Some facilities in Toronto (and elsewhere) also include community centres in these joint facilities.This is be a way to improve the public infrastructure at reduced cost.It is also a way to implement national education standards by the use of conditional federal funding.

However, the NDP did not win the election so this will not be the plan the Conservative implement.

Therefore the NDP should lobby to improve the Conservative plan on its own terms - that is, make it more lucrative. We should ask Harper & Co to double or triple the amount to begin with.

This government will never fall on this issue. It is a Conservative Bread & Butter issue. They have brought back a time-honoured social traditional institution - the "baby bonus".

[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: Boinker ]

[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: Boinker ]


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 26 February 2006 09:13 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by radiorahim:

I know of one woman who is "self-employed" doing home daycare. She has her ECE credentials but also has two pre-school children. Its a way to make some money and deal with her own daycare issues.

I think she'd much prefer to be working in a licensed unionized daycare centre and be able to have her children in a licensed centre too...but can't afford it.



It doesn't have to be 'either - or': I know many women who operate daycare centres out of their homes, and these are licensed centres that operate through an agency - with all of the logistical support this entails. If 'the ROC' is at all serious about offering serious, high-quality and affordable daycare solutions to parents, they need to study the Quebec model seriously. That is, the model that currently exists, not the sabotaged, removed-from-the-community model that Charest is planning.

This is a good solution for rural areas as well, because most parents, regardless of where they live, regard daycare as a rational and desirable aid to raising kids. The ones who don't have nannies.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 26 February 2006 09:33 AM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
But I thought that the Liberal plan was a five-year plan, yes/no? Is that not what Harper is cancelling? He is proposing to pay for the first year, so that the provinces can, in Finley's ugly expression, "transition," but then he's junking the long-term agreements?

My understanding is that although it was a long term plan. Only 1 year of money was guarenteed.

So what type of plan can be long term without long-term money.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 26 February 2006 10:28 AM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is so heart breakingly short sighted to think in terms of "money" and one year band aid solutions to what is obviously a growing problem across the country. Yes, in the short sighted term this money will be a boost in income for the welfare mom...and then what?

Even a quick and incomplete look at the problems of youth alienation, violence, school drop-out, unemployment, and crime should show that if we don't get our heads out of our butts it's going to cost much much more to deal with the problems we are making for ourselves.

Of course Harpo and his bunch don't really care, there are industries built around prison systems and there's always the military and someone else's nation to invade and ... but no one year or five year or even ten year on-the-cheap band aid is going to really "solve" anything at all except political hubris.

We have to face the cold truth. They do not care about anybody's children. Their own are fine, thank you. Theirs will have nannies and private schools and shrinks if needed. YOUR kids can rot.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 26 February 2006 10:32 AM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
We have to face the cold truth. They do not care about anybody's children. Their own are fine, thank you. Theirs will have nannies and private schools and shrinks if needed. YOUR kids can rot.

I agree but add the liberals to this as well. If either the federal liberals or the cons cared abotu day care, child poverty, elder care then action would have taken place.

Neither party builds or built affordable housing, neither worked with community organizations that provide services to see what is needed on the ground and what to do.

Neither party cares. Both the cons and the libs make photo op announcements hoping that a picture will solve the problem.

we need day care spots today. we need affordable housing today, we need better services for the elderly, disabled and those living below the poverty line.

No our federal governments since at least 1990 only do photo ops not work


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 26 February 2006 12:04 PM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you think about the welfare mom with two kids you will realize that getting a cash benefit would be better than having the money go as a supplement to the daycare. She would never see the money. Most would be absorbed by profit and administrative overhead.
But what if aforementioned welfare mom doesn't want to be on welfare forever? If she gets a job, how does she pay for childcare on $100/month?

Surely childcare is about both the emancipation of women and helping families. To paraphrase what a previous poster said, social services aren't about the rich. The wealthy have the same lifestyle wherever they live in the world. They preen over dismantling the "nanny state," and they are the only ones who can afford nannies.

Arctic Pig and I couldn't afford childcare. A space in our local daycare is $500/month, and that's subsidized, so we juggled our work schedules to look after our little ones ourselves until they were in school. But we are both in a work situation where that's possible. Like most families in Canada, we didn't, to quote the Conservative mantra, have a "choice in childcare." We did what we had to, and an extra $1200 a year would pay for a babysitter no more than a couple of evenings a month.

And Anne Cameron, you are a brilliant grandma.


From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 26 February 2006 12:22 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:
If either the federal liberals or the cons cared abotu day care, child poverty, elder care then action would have taken place.

I agree. But what about the NDP -- federally or provincially? Do they care? I don't mean in their hearts -- I mean in their actions?

Québec legislated affordable, $5 per day universal child care. Did you know that? And it was done by the Parti québécois, over the loud protests of the business class. They did not wait for a national program. It wasn't perfect, but it was a huge step forward.

Unfortunately, the current "federalist" government of Jean Charest is trying to undermine it, but the people will yet have their say.

Will the NDP pledge to do all in its power to defeat the Conservative government if it proceeds with its $1200 carnival scam? That, to me, is what it means to say that you "care".


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 February 2006 05:36 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Was that Rene Levesque who implemented 5$ dollar daycare, unionist ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 26 February 2006 07:03 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Of course Harpo and his bunch don't really care, there are industries built around prison systems and there's always the military and someone else's nation to invade and ... but no one year or five year or even ten year on-the-cheap band aid is going to really "solve" anything at all except political hubris.

- Anne Cameron

How do you know Conservatives care less than anybody else? You can't say that without proof of some kind.

Look at the pragmnatics of it. Harper tried to win the first time as the strident Bushite and lost. This time he got a mmoderated plan that includes a concrete benefit for every mother with children. It is politically savy. Are they going to scrap this idea next time we have an election? I don't think so. They will simply increase the amount to deflect Liberal criticism.

The NDP has been critical of the Liberal agenda and has been labelled as being "too negative". Now they have a different target. What will the Liberal media say about these criticism while they are still smarting from their well deserved drubbing?

The welfare mom deserves the cash and more. So if she can't get off welfare becsuse of ineffective and punuitive social policy well, who's fault is that?

For my money I see Harper somewhat differently. He is undergoing a transformation and so are the Conservatives. They are realizing that they are not really the unabashed right wing zealots that they are cast as. If democracy in Canada works, and I can believe what the polls tell us about Canadian values, Conservatives can't survive in our climate as self-styled "Republicans". They have to moderate their agenda to gain power.

The question then is how do they do it?

Once we on the left understand what their approach is then Jack Layton, who is a brilliant politician, will be able to use parliament to more effectively promote the things we are interested in.

There are limits to buying people's support of course but Harper is a father with young children. Are we to assume he has no compassion for the poor and dispossessed? I don't think that take on Conservatives is a rational approacgh to working in a minority government.


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 26 February 2006 07:20 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Was that Rene Levesque who implemented 5$ dollar daycare, unionist ?.

No, it was under Lucien Bouchard, in the late 1990s. It was accompanied by a significant increase in spaces. And in 2003, the Charest govt. jacked it up from $5 to $7 per day.

Here's one short reference:

"The 1997 Quebec Family policy announced that day care services would become universally available for a minimal fee of five dollars per day per child. This innovative program stimulated an increase of day care spaces from 78,000 in 1998 to 145,000 in 2002. Early childhood day care centres employ 22,000 people. This makes it the third most important employer in Québec, outside of the public sector (Vaillancourt, Aubrey, jetté and Tremblay, 2002)."


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 26 February 2006 11:33 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Just imagine how much sooner they might have gotten it without having to haggle with political conservatives and liberals. The two old line parties don't do anything socialist without a lot of pushing and prodding.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 27 February 2006 09:25 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

No, it was under Lucien Bouchard, in the late 1990s. It was accompanied by a significant increase in spaces. And in 2003, the Charest govt. jacked it up from $5 to $7 per day.

Here's one short reference:

"The 1997 Quebec Family policy announced that day care services would become universally available for a minimal fee of five dollars per day per child. This innovative program stimulated an increase of day care spaces from 78,000 in 1998 to 145,000 in 2002. Early childhood day care centres employ 22,000 people. This makes it the third most important employer in Québec, outside of the public sector (Vaillancourt, Aubrey, jetté and Tremblay, 2002)."


I lived in Quebec for a year - mostly because I was a single parent and couldn't afford daycare or rent in Ontario. Over the years we've gone through at least 5 different daycares. Looking back; in terms of quality/committment of staff, infrastructure, programming etc the Quebec daycare was the winner. AND it only cost $7 a day!!!!

Why the Quebec model can't be applied to the whole of Canada is beyond me.


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 27 February 2006 09:42 AM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

No, it was under Lucien Bouchard, in the late 1990s. It was accompanied by a significant increase in spaces. And in 2003, the Charest govt. jacked it up from $5 to $7 per day.



While it's true that it was under Lucien Bouchard that the daycare program came into its fullest application, I'd like to mention that it was brought in by a series of stages, starting in the late 1970s with a recommendation that daycare be universally high-quality, accessible and affordable. The push came because for the first time, there was a significant number of women MNAs.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 27 February 2006 10:08 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Worth saying again:
quote:
Originally posted by Accidental Altruist:

I lived in Quebec for a year - mostly because I was a single parent and couldn't afford daycare or rent in Ontario. Over the years we've gone through at least 5 different daycares. Looking back; in terms of quality/committment of staff, infrastructure, programming etc the Quebec daycare was the winner. AND it only cost $7 a day!!!!

Why the Quebec model can't be applied to the whole of Canada is beyond me.


Beyond me, too.

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 27 February 2006 10:34 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Any thoughts about how to organize around this issue for IWD March 8? Also Mother's Day in May!

[ 27 February 2006: Message edited by: writer ]


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 27 February 2006 01:35 PM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[email protected]

What do you want to see on the site? Do you have a testimonial about day care? Know someone who does? Have a picture of a politician pinching cheeks? Planting a vote-getting smek on a wee one?

Send stories, suggestions and photos to kissthebaby!

Want to be involved in setting up this site? In organizing actions? kissthebaby needs you.

Come on, kissthebaby already.


From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Olly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3401

posted 27 February 2006 05:43 PM      Profile for Olly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Conservative plan wil give cash to needy parents. A welfare mom with two kids getting a thousand a month on the dole will immediately see a 20% increase in her income.The Liberal plan would give her nothing.

Just wanted to point out again that a low-income family will get less than $400 of the $1,200 because of taxes and clawbacks in other government benefits like the National Child Benefit Supplement. Increasing the child tax benefit would be a much better idea for the money than this new payment.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
ronb
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2116

posted 27 February 2006 05:49 PM      Profile for ronb     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Isn't the $1,200 the maximum tax credit available? Single parents on welfare aren't going to see a dime. Tax credits for people below the poverty line? Real compassion there.
From: gone | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 27 February 2006 06:01 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boinker:
If you think about the welfare mom with two kids you will realize that getting a cash benefit would be better than having the money go as a supplement to the daycare. She would never see the money. Most would be absorbed by profit and administrative overhead.


[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: Boinker ]

[ 26 February 2006: Message edited by: Boinker ]


If BC is any example, they would immediately claw back the benefit - i.e. reduce welfare benefits by a corresponding amount. If you are a single parent on welfare, you are basically fucked, unless you can get family support for childcare. If you can't, you are fucked, period.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
retread
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9957

posted 27 February 2006 06:45 PM      Profile for retread     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
This time he got a mmoderated plan that includes a concrete benefit for every mother with children. It is politically savy. Are they going to scrap this idea next time we have an election? I don't think so. They will simply increase the amount to deflect Liberal criticism.


I don't know, he might thinking that the Liberals got to use the same daycare promise for over a decade before they thought about implementing it ... no doubt he'd like to work on some similiar kind of arrangement


From: flatlands | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 27 February 2006 06:56 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
If BC is any example, they would immediately claw back the benefit - i.e. reduce welfare benefits by a corresponding amount. If you are a single parent on welfare, you are basically fucked, unless you can get family support for childcare. If you can't, you are fucked, period.

This is a valid critique if it is true. So the point is why pretend that Canadians will vote out Conservatives to re-elect a bunch of welching Liberals?

The Liberal plan is toast. We have to work withion a parliamentary democracy to make the Conservative plan better. We may not like it. We may have a better idea and a better plan but we don't (on the left) have the political mandate for it yet.

In Ontario you used to be able to earn 20% of your EI benefit before it was deducted from your cheque. This encourgaged people to work part time and helped them stay focused.

We should now be able to see that being tough on the poor does nothing for the bottom line of fiscal prudence or make for good social policy. Getting people working creates tax revenue.


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513

posted 01 March 2006 11:41 AM      Profile for writer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Best Start program on hold

A promise to put day care spaces in virtually every school in Kenora is on hold [affecting] the construction of 315 subsidized spaces in Kenora District [...] Considering there are only 565 currently on line, the new investment represented a 56 per cent increase.



From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 01 March 2006 01:56 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boinker:

This is a valid critique if it is true. So the point is why pretend that Canadians will vote out Conservatives to re-elect a bunch of welching Liberals?


It's what was done with the Child Tax benefit - I have no reason to believe it won't be done with this one too.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 01 March 2006 07:06 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

It's what was done with the Child Tax benefit - I have no reason to believe it won't be done with this one too.

So you think that by defeating the Tories on the Child Care issue you will get child care from the Liberals?


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca