quote:

---

This time, they will be asking their elected representatives to save the national child care program begun by the previous government.

It's the hottest item on the political agenda and the Canadian Labour Congress has been advocating for a decent national child care program along with partners such as the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada (CCAAC). Canada needs an accessible, affordable, quality child care system implemented nationally and we need it now.

54% of children aged 6 months to 5 years were in some form of child care outside the home in 2002-2003. This number is up significantly from 42% in 1994/95. The increase is from virtually all backgrounds and is due to higher numbers of working women, single parents and erratic work hours.

---

The one thing I am truly puzzled about though is why anyone, anywhere actually believe that 1200 a year (pre taxing and claw backs) will even remotely begin to help with a parents child care needs.

When mine was a wee one and I was attending college, day care fees were about 400 per week. I worked night shifts to pay for that. Clearly school all day and work all night is not ideal for kids. I am under no illusions that Harper has no clue about this effect, and in fact, I'd say it is in his interest to ensure women are unable to work.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
It's not a day care plan at all. It's a plan to reward women who stay home barefoot and pregnant, where his cronies figure they belong.

---

You know, I really don't understand this attitude. Many women choose to stay at home and sacrifice family income for the first several years of their children's lives. (Many others do not have this option, though they wish they did.) The phrase "barefoot and pregnant" suggests (to me, anyway) that you think this is somehow a demeaning position.

Well, I'm a man. I have two pre-schoolers. I stay at home, and try to get a little work done on the side early in the mornings. And I'm glad that I'm getting that $1200, since it means that I might -- maybe -- be able to hire someone to clean the house every couple weeks, which is an unheard-of luxury in our house. And that means that I'll be able to spend even more time with my children, who -- I believe, anyway -- benefit more from my love and instruction in these first few years than they would from being slotted into a child-care "space."

You sir, are not the one who will ever be pregnant, nor do you have any insight into what the majority of women want. Which I highly doubt will be determined by what you think they want.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
And do you think it's your 'right' to determine what women want and need as far as child care goes? jesus, I am so sick of men claiming to speak for women.

---

Deep sigh.

As far as I can tell, I made two claims to "speak for women." Perhaps I was wrong.

1. Most women, given the choice, would probably prefer to spend more time with their children than at work. (And believe me, I can appreciate those moments when the opposite is the case.) National day care subsidizes the second choice but not the first -- even though the state benefits from the efforts of women (and men!) who would forgo such a service.

2. Most women who choose to stay at home to raise their pre-schoolers probably don't like being referred to as "barefoot and pregnant." I could be wrong about that -- but there are women on this board who have made that choice, so I will defer to them.

State run day care will be unionized, what will happen the first time they all go on strike - will anyone want to cross the picket line so the parents can still go to work?

quote:

---

If you can't feed 'em, don't breem 'em

---

easy to say. No easy to do.

I think the barefoot and pregnant reference was not meant to put anyone down but was more of a reflection and interpretation of how Harper views things.

However, I can see where it could be taken wrong and seen as a comment on my part about women who stay home with their kids rather than a comment about the type of attitude that traditional family values guys like Harper want to encourage through tax incentives for women to stay home with their children, and the way they discourage (through the dismantling of currently running public funded day care programs) women who wish to work outside the home. And yeah, believe it or not, there are lots of women, WITH CHILDREN, who do not want to be homemakers. It really does happen.

I haven't weighed in on the childcare/daycare issue as I don't know all the arguments, pro and con, for either the Liberal (NDP too?) or Conservative positions. And before we get started, let it be acknowledged that the Liberal Party's position took 13 years of unfulfilled promises and pressure from advocates before they did anything on the issue at all.

So when I look at the two positions, I have some concerns or hesitations about both. Re the Liberal position, I worry about:

1. Govt getting into childcare. It worries me because grantees must dance to the tune of their funders. It's always been the case that funders set the agenda in virtue of the criteria they set for qualification, so if govt is handing out big bucks to establish childcare centres across Canada, then...


2. This is related to 1. I'm an advocate of bottom-up, not top-down solutions, and the push for increased citizen engagement. I don't see how parents would have as much influence on how their childcare centre is run when the top levels of govt are so involved. (Municipal govts would be OK, since it's much easier for citizens to access their local politicians.)

Re the Conservative position:

1. First, it's disingenuous of Harper to call his $1200/year Child Benefit increase a 'national childcare program'. Just call it what it is, an increase to the CB (to which I've no objection).


2. Harper is proposing tax incentives for businesses to create childcare spaces. In general, I favour using the carrot and the stick over legislation. One problem with the plan, however, is that organizations in the know suggest that the proposed incentives won't work. (See, e.g., this report in The Toronto Star.

With the Liberal proposal, childcare access is universal. If it were truly that, then there would be advantages, not least to parents looking for work who don't have access to private care. I can't see how the Conservative package covers that.

What's appealing about the Conservative package - if it could be made to work - is that employees could have direct influence over how their childcare centre was run.

It's also a visible promise, like the GST, the Cons can point to and say they followed through.

[ 19 April 2006: Message edited by: Kettlechips ]

Actually, I have no problem with raising the child tax credit, or giving parents a hundred bucks a month to help with raising their kids. I figure the more help parents with kids get, the better. But don't frigging call it "universal day care" because we all know that's bullshit. Call it what it is: a reward for (mostly) women who choose to stay out of the paid workforce.

(And by the way, there is already government compensation for people who stay home with their kids. It's called a tax credit that the working parent can claim for the dependent spouse. And isn't it funny how all the right-wingers pushing this keep-women-at-home-where-they-belong subsidy never seem to want to sing the praises of single parents on social assistance who are home raising their kids. No, no one wants to pay THEM to raise their kids, do they. Only nice women with big strong working hubbies are considered to have a "career" as a homemaker. Everyone else is a welfare queen. If you don't believe me, ask any neo-con their opinion of mothers on welfare, and listen to them talk about how they just plunk out more babies to get more money on their cheque.)

[ 19 April 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Conservative government officials have reached out to a coalition of social conservative lobby groups in an effort to help sway public opinion in the coming battle over the Tory daycare deal.

. . . .

Group spokespersons said yesterday that they will publicize the Conservative plan in part out of concern that organizations opposing the idea are well-organized and increasingly vocal.

"When the thing arises on the drawing board, we'll be there," said Gwen Landolt, vice-president of REAL Women, one of the groups in attendance.

. . . .

Sources said others at the meeting included Charles McVety, president of the Canada Family Action Coalition, and Joseph Ben-Ami, executive director of the Institute for Canadian Values, a faith-based public policy think-tank, among others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Call it what it is: a reward for (mostly) women who choose to stay out of the paid workforce.

---

Michelle, you have said this repeatedly and it just isn't true. It is given to everyone with young children regardless of whether they work outside the home or not. Precisely how does this advance the cause of keepin' 'em barefoot and pregnant if they still get the money while wearing power shoes in the boardroom? {Edited to add -- and isn't it a good idea to tax this as income if they're wearing power shoes in the boardroom. Probably making a high income already and don't need the help. That keeps the subsidy a progressive one, which -- in my books, anyway -- is good.)

Universal day care, on the other hand, is provided to people if and only if they work outside the home. So which plan ends up forcing a lifestyle on whom?

Great posts by Naci and Polly. I wish I could respond, but I'm too busy (honestly!) watching my two rugrats.

[ 19 April 2006: Message edited by: Whazzup? ]

quote:

---

Universal day care, on the other hand, is provided to people if and only if they work outside the home. So which plan ends up forcing a lifestyle on whom?

---

I'm not certain that's true. I was under the impression that it was Universal in the manner that there would be spots available for occasional use.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Naci_Sey:
You can bet that single parents on social assistance in at least Ontario and BC will not get a penny of the $1,200. Like the Child Benefit now, it will be deducted from their welfare allowance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Naci_Sey:
You can bet that single parents on social assistance in at least Ontario and BC will not get a penny of the $1,200. Like the Child Benefit now, it will be deducted from their welfare allowance.

---

Absolutely appalling. My understanding -- from my wife, who actually works with social assistance cases in Ontario -- is that it's true that at least a portion of the $1200 will be deducted. Ontario is infamously regressive in these cases. What's bizarre is that Alberta is taking the progressive route here. In any case, this is clearly an issue that has to be fixed at the provincial level.

Edited to add: Scout, my point about universal health care being offered to people only if you work outside the home was meant rhetorically. As in, under a Universal Day-care program, only insofar as you are prepared to leave your pre-school children in the care of others will the government provide you with support. The more you leave your children, the more support you get. The more you care for your own children, the less support you get. To me, that is perverse.

[ 19 April 2006: Message edited by: Whazzup? ]

That's like saying, "Hey, I'm a babysitter! I babysit my own kids!" No, you don't babysit your own kids. You are a parent to your children. When other people watch your children for you, THEY are babysitting.

I'm all for parents getting subsidies to help raise their children. We working class parents can use all the help we can get when it comes to financial help. But it really pisses me off to see some lameass like Stephen Harper claim that giving parents $1200 a year is a type of day care funding. It simply isn't. And it's insulting, even to stay-at-home parents, to claim it is. A hundred bucks a month won't even get you two full days of licensed day care.

Working parents need day care spaces. Closing current publicly-funded spaces and replacing them with $1,200 a year is going to force parents out of the work force.

And still, no one has explained to me why neo-cons seem to be all about stay-at-home motherhood when the mother is a nice lady with a white picket fence and a big strong husband to bring home the bacon, but they're all about trashing welfare queens when single mothers stay at home and raise their kids.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Yeah, but that's what "day care" is. Care for children while parents are not able to be home with them. That's the whole point of it. To provide care for children whose parents have to be away from them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Yeah, but that's what "day care" is. Care for children while parents are not able to be home with them. That's the whole point of it. To provide care for children whose parents have to be away from them.

---

No, Michelle. What I described -- and objected to -- was not "day care." It was "state-sponsored universal day care." Why should the state create a huge financial incentive for parents to leave their pre-school children in the care of others? Is that really intelligent social policy? I suppose you don't have to answer that question if you don't want to, but that's the kind of thing that stay-at-home parents like me think about.

Have the Conservatives really "closed" down day-care spaces? I honestly wasn't aware of that. I know that some spaces that (allegedly) were to be opened under the Liberal plan never got approved, but that's a slightly different claim. I'm not sure how the status quo (in terms of day-care spaces) combined with $1200 in the pockets of parents somehow manages to "force parents out of the work force." But at least you're no longer claiming that the money is only given to women who stay out of the work force. Progress!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
If parents want to be home with their children as badly as you think they want to be, then they will still have the choice to do so. Surely all the financial incentive in the world wouldn't force parents into the workforce if they didn't want to be there.

---

Wow. Mike Harris couldn't have said it better. Poor single mothers have the "choice" to stay out of the work force? Parents with one low-income earner desperately "want" to be in the work force -- they're not "forced" to be there? This is Bizarro world.

I thought that the primary argument in favor of cheap universal day care was the economic realities of the 21st century: two-income families were a necessity, not a luxury, etc., etc. (That's certainly the only argument I find remotely compelling.)

quote:

---

No, Michelle. What I described -- and objected to -- was not "day care." It was "state-sponsored universal day care." Why should the state create a huge financial incentive for parents to leave their pre-school children in the care of others?

---

This is incredibly selfish and condescending. Why should there be an 'incentive' for people to leave their children in the care of others? Where have you been? You do realize that there are a bunch of parents who CANNOT afford to stay at home, and have no relatives to watch their children.

Let's flip this around okay? Why should the government be giving women who chose and can chose to stay at home money to watch their own children?

quote:

---

Why should the state create a huge financial incentive for parents to leave their pre-school children in the care of others? Is that really intelligent social policy?

---

Another group that is going to get left out of Harper's childcare plan are new Canadians. This is the educated group of immigrants who come to Canada to work and raise their families. Of course, when they come here they find that despite being educated in engineering, medicine etc. they can only get jobs driving cabs. So they need to put their kids in childcare and go back to school.

Childcare credits will do nothing for this group, regulated, subsidized daycare will.

editd for spelling

[ 20 April 2006: Message edited by: indiemuse ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by indiemuse:

Another group that is going to get left out of Harper's childcare plan are new Canadians.
Childcare credits will do nothing for this group, regulated, subsidized daycare will.

---

It's the opposite here in Calgary. This group is a trditional Liberal voting group and the 1200/child cheque is going over well. Many new Canadians have an extended family member take care of the children and welcome the extra money. This is also the case among rural families. My sister-in-law no longer watches children but daysat for my wife and her own sister when our wee ones were pre-school.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Why should there be an 'incentive' for people to leave their children in the care of others? Where have you been? You do realize that there are a bunch of parents who CANNOT afford to stay at home, and have no relatives to watch their children.

---

Stargazer, your beef isn't with me on this point -- it's with Michelle. She's the one who wrote that

quote:

---

If parents want to be home with their children as badly as you think they want to be, then they will still have the choice to do so. Surely all the financial incentive in the world wouldn't force parents into the workforce if they didn't want to be there.

---

I think this is garbage, and so, apparently, do you. Financial incentives (that is, the incentive to make enough money to eat) have forced parents into the workforce already. Some have resisted this incentive by cutting household budgets almost to the bone, but it's difficult.

To respond to this crisis by creating an additional financial incentive to push people into the workforce seems, well, to get things backward.

Mike Harris, for instance, pursued a similar scheme in Ontario. When mothers received the child benefit, he clawed it back away from their social assistance payments and redirected it the money to "programs" for children instead of paying the money directly to the parents. (They weren't "responsible" enough to decide for themselves how to spend their child benefit, the Conservatives reasoned -- and so, apparently, do the Liberals.) Same here.

Parents need financial help, but universal day care assumes that there is only one acceptable form for this assistance to come -- sending your kids to day care. Live out in the country? Sorry, bub. Think your grandparents -- or a friends who runs an informal daycare -- would do an excellent job of raising your kids? Forget about it.

quote:

---

Parents need financial help, but universal day care assumes that there is only one acceptable form for this assistance to come -- sending your kids to day care.

---

No actually it was your comment. See, I quoted your post. And above you simply say the same thing again. You seem to have an issue with parents who send their kids to daycare. Well too bad. Daycare is a great method of socialization for kids, allows the parent to work, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sanityatlast:

It's the opposite here in Calgary. This group is a trditional Liberal voting group and the 1200/child cheque is going over well.

---

If they are a traditional Liberal voting group then why is the $1200 going over well? It's a Tory plan.

quote:

---

Many new Canadians have an extended family member take care of the children and welcome the extra money.

---

That's an interesting point, but not all forigners coming to live in Canada have a support system in place. In fact many come with only their spouse and children and know nobody else. I worked in a daycare for five years and in that time I met a great number of immigrant families. It should also be said that daycare is a great place for these families to meet established Canadian families with children the same age.

quote:

---

This is also the case among rural families. My sister-in-law no longer watches children but daysat for my wife and her own sister when our wee ones were pre-school.

---

I will take your word on this one and admit that I know very little about rural Canada. I know it's awful, but I am very urban-centric.

[ 20 April 2006: Message edited by: indiemuse ]

quote:

---

Absolutely appalling. My understanding -- from my wife, who actually works with social assistance cases in Ontario -- is that it's true that at least a portion of the $1200 will be deducted. Ontario is infamously regressive in these cases. What's bizarre is that Alberta is taking the progressive route here. In any case, this is clearly an issue that has to be fixed at the provincial level.

---

First of all, Alberta did not go the progressive route - unlike Ontario where the National Child Benefit Supplement is deducted from the welfare cheque, Alberta just brings in permanent reductions in welfare rates to offset the NCBS. Alberta is the worst model of what not to do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olly:

Alberta is the worst model of what not to do.

---

quote:

---

Why Harper feels he can go to the polls on the issue.
By Jonathan Ross
Published: April 20, 2006
email this article print this story
TheTyee.ca

The issue of child care was never properly communicated to the Canadian public and Stephen Harper's Conservative government knows this. Whether as a result of a misguided comment about beer and popcorn, or the effective political branding of parents as the number one child experts in Canada, the true details of both the Tory policy and the Liberals' recently cancelled plan have never properly penetrated the public consciousness with any kind of depth.

So, here is an attempt to have a frank discussion about policy specifics rather than political bluster and spin.

The Conservatives have promised a taxable grant of $1,200 for each child under six, as well as 125,000 daycare spaces over the next five years through an annual $250 million Community Childcare Investment Program.

During the 2004 federal election campaign, the Liberals promised $5 billion to create 250,000 child care spaces by 2009. Subsequently, the 2006 campaign saw a commitment by Paul Martin for an additional $6 billion to finance the program through to 2015...

---

[ 20 April 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:

---

The Conservatives have promised a taxable grant of $1,200 for each child under six..

---

So, since there are 250 or so non weekdays in the year, that's $4.20 per day!

quote:

---

I have the feeling the NDP's position...one size fits all regulated in Ottawa is the converted speaking to the converted and will continue to mire the party in trying to shore up current support and not expanding the base.

---

There's no 'one-size-fits-all' NDP platform. There's no 'regulated in Ottawa'.

Instead, there's thousands and thousands of real, new daycare spaces, adhering to some minimum standards to be enforced by the provinces.

[ 21 April 2006: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

How this helps the majority of Canadians is yet to be seen. I would go with any program no matter the authors if it works, benefits the majority and doesn’t harm Canadians. But will it help the people who most need it? Doubtful, but perhaps.

quote:

---

Most of the people who need daycare are lower and low-middle income families who refuse to be impoverished until the kids leave. For the years until school, they struggle to place their kids in good daycares, and supplement that with private care for the weekends and after hours. None of these families is making large dollars, and daycare has become the 4th or 5th greatest expense in the family. What about them?

---

I have no idea what you are saying here. Care to clarify? What do you mean by lower and low-middle income families who 'refuse to be improvised?'

Do you mean your questions 'what about them?' to be directed at people in this thread or to the Con government?

It's apparent and crystal clear that Stephen Harper could care less about lower and mid low income families, especially single parent families. $1,200 dollars before taxes per annum is a ridiculously small amount of money. The best bet would have been to put that money into creating new day care spaces where there is a need, and providing those who wish to stay at home with their kids the $1200. No one who has a child and in now moderately well off can afford to pay day care fees unless they are working long hours, thereby decreasing time spend with their kids out of necessity, to cover the day care costs. The waiting list for subsidized day care is horribly long and by the time many of these parents finally get a spot, that school offer, or that job offer has long since gone. Since they then can't demonstrate an immediate need for daycare, they are turfed back to the end of the waiting list.

The obvious solution is to put money into creating affordable daycare spots for working mothers, who are the one's who need it most.

[ 22 April 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

I don't support the $1200 a month because I think it's chump change and I don't think that unregulated settings should get government dollars.

I think that talking about it as the "barefoot and pregnant allowance", even if it's unintentional, really mocks women who stay at home.

quote:

---

And by the way, there is already government compensation for people who stay home with their kids. It's called a tax credit that the working parent can claim for the dependent spouse.

---

Just for clarity, the dependant spouse exemption is only part of the story. The rest of it is, despite that exemption, a single income family bringing in 60K per year will pay out about 4K MORE in taxes each year than a double income family bringing in that same 60K, evenly split. That will vary by province, but that's what it is in my neck of the woods.

[ 22 April 2006: Message edited by: dwday ]

quote:

---

Stargazer I'll be criticized for this but women fall into this trap really easily. I will never understand why. Reform types love it.

---

quote:

---

The vast majority of Albertans don't want the Conservative child care scheme, favouring the existing federal-provincial child care arrangements, a new poll finds. The poll, by Public Interest Alberta, found that 50 per cent of Albertans oppose the Conservative government's plan to cancel the funding agreements reached by the previous Liberal government with the provinces and territories and create a taxable allowance of $100 per child under six. Only 37 per cent of Albertans said they support the Conservative scheme.

---

quote:

---

The new federal government has announced plans to cut money to Alberta that would have increased childcare subsidies, helped more families get access to early childhood education programs and increased support for child care workers’ salaries and training. Do you support or oppose the Alberta government paying the full cost of these programs since the federal government won’t?

---

This reminds me of those hilarious National Post polls that ask things like, "Do you support or oppose the death of sick children whose hard-working parents aren't legally permitted to pay for private health treatment in Canada?" Banner Headline: Majority of Canadians Support Private Health Care.

"I think the barefoot and pregnant reference ... was more of a reflection and interpretation of how Harper views things."

How is it Star, that you can accuse Whazzup of making assumptions about the motives and reasoning of others, when you then do the same thing in regard to PM Harper? Are you not using your own world view to project or ascribe motive to someone whom you oppose but do not truly know?

Is it fair to suggest that you hold the best interests of parents and children at heart, but he does not? I believe that Stephen Harper - parent of two small children, lest we forget - wants exactly the same things as you. He and I simply disagree you regaridng the approach that should be taken in achieving that goal.

Ascribing ill will or malice is shallow and unfair. It adds nothing to free debate. Furthermore, focusing solely on the $1,200 child credit and ignoring the idea of encouraging companies to create child care facilities is disingenous.

If 10,000 spaces are created in the free market, will you be happy? Or must they be 10,000 gov't 'owned' daycare spaces? IOW, is it the result that's important, or the ownership of the result?

and, " However, I can see where it could be taken wrong and seen as a comment on my part about women who stay home with their kids"

"For those who DO want to work (like me, and many others), yes, I think think quality public day care should be available to them, either for a token price or FOR FREE."

So which is it, Michelle? Is day care for those who 'have to be away' or for those who 'want to work'? Allow me to use my own family as an example, if I may.

My daughter is a dental hygenist earning $65K/yr. Her husband is in IT and earns about $80K/yr. My grandson is 14mths old. Should I, as a taxpayer earning $35K/yr. have to provide them with daycare at a 'token price or for free' because both my daughter and son-in-law choose to work, rather than using their time raising their own son?

Let's face it. They could easily live on either wage if they chose to do so. However, they like having lots of toys, vacations, dinners and clothes. Those are their personal choices, yet you would ask that I subsidize their lifestyle. This couple is not an 'unusual' example - there are tens of thousands of people living the same way. You only need to drive through middle class neighbourhoods and look at the kinds of homes and cars most people with kids have.

[ 02 May 2006: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:

---

My daughter is a dental hygenist earning $65K/yr. Her husband is in IT and earns about $80K/yr. My grandson is 14mths old. Should I, as a taxpayer earning $35K/yr. have to provide them with daycare at a 'token price or for free' because both my daughter and son-in-law choose to work, rather than using their time raising their own son?

---

You're just not gettin' it, now are ya? As a tax payer under Harpie's plan, you will be giving your daughter $1200 / year that she doesn't need, and providing nothing of value for anyone else either.

The $4.20 per day means nothing to anyone. Except in Quebec. There, they ALREADY have day-care for most kids, supported by provincial taxes.

But there is a fee of $7.00 per day on top of that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
Michael Adams has an interesting take on the topic in today's Globe and Mail.

The $4.20 per day means nothing to anyone. Except in Quebec. There, they ALREADY have day-care for most kids, supported by provincial taxes.

But there is a fee of $7.00 per day on top of that.

So, according to Adams, it is only in Quebec that the policy makes any sense, and it is in Quebec that Harper is trying to form his majority.

---

quote:

---

We certainly would have benefitted from it when our two kids were pre-school and being taken care of by their aunt.

---

quote:

---

"While the universal child-care benefit will support child-care choices by families, we also intend to invest in creating new child-care spaces," Flaherty said in his prepared remarks.

He said the budget includes $250 million, beginning next year, to create child-care spaces.

Tax-cut budget delivers on PM's promises

---

I don't disagree. We have an obligation to look after those who are unable to look after themselves, though not those who are unwilling.

So how does a 'universal' child care plan assist in your desire to 'break down classes'? The mulit-millionaire receives the same benefit as the single mom - unless we balance it with tax clawbacks which mean more regulation and bureaucracy eating up more tax dollars.

I prefer the Conservative plan of leaving the dollars in our jeans in the first place. For example, today's budget will allow more than 655,000 low income earners to be exempt from all income taxes, giving them more money to CHOOSE the kind of day care they wish.

As opposed to a plan operated by the public service unions who can and will go on strike? One that works only during specific, inflexible hours. Or that has workers that cannot be replaced except under specific union rules, whether they happen to be good with kids or not?

Or a program that offers nothing to parents who choose a relative, friend or neighbour for their child care needs?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Infocus:

If 10,000 spaces are created in the free market, will you be happy? Or must they be 10,000 gov't 'owned' daycare spaces? IOW, is it the result that's important, or the ownership of the result?

Just asking, is all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Infocus:
"The focus, like in public health care, is to level the class breakdown where it is important to do that, and look after the people that should be looked after."

I don't disagree. We have an obligation to look after those who are unable to look after themselves, though not those who are unwilling.

So how does a 'universal' child care plan assist in your desire to 'break down classes'? The mulit-millionaire receives the same benefit as the single mom - unless we balance it with tax clawbacks which mean more regulation and bureaucracy eating up more tax dollars.

I prefer the Conservative plan of leaving the dollars in our jeans in the first place. For example, today's budget will allow more than 655,000 low income earners to be exempt from all income taxes, giving them more money to CHOOSE the kind of day care they wish.

When is the exercise of choice ever a bad thing?

---

I'm not sure that anyone has the perfect answer nor are they claiming to. However there is only ONE group of people who $1200/year is going to help, families that can afford to keep one parent at home. That's it, anyone else gets left out of the loop.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Infocus:
As opposed to a plan operated by the public service unions who can and will go on strike? One that works only during specific, inflexible hours. Or that has workers that cannot be replaced except under specific union rules, whether they happen to be good with kids or not?

Or a program that offers nothing to parents who choose a relative, friend or neighbour for their child care needs?

---

You want to have a child care system based on informal babysitting arrangements with untrained and uncertified care providers (= babysitters). I on the other hand happen to believe that the early education of our children is too important to be left to amateurs or corner-cutting private entrepreneurs seeking to extract profits from providing an essential service. The neocon arguments against public investment in child care and early childhood education are strikingly similar to the arguments made against having a public education system over a century ago.

A large body of scientific evidence exists that shows that prenatal and early childhood care, delivered by trained and caring professionals, has a profound impact on a child’s future health, intellect, social and emotional success. Such children are less likely to have difficulties at school, or drop out of school, or get involved in criminal activity, drugs, etc. A 1998 economic study by Gordon Cleveland and Michael Krashinsky concluded that for every dollar invested in high quality child care there is a two dollar benefit to children, parents and society, in the form of increased workforce productivity and participation, higher tax revenues, and lower social spending.

All you can come up with are "scary" straw-man scenarios about child care workers actually having the nerve to belong to unions and having the right to strike. God forbid the people you entrust your precious children to look after should be paid more than the lawn care guy who cuts your grass. In fact, you will be glad to hear, child care workers (98% of them women) are among the lowest-paid workers in the private or the public sector.

quote:

---

When is the exercise of choice ever a bad thing?

---

[ 03 May 2006: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

Wow. We've never had it to date, we have argued and not implemented for at least the last 13 years. Every generation since Canada's birth has managed to raise THEIR children more or less satisfactorily - yet it's suddenly an 'essential service'?

Pretty funny since during their ILLEGAL strike, the BCTF argued that it was not illegal since, in their estimation education was NOT an essential service (IOW, kids weren't going to suffer long term harm by missing a couple of weeks schooling).

My grandson at 14 mths doesn't NEED 'childhood education' - he needs love and the emotional investment of his parents. His intellectual needs will not suffer in the absence of gov't delivered daycare, but his emotional needs might well.

I've yet to see the BCTF put student needs ahead of their own, so why would I expect daycare providers, whose primary affiliation is to their union, put the needs of toddlers and their parents first?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Infocus:
"providing an essential service."

Wow. We've never had it to date, we have argued and not implemented for at least the last 13 years. Every generation since Canada's birth has managed to raise THEIR children more or less satisfactorily - yet it's suddenly an 'essential service'?

---

Uhhuh. In case you didn't know, most previous generations (excluding certain minorites) could afford to raise their families on one income. Now it's nearly impossible, except for some silly trust fund babies who think theyre qualified to tell citizens what they should or shouldn't need. The Liberals breaking their promises to a previous generation of working women (and their children) doesn't make it anymore acceptable coming from others today.

quote:

---

Question: If you honestly believe that a national daycare or child education program is an essential service, would you accept that their employees be prohibited from going on strike?

---

Oh. And a lame attempt to cast the issue as some sort of leftist dichtomy. Ok, I'll bite this one time, if You Don't think these services are so "essential" to society then do You support the right of teachers and other government workers to strike? If you can answer that honestly then I can answer your sorry attempt to reframe this around your contempt for organizations that Give workers the ability to pay for these services. Depressing how little light ever enters into some people's heads.

[ 03 May 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

Now if every centre/baby-sitter in Canada did the same, the conservatories would have just funded day care, to a small degree. There wouldn't be any extra spaces right away, and the stay-at-home or family-based child care people would be getting a free gift from the tax payers, and the low income people needing the service would not see any real gains, but I like the idea anyhow.

.... There wouldn't be any extra spaces right away, and the stay-at-home or family-based child care people would be getting a free gift from the tax payers,

How exactly can an opportunistic rate grab by the capitalist, for profit daycare industry be translated into a salary increase for employees? A more likely scenario is profit taking by owners while simultaniously demanding more work from less staff in the name of efficiency.

If I understand you,giving tax funds to parents for childcare is a "free gift from the taxpayers" while allowing the childcare industry to pick parents' pockets of the childcare benefit is not.

Please explain how the for profit childcare industry is entitled to government subsidies and parents who are willing to actually assume the responsibility of child rearing are not?

[ 03 May 2006: Message edited by: jester ]

quote:

---

How exactly can an opportunistic rate grab by the capitalist, for profit daycare industry be translated into a salary increase for employees? A more likely scenario is profit taking by owners while simultaniously demanding more work from less staff in the name of efficiency.

---

The statement made was exactly that, it will go towards a salary increase. I will give them the benefit of the doubt here, until I know otherwise. Innocent until proven guilty, what?

quote:

---

If I understand you,giving tax funds to parents for childcare is a "free gift from the taxpayers" while allowing the childcare industry to pick parents' pockets of the childcare benefit is not.

---

I understand your confusion, I probably was not clear. Let me explain. The point of this action is to address low salaries of staff. To increase salaries, a rate increase is needed. Therefore, using the cons 'childcare' subsidy to do that seems like a good idea, it puts no extra hardship on the customer as this is new money. Everyone's happy, right? My free gift comment refers to the folks who do not pay for childcare now, get to keep the money, and the folks who do pay have to spend it. That's not right, therefore the cons plan is stupid, but we all knew that going in. If they had called it a child tax credit instead of making it their response to a childcare problem, the stupidness of it would have been less visible.

quote:

---

Please explain how the for profit childcare industry is entitled to government subsidies and parents who are willing to actually assume the responsibility of child rearing are not?

---

Actually in my perfect world, childcare wouldn't be for profit, it would be right in there with health and education and elderly care as a societal necessity, but that's another thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Infocus:
Will you be pleased if the target of 250,000 child care spaces are created through tax incentives, or must they be gov't owned child care operations?250,000

---

Not a single child care space was created in Ontario under Mike Harris's virtually idential "tax incentive" plan.

Existing child care delivery organizations are for the most part small private concerns or non-profit organizations. In my riding, available spaces are overwhelmingly delivered by non-profit orgs. These are the orgs that create, and keep open, spaces.

They don't make a profit.

They don't pay taxes.

Ergo, tax credits don't fund a single new space.

This is one Conservative who believes that early child hood education is important, and should be predominantly publicly delivered. Same goes for child care - I've seen the differences between private and public child care and have used both as an aide in the care of our children when they were younger. While there are some excellent private child care givers and facilities, the standards between the private and public providers are incomparable. Across the private spectrum the quality of facilities and services varies wildly, while the public care system tends to be uniformly good.

Our kids got excellent care when we couldn't be there for them, learned a lot, experienced all that comes with interacting with other kids, and, had a lot of fun. It was expensive for us, but we had few alternatives. If we were having more children I would not hesitate to enroll them in child care again as it was a very positive experience for all involved.

Harper is using this issue to shore up support from his base. The 1200 isn't going to convince anyone that needs public or regulated child care that they should take another route - often parents have no choice. So it won't tick them off unless they have some sense for the potential loss.

Funding is being cut to organizations that deliver care, as of next spring. Operational costs will not be met unless other levels of government take up the slack introduced by the Harper cuts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Infocus:
"if You Don't think these services are so "essential" to society then do You support the right of teachers and other government workers to strike?"

Answer: I believe health and education are 'essential services' and therefore, employees in those sectors DO NOT have the right to strike. I do NOT believe 'early childhood education' is an essential service - in fact, I don't believe gov't should be involved at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Watkins:

Not a single child care space was created in Ontario under Mike Harris's virtually idential "tax incentive" plan.

Existing child care delivery organizations are for the most part small private concerns or non-profit organizations. In my riding, available spaces are overwhelmingly delivered by non-profit orgs. These are the orgs that create, and keep open, spaces.

They don't make a profit.

They don't pay taxes.

Ergo, tax credits don't fund a single new space.

This is one Conservative who believes that early child hood education is important, and should be predominantly publicly delivered. Same goes for child care - I've seen the differences between private and public child care and have used both as an aide in the care of our children when they were younger. While there are some excellent private child care givers and facilities, the standards between the private and public providers are incomparable. Across the private spectrum the quality of facilities and services varies wildly, while the public care system tends to be uniformly good.

Our kids got excellent care when we couldn't be there for them, learned a lot, experienced all that comes with interacting with other kids, and, had a lot of fun. It was expensive for us, but we had few alternatives. If we were having more children I would not hesitate to enroll them in child care again as it was a very positive experience for all involved.

Harper is using this issue to shore up support from his base. The 1200 isn't going to convince anyone that needs public or regulated child care that they should take another route - often parents have no choice. So it won't tick them off unless they have some sense for the potential loss.

Funding is being cut to organizations that deliver care, as of next spring. Operational costs will not be met unless other levels of government take up the slack introduced by the Harper cuts.

Who here believes that new spaces will be created when existing spaces will be underfunded?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Overqualified Underachiever:

Actually in my perfect world, childcare wouldn't be for profit, it would be right in there with health and education and elderly care as a societal necessity, but that's another thread.

My point exactly. For-profit childcare will always pressure parents and staff in order to increase the bottom line.

There are many vehicles to provide childcare other than for-profit or publicly provided. Workplace childcare,working from home,flextime all have merit.

Your statement that people who use childcare facilities are not assuming the responsibility of child rearing is incredibly heavy-handed and just plain wrong (and mean).

Read it again - I did not say that. What I did say is thay those who choose to rear their own children,should not be penalised.

In your opinion a working single parent living on minimum wage is sherking their responsibility to their children? Holy cow - what a soc-con thing to say. I am aghast.

---

Thank you for informing me what my opinion is. I did not say anything in regard to "working single parent living on minimum wage is shirking their...."

Spector's post above reflects my opinion , not your judgemental assumption of what my opinion is.

If you believe that the childcare industry will invest any rate increases extorted from parents due to the $1200 benefit,have I got a bridge to sell you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Watkins:
I've seen the differences between private and public child care and have used both as an aide in the care of our children when they were younger.

---

They are simply different environments. She loves Donna and the couple of other kids there, but she also loves being a "big kid" and going to "school." It's called socialization. The jump in her maturity level has been remarkable.