Angry in the Great White North

From CP:

New Democrat MP Olivia Chow says the party will introduce a bill to set national child-care standards when Parliament resumes in April.

Chow told a news conference in her Toronto riding today that the proposed legislation will aim to protect and build on programs put at risk by the new Conservative government of Stephen Harper. The Tories plan to scrap a $5-billion child-care deal the former Liberal government negotiated with the provinces and introduce their own $1,200-a-year per-child allowance.

Chow said the proposal by the NDP, which could hold the balance of power in the new minority Parliament, is the only way to guarantee a national system of quality care for children.

She said the party wants to enshrine child care in Parliament through legislation just as health care has been enshrined with the Canada Health Act.

The aim is to make child care a cornerstone of Canada, just like health care, by guaranteeing principles of quality, universality, accessibility, educational development and inclusiveness.

A laudable aim as she phrases it, but I think misguided for a number of reasons. And perhaps an exercise in cynical politics as well.

First, as always, these are decisions best left to the parents. Each step farther away from the parents is to be resisted. The federal level is as far as you can go (short of handing it over to the United Nations, and I don't put it past the NDP to suggest that). Clearly, this is a provincial responsibility, and probably best left to municipalities to worry about.

Second, a cornerstone of Canada? Like healthcare?! Healthcare is one of the most hotly debated issues in this country. A cornerstone, by definition, is supposed to be a source of stability. To think that something as personal and culturally dependent as child-rearing is going to be a topic for which you can develop a wide consensus is naive beyond belief.

Childcare legislation would a source of strain, not a solid foundation on which to build some kind of Canadian identity.

Third, I find the the inclusion of "inclusiveness" suspicious. Are childcare facilities run by religious institutions going to have their doors kicked in to allow any and all children in, regardless of the commitment of the parents to abide by certain religious and cultural rules? Will such facilities be forced to eliminate any and all elements of their curricula that is "exclusive", that is, tailored towards a certain community? What other elements of social engineering are likely to be snuck in this way, and made universal and obligatory?

Fourth, not surprisingly, this approach is being promoted by probably the most urbane MP in parliament. Olivia Chow seems to think that a solution appropriate to the dense urban landscape of Trinity-Spadina, one of the most left-leaning ridings in the country, is the right approach for rural Saskatchewan, the Far North, the conservative 905 belt, the fishing villages of Newfoundland, etc, etc. This is related to the first point, but I'm trying to point out that I expect this sort of thing from the socialists, who always think they have the one-size-forces-everyone-down-to-the-same-level solution, and Olivia Chow doesn't disappoint.

Fifth, like all "universal minimums", the effect is to set a ceiling and not a floor. The intent is always to set a minimum standard, but the result is to effectively limit the maximum expections. As various daycare facilities shut down, unable to meet the various new standards (regardless of the fact that the parents of the community were happy with the situation as it was before the legislation), the reduction in competition as well as the glut of daycare staff in the labour market means that no daycare facility will attempt to exceed these guidelines. Each will be able to survive quite handily providing exactly what Olivia Chow thinks your children needs to have, and nothing more.

Want more? No one is going to offer more.

Want different? Sorry, different is not allowed.

Want quality? Daycare staff being paid the minimum thanks to the anti-competitive nature of this legislation are certainly not going to be eager to offer more than the minimum effort.

Well, maybe you can find more and find different and get quality. Like healthcare, people with sufficient wealth will be able to support a grey market of child-care facilities. This is the sixth point: the development of a child-care underground. The more intrusive and demanding the legislation, the more likely that you can make a profit by offering something extra-legal. Why does Canada have private health clinics? Because it pays to run them. The effect of the Canada Health Act to lower the quality of health care in this country makes it a very profitable venture to offer something even moderately better. The same will happen with child-care. Instead of all parents having a wide variety of choices as to the child-options to use, subject to their own means, only the affluent will. Ironic how socialist policies always seem to make paupers out of everyone but the rich, who ostensibly are the targets of the socialist's ire.

Hopefully, this idea will be dealt with quickly. I suspect the Bloc Quebecois will have no qualms about joining up with the Conservatives on this one, on the principle of resisting any attempt by the federal government to legislate in areas of provincial responsibility. I can't imagine that the NDP strategists wouldn't see that as well.

So why promote legislation sure to die?

I suppose the NDP is looking to score an early hit by putting up legislation likely to come down to the Conservatives and the Bloc voting together, against the Liberals and the NDP. Make it look like the Tories are in bed with the separatists.

Bonus points for making it look like the Tories are heartless when it comes to guaranteeing the best for our children.

If that's true, it's too bad. It never looks good to be toying with children as a way to make a political point.