NDP child-care bill: Consequences and motives
The NDP are going to come out of the gates in the spring with legislation to set national standards for child-care.
They are playing politics with our kids.
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.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Just who the aich ee double hockey sticks are these jerks who think they have the right to set national policy (and write budgets) with less than 20% of the popular vote and think they get to speak for all "working people". I'm a working people and this just pi**es me off. Good grief! There is no way in he** that I would EVER let ANYONE tell me whats best for my kids.
Posted by: georgev at February 9, 2006 04:48 PM
they just gambling as gretzky. but they will win becouse of Hypocritical leader will have to agree.
Posted by: george at February 9, 2006 04:52 PM
Just so we don't all forget, 36% of voters voted for the party that doesn't want a national Child Care program, and 62% of voters voted for parties that do. Sure, it's the NDP bringing this particular policy proposal forward, but let's keep in mind that the Conservatives with their lofty 36% support are the ONLY party in parliament that opposes this type of plan.
I'm sure they'll arrogantly do what they want nonetheless though, now that they have power.
Welcome to the new Canada, where up is down, black is white, day is night, Tories act like Grits and yet, somehow, nothing's really changed.
Posted by: Lord Kitchener's Own at February 9, 2006 05:19 PM
Any country that has instituted this type of 'child care' program has run into immense problems re lack of real child care--and the parents of those countries--like Sweden, are finally getting the message that the government does NOT know how best to raise the children of the nation.
Why are the Liberals and Dippers so afraid of allowing parents any responsibility for the care of their own children?
Also--the Liberal childcare program is only good for the first year--and then with written opposition any province can opt out of it. Confusion seems to be the name of the game in this proposal--parents are still the best carefivers for their own children. The two idiot parties are, in effect, trying to set up a 'child registry' and we know how well the liberals did with the gun registry, eh?
Posted by: George at February 9, 2006 05:25 PM
OT:
If you are looking for an alternative to the Recall David Emerson petition find it Here
Posted by: Platty at February 9, 2006 05:28 PM
Its an opposition bill, there is no reason to suspect that it will ever come to the floor.
Health care is a government program. Its the cornerstone of government budgets, and nothing more.
Posted by: Curtis at February 9, 2006 05:31 PM
george,
are you just starting to learn english?
Posted by: Jon at February 9, 2006 05:37 PM
Ive been thinking about government child care for a while, been looking for the Jesuit quote:
"Give us a boy and we will return you a man, a citizen of his country and a child of God"
Perhaps the liberal-lefies are taking a page from the jesuit manual? Iam sugesting a conspiracy here, just a shift it tactics.
Posted by: Curtis at February 9, 2006 05:39 PM
yes jon,
should i spell harper instead?
Posted by: george at February 9, 2006 06:16 PM
On this one, the Conservatives should seek the support of the Bloc. As long as the funding continues for Quebec, which might be arranged by fixing the fiscal imbalance, the Bloc could care less about day care in the other provinces.
Or, force the Liberals to support abolishing daycare for fear of going into an election without a real leader...
Posted by: jim at February 9, 2006 06:29 PM
"Or, force the Liberals to support abolishing daycare for fear of going into an election without a real leader..."
Didn't stop 'em the last time.
Posted by: DCardno at February 9, 2006 07:07 PM
Excellent post. Well-reasoned and well-defended.
Posted by: Blake Kennedy at February 9, 2006 07:10 PM
According to a recent survey done by the C.D. Howe institute it was shown that day care is not only detrimental to the child but also to the parents.
Horny Toad
Posted by: Horny Toad at February 9, 2006 08:28 PM
The one thing that is interesting is the timing of the bill itself. It would seem to indicate that the NDP don't expect the government to last very long. I mean, why introduce a bill that will a) show the Conservatives as heartless and b) in bed with the Bloc so early in the cycle? If the CPC is allowed to govern for more than a year, a move like this at this point would seem silly, as Canadian voters have really, really short memories. I guess the lines in the sand are being drawn early. Or, the NDP know something that we don't.
Posted by: sherbygirl at February 9, 2006 09:20 PM
Maybe the NDP really want to pay all parents a union wage for looking after their own kids, instead of a "mere" $1200 a year. Surely they wouldn't suggest that a single adult watching a group of ten kids is better than that adult watching only one or two kids.
Posted by: Paul O at February 9, 2006 10:37 PM
... Also: where was this in their election policy? Is this supposed to be the realization of their single paragraph (p.34 of their platform)? Are they trying to define their new approach to politics by defining their policy a couple weeks after voting day?
Posted by: Paul O at February 9, 2006 10:44 PM
Hey LKO, using that logic, should the Tories just implement the platforms of their opponents? Brilliant.
Posted by: ALW at February 9, 2006 11:51 PM
Didn't take this bimbo long did it? Like the Ontario Liberals she still has that beer and popcorn mentality for Canadian parent, never mind the election results.
Posted by: pissedoff at February 10, 2006 12:56 AM
It's as though, for the past half-century, no-one in Ottawa has cracked open a copy of the BNA Act (Constitution Act, 1867), nor have any of the provincial premiers bothered to take a principled stand against Ottawa's unlawful interference in provincial jurisdiction. What business do the feds have in child care??? The feds should stick to their (constitutional) knitting- defence, international trade, aeronautics, etc. Transfer tax points to the provinces, and let each province determine social service levels.
Posted by: Reg at February 10, 2006 09:07 AM
Well, she better check with her immam first. And why is it that people without children always want to tell others how to raise them?
Posted by: Mike at February 10, 2006 12:01 PM
What will be interesting to watch is the BC gov't union possibly going on strike in 3 weeks. UBC's daycare is staffed by union employees (I know because my daughter attended that daycare & they went on strike).
I wonder if the liberal-leaning press of BC will interview the angry parents that had to stay home from work, and then see their daycare rates go up to meet the increased salaries?
Posted by: Candace at February 10, 2006 03:40 PM
Nationalized daycare means ONE thing: unionized workers, attitudes and unwarranted strikes.
Why in hell does any MP think it's the government's business to run the most personal part of anyone's private lives: the raising of their children?
Let's look at some of the other programs so well executed by the government:
- Defense: Sea King helicopters falling from the skies, older than their aircrews. Canadian Forces soldiers going on food stamps to make ends meet. Three worthless British submarines lying in drydock (well, one of them was in the ocean, but caught fire & killed a seaman).
- Crime: Toronto streets are controlled by thugs: we've yet another shooting of an innocent victim; the liberalzed "justice" system just releases guilty punks to cause more mayhem
- Environment: our greenhouse gas emissions have increased 30% above the Kyoto "target" we were supposed to hit
- Health: waiting times skyrocketed since Paul Martin began "balancing the budget" on through brutal cuts to provincial transfers
The feds couldn't even grow pot for legalized medicinal use; it was either useless or made the patients physically ill.
And these are the morons who want to take charge of our children?
Meanwhile, we have serious national security issues, the worldwide threat of Islamofacism (coming via cartoon to a newspaper near you), and the most important issue to Chow & the NDP is nationalized daycare?
This country has seriously lost its way.
Give me a break.
mhb23re
Posted by: MHB at February 10, 2006 05:39 PM
I heard Matt Galloway on CBC interviewing Chow a couple days ago - she proudly quotes the riding of her colleague (Findlay, I think) that will be receiving 7.7 million to create 165 childcare spaces. That's only $46,666 per child space. I guess soon the only people employed will be gubmint employees - the rest of us won't be able to afford the taxes!
Posted by: CannuckGary at February 10, 2006 09:44 PM
Are you right in saying that this woman doesn't have children? If this is the case who the h*ll does she think she is?
This strikes me as being the same as a nun providing sex counseling to a same sex couple.
Perhaps she and Jack should get busy and produce a few little socialists of their own before she opens her sanctimonious mouth to tell us how our children should be raised.
Cheers
Gerry
Posted by: gerryinmontreal at February 11, 2006 03:25 AM
I think it's a smart and calculated move. None of the parties want to be responsible for bringing down the government and possibly forcing another election.
By being pro-active the NDP are circumventing the process of voting down the Conservatives on their ideas. Ultimately, if this is successful, it will probably bring a lot of positive attention to the NDP and will give them a nice foundation to stand on for upcoming elections.
It also may be a way for them to force the Conservatives to the bargaining table. If it looks like this Act will pass, the Conservatives may be feel the need to address something else important to the NDP to have them back off... I look forward to April!
Posted by: KRS at February 12, 2006 11:37 PM
 
|
|
