An iPod for a 6 yr old? Someone's a little out of touch.

I resent MY tax dollars going to poorly thought out Liberal/socialist sink holes, that ONLY benefit certian provinces and certain moulds if your cookie can fit them.

Posted by: Cheri at July 29, 2006 03:01 PM

---

Hmmm....I just tried to register on Babble to make a comment, and was informed that I am already banned. Considering I have never registered there before, it seems to be quite surprising....unitl I realized that the computer IP address is military. Seems those dirty folks in uniform aren't allowed to make comments there.

Quel surpris.

I did read the comments though. What a bunch of whack jobs. All the commentators there wanted the rest of us to pay for THEIR kids to be given free baby-sitting, but they are completely offended it they have to pay any money themselves.

Hypocrisy...thy name is "lefty"

Posted by: JamesHalifax at July 29, 2006 03:42 PM

---

Just remember this, those creatures posting at Rabble are the sort of people who would have the unionized jobs taking care of your children at their obligatory national "day care" institutions. They'd probably be teaching the little boys to kiss each other on the lips and nap together under the same blanket...

Posted by: anon at July 29, 2006 04:50 PM

---

polls continue to indicate that alot of us firmly believe in the benefits of early childhood education and that our tax dollars should provide universal access to it. with harper and many of policies losing support in ontario and quebec daily, your cynical comments about marg bedore's valid dissatisfaction with harper's monthly allowance sound hasty and arrogant.

Posted by: davidson at July 29, 2006 04:52 PM

---

Harper and many of his policies losing support in Ontario and Quebec daily? Funny, I thought he'd been up a point in the last month, and up about 10 points since he came into office. Looks to me like Canadians (that is, the average taxpayer) thinks he's doing a very good job.

The only place he has poor support is in Montreal, and I'm not sure if that's actually "down" from before.

Strange how the Left in Canada (and the US) always seems to think that Conservatism is in decline, no matter how much its popularity is growing in reality.

Posted by: Aaron G at July 29, 2006 05:49 PM

---

davison, not to worry about todays polls, think of the next election.

The next Liberal leader promising to take away the $100 a month....

The next Liberal leader offering to raise the GST....

Elections are not won by taking candy,or beer or popcorn from a baby.

Posted by: john at July 29, 2006 05:52 PM

---

Aaron G, I believe Davidson was referring to this July 27 Decima poll. Although the Tories still lead Canada-wide, they 're down 6 percentage points in Quebec, and 2 percentage points in Ontario (trailing the Grits 43% to 33%). However, given the +/- 3.1%, they may not actually be down in Ontario (though they definitely are still trailing).

Posted by: A at July 29, 2006 08:22 PM

---

Notwithstanding the ill-advised and regrettable comments made by Scott Reid and Ms. Bedore, among others, there remains a legitimate concern that PM Harper's national child care strategy does not do enough to create affordable child care options for families on the lower end of the income spectrum. Whether PM Harper's Phase 2 plan of creating incentives to create daycare spaces actually creates affordable spaces is, at this point, an open question. Certainly, it is a topic that we can fruitfully debate without resorting to sarcastic comments like

So thanks for your contribution, Marg Bedore. Be assured that I won't be using your money to buy an iPod (or beer, or popcorn).

or

They'd probably be teaching the little boys to kiss each other on the lips and nap together under the same blanket...

Are the Liberals or NDP proposing to create state-run day care, or state-funded day care?

Posted by: A at July 29, 2006 08:32 PM

---

"I am still so angry about this deceptive program. I earn the average Canadian income and I have no problem with helping those families who are in need but I resent my tax dollars being given to the Mrs Harper's who are rich and stay at home and do not need or use day care."

How would this be different from providing free daycare to the 'Mrs. Laytons' who are rich?

BTW, Rabble is partially funded by Alternatives, who, you guessed it, is funded by the federal government. Just ask them about it, it riles them up something terrible.
Or you can quiz them about why Jack and Olivia used to live in subsidised housing in Toronto, they ended up paying it back after they were caught.
Either question will get you sent to Cyberia in a hurry.

Posted by: ex-babbler at July 29, 2006 08:46 PM

---

Daycare is not a right, if you have children you should be prepared to look after them, why should taxpayers?

Daycare actually falls under the provinces so the federal government shouldn't even be in this.

Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at July 29, 2006 09:48 PM

---

Anne, I think given the economic realities of the day, many families--even those in the middle class--living in expensive urban centres like Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, or Montreal require two incomes to make ends meet. Daycare may not be a right, but then neither are a lot of social services (e.g., public health care, primary and secondary education) that the government nevertheless is willing to fund in the name of the public good.

Also, the delivery of daycare services falls under provincial jurisdiction, but like health and education, may require funding from the Feds in order to operate adequately.

Posted by: A at July 29, 2006 11:08 PM

---

It would be in the public good for people to plan their children, make sacrifices and live within their means.

I don't see how throwing billions of dollars that might benefit 20% of the population at best while shutting out the other 80% is such a great plan. The only benefit is to unions which are decreasing in Canada, they would love to see another public service ball rolling around.

This would just be another tax burden on the majority of middle class earners. We were just informed last week that our property taxes have increased again by 5%, I am not interested in any more taxes to support someone elses life choices.

Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at July 30, 2006 12:18 AM

---

A. Dramatically cut taxes in Canada and watch the affordability of child care cease to be that big of an issue. I see two-income families falling apart all around me. Disasterous for the children.

Posted by: Shaken at July 30, 2006 02:03 AM

---

I'll say the same thing I said over at rabble ...

My problem is that:

- the subsidized daycares are useless to shift workers (with two or three exceptions in the large cities)
- there are still subsidized daycares which refuse to take the children of lone fathers (only females can drop off or pick up kids)
- the subsidized daycares are useless to "special" children like my grand-nephew (two and correcting his daycare provider's piano fingering!)

We need a system of broad choices which allow everyone an option, including stay-at-home parents.

Posted by: jw at July 30, 2006 03:45 AM

---

To all the people crying about universal daycare, especially those from the government dependant ontario, maybe the feds should just give all females born in this country a uterine bonus. Because someone is born with a uterus they should be compensated for its use, as nobody is responsible for their own action. If you are not in a position to pay for childcare, you have 2 choices, don't have kids or put you children first( hmmm that is a novel idea!) and worry about a career after your kids are of an age that they can care for themselves.

Posted by: todd davis at July 30, 2006 07:12 AM

---

F**k the Constitution ! F**k the separation of powers ! Merge Sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act.

I want the Liberals back in power so they can resume taking over areas of Provincial jurisdiction.Central control of everything ! Heck, I even want the Feds to take over municipal issues. I can't stand it that we don't have bi-lingual garbage collectors here in Calgary.

Posted by: Calgary Junkie at July 30, 2006 09:29 AM

---

Well, Has on daughter in Univ, and one graduating next year from HS, the wife never made more then 23k and myself 40 when the kids were growing up and we managed to raise our kids using friends and family for daycare that we couldnt even claim. Now under the great Lib plan, how many spots do you think would have been created in Middleton NS. twenty tops. The problem with the fictional Universal Childcare Plan of the Liberals is it never existed. It was a desperate plan to hold on to power. Hell, NB took its money and made a pre kindergarten program. but then again at least that benefitted everyone.

Posted by: Ken at July 30, 2006 10:04 AM

---

Oh no! There aren't enough subsidized daycares in Canada? Did it ever occur to anyone that you don't need a subsized daycare to provide care for your children?

My nephew (5yrs) is in the YMCA sports daycamp right now. It's technically not a daycare (I asked) so doesn't count against those valuable statistics. He spends the whole day with 40 other kids playing various sports. Incidentally, the various child care bonuses cover most of the cost.

This is much better than the standard 9-5 daycare that the Liberals supported (and didn't provide).

Posted by: Luke at July 30, 2006 10:09 AM

---

Anne, I would love to see more people living within their means, but that's another debate for another time.

Here are some interesting statistics regarding the growing need for and use of child care services in Canada between 1994/95 and 2000/01. It suggests, among other things, that 57% of Canadians above the LICO (unofficial poverty line) use childcare (of all types, including private family and non-family arrangements), compared to 37% of those below. Another interesting finding: the use of childcare arrangements in rural communities stands at 50%, compared to 53% in urban communities. A third finding: while daycare centres account for about 20% of childcare arrangements in most provinces, in Quebec, which offers a government-subsidized $7/day childcare scheme, 41% of the family population use the service.

I would argue that giving all parents of children under six a cheque for $100/month is equal but not necessarily fair, since the utility of an extra $100/month is in covering childcare expenses depends on whether the family in question is in a position to make private childcare arrangments or if they need to pay for daycare centre services, which is already in short supply and whose fees typically far exceed $100/month.

Dramatically cutting taxes in itself would be great for everybody, but disproportionately benefits those (like myself) who pay relatively high taxes, while failing to help make childcare much more affordable to low-income families who already don't pay much in taxes yet continue to have difficulties in scraping by.

The idea of a federally-funded childcare program isn't new, having been raised before in the 1970s (when economic realities started to alter the average number of income-earners per family) and in the 1980s (by PM Mulroney, no less). More recently, several OECD reports (background and country notes, available here: www.oecd *dot* org/document/3/0,2340,en_2649_34511_27000067_1_1_1_1,00.html) argued for significant increases in funding for regulated childcare services, which in Canada is far below the OECD average. There is, for instance, only enough daycare spaces for 15% of Canadian children 6 and under (by OECD estimates), compared to 40% in Portugal, 60% in UK, and 78% in Denmark. To improve this, the OECD proposes a 40:40:20 split on early childhood education and care (ECEC) costs between the Feds/Provinces/parents. A 1998 survey found Canadian parents paid about 49% of costs at the time. Under this OECD 40:40:20 scheme, $100/month wouldn't quite cut it.

The OECD also praised Quebec's $7/day model as being "one of the most ambitious early education and care policies in North America" (p. 5), and suggested it be a model for a federal funding program. Such a program wouldn't merely "benefit 20% of the population at best while shutting out the other 80%." Quebec's program, for instance, is open to all families. In fact, to ensure that the service doesn't disproportionately benefit higher-income families, it may be worth considering the merits of a slide-scale fee structure based on household income. Like our current income-tax structure, it may not be equal, but it's more fair.

Of course, Quebec's model has critics, such as the Action démocratique du Québec and the Conseil du patronat. They point to the huge waiting lists, and argue for an alternative program that, like PM Harper's, would put money directly into the hands of parents to spend on whatever childcare arrangement they prefer. However, unlike PM Harper's plan, the ADQ proposes an allowance of $30/day ($900/month), while the CDP proposed $5000/year (~$415/month). I'd also be willing to entertain this type of childcare plan, assuming the combined federal/provincial allowance actually covers a substantial portion (the OECD would like to see 80%) of ECEC costs. This would address JW's concerns that daycare centres don't do enough to help shiftworkers (generally true) and cannot provide tailored care for special-needs children (also generally true). As for his concern that some programs don't accept single-fathers, that is a local policy issue that simply needs to be changed and enforced.

As for the benefit being "only...to unions which are decreasing in Canada," I'm pretty sure it would also be of benefit to parents and children.

Posted by: A at July 30, 2006 10:52 AM

---

Calgary Junkie: The central thrust of the "Liberal plan"--in spite of its flaws and limitations--proposes greater Federal funding of childcare service, with regulated programs to be administered by the Provinces. Ottawa might demand provincial accountability for those funds, but isn't that a good thing? Seems to me like the separation of powers is working as intended.

Luke: What YMCA program are you referring to (no specifics, obviously, maybe just city-level)? Because the Toronto YMCA daycamp fees are still pretty high. For example, in Scarborough, a Toronto suburb with a significant (and growing) low-income population, it still costs $140/week for a 9-5 sports-themed daycamp. At about $560/month, the $100 monthly allowance covers only 18%. The downtown Winnepeg YMCA/YWCA operates a lovely daycamp for kids (5 years and up; no help for parents of kids 4 years and down) that costs $95/week ($380/month) for Y members (membership = $17/month), $125/week ($500/month) for non-Y members. Are there other gov't bonuses that help to alleviate these costs?

Of course, summer day camps only operate in the summer months. The Guelph, Ontario (pop. 125,000), YMCA offers a year-round childcare service, with costs ranging from $31.50-$45/day (~$630-$900/month, assuming 20 working days). The downtown Winnipeg Y charges a more affordable, but still costly, $18.80/day ($376/month) for childcare. I'm not sure what fees look like in the rest of the country, but I don't imagine that $5/day ($25/week, $100/month) is sufficient in most cases to cover daycare-related expenses in any significant way.

Posted by: A at July 30, 2006 11:40 AM

---

Calgary Junkie: The central thrust of the "Liberal plan"--in spite of its flaws and limitations--proposes greater Federal funding of childcare service, with regulated programs to be administered by the Provinces. Ottawa might demand provincial accountability for those funds, but isn't that a good thing? Seems to me like the separation of powers is working as intended.

Luke: What YMCA program are you referring to (no specifics, obviously, maybe just city-level)? Because the Toronto YMCA daycamp fees are still pretty high. For example, in Scarborough, a Toronto suburb with a significant (and growing) low-income population, it still costs $140/week for a 9-5 sports-themed daycamp. At about $560/month, the $100 monthly allowance covers only 18%. The downtown Winnepeg YMCA/YWCA operates a lovely daycamp for kids (5 years and up; no help for parents of kids 4 years and down) that costs $95/week ($380/month) for Y members (membership = $17/month), $125/week ($500/month) for non-Y members. Are there other gov't bonuses that help to alleviate these costs?

Of course, summer day camps only operate in the summer months. The Guelph, Ontario (pop. 125,000), YMCA offers a year-round childcare service, with costs ranging from $31.50-$45/day (~$630-$900/month, assuming 20 working days). The downtown Winnipeg Y charges a more affordable, but still costly, $18.80/day ($376/month) for childcare. I'm not sure what fees look like in the rest of the country, but I don't imagine that $5/day ($25/week, $100/month) is sufficient in most cases to cover daycare-related expenses in any significant way.

Posted by: A at July 30, 2006 11:43 AM

---

No where do the Conservatives say that the $100 per month covers child care in any form.

The thrust was that it was intended to give all families, regardless of choices or region, some help with costs relating to children.

My two kids have both just reached their 20's, child care costs to me are not that far in the past nor was it cheap. Had there been national daycare then it would not have done a damn thing for me due to hours and location, only my taxes would have increased to cover other parents' child care. I would have been thrilled to receive the $100 per month per child, I know plenty who are in my area.

My original question remains unanswered: why is it my responsibility to raise the children you choose to have? As hard as it was at times I didn't expect someone else to pay for my kids, I just worked harder and saved more. I am already happy that they received free primary and secondary education. When the day comes that we should get diaper to Masters coverage why not just hand the kids over to the government? Why not let them just clone little people and dispense with all the nonsense of people even being parents at all? After all, it's just too much work, money and bother, let the government take care of us all.

Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at July 30, 2006 03:37 PM

---

I don't know about other provinces but is Alberta day cares are a provincial responsibilty. As for the poor not getting day care, my wife workked in on for a number of years and low income parents, mostly single mothers had their child heavly subadised, they paid about $85.00 per child while the more afluent people were paying up to $400 per child. That was about 5 years ago but I'm sure the ratios are still in place

Posted by: Barrie at July 30, 2006 04:22 PM

---

Barrie: The same is true in other provinces as well. Apparently, Alberta has a mix of non-profit daycare centres (few spaces, long waiting lists) and for-profit daycare centres (expensive, possibly poorer quality of care). (I'm not sure what Vue Weekly is, so I would suggest ignoring the obvious political slants and focusing on the content of the article.)

Do you know (i) whether low-income parents are generally able to find affordable childcare spaces, or if they face particularly long wait lists (since your wife worked in a care centre, she would only have observed those low-income parents who were able to find spaces, not those who were unable to find affordable care); and (ii) if subsidization is still available for low-income parents who wish to enrol their children in a for-profit centre (because of shorter wait lists)?

Posted by: A at July 30, 2006 05:00 PM

---

Ann: the Conservative Party platform states that the $100 monthly benefit is intended specifically for child care expenses:

Choice in child care. We will give all parents $100 per month per child under age 6 to spend on child care needs as they choose – whether that means formal day care, a babysitter, neighbourhood child care, or helping one parent stay at home.

You are correct if you mean that the Conservatives did not intend the allowance to cover all childcare expenses.

Nobody is undermining your right to raise your family as you choose. The debate is whether or not the federal government should provide the long-term funding to create a nation-wide system of non-profit daycare centres for families who want and need them.

I too think that families should have choice in childcare. But since we already have a series of tax exemptions/deductions/benefits, etc. in place (Childcare Expenses Deduction, National Child Benefit Supplement, federal Child Tax Benefits, etc.), maybe the next major investment our government makes in childcare should be in improving daycare infrastructure and services across the country.

I'd also like to go on record as saying that, despite being solidly left-of-centre, I do not support the state-sponsored cloning of children.

Posted by: A at July 30, 2006 05:18 PM

---

A, your last sentence made me laugh, I'm still chuckling! Good for you to draw the line somewhere, I'm impressed!

Well, I am opposed, I made that clear. The government working towards tax reduction thus lightening the burden on the average family is the way that I prefer. This may help keep one parent at home, at least part-time, or make daycare more affordable with freed up money. I am not opposed to government allowing income splitting and other family friendly ideas.

I cannot bear the idea of government (any party) getting involved in another program to administrate, it would end up another cash cow that does little for the taxpayers. Seriously, the government is not known for effeciency on any level, give the money and freedom to the parents where it belongs.

Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at July 30, 2006 06:43 PM

---

Seriously, the government is not known for effeciency on any level...

Fair enough, Anne. Given my experience of the last, oh, quarter-century or so of politics in Canada, it's hard to disagree with that statement.

Posted by: A at July 30, 2006 08:33 PM

---

Well said Anne. The last word was the best word.

Posted by: Cheri at July 31, 2006 12:06 AM

---

I'm a stay at home mom. Ran a home-based daycare for 7 years for a little extra income, playmates for my kids and adult contact for me since my husband is on the road a lot. I ran it as a business and gave receipts.

I specialized in part-time care since I believe a parent should be at home with their kids and by providing flexible part-time care, parents could manage to spend more time with their kids. I worked for nurses (who needed childcare at 6 a.m. so they could make it to the hospital for their 7 a.m. shift) and real estate agents who needed afternoon and evening child care. I was there to take sick kids home from school and put them to bed at our house until a parent could come. I loved my work and felt I was making a difference to families.

But it urked me that my dh could not pay me for my services as far as my kids were concerned. If I worked outside the home, we could have claimed a deduction, but because I worked at home, we could not. The government expected me to take care of my kids for free, even while giving deductions to other parents who paid me for my work. It would have been a wash as far as taxes went (I'd make more money but have a tax deduction) but it would have increased my CPP contributions over the years. And it would have formally recognized my work as having value.

As well, in the summer, if I put my kids in daycamp, I paid with after tax dollars. Parents that worked outside the home, got to deduct the fees as a daycare expense.

That wasn't fair, nor equal. Now that an equal plan is brought in, those who had the advantage before are complaining. Tough. I don't benefit from the new plan (the kids are 17 & 21 now) but it offers more choices to everyone. And that pleases me.

Posted by: at July 31, 2006 09:43 AM

---

Totally agree with Anne. The Conservative government's one hundred dollars per month for every child under 6 years is an extra allowance for parents to decide where it is needed. Institutionalized day care does not appeal to nor is it widely available to a great many people. Many feel, if at all possible, the ideal for young children is to be cared for by a parent or extended family member. We can look to China for an example of state run daycare.

Posted by: LizJ at July 31, 2006 09:47 AM

---

Lets all praise the Quebec daycare system that leaves kids to sleep out in the cold, sounds like quality care to me. (Two separate stories this past winter)

I'm now receiving $200 a month, soon to receive $400 a month (wife due with Twins), and we'll pay $70 a day for daycare for all four children. Will it completely cover all my costs? No. Is it better than a kick in the junk? Yes.

What worries me about the NDP plan, is that they wanted to legislate that daycare can only be provided by state run centers, and the home-based daycare businesses, which I presently use, would be discontinued. The Liberal Plan was gray on this too, but I doubt they would've stopped other forms of daycare to push their institutional daycare.

The worst thing about institutional daycare, if I was forced to use it (either because the cost savings made it insane to choose otherwise, kinda like shopping at Walmart, or if I was actually forced to use it legally) is that I have no control over what they teach my kids.

Posted by: Lore_Weaver at July 31, 2006 03:47 PM

---

Personally I think the only families that should get subsidized child care are single parent families..

everyone else... the money would be better spent on affordable housing and other expenses allowing families to survive on 1 income.

Posted by: Sierra at August 2, 2006 01:51 PM

---

As a mom in a single-income family while my stay-at-home kids enjoyed my full-time care and support for the first few years of their lives (one daughter has just graduated from university and the other one is going into second year in the fall), I am gratified to see that the CPC is recognizing the contribitions of all parents to the care and nurture of their children, not just those who work outside the home. I just wish the $100/month/child had been in place when my children were small, as my husband is in a "helping profession," and we lived, therefore, on a very modest income.

When I cared for my children in our home, and neighbours' children on snow days, and was "Mrs. Volunteer" in my neighbourhood and in my children's schools, the only type of child care that got government approval and therefore grants was publicly funded daycare, which were, obviously, of no use to me or my family. Not only that, I got the cold shoulder from more "enlightened" (sic) females, aka radical feminists, who thought that I was letting the side down. How dare I care for my own children? Why wasn't I forging an independent path with a career of my own? But that's a whole other story...

To those who diss the "small" amount each month, it must be that you are living very comfortably on your family income. To my family, the equivalent of $200 a month, that's $2400 a year, would have been absolutely wonderful: money for snowboots, snowsuits, milk, maybe skates, etc. As it was, we lived VERY frugally and my children wore hand-me-downs and didn't go to summer camp. Big deal--but it would have been gratifying to have had it acknowledged that caring for your own kids has some merit. I maintain that it makes a huge difference in how your kids relate to the world, and I know some teachers who say that they can tell within the first week of school which kids have been in daycare and which have been cared for at home. (I've always maintained that I had a very high incentive in having polite children [please, thank you, sorry, let's share] seeing as I was with them 24/7.)

This recognition by PMSH and the CPC that it is preferable for each family to make decisions about how government money is spent on children rather than government making these decisions for families, is a step in the right direction towards families taking responsibility for the care and nurture of their children.

Bien fait, PMSH!

Posted by: new kid on the block at August 2, 2006 04:35 PM

---