Grits, Bloc and NDP Fight for Child Care?

[FiveParadox]

Today, on International Women's Day, prominent Members of the House of Commons, among women and kids in Ottawa at a protest on the steps of Parliament Hill, were setting the stage for a child care showdown, once the House opens its doors to its Members in early April.

Olivia Chow, the Member for Trinity—Spadina and the Child Care Critic for the New Democratic Party of Canada, proposed that her party introduce a National Child Care Act, mentioning the Canada Health Act by way of a comparison of the precedent that such legislation would set, and that it be dragged through the House of Commons and the Senate, likely with the Government of Canada and the Right Honourable Stephen Harper kicking and screaming every step of the way.

The proposed measures would enshrine the child care agreements made between the provinces and the previous Government of Canada in legislation, in essence saving them from the endeavour of the Conservative Party of Canada to end the agreements, despite the opposition of the House and a majority of the provinces.

At the protest, the Honourable Doctor Carolyn Bennett, the Social Development Critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition expressed interest in protecting child care in the House; also expressing interest in efforts to save the agreements from the Tories was a spokesperson from the Bloc Québecois.

 

[Finder]

Good to hear the NDP are getting things done

 

[JomZ]

Ooooh, I can't wait for question period, on this one.

 

[Colpy]

The Liberal Child Care Plan is a joke, for a number of reasons.

I've actually raised kids, on a very slim budget. This plan would not have helped, as my wife stayed home for the very early coupe of years, and then our oldest had an extremely negative reaction to child care. (he sat in the corner and screamed for an entire week)

So, in 1984, I was working 60 hours a week for $7.65 per hour, my wife was collecting a little pokey, and subsidized child care wouldn't have helped a bit.

Our best friends did likewise. He worked as a school custodian, she stayed home (she is, BTW, a rabid NDP supporter.....we don't discuss politics) This lovely bit of social engineering would not have helped not a bit.

My sister and brother-in-law likewise........she stayed home, he worked as a labourer for the city. In fact, when my wife did go back to work, my sister-in-law watched our kids. What the left so loosely calls "child care" wouldn't have helped.

My son is a bartender. His wife is home now, but she works at whatever she can. He last job was all evenings. Child care spaces? No help.

In fact, I don't know ANY of the working poor that used day care. Here's why:

1. They all though Mom and Dad should raise little kids.....instead of turning them over to Big Brother for "Early Childhood Development" (read INDOCTRINATION)

2. It is not easy transporting children, especially when you are working poor and don't own a vehicle. Easier to have a friend or relative come in.

3. Working poor do NOT work 9 to 5...........affluent professionals work 9 to 5. Child care is useless for those that work odd hours.


So, as studies in Quebec have shown, government subsidized child care is very disproportionately used by affluent urban professionals.....the very people that need it least and can afford it most.

This is an idiot lefty attempt at ivory tower social engineering.

Essentually, it is a welfare program for the well-to-do.

Gee, just what we need.

 

[Finder]

You do bring up some very good points there. Might have actually changed my mind on this one.

 

[FiveParadox]

However, not everyone has someone who can watch their children; not everyone has a nearby relative, and not everyone has a partner to share the responsibilities of child care with. The proposed funds from the current Government of Canada would not be of any particular help to a single mother who works during the week, in my opinion — she would continue to struggle to locate a space for child care, in an affordable manner.

The Honourable Doctor Carolyn Bennett, the Social Development Critic for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition makes an interesting argument in relation to this situation — and she has been fighting for child care for two decades, in and out of the House of Commons.

And most of them can't consistently rely on family and friends to meet that need. The shortage of affordable, quality child care spaces is a tremendous barrier to women's full participation in Canadian society. Telling a woman that she's free to pursue a profession when the child care spaces don't exist is like telling a kid they can play hockey as long as they don't leave their room. It's the illusion of choice.

Click here to read the entire article, in English.
Cliquetez içi pour lire l'article entier, en français.

 

[Finder]

"3. Working poor do NOT work 9 to 5...........affluent professionals work 9 to 5. Child care is useless for those that work odd hours. "

But Paradox, that does ring the truth.

What will the national child care plan do for these people. and there are alot out there. At least with the money they could make other arrangments.

 

[FiveParadox]

With the recent revelation that the $1200 per anum is to be taxable, parents are going to be receiving less than twenty-five dollars per week to make "arrangements"; and since it's now considered a tax "credit," would those who don't pay income tax continue to receive their payments?

 

[Finder]

Well I don't and never have liked the conservative plan. But the Liberal plan does not cover much of the working poor either. When I think of my wife and I. Both of us and now stuck on odd hours ourself. Most of the people who need this the most won't be able to use it. I also think he is right the people who will be able to use this plan will mostly be middle class 9-5ers who really don't need it anyways since they could afforad this.

 

[FiveParadox]

Nonetheless, I would argue that the plan proposed by the current Government of Canada is hasty and wasteful; the plan proposed by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition would be available to those who need it (I have no reason to believe otherwise — the only persons who I have seen present "hours of operation" for the Grits' plan are Conservative supporters and members), whereas the Tories' plan would simply be a handout, even to those who don't need the money — for parents who have no problem paying for child care, their "credit" could be better spent on someone else.

 

[Finder]

Well the Liberal plan will need to ensure that those who do not live by the hours of the middle class, get the support they need. I have not seen any evidance that there would indeed be support for day care support. As it would most likely have to be private. (though some type of government subsidy would be needed)

 

[Nuggler]

Most politically inspired child care programs are usually photo-ops and sound bites with very little substantive content.........IMHO only.

If it haden't been for our respective mothers we would have gone down the tubes way back when we were raising our kids; with both of us working different shifts, call ins, odd hours....(gawd it was wunnerful :evil: ) Lotsa stress :!: Gotta have lotsa stress 8O

When my job was transferred to another town and I followed it, once we got to know the folks at our "new" apartment block, we got together and organized a child care thing...........worked great.......no govt. help. In those days, you didn't even ask, cause you knew it wasen't there. Thank God we had good neighbours and mostly everyone was concerned about each others kids.

Today, part time work, low pay, long hours, few benefits (what happened to Trudeau's "new society"or whatever?), Canada REALLY NEEDS some child care help. The Libs been dragging their ass for the last ten plus years on it, and the Cons are in denial. The NDP may finally be in position to do something concrete.........but I ain't giving odds.

Now we help with our grandkids, so what goes around.........
Unfortunately not everyone can depend on grandparents or friends.

What's my point here anyways? I don't have a solution, just running off at the mouth

:?

 

[#juan]

What is needed is day care. I won't get into how single mothers got to be single mothers but along with single fathers and families who can't afford it, they are the people who need day care. We don't need to give it to those who make fifty thousand a year and a simple, graduated cut-off would solve this. There are quite a few single parents out there who are scarcely making more than minimum wage. This is not a problem that can be dealt with by a single solution. Welfare should pay a decent amount but there should be a definite plan for every person on welfare, to get educated and qualify for more than a minimum wage job to get off welfare. You can't raise a child on minimum wage. The real culprits are probably the giant corporations who seem to be bent on having everyone on minimum wage. Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Wendy's, MacDonald's, and others are making a fortune from the wages they aren't paying.

 

[Curiosity]

What I wonder is....

If hubby isn't making enough to support the family because there are no jobs out there which pay adequately per hour, and wife would like to supplement income, but her share less child support would pretty much even out....this doesn't compute at all.

Also...if wives all worked, where are all the jobs they would need?

Sounds like there is a glut of workers on the market as it is now...thus the low hourly wages.

And they are concentrating on child care? Sounds like they might look into jobs for families too or minimum wages. Oh lord I am sounding more like my father every day.

 

[MMMike]

This is crazy! You want to start a vast new expensive social program because some poor people can't afford day care??? Why not just give the poor people more money so they can afford day care? There problem solved. Bunch of commies in here... where every problem has to be solved by the government and every solution needs to be universal and 'one size fits all'.

 

[annabattler]

Day care does need to be flexible...first to suit the needs of the children(who are paramount in this,after all) and then for the parents.
Day care also needs to be safe,child-focussed and regulated.
These needs are compatible,as long as government and parents talk to each other,as long as parents organize and let government(municipal,provincial and federal)know what their needs are.
Looking for day care is not something parents should do once their child arrives...it's something to be planned for,in terms of availability and costs beforehand.
For those where money is not an issue,live in help seems to be the answer(though that is also fraught with issues)...the papers are full of ads looking for live-in help.I recently read one where the "helper" had to have Ukrainian as a second language,look after four children,be good with dogs,do housework AND do yard work !!!
If we wanted a national day care plan to cover everyone's needs,then we need to be prepared to pay for it...just look at Sweden.
Some large companies have day care on site for their employees.That works for the pre school years...then what?
Some schools have day cares attached to them...the child then just shifts from day care to school,to day care at the end of the day.
I think that like-minded(and like needed) parents need to organize,figure out what they need,what would work best for them and set about setting it up.
Better to be proactive,...we're talking about your own children here.

 

[Jay]

Education isn't a federal issue.....maybe that's the problem here. Our Liberal Politicians (squeezed through a helpless public education system), escaped it without the ability to read, so they don't know any better. It seems their followers have the same afflictions.

 

[#juan]

MMMike wrote:

This is crazy! You want to start a vast new expensive social program because some poor people can't afford day care??? Why not just give the poor people more money so they can afford day care? There problem solved. Bunch of commies in here... where every problem has to be solved by the government and every solution needs to be universal and 'one size fits all'.

We have quite a few people on welfare right now. We can cut them off and let them starve......."decrease the surplus population", as it were Mr. Scrooge,......or we can try to find a way to solve the problem. How did you think we were going to get the "poor people" more money? It would take nothing less than thumb screws and years of litigation to get the corporations to loosen the purse strings and pay more money. Admittedly, some people will always be on welfare and need assistance but I think the majority can be helped.

 

[MMMike]

Thanks Juan! I'll be Mr. Scrooge, and you can be Chairman Mao.. Nice jumpsuit! Seriously, government is so hopelessly incompetent that we should be trying to cut it down to its bare minimum, not encourage its growth. Legislate an increase in minimum wage... if we've agreed that even the poor people deserve a certain standard of living minimum wage should be set at a level to provide that standard of living if working a full time job. Also give them direct subsidies like Harper's plan, only more, and only to those that need it. The only people that would benefit from a universal childcare program are the union fatcats, that's why they are the ones lobbying for this program.

 

[Jay]

They have everything handed to them on a silver platter...free public school, virtually free university and collage...free healthcare etc, etc.....now they want free daycare? With all the freebies floating around how did we end up with all these poor people we need to change the systems for?

Oh and if you think Wendy’s is going to pay great wages to get my order wrong....clearly the education system did you a great disservice.