Child Care

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred
Child Care

;

Regions: 
Unionist

I criticized the NDP here (and elsewhere) in the 2005-6 election campaign for not opposing Harper's $100 a month - instead, Olivia Chow called for it to be non-taxable. They fell into Harper's little trap.

Now, 9 years later, they're still scared to say: "We're cancelling that gift to stay-at-home parents and putting the money into child care - because child care is and always was about freeing women to participate in society as equals." Especially now that Harper is doubling the gift.

It's really a shame.

 

Pondering

Your conclusions are wrong. The Liberals are rolling together existing Conservative benefits into one benefit and making it means tested so wealthy families receive less or none and less wealthy families receive more.

The NDP is leaving the existing Conservative child benefits in place.

The amounts you cite for the NDP seem off by the following:

In its first year in power, an NDP-led government would kick in $290 million for 60,000 spaces. That amount would grow to $1.86 billion in 2018, which the party says would create 370,000 new child-care spots.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-says-quality-affordable-child-care-j...

The article you quoted from also states:

There are those at the conference who feel the NDP’s proposal isn’t ambitious enough. At more than $8.3 billion, the NDP plan falls short of what some advocates here argue the government should spend: one per cent of GDP on child care, or about $18 billion.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/justin-trudeau-tom-mulcair-childcare

The policy resolution you quoted states:

BE IT RESOLVED that a Liberal Government institute a Universal ECEC Program with national standards and monitoring mechanisms, by restoring the bilateral agreements of the previous Liberal Government with the provinces and the territories; increasing federal funding for ECEC to 1% of GDP;

Your suggestion that funding would remain the same as in 2005 is wrong. In fact the policy resolution matches what childcare advocates say is required. The NDP plan falls far short of that.

That is just a policy resolution not a platform plank so there is no guarantee that is what they will eventually propose but it shows that there is plenty of room to do better than the NDP has.

Daycare experts and parent groups will have something to say on whatever plans are put forward.

The Conservatives will declare both plans financially unsupportable.

Will the NDP attack a more ambitious Liberal plan as unaffordable?

 

Unionist

Pondering - the Liberals betrayed their empty child care promises for 12 years in government. And their Liberal cousins in QC are in the process of figuring out how they can erase the only semblance of real public child care in Canada. Those stark facts kind of negate your picky debate about minutiae, in my respectful opinion. You could continue that conversation in the threads about the Brooklyn Bridge or Florida swampland.

 

mark_alfred

Thanks Pondering.  Yeah, seems that with the NDP it's only after some years that the amount becomes $5B a year.  But it doesn't start out that way.  Time to correct that.

mark_alfred

The parties have different proposals for child care. 

The Conservatives won't be providing any spaces.  Instead, it'll be cash.  Their Universal Child Care Benefit will provide parents with $180 per month for each kid under six, and $60 per month for each kid older than six.

The Liberals will also provide cash.  Their Canada Child Care Benefit is means tested.  So, lower income households get more cash.  They have a number generater on their website somewhere.  Some random numbers from it are:  for households making $50G, for one kid under six they'll get $420/month.  For $80G, it'll be $296 per month.  For $125G, it'll be $180 per month.  For $140G, it's a $140/month.  For $160G, it's $90 per month.  It reaches zero by $200G.

The Libs also say they're going to provide child care spaces.  This too will be means tested.  Trudeau hasn't announced details of this yet, but it is spelled out in the Liberal Policy Resolution #3 (Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Program).  This resolution cites "restoring the bilateral agreements of the previous Liberal Government with the provinces and the territories" that Dryden did under Martin as the Liberal's child care policy.  These bilateral agreements together were for one billion dollars a year ($5 billion over 5 years), according to this report.   The resolution does say, "increasing federal funding for ECEC to 1% of GDP", so it's remotely possible that the Liberal plan could have similar numbers to the NDP plan.  I'm pretty doubtful, given how high their "Canada Child Care Benefit" is, though.

Further details to come, presumably. 

The NDP will also provide cash, in that they'll allow the Conservative's Universal Child Care Benefit to continue (so, $180 per month for each kid under six, and $60 per month for each kid older than six).

The NDP will also provide funding for child care spaces.  The charge for the spaces will be $15 a day (modelled on Quebec's child care system).  The NDP's child care proposal was reported to have the following figures:

Quote:

After the first four years, the party projects the program would fund 370,000 affordable childcare spaces at an annual federal cost of $1.9-billion, transferred to provinces. After eight years, the federal share would reach $5-billion annually. That is based on a per-capita funding formula in which the federal government pays 60 per cent of the cost of new affordable spots created, the NDP said.

 

So, the Cons will provide cash only.  The Libs will provide more cash and some child care spaces.  And the NDP will provide some cash (same as the Cons but less than the Libs) and a whole lotta child care spaces (a million over eight years). 

 

ETA:  The Greens is here:  http://www.greenparty.ca/en/policy/vision-green/people/child-care

 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Pondering - the Liberals betrayed their empty child care promises for 12 years in government. And their Liberal cousins in QC are in the process of figuring out how they can erase the only semblance of real public child care in Canada. Those stark facts kind of negate your picky debate about minutiae, in my respectful opinion. You could continue that conversation in the threads about the Brooklyn Bridge or Florida swampland.

That is an empty useless argument. People who consider voting Liberal are already well aware of their history including the daycare plan and Kelowna accord that were cancelled by Harper, or don't care about old history. Many Canadians would be delighted to have a daycare system as good as Quebec's. For many it would be better than the one being offered by the NDP.

Parents and child care advocates will compare the programs from their perspective. Economists will look at them from a financial perspective.

I don't think "look at Quebec" or "but what about the 90s" are winning arguments nor "the Liberals had 12 years in power to institute daycare and didn't".

The NDP will have to have the better plan, or the plan most people think is better, to win this election. It's going to come down to policy.

mark_alfred

Unionist wrote:

I criticized the NDP here (and elsewhere) in the 2005-6 election campaign for not opposing Harper's $100 a month - instead, Olivia Chow called for it to be non-taxable. They fell into Harper's little trap.

Now, 9 years later, they're still scared to say: "We're cancelling that gift to stay-at-home parents and putting the money into child care - because child care is and always was about freeing women to participate in society as equals." Especially now that Harper is doubling the gift.

It's really a shame.

 

Yeah, in the same way that the NDP have rejected income splitting, which is another Tory trap to reduce revenue, they should have continually rejected the benefit payoffs as well while promoting child care.  But, hard to say if now it would be saleable to take something away that people have had for years.  If a decent universal child care program can be implemented without having to take the gift away, then that seems the safest bet.

Brachina

 You're unfairly bashing stay at home fathers and mothers, look I support childcare spaces so those who wish to look for work.can, but most of those.who.want the benifit are stay at home fathers and mothers who choose to do so of they're own free will. I have no.problem with this, its they're life. Stay at home parents don't deserve to be bashed. 

 Besides its only a matter of time.before automation and remote drones take over most jobs anyway, leaving a limited amount of them in Canada. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I support childcare spaces so those who wish to look for work.can, but most of those.who.want the benifit are stay at home fathers and mothers who choose to do so of they're own free will. I have no.problem with this, its they're life. Stay at home parents don't deserve to be bashed.

So let's not "bash" them. But do we need to pay them?

You, yourself just said they "choose to do so of they're own free will".

 

Unionist

Forget about "stay at home fathers". Yes, they exist, but that's just used as a trope for keeping women in the kitchen and laundry room. Child care is about liberating women to participate fully in society - and first of all, at work. The rest is propaganda.

And mark_alfred, the song and dance about "we can't take that gift away" is the same pathetic excuse used by NDP governments when they refuse (always) to re-nationalize public treasures which have been privatized by the neo-libs and neo-cons. The time to tell Harper to shove his $100 was definitely Dec. 2005. They didn't have the nerve then, and they never will. It would be lovely if the Cons and Libs were too scared to reverse any NDP advances. That'll never happen. So do me a favour. Don't run interference for cowardice.

Society has no interest in paying parents (read: MOTHERS) to stay at home and change diapers. That's an individual choice. But as Magoo wisely points out, we must never pay for it. Now if we were talking about wages for housework? That would be worth a conversation.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Just one more example of how Liberals actually govern versus the blow hard propaganda we read here and elsewhere from blow-hard, hot air, LPC shills, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-government-to-cut-74m-in-d...

Liberals will ALWAYS balance budgets on the backs of the most vulnerable, they know NO other way!

mark_alfred

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Just one more example of how Liberals actually govern versus the blow hard propaganda we read here and elsewhere from blow-hard, hot air, LPC shills, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-government-to-cut-74m-in-d...

Liberals will ALWAYS balance budgets on the backs of the most vulnerable, they know NO other way!

Hey Art, there was a problem with the link -- it had a space after it which botched it up.  Anyway, I corrected it and did read the article.  Depressing.  Liberal is best avoided.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-government-to-cut-74m-in-d...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Yep, the LIbs are no damn good. They ALWAYS cut Social Spending. Its how they roll. REAL PROGRESSIVES DON'T VOTE LIBERAL!

terrytowel

The FIRST ever debate on Child Care during a Federal election from 1997

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aCZamtApsU

mark_alfred

terrytowel wrote:

The FIRST ever debate on Child Care during a Federal election from 1997

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aCZamtApsU

Interesting.  It was moderated by Judy Rebick.  Cool to see Alexa McDonough call out the Liberals on their all talk no action legacy.

clambake

I like the means-tested benefit approach introduced by the Liberals. I wish the NDP would consider combining it with their national child care strategy. 

mark_alfred

clambake wrote:

I like the means-tested benefit approach introduced by the Liberals. I wish the NDP would consider combining it with their national child care strategy. 

Eww.  I favour universality.  Access to education, health care, child care, policing services, fire protection, sanitation, etc., should be universal.

Generally if something isn't deemed a universal right, then it's given less importance, and becomes easier to cut (see Art's post #11 which talks about the current Quebec Lib gov't that changed their universal child care into a means tested program and are now proceeding to try to implement cuts to it -- not good).

Regardless, even though the NDP favour universality, the NDP have said that they likely will allow some flexibility, and that if a province wants to set up a means tested child care system, the NDP would not reject that outright. Not ideal in my opinion, but so be it.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

clambake wrote:

I like the means-tested benefit approach introduced by the Liberals. I wish the NDP would consider combining it with their national child care strategy. 

Eww.  I favour universality.  Access to education, health care, child care, policing services, fire protection, sanitation, etc., should be universal.

Generally if something isn't deemed a universal right, then it's given less importance, and becomes easier to cut (see Art's post #11 which talks about the current Quebec Lib gov't that changed their universal child care into a means tested program and are now proceeding to try to implement cuts to it -- not good).

Regardless, even though the NDP favour universality, the NDP have said that they likely will allow some flexibility, and that if a province wants to set up a means tested child care system, the NDP would not reject that outright. Not ideal in my opinion, but so be it.

Even when the Quebec system was flat rate it wasn't universal. Mulcair's plan isn't universal either. There is no guarantee of a spot for every child. So, we are not talking about a universal versus non-universal program.

Given that no one is offering a universal daycare program, means testing ensures those who need the spots the most will get them.

swallow

Are you sure that you know what "universal" means, Pondering? 

Universal access to health care means everyone gets access, and it's not means tested. It doesn't mean that everyone gets to have a family doctor. I'm sure that, living in Quebec, you know this all too well. 

The Quebec child care system has always been universal, though like health care, it can be hard to access because funding is short of demand. (Unlike health care, where the regions are far worse off, I think Montrealers have the hardest time finding subsidized child care spots, though I could be wrong here.) Sadly the appalling government we have in place has seen fit to undermine the system and break all its previous promises on child care. 

Their newest cuts, by the way, are raising the cost of all spots in the after-school child care in the schools, which all schools have to provide by law. 

Unionist

Thanks, swallow. One tires of clearing up misconceptions (which generally spread faster than the truth). Maybe we should split the workload. Wink

 

mark_alfred
terrytowel

1997 Canadian Federal Election Womens Debate on Childcare

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aCZamtApsU

mark_alfred

Here's the media backgrounder that more thoroughly outlines the NDP's child care proposal.  Support for the claim that investments in child care can economically benefit society are here in this TD report:  http://goo.gl/xgwPu

 

I found this document from a link from a Conservative attack site, which claimed that the NDP was making promises it could not afford.  The Liberals have been making similar claims.  It's interesting how these claims always come up when it's social spending, but never when it's tax cuts (IE, you never hear, "how can we afford to lose this revenue?").  People should not be taken in by the claims of Libs and Cons that government cannot afford social services (IE, with Libs saying that only short term deficit spending on infrastructure can be undertaken by government, or both Cons and Libs saying that tax cuts are the answer for the economy).  With proper administration of our resources and finances, government can of course live up to its responsibilities.

quizzical

ya the Conservatives are putting shit up around social media here about child care and how the provinces of ON, BC and SK won't buy in  because they know better.

i'm not on those sites but mom responded to them by saying  like the Liberal gov's in ON and BC are playing politics because they're "Liberals" and don't care about people's needs and seeing as how Brad Wall is besties with Harper it would be natural for him to reject anything Harper wanted him to.

 

mark_alfred

Yeah, there's a lot of social media spin on government services like child care.  I saw a lot of Lib/Con spin about "affordability" on the article Tom Mulcair pledges funding for women's shelters.  Shocking that Lib and Con supporters would think that denying such investments can be justified on the basis of "affordability", and yet don't question the affordability of their often proposed tax cuts (IE, corporate tax decreases or increasing exemptions on capital gains) at all. Just look at the comments section. 

Here's an article on new regulations for Ontario child care providers.  It will make it more difficult for parents.  I don't disagree with having the industry be better regulated, but it does point out how sorely needed the greater funding that the NDP are promising is needed.

mark_alfred

http://www.liberal.ca/realchange/child-care/

Liberal Platform wrote:

We will develop a child care framework that meets the needs of Canadian families, wherever they live.

Child care needs vary from family to family, and provinces and territories have responded to these needs in different ways. A one-size-fits all national program – particularly one that imposes pre-determined costs on other orders of government – is impractical and unfair.

We will meet with provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities to begin work on a new National Early Learning and Child Care Framework, to deliver affordable, high-quality, flexible, and fully inclusive child care for Canadian families. This work will begin in the first 100 days of a Liberal government and will be funded through our investments in social infrastructure.

The framework we design together will be administered in collaboration with, and in respect of, provincial jurisdictions.

"This work will begin in the first 100 days" -- they've been in office for 88 days now, so presumably we'll hear about their social infrastructure spending on child care spaces very soon.

Brachina

mark_alfred wrote:

Yeah, there's a lot of social media spin on government services like child care.  I saw a lot of Lib/Con spin about "affordability" on the article Tom Mulcair pledges funding for women's shelters.  Shocking that Lib and Con supporters would think that denying such investments can be justified on the basis of "affordability", and yet don't question the affordability of their often proposed tax cuts (IE, corporate tax decreases or increasing exemptions on capital gains) at all. Just look at the comments section. 

Here's an article on new regulations for Ontario child care providers.  It will make it more difficult for parents.  I don't disagree with having the industry be better regulated, but it does point out how sorely needed the greater funding that the NDP are promising is needed.

 Saying there was no money for shelters is bullshit, the state has the obiligation to help and protect those in need. I supported additional resources for women's shelters. The area I disagreed with the NDP policy was that there was nothing for abused men, not a dime for an abused men's shelter was offered. Not a dime.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I would suspect that given limited resources all parties have reached a consensus that the money need to go to the greatest need and that is women not men. Some men face abuse in relationships but not many are completely dependent on their wives for the necessities of life and far fewer men have to flee for their lives when a relationship turns violent.

Quote:

What type of violence do women experience?

Women and men report experiencing somewhat different forms of violence. Women in violent relationships were more likely than men to report what could be considered more severe forms of violence. For example, women were more than twice as likely as men to report being beaten (25% versus 10%), five times more likely to report being choked (20% versus 4%) and almost twice as likely to report being threatened by, or having a gun or knife used against them (13% versus 7%). Men in violent relationships were more likely than women to report being slapped (57% versus 40%), having something thrown at them (56% of men versus 44% of women) and being kicked, bit or hit (51% versus 33%).1

While all forms of violence are serious, the nature of the violence women in intimate relationships face is generally more brutal than the type of violence men face.

http://crcvc.ca/docs/spousalabuse.pdf

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

There is a difference between equality and equity.

 

mark_alfred

I like that image.  Great point.

mark_alfred

Some meetings with provinces about child care and other social services are to come. 

Quote:

Duclos says provincial situations have changed over the last 10 years, with some offering early learning and child-care services that they didn't offer a decade ago.

There are also financial pressures on provinces that could play into how far they are willing to go on a national child-care system.

"We'll have to discuss quite frankly the type of ambitions we have in moving forward," Duclos said. "So the listening aspect on my part will be extremely important."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/social-service-ministers-child-care-meet...

Aristotleded24

kropotkin1951 wrote:
I would suspect that given limited resources all parties have reached a consensus that the money need to go to the greatest need and that is women not men. Some men face abuse in relationships but not many are completely dependent on their wives for the necessities of life and far fewer men have to flee for their lives when a relationship turns violent.

[url=http://www.mens-resource-centre.ca/]Even so, there is a men's resource centre here in Winnipeg.[/url]

To drift a bit, I mentioned [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/feminism/man-who-beat-wife-speaks-abuse]elswhere about a program to help abusive men[/url] in Winnipeg. That article mentions that while there are waitlists for female victims of violence to seek help, there is no waitlist for men because men simply aren't coming forward, and I presume it's the same thing in regard to male victims of domestic violence. In other words, there is no help available for men because men themselves are not asking for help.

mark_alfred

From the Liberal's first budget "Growing the Middle Class":

Quote:
SUPPORTING EARLY LEARNING AND CHILD CARE

For Canadian families, high-quality, affordable child care is more than a convenience—it’s a necessity. The Government recognizes the deep connection between child care and the economic security of families, and proposes to invest $500 million in 2017–18 to support the establishment of a National Framework on Early Learning and Child Care. Of this amount, $100 million would be for Indigenous child care and early learning on reserve.

Because child care needs vary from family to family, and because provinces and territories have responded to those needs in different ways, the Framework will be designed to meet the needs of Canadian families, wherever they live.

Developing the Framework will begin in 2016–17, and will be a joint effort—the Government, provinces, territories and Indigenous peoples will all contribute to its creation. Investments under the new Framework are expected to flow in 2017–18.

mark_alfred