Liberal Majority or Minority?

[Toronthab]

INDEPTH: DAY CARE
Day care in Canada

CBC News Online | May 06, 2005


It was first proposed in 1970 – a program that would provide affordable day care across the country. It was promised when Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives swept to power in 1984. And again four years later.

By the time Jean Chrétien's Liberals did some political sweeping of their own in 1993, promises of a national day-care strategy had fallen victim to the realities of a government wallowing in debt. With budgetary knives sharpened and drawn, day care would have to wait.

But the economic climate began to shift – and in 1997, Quebec introduced its own day-care system, offering spaces at $5 a day. Demand quickly surpassed supply.

By 2001, there were nearly 600,000 regulated day-care spaces across the country. Just under 235,000 of them were in Quebec. While only one in five Quebec kids had access to these spaces, the rate was much better than the national average of one in eight children.

As successive governments ran up surplus after surplus, the call for more money for day care began to be heard again.

In October 2004, the government's throne speech declared, "The time has come for a truly national system of early learning and child care."

During the campaign leading up to the June 28, 2004, election, the Liberals promised $5 billion to create 250,000 child-care spaces by 2009. The plan pointed to Quebec's now $7-a-day day-care plan as a model.

The speech said:
Parents must have real choices; children must have real opportunities to learn. The time has come for a truly national system of early learning and child care, a system based on the four key principles that parents and child care experts say matter – quality, universality, accessibility and development.

The Government will put the foundations in place with its provincial and territorial partners, charting a national course that focuses on results, builds on best practices and reports on progress to Canadians. Within this national framework, the provinces and territories will have the flexibility to address their own particular needs and circumstances.
The first two partners in the new plan, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, signed up in April 2005, and will receive $26 million and $22 million, respectively. In May 2005, Ontario announced an agreement in principle with Ottawa that would see $272 million go to the province in 2005, as part of a $1.9-billion deal over five years.

That money, however, is dependent on the minority Liberal government passing its budget. The Conservatives and Bloc Québécois may be able to bring down the government before then, forcing an election. Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has said his party would honour Liberal commitments on child care if it was elected.

Ottawa has a way to go before it gets its "foundations in place." To call day care in Canada a "system" may be a stretch.

In October 2004, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development released a report that described Canada's child-care system as a chronically underfunded patchwork of programs with no overarching goals. It found that many centres were shabby and many workers were poorly trained. As well, staff turnover at many centres was very high.

The report also found a shortage of available regulated child-care spaces – enough for fewer than 20 per cent of children aged six years and younger with working parents. In the U.K., 60 per cent of children find regulated child care; in Belgium, 63 per cent; in France, 69 per cent; in Denmark, 78 per cent.

The OECD recommended that Canada boost its child-care spending to the OECD average of about 0.4 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. It's currently half that.

It also recommended integrating child care with kindergarten, and improving the training and recruitment of workers.

There are calls for even more. The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada issued a report of its own on the heels of the OECD report. It, too called for more money. The association wants Ottawa to commit at least one per cent of GDP – or about $10 billion – for day care within 15 years. The report argues:

"The amount is a 'modest and minimum' investment for the one-third of Canadian youngsters under 6, compared to the 6% of GDP now devoted to educating older children."

But the report also warns that devoting so much public money to child care would likely attract foreign corporate day-care chains, eager to be part of a growing market. The report recommends Ottawa ensure that the money it spends on day care be earmarked for the public/non-profit system.

It wants the federal government to pass legislation that protects provinces and territories that wish to expand services in the public/non-profit sector from being challenged by foreign for-profit chains that want to get into the act.

Those concerns are echoed in yet another report. This one – by two economists from the University of Toronto – found that the quality of care at non-profit centres averaged 10 per cent better than day-care centres established to make money.

Gordon Cleveland and Michael Krashinsky looked at 325 day-care centres across the country. They examined 42 different components of child care on a scale of one to seven. Components included personal care such as diaper changes, the educational character of toys, and how well information is exchanged with parents.

While most centres got mediocre rankings, the top-ranked ones were mostly non-profits and the bottom-ranked ones were commercial.

The report also concluded that sole proprietors provided the best care among the commercial operators. Incorporated businesses (a single centre or part of a chain) provide lower quality care. Partnerships and other commercial providers provide much worse quality on average.

"I'm not a politician and I don't know all the ins and outs of policy. But what I do know is that quality matters. It's hard to get quality in for-profits. A 10 per cent increase in quality at non-profits is very substantial," Cleveland told CBC News.

StatsCan weighs in

Just a few days before the federal-provincial day-care summit, Statistics Canada released new figures on day care in Canada. It found that, in 2001, 53 per cent of Canadian kids received some care from someone other than their parents. That's up from 42 per cent in just seven years.

About 25 per cent of those children were enrolled in a day-care centre as their main care arrangement, but a growing number are now being cared for by relatives. Over the same seven-year period, the proportion of kids cared for by a relative grew from eight per cent to 14 per cent. The proportion of children who were looked after in someone else's home by a non-relative fell from 44 per cent to 34 per cent.

And it's not just an urban phenomenon. The growth in the use of day care is even more pronounced in rural areas. StatsCan says in 1994, 36.5 per cent of rural kids used some form of day care. By 2001, that rate had grown to 50.5 per cent.

The OECD and the federal government hold the Quebec system up as a model for the rest of Canada, but the program has had its critics.

There are nearly 235,000 children enrolled – but waiting lists at day- care centres across the province contain about 35,000 names. Some centres have stopped adding names to their lists.

The Action démocratique du Québec called the program a "Soviet-style" service and said the waiting lists are typical of a socialist system. The ADQ's 2003 election platform called for $30-a-day vouchers for parents, which they could spend on public or private care.

Quebec's largest employers' group, the Conseil du patronat, suggested a similar plan that would give families a $5,000 allowance for each child to spend as they please.

Alberta has expressed its opposition to a national day-care system. The provincial government says it's concerned national standards mean a lack of choice. The province says it would rather take its share of the money and set up its own system – one that would allow parents to spend day-care dollars where they see fit.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
^TOP
Jobs | Contact Us | Permissions | Help | RSS
Terms of Use | Privacy | Ombudsman | Other Policies
Copyright © CBC 2005

MENU


MAIN PAGE

CROSS CANADA SNAPSHOT

GETTING A HEAD START

QUESTIONS PARENTS SHOULD ASK

COST TO PARENTS



NEWS ARCHIVE:
Ottawa, Ontario hail $1.9B child-care deal (May 6, 2005)

Manitoba joins Ottawa's child-care plan (April 29, 2005)

Manitoba joins Ottawa's child-care plan (April 29, 2005)

Alberta won't participate in national day-care program (Feb. 7, 2005)

Non-profit day care better than for-profit: study (Jan. 10, 2005)

Ontario to provide day care for kindergarten kids (CBC Toronto, Nov. 25, 2004)

Goodale comes under attack for surplus projections (Nov. 17, 2004)

Canada's child-care system languishing: OECD report (CBC P.E.I., Oct. 10, 2004)

Enough money for health care and other promises: PM (Sept. 16, 2004)

Day care centres threaten to pressure province (CBC Montreal, July 19, 2004)



EXTERNAL LINKS:
CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external sites. Links will open in new window.

OECD report: Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada (Oct. 26, 2004) (PDF file)

From Patchwork to Framework: A child-care strategy for Canada (The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada) (PDF file)

The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada: how much the provinces receive from Ottawa for early learning and child care

The Quality Gap: A study of non-profit and commercial child-care centres in Canada (PDF file)

Statistics Canada: More Canadian children than ever using day care

[franko]

toronthab said:

I don't know just what Public-in-home is however.

Government regulated home care for children. Standards are the same as for daycare faciliteis. Homes are inspected and licensed. Ongoing training for caregivers is expected. Subsidized spots may be available.

One of my biggest problems with a publicly funded day care system is that government money is available, and budgets are more or less guidelines. Equipment ordered is often to be ordered only from certain companies, and the equipment is often over-priced because the companies know they can get away with it. Often the same equipment (toys, climbers, etc) is available in a local box store at 3/4 the price or less but the box store is not on the approved list. Not anecdotal -- policy.

[Toronthab]

skilly said:

toronthab said:

The majority of the promises were kept, however. Chrétien famously argued that 78% were honoured, a mark he could live with. Others contest whether some of these promises were kept or not. Some of the most notable promises from the Red Book that were kept was the pledge to cancel the purchase of new naval helicopters, canceling the sale of Toronto Pearson International Airport, reforming unemployment insurance, more gun control, and reducing the size of the armed forces with the end of the Cold War. Perhaps the most important pledge kept was that of returning Canada to fiscal solvency.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(Liberal_Party_of_Canada)

What a politician defines as keeping a promise and what Joe Q Public defines as keeping a promise are two different things. I know the ROC got upset with Newfoundland over the Atlantic Accord but that argument was over the phrase "100%". Apparently it did not mean "all" to the federal government.

Looking at your noble promises that were kept.

1) naval helicopters. Feds would rather they fly around in death traps. Yet now they are going to buy new ones. Wrong decision back then?

2) reforming EI. Needs more reform because they refuse to go all the way. When you cut premiums minutely, and re-phrase the wording, without eliminating the loopholes .... well that isn't real reform to me .... it is to a politician though.

3) gun control? Do you really want to there? The gun registry, IMO, was worse than the sponsorship scandal. Gun registry should have been left to the provinces. Period. I don't own a gun, but my father-in-law does. When my wife's grandfather died he had old antique guns that were never fired, they all had to be registered just so my father-in-law could claim ownership of them and keep them in the family. It didn't make sense from the start.

4) redusing the size of the armed forces. And yet now they give Gen. Hillier hundreds of millions of dollars to increase the military.


Sounds like they should be called the "Flip-flop" Party of Canada.

Look guys, I'm just responding to a lot of pretty low-level criticism here. I am not a Liberal but will vote for them on the basis of what they are likely to do, versus what the Reform Party- loaded Conservatives are likely to do.

Simplistic, groundless claims about Liberals or all politicians being liars and similar comments, are hardly worth the space and time.

I printed the Liberal red book item in response to such adolescent observations.

They were one of the first parties ever to publish to plan and costs. Chretien who I think was the most popular prime minister in Canadian history or right up there, said that they acheived or kept 78% of the red book promises.

Mulroney. the former Conservative prime Minister and the most loathed politican in Canada's history and who is still loathed, inherited a debt of 130 billion from Trudeau, and in his tenor added $280 Billion to it. Martin inherited this and is credited the world over as having restored Canada to fiscal SOLVENCY. One of the promises.

He make hard cuts, but most Canadians trusted him to do this because he wasn't a right=wing ideologue blindly cutting for fun and tax breaks to the wealthy as happened in Ontario.

I have no personal expertise in helicopters

I have already criticised EI treatment and practice elsewhere

I strongly support gun control. No ordinary citizen has a right to walk down my street with a handgun. That the program has been a mess is the common perception and I accept that. I expect them to improve on this.

I do thank God however that we don't have state-sanctionned unjustifiable homicides, euphemized as capital "punishment'. Sick. Conservatives would bring this to us as they sell out our health plan.

And even after the hardhip of the spending cuts and provincial transfer reductions, Romanov's extensive examination of our health services was that it was good, and in need of considerable improvemnts e.g. hip replacemnt wait times in our aging population and MRI's have become standard parts of regular protocols well beyond original uses. He strongly came down on the side of our I tier system, unlike the conservatives like Ralph Kline.

[franko]

But the economic climate began to shift – and in 1997, Quebec introduced its own day-care system, offering spaces at $5 a day. Demand quickly surpassed supply.

This should be no surprise. Also no surprise: that day care providers as government workers would want government pay; hence the strikes.

Really, I should be on the other side of the argument. My wife is “paid” a little over $10. an hour (as a government-funded day care).From her wages she pays for groceries to feed the children, buys supplies, buys gifts for the children, etc. She gets no coffee break, no lunch break, no benefits, no paid holiday, no sick days, and is at the whim of parents who bring their sick children, Tylenoled up, so that they can go to work. She spends the day wiping noses, wiping bottoms, cleaning messes. By the end of the day (often waiting for late parents who get caught up in traffic [acceptable] or “just had to stop in for a few groceries” [unacceptable]) she is dead beat. She does this, though, because she feels a child loses out in a larger centre – private or public.

And private or public . . . care may or may not be good care. Workers in public daycare get just as tired, just as frustrated, just as lazy as workers in private care.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

"Only a country that is rich and safe can afford to be a democracy, for democracy is the most expensive and nefarious kind of government ever heard on earth." H.L. Mencken

"Democracy is the process by which the people are free to choose the man who will get the blame."

Happy election!

[Toronthab]

skilly said:

There seems to be a prevailing notion here that daycare is evil in raising children. As Mamma Boucher once said "Ya dun wanna be lacking in Da Social skillz" either. Studies have shown that children in daycare learn to listen better, they socialize better, they have stronger immune systems, and they learn earlier.

My child is not in a daycare. She is with a provider that we interviewed and did background checks on until the cows came home. She was a former law inforcement officer, and was pretty easy to do these checks on her. Don't think for a minute that a parent isn't going to move hell and high water to ensure their children are in an environment condusive to learning and healthy growing. My daughter blew me away when she came to me and counted to 10 before her second birthday. I can tell you this for a fact, without the interaction with the other children she wouldn't be as far along developmentally as she now is.

Now back to the topic at hand. This money does not have to be spent on daycare. It can be spent on any child rearing activity. What's wrong with that? To quote Harper "she is my child, shouldn't I have a say?" Some lower income families can take this money and pay a grand-parent to look after their children now, while the mother works to supplement the family income. Do you snub your nose as grand-parents also?

Daycare is one of the best things to happen to the high-schools, work environments, and Canadian society as a whole, no reasonable person would argue the merits of daycare. It is the cost that is the issue. Most places charge $50/day for a child under 2. Increasing maternity leave to a full year was a good help to mothers and families. Maybe they should increase it to 2 years, when rates go down to about $30/day. Imagine a working woman, who gets pregnant. Do you realize that she has to be making about $30,000 a year to even consider going back to work. We are basically using the cost of daycare as a means of birth control, or as a means to keep women out of the work force. Both concepts disgust me.


Whether you believe it to be moral or not is irrelevant, since morality is a moving target at best.

To move from your last point such as it is , first. I am a fairly reasonable person and I do question as do a great many, the wisdom of packing our kids off to the care of strangers. I

I agree that sometimes it's really tough to figure out what 's best for all, and should be done but morality is usually not at all a moving target. That's just evasion.

I am not a proponent of moral relativism. I find it not just obviously self-contradictory and absurd when considered for about a minute, but it usually serves other motives and harms to others. Lying is OK? If not, you're a moral absolutist. You just don't like the implications of accepting that fact about you and everybody else. Shuold we eliminate all laws in our community, because we just don't know what they should be? Right.

Quite the opposite is obviously the case. Reason is the force behind law. I know that television and newspapers tell us every day that it's all relative...subjective...blah, blah blah...so this reads uncomfortably to quite a few, but it really doesn't take much thought at all.

Moral relativism is at the core our rotten or ignoble behaviours when we try to justify them. Kids know this> They have a natural sense of what is fair and not. Sociopaths employ relativism it all the time. Lots of people think like sociopaths. I try to resist it. So what and why I think is always relevant. Read Mein Kamph some time. Odd as Socrates observed that theives and murderers (which are morally loaded words) don't dispute that they shouldn't be censored for their behaviour but rather that they didn't do it. Odd eh?

So dispute my points, but it all matters. Even this.


If daycare is such an unqualified good, then you should set about chasing those children away from their moms, and someone should tell all those three-year-olds to stopp their whining. Most mothers naturally resist it intuitively.

Studies do not show that kids are socializing better in daycare situations. Just the opposite. They show heightened levels of agression relative to kids with their moms, and ya, moms are still the way in the younger years. Everybody knows this too.

Incidentally, I arranged a private daycare. situation for my daughter. At the timie , I had to for financail reasons, and we never felt good about it. Still don't though this is not a critique of the nice mom who provided the service.

The main point, if daycare is currently a necessity for some people and I have felt that pinch. is that it's NOT THERE.

I like the idea of paying stay- at- home moms who have a real need for my money and I suspect that grandma will often do a better job than a public centre or private for money, even if a two-year =old can't count to ten till later. I support paying her when circumstances warrant.

Like income tax and other progressive things, that's what community is. We are here, we owe our very existence to the community from which came our parents.

Six year olds are a different matter.

[franko]

Let’s look at part of the Liberal record:

· Sponsorship scandal
· Gun Registry
· HRDC
· Problems with Transition Job Funds program
· Tainted blood
· Radwanski Spending Affair
· Pearson Airport
· GST Flip Flop
· Airbus Investigation
· Voting against Red Book promise of independent Ethics Commissioner
· Irving fishing lodge stays/travel on Irving jets for cabinet ministers
· Martin traveling on private corporate jets as Finance Minister
· Don Boudria’s stay at Boulay owned chalet
· Denis Coderre staying with Boulay
· Alfonso Gagliano being appointed Ambassador to Denmark
· Shawinigate
· Raid on reporter Juliet O’Neill’s home by RCMP
· Permanent Resident Cards
· Judy Sgro going on vacation as cards became mandatory and landed immigrants were left stranded
· Minister Frulla’s renovations
· Pay raises for chiefs-of-staff in ministers offices, while spending is frozen for public service.
· The government’s changing numbers on how much money has gone to CSL
· Lobbyists in Paul Martin’s transition team being allowed to return to lobbying immediately, after being involved in process of picking new cabinet and senior staff.
· Minister Comuzzi’s anti-Quebec comments
· David Dingwall’s expenses as head of Royal Canadian Mint
· Liberals planning to give David Dingwall a severance package after he resigned
· The secret National Unity Fund reserve
· Immigration Minister Judy Sgro’s staff being allowed to stay on “extended travel” benefits, letting them bill taxpayers’ for thousands of dollars in hotel rooms and meals, because they didn’t want to move from Toronto to Ottawa until after the election.
· Correctional Service of Canada Commissioner Lucie McClung’s travel expenses
· Contracting irregularities on more than two dozen projects at DND worth tens of millions of dollars, showing over-billing, profit excesses, unauthorized additional work, lack of accounting records, spiralling cost overruns, etc. (Globe and Mail, July 14, 2004).
· A Liberal Party of Canada fundraising letter signed by Paul Martin, asking potential contributors to offer $7,000, $7,100 or $7,200 in contributions – far in excess of donation limits passed by the very same Liberal government
· Liberal Senator Raymond Lavigne violating municipal bylaws. Municipality pursuing legal action against him. (Ottawa Citizen, August 19, 2004).
· Abuse of Challengers by Paul Martin and various ministers (eg. Andy Mitchell, Claudette Bradshaw)
· Abuse of Challenger jets for political business instead of government business (Le Devoir, October 4, 2005)
· Paul Martin taking Challenger jets to Liberal fundraisers
· Man convicted of fraud against government hired to teach ethics course to public servants (National Post, October 20, 2004).
· Public Works selling confiscated grow-op equipment to drug traffickers. (National Post, October 21, 2004).
· Paul Martin’s Director of Communications Scott Reid insulting Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador (Toronto Star, October 28, 2004)
· The Martin government spent $127,223 on a poll last February testing ways to diffuse negative reaction to the bombshell auditor-general's report -- which included the finding the Liberals ignored their own rules prohibiting the use of tax dollars on partisan polls (Vancouver Sun, November 8, 2004).
· Judy Sgro’s campaign volunteer (a stripper) getting ministerial permit
· Sgro’s senior policy advisor going to strip club to meet with owner to discuss bringing more strippers into Canada. (National Post, November 25, 2004). Subsequent revelations indicate that he went to at least one other strip club to conduct similar meetings (Toronto Sun, December 7, 2004)
· Sgro giving out details of private immigration files, violating Privacy Act
· Irwin Cotler appointing his former chief-of-staff to federal court (National Post, November 23, 2004).
· Heritage Minister Liza Frulla giving grant to magazine that put her on the cover and made her honourary president (Ottawa Citizen, November 25, 2004)
· Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointing Liberal MP John Harvard as Lt-Governor of Manitoba, in order to get him to step aside for “star” candidate Glen Murray.
· Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointing Liberal MP Yvon Charbonneau to UNESCO, in order to get him to step aside for Martin crony Pablo Rodriguez.
· Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointing former Liberal MP Karen Kraft-Sloan as Ambassador for the Environment. (Department of Foreign Affairs Press Release, February 16, 2005).
· Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointing defeated Liberal candidate Dave Haggard as the chair of a newly created Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship. (OIC 2005-0001)
· Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointed his friend Dennis Dawson to the Senate
· Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointed his former Principal Secretary Francis Fox to the Senate
· Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointed disgraced former cabinet minister Art Eggleton to the Senate
· According to documents obtained by the Globe and Mail, Pierre Pettigrew billed Canadian taxpayers for $10,000 for trips for his driver in 2001 and 2002. Pettigrew took his driver to South America and Europe, even though the driver didn’t do any driving on the trips. (Globe and Mail, September 14, 2005)
· Joe Volpe’s questionable hospitality expenses (Globe and Mail, September 21, 2005)
· Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney lobbying for satellite radio company for a month before registering (Ottawa Citizen, October 19, 2005)

I am not a shill for the Conservative Party – in fact don’t expect to vote Conservative (to the utter chagrin of Mr. Cranky who will guess where my vote is going). It just boggles me that with the Liberal record people would say “the Conservatives are scary” . . .

Note that I say Conservatives, not Reformers. I also call the New Democrats the NDP, not the CCF or the Communist Party, nor do I hearken back to Mr. Liberal himself, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his early Communist leanings.

[Toronthab]

mrbozo said:

docholliday said:

If the PQ grabs the power in Quebec in the next Provincial, a referendum will quickly follow. It is out of context I know, but I ask anyway just who , from the Federal side, will have a minimum of credibility to talk to Quebecers and convince them that they have their best interest at hearth...

If you love someone, set them free. If they come back they're yours; if they don't they never were. - Richard Bach

Quebecers are already free of course. The Star recently ran an editorial concerning the liklihood of a referendum on a clear question resulting in a significant majority wanting to separate from Canada. Very, very, unlikely upon analysis. Many "supporters" think they'd still be Canadians of some sort, and that extensive ties would necessarily be there along the same lines.

I personally think Quebec, my very favourite province, would have a lot going for it as an independent, but would end up being American.

As the heart of Canada, it is critical in keeping Canada from being toally Americanized as well. A lovely symbiotic relationship.

I am not as sanguine about the consequences as the Star is. We might well win a fair fight, but will we get one?

Is Michaiel Ignatief going to be ready in two years? Is he the guy? He will be soon, but next time. I doubt.

I don't know who can carry the flag......it won't be Paul .

[PTH]

toronthab said:

I personally think Quebec......

As the heart of Canada, it is critical in keeping Canada from being toally Americanized as well. A lovely symbiotic relationship.

As I've said in many other threads, if this desire to keep Quebec in Canada showed up at the constitutionnal negotiations table, we wouldn't even be discussing the possibility of a 3d referendum.

Separatism is kept alive by the fact that the federalist forces in Quebec can only be pro-status quo, they have no positive projects to propose anymore, or even the hope of being able to get out of the current constitionnal quagmire.

[Toronthab]

pth said:

toronthab said:

I personally think Quebec......

As the heart of Canada, it is critical in keeping Canada from being toally Americanized as well. A lovely symbiotic relationship.

As I've said in many other threads, if this desire to keep Quebec in Canada showed up at the constitutionnal negotiations table, we wouldn't even be discussing the possibility of a 3d referendum.

Separatism is kept alive by the fact that the federalist forces in Quebec can only be pro-status quo, they have no positive projects to propose anymore, or even the hope of being able to get out of the current constitionnal quagmire.

Wow: nothing like an election to get everyhting out, huh. I was just thinking after reading your thoughts of all possible areas of contention, and remembering dear Rene insisting upon a constitutinal veto for Quebec. Was that a limited veto as you recall, or was it pretty all encompassing.

For my part, I see most Canadians now are pretty highly supportive of our dual heritage and language rights. I can see the appeal to identity and prestige perhaps, and even the celebration of the pure laine, for I don't see anything wrong with the obvious French centrality of Quebec, but I believe, or maybe just want to believe that Quebec would lose too much clout outside of Canada and like the rump thing remaining across the divided land, Quebec would lose her lovely identity to Americanization. Power.

Mutual help with avoiding that God-awful fate is a nice thing. I know that certainly the liberal-led governments sponsorship scandal notwithstanding, have devoted their heats and souls to our relationship. Why would we shut the door on each other? It's not like we're completely indistinguishable from Americans at this point. Close, but not totally.

Also, Quebecers have about the lowest birth rate in Western democracies and you will be experiencing major economic trauma within the next 10 years. French Quebecers are disappearing, voluntarily, like Italians in Italy which is anticipated to be a mostly Muslim nation in a little over forty years.

I don't know what the rest of us can do to maintain and develop further a good nation, such as North Americans are. Most Quebecers would not choose an outright separation and suffer the loss of their Country. The allo vote of course is even less so inclined and that is not likely to change a lot.

[Skilly]

franko said:

But the economic climate began to shift – and in 1997, Quebec introduced its own day-care system, offering spaces at $5 a day. Demand quickly surpassed supply.

This should be no surprise. Also no surprise: that day care providers as government workers would want government pay; hence the strikes.

Really, I should be on the other side of the argument. My wife is “paid” a little over $10. an hour (as a government-funded day care).From her wages she pays for groceries to feed the children, buys supplies, buys gifts for the children, etc. She gets no coffee break, no lunch break, no benefits, no paid holiday, no sick days, and is at the whim of parents who bring their sick children, Tylenoled up, so that they can go to work. She spends the day wiping noses, wiping bottoms, cleaning messes. By the end of the day (often waiting for late parents who get caught up in traffic [acceptable] or “just had to stop in for a few groceries” [unacceptable]) she is dead beat. She does this, though, because she feels a child loses out in a larger centre – private or public.

And private or public . . . care may or may not be good care. Workers in public daycare get just as tired, just as frustrated, just as lazy as workers in private care.

That situation sucks.

In my contract I wrote up with my provider we agreed to give her all statutory holidays (paid), and a holiday of her choice (paid). We gave her a 2 week vacation also (strange part was we thought it was paid and she insisted on non-paid). If my daughter is sick or kept home, we pay. If her son is sick, she doesn't expect payment but sometimes we do anyway because I am sure it will all even out.

And I have a penalty clause wrote in if we are late picking my daughter up. It has not been enforced, mainly due to being courteous and keeping the provider informed of our plans. When we researched and did checks on day-care people told us to keep the relationship with any institution or provider on a business level. It is hard, but I find if you keep it on a human level (how would I want to be treated, how do I feel after work and how would I feel looking after children all day) than foolish inconsiderate stuff is really limited.

[franko]

skilly said:

In my contract I wrote up with my provider we agreed to give her all statutory holidays (paid), and a holiday of her choice (paid). We gave her a 2 week vacation also (strange part was we thought it was paid and she insisted on non-paid). If my daughter is sick or kept home, we pay. If her son is sick, she doesn't expect payment but sometimes we do anyway because I am sure it will all even out.

And I have a penalty clause wrote in if we are late picking my daughter up. It has not been enforced, mainly due to being courteous and keeping the provider informed of our plans. When we researched and did checks on day-care people told us to keep the relationship with any institution or provider on a business level. It is hard, but I find if you keep it on a human level (how would I want to be treated, how do I feel after work and how would I feel looking after children all day) than foolish inconsiderate stuff is really limited.

You have a great arrangement, and it is too bad more parents aren't as willing as you to work together.

One year my wife was asked by a family to go private rather than through the agency she works with (the agency takes a cut of the money the parent pays . . . administration, you know . . . justifiably so, btw), and did. It did not work out (I'll not go into the details). KMeeping your provider in the loop means a great deal. We also try to keep things on a business level (I'm involved in the venture because it is my home too and I am often around when children are picked up) but it is difficult . . . after a couple of years of looking after the children and swapping stories friendship does happen. Never forget, though, that this is yoru caregiver's job and means of financial support. Interesting that people will quibble about hours late or rate of pay, but of anemployer decided not to pay them one day or decided he couldn't afford to pay them for a week or argued about a day's pay they'd be none to happy.

I don't know what you do at Christmas, but speaking from experience, a nice gift is always appreciated. No gift is expected, of course, but a little thought, a little extra goes a long way to keep the relationship fresh.

Wow . . . from electionering to how to treat people . . . these threads go everywhere!

[Skilly]

All ready bought her a gift .......

didn't really know what to get her, and I wanted it to be something she could do with her whole family (if she wanted) or to just get out and forget (well put it in the back of her mind at least) being a mommy ....

so we got her a gift card to The Keg. One night out for her and her husband on us!

[Toronthab]

franko said:

skilly said:

In my contract I wrote up with my provider we agreed to give her all statutory holidays (paid), and a holiday of her choice (paid). We gave her a 2 week vacation also (strange part was we thought it was paid and she insisted on non-paid). If my daughter is sick or kept home, we pay. If her son is sick, she doesn't expect payment but sometimes we do anyway because I am sure it will all even out.

And I have a penalty clause wrote in if we are late picking my daughter up. It has not been enforced, mainly due to being courteous and keeping the provider informed of our plans. When we researched and did checks on day-care people told us to keep the relationship with any institution or provider on a business level. It is hard, but I find if you keep it on a human level (how would I want to be treated, how do I feel after work and how would I feel looking after children all day) than foolish inconsiderate stuff is really limited.

You have a great arrangement, and it is too bad more parents aren't as willing as you to work together.

One year my wife was asked by a family to go private rather than through the agency she works with (the agency takes a cut of the money the parent pays . . . administration, you know . . . justifiably so, btw), and did. It did not work out (I'll not go into the details). KMeeping your provider in the loop means a great deal. We also try to keep things on a business level (I'm involved in the venture because it is my home too and I am often around when children are picked up) but it is difficult . . . after a couple of years of looking after the children and swapping stories friendship does happen. Never forget, though, that this is yoru caregiver's job and means of financial support. Interesting that people will quibble about hours late or rate of pay, but of anemployer decided not to pay them one day or decided he couldn't afford to pay them for a week or argued about a day's pay they'd be none to happy.

I don't know what you do at Christmas, but speaking from experience, a nice gift is always appreciated. No gift is expected, of course, but a little thought, a little extra goes a long way to keep the relationship fresh.

Wow . . . from electionering to how to treat people . . . these threads go everywhere!

Must be that damned Christmas spirit rearing its' ugly head again. Even I am tempted to be balanced an reasonable, but I'll resist the temptation.

In daycare, market forces are what is used to justify abominable working conditions. They always have been. It was the main argument reforming against slavery in the south where between 1882 and 1963, some 4, 702 individuals were tracked down tortured and lynched, 70 % of them being black. Moral arguments, those prdicated upon virtues, suchas justice that antiquated notion reduced by some to a neural misfire, ( a common Scientistic misfire of their own) always compete with human acquisitiveness, greed and the opposite of love, indifference. In opposiion to this are (get ready to be mad at the use of the "M" word folks), "moral" arguments. That's why I use the word.

Incidentally I find this context lost or very dimly grasped in our culture which I quite frankly find more than a little lost in space and riddled with self-contradiction. At least in part because I use these fundamental moral terms (the other part beign that I am just about as much of a jerk as anybody else) people like to ascribe words like "moralistic" and the like.

Please do me a favour an look up the meaning. Discussing important moral issues is not "moralizing" or being moralistic. I consider much of the right wing to be moralistic, in that they will oppose abortion as they shoud, but also oppose public involvement in programs to help people in distress. In so doing they of course keep themselves and their society in a state of beseiged fear, an ironic reality that escapes them.

Bieng "moralistic" is not, or not even trying to practice what one preaches. (That's one of the reasons why what a lot of people preach is more than a little lame). Ther are lots of instances daily, I'm sure where I fail to practice what I preach. I don't think that I too often present myself as being holier than thou. I may be a little more trained in philosophical argument than most, and the word "moral" doesn't conjure up either the "Moral Majority" or archaic demons form hell to me, but, I'm quite confident that almost everyone who reads this or is on this board is likely much better and more knowledegeable thatn am I in lots of areas, and likely a far better person.

Ther but for the grace of God go I is a mantra fro compassion.

By moral arguments I mean arguments that are based upon the basic idea that each individual person as a free-willed subject has an intrinsic and transcendent value beyond pargmatic or market value. That truth is a value and therefore open-mindedness is a virtue. (Yes, I know that withholding intellectual assent or the avoidance of arriving at a solid conclusion and being able to defend it beyond reasonable doubt, is what people now think "Open minded means". Usually of course this is actually only willful or unavoidable ignorance, or indifference. Indifference, not anger and extreme displeasure is the real opposite of love.

End of this morning's rant. As I read spokespeople on the Liberal plan, I do not read that your grandmom looking after her little bunny-wunny, or a really loving neighbor for that matter is not in the cards, but the point for the moment is to get good responsible, properly regulated daycare in place, because it mply doesn't exist for lots of pople.

If we are to have strangers looking after our children for money, and very litttle money, then daycare must exist before it can be judged godd or less good. Right now, it doesn't.
There are spots for only 20% of wroking families, so you just know that lots of kids are ultimately dumped in places they really shouldn't be.

That said, I really like the idea of supporting mothers and chlldren across the board, using the potentially progressive nature of income tax for the good of us all. And close the unfair loopholes that Franko mentionned, including those enjoyed by people who own shipping companies.

The right wing supporters, the corporations, are migrating manufacturing jobs out of North America. They call it "globalization" I hear.

Market over Mankind, Strange Fruit, as Billy Holiday sang.

www.jazzitude.com/strange_fruit.htm

[Toronthab]

franko said:

toronthab said:

I don't know just what Public-in-home is however.

Government regulated home care for children. Standards are the same as for daycare faciliteis. Homes are inspected and licensed. Ongoing training for caregivers is expected. Subsidized spots may be available.

One of my biggest problems with a publicly funded day care system is that government money is available, and budgets are more or less guidelines. Equipment ordered is often to be ordered only from certain companies, and the equipment is often over-priced because the companies know they can get away with it. Often the same equipment (toys, climbers, etc) is available in a local box store at 3/4 the price or less but the box store is not on the approved list. Not anecdotal -- policy.

I once worked in marketing with a well-know international company. We did a lot of business with Ottawa. Lots and lots. The dept of supply and services as I think it was called, had the most rigorous and difficult process to vet and evaluate products with extensive performance evaluations and tests that were conducted without us even being aware of it. Bring on the NASA toliet seats and the occsional canards and scandals, which is why we have a very good auditing program that regularly embarasses everyone, but of the several embarassments in reports there were some several hundreds of millions of transactions done exceptionally well.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

Let’s look at part of the Liberal record:

· Sponsorship scandal
· Gun Registry
· HRDC
· Problems with Transition Job Funds program
· Tainted blood
· Radwanski Spending Affair
· Pearson Airport
· GST Flip Flop
· Airbus Investigation
· Voting against Red Book promise of independent Ethics Commissioner
· Irving fishing lodge stays/travel on Irving jets for cabinet ministers
· Martin traveling on private corporate jets as Finance Minister
· Don Boudria’s stay at Boulay owned chalet
· Denis Coderre staying with Boulay
· Alfonso Gagliano being appointed Ambassador to Denmark
· Shawinigate
· Raid on reporter Juliet O’Neill’s home by RCMP
· Permanent Resident Cards
· Judy Sgro going on vacation as cards became mandatory and landed immigrants were left stranded
· Minister Frulla’s renovations
· Pay raises for chiefs-of-staff in ministers offices, while spending is frozen for public service.
· The government’s changing numbers on how much money has gone to CSL
· Lobbyists in Paul Martin’s transition team being allowed to return to lobbying immediately, after being involved in process of picking new cabinet and senior staff.
· Minister Comuzzi’s anti-Quebec comments
· David Dingwall’s expenses as head of Royal Canadian Mint
· Liberals planning to give David Dingwall a severance package after he resigned
· The secret National Unity Fund reserve
· Immigration Minister Judy Sgro’s staff being allowed to stay on “extended travel” benefits, letting them bill taxpayers’ for thousands of dollars in hotel rooms and meals, because they didn’t want to move from Toronto to Ottawa until after the election.
· Correctional Service of Canada Commissioner Lucie McClung’s travel expenses
· Contracting irregularities on more than two dozen projects at DND worth tens of millions of dollars, showing over-billing, profit excesses, unauthorized additional work, lack of accounting records, spiralling cost overruns, etc. (Globe and Mail, July 14, 2004).
· A Liberal Party of Canada fundraising letter signed by Paul Martin, asking potential contributors to offer $7,000, $7,100 or $7,200 in contributions – far in excess of donation limits passed by the very same Liberal government
· Liberal Senator Raymond Lavigne violating municipal bylaws. Municipality pursuing legal action against him. (Ottawa Citizen, August 19, 2004).
· Abuse of Challengers by Paul Martin and various ministers (eg. Andy Mitchell, Claudette Bradshaw)
· Abuse of Challenger jets for political business instead of government business (Le Devoir, October 4, 2005)
· Paul Martin taking Challenger jets to Liberal fundraisers
· Man convicted of fraud against government hired to teach ethics course to public servants (National Post, October 20, 2004).
· Public Works selling confiscated grow-op equipment to drug traffickers. (National Post, October 21, 2004).
· Paul Martin’s Director of Communications Scott Reid insulting Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador (Toronto Star, October 28, 2004)
· The Martin government spent $127,223 on a poll last February testing ways to diffuse negative reaction to the bombshell auditor-general's report -- which included the finding the Liberals ignored their own rules prohibiting the use of tax dollars on partisan polls (Vancouver Sun, November 8, 2004).
· Judy Sgro’s campaign volunteer (a stripper) getting ministerial permit
· Sgro’s senior policy advisor going to strip club to meet with owner to discuss bringing more strippers into Canada. (National Post, November 25, 2004). Subsequent revelations indicate that he went to at least one other strip club to conduct similar meetings (Toronto Sun, December 7, 2004)
· Sgro giving out details of private immigration files, violating Privacy Act
· Irwin Cotler appointing his former chief-of-staff to federal court (National Post, November 23, 2004).
· Heritage Minister Liza Frulla giving grant to magazine that put her on the cover and made her honourary president (Ottawa Citizen, November 25, 2004)
· Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointing Liberal MP John Harvard as Lt-Governor of Manitoba, in order to get him to step aside for “star” candidate Glen Murray.
· Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointing Liberal MP Yvon Charbonneau to UNESCO, in order to get him to step aside for Martin crony Pablo Rodriguez.
· Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointing former Liberal MP Karen Kraft-Sloan as Ambassador for the Environment. (Department of Foreign Affairs Press Release, February 16, 2005).
· Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointing defeated Liberal candidate Dave Haggard as the chair of a newly created Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship. (OIC 2005-0001)
· Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointed his friend Dennis Dawson to the Senate
· Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointed his former Principal Secretary Francis Fox to the Senate
· Despite promising an end to cronyism and patronage, Martin appointed disgraced former cabinet minister Art Eggleton to the Senate
· According to documents obtained by the Globe and Mail, Pierre Pettigrew billed Canadian taxpayers for $10,000 for trips for his driver in 2001 and 2002. Pettigrew took his driver to South America and Europe, even though the driver didn’t do any driving on the trips. (Globe and Mail, September 14, 2005)
· Joe Volpe’s questionable hospitality expenses (Globe and Mail, September 21, 2005)
· Liberal candidate Richard Mahoney lobbying for satellite radio company for a month before registering (Ottawa Citizen, October 19, 2005)

I am not a shill for the Conservative Party – in fact don’t expect to vote Conservative (to the utter chagrin of Mr. Cranky who will guess where my vote is going). It just boggles me that with the Liberal record people would say “the Conservatives are scary” . . .

Note that I say Conservatives, not Reformers. I also call the New Democrats the NDP, not the CCF or the Communist Party, nor do I hearken back to Mr. Liberal himself, Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his early Communist leanings.

I hope this mostly picayune list inlcludes my personal favourite, correctly labelling Dubya Bush as a moron.

Let's not get absobed by dubious trivialities. and incidentally, I completely agree with heads of government installing individuals whose values and commitments reflect their visons to appointable positions where appropriate. Why wouldn't I?

I have no intention of dragging up some silly list of real or imagined malfeasance and scurrilous accusation and inuendo, but would simply point out that the last Conservative government remains the most hated in Canadian history, including of course constant scandals.

Why would you obscure the obvious?

Restoring the country to fiscal solvency was Matin's task after the $280 BILLION increase undr the conservatives. More thatn twice the deficit Mulroney inherited from Trudeau who had extremely tough times. Interst rates in the states were high double digits, and the conservatives' pals, the corporations whisk their money offshore so that rates in Canadacould not be controlled as they used to be in the interests of the people, by foreign exchange controls.

In the big picture. conservatives have fought tooth and nail against using our resources to stop currency speculators from ruining countries full of people like you and me.

We' d be at war in Iraq right this mninute and until this international terrorist act of Bush's ends in ignomious disaster as it inevitably will.



Incidentally for all those who, perhaps becasue they keep hearing it over and over, believe that right wing conservative governments are fiscally responsive, a stunning bit of unbelievable nonsense, every US right wing or Republican governmnet has throughout history resulted in a recession, depression or war. Every one.

Martin for all his failings not only eliminated the deficit, but is paying down the deficit. And our health plan, even in Ontario wher Fed money went to the rich via the local consrvatives, is still functionning well but with key areas needing immediate attention which it is getting (MRI's) and hip surgery in particualr.

But for Chretien, we'd be at war and much more nervous when we take the subway.

Supporting one's allies means criticisng them when they are disasterously off track.
We shouldn't be milquetoasts.

[razor]

An interesting link detailing federal revenue versus spending.

www.taxpayer.com/pdf/Federal_Revenue_and_Spending_1947_to_2006.pdf

In rough numbers, under both the Conservative and Liberal regimes, the GDP doubled, as did government revenue. What is interesting is that under the Conservatives, spending doubled, whereas the Liberals had spending leveled off until recently.

I think that the Liberals might ruin their fiscal record in trying to out NDP the NDP. I for one expect fiscal responsibility from whatever party forms government. Paying off the debt should be a priority, rather than spending the surplus'.

[franko]

skilly said:

All ready bought her a gift .......

didn't really know what to get her, and I wanted it to be something she could do with her whole family (if she wanted) or to just get out and forget (well put it in the back of her mind at least) being a mommy ....

so we got her a gift card to The Keg. One night out for her and her husband on us!

Good for you. Great gift -- especially if you can afford it. One year my wife received the same gift (approximately) from a single mother struggling to make it through college an d from a couple who were high-level government employees. The young lady was apologetic for not giving more (it isn't about the giving!). The couple had been complaining about how tough things were . . . then were beaming that they were going on a ski holiday for a week and a half over Christmas. Guess what gift was appreciated more (oh-oh, human feelings).

Bath beads are for teachers with whom you don't have a relationship; nights out away from children are for people you respect and care about. Skilly . . . on behalf of child-care workers (and spouses) everywhere -- way to go!

[Toronthab]

franko said:

skilly said:

All ready bought her a gift .......

didn't really know what to get her, and I wanted it to be something she could do with her whole family (if she wanted) or to just get out and forget (well put it in the back of her mind at least) being a mommy ....

so we got her a gift card to The Keg. One night out for her and her husband on us!

Good for you. Great gift -- especially if you can afford it. One year my wife received the same gift (approximately) from a single mother struggling to make it through college an d from a couple who were high-level government employees. The young lady was apologetic for not giving more (it isn't about the giving!). The couple had been complaining about how tough things were . . . then were beaming that they were going on a ski holiday for a week and a half over Christmas. Guess what gift was appreciated more (oh-oh, human feelings).

Bath beads are for teachers with whom you don't have a relationship; nights out away from children are for people you respect and care about. Skilly . . . on behalf of child-care workers (and spouses) everywhere -- way to go!

Gotta second you both in this...way to go indeed

On the first day of Christmas my true love...

[Toronthab]

Harper to double pension money shelter
Dec. 9, 2005. 10:53 AM
CANADIAN PRESS


OTTAWA — Conservative Leader Stephen Harper targeted the senior vote Friday by promising to double the amount of pension money they can shelter from income tax.

The Tories would increase the annual amount to $2,000 from $1,000, Harper said as he visited a seniors centre in Guelph.

The amount would rise to $2,500 a year over five years, he added.

Harper said the measures would cost the government $2.2 billion over five years.

"In this election, seniors have to ask themselves which party they can trust to take care of their needs in their retirement years," Harper said.

"The Conservative government will protect our public pension progams and we will build on them by allowing seniors to keep more of their pension tax-free.

"And we will ensure better services for our seniors."

The Tory leader said he will appoint a national seniors council to address issues concerning the elderly.

Prime Minister Paul Martin used a trip to his hometown of Windsor to reiterate that his government would spend millions in the automotive sector.

The federal Liberal leader and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty used an event at a car plant to re-announce millions in federal and provincial support for DaimlerChrysler.

Martin took a veiled swipe at Harper by saying laissez-faire capitalism would leave Canadian business short-handed in the global competition for jobs.

The prime minister also promised government help for a new bridge linking Windsor with Detroit.

The Liberal leader got yet another boost from the labour movement, which traditionally has backed the NDP but is cosying up to his party.

Canadian Auto Workers boss Buzz Hargrove, who is expressing support for both the Liberals and NDP, said he felt like hugging Martin for his auto-industry announcement.

Hargrove raised the ire of New Democrats last week by attending another event with the Liberal leader.

Martin left Windsor for Montreal, where he was to meet former U.S. president Bill Clinton at an international climate-change summit.

[franko]

Reality Check
Child-care dollars: How many spaces does a billion bucks buy?
By Robert Sheppard, Reality Check Team | Dec. 8, 2005

Liberals
The governing party entered the campaign with a five-year, $5-billion agreement, signed in principle at least by all 10 provinces. This agreement would set the stage for a national system of regulated community-based programs. As federal-provincial deals go, this one was unusual in that it didn't require matching provincial funding; it also allowed considerable provincial flexibility in how the money might be spent. And to give the provinces more certainty, Martin has now topped it up, by five years and $6 billion.

Conservatives
The Harper plan, by contrast, eschews formal agreements with the provinces and would give tax money directly to parents to make the kind of child-care choices that best suit their lifestyles. Designed to help parents who work nights, when child care is not normally available, or who would rather see their children cared for by a friend or family member, the Conservative plan resembles a revised "family allowance" in that it would give parents of children five and under $1,200 a year. As an added incentive, a Harper government would offer businesses or non-profit institutions healthy tax credits of $10,000 for each child-care space created. The party estimates that money would lead to 125,000 new spaces.

but both plans are flawed

[Toronthab]

franko said:

Reality Check
Child-care dollars: How many spaces does a billion bucks buy?
By Robert Sheppard, Reality Check Team | Dec. 8, 2005

Liberals
The governing party entered the campaign with a five-year, $5-billion agreement, signed in principle at least by all 10 provinces. This agreement would set the stage for a national system of regulated community-based programs. As federal-provincial deals go, this one was unusual in that it didn't require matching provincial funding; it also allowed considerable provincial flexibility in how the money might be spent. And to give the provinces more certainty, Martin has now topped it up, by five years and $6 billion.

Conservatives
The Harper plan, by contrast, eschews formal agreements with the provinces and would give tax money directly to parents to make the kind of child-care choices that best suit their lifestyles. Designed to help parents who work nights, when child care is not normally available, or who would rather see their children cared for by a friend or family member, the Conservative plan resembles a revised "family allowance" in that it would give parents of children five and under $1,200 a year. As an added incentive, a Harper government would offer businesses or non-profit institutions healthy tax credits of $10,000 for each child-care space created. The party estimates that money would lead to 125,000 new spaces.

but both plans are flawed

Very likely. I'm still lnot certain how much I like any of it in principle. Not to just jump like a dork on Harper's back, previous attempts to get corporations to use tax credits, in one report had Zero takers. Harper's plan may be better in that regards, I don't even know the details of the Liberal plan in that, just a point I read recently about pre-existing incentives and corporations. Gotta go

[franko]

I'm drawn to arguing discussion with you, like a moth to a flame. I try and avert myself but your posts draw my attention like an accident on the 401, and I just can't pull myself away. Woe is me!

toronthab said:

I hope this mostly picayune list . . .

Picayune?

franko said:

· Sponsorship scandal
· Gun Registry
· HRDC

These are not minor issues, my friend! Nor is insulting our number one trading partner:

inlcludes my personal favourite, correctly labelling Dubya Bush as a moron.

Supporting one's allies means criticisng them when they are disasterously off track.
We shouldn't be milquetoasts.

To disagree with policy is one thing -- totally acceptable, for that matter. But to reduce to name calling . . .

Let's not get absobed by dubious trivialities. and incidentally, I completely agree with heads of government installing individuals whose values and commitments reflect their visons to appointable positions where appropriate. Why wouldn't I?

Because they may be incompetent?

I have no intention of dragging up some silly list of real or imagined malfeasance and scurrilous accusation and inuendo, but would simply point out that the last Conservative government remains the most hated in Canadian history, including of course constant scandals.

The last Conservative government is hardly remembered . . . there are fresher scandals in mind.

the conservatives' pals, the corporations whisk their money offshore so that rates in Canadacould not be controlled as they used to be in the interests of the people, by foreign exchange controls.

Corporations like CSL?

We' d be at war in Iraq right this mninute and until this international terrorist act of Bush's ends in ignomious disaster as it inevitably will.

But for Chretien, we'd be at war and much more nervous when we take the subway.

And Mr. Martin disagreed with Mr. Chretien and sided with Mr. Harper in that Canada should have in some way supported the US.

Martin for all his failings not only eliminated the deficit, but is paying down the deficit.

On the backs of hardworking Canadians.

And our health plan, even in Ontario wher Fed money went to the rich via the local consrvatives, is still functionning well but with key areas needing immediate attention which it is getting (MRI's) and hip surgery in particualr.

Functioning well? I guess you haven't needed health care lately. Many Ontarians can't find a doctor. Emergency room waits are excessive, as are the waits for treatment for cancer patients, heart patients, . . .

Over 50% of all tax dollars in Ontario go into the health care system, and within five years that nubmer will be 65%. As soon as Mr. I-will-not-raise-taxes McGuinty came into power he instituted a health care tax. Not enough. Health care is broken because your finance minister of the time cut medicare transfer payments to the provinces so he could balance that budget.

[franko]

Popcorn and beer. Oops

[Cranky]

franko said:

But the economic climate began to shift – and in 1997, Quebec introduced its own day-care system, offering spaces at $5 a day. Demand quickly surpassed supply.

This should be no surprise. Also no surprise: that day care providers as government workers would want government pay; hence the strikes.

Really, I should be on the other side of the argument. My wife is “paid” a little over $10. an hour (as a government-funded day care).From her wages she pays for groceries to feed the children, buys supplies, buys gifts for the children, etc. She gets no coffee break, no lunch break, no benefits, no paid holiday, no sick days, and is at the whim of parents who bring their sick children, Tylenoled up, so that they can go to work. She spends the day wiping noses, wiping bottoms, cleaning messes. By the end of the day (often waiting for late parents who get caught up in traffic [acceptable] or “just had to stop in for a few groceries” [unacceptable]) she is dead beat. She does this, though, because she feels a child loses out in a larger centre – private or public.

And private or public . . . care may or may not be good care. Workers in public daycare get just as tired, just as frustrated, just as lazy as workers in private care.

A few years ago, before the Chinese crap broadsided my business, I had so many woman working for me that I was thinking of allocating a chunk of office space for daycare. At that time I figure it would cost about $35 an hour for two day care people. Then all of a sudden, the man and woman who didn't need daycare started to complain about how "unfair" it was that other employees would get "preferential" treatment. Of course they would stop complaining if they got an equivilant value in raises. THEN the woman who asked for and would benefit from the day care complained that they should ALSO get a raise because it would be unfair to them. To say the whole thing "pissed me off" is an understatement.

On a broader spectrum, I do believe that employers can find day care solutions for their working woman. It is fairly cheap and can be highly controlled. Mind you, it also needs an understanding and coperative work force. Some people have to grow up from demanding "their share of candy" or worse still, "I got my candy and their candy too". *sigh*

Besides.......if I had in-house daycare. I could always send an unproductive worker to suck on a soother!

[Skilly]

habsaddict said:

franko said:

This should be no surprise. Also no surprise: that day care providers as government workers would want government pay; hence the strikes.

Really, I should be on the other side of the argument. My wife is “paid” a little over $10. an hour (as a government-funded day care).From her wages she pays for groceries to feed the children, buys supplies, buys gifts for the children, etc. She gets no coffee break, no lunch break, no benefits, no paid holiday, no sick days, and is at the whim of parents who bring their sick children, Tylenoled up, so that they can go to work. She spends the day wiping noses, wiping bottoms, cleaning messes. By the end of the day (often waiting for late parents who get caught up in traffic [acceptable] or “just had to stop in for a few groceries” [unacceptable]) she is dead beat. She does this, though, because she feels a child loses out in a larger centre – private or public.

And private or public . . . care may or may not be good care. Workers in public daycare get just as tired, just as frustrated, just as lazy as workers in private care.

A few years ago, before the Chinese crap broadsided my business, I had so many woman working for me that I was thinking of allocating a chunk of office space for daycare. At that time I figure it would cost about $35 an hour for two day care people. Then all of a sudden, the man and woman who didn't need daycare started to complain about how "unfair" it was that other employees would get "preferential" treatment. Of course they would stop complaining if they got an equivilant value in raises. THEN the woman who asked for and would benefit from the day care complained that they should ALSO get a raise because it would be unfair to them. To say the whole thing "pissed me off" is an understatement.

On a broader spectrum, I do believe that employers can find day care solutions for their working woman. It is fairly cheap and can be highly controlled. Mind you, it also needs an understanding and coperative work force. Some people have to grow up from demanding "their share of candy" or worse still, "I got my candy and their candy too". *sigh*

Besides.......if I had in-house daycare. I could always send an unproductive worker to suck on a soother!

The solution to that is quite simple. You make the employees who need the day-care pay for it. The spaces you are creating are for employees children only presumably (many companies at first find out to make it work they need to bring in non-employee children for a little while and then phase them out as the operation gets on the ground). So the very availability of the space is a big bonus, and you can even (if possible) have a cheaper rate than private or public daycare.

I am not sure what province you are in or the age of your employee's children, but you stated you were going to hire 2 daycare providers. Ontario provincial laws stipulate the maximum number of children allowable per staff member. It’s three staffers for every ten babies under 18 months; one for every five toddlers 18 to 30 months; and one for every eight children aged 30 months to five years.

So you'd be creating anywhere from 9-16 daycare spaces. If you had them pay at a rate of $15/day (assuming you are not in Quebec where it is lower ..... and trust me $15 dollars a day is as cheap as dirt in ROC) than with only 9 spaces that would cover half of the $35/hour cost you'd estimated, and it is not seen as so much of a benefit.

There will always be those who think they are treated unfair, such is life in Canada, but by making them pay a subsidized amount a reasonable person could not see it as a contractual "benefit".

[Cranky]

skilly said:

The solution to that is quite simple. You make the employees who need the day-care pay for it. The spaces you are creating are for employees children only presumably (many companies at first find out to make it work they need to bring in non-employee children for a little while and then phase them out as the operation gets on the ground). So the very availability of the space is a big bonus, and you can even (if possible) have a cheaper rate than private or public daycare.

I am not sure what province you are in or the age of your employee's children, but you stated you were going to hire 2 daycare providers. Ontario provincial laws stipulate the maximum number of children allowable per staff member. It’s three staffers for every ten babies under 18 months; one for every five toddlers 18 to 30 months; and one for every eight children aged 30 months to five years.

So you'd be creating anywhere from 9-16 daycare spaces. If you had them pay at a rate of $15/day (assuming you are not in Quebec where it is lower ..... and trust me $15 dollars a day is as cheap as dirt in ROC) than with only 9 spaces that would cover half of the $35/hour cost you'd estimated, and it is not seen as so much of a benefit.

There will always be those who think they are treated unfair, such is life in Canada, but by making them pay a subsidized amount a reasonable person could not see it as a contractual "benefit".

It was a mixture from one but mostly three-five year olds....and some adults who needed soothers. The cost was going to be about $4.00 an hour per child or about $30 per day. The cost didn't bother me too much because with a 12% labour content, the mothers would be making $6,000 of product a day. The other think I liked was that it was going to be a "finite" expense. At worse, it was going to be for four year cost for any given employee.

Your right, I should of hidden the cost by having the parent pay $15 a day of it but I was caught by suprise at the others demands. The plant is in Ontario. I don't know all the legalities because I didn't reach much beyond the "intent" stage.

But hey, as long some people can save a penny, the'll buy Chinese slave labour rate crap and besides, who needs all those Canadian jobs anyway! *shakes head*

[BadCompany]

Since very few corporations actually have daycares, I can only assume one of two things is happening:

* Companies do a cost/benefit analysis and determine it’s not worth it.

* Companies (and politicians) aren’t “with it” and are missing the boat on what could be a profitable trend for them. Most members of upper management – and most politicians for that matter – do not live the typical workers everyday life. Very few CEO’s are single mothers, for example, so they know nothing about what its like to HAVE to put your family above work, ALWAYS, no matter how dedicated you may be to your job.

The first issue is entirely possible, especially once you factor in space and start-up requirements. Government incentives and tax breaks might be the solution here. As asked above, do our politicians “get it?”

The second issue is more problematic. How do you convince a company that it is to their financial benefit to have an on-site daycare? I know that in my company many, many employees are forced to do the “day care shuffle”, whereby they can only arrive at work at a certain time, and they must leave by a certain time, in order to get home in time to pick up their kids. I don’t know what the “fine” for being late is in other provinces, but in Quebec its typically $5 for every five minutes you are late, with the time rounded up to the nearest 5. In other words, if you are 2 minutes late, you pay a $5 fine. If you are 7 minutes late, you pay a $10 fine, and so on. Most daycares close sometime between 5:00 and 6:00. So if your daycare closes at 5:30, and you show up at 6:00 to pick up your kid, you’re hit with a $30 fine. Unless you are making $60 an hour, it’s not financially worth your while to stay that extra half hour at work.

So in order to get home by 5:30, many parents HAVE to leave work by 4:30, factoring in traffic, and a buffer zone in case something happens. To me, this doesn’t seem all that beneficial to a company.

Logically, it seems to me that if you had an on-site daycare, your employees wouldn’t have to dash out of the office. If a project needs an extra 15 minutes, or half an hour, or even hour’s work, the employee can stay, knowing that their child is just down the hall, and they don’t need to factor in the 30-60 minutes travel time, to go get them. Daycare closes at 5:30, I can work until 5:30, instead of leaving at 4:30. I think most employees would be more than willing to put in extra time, if they could. Those that aren’t willing aren’t good employees to begin with, and probably shouldn’t have been hired. I think most employees would pay for a spot for their child, and probably pay more than they would at any other day care, simply because of the convienence. If you have a daycare center with say, 30 children in it, that’s 30 parents who conceivably are more available to work for you. If childless employees complain, you fix them with a Bob Gainey stare and say “you are free to go, lots of workers with kids ready to replace you, you know.”

A company with a daycare would have employees working longer, and theoretically being more productive. With their kids just down the hall, they could have lunch with them, feel like they are more involved in their lives, and generally have a much more positive opinion of their company, and of their jobs (which ALWAYS leads to more productivity). I would think you would also be much more likely to attract BETTER employees (the ones willing to work longer), as having a daycare on site automatically makes you a more attractive company to work for.

The new reality is that parents have very little choice but to put their kids in daycare. This is only going to get worse. As society ages, more and more people are going to work well into their middle ages, meaning that the “grandparent” option is going to become less and less viable. For better or worse, daycares are here to stay, it’s in EVERYBODY’S best interest to make them better.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

habsaddict said:

franko said:

This should be no surprise. Also no surprise: that day care providers as government workers would want government pay; hence the strikes.

Really, I should be on the other side of the argument. My wife is “paid” a little over $10. an hour (as a government-funded day care).From her wages she pays for groceries to feed the children, buys supplies, buys gifts for the children, etc. She gets no coffee break, no lunch break, no benefits, no paid holiday, no sick days, and is at the whim of parents who bring their sick children, Tylenoled up, so that they can go to work. She spends the day wiping noses, wiping bottoms, cleaning messes. By the end of the day (often waiting for late parents who get caught up in traffic [acceptable] or “just had to stop in for a few groceries” [unacceptable]) she is dead beat. She does this, though, because she feels a child loses out in a larger centre – private or public.

And private or public . . . care may or may not be good care. Workers in public daycare get just as tired, just as frustrated, just as lazy as workers in private care.

A few years ago, before the Chinese crap broadsided my business, I had so many woman working for me that I was thinking of allocating a chunk of office space for daycare. At that time I figure it would cost about $35 an hour for two day care people. Then all of a sudden, the man and woman who didn't need daycare started to complain about how "unfair" it was that other employees would get "preferential" treatment. Of course they would stop complaining if they got an equivilant value in raises. THEN the woman who asked for and would benefit from the day care complained that they should ALSO get a raise because it would be unfair to them. To say the whole thing "pissed me off" is an understatement.

On a broader spectrum, I do believe that employers can find day care solutions for their working woman. It is fairly cheap and can be highly controlled. Mind you, it also needs an understanding and coperative work force. Some people have to grow up from demanding "their share of candy" or worse still, "I got my candy and their candy too". *sigh*

Besides.......if I had in-house daycare. I could always send an unproductive worker to suck on a soother!

American values, but they apply to Canada too:

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,it would go
something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy
with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily meal by $20."
Now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their
bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected.
They would still eat for free
But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divide
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man
would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts
each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, they began to compare their
savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the
tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down
and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered
something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for
even half of the bill!
And that is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and
they just may not show up at the table anymore.


Long read, but those are my sentiments explained.

[Cranky]

badcompany said:

Since very few corporations actually have daycares, I can only assume one of two things is happening:

* Companies do a cost/benefit analysis and determine it’s not worth it.

* Companies (and politicians) aren’t “with it” and are missing the boat on what could be a profitable trend for them. Most members of upper management – and most politicians for that matter – do not live the typical workers everyday life. Very few CEO’s are single mothers, for example, so they know nothing about what its like to HAVE to put your family above work, ALWAYS, no matter how dedicated you may be to your job.

The first issue is entirely possible, especially once you factor in space and start-up requirements. Government incentives and tax breaks might be the solution here. As asked above, do our politicians “get it?”

The second issue is more problematic. How do you convince a company that it is to their financial benefit to have an on-site daycare? I know that in my company many, many employees are forced to do the “day care shuffle”, whereby they can only arrive at work at a certain time, and they must leave by a certain time, in order to get home in time to pick up their kids. I don’t know what the “fine” for being late is in other provinces, but in Quebec its typically $5 for every five minutes you are late, with the time rounded up to the nearest 5. In other words, if you are 2 minutes late, you pay a $5 fine. If you are 7 minutes late, you pay a $10 fine, and so on. Most daycares close sometime between 5:00 and 6:00. So if your daycare closes at 5:30, and you show up at 6:00 to pick up your kid, you’re hit with a $30 fine. Unless you are making $60 an hour, it’s not financially worth your while to stay that extra half hour at work.

So in order to get home by 5:30, many parents HAVE to leave work by 4:30, factoring in traffic, and a buffer zone in case something happens. To me, this doesn’t seem all that beneficial to a company.

Logically, it seems to me that if you had an on-site daycare, your employees wouldn’t have to dash out of the office. If a project needs an extra 15 minutes, or half an hour, or even hour’s work, the employee can stay, knowing that their child is just down the hall, and they don’t need to factor in the 30-60 minutes travel time, to go get them. Daycare closes at 5:30, I can work until 5:30, instead of leaving at 4:30. I think most employees would be more than willing to put in extra time, if they could. Those that aren’t willing aren’t good employees to begin with, and probably shouldn’t have been hired. I think most employees would pay for a spot for their child, and probably pay more than they would at any other day care, simply because of the convienence. If you have a daycare center with say, 30 children in it, that’s 30 parents who conceivably are more available to work for you. If childless employees complain, you fix them with a Bob Gainey stare and say “you are free to go, lots of workers with kids ready to replace you, you know.”

A company with a daycare would have employees working longer, and theoretically being more productive. With their kids just down the hall, they could have lunch with them, feel like they are more involved in their lives, and generally have a much more positive opinion of their company, and of their jobs (which ALWAYS leads to more productivity). I would think you would also be much more likely to attract BETTER employees (the ones willing to work longer), as having a daycare on site automatically makes you a more attractive company to work for.

The new reality is that parents have very little choice but to put their kids in daycare. This is only going to get worse. As society ages, more and more people are going to work well into their middle ages, meaning that the “grandparent” option is going to become less and less viable. For better or worse, daycares are here to stay, it’s in EVERYBODY’S best interest to make them better.

Hmmm, are you sure you not a slave driving manager?

Yup, if you have subsidized day care in your company, you can pick and chose from a better employee base, more loyalty, less salary demands, more flexibility when you need that extra bit of time. And besides, you are grooming a entire new generation for the downtrodden slaves workers!

The problem is that the true cost needs to be hidden from the other employees. It doesn't make sense to subsidize one group for even a dollar an hour if EVERYBODY else has to be raised a dollar an hour. If only 10% of your work force enjoys this benefit and everybody else demanded compensation then it cost you $10 an hour. Most companies avoid the entire day care issue because of this reason.

As for the "free to go" (LOL!), well, I prefer "you're a really good employee and this is giving you an opportunity to find much better employment with companies that truly meet your expectations".