Paul Martin has done nothing to earn my trust, and yet he wants me to trust him to create a childcare program that is so all encompassing that it will be on a par with medicare in terms of scope and breadth. Part of our 'social fabric' he calls it.
He says that like medicare -- childcare is a 'public right'.
Excuse me?
What about the right to raise your own children?
Not possible in many cases, you say? Families can't afford it?
Well, instead of making 'daycare' a universal 'right' -- why not create the circumstances where families can decide for themselves whether they want to be the primary caregivers to their own children?
We all know what a mess health care is in, right across the country -- costs are high, services are insufficient and delays are the norm . . . and yet Mr. Martin wants us to have faith that he and his government will serve our children adequately in early child care and early childhood education.
The GST lie, the free trade lie, the Sea King debacle, HRDC billion dollar foul up, the Gun Registry, the 1995 referendum (precursor of the sponsorship scandal), and the Radwanski, and the Dingwall affairs -- to name a few -- are all examples of the way Liberals do business -- and we're supposed to trust them with our kids?
Why doesn't Mr. Martin trust us to raise our own children? His urgency to commit more (but still insufficient) money to his universal daycare scheme in the wake of Harper's announcement -- says that Martin and the liberal elites in this country are trying to create an environment where there is no choice --- where daycare is not the norm -- but the ideal.
Why is it so hard for him to understand, that if money were no object (as is the case in his world) that many families who rely on daycare would prefer to have one parent stay at home?
Daycare is not a right. It should be choice. In Paul Martin's Canada -- it's a choice the government wants to make for us.
canadianna
9 comments:
Obviously Mr. Martin believes in the dictum: "Never let the truth get in the way of a good piece of propaganda."
Fred F
You've hit the nail on the head, CA. The fundamental difference between the Lib and CPC plans is the former removes choice while the latter gives choice. The next implicit difference is that the Lib plan recognizes the state as a better child caregiver than parents, whereas the CPC plan places value AND TRUST directly in Canadian parents.
The liberal plan should be an affront to all parents.
James, the problem is that while you're counting cost, you've completely missed the point.
Q. What is the cost of the Liberal daycare plan?
A. Who cares?
B. Too much.
C. More than they say.
D. All of the above.
Correct answer is D.
Q. What is the value of a child spending the better part of his/her first five years with a primary care giver who is a parent?
A. Priceless.
That one was not multiple choice, so:
Q. Who should be making decisions about their children's lives?
A. Not the government.
That's the only answer -- and no matter costs, the Liberal daycare scheme leaves no room for the 70% of people who don't use institutional daycare and who don't want to.
Cost is secondary to goal.
The Liberal goal is to further interfere in the lives of families by making a decision on daycare which allows no room for individual circumstances and choice -- so the real cost is familial autonomy.
Canadianna - 'familial autonomy' - bingo - that's what Libs hate. They're like drug pushers always seeking new clients - it's what keeps them in business - and families have always been the bulwark against which all totalitarian impulses try to prevail. As I wrote about in this post back in June, Liberal party ideology seeks to maintai- nay, increase - its power by exerting greater and greater control over the population, always while attempting to appear benign and benevolent. (And government-paid professional feminists rail on and on about 'paternalism' - what irony - they who work for, and are always seeking more from, the ultimate 'sugar daddy.')
First of all I don't think medicare is a public right. It's a social program. The "right" only comes from the fact that I pay exhorbitantly through taxes for access. This applies equally to child care. Martin is putting the cart before the horse when he claims it is a "public right". And what does that mean anyway? Has anyone challenged him on how one defines a "public right"? Can the PM simply declare it so? Secondly, if the government has no business being in our bedrooms why do we allow it to insinuate itself in our nursuries? Thirdly, why is the federal government insinuating itself in provincial jurisdiction? Hasn't it screwed up enough of it's own responsibilities?
When is someone going to say that Paul Martin and the Liberals are nothing more than 21st Century fascists?
Huey Long, the noted demagogue of the 1930s, once said that fascism would come to the U.S., "only they'll call it 'anti-fascism.'"
Read the labels, friends.
That duck quacks.
Nadine--nice to see you. You asked for it . . .
As someone who has actually worked in a daycare, I can testify to the fact that this country is in dire need of a national early child development program.
How does your having worked in daycare put you in a position to judge this? I am a parent, and according to the Liberals and NDP, that does not qualify me to judge what is necessary for my own children, let alone anyone else's in the country.
I want to dispell some of the myths I've seen on here. First of all, like it or not, parents need to work these days.
No one disputes this Nadine, but maybe with income tax reform that won't have to be the case. And, for those parents who need to work -- it should be up to them whether they want to use a formal daycare with an institutional setting, or a neighbour or family member.
Some 3/4 of women are in the work force because they are needed, and many in fact like working.
For years, stay at home mothers have been told that if that's the lifestyle they want, they should pay for it (ie quit complaining about the tax system, which taxes single income two parent families punitively)-- why should the government subsidize women who work simply because they like it?
As for your numbers, are you saying 75% of women or 75% of mothers? If you are saying 75% of mothers, I think your figures are skewed -- and a significant number of mothers in the work force work part-time and therefore use informal child care arrangements -- the Liberal/NDP scheme is not going to benefit them.
And what about single parents? They have no choice at all but to work and 30 dollars a month won't help much.
I'm a 'single' mother of four. Please don't speak for me. I don't want to send my kids to institutional daycare and I make sacrifices in order to be able to make that choice. And even if I wanted to use a formal daycare, the Liberal/NDP all one-size-fits-all plan this one doesn't meet my individual needs. The Liberal scheme is not helpful to people who have both preschool and schoolage children. It doesn't take into account people who work staggered hours or shiftwork. It makes no provisions for those who travel for work or those who live and work in rural communities.
Harper's plan of $30 month doesn't even provide diapers and milk for one child.
Why are you saying $30/month. If you want to be against his plan, at least do it with the facts.
If money were to be given directly to parents, it would need to be hundreds or thousands for it to be of any use.
Putting your kids in daycare should not be an easy decision. The government shouldn't be in the business of making it easier to choose to put your children in daycare, if they are to have any role, it should be to make the choice to stay at home with your preschool children more affordable.
Either way, the child care setting should be the choice of the parents.
Sorta like the Family Allowance, which the Tories scrapped back in 1990. Plus there's no regulation, no guarantee the money would be put towards child care. Unfortunately, there are many irresponsible parents who would squander the checques on things other than child care.
How arrogant.
Many parents make real sacrifices to stay at home with their pre-schoolers. They are taxed unfairly, they generally have less money coming in in the first place -- and you suggest that if they choose to do that, any government benefit they receive will be 'squandered' if it isn't used to pay someone else to take care of their children?
Child care centers with the proper funding could attract and train qualified professionals with education in early child development and psychology. A nurturing environment free of television is what's best for the developing brain of a child.
Rubbish. Universal care won't change the fact that the best qualified will work for the most wealthy. It's much like public education -- if you live in my neighbourhood quality of the school facility and of the staff doesn't measure up to a public school in Rosedale or even Ajax or Pickering. No amount of pretending is going to make it so that my children's public school learning experience is going to be equal to that of a kid who lives in a better neighbourhood.
And as for the tv crack -- you are implying that all stay at home parents dump their kids in front of the television all day. That is insulting and ignorant.
There's no evidence being away from the parents hinders the bond between parent and child.
You know, it always makes me laugh when people say this -- especially people who don't have kids.
When your put your pre-schoolers into full-time daycare, he/she is likely to spend more of his/her waking hours with a stranger than with you. Daycares, no matter how well staffed, can't provide one on one attention with a baby whenever it's required. A child care worker, no matter how good, does not love your child.
You're right. What difference could that make.
It gives children a good start in life, making them good social and linguistic skills and fosters a love of learning leading up to school.
There's no empirical data that suggests that children who don't attend daycare are any less socially adept, linguistically skilled or motivated at learning.
Why do you think Scandinavian kids are so smart while Canadian kids are lagging behind? It's because they have superior early childcare which leads into their superior public education system!
Talk about over-simplification.
The problems with education in this country are not going to disappear because of a universal daycare scheme. To suggest that the Scandinavian daycare system is responsible for better standardized test results, dismisses any other reason for the disparity.
Canada's productivity will continue to slide if we don't catch up to the rest of the world in this regard.
Canada’s productivity will continue to slide if we keep raising children whose sense of entitlement outweighs their sense of responsibility.
And childcare should be universal, in all areas of country, accessible to all, 24-7. It should open to all children, not just 0-4. Money shouldn't be an issue for such an important cause. And it need not be a huge bureaucracy as the province's would regulate the programs while Ottawa provides the cash. Do people honestly think bureaucrats would run the system? Childcare centers are, and would continue to be administered by the owners and groups and communities who operate them day-to-day. They'd be just like schools or in fact, should be incorporated into the school system. You don't see government agents checking up on schools daily now do you?
In answer to your last question -- yes, as matter of fact, they do.
Do you think doctors run the healthcare system? Daycare workers will not run the daycare programme.
You’ve already talked about the problem with Harper’s plan would be that there wouldn’t be any way of ‘regulating’ it. ‘Regulation’ requires bureaucracy.
And the rest of what you've suggested is just pie in the sky socialism.
Nadine -- You interpret your experience in daycare as a need for daycare spaces, I interpret it as a need for more options for parents.
No, I don't mean tax cuts (although, I think personal income taxes should be cut) I mean tax reform. In most Western nations, income splitting for one income, two parent families reduces the tax burden.
I don't deny that people would make use of publically funded daycare if it were available -- but just because the 'if you build it, they will come' theory works here, doesn't justify creating a multi-billion dollar, state-regulated program. Parents would also opt to say at home with their children more often than they do now if it were not a financial impossibility. If the government can afford to pay for the state to raise the nation's children, why can it not afford to subsidize a parent's choice to stay home. In the Martin plan, there is no choice. Either you use public daycare, or you aren't eligible to benefit from their daycare scheme.
You ask about my arrangements - I'm fortunate, I have family who can help out when I need them.
And you go on to say that inclusivity is your goal -- and while I see that as more admirable than the Liberal idea, it doesn't change the fact that most parents (given the choice and if money were no object) would prefer to stay at home. If you want the government to support (financially) the rights of both parents in a two parent family to work, do you also believe the government should give financial incentives for two parent families where one parent chooses to stay with the kids?
30 x 12 = 360, not 1200
I'm not suggesting that every family should have one parent stay at home. Nor am I suggesting that there should not be excellent quality childcare available to all who need it -- I am saying that the most important factor in any child care arrangement is the child. Parents should be the ones to determine whether that is an institutional setting, a family member or neighbour in a familiar setting, or at home with one of the parents.
I'm not opposing daycare and I'm not suggesting that there isn't the need for it. I'm simply advocating for choice.
nadine - "A nurturing environment free of television is what's best for the developing brain of a child."
When did you last work in a daycare? TVs have existed in all those my daughter was in, although it was used mainly for educational shows like "Zaboomafu" and the occasional video, but TV-free? I know that to be inaccurate. I was lucky to get my daughter into the UBC daycare, which was touted as the best in BC & among the top in the country. It was an excellent daycare, but very expensive. At the time, $100 a month would have been gratefully accepted, and used to replace the perqs that I gave up to put her there. I'm not talking about extra clothes for myself; I'm talking about memberships at the aquarium; "dinner out" at places other than McDonalds so I could show her how to behave in a "real" restaurant. And yes, maybe the odd perq for myself, like regular maintenance on the car rather than leaving it too long (because don't forget who my passenger was).
This is not an academic exercise to those who have had children and made sacrifices for them (as most parents do).
You outline a eutopia - that works for you and quite possibly a proportion of the citizens. But certainly not all.
You also point out that Martin isn't committing enough cash. So who will pick up the shortfall, nadine? Probably the provinces, is my guess. Which means all of us being taxed more, to build a eutopian daycare centre that a large chunk of the population doesn't want.
Yes there are bad parents out there. A daycare won't change that.
Post a Comment