Liberal Minority Government 2019 - ????

[suffolkowner]

Not every kid will get into a a 10 dollars a day daycare spot.

Since when is more choice a bad thing?

How are people/kids selected for the daycare spots?

 

[Altair]

How are people/kids selected for the daycare spots?

Every province will have its own program, but in Quebec , IIRC, its you apply for a spot, are up on a wait list and grab a spot when another kid ages out of it.

 

[Altair]

Quebec to convert 3,500 private daycare spots into subsidized ones by 2022 - Montreal | Globalnews.ca

Funds will be granted to daycares in areas where there is a lack of subsidized spots, including Pierrefonds, Côte-des-Neiges and Saint-Leonard in Montreal.

globalnews.ca

The province is making access to child care more affordable in certain areas.

Quebec’s Minister of Families Mathieu Lacombe announced on Friday the government will be converting 3,500 private daycare spots into subsidized ones.

The money will be granted to daycares in areas where there is a lack of subsidized spots.

In Montreal, that includes Pierrefonds, Côte-des-Neiges and Saint-Leonard.

“We targeted areas where the number of subsidized daycare spots was under the province’s average, which sits at 76 per cent,” said Lacombe at a press conference.

76 percent is the average in Quebec, which means, if my math is correct, 24 percent of daycare spots are private.

Again, if someone wants a private daycare spot, 1 out of 4 is still private. If you want to spend 30-60 dollars a day on daycare, the option is still available.

 

[Remius]

My son goes to private school. A choice we made. I suspect daycare will be similar.

 

[Altair]

My son goes to private school. A choice we made. I suspect daycare will be similar.

Exactly.

You get a choice. Everyone will get a choice.

If the system in place before the LPC put forward subsidized daycare was used in schools, the "choice" would be

1) Afford private school.

2) Home school until the kid was done school at 17-18 years old.

How many people would be out of the workforce under a system like that?

Yet thats the exact system that was in place for daycare. And now that the government is looking to fix that, people are bellyaching, wanting what, the status quo?

I don't get it.

 

[YZT580]

Exactly.

You get a choice. Everyone will get a choice.

If the system in place before the LPC put forward subsidized daycare was used in schools, the "choice" would be

1) Afford private school.

2) Home school until the kid was done school at 17-18 years old.

How many people would be out of the workforce under a system like that?

Yet thats the exact system that was in place for daycare. And now that the government is looking to fix that, people are bellyaching, wanting what, the status quo?

I don't get it.

Because money spent on subsidized daycare is money that isn't available for actually governing the country like building transportation infrastructure to the north country, water treatment plants, a third JSS, proper ventilation systems for senior's residences (yes I know its provincial but Quebec's subsidy system spends money the same way) and so on. There are still people out there who believe that parents are responsible for raising their own children. There are also people who believe that the state makes a very poor parent which is what has been occurring.

 

[Altair]

Because money spent on subsidized daycare is money that isn't available for actually governing the country

Neither is public schools, public healthcare, public transit, but we as a society have decided to pay and support those.

like building transportation infrastructure to the north country, water treatment plants, a third JSS, proper ventilation systems for senior's residences (yes I know its provincial but Quebec's subsidy system spends money the same way) and so on.

One can walk and chew gum.

There are still people out there who believe that parents are responsible for raising their own children.

That's fine. Those people can go raise their own children. Nobody and nothing is stopping them.

There are also people who believe that the state makes a very poor parent which is what has been occurring.

Those who believe the state is a very poor parent can

1) Raise those kids at home.

2) Choose private daycare.

What you and others seem to want to do is limit choice. Limit the public option. You do not want people to be able to CHOOSE to send their kids to public daycare. Why limit their choice?

 

[mariomike]

I'd say more in their case because they actually didn't do anything, where as khadar deserved a .35 cent bullet

My understanding from this 122-page thread devoted to him,

Optics aside, we got off cheap financially and legally.

Good luck to the two Michael's.

 

[QV]

Yet, when there is only the private sector, in this case daycare, and no public option, in this case daycare, you don't seem to mind.

At least you haven't said anything about the status quo. And when there is the chance here to add a public option, all I hear is the great horrors of the public taking away the private option.

Private daycare is not going to disappear. There are private daycares in Quebec, the model of this program. Not every kid will get into a a 10 dollars a day daycare spot. So I wish people would stop the bellyaching.

If people want their kids in private daycare, they can still do so. The only thing that is going to change is that people who want their kid in public daycare at 10 dollars a day will have that option, finally.

Since when is more choice a bad thing?

I support public options for critical essential services such as hospitals, utilities. With the option to access private services as well. Everyone needs utilities and access to hospitals.

I don't consider daycare a critical service and think billions of public dollars on that is quite wasteful. Not everyone needs daycare so this could be provided by the private sector and supply and demand will dictate the need.

 

[Altair]

I support public options for critical essential services such as hospitals, utilities. With the option to access private services as well. Everyone needs utilities and access to hospitals.

I don't consider daycare a critical service and think billions of public dollars on that is quite wasteful. Not everyone needs daycare so this could be provided by the private sector and supply and demand will dictate the need.

Well, thankfully most parties in parliament feel otherwise. Even the CPC has been asking for ways to increase female participation in the workforce, so I doubt they oppose this.

It's a fait accompli, so I really don't care if you all like it or not.

 

[QV]

As of 2019 woman represented about half of the work force. Without publicly funded childcare nationwide. What's the goal then, 70%, 80% of the workforce?

 

[YZT580]

Neither is public schools, public healthcare, public transit, but we as a society have decided to pay and support those.

One can walk and chew gum.

That's fine. Those people can go raise their own children. Nobody and nothing is stopping them.

Those who believe the state is a very poor parent can

1) Raise those kids at home.

2) Choose private daycare.

What you and others seem to want to do is limit choice. Limit the public option. You do not want people to be able to CHOOSE to send their kids to public daycare. Why limit their choice?

Having people accept responsibility for raising their own children is not limiting their choice. If anything government run programmes will. The risk exists that a more institutional environment will be created. Industry will now find in advantageous to enter the market in a big way which can be translated in the lowest quality product that they feel they can get away with along with the greatest number of children per facility. As anecdotal proof examine the private government funded seniors system here in Ontario. Labour costs will go up which means the cost on the tax payer will go up. Currently it is a market driven system. Private will become elite and beyond the reach of most people. Proof in the fees charged for private schools.

 

[Jarnhamar]

It's a fait accompli, so I really don't care if you all like it or not.

You should stop taking everything here so personally. It really seems to affect you.

 

[Altair]

You should stop taking everything here so personally. It really seems to affect you.

I really don't care about this discussion.

It was budgeted for in April, we discussed it then, Manitoba made the 6th provincial agreement since April, it got brought up here, and now for some weird reason it's being discussed.

Its happening. I won't get any use out of the program. It doesn't effect me personally. No party will toss out the program. I doubt it's an election issue beyond the LPC strutting around saying they introduced it. So at the end of the day, I don't really care what the naysayers are saying.

This isn't something like the carbon tax that could be repealed or fought in court, this is as I said earlier, a fait accompli.

 

[Altair]

Having people accept responsibility for raising their own children is not limiting their choice. If anything government run programmes will. The risk exists that a more institutional environment will be created. Industry will now find in advantageous to enter the market in a big way which can be translated in the lowest quality product that they feel they can get away with along with the greatest number of children per facility. As anecdotal proof examine the private government funded seniors system here in Ontario. Labour costs will go up which means the cost on the tax payer will go up. Currently it is a market driven system. Private will become elite and beyond the reach of most people. Proof in the fees charged for private schools.

So....Quebec has some of the lowest quality daycare?

Because this program has been run for decades in Quebec, so that should be the end result, correct?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It's a fait accompli, so I really don't care if you all like it or not.

Your posts suggest otherwise.

 

[Altair]

Your posts suggest otherwise.

I was willing to give it a honest chance to discuss the program and its faults and merits, but at the end of the day, I don't really care about it beyond a intellectual meeting of minds.

It's happening regardless.

 

[Quirky]

As of 2019 woman represented about half of the work force. Without publicly funded childcare nationwide. What's the goal then, 70%, 80% of the workforce?

Just don't be a white dude and you'll get hired, companies need to meet their diversity quota even if it means a candidate isn't suitable. Just look at the CAF's hiring priorities - women and indigenous. Hiring the best candidate, regardless of sex or ethnicity, who walks through the door is no longer a thing.

 

[mariomike]

Just look at the CAF's hiring priorities - women and indigenous.

See also,

Employment Equity in the CAF ( merged )

>We ALL know that much more aggregious and unethical things The ethics modules I received on my (reserve) courses never taught that unethical behaviour was excused if I could point to some unethical behaviour elsewhere. The proper and liberal COA has already been identified: explain to...

www.milnet.ca

14 pages.

 

[Brad Sallows]

If the system in place before the LPC put forward subsidized daycare was used in schools

Not a useful comparison. Public schools were created to educate children, not to get them out of mom and dad's hair so they could work the family farm without the child labour underfoot. Obviously, since schools have custody of children for only about 6 hours a day schools were never meant as pseudo-daycare, although parents undeniably sometimes treat schools as such. Even 7 or 8 years of formal education involved a cost commitment not within the means of most people; the time commitment alone was a burden (consider earlier days, when dropping out to work in a family enterprise, or just start working, was more common). The proposition that early childhood education (ECE) will help kids is not well-supported; what is observed is a few years of advancement until kids hit their natural aptitude limits (usually by late elementary school age). People who truly mean to help kids achieve full potential should be shoveling money at Gr 11/12 programs, but instead some are gutting anything that might promote excellence. I suppose that to the leading classes who want what they have for their own children and are paying for private schools and lessons in this/that/the other, that serves a purpose by lessening competition for limited positions on the ladder rungs to high achievement in life.

The idea that there's no "choice" if a public option isn't available is vacuous. There are many things in life for which no public option is available.

Most people who want to work have managed to make their arrangements. More public funding for child care will help a few people at the margins (eg. single parents), but mostly it's a vote buyer: people already paying for child care are hoping to pay less for it. They are mostly middle class people, and the middle class is where the votes are. The middle class is also where the tax revenues mostly are. It's the political happy space: buying votes with people's own money. This isn't going to be a free lunch, although as with social security in the early years, there will be some immediate "winners" (people with children) and "losers" (people who already paid their own way). There will continue to be a slight transfer of wealth away people with no or fewer children to people with more. The transfer will, unfortunately, be regressive. There will be people with plenty of money who benefit at the expense of people who choose to care for their children at home.

It will all become more costly. Parents already believe (almost uniformly) that child care is too expensive. It is reasonable to guess that if the solutions mean more publicly run daycare instead of just cheques to parents, compensation will creep up and there will be more administrative overhead.