Canadian Parenting and Child Care Community forums - parent and childcare provider advice and discussions

Poll

Would you rather $100 per month till your child is 6; or a Universal National Childcare program?

nothing thank you.
I like the $100 cheque till my child is 6, it helps me out!
I wish we had a Universal Childcare program accessible to everyone.
other, please explain

Author Topic: Your preference: Publicly funded Childcare vs a baby bonus cheque till age 6  (Read 8614 times)

Offline spud

  • Senior member
  • kindergartner
  • *****
  • Posts: 420
I wonder how many people like the conservatives decision to squash the national childcare programme known as Best start.  Do you feel the little baby bonus cheque till age 6 adequatly addresses the childcare need in Canada?  Would you rather see a national childcare program funded similar to the Quebec model  (Ie $7 /day daycare)? This would serve children up to age 12...and are you willing to pay for it?  I am pleased the Liberal governement has extended Ontarios Best Start money on a provincial level...but how do you feel about it!?

Offline jharrisece

  • Preschooler
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
A universal childcare program is the only way to go, in my opinion.  I have studied it quite a bit over the years plus observing through my experience in the profession I can see how great this would be for all of our country, not just working families.  The biggest obstacle is that the majority of people do not understand what early childhood education and care means - they just think daycare.  They don't have the understanding/knowledge that the first 6 years are the most important and lay the foundation for their success in life. Every child in every family should have the choice/opportunity to attend an ECE program of some sort, I mean, we publicly fund every child in the school system but the research shows that the years BEFORE they enter the school system are more vital, so why aren't we covering them?  It would means saving more money (it would mean more people working and paying taxes, less crime, less social assistance, healthier families, supports for children earlier, less difficulties in school, a higher birth rate, etc.) not spending more money but people don't like to have to change their way of thinking and the politicians aren't going to do something to jeopardize their votes!  While I stand up strongly for children, women and families, I do not think we will see a system until our children are running the country.  As a family that receives the $100 (which is really only about $40 a month!), is subsidized for childcare and is making less than the 'average' two-income working family, I would be glad to give up what we have to ensure that a system for everyone was in place. 

Offline spud

  • Senior member
  • kindergartner
  • *****
  • Posts: 420
Hi jharrisece
Nice post! I m on the very same wavelength and glad someone else feels as strongly about this issue as myself.. I actually felt while reading it that it sounded like MY words lol! 

Offline mvb

  • Infant
  • *
  • Posts: 5
I, for one, totally oppose a universal child care program. Here are my reasons

- It's not fair to provide subsidy to parents whose annual income already allows for self-sustained care.

- Encouraging parents to have children simply because there will be a receiving $2000 dollar cheque in the mail is just wrong. How is that supposed to make our society a better one

- Let's not forget the cost involved in creating such system. We are talking millions of cheques written out every month.

- Creating a universal system would most definately imply raising taxes. How could the poor afford such system and why would they want to pay for it if they don't have kids of their own.

Your posts are very good and they address alot of issues that are happening in Canada (daycare shortages, poverty and such), but those in charge of our future have to look at both sides of the matter.

On a positive note, this is a really nice and informative forum. I'm glad I found it. If these guys manage to expand it and get more quality participation it will be a great forum.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2008, 03:37:01 PM by mvb »

jenece

  • Guest
The universal childcare system would not be only childcare, that is the most misunderstood thing about it.  It would be all types of early childhood services (not just childcare but also preschool, early intervention programs, etc.) that would be available to every family, regardless of income and they could choose to use it or not.  It would be funded the same, used/not used the same as every other social service we all pay for (ex. pensions, financial social assistance, medical/health care, public schools, etc.) that our country provides.  I mean, we pay for prisons but we can't take care of our youngest who need a good base to start life so that we ensure they don't end up requiring the supports currently in place (ex. welfare) which actually cost more than a universal system would?  I don't think anyone would say 'Don't provide an autistic child with support', 'Don't provide that 3 year old who can't speak with support', ' but early interventions are part of the system and childcares/preschool are typically where they receive supports so that they are learning to be social within the difficulties they have. 

Offline mvb

  • Infant
  • *
  • Posts: 5
I don't think people would mind helping those in need. The problem is using taxpayer's money to "help" families that can very easily affort to help themselves. How can you possibly justify using taxes to pay for childcare when parents are making 6 figure annual income?

Now onto the prison issue. You see, it's all about seeing direct "cost-benefit" results. When we put criminals in prison we realise an instant benefit to the society as the result. That's just the way we think, and it's hard to change our train-of-thought. when we spend money on "universal" childcare the direct benefit is not immediately realised.

It's hard to address my points :) isn't it? That's the dilemma our politicians are faced with. Hard choices make or break careers and politicians know that. After all, it's a topic that has very legitimate arguments on both sides.

Offline spud

  • Senior member
  • kindergartner
  • *****
  • Posts: 420
"Programs that meet the needs of both parents adn children are more cost effective than single objective services.  Economic models demonstrate that every $1 spent on childcare produces a $2 return through reduced social service cost and tax revenue generated as more parents join the workforce"
 
Read this article at http://www.childcareadvocacy.ca
and
http://www.campaign2000.ca/
for really good infomation on the childcare plan
« Last Edit: January 27, 2008, 04:04:24 PM by spud »

Offline spud

  • Senior member
  • kindergartner
  • *****
  • Posts: 420
What are the guiding principles for the Best Start Vision for early learning and care?
Effective early learning and care programs will:
- Cater to Kindergarten-aged children
- Offer integrated services for children that cover the standard working day (7/7:30 a.m.-6:00 p.m.)
- Provide high quality education and care
- Be inclusive in nature supporting children with special needs
- Be delivered by qualified staff (e.g., Kindergarten Teachers, Early Childhood Educators, Educational Assistants)
- Be publicly funded and not-for-profit
- Include parenting components (e.g. Ontario Early Years Centre programs and family resource programs)
- Offer optional nutrition programs
- Include mechanisms for ongoing communication and collaboration among staff
- Integrate a variety of programs from community services and agencies

How will our children and schools benefit from Best Start?
Best Start will ensure that children in Ontario are ready and eager to achieve success in school by the time they start Grade One. Research has shown that children who have early learning opportunities have higher levels of academic success.

  Does Harper have the money to make good on the $1.2 billion Liberal pledge and his own pledge of $1.9 billion a year? Yes. The federal government is running an $8 billion surplus. If daycare is shaping up as Harper's first priority, the money is there.


Moreover, Harper has promised to fix the so-called fiscal imbalance that leaves Ottawa with excess money in the form of budget surpluses, and the provinces perpetually short of cash to meet their costly and extensive constitutional responsibilities in health care, education, and child care.


Given that promise why should he squeeze provinces now by cancelling daycare funding, only to give back money to eliminate the fiscal imbalance? Why create a headache for the premiers for a year or two when his larger and admirable goal is to permanently ease their financial problems?


What's needed is a transitional arrangement whereby Ottawa agrees to honour the federal-provincial arrangement now in place until a deal is struck to resolve the fiscal imbalance, at which point Ottawa can terminate interim arrangements, knowing the provinces are better-placed to carry the load.


It is simple. It is doable. It is the better way.


- reprinted from the Toronto Star



Offline CareDC

  • Administrator
  • Schoolager
  • *****
  • Posts: 1874
It's hard to say who's right and who's wrong here - it's not a yes or a no answer IMO. There are good arguments on both sides. I definately agree that Canada should invest more into child care if not for any other reason then because it can. What makes this interesting is the fact that the rich don't need help from the government. They are fully capable of helping themselves. Children are the responsibility of the parents, first and foremost.

Offline CareDC

  • Administrator
  • Schoolager
  • *****
  • Posts: 1874
Here is what our Prime Minister had to say about the universal child care at the second annyversary rally.

Second, let me talk about the $1,200 universal child care benefit. The reason we ran on it and that we believe in it so strongly is the very reason that our opponents are so vehemently against it. It is a real, meaningful, tangible benefit paid directly to parents, and institutions, bureaucrats, and special interests can't touch it. Children aren't raised in academic faculties or government offices or the boardrooms of social activists. Children are raised in families so that's where the money flows.

When we first introduced the concept, our opponents said parents would spend the money on beer and popcorn. But even when they retracted those words, they missed the point. Their mistake was not the words but the underlying belief, the insulting ideological belief that without government direction, parents cannot choose what is right for their children. Given the opportunity, our opponents - in a heartbeat - will scrap the $1,200 child benefit and give the money to advocates, bureaucrats, and academics just like before. Parents cannot afford to go back, and the families of this country are not going to go back.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2008, 10:36:47 AM by gdcAdmin »

Offline spud

  • Senior member
  • kindergartner
  • *****
  • Posts: 420
All these points throughout this thread are worthwhile issues and worthwhile discussions to have. and yay kids are asleep so here i go -ill cover what i can lol
  One issue I would like to respond to is regarding why we should give rich people money for childcare, I wonder that myself..but seeing that the rich are getting rich on childcare funding as it is (by getting the biggest breaks, currently) while the poor are still not benefiting ..the money is a joke and it only insults what daycare is about..this part of his (PC)campaign was not thought out...and why, well because he is not in the business of childcare and hasnt researched what its all about-that would take a minimum of a year or two for him to "get informed"..as soon as big businesses are asked if they will take up on his offer to help create spaces in their buildings they will (and do) run away from the whole idea because they realize the cost of it, and realize that it takes ECE professionals to run it, not big businesses..there is a Day and Nurseries Act to follow and a license to keep.. and big businesses arent in the business of daycare so they wont take up this offer...its too much for them. 

Secondly, by giving up on our national childcare program he threw away all that "research and expertise" that people worked very hard on getting this Best start off the ground...and when researched one will find Best start truly benefits EVERYONE..including the rich..so instead of helping them get rich with giving them more money to invest, and literally not enough money to the poor to deal with childcare costs. One will find it is more beneficial and cheaper for society to provide childcare for everyone then it is to keep people on welfare and trying to address poverty with a tiny little check that is taxed away. So..since the rich benefit anyways from govt money then why not let them benefit equally to the poor and mid class folks and families in the same daycares?..the same quality daycares...giving ALL children an equal and Best start no matter how much money their family has.

There is not enough childcare spaces as it is, and he has taken away funding to create spaces from the people who can and want to and ultimately will create spaces

jen ece

  • Guest
Universal childcare isn't just about daycare either (they need to change the name!) - it is about every child having the opportunity for the early childhood SERVICE they need or want (childcare, preschool, etc. There are different types of early education programs but every province is different so most people don't know what it really is about).  It is about extending the education system that is required for every child in this country to include before Kindergarten.  These are the most important learning/growing years but try to get the government to pay attention to studies - they don't!  Then on top of that the majority of people don't have this info., an understanding what early education means and that play is a child's work.  They see play as unimportant because they do not know that vital development it happening at this time - this is the building blocks of all human development.  I personally am passionate about children's growth and development; I am fascinated with seeing the changes that children make as they learn and I love to study it, plan and provide opportunities to enrich it.  It is why I do my job and want to see early childhood given the proper acknowledgement that it deserves - it means that every CHILD is important (that seems to be overlooked alot - we are looking at children as individual citizens of our country with rights not possessions of their parents) we want to see them given the opportunity (and then the family, as the guardians of these children, can make the choice they feel is right for the child) to achieve their potential and to give them any supports early on!  Basically it comes down to this - the early years are learning years - childcare is NOT all that a universal program would cover.  It would basically be extending the national education system (which would include childcare, preschool early intervention programs, supports) and every child may use them or not (think about how parents may choose to enrol in public, private or homeschooling) which we all pay for, no matter who we are.  I mean, it is simple and does anyone think we should take away the education system and say 'Let people pay for schooling or they go without'?  This is no different but people can't seem to get past the thinking that learning starts AFTER age six.  Imagine the uproar if our country got rid of the education system: why are we not including the most important years before this.  It is just so misunderstood because people keep seeing/hearing 'childcare'  -think 'early education' (which includes care - home or centre  -every child is learning at all times whether they are at home or elsewhere) They also think it means 'centre - care' or children sitting in a desk.  That is not what it is about, it is about providing meaningful, enriched experiences that focuses on the individual child, developmentally and individually-appropriate.  That is a balance if choice/free play, group play, teacher-directed play, etc.   If a family needs childcare, it is apart of it if a family would like preschool, it is a part of it, if a family needs support for their child's speech, it is a part of it, if a family chose not to use it, then they don't have to - just like every other social service out there - it is there if you need it or want it but you can choose not to access it.  We are a country that takes care of its citizens, so why are we not extending this to our youngest? 

jen ece

  • Guest
There is a really good article, short and too the point at:

action.web.ca/home/cpj/economyofcare.shtml?x=113034

If you can't get to it, just google economyofcare or taxes for the common good and you will find it.  It is very good and says all I try to say!
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 05:00:54 PM by gdcAdmin »

Offline spud

  • Senior member
  • kindergartner
  • *****
  • Posts: 420
wow great article..author
here is a quote I like "Taxes donít happen in a vacuum. Theyíre linked to government services Ė they provide the revenues that maintain our democratic institutions, that fund our public education and our public health care, that provide parks and public spaces, that create crucial social infrastructure for our communities and to our families, that reduce inequalities and ensure that no one in our prosperous country is left behind. Without taxes, we could not create and maintain anything collectively.

I have a hunch why this is not mentioned in the debate on taxes. Imagine a politician saying that we have too much public health care. That weíre educating our children too well, and our youngest children should not have access to early childhood development and education. That our elderly citizens should be left to fend for themselves. That we have too many green spaces, too many roads, too many bridges, too much public transportation. That growing income inequality in Canada should be left unfettered. That a democratic parliament is too costly to be maintained.

Many arguments in favour of tax cuts rely on economic growth and competitiveness. But in the Global Competitiveness Index of the World Economic Forum, Canada is ranked below a number of countries with significantly higher tax rates. Why havenít taxes hurt their competitiveness?

The reality is that much of what passes as economic argument is really about underlying values. When we talk about abstract numbers, itís easy to forget the real people and needs and services that are behind those numbers. But when we talk about taxes, weíre really talking about what kind of country we want....

There are many things that we could not do if we didnít do them collectively. And there are many people who could not do much at all, if we didnít do things collectively.

Despite common perceptions, itís not just low income Canadians who benefit from taxes and public expenditures: we all benefit. Middle class and wealthy Canadians rely on public services and infrastructure for safety and protection against crime, fire protection, travel and much more. Corporations take advantage of a skilled workforce that has benefited from education, publicly funded research, government protection of intellectual property, regulation of the market and public health care. Wealthy Canadians might not like paying taxes; but then again, they might not like living in a country where they had to provide every one of these things for themselves either.

Taxes are part of our contribution to the common good. They are an investment in our shared prosperity, a prosperity which encompasses social and environmental flourishing, as well as economic vitality. This prosperity benefits us all, but it is also a reflection of our shared responsibility toward one another.

These are the values that I wish we were talking about. What kind of country do we want to live in? What should our health care, education, and child care systems look like? What kind of infrastructure is essential to communities and to our economy? What kind of environment do we pass on to our children? Iím not an economist, but I know whatís missing when politicians and pundits talk about our economic future."

jen ece

  • Guest
Thank you, spud for posting that because I don't know how to transfer it over!


Just wondering, spud, whereabouts are you in this big country of ours?  There are some really good articles and info. on the cccabc site and wanted to refer you over to that too.  I am a paid member so get lots of info. from them.  It is a BC Educators site.

 

©2016 godaycare.com. All rights reserved

Privacy and Terms of Use | Contact Us | Read our FAQ | Resources