Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Idea alert

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:23pm - 198 Comments

Michael Ignatieff promises a national child care program.

The Liberals were in the midst of delivering on a $5-billion national child-care program before they were thrown out of power in the 2006 election. When Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives came to office, that program was abandoned, in favour of the $100-a-month cheques to Canadian parents known as the Universal Child Care Benefit.

Ignatieff said that if the Liberals are returned to government, that money will keep flowing to parents, but a national child-care program will also be phased in, as soon as the budget can handle it. ”They give the money to families, fine. Anything that helps families is a good idea. But there aren’t the spaces. If you don’t create the spaces, families don’t have a choice. That’s what we’re saying.”

Tags: child care, daycare, Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper, universal child care benefit

More by Aaron Wherry

Stan L

Pretty pathetic and predictable Conservative response. Harper's plan was an abject failure, not only did it NOT create the 125K spaces it promised, it actually cost MORE than the Liberal program would have had we voted them in in 2006. There always seems to be money fro great big cheques but heaven forbid we actually do something for Canadians that is progressive and actually effectual to the issue at hand…..and it would be kind of like ignoring the elephant in the room to not qualify any spending announcements given Harper's spending spree as of late.
http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

As soon as the budget can handle it I want a big increase in my monthly CPP cheque. There are more of us than there are little kids and we vote. Moreover, I asked my son and he said as long as I supply the daycare for the grandkiddies he doesn't give a g'dam.. whether the money goes to thsoe who vote or those too young to vote. it's my money and I want it first. Anf if you think this is greedy, there is a simple answer. Don't vote for parties promising to spend your money on their priorities, not your priorities. Bottom line. If this is part of Iggy's platform, he loses my vote.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Yes, that is a very good idea. Let us raise the CPP premiums and then raise the CPP benefits. Let us take the tax money otherwise affected by RRSPs, corporate pensions that seem lately never to pay out anyway, etc. and put that into CPP benefits. It may not help you or I, TwoYen, but it might help those coming along behind us.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

Oh please.. Ignatieff is as likely to lose your vote as Harper is to lose mine.

Hint: You can't lose what you never had.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

you'd be surprised at how often i have voted Liberal in my life. but then again maybe i was a slow learner. i didn't have access to early learning. perhaps i could take advantage of that daycare money to help me fill my days.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

As soon as the budget can handle it I want a big increase in my monthly CPP cheque. There are more of us than there are little kids and we vote. Moreover, I asked my son and he said as long as I supply the daycare for the grandkiddies he doesn't give a g'dam whether the money goes to those who vote or those too young to vote. it's my money and I want it first. And if you think this is greedy, there is a simple answer. Don't vote for parties promising to spend your money on their priorities, not your priorities. Bottom line. If this is part of Iggy's platform, he loses my vote.
knick

I don't know if it was prearranged (it didn't seem to be given the unpredictability of youngsters), but the CBC film of Ignatieff at the day-care centre today when all the kids piled in to give him hugs will be something Harper will no doubt try to duplicate sooner rather than later.

And, OT, but QP seemed somewhat odd today given that none of the government answers included their usual attacks on the opposition. What's up with that?

http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

Gee, I thought that was a picture f Ignatieff with his new set of policy advisers.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Just another income redistribution plan. The Libs want to spend our money, this time their excuse is they want to control the children. I can already see the favouritism – Lib supporters will get the good spots close to their homes, others will remain on waiting lists. People with older children and people with no children will have their pockets picked so that the government can buy the votes of people with young children.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Blamo Blamo

And what does Harper's $100/month do but subsidize those who stay at home? While having the added Conservative bonus of doing NOTHING to provide daycare spaces for those who need it?

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

It does not subsidize those who stay at home, it goes to all parents, regardless of whether they stay at home, whether they pay for daycare at a facility, or whether they pay their neighbours for daycare.

http://intensedebate.com/people/austinso austinso

Tell me, s_c_f…how much daycare does $100/month provide?

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

$100 towards your total monthly daycare bill. If you think $1200 per year is peanuts, please send me a cheque for $1200.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

$100 towards your total monthly daycare bill.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

$100 towards your total monthly daycare bill. Why do you think daycare grows on trees?
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

$100 towards your total monthly daycare bill. If you can't do the math, that's $1200 per year.

kcm

It's opinions like the ones you've just expressed that make me wonder if any sort of progress in our society is still possible.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Yes it is, because, thankfully there is only one of you around.

On the one hand, you moan about pork, on the other hand, you whine for more pork. This time it's daycare pork you're looking for.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Yes it is, because, thankfully, there is only one of you around, and additionally, the NDP will never win a federal election. So there is lots of room for progress.

On the one hand, you moan about pork, on the other hand, you whine for more pork. This time it's daycare pork you're looking for.

kcm

Wrong as you so often are sf.
I'm not a dipper, although that's none of your business. I don't support fully subsidized daycare and do think that those who can pay should pay. What's more i've said a number of times i didn't think the stimulus idea was all that great. I don't believe i insult all the commentators, not even you all the time. But then your comprehension skills are sometimes lacking.

http://intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I don't care if you're a dipper and I never said you were. One thing is for sure I won't be looking to you for comprehension skills. If you start making sense, I'd be shocked.

I'm just glad there's only one of you, and I really don't care what policies you happen to favour, there's certainly no logic to any of it.
kcm

"I'm just glad there's only one of you, and I really don't care what policies you happen to favour, there's certainly no logic to any of it."

Snap!!
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

I don't care if you're a dipper or not and I never said you were. One thing is for sure I won't be looking to you for comprehension skills. If you start making sense, I'd be shocked.

I'm just glad there's only one of you, and I really don't care what policies you happen to favour, there's certainly no logic to any of it.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/s_c_f s_c_f

Yes it is, because, thankfully, there is only one of you around, and additionally, the NDP will never win a federal election. So there is lots of room for progress.

On the one hand, you moan about pork, on the other hand, you whine for more pork. This time it's daycare pork you're looking for.

Are you done insulting all the commenters on this page?

http://intensedebate.com/people/psiclone psiclone

As soon as the budget permits it I too want something – doesn't matter what anything will do just consider me a liberal bagman or a backroom boy and top up my envelope please! Please sir may I have some more -

kcm

Er…it's your party that's spending this $60 billion right now, isn't it…oh damn. Meant t say your govt. Wonder how i could have made that error???

http://intensedebate.com/people/Blamo Blamo

Hey I'm with you, to a point.
I don't have kids and I resent the way that people who do are heavily favoured /subsidized by the state, especially in the public service (paid leave, position held for you, and Harper's ridiculous $100 a month spend-it-on-whatever-you-want-daycare plan.
But, apprently, a national daycare program would have alleviated a lot of the ills of society, particularly people caught in the poverty trap whereby they can't get out of the poorhouse until they get a job, but they can't get a job until they have someone to look after the kid.
I agree with the middle class milking it (on MY tax dime), but to kick that I'd rethink the publicly paid maternity leave etc.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Just to be clear – I'm very much in support of child care for those who really need it (we can talk about individual responsibility all we want, but in the meantime there's real kids and real families to contend with).

But the programs put forth by the Liberals are best suited to white-collar workers (whereas part-time, shift work, variable hour jobs are often the lower rung ones, and aren't amenable to regular child care), and I'm betting most of those spots wouldn't even be utilized by those in genuine need.

If there's one thing I could suggest, it would be a system of income splitting (for taxation) for couples where one stays at home. Such a plan would recognize the work of stay at home parents, and go a long way toward helping the working poor survive on one income while raising children.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Yes, that is a great solution. It wouldn't do anything for single parent families however, and I suspect a large proportion of those families are ones in need of help.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Mainly in jest, I wonder if a few marriages might be saved if there were more benefits to staying married (I know all single parent families didn't start out as marriages.)

I think it's far better to ask what single parents need, for example, than to advocate universal daycare. Because I'm certain we can provide more focussed and effective supports when we identify those who need help, and what particular form such help ought to take.

http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

It is not an issue of "developing them better".

Many advocates of a national childcare system seem to disagree. Your argument instead seems to be an argument for economies of scale. With respect, I don't think that's a legitimate argument. Raising children – very young children in particular – is labour intensive not resource intensive. There is no better economic case than having a parent raise their own child. If you want to subsidize child-rearing, pay parents to stay home and raise them.

<Cont.>

http://intensedebate.com/people/austinso austinso

I don't necessarily disagree with what you've wrote here, but raising children is both labour and resource intensive. Access to more resources helps reduce the labour burden if only to collect all the learning tools that one would otherwise travel to into a singular environment and single space.

My argument for economies of scale resides in the simple fact that things that have wonderful educational value are outside the buying power of individual families, and so pooling resources and sharing these things enables many families to utilize these educational tools. It is also inherently less wasteful.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/austinso austinso

For many families, a national system would provide a better learning environment. I don't know how you cannot see that. The analogous argument is with public health care.

Raising children is both labour _and_ resource intensive. Access to more resources helps reduce the labour burden if only to collect all the learning tools that one would otherwise travel to into a singular environment and single space.

My argument for economies of scale resides in the simple fact that things that have wonderful educational value are outside the buying power of individual families, and so pooling resources and sharing these things enables many families to utilize these educational tools. It is also inherently less wasteful.

http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

"My argument for economies of scale resides in the simple fact that things that have wonderful educational value are outside the buying power of individual families"

Can you be a little more specific? I can't think of any examples of educational tools that are beyond the reach of individual families, unless you're talking about telescopes or microscopes or supercomputers. In fact, I can't think of very many essential learning tools at all, except for books, crayons, blocks and cardboard boxes. We're talking about pre-schoolers after all. I think the single best thing for infants and toddlers is unstructered play. And the only thing that daycare does – out of necessity – is impose structure on children. Often out of zeal to "improve" them but just as often, and more practically, because it's the only way to maintain the 8:1 or 10:1 child/adult ratio that your economies of scale demand.

http://intensedebate.com/people/lgarvin lgarvin

… maybe if you had a more impressive experience with dedicated and proactive teachers, with an environment that allowed them to explore and to learn, you would feel differently.

You are making assumptions that are not supported by the facts. I was never unhappy with the daycare I experienced. I simply don't believe that a government-run daycare system – or a private daycare system – or even the blissfully perfect daycare system you've envisioned – can exceed the experience of being raised by your own parents. It's not a question of raising the next generation of superior human beings – developed to their full potential – it's a question of raising happy, healthy, well-adjusted human beings who you wouldn't mind having over for dinner sometime.

(Weird that I had to cut that up into 3 pieces, it's not even particularly long-winded.)

http://intensedebate.com/people/austinso austinso

I've got 2 kids who have gone through a university childcare system within the past 6 years where every center is led by an ECE, and we've had the luck of having a few M. Eds guide our kids' development. One more is now going through the system at under 2 and is thoroughly benefitting from the experience. All of our children have gone/are going through half-day programs because we do believe there is no substitute for the parent. There is no argument there.

But frankly, there are parents who because of their economic status cannot indulge their children with attention, and where the TV and computer are a cheaper and easier substitute. There are also parents regardless of economic status who have no idea how to interact with their children because they are unaccustomed to living their life for anyone else but themselves. And there are some people who have never had the experience of being raised by a well-adjusted family, and so have no guide to base their child-rearing and can inadvertently continue the same crushing behaviours which to them are the norm.

Not all parents are capable of knowing how to raise happy, healthy, well-adjusted human beings that you can invite for dinner, and no one knows until after the fact. And sometimes a third party can aid that development by revealing other ways to achieve that goal.

If these kinds of programs that you and I seem to be happy with were standardized and regulated for all daycares, you would be in favour? Or do you view that as an unnecessary burden to society to provide quality education even at this young age?

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

You Harper supporters would be on Iggy's back if he promised he would but can't take the truth that no money will be there right away.

I have a girlfriend who is a family lawyer that specializes in domestic abuse………..she nearly goes crazy when the Con supporters are so shallow the believe that every parent knows better. She has some pretty sad cases – those beer and popcorn guys that spend their paycheque on booze and drugs and then goes home and beats up the wife and/or kids.

http://twitter.com/Rose215 @Rose215

"She has some pretty sad cases." — Yes, and I'll be most of them already attend daycare, plus numerous other social interventions. There is a disconnect between what you suggest is the problem (by your example) and the "solution" of a National Daycare Program. Also — I do not believe Cons believe that "every" parent knows better — your assumptions are incorrect and your conclusions off the mark.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Boy are you one sick puppie. In fact here clients come from all walks of life – lawyers, doctors, plumbers, welfare, etc, etc. When I read your comment I asked her.. People with limited thinking like you make me sick.

You are pathetic.

http://immigrantchildren.ca zsw

The Red Book promised a nat'l child care "system" – we waited. Now, Iggy promises "when funds are available". More waiting. Kids can't wait. Clearly, children are not a priority for the Liberal government. Shockers. And btw, for an "educated" guy, Iggy seems to not get it: high quality early childhood learning and care IS education. Read the research: I'm sure the Leader still has a library card, or at least, an assistant, to check – several reputable websites, widely accessible to all, i.e., http://www.childcarecanada.org. Or, give Dr. Charles Pascal a call. Or Fraser Mustard. etc etc etc etc. November 20th (Int'l Child Day) is around the corner: Canada could/should put itself back on the int'l stage as champions for children. Because not only are our children "the future", they are right now. They have rights right now. They have needs right now. Investment in the early years is the only logical and value-added step that WILL produce results. Pay attention! Good grief-how much more evidence-based research does anyone need?
Calgary Junkie

This delivery of social programs is more properly done by the provinces. Quebecers seem to like the program they have, and good for them. If and when a provincial party here in Alberta campaigns for a Day Care plan, the voters will pass judgement. That is how it should be in every province.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Totally agreed that if a province wants to bankrupt itself subsidizing something for which demand will then instantly outstrip supply, it is up to that province to apply for equalization bailout. Or something.

But, ahem, regarding Quebecers liking what they've got:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Quebec+unfair…

kcm

Heaven forbid our national govt – that is Canada, should propose something that a majority of Canadians may well want. Why do you persist in characterising this as a subsidized give-away. Almost all the pro posters here have expressed a wish that any programme be targeted or means tested. those who can pay should pay. If that's not what Ignatieff has in mind then he's likely to find little support for this programme.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

One, it is a subsidized give-away. And B, it's a provincial function. Do you want the 1867 or the 1982 Constitution for your reading pleasure this evening? Perhaps both?

kcm

I couldn't give a monkeys if it's a provincial or federal function – if it's a demonstrably good idea. The constitution and charter are not mutually exclusive – except apparently in some conservative minds.
As to subsidies…pah…we subsidize things all the time…it's just a question of whether it's a good and necessary use of taxpayers $ or not. Perhaps it would be better if we all went back to single earner families and raised our kids at home. But for good or ill that option is not available to most of us anymore.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

I couldn't give a monkeys if it's a provincial or federal function…

Thus doth the federal intrusion in provincial jurisdiction continue.

Care to explain how the constitution and charter can be mutually exclusive in ANYONE's mind? Or are you inventing a conversation and I should leave you one alone?
kcm

What i had hoped o say in my flippant way was i don't really care if it's provincial or federal. I just hate the way juristictions inevitably become an excuse for doing nothng in this country.
Since you raised the issue of the 1867 or 1982 constitutions as an either or proposition i thought it might be clever to point out that they aren't mutually exclusive – which i have no real idea is a true statement or not…so you got me there. – however it's fairly common knowledge, i think you'd agree, that many cons have no love for the latter one. Of course i shouldn't assume that includes you?
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

As the federal govt continues to poke its nose where it doesn't belong, and as more than just Quebec is getting in on the act of establishing overseas "missions," I wish I could actually see evidence of the constitution forcing various levels of government to stick to their own knitting.

And I was in no way suggesting that the two acts are exclusive of one another, and I did not even mention the Charter (although it is of course a major piece of '82). I was just seeking to avoid unduly burdening your bedtime reading.

http://twitter.com/Rose215 @Rose215

I also agree with this — with the additional point that daycare can also be provided by the private sector. I have read that there is no shortage of daycare space in Alberta, in part because parental subsidies are available for both public and private sector daycare programs. Other Provinces have legislation in place to handicap private daycares, hence the shortage — if there is a shortage (noone seems to have actual numbers on this.)

Candace

Alberta has a broad variety of subsidies, including subsidies for those working shiftwork (and if you've got Grandma sleeping over to solve your daycare issues, that counts for the subsidy). Personally, I never had a problem finding a good daycare, either in the Lower Mainland (BC), Calgary or Edmonton.

Regarding overall daycare needs, are people forgetting that it is a SHORT-TERM need, i.e. full-time only required until child reaches school age, then part-time required only until the child is 12?

kcm

I've made that mistake about gender on a number of occasions…funny that!
http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

I see why Iggy has been loath to actually offer specific policies.

They're really, really bad.

Back to the forest with more academic soft talk.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Actually, it would be nice if he gets some decent ideas from his upcoming Liberal THINK! conferences. Ok, ok, ONE decent idea…

http://workisee.tripod.com Beverley Smith

What Ignatieff fails to mention is that daycare for all kids to age 6 would cost $20 billion per year. We can’ t afford this without bankrupting government. What he fails to mention is that not everybody can use daycare anyway – and what about them? Those who live in rural areas, work odd shifts, those with high needs kids, multiply allergic kids or those with kids who are gifted may prefer and sometimes have to provide care that is more personalized to the child’s interests and skills. He obviously has no plans to fund those kids outside of daycare to the same level as the daycare option so what happened to democracy? The argument you need an empty chair funded by government in order to have the ‘choice’ to use it is flawed. First, we don’t fund an empty hospital bed for every person in case they get sick. We don’t fund an empty restaurant chair at the sushi garden for every citizen in case they may want sushi. It is fiscally unwise to fund what is not going to be used so the most efficient way to provide ‘choice’ is to fund children and then let parents set up the care style they want. If they want daycare, their money will flow to the daycare. If they want sitters or nannies, their money can flow that way. To fund only daycare is very dictatorial even- it tells you the one and only way you are allowed to raise kids.

We need to only put LIberals back into power if they get off their hobby horse that defeated them. Universal daycare is a no-go. It is unfair, too costly, and it is undemocratic. Funding kids however is universal, fair and democratic.

kcm

It's definately going to be more of a challenge to meet the needs out there than Ignatieff imagines. It would be nice if our politicians taliked to as many people as possible to find out what their needs are before coming up with grand schemes. But let's at least see what their plan is before tearing it down. A credible study to see if demand is being met would be a good starting point. Although studies i would presume, are one thing there's not likely to be a shortage of.