[skippy the wonder dog]

Terrible in the sense that the first one they were in for after school programs wanted to get the youngest on Ritalin because he was so rambunctious. I'm sorry but a 6 year old is going to be a mild basketcase on a good day! :lol: I also think the government-subsidized daycare and after school programs tend to label rambunctious or independent kids as problem kids or slow learners way too fast and they do that because they either dont have enough staff or have an attitude.

Extrapolating from a sample size of one?

This problem is already said to exist in the school system. It's not inherent to daycare. Whether it's a real problem, and how widespread it is, is open to debate.

There will always be good and bad daycares. This leads to a question: given that some parents need daycare, is it better to have a framework that establishes standards of training and standards of delivery, or to just leave parents to look around and see what they can find?

The Conservative Party proposes to leave parents to look around and see what they can find. The Liberal Party proposes to pour money on the provinces, and leave parents to look around to see what they can find.

Only one party is proposing national standards. But I guess that's because the NDP doesn't believe in offering parents the freedom to choose substandard care.

The other question is why should higher income single earner families be hit with a higher tax bracket because they followed the rules, got a good education and a good job? Isn't it the government's job to promote success and stable families?

Honestly, VLH, I don't even see what you're getting at there. Are you proposing that those families are being treated unfairly because income tax is based on individual income, rather than family income?

If so, separate issue.