[skippy the wonder dog]

Given that Quebec's program doesn't have enough spaces to meet demand and the provincial government is paying 82 percent of the real cost and is budgeted at 1.7 billion dollars this year alone, how can 5 billion dollars realistically cover the other 10 provinces cost of building, hiring and training the number of day care workers?

Because they are not aiming to create the same number of spaces that exist in Quebec. The Liberal program has a limited goal to create a set number of daycare spaces.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

And you're still posting nonsense about the quality of the daycares, as if some universal rule dictates that a national daycare program will create kiddie gulags.

[das_hips]

Not true, the NDP and those pesky socialists are demanding a non-profit monopoly on day care because they are worried that foreign (read American) corporate day care providers will jump into the market if a national day care program is launched. Quebec's day care program intially banned private providers from joining the program, which costed them out of the market. Only after the private providers complained did the PQ allow them to join, but it forbade the entry of newly created day care businesses from entering the program.

When billions of dollars of public money is being handed out it's quite inherent that private firms will look for their share. But the quality of this private child care lacks significantly when compared to publicly-run child care.

The NDP obviously understand this, but I think the Liberals have the best approach, based predominantly on the model which provides the best child-care in the country: Quebec.

It is quite ridiculous either way to even be comparing the NDP or Liberal approach and the Conservatives approach (if you want to even call it an approach to Child-Care). The prospect of a $1200 cheque may be attractive at first, but realistically, will prove to be harmful to most Canadians in the long term. Our child-care is already drastically under-funded, and to re-direct public funds into cash will only encourage franchised day-care centres with substantial resources to flood the market with sub-par day-care, which of course a $1200 wallet liner won't even come close to covering.

I would imagine if the government shapes up like it did last time, and child-care is still a hot topic (like it has been for 20 years), that it won't be long before legislation is passed (like it was in Quebec) that severely limits the accessibility of public funds to private firms.

[VioletlightHeron]

Given that Quebec's program doesn't have enough spaces to meet demand and the provincial government is paying 82 percent of the real cost and is budgeted at 1.7 billion dollars this year alone, how can 5 billion dollars realistically cover the other 10 provinces cost of building, hiring and training the number of day care workers?

Because they are not aiming to create the same number of spaces that exist in Quebec. The Liberal program has a limited goal to create a set number of daycare spaces.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

And you're still posting nonsense about the quality of the daycares, as if some universal rule dictates that a national daycare program will create kiddie gulags.

When a non-governmental research group,Institut de la Statistique du Quebec does a study of how well the program is running and comes up with the following, one has to wonder if the taxpayer money could be better spent.
From an article in the National Post by Graeme Hamiliton (December 2004)
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.canada.com/national/globalsunday/story.html?id=e2995dce-49aa-4a82-97ad-e2b14f7bf0dd">http://www.canada.com/national/globalsu ... b14f7bf0dd</a><!-- m -->
"The closest Quebec has come to an assessment of its child care program is a study performed by the Institut de la Statistique du Quebec. The $3-million study, published this year, graded the quality of care provided in the province's non-profit and private daycare facilities, and the results came as a shock.

Researchers visited 900 daycare centres over three months in 2003. Except for care given to infants in the non-profit centres, which was graded "good," the study concluded the overall care deserved a passing grade, but nothing higher.

Three out of every five children attended centres where the equipment was inadequate to meet their development needs, the researchers concluded. Other problems included health and safety shortcomings such as loose electrical cords, unprotected wall plugs and insufficient handwashing on the part of teachers."

Nothing I have seen on the Liberal web site suggests that they are going to offer a limited amount of spaces. If they are going to limit the number of spaces, the subsidization of child care will create a higher demand. If the NDP gets their way and limits program providers to non-profits, the for profit providers ( large big box or small businesses) will be driven out of business. Even if this doesnt happen, we'll see the same thing that happened in Quebec with the increased demand for non-existent spaces; people trying to game the system to get in and get access to cheap day care. As the article notes, the people who are best able to game the system are those who are able to afford more expensive child care.

[beanmedic]

When a non-governmental research group,Institut de la Statistique du Quebec

hmm....looks pretty governmental to me... <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/">http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/</a><!-- m -->

[VioletlightHeron]

When a non-governmental research group,Institut de la Statistique du Quebec

hmm....looks pretty governmental to me... <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/">http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/</a><!-- m -->

my bad, I assumed that it was a non-governmental organization; its still pretty damming when a government research study exposes the flaws in government funded programs.

[beanmedic]

When a non-governmental research group,Institut de la Statistique du Quebec

hmm....looks pretty governmental to me... <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/">http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/</a><!-- m -->

my bad, I assumed that it was a non-governmental organization; its still pretty damming when a government research study exposes the flaws in government funded programs.

you cant really make a conclusion until you have the results of a similar study on private child care institutions.

[skippy the wonder dog]

When a non-governmental research group,Institut de la Statistique du Quebec

hmm....looks pretty governmental to me... <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/">http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/</a><!-- m -->

my bad, I assumed that it was a non-governmental organization; its still pretty damming when a government research study exposes the flaws in government funded programs.

you cant really make a conclusion until you have the results of a similar study on private child care institutions.

Bingo.

When you have concerns such as "inadequate hand washing," it's a fair bet you'll have the same criticisms raised in private centers, too.

And frankly, if you're getting your information from the National Post....

[VioletlightHeron]

When a non-governmental research group,Institut de la Statistique du Quebec

hmm....looks pretty governmental to me... <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/">http://www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/</a><!-- m -->

my bad, I assumed that it was a non-governmental organization; its still pretty damming when a government research study exposes the flaws in government funded programs.

you cant really make a conclusion until you have the results of a similar study on private child care institutions.

Bingo.

When you have concerns such as "inadequate hand washing," it's a fair bet you'll have the same criticisms raised in private centers, too.

And frankly, if you're getting your information from the National Post....

You might have the same concerns, but you wouldn't have a major political party clamoring to spend $5 billion dollars on a for-profit day care system that had the same flaws. The problem is nobody in the Liberal Party seems willing to admit their sacred cow is looking slightly diseased because then that would call into question their spending priorities.

[skippy the wonder dog]

VLH, what exactly are you arguing now?

That it's in the public interest for parents who go to work to have to put their kids in for-profit daycares without any consistent standards, at greater cost, just because a report on Quebec subsidized daycares found that there were problems in their daycare centers?

That a private daycare system, in which a report like that could not be prepared as there is no way to force a private company to comply with an inspection, is superior?

I mean, really. What are you getting at?

I think it would be handy if opponents of subsidized daycare would just come out and argue their position honestly: that they do not believe government should be involved in child care in any way.

But they never try to argue that angle.

[VioletlightHeron]

VLH, what exactly are you arguing now?

That it's in the public interest for parents who go to work to have to put their kids in for-profit daycares without any consistent standards, at greater cost, just because a report on Quebec subsidized daycares found that there were problems in their daycare centers?

That a private daycare system, in which a report like that could not be prepared as there is no way to force a private company to comply with an inspection, is superior?

I mean, really. What are you getting at?

I think it would be handy if opponents of subsidized daycare would just come out and argue their position honestly: that they do not believe government should be involved in child care in any way.

But they never try to argue that angle.

My arguement is this: Government run daycare is a good idea if is targeted at the people who need it the most; lower income people, shift workers, people living in areas that have a limited amount of choice in daycare providers. The Liberal plan is not targeted at the people who need it the most; it is aimed at the 9-5 suburban/urban workforce. Quebec's experiment showed that the people who took advantage of the program were better off in terms of income and could have afforded private daycare, but were able to take advantage of the low cost daycare.
It also showed that government run daycare has some of the same issues that poorly run for profit daycare centers have. The issue to conservatives is not that government shouldnt be involved in day care, but it should concentrate on helping those who do need the help in finding affordable day care, not creating big government programs that try to tie citizens to the government as dependents.

[skippy the wonder dog]

You're going to have to pardon me for pointing out that your argument is neatly tailored to the shortcomings of the Liberal child care plan -- a little too neatly.

You are also arguing, in essence, that government-run daycare should be used where demand is relatively low, resulting in a higher cost to the taxpayer, rather than being used where demand is high, to reduce cost to the greatest number of people.

Regarding the claim that the Quebec experience shows that government-run daycares experience the same problems as poorly run private centers, that's clearly untrue for the reason already cited by beanmedic: your study is all good and well, but you need another study of private daycare to make a comparison. No comparing studies to assumptions allowed.

Also, to assert that government daycare aimed at urban workers is not helping those who need help in finding affordable daycare suggests you're not up to speed on the reality of the daycare market in cities like Toronto. It is, in fact, very difficult to find quality daycare in major cities in Canada.

[fingernailsonhull]

To interrupt the child care debate,

Has anyone seen this? It's an election simulation game you can download from CBC. It's called Prime Minister Forever 2006.

Here's the link:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/quizzesgames/pmforever.html">http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/quizzesga ... rever.html</a><!-- m -->

As you were.

[beanmedic]

that game is so awesome, but it stops you and makes you buy the game just when its getting good.

[VioletlightHeron]

You're going to have to pardon me for pointing out that your argument is neatly tailored to the shortcomings of the Liberal child care plan -- a little too neatly.

You are also arguing, in essence, that government-run daycare should be used where demand is relatively low, resulting in a higher cost to the taxpayer, rather than being used where demand is high, to reduce cost to the greatest number of people.

Regarding the claim that the Quebec experience shows that government-run daycares experience the same problems as poorly run private centers, that's clearly untrue for the reason already cited by beanmedic: your study is all good and well, but you need another study of private daycare to make a comparison. No comparing studies to assumptions allowed.

Also, to assert that government daycare aimed at urban workers is not helping those who need help in finding affordable daycare suggests you're not up to speed on the reality of the daycare market in cities like Toronto. It is, in fact, very difficult to find quality daycare in major cities in Canada.

How is demand for quality daycare from lower income people going to be low? They have more barriers to entering or re-entering the workforce than higher income/better educated/married citizens. Government programs shouldnt be designed to have the state turn into a nanny for everybody, period. By creating a set number of spaces with specific criteria for lower income families, rather than have a huge subsidized program, the government saves money and helps those who need it the most. I agree its always going to be hard to find quality daycare in major cities, but my arguement is that government perhaps shouldnt get try to be the general daycare provider for the nation, but focus on the ones without the resources to re-enter the workforce on their own. Also, the government, at least here it does, has the power to force substandard day care to clean up their act. There is also the news media to make the general public aware of the shoddy private daycare centers; in fact they love to expose that sort of thing. I'd also love to get my hands on a peer reviewed statistical survey of private day care, if you have you, let me know.

[skippy the wonder dog]

I would prefer to see a system that targets lower income parents first. However, before I jump on board with the criticisms of the Quebec system, I'd like to know what drives the outcome of higher income parents getting spaces. It is not by any means an inherent problem of a subsidized daycare system. To say that this is somehow inherent in a government-run system simply because it apparently happened in Quebec is obviously leaping to conclusions.

As for the government having the power to get private daycares to clean up their act, not unless governments are involved in licensing daycares. And governments are not involved in licensing all daycares; there is usually a minimum number of kids below which licensing does not apply. That's a pretty hefty chunk of the market, for which standards can be enforced only when neighbours get concerned about something and call the cops.

You won't see a peer reviewed study of private daycares in the absence of regulations to require inspections, and even then, you'll only see the results for licensed daycares.

As for the news media, that's not going to give you a balanced picture of anything. "Daycare centre provides good care" is not news; only the worst examples are highlighted.