I am the parent of a 8 year-old, and I currently work with parents of/and babies and toddlers. I chose to live in poverty until my son was school-age, and it was liberating at times to be out of the consumer wheel as well as grindingly tough. (Hmm...food or tampons? Can't afford both...) I see the moms and dads I work with struggle and struggle with the going-back-to-work-after-12- months-of-parenting question almost every single day. Their hearts are breaking when they consider their options. I hear a lot of, "if my kid could talk, they would tell me to stay home with them," and then there are the reports of daycare trauma. I also am greatly disturbed by the lifestyles that these parents feel compelled to support by going back to work. What's it all for anyway? Did you decide to be a parent so that you could build a rich life-long relationship with another human being who needs you DESPERATELY in their first few years, or is the greed game more important? Who benefits? Who suffers?

Right on K-dub. What it costs in psychiatric facilities , in correctional institutions, in crime statistics in all heart-breaking negative things is far more than it would cost for good, readily accessible daycare for all kids whether their parents are working part-time or fulltime. But just watch, the Phillistines will find ways to plunge their snouts into the trough and consume much of the money they claim they are setting aside for the kids.

I haven't met an adult yet that claims to be really happy that they were put into child care when they were young. I look back on my pre- school years with great fondness having spent it with my mom. I really hate the fact that people think that kids need to be prepared for kindergarten. I mean really, how soon does one really need to learn to read? My child learned so much on a simple outing in the park. This is the type of learning they need. Enough of my ranting. One thing is so simple in this whole debate. Our federal gov't already has a system in place to help with the cost of raising our kids. It is the baby bonus program that has been around for decades. Just simply increase the amount that ALL parents receive. Working moms or not, we all could use the help. This wouldn't incur any more costs. The system is already in place to disburse funds. No more bureaucracy required. Though, I'm sure this common sense type of approach could only come out of a stay at home mom!

I was a stay at home Mom for over 16 years raising my 3 children, I cooked, baked bread,cut everyone's hair and made our clothes, or shopped at the Sally Ann, we didn't eat out and our holidays were camping in provincial parks, and I don't regret one minute of it, to me it was more important than leaving them with some underpaid, overworked daycare assistant for 8 to 10 hours a day. I am now back in the workforce trying to pay off the debt and mortgage which accumulated when I chose to be at home with the children, I was lucky I have a husband with a fairly well paid job but sometimes it was still a struggle, if there was an increase in the baby bonus or a tax break for stay at home parents, (and I don't mean a non-refundable tax credit) then it would make a lot of difference to parents who are struggeling to just get by while doing what they feel is best for their family.

I'm a married mother of 3 children (10, 6, & 4), and I work outside of the home. Childcare is one of those issues that can and does divide women. There are those who think that the choice they made is only one that should be made, and want to impose that on every other family. Each family needs to make decisions that are good for them. We need policies from the government that will help families make those choices, so that if my husband choses to quit his job and stay home (I make more than he does!), then the tax regime will support that and not penalize us for making that choice. I don't think there is an easy answer to this. I'm not sure if universal daycare is part of the answer. But, I sure hope that something is put in place soon, because we all know that the first step is the hardest, yet provides a basis for moving on in the journey.

Why must it be an either/or choice between stay-at-home care which doesn't penalize the partner (male or female) for fulltime nurturing, or a properly funded daycare system? I have NEVER understood this quarrel.

I'll give some credit to Stan Hagen. Yesterday, my families day-care quietly got a check for $ 400 bucks. No strings attached, no fancy “I am wonderful announcement” but a personalized letter saying thanks, and here is $ 400 to help out type of thing. Today I read the guy has cancer, did not resign (unlike Christy Clark) and has asked Gordo to stay with this Ministry if re-elected. All politics aside, I do hope Minister Hagen get’s well, and continues on this trend. My daycare is refunding all of the holiday pay now that she has the $ 400 – This way we all have a little extra for Christmas. I am going to donate this extra money to the salvation army along with all of the clothes, food and blankets I can find that are not needed.

I like claudia's no-nonsense suggestion. Daycare doesn't have to be full-time, but even the most dedicated stay-at-home mom could use a break, a few hours per week, perhaps, where she could have a nice long bath without someone pounding on the door "I needa pee, mom".....a bit of extra $$ might make the trip to the park or beach easier, allow a fish'n'chips treat, perhaps...only my youngest went to kindergarten and he went because he wanted to go and asked to go. I have one grand-daughter who would benefit from kindergarten and another who would probably play hookey the second day she was there...nobody should feel FORCED to use daycare but nobody who needs or wants it should be denied it, either. No need for the question to divide women...or men...or families...if the services were affordable and available each could choose what was going to work best for them. For sure there should be more money made available!!!

A national childcare strategy has been on the federal cards for about 20 years, I don't know how many elections we have seen the childcare agenda bandied about like a tennis ball. My suggestion is that wait until the cheque arrives before thanking anyone. Likewise at the provincial level, the NDP waited until their last 12 months before implementing thir childcare strategy, why did they wait 8 years to get this strategy in place ? Now the Fiberals are issuing cheques to parents 173 days before an election. Voters of BC be aware - childcare has been an election card for so many parties in so many elections, don't believe anything you hear. It is one promise Liberals and NDP are bound to make and bound to reneg on once elected.

The Canadian reality is that mothers are in the paid workforce and our economy benefits to the tune of $25.5 billion we as women contribute in taxes. No tax cut will ever replace an income and just as we expect to have public services like libraries, schools and hospitals available to us through out tax dollars so too should we demand early learning and child care services. This is not a fight between stay-at-home mums and paid employment mums. This is all of us demanding our government show the political will to fund services we know support families: child care centres, family daycare, preschools, etc. The research on brain development is clear - early high quality environments are beneficial for children. We need to move from patchwork to framework and from user pay to publicly funded. The time is NOW.

I just had to comment on the statements made by Jan Hunt. I must say that they fly in the face of every study I have ever heard around the impacts of quality early childhood education and care! As a matter of fact a study by our own McGill University said that for every one dollar invested in early child care (again QUALITY) there was a two dollar savings in the future from decreased social costs, such as financial assistance and costs in the penal system. If we were to follow her line of logic then the children living in Scandinavian countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, who have universal access to group child care settings , would all be growing up to be serious juvenile delinquents! Or could it be that a government that supports all its children and families, as well as ensuring that those responsible for their care are well trained and compensated have actually done their societies a good? So you might guess I am a child care worker, I am, and a mother of two very well adjusted non-criminal children. Both my children attended our licensed group centre where our staff have been here in a range of five to twenty-three years! Is there enough consistency of care there to address Ms. Hunt's concerns?

We need to support families to make the choices that work best for them. I think we need to focus our supports on low income families; whether both parents work or not. I was blessed with the best of both worlds; I was able to work with a job share partner, which meant I could continue (start!) my career and spend quality time with my children. Not all people have that choice, but we do need to have family-friendly workplace policies (such as flex-time and ability to take our sick leave when our child is ill).

I have to react when people raise the spectre of people being forced to put their kids in out-of-home child care. The only people I know who are forced to do this are those who don't have the economic choice to stay at home. Welfare rules in BC force parents to look for work when their youngest child is 3. Low wage jobs force working parents to put their children in low-quality care situations. Creating a publicly-funded child care system will simply make quality care (full or part time) an option for more people, as it is in many other countries. At the same time we need to change welfare legislation, exploitative labor market legislation and practice so people can actually afford to make choices. If people are plunged into or trapped in poverty for staying home with their children, the answer is not to oppose creating a system that better supports those who chose to or must work outside the home. The answers are better wages (bring up the minimum wage, fair wage policies...), family-friendly workplace policies and legislation (e.g stronger parental leave, sick leave, etc.), higher income supports for those who can't work or choose not to when their children are young, so they don't raise their children in poverty, creating more affordable housing options so people can afford decent shelter and still feed their kids, etc. BC welfare legislation used to recognize the importance of a parent caring for his/her children until age 12. Tax credits primarily help families with more taxable income, as low income families don't earn enough to make the credit worth much. There are many things we need to do to support families with young children. Opposing the creation of a publicly funded child care system is NOT one of them.

I heard something on CBC this morning about the amount of children living in poverty in Canada, and how it was supposed to be eradicated by 2000 and has- surprise! increased. The poverty level is considered to be $24,000 a yr before taxes. As far as I can tell we've created such an insane "standard of living", call it what you will, that it's only getting more impossible for the average Cdn to live upward of the poverty level. Those (90% is it?) who can't reach the standard that has been set are inevitably going to fall close to or below the "poverty line". There is no way, given the system now, I would have a child. Financial reasons alone. I don't want to be struggling. It's that simple. Sad, but true. I think my point is that "living simply" and re-evaluating where we are headed, and re-defining what it means to be "poor" (and yes, not having a roof over your head nor being able to afford bread constitutes an aspect of poverty) is where we have to start from- AS A SOCIETY- we have to ask ourselves, 'Why do I not care that this family cannot afford anything and yet this family is sickeningly rich and doesn't need most of the junk they have?' I don't know, we are soooo far gone it's probably pointless.

It is so strange to hear what are ostensibly progressive people say (and write) retrogressive things. Somewhere the fringe granola nut bar left boomerangs around and becomes crypto-right wing, advocating a June Cleaver existence for women. Can you hear yourselves: stay at home (barefoot?), bake bread, weave clothing, make and care for babies? Comprehensive and progressive social and family policy can and should give people and families options and supports. Quality, public child care is a foundation to this.

Haha, funny when I read that James- I'm as feminist and progressive as it gets and "staying home, baking bread, (perhaps reading and writing, gardening and walking the dog instead of "making and caring for babies")- barefoot in the summer, yeah, sounds pretty sweet. Better than most of the mindless soul-numbing office jobs out there- drive to work encased in your car and surrounded by road-raged morons and then sit in an airless building all day- sounds wonderful. To make cash so you can go to the mall and wander in circles and buy junk. To feed your lifeless soul. There is nothing wrong with staying home and having babies IF THAT IS YOUR CHOICE. The problem with the June Cleaver existence is when it is forced on women who are not interested in it. Your comments are the ones that are ignorant. Some people actually want to SPEND TIME with their children. Imagine that!! Public child care is not for everyone and never will be.

Well-said, Fi... especially loved your "tribute" to the mall existence...."to feed your lifeless soul". The choice to feed your soul in your own way is what it's all about.

I think that we all have to view the big picture and not just our own little situations. I was a stay at home mom for the early years, and now I am actively involved in advocating for a universal, quality and accessible childcare system for all children. A big picture would include family policy legislation by the federal government that would start before birth, include parental leave, as well as a universal, quality and accessible childcare system entitlement for all children, family related services attached to these licensed centres and finally a seamless entry into the school system. In the big picture there would finally be real choices for all women whatever their needs either for full-time/part-time care, shift/weekend hours, and pre-school entitilement for those who are at home with a parent. Our current reality in Canada, which is reflected in statistics, show that the majority of Canadian women are in the workforce. As a society and for the future well-being of our society, we must take action and ensure that these children have the best possible outcomes.

i find it extremely insulting to read the insinuations that people work just to feed their greedy souls. i work to put food on the table for myself and my daughter. i work to keep a roof over our heads. i work full time *and* we live in poverty--imagine that! i also LOVE my job. it's no sin to be a mother and to love working. it's no sin to want to be a fully developed person who has many wants and needs: to want to be a good mother, to want to be respected in your filed of endeavour, to want to have friends and put your bare feet in the good earth of your garden (if you are privileged enough to actually live in a home, with a yard). i find the acrimony in this debate to be unnecessarily divisive. and it's useful, politically speaking. the divisions make it possible for the politicians to do nothing, and to point to which ever faction they wish and say, look, see, women don't want this, so we're going to drop it. i see a hierarchy of needs, with low income single parent families at the top of that pyramid. i do recognize that childcare is a valuable service and do agree that it needs to be supported both financially and socially, but i also think that two parent families that can afford to choose to keep one parent home and caring for the children, have less need of financial support to make that happen. in a world with a limited pool of resources, the funds should go to those that need it the most, first.

1. Family income should be combined to make one big income and taxed accordingly. The problem now is that child-care is deducted off of the lower-income earner, losing out on the bigger tax savings. 2. Maternity/parental leave should come out of an entirely seperate fund, not associated with EI. Don't even get me started with EI!!! And all parents should benefit, not just working parents. 3. Working mothers do NOT have wives at home to take care of the children. Women work. Men work. It's time employers recognized that and had child-friendly policies. I have stayed home full time, I have worked full time and I have worked part time since having my two kids. There is no perfect solution.

Let's not give Stan Hagen too much credit, our daycare also got a no strings attached cheque for $3450 this month. However it did nothing to reverse all the parents we lost when subsidy was cut, restore the operating grant funding we had under child care BC or restore the rent concession we lost during the core services review process (we're located in a hospital complex). Stan's government took with one huge hand and threw us some crumbles. I'm not grateful for it, what I am is damn mad! As for the debate between stay at home vs working parents in my opinion it's for each family to decide what's best. I believe government should support each choice. Daycare with public funding and stay at home families with large tax cuts. Let support the families raising the next generation, eh?

I agree, funds for children at home too! It definitely should be an acceptable choice or option without any "labels" on the parent(s) because we all may move around, in, through and under labels. Each persons choice is real and I am sure made with deliberate and possibly painful thought. We as parents (single or coupled) are trying to do our best for our children and our families - some of us could use a little more support, understanding and acceptance for our choices made whatever they end up being and for whatever time frame they are in.

What we need is a society that no longer glorifies the nuclear family.............

It's not society that "glorifies" the nuclear family, it's parenthood that is easier/better with two adults pooling their resources to raise, teach, provide, love, and balance each other's assets and liabilities. The "village" approach to raising healthy children is how I managed as a single parent for 14 years, how much better if I had a spouse who shared the moments and responsibilities with me. My second spouse helped the last few years of childraising be a greater joy. I support childcare choices for all parents.

The irony is that I can hire a friend to be my nanny and she can hire me to be her's, and then we look after each other's children and pay taxes and get benefits such as EI and CPP, and we then count in Canada's GNP. Our system prevents us from hiring the best person, which is usually a parent or a relative. Perhaps we can create a network of women where we pair up and look after each other's children. And, if we then work together, well, it would be like looking after your own, in good company. Is anybody interested in such a network? Perhaps we all should talk, quietly, amongst ourselves. You can find me online if you do a google search for Olga VanTandenberg. Send me your email. Let's talk!

I liken this debate to breast or bottle fed babies. This is clearly a matter of choice, although most experts would support breast fed as being best for baby, there are always many factors at play in the economics and dynamics of a family. Parents need to be able to be "free" to make the choice based on the desires and goals of individual families. I fully support choice, being a proponent of either point of view is too political. Give the money to the parents and let them decide.

I'm sure you women will implement the best programme with ease as soon as half of every provincial legislature and half the Parliament are women. Andrew MacLeod's article (top) mentions "attachment parenting", but few know the definition of this new movement. It is not just parenting which causes a feeling of attachment, however mild. The phrase refers to much more loving parenting than that. It includes full and complete breastfeeding for several years, no forced weaning, never using breastfeeding substitutes (bottles and pacifiers) or otherwise discouraging breastfeeding, voluntary co-family sleeping, no involuntary child care, etc. When my Web publication is back up, it will have more: www.99url.com/korky Korky Day,

It is up now: www.99url.com/korky. Please see the Introduction and Part 1, "Breast-right".

I am completely overwelmed with the information out there in regards to The federal government paying stay at home parents a salary for doing the most important job in society.
Twenty years ago, when the issues were just beginning i was just starting a family and the issues have only grown with time. Do we as humanity need to be hit over the head with the disfunction that is overwelming our society when action is not taken quickly. I wrote a letter to the government addressing the same concerns 20 years ago and today even with the overwhelming documentation as to the benefits to all of society we still have inplemented no changes and yet to damage to our society and c hildren continue to grow.
Wow! It's really hard to say all the thing s neccesary to contribute to this crazy topic. I continued to work with families in crisis and all i can say is our priotities are all wrong. We have come a long way, but greed and selfishness are still in the forfront... all the power to the continied efforts of all the people who do know the direction we should be going..

I am still in the early stage of my career as a biologist and I love my job. Why does it feel like society frowns on women who do not want to leave their career to stay home with their children? My mother took a 15 year break from her career to raise her children, and she was not able to get back into the work force and continue a satisfying career, she is now working unhappily at a low wage job. While I appreciate her sacrifice, I would like nothing else than to see her working in a career that uses her talents and skills, rather that to have her punished for taking time out of the workforce. Why should a woman have to give up her career when she has children? No matter what anyone says, going back to a career after a lengthy break is difficult, employers do not like to see a 10 year gap in your resume!
I say universal day care is essential! Women (or men) who do choose to stay home with their children should also be given some form of government support. If women are going to be equal to men in our society, we need better choices!!!!!!