During the election, I heard a woman on a CBC call-in show say, "I believe I am entitled to have the government pay me a hundred dollars a month to stay home with my child."!!!!!

Where did THIS particular feeling of entitlement come from? Aren't responsible adults supposed to take the cost of raising children into consideration before deciding to have them? And if you CAN afford to raise your family on one income shouldn't you be counting your blessings instead of sticking your hand in the taxpayers' pockets?

I heard Prime Minister Bush on TV today lamenting that this is no longer the Canada he grew up in. It sure as hell isn't.

fanshaw
The reason we are even talking about this is because the Liberal Party had been promising a National Daycare Program since they got elected.
Finally, when they knew they were toast, they offered up their totally unrealistic program to embarrass the following government.
They were perpetuating another top heavy stupid program like 'Gun Registry' as a way of placating whom they thought were important people, who could get them desperately needed votes to continue their reign of terror on us taxpayers.
There is no feeling of entitlement from this group of young mothers like there is for some who want to burglarize Alberta's treasury.

I am appalled and disgusted at the attitudes of Canadians. I've been living on my island for too long and didn't realize Canadians worship at the altar of the dollar to the exclusion of a decent society. My little society cares about each citizen and will go out of their way to ensure no one suffers needlessly.

Apparently, this attitude has gone the way of the dodo bird in the rest of the country. Reading the comments posted on the Globe and Mail website in regards to child care subsidies has been the most depressing thing I've encountered in a long time. We have a whole bunch of Canadians whose ignorance and arrogance is beyong the pale. They are in the majority of the 151 comments I just read.

I have a daughter, a single mother, with a 2yo son. She went to college when her son was 8 months old so she could give him a better life. Prior to getting pregnant she was working as a bartender and server. She felt this was not the kind of work she should be doing as a mother. She got a job the day after graduation. She is an executive assistant and earns $12.75/hour. Her rent in Victoria is $850./month for a not great two bedroom basement suite. That is a large chunk of her take home pay. Her son is in a daycare with a fabulous woman who deeply cares for him. My daughter recieves a child care subsidy which pays for a large portion of the cost. She pays the balance. She is very appreciative of this help. She knows that with time and experience she will not need a subsidy when she earns more. The BC government funds this subsidy with transfer payments from the federal government. When the funding is cut and she recieves $1200./year for her "choice in child care", it will pay about two and a half months of child care. So where does all the talk that the Liberals did nothing for 13 years in regard to child care come from? They provided money for those less fortunate and enabled them to work and contribute to society.

Children are our future. They deserve respect and a healthy environment. How they get here is not something anyone should judge. Social assistance is not healthy yet many people will be forced into that if daycare subsidies are cut. The taxes my daughter pays and the example she is setting for her son have a lot of value. The wealthy women who can stay at home have no need for $1200./year. The fact they feel entitled to it for their decision, is pathetic. If they don't feel valued and fortunate in their situation, then 1200 bucks won't help that psychological problem.

Harper's latest speech in Vancouver about child care was filled with downright lies. "Parents certainly did not get any financial support." "But the truth of the matter is that not a single Canadian family has recieved direct financial support." "Under the Liberals, not a single daycare space was created."

The daycare my daughter uses exists because people recieve subsidies, so spaces were created. She may have to go out of business. Harper shrouds his comments and is an out and out liar. This from a man who is supposedly all about accountability. He is a hypocrite on some many levels. His arrogance without compassion or experience for how the majority of Canadians live is beyond galling. He is using focus groups, like REAL women and US based weird Christian groups who are so far back in the dark ages, to try and sell his child care choice policy to Canadians. I hope he doesn't think this country wants to go back to the woman, barefoot, pregnant and baking pies for the man of the house.

I believe in a Canada where we are all valued and not judged. We extend a helping hand to those who need it and take pride in their accomplishments as they achieve their goals. This is what I thought we were as a society, but I am so wrong in that belief. There are too many rednecks coming out of the woodwork. Knew that would happen with an Albertan in power. I was raised in Alberta and they are a different breed. They are now sporting bumper stickers that say "Republic of Alberta". I think it is pretty clear where Canada is heading.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's quick trip out to Vancouver yesterday underscores the importance of the Day Car program for the party, and is a hint of the coming confrontation with the Liberals over their respective visions for the program. Lets do a quick reality check here. Its important to remember that the Liberals had thirteen straight years in with majority power, most of them with substantial surpluses, to actually enact a program, which of course, they never did. Only in the 11th hour of the second federal minority election did they actually announce specifics, and as we all know with the Liberals past performance on programs like the HRDC and Gun Registry, announcements of programs, and their actual implementation, are two very different things. Lets look at the primary differences of the plans; The Conservative plan benefits every single parent of young children, providing funds for family, friend and off-hours daycare providers to proliferate, and will finally supply some financial recognition for unpaid child-care work parents do currently, and provides equal rewards for those who work and for those who make the decision to parent at home. The Liberal plan will give subsidized daytime care for about one out of four parents, and sets up a situation where low paid single mothers (often working shifts) will contribute to the daycare of their well-payed boss's kids DAY (9-5) care.

After more than a decade of federal programs going stratospherically over-budget while delivering questionable results, the conservative plan is, well, conservative- democratic to all, zero risk of cost overrun or management bungling, and embracing the development of creative public and private solutions to real needs. Its refreshing to see a government talks little and follows through a lot, and I wish them luck in their coming sparring with the Libera

Listen - the $1,200 is fair. This is an extremely expensive program, and quite frankly not everybody has children. Also, while this is great for urban/single mothers, this is not great for suburban or rural stay-at-home moms, or those with more flexible schedules.

I am fully in support of providing additional support of providing additional incentives for single mothers, but universal child-care is a blanket policy, which will be very expensive to administer. People will be paying for services they don't even need or use. We can't use a one-size-fits all approach here. The tax credit is a start.

Having kids is a massive responsibility, and will be made a little easier by this measure.

Quite frankly, I believe that we have bigger priorities at hand. By paying down debt, we save on interest costs, which could later go to the ailing baby-boomers.

The problem with Canadians is that they always want a free ride, and they believe they are entitled to one.

There is nothing refreshing or creative about the conservative plan. It's a total cop-out -- as are so many of the free-market-based ideas coming from the right these days.

On the surface it sounds good, under the guise of "personal choice" and suffused with righteous anger at government and union largesse; but there is nothing pragmatic or revolutionary in throwing out years of social policy development for a $1200 handout.

With all their talk, you'd be forgiven for believing the Conservatives actually consider the cash adequate to help families attain quality daycare--that they'd put some thought into that nice, round figure. And of course they have!

I'm sure the fact that it's twelve times one hundred is just a coincidence.

Ben

Fanshaw:

I believe it is these people that pay the tax bill in the first place, so wouldn't they be sticking it in their own pockets???

It is your attitute of entitlement that makes me sick. You are not entitled to other peoples' hard earned money.

I don't believe this is about unions wanting more as IAMC has said. I believe that obviously the unions will support this, however this is about mothers and fathers wanting somebody else to foot the child-care bill....end of story.

Hey - we all want free stuff! The rich want to pay less taxes, the poor want stuff paid for them and the middle class wants what is fair.

Think about it though - there is a huge hole in our paychecks between what we get paid and what we actually receive. That money is going to the government, who in turn decides how t0 spend it....should we decide?

We treat children terribly in Canada compared with European countries. The Liberal Daycare plan was a sop to the unions and to well off middle class Canadians, where both parents work. Stay at home parents were ignored and taxed to death.

The $1,200 dollars is not a panacea but will help many more poorer Canadians to help fund not just Daycare but sports dues etc.

What is needed is a vast reorganization of our education system to reflect the new realities of the 21st century and working famillies

good post aalborg!
May I add that we as a nation undervalue the people who try to make a living in early childhood education.
If children indeed is our future, we should ensure that quality professionals look after them when we ourselves have to work for a living.
The trend is to point out that a teenage babysitter will do it for less!
Full-time daycare is not like an occassional baby-sitting job, it is how your child is influenced during the daytime.
Yes daycare is expensive, but if we do not reward those who work there, then soon they will look elsewhere for a job, because they too want a decent lifestyle.
You may bitch about the cost of a plumber, but in the end you pay for his services, are our children less important than our toilets?

Grumpy:

Great post, although call me an optimist, but I believe for the most part our education system is okay.

Other than the fact teachers now think they are politicians, the system is not broken. We have very high rates of literacy in BC, we have good incomes in BC, we have a huge demand to get into University - unlike my day when I snuck in with a 75%!!

People are going to college or technical school. In fact, this has become a problem as people no longer are interested in the trades, where we have labour shortages.

I really like this proposal, I like the bus pass deduction, and sporting fee deduction. These aren't going to pay for everything, but they are going to help!

Rather than setting up these giant social re-engineering programs with high administration costs, the deductions are targeting areas of concern and making modest differences.

However, a lot of small differences equals one big difference.

It took the liberals 13 years to come up with a child care plan - and who knows how many more to implement it.

If the governments were to raise the minimum wage to $21.00 per hour then daycare may be affordable for most people. OOPS, I forgot. Big business still controls the government.

Grumpy:

Also, we as progressive conservatives believe that what is happening in Europe is a travesty.

We believe in creating a good economy, sometimes at the expense of liberal arts eduction, so that our youth and university grads have good jobs and fulfilling careers ahead of them.

Look at what has happened to the youth of france - unmotivated, lazy and perhaps over-educated in the arts.

The truth is that there are plenty of entry-level professional jobs for our youth. I know first hand, as I know several people that have increased hiring.

The problem today is that a BA in History isn't going to do anything for you. In today's world, you need to demonstrate a differentiated skill-set.

It is a changing world, and for me, it is very exciting.

But you want your tax cuts, don't you fat cat Capitalist?

Tax cuts only help those with excess wealth and do nothing to advance society.

Stephen Harper's program is at best a watered down version of the old Family Allowance program, which in its dying years had become more of an embarrasing joke than anything else.

But, if you ask me who is to blame for this mess right now, I'd say the blundering Liberal Party of Canada which stayed far too long under the influence of a pseudo-progressive leader called Paul Martin.

Had the liberals ever really intended to deal with the crisis in national child care, as it has promised to do in every election campaign since the 1970s, our republican governor-in-waiting, would not be demanding the majority of MPs (elected by progressive voters) to get on side or else.

Let's face it, the Liberals, just like today's new look Conservatives, have no intent to ever really tackle the issue from a child development point of view.

But here we have a minority government that ought to be sucking up for whatever favours it can earn from opposition parties to get policy implemented. Instead, it's acting in fine dictatoral mode.

Interim Liberal bumbler Bill Graham, rather than standing up to such arrogance, announces how he will support the Conservative plan.

Maybe the best we can hope for on this issue is that some former Liberal cabinet minister who voted for the old Liberal Child care program under Martin's watch will now stand up and, in a moment of soul searching, defend his vote.

Perhaps someone could ask David Emerson if he can keep a commitment.

This country is going in a dangerous direction given the comments on this thread.

Me, me, me me, me ...........

Sure the Liberals were hacks but the promises of change made by the Conservatives appear to be changes in the wrong direction.

Just like "tampering with approximately 20,000 votes" in Vancouver Kingsway is shrugged off by the Prime Minister as "just the same 10 people protesting".

allan,

tax cuts help everybody, even the poor, through a trickle-down effect. they stimulate the economy, because the thing you don't understand about the rich is that they re-invest.

we own a small business, and live a good lifestyle, but everything we save, we re-invest. we have hired a little extra help, but we have done a lot of contracting. our savings are going back into the economy.

i have very little in the bank right now, it is all tied up in the goodwill of our company.

Unfortunately Europe is still ahead of Canada in terms of its economic strengths. Just look at the OECD competitiveness index for one.

Second, why $1200? Its a waste of money and conservativces should be against it because its too little to help those who need it and too much for those who don't. Its a cash sinkhole.

How about we do the same with policing? Calling a cop will be $1,000 but everyone will get $1,200 a year from the gov't to pay for it.

Or how about roads? Using the Port Mann bridge and freeway to travel from Surrey to Vancouver will cost $200 a month but everyone will be given $1,200 a year to pay for it.

To be useful to single moms it would need to be in the range of $7,000 a year.

Frank - ha ha - having a child isn't free.

$7,000 a year!!! Man, the culture of entitlement that exists with some of you..

Hey Capitalism-Albertans seem to think they are entitled!

Oh, I feel it. It's wet, somewhat cold and when a hooker does it, it's called a golden shower.

The trickle down effect. Really?

Why is it that when the BC Liberals gave away $2 billion in cuts to its wealthy friends the economy fell into the doldrums?

Why, because all the rest of us have had to pony up and pay for that golden shower and of course the mess it left in a whole lot of little corners around BC.

By the way Capitalist, you write with the same righteous tone as Working Man. Are you brothers by any chance.

mabell, its not a culture of entitlement at all. Its saying yes kids are expensive but we as a society think that getting them off to a good start is just as important as providing "free" roads, "free" policing, "free" border guards, "free" schooling, "free" judiciary, a "free" military etc.

All of those are entitlements for someone or another who would be outraged at the idea of having to pony up money on top of their taxes. So why do we treat kids differently?

none of those things are FREE...WE PAY TAXES FOR THOSE ITEMS AND THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE DAY,USUALLY PISS IT AWAY.

anybody see that photo of the kid gripping harpers nose to see if it was a tit...

that kid,the photog,should be congratulated for showing HARPER up for being what he is...

Which is why I put the word free in quotes for each one. Just as "free" daycare would not be free to Canada, but it would to the user just like the Port Mann bridge or the Olympics.

anybody see that photo of the kid gripping harpers nose to see if it was a tit...

Priceless.

Interesting how some parents weren't towing Harper's message. One parent, when interviewed, spoke of the wait list (I believe she said 300 long) for that particular centre.

IMO, the shortage of space is the real issue, here.

so, who should decide what we, as a Nation will be doing with the billions being obtained due to high oil prices - President Harpo alone? Should not the money be used to strengthen the social, economic, cultural fabric of this nation- if there is any sense of nation-building left in government? Harper's plan to give a $100 per month will not result in more good quality day care spaces being created - but neither am I in favour for increasing the size of the 'civil service' - and 'labor elites'. Here is what I propose instead, the creation of a fund to initiate more 'social co-operatives' providing 'day-care' services to children. Rather, then there being an employer and day-care workers as employees, likely within a government union, the 'social co-op' - would be owned by the parents, workers,possibly even grand-parents too, who, having one vote per member, will then elect the management for each social co-op, and decide best how to provide day-care, at what cost, with 'meet or exceed' quality standards set by the state. Monies for such a fund, ought to perhaps come from an "excessive profit" tax on banks & oil companies who are, in my view, taking the Canadian consumer for a wild ride- just see their billion dollar profit margins. But no -neither Pres. Harpo, the Fiberals, nor the federal NDP would likely consider such a 'social co-op' /economic democracy alternative - as it implies the reduction of both corporate & union power/hegemony in the marketplace. In my minority view, the market - can be democratized - there is a choice between wild Capitalism and State owned/operated firms...and that is the 'co-operative enterprise' - where workers, receipients of care, the community at large controls expenditure of funds & establish governing policy on the basis of 'one person one vote', NOT 'one share one vote' - as in capitalistic firms. Just imagine, if the 'oil companies' were not owned by majority US shareholders, but rather were 'co-operatives' - where ownership was shared between government reps, consumers, workers, community reps - indeed we likely would have a Canadian energy strategy, indeed, we would likely see a community based vision of 'sustainability, and a real tackling of the 'climate change' problem in Canada - instead of pure BS & continentalism out of Ottawa, and childish "me-first" provincialism out of Alberta.

Freebear is right. The me, me, me, attitude is the beginning of the end. A society whose citizens care only about themselves is in decline. We are all in this together. If everyone retreats into their little homes, pulls up the drawbridge, then what kind of a society do we have? I know Harper's philosophy is survival of the fittest, but I don't personally buy that. I want the 40k/yr I pay in taxes to help those less fortunate than myself. I don't begrudge those who need help. If I ever find myself so hard-hearted then I will know I have lost the most important part of being human. Canada, under Harper, is going to turn into the kind of cesspool that is south of the border. When government doesn't care about the less fortunate, weaker citizens, and encourages its citizens to think the same way, then it is done like dinner. New Orleans is a prime example of that. Maybe we should be able to designate where our personal taxes go. A form could be submitted to Revenue Canada along with the tax return. I don't want any of my tax dollars supporting the wing nut REAL women groups, the extreme Christian groups who are lobbying long and hard to get Canada back to the dark ages. Both groups originate in the US and have been brought to Canada by the Bush wannabe Harper and his crowd. I believe nothing they have to say and can't believe people like that exist in this day and age. I can't believe they ever frigging existed, but that's just me. To know they have the ear of the PM is horrendous. They have started tearing down Canadian society and all the social ills they bring will come back to haunt us very soon. It is beyond frightening that we are all expected to fit into some mold that is determined by a certain group of people. I want my country to be diverse and caring of all its citizens. Not just a select few who walk the same path as the PM and his wing nut cohorts.

When single parents have to quit their jobs and go on social assistance because they cannot afford daycare on $1200./year then we will notice the contribution they make to society. Who's going to pour the Starbuck coffee and clean the offices etc? All those meme types will be the first in line griping about the lazy lower classes. The meme's will then complain about the rising costs of social assistance and do their best to eliminate that program. The 1% GST cut will help only the well off. The poor don't buy enough big ticket items to see any savings. The savings they do get from that cut won't be enough to help them offset daycare costs. Research has shown that the poor will save about $200./year and the better off about $900./yr. All those who worship at the altar of the dollar are drooling about the pittance though. The meme's are buying into the Harper plan and he's laughing his butt off behind the closed doors of the PMO at the gullibility of the greedy masses who don't really need to save pennies. Keep the greedy smiling and rubbing their hands in glee at a penny here and there and maybe they won't notice his cutting the lower classes out of the picture. Then we can all live in our gated communities and keep the peasants at bay. Greed is stopping people from seeing the big picture that is emerging in Ottawa. We're screwed and I am really sad that more don't see that.

And why we have to keep telling people that the government is PISSING our monies away on their pet projects,LIKE GUN CONTROL...

The right wing wants things AMERIKANIZED,but the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS FOR ALL,seems to escape their wants list,for some reason...

ONE PER CENT,back from the GST,shows what a KASH KOW that PET PROGRAM/TAX IS .

these KREEPS will continue to fleece us like any GREEDMONGER caught in the addiction of POWER...remember these guys pay SQUAT...WE PAY THE TOLL .

the liberal plan, modelled on the Quebec plan, has only enough funds for about 1 in 15 children. In Quebec, these spaces are monopolized by middle and wealthy classes who can afford to spend a few months of time on a waiting list before the child is ready for daycare.

The poor subsidize the rich. That is what is happening.

It is tragic that the Labour movement, addicted to union dues from the public sector, will not fight this terrible wrong.

At least the conservaive plan puts the money in the hands of the neediest people, the ones below the tax line, so they get to keep it all and use it it wisely.

Mrs Layton is making a fool of herself with her TV appearances where she show complete ignorance of the tax code and basic arithmetic.

The Conservative plan will remove the children who need it from daycare. This will mean spaces will be "created" for those better off who don't need the $1200.

Did you read aalborg's post above? Her daughter will be losing money.

I think most of us agree that unions are greedy and sleezy.

You are very correct in your assessment. Socialists (non the union left) care about people and want more than anything to help. Unfortunately, they don't understand the economics of a situation. Probably because most have never managed much more than their bank account.

Government is a massive organization. It is prudent that strong controls over procurement exists. The problem with our democratic society, is that governments don't govern for the people, they govern to get re-elected. As a result, they spend their term buying votes.

As far as I am concerned, the more money out of their hands, the better.

Daycare is a crock and I don't think the government should give any money to parents— single, coupled, gender challenged, whatever. We're messing up entire generations and don't realize it.
I think today's parents demand daycare because they either don't know how to parent or are afraid to parent and would prefer to let their children be raised by a —pause for chuckle — professional.
And please, spare me the tripe about single parents. It takes two to make a child and now that having children is more a matter of choice than chance with all the pre and post conception birth control available I think adults simply don't want all the responsibilities that come with children. Their children aren't my problem. And if a woman can't keep her man around, or a man won't settle down with a woman, that's not my problem either. And it shouldn't be anyone elses. Whatever happened to family helping out family?
Back in the early to mid 80's my partner and I conceived and kept three children, spaced every couple of years. My wife quit her job — no maternity leave back then, kids — and for the next several years I was the sole wage earner, while Kim stayed home with our growing children. It wasn't all roses. It was what life's supposed to be about.

As a result of her lost income, we'll never have the big house, but we live comfortably. We have one non-SUV car and it's paid for. Our income is and always has been... average. Two of our kids are now in university and the third is working full time.
Back when our youngest started Grade One full time (1992), mother Kim went back to work, part time at first and not so much for the money — although the additional income was welcome — but because she was ready to resume her life outside the home. For us it was a natural cycle, and our children have always appreciated their childhood spent at home.
Although I smile at the handwringing and tugging at the heart strings in the newspapers about this motherhood issue I'm going to wait a few years now before I have a real good laugh. Cause if we're still around, if some religiously crazed moron hasn't blasted us all to nuclear hell because of some silly centuries out-of-date grown-up fairy tale they believe is true, I'm ready to see how these day cared children treat their parents... Of course by then, they'll be screaming for better daycare for their parents... And I'll still be waiting for the rest of the world to grow up.
Daycare isn't for the rich, daycare is for losers. People who would rather lose those few precious years of childhood than enjoy them.

wow kram, does kim know that she's married to a chauvanistic prick?

Actually they are. Just as if I sent a note to Gordon Campbell claiming all the things I don't consider "my problem" he'd get a good laugh I'm sure.

The dumbing of society is indeed a reality. "At least the conservative plan puts the money in the hands of the neediest people." Logjam, what planet do you live on? Can you read? Do you watch the news? Don't you get it? The conservative plan puts $1200. in the hands of EVERYONE with a kid under six. Many DO NOT NEED this money. It's a vote buying scheme that greedy dumb and dumber money worshippers are buying into. Those who don't care enough to want a healthy society, a civil society.

The transfer payments to the provinces who then fund daycare subsidies to those who need it, is the only plan that makes any sense at this point in time. No one, anywhere, has come up with a viable alternative. In my daughter's case, she has to submit her pay stubs to the subsidy office on a frequent basis. If she has worked overtime and earned a few dollars more, then her subsidy is cut and she pays a bigger portion to the daycare provider. So the little extra she occasionally earns is not fun money. The system, as it is now, in BC, has checks and balances against any abuse. It works. Those whose black hearts don't allow compassion for the less fortunate should be happy with that system and the few dollars saved. The $1200. handout is putting tax dollars into a black hole with no accountability. Why is that ok with the public? When transfer payments are cut next March and madness ensues, then maybe the greedy will be able to see the big picture. I'm not holding my breath on that one though.

It is so obvious people are not thinking through the policy changes Harper wants to make. I don't believe the vast majority are capable. I guess that's why his speeches consist of one sentence paragraphs. I get emails from his office of every word the man utters. I find it amusing to read his stilted little sentences. The lack of passion and feeling on his behalf is so obvious when you read his written words. I mean we all see the robotic, toneless delivery of his speeches and comments on TV, but on paper, they take on new meaning. They are carefully scripted to appeal to those with no attention span and the inability of thinking for themselves.

Haraldkann

Well that 2 billion to keep inaccurate records that can’t be relied upon, would have built and funded quite a few daycares in each provinces.

I don’t think the Conservatives believe for a moment that the $1200 will solve everyone’s problem. It certainly won’t hurt though and will help us with our daycare which is at someone’s house and would not have qualified for the Mythical Liberal program.

The NDP and Bloc have a chance here to make some changes to the program, but saying accept some of our recommendations and we will not oppose on something else. The Liberals should shut up and clean house for awhile. I won’t bother comparing their program as a Liberal promise from PM Martin wasn’t worth the air that was used to expel it.

I personally would like to see the $1200 as non-taxable and have sent in my comments to an MP on this. There may be some other things they can do but I realize that any government has a finite amount to work with for each program and I don’t want them robbing Peter to pay Paul.

logjam603

mabellbc/capitalism

While most of us do accounting for the great unwashed,properly ,i might add,we also set aside monies for TAXES,which usually gets into the government coffers,SUPPOSEDLY,TO PAY FOR OUR INFRASTRUCTURES,POLICING,EDUCATION,ETCETRA.

[/B]somehow the governments of the day(regardless of colour or stripe) usually find a way to PISS OUR MONIES AWAY.

CORPORATE WELFARE AND SNAFU's being predominant...the subsidies for the FRIENDLIES.

my brother was a real right winger while working for REVENUE CANADA,til ,he saw the waste and the LOOPHOLES,the system allowed.[B]

now,he is a committed CENTRIST as i am,asking that all pay their way,in a FAIR SYSTEM,not under the reign of one party or another but of a coalition of all .

If we expect to teach our children to be more than slaves to the system,we must not be slaves ourselves.

kram....I think the loser here is you. If raising your kids was so soul satisfying, then why did your wife head back to work when the youngest started school? I'd have thought she would have wanted to spend more time catering to her "man" than resuming her life outside the home. I'm surprised you let her out the door. The lure of the dollar though, right? It shows up everytime in you judgemental types. I stayed home with my children and never returned to work. I can still find it in my heart to care about those who are not as fortunate though.

I'd like to see either taxes drastically cut for all people who fall under a certain income level (not sure what the cutoff should be, though), or the child tax credit increased for that income level. That puts money for childcare of whatever type the family's needs (SAH parent, formal daycare, informal care arrangements, babysitting) back in the family's pocket on an ongoing basis. Let's face it - how many people are going to get that $1200 and budget it out for daycare over the year? Not to mention the administration costs for the government to institute the program. In families that actually need the money, it's more likely to go to rent, food, or bills. An income-based tax cut makes more sense. It doesn't create the massive administrative overhead that a national daycare would, allows people to make their own choices, and doesn't distribute money to people in the higher income brackets who don't need it.

Not having kids, I can't comment from experience on the whole "daycare vs. SAH parent" thing, but I can say that good daycare is worlds better than some of the parenting out there, just as good parenting beats out "parking spot" daycare. Everyone's family is different, and all kids' needs are different.

Flame away, my asbestos suit is ready. :)

My wife was bound and determined to go back to work after our daughter was born, now she is not so sure. So we have set up a home office for her to work as a real estate lawyer, we will see how it goes, luckily we can survive on my paycheck, so anything she makes is gravy. Both of us have made decisions in our careers that allow us to spend more time with our daughter. However we also see the value of her spending some time at daycare learning how to interact with other kids and picking up all sorts of nifty bugs to pass back to us!! Achieving balance as a parent is always the key to happiness.

Very proud of her, she just stacked 5 cans of coconut milk on top of each other, it’s great to watch her do something new all the time.

I honestly believe that my pre-school child is better nurtured by spending 5 days a week under the care of professionals, learning how to interact with others, and being exposed to the rainbow of people and cultures that make up Vancouver. Ignoring the fact that a one income family is near impossible in this city, I believe it's more natural for children to spend their days in a group setting with multiple care-givers. The stay-at-home with mom model is a flawed one IMO... and a by-product of the move to suburbanization. The brief period of the 'good old days' where Mom stayed home while Dad went to work is the exception brought on by industrialization rather than the rule when you look at childcare through history.

1: what do we pay taxes for? To recieve services in return - such as decent access to pulic healthcare, justice, employment programs and insurance... and child care. Look, I don't have kids. I don't want kids. But I have no problem with a portion of my taxes going to support people who do so their kids may have an oppotrunity to grow up a little more well adjusted.

The problem with Canadadians is not that we expect a free ride, it's that we let economists run our government. Economists are all about pragmatism. There is no humanity there. It's all about getting it done as cheaply as possible, with no thought of people, or in the case of infrastructure projects, appealing design. So what are we as Canadians left with? Milquetoast, inneffective propositions that pay lip-service to our needs as citizens at a very high cost and a low quality.

IMAC says we don't need medicare, cbc, the gun registry, etc. Yes, they may not be perfect, but they at least reflect the goals of Canadian society; access to healthcare, the distain for the need for firearms, and a cultural/infomation pipeline that binds Canadians across what in Europe is 16 different countries.

I don't think having children is a right, or that you should be entitled to money from the government for having children. Having children takes no forethought, talent, love, or responsibility. Taking care of children on the other hand and bringing children up to be honest, loving, respectful and productive members of society takes more than just the parent(s), it takes a community.

I would tend to agree with you stump. In many cultures, the community is responsible for child rearing - it's not just a one-parent job. And I also think that the stay-at-home parent/mom is a suburban ideal; and we all know how that experiment is panning out.

"I think most of us agree that unions are greedy and sleezy."

That's like that other trick of spin isn't it... just preface every statement with "As you know". Works for Kevin Falcon.

I think most of us agree that statement is a gross over-generalization. :-)

What drives folks like IMAC nuts is that, in a democratic country, we can elect governments that tax the rich for the benefit of the poor.

As the T-shirt says: "I'M TIRED OF HEARING WHAT RICH PEOPLE THINK". Why not try "trickle up" economics: massive tax cuts for the poor and lower middle class? They WILL spend that money, locally for the most part, envigorating the econmomy and benefitting the business class in the long run.

Stump:

I know this will sound elitist, but you get in where you fit in. If you can't afford the Vancouver lifestyle, you move to where you can. In a free market, people have to make choices and living in Vancouver is an entitlement. I know dozens of people who moved out to the Valley or even Kamploops to better their lifestyle.

Secondly, you may be correct that childcare is better under professionals. However, we have to make spending choices and balance the economy vs. social and infrastructure upgrades.

I understand your plight, but we all make choices in life. You can't expect everybody else to be responsible for yours.

This all goes back to the culture of entitlement. Quite frankly, for most I don't believe they care more about the cost to them, than about the principles surrounding child care.

Stump and Ub: Be very cautious of using "tradition" and "history" as guides to child-raising. I believe that "tradition" includes such notions as "spare the rod and spoil the child" and "be seen and not heard" and so forth. Progressive child rearing is child-focused and pretty much still a minority viewpoint. I'm far from dissuaded that "one parent stays home" is a "suburban" model -- it seems pretty ideal actually. It's what they want.

Thedubc: I agree with you, but implementation is the hard part. Who defines the values of the "community" that is raising ths child? I'm all for having more spaces as long as the religious elements are left out of it, but they won't be.

Thedubc

You clearly never had anything to do with the gun registry, it took them 2 years to register my .22 rifle, Their numbers don’t agree with the information they received from the RCMP who ran the previous version, They have the same gun registered to multiple owners, misregistered firearms, Glue guns registered, missing large amounts of files, politically bendable statistics to name a small numbers of complaints. All this for $2 billion plus. There is also no evidence of it being the sole contributing factor to saving a life. Any police officer depending on the registry for factual information is risking their life needlessly.

As a Canadian this sort of waste does not reflect my values or goals. Any government program costs money, if it costs to much then it has a negative effect on other programs. Any government has to balance out what it wants to spend the money on and what we get for that. The registry is a money pit with no tangible value to Canadians other than a “feel good” for the uninformed.

I initially supported the gun registry, not because I felt it would be effective in reducing crime (I never believed it would) and not because I live in a rural area and I am afraid for my family's safety because most of my neighbours own deer rifles, but, as a pot smoker, I thought it would be fun to watch a bunch of generally law-abiding, middle class white men complain about the govenment intruding in their lives. And they did. And I enjoyed it. But we all know a joke can go too far so it's time to call it off.

Well, some traditions stand the test of time, like the Golden rule for instance, or the ten commandments. Pretty good guidelines for life.

I think the 'traditional' way of raising children (daytime childcare duties left to elders and others who can't work) has an effective analogue in professional run modern daycare centres. I'm not advocating keeping all aspects of the past, but some traditions are worth keeping because they work.

I know this will sound elitist, but you get in where you fit in. If you can't afford the Vancouver lifestyle, you move to where you can. In a free market, people have to make choices and living in Vancouver is an entitlement.

It sounds elitist because it is. We don't live in a free market -- at least not the kind you dream of living in. Government can and should set policies (i.e. rent control, etc) to keep this city from being merely a playground for the rich.

Besides, who is going to flip your burgers and clean your toilets, jacka**?

I thought it would be fun to watch a bunch of generally law-abiding, middle class white men complain about the government intruding in their lives.

So funny I had to repost it.

sorry "professionally run"

Capitalism:

I don't want you to be responsible for me. Or my kid. I don't care if the Conservatives give me $1200 or jack-squat. All I'm saying is that quality daycare benefits us all. Childrens' futures aren't a matter for free markets to decide IMO.

At the expense of the taxpayer. In fact, the road and bridge building and maintenance required to provide that better lifestyle would have more than paid for good daycare instead.

Plus we wouldn't have had to pave the only good farmland near Vancouver which might have been nice considering the fears of a future energy crises.

Hey,anybody know if the HARPER family is getting any sort of government monies for the rearing of their little tax write offs,oops just answered my own question.

ANYBODY KNOW WHAT THOSE LITTLE WRITE OFFS ARE WORTH EVERY YEAR ?

Hey,anybody know if mrs.harper works and helps support the family ? Is she a stay at home mom?
Does she do anything but keep the man of the house happy.WHAT DOES SHE DO ?

Do rich people still get the baby bonus,or have the governments come up with another scam to fatten up the purses of their friends...

just kiddin ,bout the baby bonus...i know it's long gone,i just wonder what those new programs are that keep putting money into the wrong hands,while real families are in need .

I heard an Abbotsford city council member say that more agricultural land had to be developed because the city received very little tax revenue from it and that the staus quo was therefore "unsustainable". How sustainable is a society that can't feed itself?

The next time a politician tries to tell you something is unsustainable demand that they prove it.

ASK CHINA...

China didn't answer the phone.

Sustainability is forward looking. China has sustained itself up to this point, so has Japan, depite having to import (I believe) most of it's food. But are either of these countries' food supplies sustainable? China floods agricultural land to create hydro-electric power and the sea-food stocks that sustain the Japanese are in peril.

I think it is foolish and short-sighted to become dependant on food imported from the US. California's food producers depend on massive, gov't subsidized importation of water from nearby and not-so-nearby states in a system that is stretched to (or perhaps beyond) it's capacity. A drought there will have huge implications here.

And the Kampbell Klan is looking at getting rid of the ALR so BC can start looking at high food prices sooner than later,especially with the gas prices soaring...

So,raising a child and all that entails is going to be a real debt defying labour of love and child care is more than ever,desperately needed .

Actually, I would argue in favour of more birth control. There is no inalienable right to have children regardless of circumstances and I think the best option for many is to remain childless.

My thoughts as well,but we need worker bees and a tax base to keep our society working,unless we want to hand over our country to guest workers.

How about we invite the various "stakeholders" to be a bit more forthcoming about what it is they're demanding?

Consider:
It doesn't take much work to determine that the so-called "national childcare plan" is closer to $10 billion per year than the $1 billion the Liberals have brought to the table.
How is the cost to be divided among the various players?

$10 billion would fund all sorts of government programs; how did child care become the priority? What won't we be funding?

What's the plan to makew sure the top priority is to cover those most in need or do we cnsider all parents equally deserving of RCD, really cheap daycare?

What's the plan to cover folks in rural areas, shift workers, etc? One hopes they, and their kids, deserve the same level of service as those in the world of Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:00.
If there is a plan share it with us?

It appears parents who don't/won't/can't participate receive absolutely none of the thousands of dollars in subsidies per child going to those who do. Is creating a government funded, two-tier child care system something to be desired? Possibly we should determine the subsidy per child and offer parents various options on how to use theirs.

Clearly the Liberals are claiming to have created a plan with a far higher cost than they're offered to pay for; let's compare apples to apples, folks!

Assume this is a $10 billion per year program, costing about $9,000 per child, decide how the costs will be attributed then discuss how the plan should evolve.

Fanshaw:

Do you favour the government controlling what goes in our body as well as what comes out of it? (well, for half of us).

Having children may not be a right, but if you make it a privilege you have a whole new mess of problems to deal with. Not sure I want the gov't deciding who breeds! To paraphrase haraldkann... just ask the Chinese.

Since it doesn't take much, what methodology did you use to come up with 10 billion? Just curious.

Red-herring. Gov't funds lots of things many of us don't use or want. As long as everyone can use it I'm fine with it. I don't need it myself but I'm happy to help pay for it. Much happier than I am paying for the twinning of the Port Mann bridge, which I don't use either. And much happier than I am helping to pay for the Olympics which I won't even attend.

What's the current plan under Harper? Is $1,200 a year somehow going to pay for rural daycare? If it is I haven't seen how.

My list would be different from others but I would love the country to have a debate on what we aren't going to pay for anymore, whether its driven by paying for daycare or not.

Yes,even with their one child per family they have a society that is self involved and spoiled.Just wait til they want something they cannot have...

and whatever warfare they will wage against us in the future...they will win

Colin wrote:

...picking up all sorts of nifty bugs to pass back to us!!

True enough. Daycare centres will be the perfect deadly disease distribution centres when bird flu crosses over to humans as swine flu did about 90 years ago.

No matter how much you lecture them, little kids aren't very good at washing their hands and keeping their sneezes to themselves. And respiratory diseases are often highly communicable at an early stage before they're noticable enough to ask parents to take their kids out of daycare.

When you cram any living creatures tightly together, you significantly enhance the likelihood of disease pandemics. This applies to chickens tightly-packed on factory farms and young humans in tightly-packed factory-like daycare centres.

20 million chickens on Fraser Valley factory farms were recently euthanized to stop a pandemic. What will be done to stop the factory daycare pandemic when it arrives?

But don't worry, the NDP and federal Liberals will respond with subsidized coffins and subsidized burials for the little ones who pick-up lethal bird flu at subsidized daycare centres.

The NDP will no doubt demand that said coffins must be union-made in order to qualify for a subsidy.

aalborg wrote:

I have a daughter, a single mother, with a 2yo son.

Where's daddy? Is he paying any child support? If not, why not? Unless the father is deceased, the issue here appears to be a need for enhanced child support collection services.

Having children may not be a right, but if you make it a privilege you have a whole new mess of problems to deal with. Not sure I want the gov't deciding who breeds!

Stump, however did you arrive at this? Did I mention the government? What I meant is that responsible people should weigh the pros and cons of having a child and if "lack of adequate resources to care for one" shows up in the 'con' column they might want to consider either remaining childless or attaining more resources before proceeding.

Aye! There's the rub Harald. Any talk of reducing the population makes the business class very nervous. Capitalism must grow or die, and on a planet of finite size and finite resources that will be the undoing of one or the other.

.....and schools, university lecture halls, buses, theatres, sports venues, restaurants, pubs, offices....CRAP! nothing is safe.

Epidemics are Mother Nature's time-outs.

Nope, the issue is why we all have to pay for bridges, roads, ferries, schools, hospitals, policing, a legal system, a prison system, military deployments to Afghanistan, subsidies to business, subsidies to farmers, subsidies to foreign companies extracting logs and oil, subsidies to hockey teams, Olympic circuses et al but not daycare for kids whose parent or parents needs to work.to provide a roof over their heads and put food on the table.

Stump wrote:

...'traditional' way of raising children (daytime childcare duties left to elders and others who can't work) has an effective analogue in professional run modern daycare centres.

Under the traditional hunter-gatherer system, the child accompanied the mother while she was gathering and the father was away hunting. Under the more recent agrarian/small family farm system, both parents worked at home while simultaneously keeping an eye on their kids. In both cases, extended family helped too.

Extended family is often better than daycare because it's ok for kids to become emotionally attached to extended family, whereas when kids become emotionally attached to daycare workers and view them as family surrogates, these children can be repeatedly hurt when these family surrogates suddenly disappear from their lives due to constant daycare worker turnover and other factors.

Hollywood movie stars can afford the very best daycare money can buy, but look at how screwed-up their kids usually are. Hollywood parents view their kids as some sort of fashion accessories that are a far distant second in importance to their careers. The NDP and federal Liberals are trying to foist this screwed-up, narcissistic, movie star attitude onto all Canadians.

Frank,

I'll spring for the first 8 items on the list but not the rest. I'm in favour of an income tax form that allows YOU to decide where your money goes. One page with a list of things the gov't wants to spend your money on with a box for a check mark so taxpayers could make their priorities known.

Aalborg : I was interested in your story in your first posting on this page.

What I'm curious about is why you think the B.C. government will suddenly take away subsidies they are giving now. Is this something you have heard or that you assume?

Several provinces give out daycare subsidies based on specific criteria. Maybe they'll monitor the amount, but I doubt they'll yank the whole thing without any consideration as to the total funding between province and federal gov't.

The other surprising thing is that people are saying the $1200/year won't cover expenses. Of course it won't! It's a subsidy, not a gold-plated, funded space.

fanshaw wrote:
Why not try "trickle up" economics: massive tax cuts for the poor and lower middle class? They WILL spend that money, locally for the most part, envigorating the economy

Yes, definitely. The trouble with trickle-down economics is that it puts people to work building things we don't really need, such as fuel-guzzling, oil-slick-producing mega-yachts and gold-plated toilets for the yachts.

Intelligently-designed trickle-up economics can put people to work building the things we need, such as locally-made evacuated-tube solar collectors that can produce hot water even when outside temperatures are well below zero and in-ground seasonal heat storage.

Once systems like this are in place on every residence and have paid for themselves (within a couple of years in many cases), then everyone can work fewer hours per week and spend more time with family because there will no longer be any heating bills to be paid.

Then at the very least the gov't should pay the same percentage as it allows as a deduction on corporate seats at a Canucks game. Assuming kids are as important as subsidizing the Canucks.

Cycling Commuter wrote:
When you cram any living creatures tightly together, you significantly enhance the likelihood of disease pandemics.

fanshaw responded:
.....and schools, university lecture halls, buses, theatres, sports venues, restaurants, pubs, offices

The main difference is that adults are usually a whole lot more responsible than little kids when it comes to washing hands and not sneezing in each others' faces. Also, young childrens' immune systems are not as well-developed as older childrens' and adults' immune systems.

When the next pandemic strikes, adults who crowd-together in the venues you mention will indeed be at higher risk to be infected than those who don't frequent such venues. But their more developed immune systems will enhance their likelihood of survival compared to little kids with undeveloped immune systems. And most adults (with the possible exception of spouse-swapping Montrealers) don't constantly stick their fingers in their mouths and elsewhere before and after playing with toys that are shared with numerous other adults.

fanshaw, I wouldn't even pay for eight, if given the choice, more like two :)

Funny that the right will happily use socialism to pay for all its infrastructure and yells "choice" for everything else.

CC: I don't know enough about immunology and public health to comment on your last posting. The posting you comment on was more an attempt at humour than anything else. When you spoke of cramming living creatures tightly together the first thing I thought was, "I hope this guy doesn't commute to a job where he designs day-care centres."

Any thing the provincial government can CLAW BACK it will,it illegally claws back millions from the disabled who get CPP Disability every month.

Dream on,like the provincial claw backs i mention up top,the people in charge are not known for making smart decisions especially when the great unwashed get the benefits.
There are all kinds of ENVIROMENTALY SOUND housing solutions but try to install some of these things ,especially on your roof.

You live out in the bush,GREAT,try it,if it's within city limits,kiss you money and time ,good bye...

so it's small wonder the baby bonus is back in the bank accounts of the rich with this pathetic child care program.

they said it would pay for popcorn and beer,but what they didn'y say was it will pay for mommy to get her beemer detailed in shaunessy and maybe daddy will get a case of glenfiddich out of it.

Cycling Commuter....Dad lives in England. To inject a little humour into this situation, I like to say that the grandson is our souvenir from her travel/working around Europe for two years. It's a long story. The papers for child support have been sitting in the 'system' for 25 months. He acknowledges the child, as does his family, but that is as far as it has gone. I totally agree that he should be paying support. Until such time that the courts issue an order nothing can be done in regards to child support collection. BC has the Family Maintenance Enforcement Program and the UK has a similar system. I'm constantly phoning to find out when it will be dealt with, but there are never any answers or action. It is frustrating to the nth degree. As soon as we have an order the collection services in both countries will be notified. He is financially very well off and single. It is galling that he does not have the sense of decency to do the right thing.

YlaReina....I was told by Minister Linda Reid that BC was not sure what they would do in 2007, when the transfer payments stop. She says they are in continuing talks with Ottawa. So if, as the Minister, she is unsure, I don't know what the people who depend on the subsidies are to think. It's that sense of impending doom that I am uncomfortable with. If Harper could quit trotting out the same tired lines and be more forthcoming with his ideas that would be a help. If the BC government would keep us informed as to what they are discussing with the feds and told us what they intend to do,that would be great. As it is, it is all masked in secrecy or ignored and I resent that tremendously. People need and have the right to know what each level of government is thinking and doing. Especially in such a sensitive area as childcare. It is a hot button issue and some truths would ease the situation for those who believe in subsidies and those who do not. I hate that the conservatives want to use this issue to get back at the liberals. No one is considering the children and their families. It has become a political game.

If and when my daughter starts recieving child support and as her wage increases and her need for subsidies is eliminated, I will never stop believing that a just society helps those who need it. I like the idea of my tax dollars making a difference in real lives and ensuring that we are all equal and can have the same opportunities regardless of our circumstances.

frank

$40, plus or minus, x 5 days per week x 50 weeks per year is $10,000. Insert whatever number you choose for the number of kids. This number is clearly an approximation, however if you google "child care Canada cost" you'll find it far closer to $10 billion than the $1 billion per year the Liberals have tossed into the pot.

On the next point one of the key elements of our shiny new "national child care plan" is that it be both "universal" and "accesible". What happens to parents who, for any number of reasons can't use it? Driving an infant 20 miles to the daycare centre is hardly "accesible" in the real world. Tell us what the plan is to provide a consistent benefit to all parents, whether in cash or in service, then we might sign on.

Will the $1,200 per year provide rural daycare?
Probably not, however it will provide exactly the same level of benefit to folks living in urban areas who will have access to it. What we don't want to do is provide a large subsidy to the children of some citizens and absolutely no help to the children of others.
Discrimination, real or as an unintended cosequence, as government policy should be avoided as a matter of course

Aalborg, taking your first point as correct, I think I can explain why the Conservatives will want to go to the polls without ever actually having put the plan into force: because if the transfer payments end as you state (and I think the logic of clawbacks, at least with regards to the BC Liberals, is unescapable) and the daycare is thus killed, it will have a chaotic and politically devastating effect on economy (all those working mothers who will suddenly be left stranded) and directly on the Harpers RATS.

Expect an election about two months after the first cheques go out (a real feel-good thing) and before the funding for existing daycare expires.

IAMC as usual cannot find his @#$! with both hands and a flashlight. So what else is new?

Capitalism, the sparrow and horse school of economics (feed the horse enough oats and the sparrow will be sure to find something nourishing in what is left behind) is and always was morally and economically bankrupt: If the poor don't get a living wage, they can't patronize your business, and unless your business happens to be supplying high class "escorts" or other luxuries to the rich, that means that YOU are going to go bankrupt. Period. It is time you realized that you and yours have no communality of interests with the Paul Desmarais's, Martins, and Brian Mulroneys of the world, and when the going gets a little tougher (read peak oil? It's over, little man! OVER! Our civilization as we know it is, sadly, unsustainable.) you and yours are going to be brushed aside or crushed on the roadside in the scramble of the rich to get it all.

I do not consider the Rapture to be a valid alternative as far as futures are concerned....

Good post, Peter.

R. Smiley

GEEZ,this sounds just like the old baby bonus the rich used to laugh about while drinking their wine and wondering...what are the poor people doing with this pittance and i remember listening to a talk show and having one of the elite phone up and laugh about how he and his family spent it,they put it in their childs piggy bank to buy their first car,said something about learning ,HOW TO SAVE MONEY .

I think we all know the Liberal plan was flawed by now. Although many are obligated to defend ANY new social program to the death.
Their proposal was far from all inclusive obviously.
In fact it never was a plan. The Fed's were simply transfer money to Provinces to do, basically whatever they wanted to do with it.
This appealed to every PSU worker as an addition opportunity for permanent Govt. jobs .
I doubt the CPC would have ever dreamt up such as their alternate plan, if the Liberals hadn't given them this poison pill they probably would just given some kind of tax cut, that would be far easier to administer.
I think this string gave a good amount of debate on the subject.

John, okay on the number, fair enough.

I actually like the underlying philosophy of the Con plan. Give people the money they need and let them decide how best to use it for the problem at hand. My problem is with the amount, which is useless. It won't help those who need it and so its nothing more than a thing gov't can point to and say its doing something.

Raise the amount to what is required to pay for the daycare. Everyone with kids gets it. Don't waste money on means testing and other bureaucracy. Let the tax system simply tax it back in a progressive manner so that a single mom making $12 an hour gets her daycare fully covered but a family making 5 times that amount is only partially subsidized if at all.

That way it truly is universal and the money gets to those who need it which makes me happy and people are still free to spend it as they think best which should make others happy.

And as I've said, if the amount is a problem I'm happy to see a national debate on what could be cut instead.

I'm a believer in both democracy and compromise. I don't have to believe in something to help support it as long as I see the other side doing the same.

Frank

I think what we do need is an honest discussion on the issue. What I do find annoying is the real lack of substance I see in most discussion of it; for example, taking the Tories to task for "only" committing $1200 and crediting the Libs with creating a plan far in excess of anything they committed to fund, etc.

By all means let's get an honest estimate of the sort of plan we're actually talking about, determine the sources of funds/implications of funding it on the rest of government planning and invite Canadians to pass judgement. If nothing else it'd be useful to move the discussion beyond being the preserve of the idealogues on both sides

John, just to be clear, I have attacked Paul Martin and the oft-promised Liberal daycare plan on this site many times. When it comes to daycare its not Libs-good and Cons-bad, its simply that I want to see something that actually works and fixes the actual problem on the ground, not the one back in Ottawa.

Sort of a "core-review" of everything with the public doing the review, not accountants behind closed doors. Discuss what we consider to be the real priorities, compromise with the other side, do a little horse-trading etc. I would love to see it but I'm afraid I'll be long-buried before it ever happens.

Jonathan Ross could also have added to his article that the current $1,200 dollar a year Conservative plan is the same plan they put forward in 2004, but instead of calling it a tax credit (as they did back then) they made it a taxable payment. Marketing.

It sounds a lot better to say "1200 payment" than some nebulous benefit which no one can understand (tax credit).

The bottom line is that after-tax, very few people will walk away with $1,200. Its an election gimmick, not a child care plan.

Harper's cuts to existing programs are going to put public regulated child care in this province, and specifically in my riding - Vancouver-Kingsway - under water.

That is the reason Harper met a selected invited group in Burnaby that included NO child care providers other than parents.

Having seen regulated child care from the inside and the diverse range of families that are helped with such systems, I am - even being a Conservative - convinced to my very marrow that such funding and plans are required in our society... especially in big urban centres like Vancouver where dual incomes are not only the norm but on balance... required.

There's a reason why Emerson won't return the phone calls of centres like Collingwood Neighbourhood House, one of the larger child care and early education providers in the riding.

Before the election, Emerson was all for such organizations and funding for same.

After the election, he has to vote against what he once promised and supported.

Look to Emerson to completely avoid Collingwood and similar organizations until AFTER the budget makes its way through parliament (assuming it does), because then he can make up some excuse about how he "tried" to influence the government.

Day care and early education should be a goal we as a nation strive to achieve. Whether Harper's plan is more ideological leaning, a token to the "base", or a combinaiton of both wrapped up in a slightly more attractive sales package for the masses, the bottom line is that its inadequate and short changes Canadian families.

Conservatives are not of a single mind on this issue, even if the more rabid ideologues would have you believe so.

And its just one of many reasons why Emerson must resign and try to run again, on the platform that he must now vote for, not the one he sold himself on.

Cycling Commuter:

My comparison was more with creche-style care vs being cared for by one parent in surburbia. Certainly extended families are great ways to raise children, but unfortunately its unrealistic for many of us.

FWIW, my four year old hasn't been sick in ages (I just jinxed myself) because they're handwashing fanatics at her daycare. A great daycare. In no small part because they pay well and have staff that stick around because they don't get burnt out. Lucky for us. There could be more like it if we chose to spend tax dollars in that way.

Fanshaw:

Sorry for the leap of (ill)logic. I inferred a greater level of control than you implied. But, isn't birth control already pretty available? I think the biggest problem is men who won't wear condoms. So, if availability isn't an issue (I'm not convinced it is... am I wrong?) then we're left with some form of persuasion and coercion to lower the birth rate. Who would take on that role other than gov't or church?

Frank....I like your solution and your belief system. It makes a lot of sense, but in my daughter's case and I am sure, many others, it would be impossible for her to come up with the required amount each month. She has no money left after rent, food, gas, her portion of childcare costs, etc. We often have to give her money if unexpected things happen and they usually do. Luckily she is emotionally strong and copes very well in difficult times. I don't know that I could have been as strong and determined as she is, in the same circumstances. There are no easy answers in these times.

Fanshaw:

Further, how can we determine whether someone's ready or financially able to have a child? Is a ways and means test for procreation the way to go?

aalborg,

I know, that's why I would prefer to see your daughter receive a cheque every month to cover it beforehand. After she does her taxes the amount mailed, if any, would be adjusted to the previous year's taxes. If circumstances change a person would call up the local gov't office and restore funding back to full until the next year's taxes have been filled out.

Like the health care system it would be single payer but still offering you the choice of which daycare to choose.

Frank wrote:

...daycare for kids whose parent or parents needs to work to provide a roof over their heads and put food on the table.

You're aiming too low if you think the only way of helping the poor is to force parents to abandon their children to a constantly-rotating group of strangers in big, unionized daycare centres. Anyone who thinks tearing children away from their parents is the best answer is just being a stooge to the ultra-rich. There are better alternatives, for example:

1) A much higher minimum wage, offset by a substantial tax break for employers who provide useful on-the-job training. When minimum wages were first introduced, employers responded by providing on-the-job-training to enhance workers' productivity enough to offset the extra wage costs. Enhanced productivity often means investing in capital equipment. Employers who provide on-the-job training should be allowed to write-off their capital equipment at a much faster rate than employers who poach experienced workers from other employers without providing training. Small employers can't enhance productivity through on-the-job training and capital equipment investments if militant unions impose narrow, rigid job descriptions that prevent higher-paid workers from doing a wider variety of types of work. Union bosses have to play ball too.

My first full-time job was a $5.95 per hour minimum wage factory job. By living a very frugal lifestyle and working all the overtime I could get plus doing contract work on weekends, I was able to save-up enough for half a down-payment on a $54,000 starter home in Burnaby which I purchased together with one of my brothers. After taking advantage of on-the-job learning opportunities to enhance my skills, I was able to more than double my income within a couple of years, sell my half of the home to my brother who had started to raise a family by then, and buy a home of my own.

Both my brother and I bought homes in our early 20s BEFORE starting families instead of spending our incomes on parties, drugs, fancy cars, fancy restaurants, fancy vacations and so forth. Even birds have enough brains to build a nest BEFORE laying eggs. People should try to be as smart as birds.

Since that time, the minimum wage has gone up about 30 percent but housing costs have risen 1,000 percent. The minimum wage is seriously out of synch with the cost of living.

2) Change the regressive property tax system to a progressive system with no property taxes payable by those with homes of average value or less. Tighten the tax screws on ultra-rich multibillionaire drug baron / land baron types to compensate.

3) Take other substantial steps to help people buy homes so we can be like Singapore where over 90 percent of people own their homes.

4) Eliminate income taxes on low-income people and boost income taxes on the ultra-rich.

5) Eliminate sales taxes on necessities and boost them on luxuries.

6) Enhance the ability of single parents to run a small business from home so they can raise their kids at the same time they're earning a living. This is especially practical when there is only one child to care for. Last time I was at the Point Roberts post office, I chatted with a very enthusiastic young woman who was mailing about 50 small packages. These were miscellaneous items that she had sold through eBay. She said she was earning about $2,000 per month by browsing through local thrift stores to find deals on things she knew would sell well on eBay.com. She was a single mother. Her kid usually enjoyed going along with her when she visited thrift stores, but generally a relative looked after the kid during her once a week trip to Point Roberts to mail the items she had sold. The kid liked watching her and asking lots of questions as she packaged items for sale, and occasionally even volunteered to help a little.

7) Get serious about arranging job-swapping systems so people can find work closer to home and spend more time and money raising their kids, less time and money on buses and cars.

Cycling
Although I admire your enthusiasm you are a little too wound up.
Your views on wife swapping may be too extreme for this site.
Only kidding.
Homes in the middle 20's were cheap compared to today.
Those that made good decisions then, should be rewarded today.

Stump:

I think the problem is women who have sex with men who don't wear condoms.

There you go, dragging the 'we' into it again. They (meaning prospective parents) should look at their family income, subtract from it the cost of having a child, and if it comes out to a negative balance they shouldn't procreate. Sorry if that sounds Dickensian. Having kids is not like buying furniture from the Brick. Nobody comes to repossess if you can't afford the 'payments' and kids grow up in poverty.

Surely no one actually sees the $1200/child so-called child care program as anything but Harper's first payment on account to the religious and fundamental families in his base constituency.

It's what he promised before the election and no one took it seriously as a practical child care alternative then. Why all the debate now?

This is the Prime Minister's way of paying off all the right wing Christian families who supported him: The same ones who believe that all mothers should stay at home and raise their children. To them $100/child per month is a nice bit of change, they're at home anyway and since it's taxable in the hands of the lowest earning spouse they'd have to have a lot of children under the age of 6 before there was any threat of a claw back.

For actual working women it's clear this won't do as real assistance and if the woman is employed outside the home (but is still the lower earning party if married) the benefit will be taxable as well.

Anyway, for those women who really need daycare it's not so much the money that's the problem as the actual availability of spaces. Harper has agreed to fund the Liberal program for one year, except in Quebec (where all bets are off because his new best friend Charest's popularity is approaching single digits). In the rest of Canada the extra money won't create one new day care space. It is true that the Liberal program was far from perfect in terms of meeting a need for more spaces in properly run and certified centres, but it actually did propose stable funding for existing spaces and budgeted for some increase in actual numbers of new spaces as well.

Harper's plan does neither. In fact, after next year, there is every probability that there will be fewer approved places than there are now. This payment is nothing but a sop for his friends; to call it a daycare program of any kind is nonsense.

If anyone who thought Harper was a sleaze before this program became law decides to vote for him in the next election on the basis of this kind of a blatant bribe, the only conclusion I can draw about them is that they don't value their vote very highly.

Cycling Commuter,

Although you prefaced your statement with the word "if" I think you're simply erecting a straw-man so as to argue with what you'd like me to say.

Argue with what I actually write or read my posts again and tell me where I say what you tell me I said.

It's also "consoling" to read back through many of yesterday's posts (no doubt many of them from men) which seem more than sanguine about the prospect of government telling women what's necessary for them to 'behave' with respect to their lives, responsibilities and lifestyles. Thanks 'daddy' that sort of thing is so 20th century.

I'm quite sure if you guys were organizing peoples' relationships and morals this would be a perfect world.

Giving Stephen Harper the authority to tell us 'how' we ought to live is the central question at the heart of his whole concevative revolution.

should be "conservative" revolution - haven't finished my coffee yet, sorry!

C.C. wrote

God I almost fell over and rolled on the floor with that one, very good!!

Frank wrote:

Thank you for that, it was refreshing to see.

Mwatkins wrote:

Actually my friend’s wife works there as a parent and as a child care provider.

G West wrote:

Well it makes a change from having Martin and the Liberals telling me how to live and punishing anyone who does not follow their belief pattern.

I personally believe the $1200 is a good first step, but not the only solution. No matter what is chosen it will not work for everyone, what works in a Urban area will not work in a rural area. What works for a Canadian born family, may not be acceptable for a immigrant family.

Organized daycare as proposed (hope you weren’t planning on holding your breath on the funding) by the Liberals would have benefited mainly the Urban dwellers, leaving rural parents up the creek. One model will not fit every situation.

My wife met the Infant development people that came to assess our daughter, they are nice people but obsessed with promoting their view on how things should be. When asked why she doesn’t use a spoon to eat, my wife said, I eat with my hands why can’t she? Also they want us to use developmental toys, which she ignores for the far more interesting box it came in. The cultural mosaic that is Canada also makes daycare tricky. Would you want your dollars going to a Muslim based daycare that promotes the separation of boys and girls and shows favouritism to the boys?

Actually if you wanted a system that provides for lots of child-care. Then polygamy would be the way to go, two adults could work will one stays home to raise the kids or two stay home will one works.

As for the debate on whether to have kids or not, the population of Canada would be declining if it was not for immigration. Although it does seem that the people who should not have kids seem to pop them out regularly, while people that would love to have them can’t.

BRING DOWN THE HARPER GOVERNMENT!!!!!
300 million for another election is a small price to pay to remove this collection of short-sighted crooks and their psychotic dictator!

Hey, do I have a deal for all these social conservatives who think public funding for child care is too expensive or a gift to the lazy.

Your tax dollars will be spent housing adults who might have benefited from a bit of structured care had it been available to them.

Instead these non-child cared adults are getting to learn social niceties in overcrowded jails and other publicly funded institutions.

But here's the real prize for economic stupidity so deserving of the social Darwinists. The cost for a post-secondary educated child care worker is on average less than $30,000 a year.

In most child care centres one shift is about all that is required to run the centre safely and efficiently.

But no, you Milt Friedman types think that's a rip off, so instead you get to help pay the wages for prison guards and the rest of the judicial/corrections/punishment industry.

Guess what. You won't get half a prison guard for $30,000 a year. And unlike the child care worker who locks up after eight or nine hours, that high-priced guard is replaced by another and then another to ensure you can sleep knowing these former children are not prying open your back door.

So it's $180,000 a year for 24-hour supervision of former kids or $30,000 to ensure they won't need publicly funded supervision when they grow up.

BTW, I have to chuckle at the brain surgeon somewhere above who was bemoaning the fact that childcare centres actually increase the likelihood children will get the lastest flu, cold or even measles making its way through a community.

Don't want to put too fine a point on it, but I'd say that sounds like a pretty good means of ensuring your child will at least develop the proper immunities to a whole array of potential illnesses the child will face over a lifetime.

Sealed environments are great if you plan to live in one for your entire life. Otherwise, the best option is to get a life.

says Colin.

Toward what? Toward rewarding the stay at home parents already in Harper's tent surely and nothing more. All Harper has actually done for childcare is to promise to reduce the chintzy funding for a needed program that the Liberals eventually, and reluctantly, started to provide. Certainly no reason to cheer for anyone, in my opinion. If Harper thinks he can fashion the winning conditions for a majority government on this thin pretext I think he’s failed to consider the hundreds of thousands of young and middle aged women in this country who actually have a clue about what juggling a job and a family is really all about.

As to your own personal concerns and observations, Colin, pardon me but I just don't think they're relevant or helpful. If Muslims want daycare that appeals to their cultural norms and the appropriate training and health concerns are allowed for, why not?

Further, you and anyone else who feels they know all the answers to the question about who should or should not have kids were tiresome three generations ago and you're not getting any more relevant as the years roll on. On thing that's always certain on that score is that critics can always think of hundreds of examples where retroactive abortion would be a great idea.
Thank god human beings aren't "blessed" with the capacity to act on that kind of hindsight.

Cycling communter, where did you learn to argue? The Rovian school of baffel gab and misdirection?

Why not just be honest about your biases instead of trotting out nonsense and constructing straw men?

Based on what you've written, you don't like the idea of organized daycare. In fact you don't like anyone taking care of children other than parents or, at worst, extended family.

Instead of rolling out garbage like your idealized notions of hunter/gatherer families (You have a lot of personal familiarity with that way of life do you? What pray tell were the hunter/gatherer mortality rates among children?), why don't you focus on explaining the pros and cons of parental only care, along with ways of actually enabling this economically in our current context that aren't simply notions (e.g., property tax relief) that would benefit you personally? Oh, and when you do that, please explain how parents can also educate themselves on how to provide early learning opportunities for their tots in our ever accelerating information world, all while paying the bills, shopping for food, doing laundry, and working. Then let us know how to handle ESL immigrant families who have little knowledge of Canadian society and how to navigate through it, to say nothing of their young children who they want to help integrate into society, but have a poverty of tools with which to do it.

It's all well and good for you that your self-congradulatory foresight and temporal luck to be buying at a time of low housing prices promoted you to the propertied class; thus enabling you to lord your status and self-professed superiority over the pleabs you accuse of blowing all their hard earned cash on self medication. I mean those lazy f*cks don't deserve the sweat off your cycling ass right? But so what? Your good fortune and narcissism might work well when you stare lovingly in the mirror, but they do little to solve problems facing most parents of young children, particularly those who have never enjoyed the economic good fortune and familial support you so clearly have.

What's more your tendency to slip straw men into the argument so you can then proudly punch them down is yet another indication of your inability to grasp a complex situation. You rely on unthought-out bias, and have to cobble together shibboleth you can pin on those you disagree with. You assertion that universal daycare equals giant factory complexes functioning as disease incubation chambers run by Fagin-like unionized trolls is a glaring example of idiotic hyperbole. What it does demonstrate is your profound ignorance of current daycare and early learning practice that actually pays attention to the wealth of research on what works, or at least those forms of it that aren't simply there for profit, something a universal government regulated program certainly wouldn't be.

The idea of one size fits all care and education died in the '60's. The primary reason factory thinking remains is due to the triumph of the mythologies of neo-liberal and monetarist economic policies, where the belief is that what you get should only be what you can directly buy.

That said no solution is a panacea. They all (whether familial or daycare child care) require careful thought, intelligent regulation, and community support from the public and all levels of government. But arguing like an ass by using misinformation makes it look like your object in contributing is some competitive urge beat up anyone who disagrees with your internal bias.

James Burns,must of had your Wheaties this morning...eh

good stuff,hoser ! now ,don't go readin my stuff,eh ...at least,wait,til i stop laughing at CC .

G West...."surely no one actually sees the $1200/child so called child care program as anything but Harper's first payment on account to the religious and fundamental families in his base community."

I thought the same thing and wrote Harper about this just after he was sworn in. He, of course, has not replied. Minister Diane Finlay has not replied to the letters I've written her either. I've accepted that arrogance and a complete lack of regard for citizens is high on their agenda. The repugnant party in the US displays that on a far grander scale than Harper and his group. Harper grows more confident with each day in power so I expect the judgemental arrogant attitude will become more apparent quite quickly.

I wrote that while my daughter's situation is far from perfect I did not believe passing judgement and penalizing her was the role of the government or anyone for that matter. I've never felt with any other government in Canada that they felt morally superior. I believe Harper does feel he is better than anyone else and it will be reflected in his policies. The 'conservative' websites in Canada are filled with judgements against liberals and others. Old fashioned ideas that were relevant at one point in our history, but not now in this day and age.

The bottom line is we have to put up with Harper and possibly for a long time. He will continue in his ways and we will be forced to adapt to his way of thinking. I can play the survival of the fittest game if forced to. The truth shall prevail though and it's just a question of time.

As a father, grandfather and Albertan, I am in agreement with several of the above posts favouring Haper's plan. Someone above said we Albertans think we are entitled. I would agree insofar as we Albertans generally consider ourselves entitled to responsible, accountable government that doesn't waste too many of our hard earned dollars. I didn't realize that was a crime or un Canadian. Like many Canadians, I am opposed to another government run bureaucratic boondoggle that takes on a life of it's own and over time morphs into something completely different than originally intended. Perhaps one of the "progressives" posting here could enlighten this old redneck with an example of one, just one thing that government does and does better than the private sector.
BTW, my daughter is a single mother, a university student and a working mother. She gets zip from the father of her son and does not want anything from him. She receives a small stipend monthly from the Alberta government but not enough to live on. Her family fills in the gaps as we should. I understand that in Switzerland if an individual requires support from government, the responsibility to provide same lies firstly with the individual's family, including cousins and perhaps this should be considered in this country.
Jesterjogger: By all means, let's have another Federal election. This time we will get the majority as most Canadians have already seen through the "Scary Stephen" meme and realize that it is just a fabrication of the left wing media and their loony cohorts.

I bow to you James Burns! I love it when someone writes so articulately and with such passion. The truth shines through and you don't have to re-read it to find the full meaning or the hidden meaning.

aalborg
No question. On the other hand, there are a lot of sensible people out there who see this stuff for what it actually is. I mean, really! Brian Mulroney as a 'green' crusader - the irony of having that smooze-fest yesterday hosted by Rick Mercer can't have been lost on anyone with a functioning memory and a single operative brain cell.

Of course, Harper is a 'crusader' and a fundamentalist republican ideologue at that. He has a 'plan' for all of us: Somehow or other he has to be prevented from winning a majority.

In a sense the fact that the GOP is finally being revealed for what it really is south of the border does give me a little hope.

Hang in there.

Oilbertan -

Don't pay much attention to some of the posts you read here. This site is generally reserved for the ultra-left in this province.

Those same british columbians that you see puff-puff-giving in front of the art gallery protesting everything from cut-backs, the war in iraq, legalization of drugs - and of course, David Emerson.

I would like to thank your attitude and the great attitudes of your fellow province-men, who have inspired most British Columbians to achieve more.

Keep up the good work!!

Yeh, Oilbertan, but you should know that Capitalism, above here, is actually mabelbc and the following pretty much sums up his serious and concstructive attitude toward life. Before you pay too much attention to anything he writes, you should read this:

Pretty inspiring, eh?

G West:

It looks like mabellbc knows how to have a good time. I am inspired by that post!!

You should do the same, go out there, relax, have a cocktail and enjoy life.

"There you go, dragging the 'we' into it again. They (meaning prospective parents) should look at their family income, subtract from it the cost of having a child, and if it comes out to a negative balance they shouldn't procreate. Sorry if that sounds Dickensian. Having kids is not like buying furniture from the Brick. Nobody comes to repossess if you can't afford the 'payments' and kids grow up in poverty."

Actually, when the poverty is extreme enough, isn't that what the Ministry of Families does, repo the kids?

While I agree with you in theory that one shouldn't have kids they can't afford, life is far more messy and unpredictable than that, and further, most people can barely do their taxes, how are we going to teach them whether or not they can afford an eighteen year investment of time and money into a child? And how does one quantify whether you can 'afford' a kid? It's completely different for every family.

I think you have a good idea, but unless you can describe for me how it would work in the real world it seems unworkable.

"This site is generally reserved for the ultra-left in this province."

As you know, you post here freely despite being in the minority. No reservations required.

"This time we will get the majority as most Canadians have already seen through the "Scary Stephen" meme and realize that it is just a fabrication of the left wing media and their loony cohorts."

The same Simple Stephen who promised accountability, a reduction in the gas tax, and openness in gov't; while wooing Emerson with sugarplums of power, flip-flopping on the tax, and muzzling his ministers? You bet Canadians are seeing right thru the latest Lie Minister and his lies.

We do understand that not one of the federal parties have committed to providing free daycare, or even cheap daycare, right? Saying the Tories are "only offering $1200", without knowing what the alternatives are, is nothing less than silly. Let's stay focussed, folks.

Suggestion:
Invite the Libs, NDP, Bloc and your respective provincial government to commit upfront then decide. Here in Ontario Dalton would have to pony up about $1 billion per year to cover the provincial contribution. For the math heads:

Ontario has about 1/3 of the population so we'll assume a bit over $3 billion. The provincial share of the pie is expected to be 40% (plus 40% federal, 20% parent). We'll round it to $1 billion.

What about it Dalton? Ready to sign on?

The 1200 dollars is 'not' daycare. It's a bribe, plain and simple, for folks who might think of voting for Harper's ideological agenda next time and a reward for those true believers who already have. Nothing more, nothing less.

G west
If Harper gets the $1200 into this budget, then he has done more in 4 months on the issue than the empty promises by the Liberals for the last decade. We both know the track record of the Liberals and their promises, so we can take their plan off the table. As I said before the Bloc and NDP are in a position to get more concessions on this issues by agreeing not to block other things (Closing the long gun registry would be an easy one). Personally I think Jack Layton will avoid doing so as they want ammunition to attack the CPC rather than to deal with the issue, hopefully I am wrong.

As far as how the child is raised. I do take what they are being taught very seriously, as I have a mixed cultural marriage it has been an issue that has taken some very tricky navigation to deal with. By the way “traditional” Muslim norms are in conflict with our Cultural and legal norms.

It may be a “tired argument” about some people and they way they raise (or don’t) their kids, but when you know people that would desperately love to have a kid and would make fine parents, but can’t. It breaks your heart everytime you see them look at your kid with that deep sadness in their eyes.

Allan actually raised a good point, that investing into the kids is far cheaper than dealing with the social issues later on. But I caution that a government run daycare may not be the magic pill to eliminate those social problems.

I work for the government and I see that even well intentioned programs can become failures or have high administration costs. A program run at the Federal level will be required to follow federal rules for funding, language, human resources, environment, etc. I personally would like to see responsibility for daycare at no higher than provincial. But as shown by the Ted Huges inquiry, that doesn’t mean it will be a workable system either.

Perhaps a better idea would be locally organized daycares where parents can send the $1200 in non-taxable money to the daycare that then gets matching funds, increasing the money to $2400 dollars towards each child.

Let's be honest here, the $1,200 is not fully funded child care. However, it is a great start and a great help.

Like Colin said, this $1,200 will be more than the Liberals ever provided.

There are going to be people like G West who are so far ideologically left wing, that they will slam everything Harper ever proposes.

There is a little something in this proposed budget for everyone. It sounds like it will be modest and responsible.

Of course the fact that with or without it the same parents won't be able to afford actual daycare is unimportant. Because this daycare plan is not meant to provide actual daycare, its meant to provide pretend-care.

The important thing is that for $1200 the gov't can buy off a problem. Anyone who can't see the obvious non-potential of this non-plan is obviously too left-wing.

Instead I say we pour lots of money into the Olympics so the little grubs can one day watch on tv what people with access to not only daycare but gov't funded equipment, coaches and training can do.

aalborg, phone the gov't and tell them your grandson loves the luge. They'll throw money at you.

I watched the entire Mulroney thing yesterday in morbid fascination. What surprised me was my initial reaction. It was a relief to see him. I have disliked that man intensely since the day he was elected leader of the PC's way back when. I guess it is too much exposure to Bush and now Harper that made Mulroney look good. That was only my initial reaction. I quickly got back to reality.

For a good take on the American POV go to salon.com. Read the threads in politics and white house. These are the voices of US citizens who have finally woken up to what is going on in the oval office. Maybe my participation there colours my view of Harper and his gang, but I don't think so. It's a pay site but I think you can do read only.

Colin...I don't get why you continue to say the liberals have done nothing in regards to child care. The province said they needed x amount of dollars per year for child care subsidies and the feds transfered that money. Harper has committed to that transfer until March/07 and will then stop. In the meantime he's sending out $1200. which is to replace the transfer payments. So chanting the liberals did nothing is incorrect. The libs didn't build child care centres but they did fund daycare spaces that were created by licensed and registered providers. A lot of people are working in the daycare field because of the subsidies and a lot of people, mainly women, are able to work at jobs that help support or supplement the family in a better way. The daycare providers would have less clients if the subsidies did not exist. It has enabled people to get off social assistance and experience the self-worth that comes from providing for oneself and family. The liberals were realistic in what the actual costs are, unlike Harper. I think it's fairly well established that it is a way to buy votes and that ultimately he believes the little woman should be at home with the kids. He is rewarding the SAHM and neglecting the women who don't fit his idea of womanhood. What part of this don't you get?

Frank....just caught your post once I posted the one above. Funny you should say that about phoning the govt. and telling them B. loves the luge. As a proud Grandma I do have to say that, if you could see him play soccer you'd be amazed! He's 28 months old and can kick as straight as an arrow into the net from any distance and any angle. His father plays all england rugby so there is a lot to be said for genetics. He's also got an arm that can throw the baseball straight at the target and with a fair amount of speed. I have a cut on my forehead to prove it. He wanted me to catch and, well I'm just not as quick as I once was!

I dislike grandma/pa stories about their wondrous offspring so will stop my bragging. Your comment set me off though!

Aalborg

I look forward to you showing me where that actually happened then I will print a retraction.

Capitalism/maybelle
Damn right!

I've been doing it since long before he got elected and I'll keep doing it until he's faded into the sunset. He's a clever, directed individual who doesn't tell the truth, misrepresents what he does believe and thinks he's much smarter than the rest of us. Moreover, he wants to hand this country over to selfish single-minded hedonists like you who make statements like:

Exactly, maybelle, you want your entitlements and your corporate welfare and your dividend tax credits and your capital gains holiday and you're perfectly happy if the only benefit the rest of society not as 'fortunate' as you are get is from the slop-over off your overloaded plate when you're sidling up to the ‘all you can eat’ buffet in Vegas.

What's not to love?

As for my politics, maybelle, like everything else you post - you haven't got a clue. You might be surprised at the number of actual conservatives who also think Peewee is the worst thing to ever hit what was once 'their' party.

They, unlike you, have an affinity for the truth.

Roll those dice and have another drink!

Colin:

Then I take it you are aware that your little military hero in mufti 'has' agreed to continue to fund existing provincial programs until 2007 as agreed by the former FEDERAL government. – that the ‘plan’ you’re talking about?

Glad we don't have to go over that again; I thought maybe you'd missed Harper's commitment in the budget.

That's precisely my point. The 1200 bucks is a bribe or a payoff which has absolutely nothing to do with daycare; Harper axed subsequent federal support for provincial programs (with the exception of a side deal for Quebec) and he has, as of this moment, no daycare program at all. Apart from rewarding his friends and delivering a watered down version of his accountability bill, Peewee has done absolutely nothing but burnish his image and try to look presidential.

Oh, and he did spend a weekend in Afghanistan listening to General Hillier extemporize about his cultural sensitivities. In addition, today he appointed a known racist to oversee government appointments and policies.

What good news were you thinking about?

Geez, IAMC, does this mean that if you guess wrong in your stock picks or other investment choices in your RRSp (remember that there are not going to be public pensions in your ideology...), you will cheerfully starve in your retirement because it is "justice" that you should suffer for your poor decisions? Check out the pet food specials. You'll really like those 'chunks of real meat in a tasty, nutritious gravy'...

R. Smiley

Well, for starters, BC Minister, Linda Reid told me so herself. On the phone and by letter. I mentioned this fact before. It is her ministry which is in talks with Ottawa as to how BC will fund daycare subsidies once the transfer payments stop. She said we are ok for this year but if negotiations with Ottawa did not result in continuing transfer payments then BC will have to find alternate ways of doing it. She didn't say they would cancel it, but then again she doesn't need to take flack until she knows the big picture. She is no doubt leaving the flack to Harper for the moment. Not that I need to prove it to you, but I have letters from Campbell on down stating the same thing. The Campbell government, unlike the Harper one, does at least respond to inquiries. The subsidy my daughter recieves isn't fog. Her daycare provider is issued a cheque each month for a certain amount from the BC government. It varies depending on if my daughter works overtime or not. My daughter pays the balance which equates to what the provider charges for her service on a monthly basis. So unless I let you into my life, like that would ever happen, I can't give you cites. It's based on personal interaction with the governments and the reality of my family.

I thought you mentioned you worked in government. What level of government do you work for? It would appear you are seriously uninformed for a government worker at any level. Unless you mean a government job such as garbage disposal or sewer maintenance. Do you have time to post on the net at work? Nice. Is this an example of my tax dollars at work?

ripponfalls
Interesting you should bring up dog food, well articulated point too. About a fortnight ago I happened to watch Jay Leno for a few minutes before I headed for bed. He was interviewing Paul Newman, someone I've always kind of liked and Newman, on a dare from Leno ate upwards of half a can of some new organic dog food that Newman and his daughter are introducing. He seemed to enjoy it.
Hope IAMC sees your post, and mine, if it ever comes to that – wouldn’t want him gagging on those chunks.
Cheers.

Ahh, the ebb and flow of the Tyee....Harper's plan will cost roughly $3 Billion per year based on there being about 2.5 million kids under the age of six. The author says that our target expenditures should be 4$ billion per year based on OCED statistics. Neither figure buys us a suitable solution for the day care issue in Canada.

As for those lamenting that Harper is merely bribing his supporters, welcome to modern governance in Canada. If you're a supporter than you can get the birbe too.

NoLeftNutter

No lament - just business as usual - watching Harper follow through on his agenda and hoping that some may actually begin to see the rascal for what he is and not what he pretends to be.

Thus far, he's running precisely true to form.

Wow!

Given how much the per child cost is estimated to be the cost for our "national child care plan" is wildly above what any party has committed to if we assume all, or even most, of 2.5 million kids would be signed up. I wonder if that's why none of them will actually sign on; each one is waiting for the other to bite the bullet

Ahh, the usual ebb and flow of Tyee, where the socialists will never be satisfied with any govt social programme unless it delivers a perfect outcome at any cost without regards to limited resources. Some of you here talk as if the govt has an endless flow of money to satisfiy any and all needs. Politics is about the struggle for the allocation of limited resources.

Sure, it'd be nice to grant alot more than $1200 per child for daycare. Socialists think they are more compassionate than conservatives, but the voting public knows that simply isn't the case. Which is why the NDP has trouble forming a govt. But, like Glen Clark's govt, irresponsible social spending and budgeting simply results in even worse social services.

BobbyPeru

Thankyou so much for these insights..and for sharing them. The originality and illumination of these pearls of wisdom can only lead one to surmise they`re gleaned from the troglydyte book of absolutes.

bobby the pinhead says,hey folks

this is the same amount of monies that was used as a BABY BONUS,way back when

so what is new ?

BTC

i wish ,i could be as eloquent as you !

feeling,so,insecure after your posts .

And that's why some of us push for the money to go to kids and not to subsiding the Canucks or the oil industry or a million other "compassionate" programs.

If only right-wingers worried as much about the effect on the budget when they're throwing money around at Olympic athletes and their two-week party as they do when the issue is helping kids.

Too bad Harper wasn't in charge in BC, I would have loved to have seen him fund a bridge that covers only 15% of the span. Then tell us the gov't did its part and we just need to think creatively and use our own resources to get the rest of the way over.

Somehow I think if Ipsos-Reid asked people if they wanted the health-care and child services systems of 1995 or the one of 2005 all but the most ideological would pick the former.

Which party platform offered to build the entire "bridge"?

Limited resources ?
It's not like there is one pie, and we need to decide who gets a slice and what size that slice should be.
That's the socialost way of looking at life.
Try to divide on pie so suit all their special interest groups.
Far be it for them to be creative enough to bake another pie.
The CPC got this and moved into Quebec.
Another pie! See what I mean ?

There will never be a resolution to this or any other issue. It seems to me Canadians have become very self-serving. I don't like it but it appears to be the new reality and I will have to adjust to the fact.

I think I've read too many conservative blogs today and I am very disillusioned. That's probably too mild a word. Depressed would be more appropriate. I hate the east/west gloating thing all tied in with some weird christian faith/values that make no sense to me. I never considered I'd encounter those mega church types with strange names in this country. I thought it was a American phenonomon. Give me the good old Anglican Church where wingnuts don't rule. Tolerance and compassion are the mainstays and based on hundreds of years of tradition.

I consider myself Canadian and not an Albertan who has lived in BC for 30 years. Tho' I am thankful to have made the move to BC when I read the wackaloon blogs out of Alberta. If my parents weren't still there I don't think I'd go near the place. But go I must, holding my nose the entire time I'm sure.

I'm going to start demanding lower taxes. The $40k/year I waste on Ottawa will be better off in my pocket. I'll help my daughter and her son myself. So maybe Harpo's got me to a certain point. Less government and tax cuts. Then I can ensure my grandson and daughter aren't treated like second class citizens by the rigid robot and the born again freaks he hangs with in Ottawa and Alberta. I have always been happy to fund the programs that would ensure equality to all. That equality is not going to be a reality under the Harpo government so I'm pissed off and I want to keep my money myself and take care of my own. Not having to associate with Harper-like people would suit me just fine. I'm left feeling quite dirty after reading their blogs. So, survival of the fittest is my new mantra. Now give me back my money.

Humbug!!

What happened to 'we're putting off having children until we can afford it'?

We're giving cash to people who can't manage their money.
I believe in the tax shelter - but cold, hard, taxpayer cash to people for having kids? It's the ultimate socialism.

Dunno Jack's
You get what you pay for. In the final analysis children are this country's only real resource. You might like to think you're being hardheaded and practical, I think you haven't really thought this through.
The only person suggesting that we give cash to people for having kids is Stephen Harper. If you disagree, I hope you remember that come the next election.

What happened to 'we're putting off having children until we can afford it'?

The birth rate seems to show they can never " afford it"

Something happened....

Frank:

Truthfully, I have been very blessed and neither me, nor those close to me have had considerable experiences in hospitals. I see my GP every year, and that service hasn't changed.

Now, much has changed since 1995 including demographics and health care costs, BUT ASSUMING you are right and health-care in 1995 was better BECAUSE of the NDP - fine - there is much more to society than healthcare.

That is the classic socialist arguement - healthcare. When they have nothing to say, it is healthcare, kids, single moms and old people - the 4 things that generate sympathy.

I remember the 90s for the era of waste, over-budget boondoggles, ridiculous social spending, heavy taxation and the massive corporate and professional exodus. The 90's were the first time that we actually saw net migration away from BC....which is absurd - because who would leave beautiful BC if they didn't have to....

And Frank - please save the commodities and collapse of the Japanese market for another time

not true,in QUEBEC,you get monies for your kids,the more kids the more the ALLOWANCE.

had something to do with dwindling francophone population,if i remember correctly

well,it's plain to see people like you do not care,so,some one has to say something !

maybelle/Capitalism

It is hardly surprising you might want to avoid the outcome of your previous altercations with Frank. The fact that the 90s saw some out-migration of 'entrepreneurs' who no longer found the atmosphere in B.C. quite so attractive (increases in the minimum wage for example) as it was in more business-friendly times has been more than made up since in the subsequent in-migration of summer settlers from the east who bring their me-centered Alberta-bred selfishness to British Columbia.

Has it been a 'wash'?

Who knows? For people who only measure success by the size of their wallet and the health of their investment portfolio, it's not too difficult to decide.

For others, who tend to take a longer-term, more people-oriented attitude, 1995 still looks pretty good. But then, I don't spend my down time getting sh*tfaced and playing the tables in Vegas - what do I know?

Thomas 49
You're right. I was speaking in the Federal context and specifically with respect to a comparison between what Harper is doing and what was the case prior to the election. In fact, it's much more complicated than that too because Harper has also apparently made a longer-term commitment to Charest for daycare funding in PQ than he has for the other provinces. A point I haven't seen much noted in the press either.

Capitalism,

I didn't exactly say that, federal policies had a big effect resulting in the decline of health care after 1995. I've said that lots of times on here.

No one would ever accuse me of having nothing to say. But yes, my ideology is shaped by the things I believe are important and which in my view should be the priorities of society. I don't expect everyone to agree with me but I do try to make sure what I consider important isn't ignored.

I will, being as its the weekend and I have lots of other things to do that are more important than providing fifty links to BC Stats and Stats Canada. I also have the advantage of just going back to previous arguments I've had with JIm, Jean Binette, Ron Erwin, et al and quoting myself :-)

Capitalism.....What does your little world comprise of, if not your fellow citizens? God, I'd hate to be so shallow that the lot of parents, their children, seniors, healthcare etc. were unimportant to me. Like, what do you think about on a daily basis? Do you feel joyful when someone is suffering or experiencing difficulty? You figure they got what they deserve because they don't fit into your narrow little worldview? I guess you'd never be able to expand your shallowness to the rest of the world and the myriad of problems facing us. As I posted yesterday, the conservative mind-set is depressing and such self-involvement is surely the sign of a sick mind and spirit.

G West,

I love the posts - I find you very funny! Keep it up! Good content to your little paragraph too!

Frank,

You're posts are starting to sound a little more realistic. I've read a few of the things you've said of late and can't contradict much.

I know the BC Libs/Conservative agenda has left many behind - however it does bother me when people refuse to acknowledge some of their many accomplishments!!

Gotta go - there is a few cold beers in the fridge waiting for me!!

Messy and unpredictable, I agree and I have no problem paying daycare costs for those whose circumstances require it. But $1200/yr/child under six regarless of circumstance is a tax cut, not a daycare plan.

When I was in school there was a course called General Business 11; basically in introduction to household economics and math and consumer literactcy. We learned about budgeting, balancing a chequebook, taxes, contracts, credit and borrowing etc. I think something as useful and basic as this should be a requirement for graduation. Throw in a component on birth control and date-rape ju-jitsu and VOILA! Not perfect, but a good start IMHO.

fanshaw
I would think it;s a welcome thought you make about ' General Business 11 '
This course unfortunately , doesn't exist in it's previous form. Too bad.

A recent poll conducted in Alberta has concluded that there is mutiny in Harper's own backyard. Albertans favour keeping existing federal-provincial child care plans. The vast majority don't want the conservative child care scheme. 50% of Albertans oppose conservtives plan to cancel the funding agreements reached by the previous liberal government with the provinces and territories and create a taxable allowance of $100./month for kids under 6. Only 37% support Harper's scheme.

So he isn't in touch with his own province. And he's willing to have his government fall on the child care issue? Do ya think the power has gone to his head? Do ya think his arrogance is out of control? Wouldn't it be great to see him and his party tossed to the back of the House for this? With about 20 seats? If those in the land of milk and honey don't want or can't afford to lose the subsidies then maybe life isn't so great there after all. Or maybe they heard Quebec has a side deal in regards to this issue and they aren't going to allow Quebec to get more than them. And how accountible is Harper if he makes side deals with Quebec? Is it any different than the Libs paying them off to keep them within Canada? Doesn't sound like it to me.

I can't make links but the web address is:
cupe.ca/www/News/20918

Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of the end. Throw this 'war' thing into the mix, ignore the dead soldiers and their families, the control freak attitude, the muzzled MPs, not talking to the press in an open way, loving and emulating Bush at 33% in the polls,(one of the most reviled men in the world today) and he could be cruising for a bruising! This is looking good. Got to go and check out those neocon blogs and see what spin those mental midgets are putting on this.

I guess I can make links with the help of the Tyee website!!

It's so depressing to see the brand of extreme and unbalanced socialism that continues to thrive in BC. None of you have learned the lessons from Glen Clark and still hope that voters will see your light and vote you back into office just because you say you are more decent, caring and compassionate towards the poor. There isn't a govt programme that you wouldn't throw money into just to support your overpaid union friends.

Unfortunately, there's more to running a govt than funding social programmes; gov'ts exist to manage many aspects of society and the economy not just to solve the problems of the poor. The way you socialists sound there's nothing more important than funding daycare to the max. There are things equally important. And that was the very thing you guys missed when you last had power in BC. You treated business, big and small business owners with such utter disdain you drove them out of the province and hurt the economy. Without a strong economy you have no tax revenues to fund social programmes.

And arguments above stating that it was the greediest BC'ers who fled BC during the awful 90s, those companies that wouldn't support minimum wages, are so woefully ignorant I can only say that some of you socialists posting here are either union workers, university profs, social activists or people who don't work in the real world.

Sure, child care is important- you socialists don't have the monopoly on compassion- but social programmes that are designed to be sustainable are even more important. It's no used throwing money at a social problem and then finding you can't sustain the programme. But, then economics and business were never your strong points. Like the Fast Ferries- what did that have to do with social compassion. It was just another NDP boondoggle and banquet for union friends.

If it's not an exhorbitant day care centre programme, it's drug rehab clinics on every corner. At least we're not going to have the Govt involved in running day care centres staffed with overpaid union workers. The cash credit is the sensible solution.

BobbyPeru
The cash credit is no solution at all. Five paragraphs of nonsense about how much you disagree with Glen Clark and not a word about how $100/child/month will address real child care issues in this province or elsewhere is worse than a waste of time. Spare me!

Why wasn't daycare talked about on this site 3 years ago ?
I laugh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha at the hypocrisy of the left ( NDP @ 14% support )
I guess they were too busy trying to cover up the 70,000 unsolved murders in Venezuela. Or attempting to mask the YWCA as not being a far left wing feminist movement.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20060423/cx_db_uc/db20060423

hey IAMC ,check this out

from one of the greatest cartoonist' ever

If you think the NDP gov't was socialist you need to read some books or take a few classes.

You're assuming, wrongly, that our priorities are to get the NDP elected and that we use the poor as a vehicle to do so. Again, you're wrong. I could care less if one capitalist gov't (BC Libs) is replaced by another capitalist gov't albeit one with a slightly more human face.

Instead, it would be better to assume our priorities are indeed the poor and disadvantaged and the NDP is nothing more than a convenient vehicle to hitch on to for the present time.

Actually there are many projects I don't support and which are supported by unions, one being the Olympics.

There are few things more important for a gov't to do than helping the less fortunate. I consider twinning the Port Mann, building RAV, hosting the Olympics, subsidizing business both directly and indirectly to be much further down on the list of priorities. You seem to disagree.

I can only speak for myself, but yes. There are few things more important to me than making sure children are given good opportunities to learn and be creative in a safe environment.

You didn't name any.

That is a perception that's out there. Without going into detail, and I could I assure you, the Harcourt gov't did in fact have the strongest economy in Canada at various points with the highest rate of in-migration. If you stay around longer than a week I'll happily back up my points with more data than you can read in a month.

And if those tax dollars are wasted on circuses and cash payouts to business buddies then it doesn't matter what kind of economy you have.

I am none of the above. But good first attempt at demonizing everyone who disagrees with you. You'll fit in well here.

-
I don't claim we do, it just feels like that much of the time.

So... sustain it. I wish the same criteria was applied to other areas of gov't mis-spending.

I took economics in university and I run my own business, can you say the same? Not that it means anything, you don't have to have a degree for me to take your opinion seriously.

At least the money spent stayed in BC unlike the new ferries being built in Germany. Have you ever heard of the multiplier effect? Are you familiar with Sir Keynes speech about digging a hole in the ground?

Surely you jest. $100 a month is not going to fix anything any more than building a bridge 15% of the way across the Fraser would.

Again, I ask, where was this passion for the welfare of children expressed by you regular bloggers a few years ago, or even last month ?
Hypocites all of you.

You have evidence that the topic was raised and no one was interested? Please provide a link

Yet you don't list anything? Wanna hear my list of Harper-hypocrisies after only a couple of months? As for the NDP, they did pretty well in the last federal and provincial elections.

You might want to tell your fellow right-wing bloggers that Chavez is getting over 80% support in recent polls.

I AM Clueless:

"Hypocites" - please clarify.

From recent poll

Question #7
Which of the following political parties in British Columbia do you support at this moment in time?
BC Liberals 37.5 %
BC NDP 38 %
BC Green 12.5 %
BC Conservatives 8.5 %
Other 3.5 %

First Published at 1:04 PM PST April 15, 2006. This is a random digit dialing of 1,045 British Columbians between April 8-15, 2006. This survey features a margin of error of 2.75%, 19 times out of 20 @98% competency. This poll was sponsored in part by Jim Van Rassel owner of NewTrend Optical in Port Coquitlam BC

available online at:http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_236.html

70,000 unsolved murders in Venezuela, kinda makes it hard to support a murderous, leftist Chavez, don't you think ?
Polls in this country might be a bit biased, don't you think ?
With the threat of being an unsolved murder.
14% support for the NDP from a poll by Decima and Environics doesn't have this type of threat from Harper. Or does it ???
Ha ha ha ha.

Realistic? I assume you mean less combative? Its the sun, puts one in a better mood I guess.

Nobody on the right acknowledges things the NDP did either. As for now its simply a case of disagreement over priorities.

And yet they do in overwhelming numbers... Why is that you think? Maybe the murders that have occurred people blame on the gov'ts opponents?

No

Frank
Take a poll in any despotic regime. What are you going to get ?
If the people of Venezuela choose to support a murderous regime, that's their business.
By the way, have you heard that in Zimbabwe, Mugabe is inviting the 4,000 white farmers he nationalized to come home, in order to prevent further starvation and get the land up and running again.
Why is everyone only picking on the USA ?
I can't take the lefts theories seriously.
God Bless the NDP.

Funny, I've seen polls from Afghanistan and Iraq trumpeted by the right. Unlike them, Venezuela is not a warzone.

What are you talking about?

We're all in mourning over that I'm sure

VIVA CHAVEZ!!!!!
fcuk bush, harper, gordo all other greedy, sociopathic, right-wing, planet raping, scotch-swilling, wife swappers.
70000 murders under murderous Chavez heh?
What about every other murderous puppet torture chamber right-wing CIA

installed south american regime or do you self-centered, fascists conveniently forget about that? (the chocolat ration has been increased from 4 to 2 grams!)
All you idiots care about is setting up rigged systems that benefit your corrupt class of psuedo aristocracy regardless of how much human misery and environmental destruction it causes.
Anyhiow it's a complete waste of breath talking to you anyhow so FO and I'll see you in the streets.

G west
My understanding is that no actual federal funding specifically for daycare made it to the provinces while the Liberals were in power, just promises. Possible exception for Manitoba which appears to have received 22 million.

So Harper is honouring previous commitments, not surprising he will need support of the provinces for certain things. It is also my understanding that the CPC have additional plans for funding daycare spaces that will subject to another budget.

Some quick google
Liberal website
To this end, a Liberal government will invest at least an additional $6-billion to finance the program through to 2015, providing provinces and territories with the certainty they need to expand their investments. This means that, after the initial five-year funding agreement concludes, ongoing funding of $1.2 billion per year will be provided to provinces and territories.
This builds on the commitment we made as part of our 2004 election platform to invest $5 billion over five years to establish a national early learning and child care system. All 10 provinces have now signed on to the Liberal government’s plan, which is backed by a five-year, $5-billion funding commitment announced in Budget 2005

CPC website

By offering funds to institutional daycares only, the Liberal Childcare Plan effectively ignores three quarters of all Canadian families. Less than 25% of Canadian families use institutional daycare, according to Statistics Canada. For 75% of Canadian parents who do not use daycare services, the Liberal plan has nothing to offer. (Statistics Canada, http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050207/d050207b.htm)
CBC website
The first two partners in the new plan, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, signed up in April 2005, and will receive $26 million and $22 million, respectively. In May 2005, Ontario announced an agreement in principle with Ottawa that would see $272 million go to the province in 2005, as part of a $1.9-billion deal over five years.

That money depended on the minority Liberal government passing its budget. When it appeared the government could fall before that, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said his party would honour Liberal commitments on child care if it was elected.

The budget did pass, in June 2005, but the government fell on a confidence motion the following November. During the ensuing election campaign, Harper unveiled his own child-care plan: $100 a month to parents for each child under six.

Jester
Having been to Venezuela, I to was happy to see a change in government, but talking to people there and seeing the actions and language that he is using, he is just another South American dictator in the making, unless you wish to get jilted I recommend not falling in love with him.

So Colin,
You've pretty much confirmed what we've been saying all along. 1)There was a daycare plan in place. 2) Harper has agreed to fund it (except for his side deal with Quebec) until the end of the next fiscal year. 3) Absent that funding, there is NO conservative day care plan. 4)Harper is paying 100$/child under 6/month to the lower earning partner or to the custodial parent. 5)Under no form of reality can this be called a day care program since it neither funds nor establishes a single daycare space. Q.E.D.

It is a sop to Harper's base and a bribe to anyone who might think of voting for Harper in the next election. Nothing more, nothing less.

The policy, and Harper’s general demeanor makes me mindful of the POTUS - "I'm the decider, and I decide what's best."

Sorry, G west but the Liberals have had years to implement their plan and only started to do anything at the last moment, snake oil salesmanship at it's best. Personally I think you are only defending the Liberals out of your dislike of Harper. If the Liberals were in right now, you would be slamming their inaction.

Colin
I'm the last guy who would defend the Liberals, you know that. My allegiance here is to the truth, something you're apparently afraid of. The details of Harper's 'plan' and its evolution are exactly as I and others have described. Your pretense that the facts are otherwise is pathetic.

If you want to persist in pretending that a clear ‘reach around’ to his base is anything other than that, I've misjudged your ability to deal with the reality of the world around you.

The fact that I might be criticizing the Liberals had they been elected instead of this nascent Harper dictatorship is a complete non sequitur.

Harper is dangerous precisely because he is a much more effective liar than Martin was, and because he appears to have a great deal of support from people like you who, now that the Liberals are no longer in power, appear to have forgotten or surrendered their critical faculties.

Ya know Colin I can't figure out why you would consistently deny the fact the liberals have done nothing. The truth hurts? There are subsidies in place, NOW, that the Liberals put there for those who need assistance. It is monitored by the provinces. What part of that don't you get? The truth part? You can deny all you want but the facts remain the same.

This comment list is so depressing.

The problem with most of you is that you view having a child the same as having a dog. Children are not dogs, you can't just put off having one until you think you can afford it. I think dogs are better regarded in this country then children. If you have kids, you're viewed as a pariah on the state.

State-subsidized daycare and $1200 per year are not solutions. The solution starts in
1. Understanding that working women do not have wives at home holding down the fort.
2. Fathers should not be penalized for wanting to be active caregivers.
3. Viewing the family as one combined tax unit, not individual mothers/fathers/guardians. Children should be deductable as dependents.

The solution lies in employers shifting away from rigid employment practices and allowing parents to work part time, from home, and outside regular hours. Daycare facilities close to or within places of employment would be awfully nice as well.

We want/need to work and want/need to have kids. Why do these have to mutually exclusive?

Ironic that the same people who decry the idea of governments spending tax dollars on national and provincial childcare systems are the first to celebrate the spending of billions of tax dollars on national and provincial highways and transportation systems.

We are surely doomed if we as a society believe that our cars are worth it but not our kids!

I would like to know where the capitalist gets his rose coloured glasses. Lauding the literacy rate in BC? Not noticing education has become such a tattered bashed around shat upon mess it is almost irrelevant isn't going to improve anybody's literacy. And, obviously, what use literacy if the Capitalists are unable to THINK CLEARLY?

Whether you are right wing or left wing, working or unemployed, skilled, semi- or unskilled, took the time to vote or stayed home, if you just take a long cool look you'll see that THIS COUNTRY HATES CHILDREN. This society ignores the most vulnerable and helpless of citizens.

One quarter to one third of all people getting sustenance from food banks are LITTLE KIDS.

Jesus, if that doesn't make you writhe in shame then nothing will. Child poverty in this nation is a shame , a crime, and a sin.

And bleating platitudinous bullshit about level playing fields and the wealth of opportunity and the chance for all of us to better ourselves and...is cow cack. A kid born into abject poverty, a kid who sleeps in a homeless shelter and eats the gruel of charity is NOT going to do as well as the kids raised by Capitalist and his missus.

The Libs and the Cons are playing political games with our children and Moustache Jack is just a'grinnin' and trying to be all things to all people and winding up being nothing to anybody.

Better we all drive on gravel roads than that even one child in this nation go to bed hungry tonight. Cancel the goddam Olympics and put that money into child protection, child care, and a food programme in the schools.

How can we have "surplus" food if one child is malnourished?

Shame on those who would minge about improving the lot of children in this country. And I bet you call yourselves Christians, too! Well, the news is, you're not.

Honestly! Some people are to make a person spit!

G west

While I don’t have lots of time to hunt, I have yet to find a source that lists actually monies earmarked for childcare being transferred to the provinces. Lots of promises and guarantees. Part of the problem is that Childcare is a provincial responsibility, not Federal, while a great deal of money is transferred from Federal to Provincial coffers it is hard to determine if any of it is part of Martin’s promises. If you find a source I will be happy to read it.

Colin
The payments were made. The programs were funded. Every provincial administration is squealing like a stuck pig. Just roll back up this and the other thread for evidence of that from, of all places, Alberta. Wake up man, you're so enamored with Harper you've lost the ability to reason and read. This is a sop to his base and a bribe for any idiot who doesn't actually think and loves to get a cheque in the mail each month..especially those families where, for one reason or another (usually religious and fundamental) one partner has chosen to stay in the home to care for children.

You're surely not under the illusion that 1200 taxable dollars per year is going to be much help to a single working mother who can't even "find" decent childcare now - let along afford it.

Furthermore, he's going to help pay for it by an increase in the lowest marginal rate of tax come budget time. If you don't know whom that hurts, I can't help you. The man is a disaster.

Because you're fortunate enough to have what you think is a good situation in your personal life and your wife isn't working outside the home and struggling to balance work and often inadequate and expensive childcare you can push back your chair and say 'good for Harper' - another few bucks for the kitty for me and mine. Well congratulations, there are a hell of a lot of families who would change places with you anytime, believe me

This is mindless selfishness and a refusal to look at the whole picture and I think you know that in the back of your own mind. Sometimes men make me ashamed of being one.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/uclickcomics/20060423/cx_db_uc/db20060423

I saw this out at the cottage and it's been on my mind since...

G West sez ...

haraldkann sez ...[B]NO $H!T !

Jack's:

You might be interested to know that the original 'baby bonus' act passed unanimously. I guess everybody was a socialist back in '44.

Stump
And your point is? What may have been very popular and even necessary in 1944 - in the backwash of a world wide depression, and the social upheaval of a world war that was coming to an end - has no relevance in today's society.

What’s needed now, and if you have any young working mothers in your circle of friends you can confirm this by talking to a few of them, is not a handout or a return of tax revenue, but more and more-readily available affordable daycare, period.

On the other hand, the 1200 dollars is a pretty good indication of where Harper's mind and thought processes are: Certainly not on the needs of the average family in the modern world. He does often look like someone who’s stuck in 1944.

"but cold, hard, taxpayer cash to people for having kids? It's the ultimate socialism."

My point was a response to "Jack's" and this comment.

I don't need working mothers to tell me about daycare thanx. I'm a working father. Scroll up and read my prev. comments and you'll see I'm a huge fan of well-run, affordable daycares.

stump sez ...

haraldkann sez ... the war effort left Canada with limited population and needed to rebuild that population along with the tax base for the good health of the country...

Immigration was also boosted after a period as well .

Things back then also looked different,we were not SOCIALISTS,we were a caring people and the times were painted in black and white,with rivers of blood...

People understood real compassion .

Colin, are you slow? Phone BC Minister Linda Reid. She will tell you the exact amount the feds have transferred to cover child care subsidies in BC. The money is recieved each August and this year is the last payment BC expects to recieve unless an agreement is reached with Harper to scrap the $1200. handout and continue with the transfer payments.

Apologies Stump.
I misread you. I thought you were being doubly ironic - I read more into the 'unanimously' of your post than you obviously intended. I took your point to be a criticism of the CCF members of that parliament who voted with a Liberal bill - as you can see by my response. No offence intended. I'm familiar with Jack's attitude and only posted because, as I said, I misconstrued your words.

Fanshaw:

I couldn't agree more about the need for course work in high school about the realities of life (balancing the cheque book, avoiding getting knocked up, etc). Too bad the schools are being nickeled and dimed into irrelevance. No such general math teaching when I was a kid unfortunately, and through disuse, my ability to do anything with a quadratic formula has been long lost. THAT sure came in handy!

Love your reply to my men and condoms statement much earler btw! Takes two to tango, and ignore birth control, but my ego is only big enough speak for all men, not all humans. :-)

Stump
Appears I may not have been the only one.

aalborg
Yep, Colin is slow!

Alci:

No problemo as they say.

regards....

G West
I took your advice and reread the thread. I did not find any figures, but did get a clue to narrow the search field. It would appear that Martin never sent any monies under the umbrella of his promises, but money was sent under the Multilateral Framework on Early Learning and Child Care. This program was signed in March 2003, Martin came into power Nov 2003, as finance Minister he might have played a role in this, but not as PM

3) Action Plan
Consistent with principles and goals set out above, and subject to availability of new
federal funding, British Columbia agrees to develop and release by January 31, 2006,
an Action Plan on early learning and child care covering the five years of federal funding
including its spending plan for the period 2005-2006 to 2009-2010. The Action Plan will:
· Identify specific priorities for investment, based on an assessment of progress to date
in establishing quality, universally inclusive, accessible and developmental (QUAD)
early learning and child care;

Funding under existing 2003 Multilateral Framework on ELCC (CST)2 ($ million)

New ELCC Funding ($ million)

Total ($ million)
2005-2006 29.6
promised 92.0
For a total of 121.6

All disbursements made under this agreement will be separate and distinct from
Canada Social Transfer funding provided for under the 2003 Multilateral Framework on
Early Learning and Child Care. The $92 million indicated for 2005-2006 is in recognition of
amounts put in trust for British Columbia for 2004-2005/2005-2006. British Columbia will
have the flexibility to draw down funds as they require up to the end of March 31, 2006.
Following completion of an Action Plan, British Columbia and Canada will work together
to conclude a detailed multi-year funding agreement for the period 2006-2007 to
2009-2010. Exact per capita amounts are to be more fully defined in a detailed
multi-year funding agreement.
Parliament of Canada approval is required before federal funding is available and may
be disbursed.

I said I would retract my statement: “The Liberals have given no monies to the Provinces” and I am retracting that statement and acknowledging that they gave 29.6 million to BC from the previous agreement signed in 2003.

However Martin still had over 2 years to bring forward a workable program and had the headstart of being the Finance Minister for many years yet was unable to.

Your right that I have no trust in the Liberals, I have seen them to many times make promises, set up ministries/agencies/ programs when no one was looking, suck the money out of them

At least I will agree with this
G west wrote:
All Harper has actually done for childcare is to promise to reduce the chintzy funding for a needed program that the Liberals eventually, and reluctantly, started to provide. Certainly no reason to cheer for anyone, in my opinion.

Colin.
Thanks for that. I won't give up on you quite yet and I'm perfectly happy to accept your faint praise for the tepid liberal child care program as well as your admission you were wrong. Program it was and, as I and others have pointed out, the current Harper boondoggle is nothing like a program...it is a bribe and a very transparent one at that.

As I said, Harper is a better liar than Martin and that is, imo, damning with faint praise.

But, truth to tell, it's you who has been cheering Harper, not me. You need to look to your own powder because you've let it get pretty wet since Jan 23.

Cheers.

Thanks for the retraction Colin. It was big of you and I mean that sincerly. We all get to where we've got to go, in our own way.

I will still take Harper's $1200 in the hand over Martin's promises in the bush. Cheers

Colin
Nothing like a 'true believer' I guess. How does it feel to be bribed my friend? The military always were susceptible to a 'reach around' as I recall.

If it works for you Colin and his lovely little family that's just fine and all the rest of the people who really need decent and affordable daycare can go whistle eh?

Glad you've stopped pretending.

Welcome to the monkey house.

Child-care proposal gives least to poorest
Eliminating separate assistance program reduces Ottawa's payment to most needy

GLORIA GALLOWAY

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — Low- and middle-income families will realize the smallest net benefit from the Harper government's $1,200-a-year child-care payment in part because the Conservatives are scrapping a separate assistance program.

The Conservative plan for meeting the country's child-care needs is to give families a direct payment of $100 a month, $1,200 annually, for every child under 6. The specifics of how that plan will be unveiled are expected to be in next Tuesday's budget.

But the young-child supplement of the Canada Child Tax Benefit, which currently pays $20.25 a month to parents who do not claim child-care expenses for their preschool-age children, will be eliminated at the same time. The benefit is due to increase in July to $249 annually.

The Tories outlined their intention during the election campaign to scrap the young-child supplement, and the government confirmed that it will do so to the Caledon Institute, a think tank that deals with child-care issues.

In a report to be released today, the institute takes the government to task for rolling the young-child supplement into the child-care allowance.

The report, called "The incredible shrinking $1,200 child-care allowance and how to fix it," says the supplement most often goes to families of low or modest income because higher-income parents are more likely to claim child-care expenses and are therefore disqualified from receiving the payment.

"When we factor that into the analysis," said Ken Battle, the institute's president, "it makes the inequality gap between the child-care allowance benefits for low- and modest-income families and high-income families all the wider, because the low-income families are losing that $249 annually whereas higher-income families never got it."

The institute has calculated that the families who will benefit most from the child-care allowance, after taxes and clawbacks, are those making $200,000 a year or more with one parent at home. They will keep $1,076 of the $1,200 annually.

And the rest of the column :

Families with two working parents and a combined income of $30,000, by contrast, will keep just $199 annually of the new payments.

The institute released a report into the Conservative child-care plan in January but did not realize at that time that the young-child supplement would be eliminated, Mr. Battle said.

So he went back and recalculated after government officials confirmed that this was their intention.

His report looks at the ways the government could improve the allowance to ensure that it gets into the hands of people who need it most. "If you don't do anything else," Mr. Battle said, "don't abolish the young-child supplement."

But the best solution, the report says, is to tack the child-care allowance onto the Child Tax Benefit, which is not subject to income tax and is gradually reduced as income rises. Unlike the Conservative child-care plan, this would not favour one-income families over two income-families.

If the two benefits were blended, the institute projects that all families with a combined income of $170,000 a year would get some of the child-care allowance promised by the Conservatives, with lower-income families getting more than those at higher-income levels.

It is a plan that has found favour with the opposition parties and some social groups.

"The Canada Child Tax Benefit is a very effective and proven program," Mr. Battle said, "and in fact it's used to deliver a number of provincial child benefits as well and the child disability benefit."

And there are some additional practical considerations, Mr. Battle said. "We've got this Canada Child Tax Benefit machinery that works. It would be so easy simply to plug it in. . . . There's no added administrative costs."

Olivia Chow, the NDP child-care critic, said yesterday that Prime Minister Stephen Harper "knew full well when he announced this [child-care plan] that he was rolling the young-child supplement into this so-called $1,200 family allowance. So it's not really $1,200."

Ms. Chow asked Human Resources Minister Diane Finley yesterday in the House of Commons whether she would do something about the deductions that will eat up much of the promised child-care allowance.

The question came after the minister faced a barrage of accusations from the Liberals that the Conservative plan is nothing more than "vague promises and numbers pulled out of the air."

Ms. Finley, who refused requests for an interview, replied only that five provinces have agreed to not claw back the child-care allowance. "As for the federal government, I am afraid we will have to wait until we see the budget."

No doubt we're far better off with a plan that charges exactly the same rate to families earning $300,000 as it does to families earning $30,000, as is the case in Quebec.
As an added bonus it turns out most of the Quebec spaces are going to middle-class and upper-class families. You've gotta love it when we set out to help "lower-income families"!

G-west
Will I was incorrect that they have done nothing towards childcare, do you really believe that Martin would have fulfilled all of his promises if re-elected? He was throwing around billion dollar promises fast and furious. Even you clearly stated that the Liberals track record on the subject was chintzy.

Colin
you're smarter than that - there is little substantive difference between the two - liberals and conservatives. but harper said he'd be different and i believe him – he will be – in dangerous ways - the way he’s fallen almost naturally into the pattern of lying and dissembling (and being close-mouthed and pretentious about it) is much more worrying than anything either Martin or Chretien ever did - i think he is a bloody republican with emphasis on the bloody - if you're prepared to pretend that his 1200 bribe is child care then you'll believe anything he says and that worries me.

it worries me because there are times where you write things here that make me think you have the ability to think independently - then you go and spoil all the good will you've earned by succumbing to harper’s blandishments and his obvious re-election bribe - i expected better - your nominal hatred of liberals and people from central canada is making you blind to reality – and your own self-interest as a decent human being in the long run

None of the parties committed anything approaching the money required to fund the child care plan so pointing out how much less of a "child care plan" the Tories are offering
suggests a little less canned outrage and a little more research might be useful.

john I

What canned outrage are you talking about? Harper is a liar, plain and simple. This is a reach-around to his base - to call it a daycare plan is absurd, to suggest he's anything but a liar is the only outrage I've read around here.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060426.wxchildcare26/BNStory/National/home

this little blurb puts the light on how little this really helps those that really need the monies ...

funny ... how a sidebar SCREAMING about how little this program does , GOES UNNOTICED .

Families with two working parents and a combined income of $30,000, by contrast, will keep just $199 annually of the new payments.

The institute released a report into the Conservative child-care plan in January but did not realize at that time that the young-child supplement would be eliminated,

ONLY A NEOCON COULD SMILE AT THIS ...

should I get another handle/id and POST THIS AGAIN ?

this sucks ...BIGTIME !

So...

Just how much did the Liberals actually put on the table? I'm assuming they actually did create the "daycare plan" we keep hearing about seeing as they've been in power for 13 years. Not rocket science, folks! If we're accusing the Tories of not having a "daycare plan" it seems fair to see what the various other parties actually put forth. It may well well be that they're all "liars"!

Bonus question:

What was the plan to provide the same top quality, accessible, affordable child care to folks outside the urban areas, shift workers, etc? Hopefully they're every bit as entitled to their "daycare plan".

john 1
You haven't actually 'read' the material posted here, have you?
The harper payoff creates not one new childcare space. It is not a daycare plan:It is a reach around to his base and bribe aimed at the ignorant. It's obviously done its work in your case.

I just had to comment on this!

Aalborg, lemme get this straight. Your daughter goes to the UK, gets laid, gets knocked up by a guy she is not married to while making 8 bucks an hour (i'm not sure if she used contraception, but she could have had an abortion), then comes back to Canada with this kid, and because she decided to have a kid (that you call a "souvenir") Without a) a man in her life (or a woman) or b) and education to support this kid, you want ME to help pay for this behaviour?!

And the way you demonize all Conservatives as spoiled and rich is awful. My parents are immigrants, and I was raised in basement suites. But I haven't had any kids. Instead of going on flings overseas and having kids out of wedlock, I invested in education.

Which brings me to another point...What we need to invest money in is teaching people not to make the mistakes your daughter made. We should teach financial education taught not by the socialist BCTF whose members could not run a peanut stand, but by business leaders/speakers and economists. They should teach kids to avoid debt, save, invest and prosper. Then maybe they won't want to live off the fat of the land.

G West
An interesting comment, in actual fact we do use a daycare on occasion and as it is a private one, would see no benefit from the Liberal Plan (As told by the owner). So who is caring about parents like us?

Colin

My point, which should have been obvious even for you, was that there is more to living a responsible community life than considering only your own welfare and point of view. Circumstances appear at the moment to favour you and yours in a pretty comprehensive way. That there are a lot of others who would benefit from a 'real' day care program rather than the 'reach around' Harper is proposing is the whole point of this discussion.

Your good fortune and apparent inability to empathize with anyone other than yourself apparently makes it impossible for you to understand these facts. So typical, alas, of the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude of Harper and his acolytes. You ought to be ashamed, in my opinion, of such narrow mindedness.

Given what I've seen posted about your attitude towards women elsewhere, why am I unsurprised?

G West

Actually I did. If you'll reread the original article you'll note that the writer points out that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have created a "daycare plan". As an aside if you've decided to simply spend your time attacking everyone else with an alternative opinion on the issue you might want to consider finding somewhere else to play.

john l
The Liberals, not that I'm any fan, did set up payment protocols to the provinces to create and help fund the actual operation of daycare spaces. It is in fact that funding (referred to above in several posts, even Colin's) which Harper is only sustaining for the current fiscal year that I'm talking about.

I don't think it's possible to characterize Harper's 'bribe' as anything other than what it is and still pay service to the truth; a truth with which you, among others, simply can't seem to acknowledge.

However, if you can explain to me how Mr. Harper's hundred dollar handouts (net of tax and the current children's tax credit which he is also ending) will create and fund any new professional and approved daycare spaces in this country I'll defer to you and stop reminding everyone of what my interpretation of the truth actually is.

As to my continuing debate with Colin, he and I have longstanding issues that we discuss from time to time. In so far as possible I try to direct my remarks to the person I'm addressing, as I did to you. I think my comments are to the point and succinct. When you or any other poster actually writes something sensible and well thought out I'll acknowledge it. To this point, I'd say that nothing posted here in favour of Mr. Harper's plan has actually risen to a level where an actual 'attack' is necessary.

I have been reading all the postings that many of you have written but am seriously disgusted by those of you who think that single parents should be doing more to ensure that they don't have to rely on "hand outs". I am a single mom with 2 kids. One is over 6 so that means that I am not going to get money for her to go to daycare. Should I leave her at home alone because she doesn't qualify for help??? Many of us (single parents) don't chose to be this way. I was in a committed relationship when we had kids but I couldn't stop him when he walked out and I cannot do anything about the 15,000 dollars he owes in unpaid child support.
I hope that the BC government will not cut the subsidy programs that they have now or else I will be on social assistance until my oldest can stay home to watch the youngest.
Daycare here cost at least $600 a month.
Maybe Harper can pay my daycare difference difference with his child care allowance.

Rather than waste any more bandwidth on mindless chatter I'll decline any more responses to the troll element.

Jenn, was your committed relationship a marriage? If it was then you could get a lawyer and get him to pay.

Jenn
Thanks for posting. I don't quite know what more one can do to make people aware of what the real world out there is actually all about for people in your situation. I really wish there was more I could do to help you. I, and others, will try to keep plugging along making the point that our new Prime Minister is a disaster and that what's he on about will be a disaster for the people who really need some help from the country and the community.

As to Tax Cutter 99 suggestion, I expect you've tried that - or perhaps, given the BC Govt's decision to slash funding for legal aid it just wasn't practical.

In any case, don't give up, you and your kids are worth it - not everybody feels about your struggle the way John 1 apparently does. I suspect he's scuttled back under a rock in embarrassment. If he hasn't he should.

Good luck. If the legal thing is still hanging, you might want to check for a law centre in or near your town. My son, who is graduating in June from Law School, has just spent the past 4 months working pro bono in such a centre in Victoria. There are people who may be able to help.

Jenn, I am truly sorry for you and your children that your husband (and their dad) left. And I wholeheartedly support any brand of socialism that will make it possible for your kids to have the same life chances as mine.

For this reason, I lean to the left on education and health care issues, but I am still torn on the issue of daycare, not just the issue of the government's role in it, but the whole idea of having kids spend so much time with caregivers unrelated to them.

Some conservative types I have spoken with have some questions for folks in your situation:

1) Why did you create children with this jackass in the first place?

2) Why should families who choose to have one parent stay at home (or work part time) subsidize those who have made different choices? They point out that many such families are not wealthy at all.

Yes, these questions seem harsh. Hell, question #1 is downright politically incorrect. But my conservative amigos insist that their philosophy is fair because people make choices. Conversely, my leftward stance stems from a belief that people are frequently affected by forces over which they have little or no control.

However, I must admit, a part of my brain sees the conservative position: I am perpetually baffled by the lousy choices some people make when choosing a partner, and I can't for the life of me understand why some people create children when they know how ill-prepared they are for the parental journey ahead.

I suppose that if the single parent phenomenon was a small statistic, I would be unfazed. But the last few decades have seen an explosion of single parent families, and I wish to hell I could figure out what's causing it, but I don't have the foggiest idea.

I suspect you might have some insight. Care to explain?

This may seem like a detour on the childcare issue, but it's not. This is at the very core of it.

Davey-boy
Dare I suggest you're a man. If so, I suspect that's pretty much the heart and soul of your inability to understand the dynamics of the issue.

For my own part, after having seen my own children born I realized this was a land through which my own feet would never wander, I defer all such questions to women who have , in my experience, both the right and the knowledge to comment about a phenomenon in which men will almost always be nothing more than passive and I hope empathetic observers.

Of one thing I can be relatively certain, if men were bodily in charge of conception and pregnancy, (given their frequent inability to empathize), I suspect whatever problems of illegitimacy and child neglect there are today would be magnified at least two or three fold.

My view, Jenn owes no one an explanation - particularly to a man - a member of the same sex who has left her in this predicament. Her commitment to love and care for her children, despite the dispassion and lack of concern of her partner and society in general, is all that matters.

Explanations should be sought elsewhere, in my view.

oh Alcibiades...that comment of yours warms a woman's heart.
All the best, Jenn.