The Cheap Daycare Industry has been shaped by union leaders and industry professionals who can’t stand private operators in the child care business, and have made sure that the regulatory environment would squeeze private operators, especially home based caregivers out of the action. These same proponents are rubbing their hands in glee over all the union jobs and administrative jobs for women that will come with the territory. Administration officials in Ottawa, Provincial and Municipal levels all tripping over each other for a slice of the action.
Nobody in their right mind would set up a cheap daycare regime and then undermine critical spaces out of spite for people who supposedly want to “profit” from caring for children. Good grief, everyone is profiting from this mess and every single childcare space is needed. Especially in rural areas where home based care is close to those who need it and can often provide flexibility in hours to accommodate those working long hours.
There are better ways to run a $10/day childcare than what the Trudeau Liberals have concocted. My vote would be for a quarterly transfer of funds from Ottawa to daycare providers who file daily enrolment numbers.
It's hardly surprising that recruiting "early childhood educators" would be a problem, given how miserably they're paid and how low-prestige their work is. Many people regard such 'educators' as little more than glorified babysitters; yet their job responsibilities are challenging, labour intensive and vitally important.
Meanwhile and just back from the dentist, who told me that she is not signing up to the Federal Dental Plan because of lack of transparency involving fees etc. Another great Trudeau initiative. He is just not ready, STILL!
My brother in law is a dentist, and he was explaining to me how the screwed-up implementation puts financial risk and burden on the dentists. The client's also not supposed to be out of pocket, so you can't bill them at the time of service and let them wait for reimbursement from the government. There's no pre-authorization system to tell you if somebody's covered; you have to submit the claim to find out. If it's denied, then you have to seek payment from the client who's already received the service. Also, the government reserves the right to change their determination of coverage up to 3 years afterwards, in which case the dentist has to repay the government and seek reimbursement from the client. "Hey - remember that filling that you got 2 years ago? Turns out you're not covered - you owe us $400." Also, the federal system is apparently pretty cumbersome compared to the current private insurers.
It's amazing the government didn't just do something cheaper, like solicit bids from private insurers to provide group coverage for eligible Canadians. Yes, the insurance companies will certainly take their cut, but they're already set up to do everything and it's hard to imagine that a federal bureaucracy is actually going to provide services in a more cost-effective fashion.
Totally true. In BC we have a public monopoly on car insurance. It’s insanely expensive (I covered two cars and a house in Alberta for what my car alone costs here in BC) and the damn organization still loses a billion $ a year. Trudeau and his pals have never runs a potato store never mind a serious enterprise so they have not a clue.
I’ve never understood how the government has difficulty understanding that some people want to raise their children all the time and choose to be a stay at home parent or work opposite shifts so one parent can always be home. The tragedy is that current economic situations make the choice to have a parent stay home out of reach for many families who don’t truly want to be dual income households but have no choice.
1) An assumption that parents will find working outside of the home more fulfilling than staying at home to raise their kids. This is doubtless true for a lot of people (particularly if you've got a professional career), but it's not universal.
2) More people in the workforce increases productivity and economic activity. This is true, but the economic impact hasn't been all positive. Lifestyle expectations have increased with the extra income, and greater income has also increased prices of things like housing. Two incomes feels less like an option than a necessity now.
3) A notion that trained early childhood educators will deliver gains in childhood development compared to kids raised by untrained parents. This one I find dubious because I'm not sure that the limited training and low pay of early childhood educators is resulting in a cadre with superior skills to the parents. Also, small children seem more emotionally secure with their parents and parents generally care more about their kids than anybody else. Again, these are generalizations and individual experiences vary.
I would add on to this that parents are infinitely more interested in the success of their children and can provide more individualized and dedicated attention that is based on the child's needs. When I played with my children, I was also teaching them how to count and what different colors were. I had the time to get down on the floor with them and color together, do activities, see things.
In my opinon and experience, children don't need a trained teacher really at any time in their childhood - there is an abundance of material that can be used to teach a child (homeschooling works well when done thoughtfully - my adult kid has found university easy compared to what was done during homeschool work) BUT there is this cultural perception that unless someone is trained to teach, then a child won't learn. This is actually very false - children are constantly learning. They're learning when they're held and comforted after falling. They're learning when they're read a bedtime story. They're learning when they go grocery shopping with a parent and start to understand that some foods are treats and other foods are good to have every day - and that money influences how much food is being purchased. They're learning when they see an adult handle conflict (maybe not for the better always - but they're still learning).
Childhood is one big learning experience - and trying to structure kids to fit into the same learning process actually does a disservice to children and families.
I've done both - I've been at home and I've worked. They're fulfilling in different ways. BUT I can tell you that my work accomplishments don't carry half the meaning of my parenting accomplishments. Seeing a child succeed and knowing that you've helped create the foundation that allowed them to follow their dreams - there is nothing quite like that sense of accomplishment. No promotion, or kudos, or good review, or award comes close to it. Sure - the work things feel good and I like to socialize with adults - but the satisfaction of being a mom? That's in a class of it's own for me. I suspect this is the factor the government just doesn't understand.
(I'm not disagreeing with you per se - just expanding as I think these are really good points and I think they aren't talked about enough.)
Government subsidized baby sitting plain and simple. Not sure why anybody wants the government to raise their children and as part of that indoctrinate them while doing so.
So is the school system. But we've created a society where the most important job we will ever do is farmed out to people making the absolute minimum. Education is not indoctrination; that's the church.
Indoctrination is also a big part of the educational system these days and what passes for learning. Agree on your comment about farming out the most important job parents have.
That would be their paying job which lets them provide for their kids so they don’t starve?
I get a bit tired of the conservatives who appear to think that it’s “pro family” to denigrate working to provide for one’s children. Because that’s EXACTLY what it is when someone denigrates parents who work outside their home.
Andrew I think you’re a little off base in your comments. While it is important to be able to provide for your children I’m not sure how you see offloading your children to someone else to raise as a conservative “pro family” denigration question.
My points is that making sure you have the resources to care for your children is actually vital. Without the resources necessary for a decent life (not rich, but decent), children do badly. Poverty ain’t good.
It’s also vital that children SEE their parents provide for them. It models the correct path.
Some conservatives, particularly those on the upper end of the income spectrum tend to forget this because they’ve already done it.
It’s particularly strange when they have that attitude toward daycare but not toward education outside the home. Both effectively “farm out” as some say a vital part of a child’s life.
lol. Found the dude who doesn’t know any teachers. (Or has friends who phone in their jobs and generally suck at them) but I’ll think well of you and your friends Doug and assume the former)
Based on the experience of having 6 kids....for example, parent-teacher interviews can only be scheduled between 9 and 3:30. They expect me to take time off work, rather than reciprocating my availability in the evening. I know lots of teachers. They live in bubbles not recognizing their incredibly privileged job security, paid time off and high end pensions.
Well, then, I guess either it’s the second thing and you have lazy friends who are bad teachers or maybe I thought of a third possibility.
You’re one of those guys who only thinks people do the work you see.
Because your thoughts about the evening hours teachers work is like telling an author that the amount of work he put into a published novel is only as long as it would take you to read it.
Where do I find particularly odd about it though is that all these people who think that the job is incredibly easy and incredibly well paid never thought to do it for themselves.
Tell you what....go work in a classroom for a year and get back to us. I am so sick and tired of that argument. Good people come with a cost. No, they don't create shareholder value......then again, most of those people are contributing even less to society.
Gladly. The skill set to become a teacher is not in short supply and as I detailed above, it is one of the most lucrative professions all in. The pension alone is worth sevrn figures.
Sure. 30 6 year olds from multiple cultures, economic and family situations, language issues, who don't ask "how high" when you say "jump" while spending money out of your own pocket for school supplies. And then having to deal with their parents. A pity it's only theoretical. I might last a couple of days at the most.
Nah. The most challenging part would be poor morale from unions radicalizing other teachers into thinking they are hard done by, and teachers deflecting their own failings by thinking they are social workers.
The daycare initiative was always likely to fail because it was going to be incredibly expensive. However, it's also suffered from common issues with government programs such as excessive regulation and letting secondary objectives overwhelm the primary purpose.
Child care was already a highly regulated space, with strict ratios for children:caregivers. The younger the children, the tighter the ratios. For example, in BC a single caregiver could supervise 4 kids under the age of 4. Only 2 of those could be under the age of 2, or else you could have 2 under age of 4 and 1 infant under 12 months. That makes caring for young children much more expensive, and creates a crunch because that coincides right with the time when maternity leave benefits run out and mothers return to the workplace.
What the affordable child care benefit did was cap the price that facilities could charge for those expensive spaces, plus increase the cost of the staff they needed to hire by emphasizing early childhood educator certification and emphasizing union-friendly provisions. This was compounded by higher staff absences in the post-COVID period: staff who picked up COVID or one of the many other bugs running around would miss work, and care providers needed extra people available to cover and meet the regulatory ratios.
I understand the thinking behind the fee caps: they didn't want child care businesses to soak up any benefit of government funding by simply charging higher fees. What they didn't seem to understand was that the child care business was already operating at low margins with notoriously low wages. Governments also managed to implement their cost caps in such a way that it actually disincentivized existing providers. The program either needed to be much, much more expensive (and funded with higher taxes), or else they should've said "Nope - can't afford it."
Why is it that every time an issue comes up, the government never seems to have a functional answer? And it has been that way for decades. Just once, I would love to see them plan ahead rather than react late, trying to put out fires that their own indecision created. I'm not optimistic I'll live to see that.
Childcare is subject to Baumol’s cost disease in extremis - it’s incredible labor intensive in a way that can’t be automated away (try telling parents that their kids will be watched by AI/robots). It’s actually a place where TFWs can be really useful.
That’s so-called best use of foreign workers is ENTIRELY about driving the cost of labour down
With respect, how would you feel if we did that for your line of work? We can bring in lots of people to do your job for half the wage that you get right now?
The TFW program was supposed to be for bringing in workers where qualified Canadians DO NOT EXIST for short term work.
You’re proposing it for areas where we could easily get qualified Canadians, but we don’t want to pay for the cost of labour.
What’s the difference between doing this for your job and doing this for the daycare job?
Well, we either shovel ever more money we don’t have at it (ignoring the opportunity costs and rising debt), we scrap the program (which no government wants to do) or we find a way to lower the labor costs and ignore those lathering themselves up about dey tuk er jerbs.
You evaded the question in a way JT would applaud. How in favour of lowering labour costs are you when it's your own labour involved? Careful how you answer if you want to avoid charges of hypocrisy.
This isn’t about me, as you and the other commenter have attempted to redirect (weak ad hominem). Apologize for poor argumentation and thank me for putting you in your place.
We understand perfectly well why you don't want this to be about you, and hence your preference for continuing to take evasive action. As your proposed solution logically entails consigning others to a fate you'd find uncongenial to experience yourself, you stand exposed as a callously hypocritical and unethical reasoner, indifferent to economic sacrifice, provided it isn't your own. You can thank us for sparing you the trouble of having to look in a mirror to discover this insight into your policy-making limitations.
Of course, if you'd stepped up to the plate and said, sure, you're willing to take the same pay cut you think appropriate for early childhood educators, in order to address society's wider economic problems, that would have been different. Instead, you chose to evade the question put to you, and the logical snare it rightly drew to your attention.
The answer to your either or dilemma seems simple. Pick one. And then we do that for your career as well as day care. If you pick using TFW’s only where the *skills* can’t be found in Canada immediately you’ll end up with higher day care costs which will send a signal about how much we value people doing that work including parents.
To be very clear though…. If you pick labor costs you really should think about where the lowest market rate for your skill set is.
And then it’s worth considering the effect on social cohesion , but that’s another discussion.
As an employer, I love the fact that the Liberal party is obsessed with getting marginally skilled parents out into the workforce. More supply, lower wages.
Let's not kid ourselves, parents, and I mean mostly women, who have highly paid careers already engage with licensed daycare and nannies. They didn't need the subsidy. This is to get those folks where it didn't make sense to work just to pay daycare fees with most of that pay out into the workforce. For that, I am grateful. Every little bit counts to keep wages down in Canada.
C'mon, Rahim: really, "the Canada Home and Mortgage Corporation"? When you cannot get the name of this important government agency, which has been around since 1946, it detracts from your overall commentary.
A perfectly understandable slip. What I don't understand is why CMHC would be tasked with this administrative responsibility to begin with. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with its mandate, no matter how broadly interpreted.
The Cheap Daycare Industry has been shaped by union leaders and industry professionals who can’t stand private operators in the child care business, and have made sure that the regulatory environment would squeeze private operators, especially home based caregivers out of the action. These same proponents are rubbing their hands in glee over all the union jobs and administrative jobs for women that will come with the territory. Administration officials in Ottawa, Provincial and Municipal levels all tripping over each other for a slice of the action.
Nobody in their right mind would set up a cheap daycare regime and then undermine critical spaces out of spite for people who supposedly want to “profit” from caring for children. Good grief, everyone is profiting from this mess and every single childcare space is needed. Especially in rural areas where home based care is close to those who need it and can often provide flexibility in hours to accommodate those working long hours.
There are better ways to run a $10/day childcare than what the Trudeau Liberals have concocted. My vote would be for a quarterly transfer of funds from Ottawa to daycare providers who file daily enrolment numbers.
It's hardly surprising that recruiting "early childhood educators" would be a problem, given how miserably they're paid and how low-prestige their work is. Many people regard such 'educators' as little more than glorified babysitters; yet their job responsibilities are challenging, labour intensive and vitally important.
Meanwhile and just back from the dentist, who told me that she is not signing up to the Federal Dental Plan because of lack of transparency involving fees etc. Another great Trudeau initiative. He is just not ready, STILL!
My brother in law is a dentist, and he was explaining to me how the screwed-up implementation puts financial risk and burden on the dentists. The client's also not supposed to be out of pocket, so you can't bill them at the time of service and let them wait for reimbursement from the government. There's no pre-authorization system to tell you if somebody's covered; you have to submit the claim to find out. If it's denied, then you have to seek payment from the client who's already received the service. Also, the government reserves the right to change their determination of coverage up to 3 years afterwards, in which case the dentist has to repay the government and seek reimbursement from the client. "Hey - remember that filling that you got 2 years ago? Turns out you're not covered - you owe us $400." Also, the federal system is apparently pretty cumbersome compared to the current private insurers.
It's amazing the government didn't just do something cheaper, like solicit bids from private insurers to provide group coverage for eligible Canadians. Yes, the insurance companies will certainly take their cut, but they're already set up to do everything and it's hard to imagine that a federal bureaucracy is actually going to provide services in a more cost-effective fashion.
Totally true. In BC we have a public monopoly on car insurance. It’s insanely expensive (I covered two cars and a house in Alberta for what my car alone costs here in BC) and the damn organization still loses a billion $ a year. Trudeau and his pals have never runs a potato store never mind a serious enterprise so they have not a clue.
I’ve never understood how the government has difficulty understanding that some people want to raise their children all the time and choose to be a stay at home parent or work opposite shifts so one parent can always be home. The tragedy is that current economic situations make the choice to have a parent stay home out of reach for many families who don’t truly want to be dual income households but have no choice.
I think there's 3 factors at play:
1) An assumption that parents will find working outside of the home more fulfilling than staying at home to raise their kids. This is doubtless true for a lot of people (particularly if you've got a professional career), but it's not universal.
2) More people in the workforce increases productivity and economic activity. This is true, but the economic impact hasn't been all positive. Lifestyle expectations have increased with the extra income, and greater income has also increased prices of things like housing. Two incomes feels less like an option than a necessity now.
3) A notion that trained early childhood educators will deliver gains in childhood development compared to kids raised by untrained parents. This one I find dubious because I'm not sure that the limited training and low pay of early childhood educators is resulting in a cadre with superior skills to the parents. Also, small children seem more emotionally secure with their parents and parents generally care more about their kids than anybody else. Again, these are generalizations and individual experiences vary.
I would add on to this that parents are infinitely more interested in the success of their children and can provide more individualized and dedicated attention that is based on the child's needs. When I played with my children, I was also teaching them how to count and what different colors were. I had the time to get down on the floor with them and color together, do activities, see things.
In my opinon and experience, children don't need a trained teacher really at any time in their childhood - there is an abundance of material that can be used to teach a child (homeschooling works well when done thoughtfully - my adult kid has found university easy compared to what was done during homeschool work) BUT there is this cultural perception that unless someone is trained to teach, then a child won't learn. This is actually very false - children are constantly learning. They're learning when they're held and comforted after falling. They're learning when they're read a bedtime story. They're learning when they go grocery shopping with a parent and start to understand that some foods are treats and other foods are good to have every day - and that money influences how much food is being purchased. They're learning when they see an adult handle conflict (maybe not for the better always - but they're still learning).
Childhood is one big learning experience - and trying to structure kids to fit into the same learning process actually does a disservice to children and families.
I've done both - I've been at home and I've worked. They're fulfilling in different ways. BUT I can tell you that my work accomplishments don't carry half the meaning of my parenting accomplishments. Seeing a child succeed and knowing that you've helped create the foundation that allowed them to follow their dreams - there is nothing quite like that sense of accomplishment. No promotion, or kudos, or good review, or award comes close to it. Sure - the work things feel good and I like to socialize with adults - but the satisfaction of being a mom? That's in a class of it's own for me. I suspect this is the factor the government just doesn't understand.
(I'm not disagreeing with you per se - just expanding as I think these are really good points and I think they aren't talked about enough.)
Anyone who thinks that having the state raise children will result in better outcomes than having parents do so is dreaming in technicolor.
I mostly agree but to be fair, there are many parents that should not be raising children.
There are probably a lot of teachers who shouldn't be teaching them either.
Having spent most of my career in education, I can confirm what you are saying.
You’re not wrong but nature made most of us kind of instinctually competent at it. I’m no genius but my kids are fine!
Government subsidized baby sitting plain and simple. Not sure why anybody wants the government to raise their children and as part of that indoctrinate them while doing so.
So is the school system. But we've created a society where the most important job we will ever do is farmed out to people making the absolute minimum. Education is not indoctrination; that's the church.
Indoctrination is also a big part of the educational system these days and what passes for learning. Agree on your comment about farming out the most important job parents have.
The most important job that parents have?
That would be their paying job which lets them provide for their kids so they don’t starve?
I get a bit tired of the conservatives who appear to think that it’s “pro family” to denigrate working to provide for one’s children. Because that’s EXACTLY what it is when someone denigrates parents who work outside their home.
Andrew I think you’re a little off base in your comments. While it is important to be able to provide for your children I’m not sure how you see offloading your children to someone else to raise as a conservative “pro family” denigration question.
My points is that making sure you have the resources to care for your children is actually vital. Without the resources necessary for a decent life (not rich, but decent), children do badly. Poverty ain’t good.
It’s also vital that children SEE their parents provide for them. It models the correct path.
Some conservatives, particularly those on the upper end of the income spectrum tend to forget this because they’ve already done it.
It’s particularly strange when they have that attitude toward daycare but not toward education outside the home. Both effectively “farm out” as some say a vital part of a child’s life.
In general I agree with you however eliminate the partisan comments regarding conservatives and your statement becomes a lot stronger.
Teachers are extremely well paid in Canada. What other job:
-pays $100K plus with 10 years experience
-rarely requires working evenings and weekends
-offers 3 months of paid annual leave
-provides 20 plus days of annual paid sick time on top of the exceptional paid time off
-risk free retirement income that provides 70% of pre-retirement income indexed to inflation
-no possibility of job loss due to employer's financial stability
-extremely low probability of being dismissed with cause
-freedom from performance assessments
Grossed up to include all in compensation, teachers are likely in the top 10% of income earners in Canada
> rarely requires working evenings and weekends
lol. Found the dude who doesn’t know any teachers. (Or has friends who phone in their jobs and generally suck at them) but I’ll think well of you and your friends Doug and assume the former)
Based on the experience of having 6 kids....for example, parent-teacher interviews can only be scheduled between 9 and 3:30. They expect me to take time off work, rather than reciprocating my availability in the evening. I know lots of teachers. They live in bubbles not recognizing their incredibly privileged job security, paid time off and high end pensions.
Well, then, I guess either it’s the second thing and you have lazy friends who are bad teachers or maybe I thought of a third possibility.
You’re one of those guys who only thinks people do the work you see.
Because your thoughts about the evening hours teachers work is like telling an author that the amount of work he put into a published novel is only as long as it would take you to read it.
Where do I find particularly odd about it though is that all these people who think that the job is incredibly easy and incredibly well paid never thought to do it for themselves.
This is a post about Early Childhood Educators, not teachers.
Tell you what....go work in a classroom for a year and get back to us. I am so sick and tired of that argument. Good people come with a cost. No, they don't create shareholder value......then again, most of those people are contributing even less to society.
Gladly. The skill set to become a teacher is not in short supply and as I detailed above, it is one of the most lucrative professions all in. The pension alone is worth sevrn figures.
Sure. 30 6 year olds from multiple cultures, economic and family situations, language issues, who don't ask "how high" when you say "jump" while spending money out of your own pocket for school supplies. And then having to deal with their parents. A pity it's only theoretical. I might last a couple of days at the most.
Nah. The most challenging part would be poor morale from unions radicalizing other teachers into thinking they are hard done by, and teachers deflecting their own failings by thinking they are social workers.
Ok Doug
Did it for seven years. He’s right.
So it's the greatest and easiest job anywhere that pays really well, why aren't you doing it any more as your comment implies?
The daycare initiative was always likely to fail because it was going to be incredibly expensive. However, it's also suffered from common issues with government programs such as excessive regulation and letting secondary objectives overwhelm the primary purpose.
Child care was already a highly regulated space, with strict ratios for children:caregivers. The younger the children, the tighter the ratios. For example, in BC a single caregiver could supervise 4 kids under the age of 4. Only 2 of those could be under the age of 2, or else you could have 2 under age of 4 and 1 infant under 12 months. That makes caring for young children much more expensive, and creates a crunch because that coincides right with the time when maternity leave benefits run out and mothers return to the workplace.
What the affordable child care benefit did was cap the price that facilities could charge for those expensive spaces, plus increase the cost of the staff they needed to hire by emphasizing early childhood educator certification and emphasizing union-friendly provisions. This was compounded by higher staff absences in the post-COVID period: staff who picked up COVID or one of the many other bugs running around would miss work, and care providers needed extra people available to cover and meet the regulatory ratios.
I understand the thinking behind the fee caps: they didn't want child care businesses to soak up any benefit of government funding by simply charging higher fees. What they didn't seem to understand was that the child care business was already operating at low margins with notoriously low wages. Governments also managed to implement their cost caps in such a way that it actually disincentivized existing providers. The program either needed to be much, much more expensive (and funded with higher taxes), or else they should've said "Nope - can't afford it."
Why is it that every time an issue comes up, the government never seems to have a functional answer? And it has been that way for decades. Just once, I would love to see them plan ahead rather than react late, trying to put out fires that their own indecision created. I'm not optimistic I'll live to see that.
This country desperately needs a large dose of free market.
Childcare is subject to Baumol’s cost disease in extremis - it’s incredible labor intensive in a way that can’t be automated away (try telling parents that their kids will be watched by AI/robots). It’s actually a place where TFWs can be really useful.
That’s so-called best use of foreign workers is ENTIRELY about driving the cost of labour down
With respect, how would you feel if we did that for your line of work? We can bring in lots of people to do your job for half the wage that you get right now?
The TFW program was supposed to be for bringing in workers where qualified Canadians DO NOT EXIST for short term work.
You’re proposing it for areas where we could easily get qualified Canadians, but we don’t want to pay for the cost of labour.
What’s the difference between doing this for your job and doing this for the daycare job?
Well, we either shovel ever more money we don’t have at it (ignoring the opportunity costs and rising debt), we scrap the program (which no government wants to do) or we find a way to lower the labor costs and ignore those lathering themselves up about dey tuk er jerbs.
You evaded the question in a way JT would applaud. How in favour of lowering labour costs are you when it's your own labour involved? Careful how you answer if you want to avoid charges of hypocrisy.
This isn’t about me, as you and the other commenter have attempted to redirect (weak ad hominem). Apologize for poor argumentation and thank me for putting you in your place.
We understand perfectly well why you don't want this to be about you, and hence your preference for continuing to take evasive action. As your proposed solution logically entails consigning others to a fate you'd find uncongenial to experience yourself, you stand exposed as a callously hypocritical and unethical reasoner, indifferent to economic sacrifice, provided it isn't your own. You can thank us for sparing you the trouble of having to look in a mirror to discover this insight into your policy-making limitations.
Of course, if you'd stepped up to the plate and said, sure, you're willing to take the same pay cut you think appropriate for early childhood educators, in order to address society's wider economic problems, that would have been different. Instead, you chose to evade the question put to you, and the logical snare it rightly drew to your attention.
> dey tuk er jerbs.
😄 Such a funny show that is.
The answer to your either or dilemma seems simple. Pick one. And then we do that for your career as well as day care. If you pick using TFW’s only where the *skills* can’t be found in Canada immediately you’ll end up with higher day care costs which will send a signal about how much we value people doing that work including parents.
To be very clear though…. If you pick labor costs you really should think about where the lowest market rate for your skill set is.
And then it’s worth considering the effect on social cohesion , but that’s another discussion.
Hell no. I do not want TFWs doing these jobs. We should pay our citizens appropriately.
As an employer, I love the fact that the Liberal party is obsessed with getting marginally skilled parents out into the workforce. More supply, lower wages.
Let's not kid ourselves, parents, and I mean mostly women, who have highly paid careers already engage with licensed daycare and nannies. They didn't need the subsidy. This is to get those folks where it didn't make sense to work just to pay daycare fees with most of that pay out into the workforce. For that, I am grateful. Every little bit counts to keep wages down in Canada.
C'mon, Rahim: really, "the Canada Home and Mortgage Corporation"? When you cannot get the name of this important government agency, which has been around since 1946, it detracts from your overall commentary.
Yikes! Thanks for pointing out that (boneheaded) mistake. I’ve asked for it to be fixed ASAP. R
A perfectly understandable slip. What I don't understand is why CMHC would be tasked with this administrative responsibility to begin with. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with its mandate, no matter how broadly interpreted.
Well, they need to be seen doing something.
Touché! Damage control, then?