Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

It appears that our nanny state government wants to ensure all child-care is only available through licensed government sanctioned facilities


Today the BC NDP government announced that thousands of early childhood educators to benefit from new supports and wage boosts.  So, what will that mean for parents of children in licensed child care facilities … and what about those small at home child care facilities which are not licensed by the province?

Earlier in June, the government announced it was investing $750,000 per year in a new grant program that would offer un-licensed providers caring for a maximum of 2 children, a new source of funding to become licensed.  They would then have the ability to care for up to 8 children.  The available grants were to provide funding of up to $4,500 for providers pursuing an in-home multi-age (IHMA) child care licence … and up to $4,000 for providers pursuing a family child care licence.

But what about those child care providers NOT wish to expand? Why would funding not be made available to them?  I can think of one reason, and one reason only.  It appears that our nanny state government wants to ensure all child-care is only available through licensed government sanctioned facilities.  And there are a multitude of reasons for this, I believe.


One ... a pay scale that in the long run will see child-care providers unionized and members of the BCGEU – something similar to what is now happening on large-scale government infrastructure projects.  You’re in the union, and your company agrees to it, or you don’t get a share of monies that government, in its largesse using OUR money from taxation, hands out.

Two … government begins to slowly intercede and intervene in programs being offered, and what the content of those programs might be.

Three … small in-home day cares eventually are forced out because of government subsidies that allow licensed providers to offer a much lower cost for parents.  And with day care costs every rising, and parents having to pay more and more, it’s obvious where parents will go.

What else happened earlier this Summer?  In mid-July the BC government announced that 22,000 new licensed spaces would be coming over the next three years.  You caught that, right?  Licensed Child Care Spaces, which would then as I noted just a moment ago, be more affordable.  Funding made easier to access for private-sector, non-profit and public-sector child care providers. 

Money again going into licensed facilities (including public-sector child care facilities) where government is slowly but surely inserting their tentacles into curriculum, wages, unionization, and more specifically, who gets funding and who doesn’t.

Katrine Conroy, Minister of Children and Family Development stated that. “Creating more licensed, affordable child care spaces is a key part of our new Childcare BC plan, so parents can have the peace of mind they need and quality care they can rely on.”

Licensed Child Care Spaces -- Government interference in the marketplace.

For many years there have been small non-profits, and co-ops, providing child-care that was more affordable, however they didn’t have the same degree of government intrusion into every aspect of how they delivered the service they provided.  The same for small at home providers of child care.

I agree totally with the comment from Katrine Conroy (BC’s Minister of Children and Family Development) that, “Early childhood educators are the heart of BC’s child care system, and their passion and dedication are key to setting BC kids on the path to future success,”

What I don’t agree with however is that this can ONLY be delivered by licensed child care spaces.

The Minister, and her government, has clearly shown that it plans to provide wage enhancements, government funding for subsidies, government funding for creation of spaces, and more for child-care.

It is also showing that its intent is to freeze out, and therefore end as much as possible, the small in-home care provider.  As I stated earlier on this opinion piece … it appears that our nanny state government wants to ensure that all child-care is only available through licensed government sanctioned facilities.

Our government at work – using our money – whether we agree with what it’s doing or not.

In Kamloops, I’m Alan Forseth, and I hope you’ll join the discussion.  Do you agree?  Let me know by posting your thoughts in the Comment Section directly below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FORSETH -- Given the noted infractions of this agreement with OneBC leader Dallas Brodie, I request the Party immediate suspend the leadership campaign of Yuri Fulmer

I have personally emailed the following to the Board and Administration of the Conservative Party of BC:   TODAY (03/30) Yuri Fulmer, a candidate for the leadership of the Conservative Party of BC, made a pact with ONEBC leader Dallas Broldie, that if he is elected will commit the Conservative Party to the following. Specifically, the pact states : This Memorandum of Understanding outlines the definitive electoral and governing alliance that will be executed upon Yuri Fulmer’s election as Leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia OneBC Party commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in 88 of British Columbia’s 93 electoral districts. In exchange, the Conservative Party of BC, under the leadership of Yuri Fulmer, commits to not nominating or authorizing candidates in five (5) specific electoral districts . OneBC will be the sole standard-bearer for the right in those five districts. The specific ridings will be determined through mutual negotiation and fin...

Delays to the replacement of the Red Bridge? Kamloops North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer says they are, “Totally Unacceptable.”

I think it’s totally unacceptable that on one hand the Ministry of Transportation and Transit (MoTT) is saying they’re going to be responsible for putting together multiple replacement options with public engagement, and then in the same breath they're saying, ‘Oh, and by the way, we're going to start our geotechnical environmental and archaeological site assessments on both sides of the river, possibly beginning this summer.’ According to Stamer, that should already have been done. “Obviously, we're pretty sure it will be in the same location because there's really no other place to put it. So, if you're going to put in a bridge, you think that at least you'd be doing the archaeological assessments first off”, stated Stamer.   “If it's determined it has to be a free-span bridge, and it can't have anything or very minimal impact in the riverbed, they should already be determining that. It would help in the design, wouldn't it?” Stamer indicated...

Your government has a gambling problem (Troy Media)

Provinces call it “revenue,” but it looks a lot like exploitation of the marginalized The odds of winning Lotto Max are about 1 in 33 million. You’re statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to win it. But your government is betting that statistics won’t hold you back; they’re counting on it. Across Canada, provincial governments not only regulate gambling, they also maintain a monopoly on lottery and gaming by owning and operating the entire legal market. That means every scratch card is government-issued, gambling odds are government-set, casino ads are government-funded and lottery billboards are government-paid. And these are not incidental government activities. They generate significant revenues that governments have powerful incentives to expand, not constrain. It would be one thing for our governments to encourage us to engage in healthy activities. We can quibble about whether the government should be trying to convince us to be more active or eat more vegetabl...

Labels

Show more