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 -- Focus on the nine things I mentioned. That’s what will allow the Conservative Party to win the next election

IMAGE CREDIT:   Darryl Dyck, the Canadian Press. I thought I had already made up my mind who I would be ranking on my ballot, in the Conservative Party of BC leadership race; now I am not so sure.  That means that, at least for me, and perhaps many others, it’s a good thing voting hasn’t already taken place. There were initially only one or two of the candidates that I thought might be a little too right of centre for my liking, now it seems that list is growing. I consider myself more closely aligned with what used to be called a Progressive Conservative, regardless, I feel more than comfortable within the Conservative Party of BC.  Some, however, in messages to me on my political Facebook page, have been rather, shall we say, a bit mean-spirited in comments they’ve made about my ‘purity’ as a conservative. To tell you the truth, I really don’t care! Some leadership candidates, in comments made online, have also been raising the issue of who is a pure enough conservati...

WARD STAMER -- Those are REAL forestry numbers, not just made-up numbers

The following is a condensed version of remarks Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s made, regarding Forestry, in the BC Legislature, on Tuesday afternoon (02/24/2026)   Let’s talk a little bit, when we talk about Budget 2026, about the forest industry, which is near and dear to my heart. Forestry remains one of British Columbia’s foundational industries. It’s a pillar that built this province. Entire communities depend upon it. Interior towns, northern communities, Vancouver Island regions, the Kootenays, the Lower Mainland, with manufacturing facilities in Surrey and Maple Ridge, just to name a few — everywhere in BC is touched by forestry. One word that was not mentioned in Budget 2026 was forestry. That’s a shame, an incredible shame. It wasn’t an oversight – it was intentional. This government has driven forestry into the ground .... INTO THE GROUND! We can talk a little bit about some of the initiatives that this government has brought forth, to try to resurrect ...

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