Child care cutbacks
MetroValley Newspaper Group -- Richmond Review
01 Feb 2007
Letters -- Chris Parry

Regarding Michael Chiu's letter to the editor ("No choice on care cuts," Jan 27), Mr Chiu has his facts right, but his assessment completely wrong, regarding the dire state of child care under the current Conservative government.

While it is correct that parents now receive a $100 cheque each month to cover child care, that supplement is considered taxable income, so after tax it actually drops to about $70--a classic case of giving with one hand while taking with the other.

The $100 supplement is given to every family with kids, regardless of whether they need or want child care, or how much they earn, and if the letter-writer looked at how much child care actually costs families in B.C., he'd realize that the $100 Stephen Harper sends us (minus tax) pays for about four days of child care per month for the average family.

In addition, funding cuts to providers means they'll have to charge $60 more per month, which all but eats up every cent the government so "generously" now dispenses to us.

In addition, the lack of spaces means families like ours can't get a spot in group daycare, and instead have to utilize "family child care" in private citizens' homes, and anyone who has navigated that situation can tell you plenty of horror stories about their search for a safe, reliable, available provider. While quality family child care providers certainly do exist, without services like the (soon to be closed) Richmond child care placement service, finding them can take days--or even weeks--as we personally discovered when we lived downtown.

Admittedly, the Liberal government dragged the chain on national child care for a long time, but to suggest that parents shouldn't criticize the Conservative government because they're so generously giving us a small amount of money while simultaneously taking it away in taxes and funding cuts, is ludicrous in the extreme.

If the government so needs to save a few hundred million dollars, perhaps they could stop handing out corporate welfare checks, rather than cutting back on the welfare of our children.