Extensive study by the National Bureau of Economic Research into Québec’s universal, Western province financed, $7 a day daycare, reveals “striking evidence” that children who are placed in daycare are less socially mature and less emotionally stable, with boys tending to be more hyperactive and girls more selfish. Really?
Another study by the University of Québec in Montréal concludes that “the evidence presented shows that the policy has not enhanced school readiness or child early literacy skills in general,” and that “parent reported behavioural measures on aggressiveness and anxiety show significant worsening.” Wow! This is really going off script!
Other studies clearly show that universal daycare disproportionately benefits the well to do. Is that how we want to spend our tax dollars?
0bviously, universal daycare is a bad idea. In fact, studies suggest that having children in a familiar home in the care of family members or friends, is actually best for kids. Who knew?
Well, probably everyone in possession of a milligram of common sense and who is prepared to allow common sense to override socialist ideology. I suspect that Thomas Mulcair has the common sense but apparently it’s been overridden by his commitment to socialist/NDP ideology.
There are far more economically and socially efficient ways for governments to assist single mothers, or others who might need assistance. And as a society, we have a responsibility to work harder to help keep the biological family unit strong and intact.
Scattershot universal social programs are not the way to go.
Even if you’ve been away climbing Mount Everest I suspect that you’re aware of the chaos in the Muslim world, with the resulting refugee crisis, and the impact it’s having on Europe. You’re also aware that there’s a debate about Canada’s proper role in the conflict, and its responsibility to the refugees. And of course if we’re Christians, Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan forces the question: “What’s our role?”
I think it’s worth noting, that while immigrants and refugees both end up as our neighbours, the reasons they get there are starkly different. Seeking economic opportunity and personal freedom is one thing; fleeing enslavement or death is quite is a whole different ballgame.
I’ve always been pro-immigration, and think I think Canada’s yearly immigration numbers have been about right. But in the big picture, the only practical and moral solution for a lack of opportunity is to change that situation so that people can flourish where they are. Governments do that by creating the conditions for a free market economy which is governed by common-sense regulations that are rigorously enforced.
which provides a an engaging and crystal-clear illustration of the futility of trying to end world poverty through increased immigration.
And the fact is that in the last 20 years – that’s less than one generation – governments unleashing entrepreneurship and capitalism have enabled poverty within the developing world, to be cut in half. That means that hundreds of millions of people have moved from hunger to opportunity without having to emigrate. That’s an incredible success story!
Nevertheless, Canada has always needed and will continue to need immigrants. Simply put, our young people are not having enough babies to meet the need for future taxpayers. And with insufficient future workers / taxpayers, Canada will go broke.
But immigrants to Canada must have an opportunity to succeed which requires an infrastructure to assist them into productivity – preferably in the profession for which they have been educated, and an ethos that rewards hard work and entrepreneurship, and discourages government dependency. That and a commitment to freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, are the values that built Canada, and only those values will sustain it into the future.
Next month, voting age Canadians face a choice between parties committed to the emotionally appealing ideology of bigger government, higher taxes on corporations and the rich, and freebies for everyone. The alternative is a party who – ideologically at least – embraces a less emotionally appealing but more realistic, reduced role for government; more private initiative; and an improved climate for entrepreneurs.
According to the Boston and Copenhagen-based Reputation Institute, Canada is now the most respected country in the world, and has been for 4 of the past 6 years. That’s partly because of our posture on the world stage. It’s also because, unlike almost every other developed country in the world, Canada is back to balanced budgets, which, incidentally, don’t balance themselves. Do we really want to change that?
Every Canadian of voting age has a responsibility to vote, but we have a preceding responsibility to become informed, and to think carefully about our choice. We should make decisions based on fact and logic – which may indeed produce emotion, but sometimes, unfortunately, we make decisions based on nothing but emotion. Which decisions usually work out best for us, and which ones usually get us into trouble?