Committee review

[bright sparks]

Bright Sparks, your own 12 year old son will not count in your numbers. Only if your child is under the age of 6. DCK's who are under 13 will count as well. Not your own child under 13.

Thanks for the clarification :-)

[babydom]

I am not quite following all of this. why does it seem so bad if this bill passes because it's hard to stay at just two under two? I'm not following

[CrazyEight]

It's not just 2 under 2. Do you have any young children of your own?? If they are under age 6, they will take up one of your 5 spots. Do you have any daycare children who are 10 or over, just come after school? Right now they don't count in your numbers, but this will make them count until the age of 13. So pretty much all B/A school older kids, who's parents put them in daycare because they're not ready to be home alone, will now be forced to.
Also, the majority of people looking for care are parents of one-year-olds, as that's when mat leave ends. I know multiple caregivers in my city alone that have 3 or 4 under 2 right now. I had 3 under 2 at this time last year. All of those providers will have to terminate 1, 2, or more infants. Those kids will have NOWHERE to go. There was no provision made for parents of multiples. If people have twins, they will have to find a daycare with A) 2 spots currently open, and B) both of those will have to be the 2 infant spots. That will be almost impossible. Those parents will have to split up their babies. Heaven forbid someone has 2 kids close in age, like I did with my older 2, or triplets. It would actually be illegal to have your triplets in the same home daycare.

To use me as an example, my own kids are 6, 5, and 2. If they were these ages next year when the Bill comes in, I would have to terminate 2 dckids because of my 2 younger kids. My husband and I want one more baby. If we do that, I'm looking at at least 3 years of only running on 3 dckids instead of 5, because of the age of my youngest. Those 3 spots will have to be filled by full-time kids, because I can't make a living otherwise, so both of my B/A dckids (ages 6 and 4) will have to go. There is no room in the B/A school program at their schools. There are no other providers that do B/A school in this district. They will have nowhere to go.

As much as this screws over providers trying to make a living, it screws over parents so much more. They won't be able to keep siblings together, they'll have to coordinate schedules with 2 different daycares, and parents that need part-time care or B/A school care will not be able to find it. The fees of the spaces that are available will go through the roof, as providers scramble to afford their bills on less kids. Anyone who thinks this Bill won't create a childcare crisis here just has their head in the sand.

[babydom]

Ok. Yes that makes sense with mat leave babies and filling spots. . Do u think caregivers will not follow rules thinking they will only get caught if someone calls on them? I see that now. One caregiver has 6 instead of 5 but her thinking is she won't get caught unless someone calls and if she does it b a warning first.

[sandylynn]

When will this announcement be made officially

[momofnerds]

What makes you better going thru a licence company that you can have 6 kids, those companies are a joke. I did it, and do recommend it. Basically you need to have 6 kids just to make up the difference for 5 kids you would have if you were private.

[cfred]

A concern among some of us is that they are setting the stage for universal daycare, which NDP and Libs all voted in favour of last week. This will leave all of us out of the loop. I can live with the bill as it is. My children are older and my ages are staggered...we've been through lean times before, and we can certainly do it again. What has many of us in an uproar and wanting to continue fighting is the flat out corruption and collusion that was involved in the making of this bill. It was absolutely set up to leave us out. This was being discussed in 2012 with AGENCIES!!! Agencies were involved in the whole policy writing process AND represented themselves as stakeholders. None of us even knew about this bill. It took 1 hour to get through 2 days worth of review of 90 amendments. Our concerns were never even considered in any meaningful way. It was an absolutely disgusting display of power. And, now the agencies have themselves a nice, shiny new loophole to take advantage of regarding waiving the 2 under 2. You know damned well that it won't just be used in the case of multiples.

I hope everyone in here is furious! You should be! You were all just treated like nothing.....you don't matter in the eyes of your government! We're not done fighting....we'll keep going and I hope everyone will join the cause. I'll let everyone know what the next course of action will be once we all have a chance to regroup.

[cfred]

Mom of Nerds...did you mean that you DON'T recommend it? Would you be willing to write me something outlining why that is? Tell me about your experience with an agency....I'm having a train of thought here. If interested in participating in this, please email me at c.a.fredenburgh@gmai l.com

I'm very interested in hearing what you have to say as a former agency provider.

[babydom]

Do u think caregivers will not follow rules thinking they will only get caught if someone calls on them? I see that now. One caregiver has 6 instead of 5 but her thinking is she won't get caught unless someone calls and if she does it b a warning first.

[cfred]

It is my understanding that there would not be a warning. Don't quote me on it, but it has been said that they will not need to go through the court process to issue fines if a provider is caught with infractions. I do think there will still be providers who don't follow the rules....they'll just be smarter about it. I also think that's playing a very dangerous game.