National Family Childcare Association

Fund the Child! stay at home parents, income splitting, child care, taxes, daycare, kids, advocates,

National Family Childcare Association welcomes you!

We at the National Family Childcare Association would like to welcome you with open arms to explore our many views of childcare. Our hopes for the future is to have all childcare options respected and funded directly to the parents. This website is created to inform all parents of the different choices in childcare in hopes we can all learn from our uniqueness in childcare.

We urge you to become a member and show all styles of government that all childcare choices should be respected and funded. To become a member please click on membership at the top of the page.

Please note this site will be constantly updated. Please report any problems to sara.landriault@gmail.com.

24th June 2008

The Rich are allowed to income split, but not the rest us.

Only the rich are allowed to income split,
Some of you may have read my article about “Why do I have to divorce to Income Split?”, well below explains why I would have to die or become very rich to income split.
These laws are for Ontario as well as Canada in the tax revenue, please ask your local MP one question next time you email/phone he or she, “Why are only specific Canadians allowed to Income Split?”

Dentists

1. The Corporation would be taxed at a much lower rate and personal taxes would be deferred on retained earnings until paid out from the Corporation in dividends, salaries or bonuses.

2. Persons other than the dentist (usually family members and/or a family trust) are not prohibited from owning shares of corporations that deliver non-dental services. Therefore, the income could be taxed in the hands of persons other than the dentist, often resulting in substantial reductions in overall taxes (i. e. income splitting).

3. Selling shares of a small business corporation may qualify for taxfree treatment whereas the sale of an unincorporated business does not. Ancillary corporations could allow a dentist to lower the total tax paid on the sale of a practice.

General

Q. I have a question regarding tax implications on investment accounts.

I currently have a non-registered investment account under my name only. My spouse and I have joint bank accounts. If I were to add my spouse’s name to my investment account and make it a joint account, who can or has to report the capital gains or loss and at what percentage?

- Terence C.

A. In general, from the Canada Revenue Agency standpoint, any asset can be registered jointly for legal ownership. However for income tax purposes, CRA considers who the beneficial owner of the asset is, as opposed to the legal owner.

Generally the split for capital gains, capital losses and other income (interest, dividends) would be in the proportion of funds that each spouse has contributed to the account.

In the case of a joint bank account, you might want to factor the income earned by each of you and split accordingly.

Death Estates

2. Income Splitting. Since individuals are taxed at progressive tax rates, a family trust is an ideal mechanism for high income earners to reduce their annual tax liability by transferring income to persons taxed at a lower, marginal rate. Generally, people think of minor children as the ideal beneficiaries under a discretionary family trust as they generally have little or no income. However, low income earning spouses, dependent parents, adult children and other individuals are also common beneficiaries named in discretionary family trusts. By transferring income through a discretionary family trust to a low income beneficiary, a substantial tax saving is possible.

Physicians

How Can You Income Split with a PC

Physicians are allowed to split income with other family members, such as a spouse, parents, children and trusts for minor children. The income splitting is achieved by having the family members own non-voting shares of the PC that can receive dividends as determined by the physician. Dividends are taxed more favourably than other types of income. An individual with no other income can receive up to approximately $30,000 of dividends tax-free. Dividends can be paid most tax-efficiently to family members who do not have significant other income.

What Factors do you need to Consider when setting up the Share Structure:

It is extremely important that the share structure of the PC be set up with advance planning at the outset, in consideration of the following:

1. Flexibility for changing circumstances of family members;
2. Flexibility to pay dividends to whatever family members are selected each year by the physician;
3. Ensuring that the physician retains complete control of the PC;
4. Allowing the physician to cancel the shares of family members if the circumstances warrant (i.e. marital problems);
5. Establishment at the time of incorporation of multiple classes of shares, so there is a separate class for each family member (allowing complete flexibility as to dividends payable to each family member); and
6. Establishing special classes of shares to be issued to the physician on the transfer of goodwill and other assets relating to the practice, such as equipment.

Professional Corporations

(b) Professional Corporations

Prior to 2001, only a handful of professionals (such as engineers) were permitted to incorporate their practices. In 2001 the majority of professions were given this similar right – but it came with restrictions. There are two major restrictions. The first restriction is that a “shareholder” in a professional corporation does not have limited liability like a shareholder in a “regular” corporation – at least for professional liability. Thus, if a law firm becomes a professional corporation, the shareholders will be protected from claims by their landlord for the failure to pay the rent for the offices, but they will not be protected from claims for negligence in providing legal advice. The second restriction is that the shareholders of a professional corporation are restricted to members of the applicable profession. Thus, for example, a professional corporation established by several accountants is restricted to having only the accountants as shareholders. One of the large advantages of corporations is the possibility for what is known as an “income split”. Suppose Timmy makes $50,000 in salary from TimCo. If Timmy is married with two children, he may be able to make his wife and children shareholders of TimCo and pay the same $50,000 to himself and his family with the result that the tax paid by the four family members will be less than the tax Timmy would have to pay if he received the full $50,000. (It should be mentioned, of course, that the Canada Revenue Agency does not like income splitting and uses what are called “attribution rules” to negate such attempts. However, with careful tax planning by one’s accountant, even a minor income split may produce significant results.) Under the current rules for professional corporations, if Timmy was a social worker, he would not be able to effect an income split with his family unless they were all social workers. However, an important exception to this rule came into place in 2005 which permitted physicians and surgeons and dentists to have family members (ie. spouse and children) as shareholders of professional corporations – so there is hope that this will someday be extended to all other professional corporations. At the moment, the primary persons who would consider professional corporations are: accountants, audiologists, chiropodists, chiropractors, dental hygenists, dental surgeons, dental technologists, denturists, dieticians, lawyers, massage therapists, medical laboratory technologists, medical radiation technologists, midwives, nurses, occupational therapists, opticians, optometrists, pharmacists, physicians and surgeons, physiotherapists, psychologists, respiratory therapists, social workers, social service workers, speech language pathologists, and veterinarians.

posted in Uncategorized | 0 Comments

21st May 2008

Press Release

National Family Childcare Association

NEWS RELEASE

May 20, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Private Members Bill C542 – Family fair policies!

Ottawa— The National Family Childcare Associations Private Members Bill
C-542 will be a beginning to supporting all families in times of stress
caused by financial disadvantages through our unfriendly tax system.

“Bill C-542 is created to put the needs of our sick children first and
that is what the NFCA is all about.” explained Sara Landriault,
president the NFCA. “It is great to see a movement towards putting our
children first rather than leaving them with crumbs left over from our
bureaucracy”

Private Members Bill C-542 was created by Gord Brown Leeds- Grenville MP
of the Conservative Party.
Bill C-542 is designed to change the labour code to enhance benefits for
parents with gravely ill children.
This bill will ease the parent’s financial burden while they struggle to
save their child’s life mentally and physically. Bill C542 will allow
parental leave to care for a sick child.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3478372&Language=e&Mode=1&File=36#4

The introduction of the Private Members Bill C-542 is a necessary
vehicle for families caring for sick children. Up to now, these families
have struggled to save for their children’s future under the burden of
medical and related costs. Unfortunately, they face such a huge cost
burden compared to many other parents. In some cases these families will
not have home for their sick children to return to after treatment.

“I’ve heard about a mother who spent 2 hours a day in the hospital with
her sick child and left him alone after that. Who could be so heartless
to not be with their child during this critical time, I thought. Well,
this mother was a single mother with no family around and had the threat
of losing her job if she took any time off work. So yah I think twice
now about who the heartless ones truly are”, says
Sara Landriault stay at home mom of 3.

Sharon Ruth and Fiona McKenney have started a movement for sick kids in
Leeds Grenville and would like to see National support for our
children’s needs. Both Sharon and Fiona are passionate and experienced
in advocating for this issue due to the fact they have surviving
children of cancer. The NFCA strongly throws all support into helping
Sharon, Fionna and any other parents of sick children across Canada to
create policy change on a Federal level.

The National Family Childcare Association is a grassroots movement
fighting to bring about policy change that will allow all families the
opportunity and the means to care for their children in a way that fits
their life.
–30–
Further information contact:
Sara Landriault, President
National Family Childcare Association

landriault@ripnet.com

posted in Uncategorized | 0 Comments

9th May 2008

NFCA Job Posting

NATIONAL FAMILY CHILDCARE ASSOCIATION

JOB POSTING

As you know Canada lacks in support of stay at home parents, we are fully discriminated against in the tax system and degraded among our peers due to pressure from the governments to release our children to non-profit daycare. The non-profit daycare claim through studies and union funding that non-profit daycare is higher quality than a stay at home parents.
The NFCA feels it is time that we are all equally respected but unfortunately we have no champion. Female MP’s are only dictating childcare as a non-profit daycare, and other MP’s do not believe that stay at home parents are a necessity in Canada’s economic growth. The NFCA is strongly searching for an MP who will stand up and be our CHAMPION.

Wanted:

Position:
Champion of Stay at home parents!

Qualifications:

Standing Member of Parliament

Either opposition or in government

Location:

Canada

Overall responsibility:

* Publicly demand equality for stay at home parents
* Make speeches in the house of commons regarding stay at home parents equality
* Support income splitting, vouchers and tax credits for stay at home parents
* Policy alternatives to childcare to include all children
* Giving parents a shoulder to cry on.

Duties:

* Media and public relations
* Federal & Provincial relations
* Changing diapers, walking in parks and some cooking

Please send resumes to landriault@ripnet.com or phone 613-720-6609 if you are qualified for this position.

All resumes will be accepted but do to limited time of a stay at home mom, not all applicants will be called back.

Thank you,
Sara Landriault
stay at home mom
President, National Family Childcare Association
www.careofthechild.com
www.incomesplitting.org
landriault@ripnet.com
613-720-6609

posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

7th May 2008

Call to pay parents to stay at home

Call to pay parents to stay at home

Parents should be paid to stay at home and look after their children instead of being forced to return to work, a headteachers’ leader has said.

The current benefits system “entraps” vulnerable families and leaves schools and nurseries to bring up children, according to Clarissa Williams, the new president of the National Association of Head Teachers.

She said it was “chilling” that ministers felt it necessary to produce a “strategy” for play as children had become little more than percentages counting towards Government targets.

Speaking at the NAHT’s annual conference in Liverpool, Ms Williams said she had written to Gordon Brown calling for reforms to the benefits system to allow more parents to stay at home.

“There is a paradox between the current benefits culture which entraps the vulnerable, whilst insisting that all young mothers should find a job, leaving schools and other agencies to bring up the children,” she said.

“Why do we feel the need to send children into an educational environment at the age of two?

“Are parents so distrusted that we want to separate them from their children at the earliest opportunity?”

Ms Williams said “real communication” takes place “at home” around the dinner table, without the distractions of television and video games.

“In my letters to the PM I suggested a more creative approach to the benefits system - one which provides incentives for changing the deficit model of child-rearing; one based on rewarding parents who spend quality time with their children reading and talking to them and turning up to support their children’s schools.”

The NFCA has sent Teacher Associations across Canada this plea,

Press Release by the National Head Teachers Association from the UK

{Parents should be paid to stay at home and look after their children instead of being forced to return to work, a headteachers’ leader has said.
The current benefits system “entraps” vulnerable families and leaves schools and nurseries to bring up children, according to Clarissa Williams, the new president of the National Association of Head Teachers.
She said it was “chilling” that ministers felt it necessary to produce a “strategy” for play as children had become little more than percentages counting towards Government targets.
Speaking at the NAHT’s annual conference in Liverpool, Ms Williams said she had written to Gordon Brown calling for reforms to the benefits system to allow more parents to stay at home.
“There is a paradox between the current benefits culture which entraps the vulnerable, whilst insisting that all young mothers should find a job, leaving schools and other agencies to bring up the children,” she said.
“Why do we feel the need to send children into an educational environment at the age of two?
“Are parents so distrusted that we want to separate them from their children at the earliest opportunity?”
Ms Williams said “real communication” takes place “at home” around the dinner table, without the distractions of television and video games.
“In my letters to the PM I suggested a more creative approach to the benefits system - one which provides incentives for changing the deficit model of child-rearing; one based on rewarding parents who spend quality time with their children reading and talking to them and turning up to support their children’s schools.”}

The National Family Childcare Association wishes to extend its appreciation to the Head Teachers Association in the UK for promoting the advancement of paying parents to childcare their own children.
Canada seems to be behind the times, and many advocates accuse women who are at home with their own children of being a bad influence on the economic society of Canada, we at the NFCA believe that parental choice in childcare is a truly progressive concept for the 21st century around the world.

The National Family Childcare Association would like to invite all teachers associations to join our affiliation and help fight for parents at home as well as daycare situations.
If we pool our resources we may be able achieve goals for all childcare across Canada (please see attached release).

Please contact us for more information.


Thank you,
Sara Landriault
stay at home mom
President, National Family Childcare Association

posted in Uncategorized | 0 Comments

4th May 2008

Special needs kids may be forced into foster care

Special needs kids may be forced into foster care

Updated Fri. May. 2 2008 9:26 AM ET

ctvwinnipeg.ca

Government infighting has families in a northern Manitoba community in anguish about how to best care for their children.

The Norway House Cree Nation has told the families of children with special needs that they may be forced to give up their children because the First Nation can no longer pay for their care, and federal and provincial governments can’t agree on who should pay.

For mother Crystal Hart, it means she may have to say good-bye to her daughter, Priscilla.

“I want her to get the services that she can get,” she said while wiping tears from her eyes.

Priscilla Hart has Ritscher-Schinzel Syndrome. She can’t speak or eat and needs to be fed through a tube. She requires constant care from a respite worker who looks after Priscilla when her parents go to work.

The Norway House Cree Nation has been paying for those services, which are required by 37 children on the reserve.

However, the band said the money has run out and the services will end May 31.

“Bureaucracy is what you call a nightmare, I guess,” said band councillor Mike Muswagon. “Trying to get what you can for your community and for your people.”

Muswagon said the First Nation has been fighting for funding from the province and the federal government for years. He said each side argues the other should pay for Status Indian children.

Jordan River Anderson

It’s a familiar story. In 2005, the community rallied around another sick child named Jordan River Anderson.

Jordan spent the first part of his life hooked up to machines in a Winnipeg hospital. When he was two years old, doctors were ready to send him to a medical foster home, but for two years provincial and federal government officials argued over who should pay for it. They couldn’t even decide who would cover the cost of a special showerhead he needed.

Jordan never left the hospital and eventually died in February, 2005. He was five years old.

In December, Members of Parliament in Ottawa vowed never to let that happen again. They unanimously voted in favour of a private members motion called Jordan’s Principle; children should come first when it comes to funding disputes.

On December 12, 2007, Minister of Health Tony Clement wrote this letter of support:

“Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is working closely with Health Canada as well as provincial and First Nations partners to ensure that jurisdictional issues do not impact a child’s quality of care. Governments need to work together to see that First Nations and Inuit children have access to the same services available to other children.”

Native children ’short-changed’

Charlene Ducharme works with the Kinosao Sipi Minisowin Agency, a social agency on the reserve, and said she has yet to see Jordan’s Principle in action. She said the children of Norway House deserve the same care that other Manitoba children get.

“Our premier said Manitoba would be the first one to implement Jordan’s Principle… we’re still waiting.”

In an interview with CTV News, Manitoba Health Minister Keri Irvin Ross said the provincial government is not required to pay for the children’s care. “These issues are a federal responsibility,” she said. “We need to make sure the federal government is held accountable for it, but we are committed to supporting this community and these children.”

But not with any funding. Irvin Ross said the provincial government is offering its support by working with the Norway House Cree Nation in its negotiations with Ottawa. Irvin Ross said the fact that the provincial government is at the negotiating table is “new ground”, and is a signal of its support for Jordan’s Principle. She said the federal government has yet to respond to numerous letters requesting its involvement in finding a solution.

CTV News contacted Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. In an email, Senior Communications Advisor Patricia Valladao said “I was informed that we’ve recently met with our partners including the province on this matter, and we’re working diligently to respond on an urgent basis. We will be meeting with the First Nation very soon.”

Neither the federal or provincial response is very reassuring for the Harts. Little Priscilla’s parents said they may quit their jobs to care for her. They said they’ll find a way to make it work and keep their family together.

With a report from CTV’s Caroline Barghou

posted in Uncategorized | 0 Comments

3rd April 2008

Financial Post on Income Splitting

Split income, not hairs

Families with the same income should be taxed the same. So why do critics try to write off income splitting?

Peter Shawn Taylor, Financial Post Published: Thursday, April 03, 2008

British jurist Lord Bowen once said defining equity reminded him of “a blind man in a dark room looking for a black hat which isn’t there.” Why so difficult? Because people keep messing with what equity means. Just consider the current debate on income splitting in Canada.

This week economist Jonathan Kesselman weighed in on the topic for The Globe and Mail, recapping a paper he wrote in February for the Institute for Research on Public Policy. Kesselman’s answer to whether it’s fair to allow spouses to split labour income for tax purposes is a firm no. But to get to there, he must define equity in a way that most people should find surprising. And his preference for contradictory conclusions opens up the tax system to even greater chaos. All this to argue against what even he admits is a wildly popular idea for reducing taxes on Canadian families.

Income splitting allows a couple to pool their earnings for tax purposes. While the tax system uses family income as the basis for awarding numerous social benefits — and while it seems obvious that households are the basic decision-making unit in an economy –married Canadians have always filed taxes as individuals. This quirk creates issues of equity.

The archetypal income-splitting example involves two families with identical incomes. Family A has one earner making $80,000 a year. Family B has two earners making $40,000 each. Both households have the same income, but Family A will pay thousands more in tax, thanks to Canada’s progressive tax structure. Supporters of income splitting argue this is unfair since it violates the principle of horizontal equity. Two families with identical incomes should face identical levels of tax. Seems simple. Not for Kesselman.

Our scholar argues these two families are vastly unequal. The family with two earners is much poorer than the one with a stay-at-home spouse, he claims. That second job entails more spending on transportation, clothing, dry-cleaning and take-out food. If children are involved, the two-earner family must shell out for child care, while the other family gets it free. All this adds up to substantial savings for the one-earner family. Says Kesselman: “If horizontal equity is to be judged by real living standards, one cannot compare two-earner couples and one-earner couples with the same money income.”

Kesselman ignores the many ways in which the tax system already recognizes the extra costs of the two-income family. The $7,000 child care expenses deduction, for instance, only compensates families for child care costs when both parents work and is mentioned nowhere in his report. At-home parents face real costs as well, including forgone earnings. But his broader point is far more interesting: Kesselman argues that since one-income families have a more pleasant lifestyle

than two-income families, they deserve to pay more taxes. He’s probably right with the first half of this assumption. The attraction of a less-stressed life is undoubtedly the reason why income splitting is so popular. Polls typically show support in the 75% range, a phenomenal level for an allegedly controversial notion.

But claiming that two families with the same income should not be equal in the eyes of the tax system creates some worrying implications. The Canada Revenue Agency uses income as its basis for applying taxes because it’s a dispassionate standard that everyone can agree on. If we abandon this and instead apply taxes on “real living standards,” how will anyone ever see eye to eye on equity? And why just focus on who’s getting home-baked cookies and free daycare? Dropping income as the basis for taxation opens up a host of new and exciting opportunities for the Canada Revenue Agency. Life in balmy Victoria easily rates higher on a lifestyle scale than snowy Sudbury, Ont. So tax that West Coast slacker more!

In fact, Kesselman has in mind a far broader tax revolution than most people could possibly imagine. He would prefer to tax everyone’s potential income as a way of bypassing actual income and getting directly at their lifestyle choices. Those lucky stay-at-home parents would thus have to cough up for the work they aren’t doing because they’re home looking after the kids. Allowing governments to get their share of income you don’t earn is his “economic ideal.”

Further confusing his outlook, Kesselman supports splitting pension income and investment income, which benefit the elderly and the wealthy, but not labour income, which has the biggest appeal for middle-class working Canadians. He obsesses over picayune issue of gender equity, ignoring the fact that the most vocal supporters of income splitting tend to be women. And he curiously accepts the notion of income splitting in cases where one spouse drops out of the workforce to assist the career of the other. The political wife is thus deserving of a tax break, the at-home mom is not.

To be fair, Kesselman provides a handy summary of the current debate, as well as a nice historical summary of the tax treatment of families in Canada and other countries. And his point that income splitting could lead to a reduction in the female labour supply is both correct and important. If we are going to have a discussion on the merits of income splitting, this should be the contentious issue: Does society have a stake in keeping women in the workforce or should we allow families to make their own decisions on labour supply without bias from the tax system? But twisting the definition of equal and plotting ways to tax lifestyles rather than earnings are of little use to Canadian public policy and will no nothing to staunch the popularity of income splitting.

-Peter Shawn Taylor is editor-at-large, Maclean’s magazine.

posted in Uncategorized | 0 Comments

20th February 2008

NFCA met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Sara Landriault , President of the National Family Childcare Association was able to attend a photo opportunity with Prime Minister Harper on Feb 12th.
The NFCA would like to thank the PMO’s for the opportunity!

posted in Uncategorized | 0 Comments

16th February 2008

a very good stay at home parent read

‘It’s about time help is given to mums at home’
IT’S the hardest work I’ve ever done. It’s relentless and it’s tiring but it’s also really wonderful and rewarding.”

Charlotte Ash has stayed at home to look after her children since her youngest daughter Selena, two, was born and is delighted researchers at London University’s Institute of Education have said the Government should support mums like her instead of forcing women back into work.

The research found that many mothers feel they have to choose between being a good parent and a good worker and lead author Dr Carol Vincent warned Government policies fail to recognise that many families struggle to balance full time employment with the demands of parenting.

It’s a familiar dilemma for Charlotte, of Sunflower Street, Cambridge, who went back to work after her first child Jasmine was born, for financial reasons, but decided staying at home to look after her girls was more important when Selena came along.

The 30-year-old welcomed the report and said every woman should decide which option was best for them - home or work - but those who decided to stay with the kids should also be supported.

Charlotte said: “That’s really good, it’s been a long time coming. A lot of women want to stay at home, not all do and that’s fine as well, but for those people who do, they should not be made to feel they should be out working.

“The focus is all on free child care and getting access to child care but a lot of mums don’t want to go back to work.”

Richard, Charlotte’s 37-year-old husband, holds down two jobs to enable Charlotte to stay at home.

She explained: “He is very supportive, but it is up to the individual family. We have to be very careful with money because we only have one income and there is a lot of budgeting and trips to car boot sales but I think it is worth it.”

The research was based on a study of 70 families in inner city areas of London - Stoke Newington in north London, and Battersea in the south - as well as 18 childcare providers.

It followed an announcement of a Government drive last month to move 300,000 single parents into work.

Dr Vincent said: “The mothers in our research were often caught between two conflicting positions - being a ‘good’ mother, or being a ‘good’ worker.

“If they were in work, they had to balance having reduced time at home, with being an ideal mum.

There have been a number of policies under the Labour Government to encourage mothers back into the workplace.

“But working class mothers don’t have the flexibility. It is very difficult for them to be good mothers and good workers.

“It is about giving more recognition to the work mothers do at home, valuing motherhood more, or bringing fathers in to play a greater role.”
Charlotte agrees.

She said: “A lot of women don’t have the choice for financial reasons. Childcare can be very expensive. There are nursery vouchers and ways of claiming child care but if you are a stay at home mum it isn’t always available for you.

“The Government should address the financial restrictions, particularly given housing costs.”

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said evidence showed working mothers provided good role models for their children and said they were working to encourage lone parents back into employment to reduce child poverty.

posted in Uncategorized | 0 Comments

16th January 2008

Press Release Bill C303

-30-

January 15th, 2007

National Family Childcare Association

Ottawa: The National Family Childcare Association (NFCA) reaction to the
the third reading of Bill C303 on January 29th, 2007.

Bill C303 is a private members bill by Denise Savoie of the NDP and
championed by Olivia Chow also of the NDP. This bill has been designed
to enshrine universal childcare into the Federal system like the Health
care system.

Bill C303 has many flaws which removes and limits parental choice and
access in childcare programs.
These flaws are as follows:

* Financially this bill could cost an estimate of 17 billion per year.
* Private licensed daycares across Canada could be extinct within an
estimate of
6 years, even with the grandfather clause.
* to rebuild the loss of private enterprise will cost $10,000 per space!
* Parental advocates of disabled, autistic, shift workers will be left
without care.
* Parental choice and access to programs will be financially taken away.

* Above all, the children of Canada could be put at risk by forcing a
one style fits all daycare.

“The NFCA believe that every family is unique and should retain the
right to choose how they care for their children. We have been
advocating the government for policy that doesn’t pretend that childcare
is a one-size-fits-all solution - this bill goes against parental
rights”
said Sara Landriault, NFCA founding president.

” The NFCA will do everything in its power to stop the NDP from making a
mockery of our Childcare system. Childcare across Canada is forming a
new coalition ready and willing to fight any government or opposition
against ludicrousness of bills like Bill C303. Together as advocates,
employees, business owners but most of all parents we will demand a new
Universal Childcare act that allows all parents to benefit from.”

“The idea of a party or MP using a private members bill to threaten
parents with the care of their own children is completely suicidal in
the political world”
says Sara Landriault, NFCA founding president.

The National Family Childcare Association wishes to extend a “good luck”
in the next election to all MP’s who voted against Bill C303 at second
reading on Nov 21st, 2006 as for the rest of you, you may want to start
apologizing to the parents now.

-Contact-

Sara Landriault
President, National Family Childcare Association
www.careofthechild.com
www.incomesplitting.org
landriault@ripnet.com

posted in Uncategorized | 0 Comments

7th December 2007

Calling all Private daycare operators

( Please click on highlights to find out more about the information )

To all Private Daycare Operators, important facts you need to know about Bill C303.

Bill C303 is a Federal Private Members Bill being put through by Denise Savoie of the NDP.

Denise Savoie has decided that all childcare funding is to be taken out of the Provincial hands and put into the Federal governments hands adding that only Federal funding will benefit non-profit centers only. Any Private daycare centers in effect right now will be grandfathered in the bill.

This means that any subsidized spot you have in existence will be covered. What will happen when that child enters school or the parents move away and a new family applies for subsidy?

They will be denied.

Currently your turnover is high, with this bill coming into effect in the next few weeks you will be closed down within 6 - 10 years because of Bill C303.

BILL C303 is being put into force by the NDP but also fully backed by the Liberals and the Bloc. With all 3 parties standing up to achieve a universal childcare through Bill C303, then all of the Private daycare Operators will be shut down within a few years.

Whether you are 123 Busy Beavers, or More than just babysitting in Kemptville, there is no way parents will be able to afford your prices without subsidy and there is no way you can cover your own costs without parents.

I am a stay at home mother of 3, who is the President of the National Family Childcare Association.
So why do I want to help private operators?
Simple, you are part of parental choice.

First it started, parents vs daycare
not it is non-profit vs profit
then it is big box against all

None of this is right, and you know that.

Please help us stand up and tell all governments from Municiple, Provincial to Federal that we’re sick of them pitting us against each other and DO THE RIGHT THING FOR OUR CHILDREN….

We truly need all choices,

Band together with us to show these choices.

( Please click on highlights to find out more about the information)

posted in Uncategorized | 0 Comments