Governmental Bureaucracies Squeeze Small Businesses

Published by

Clarissa

September 24, 2011

Let me tell you a story of a day-care in Montreal that is being persecuted by the government’s bureaucrats. On a regular basis, bureaucrats descend on this truly excellent day-care and do all they can to make the owners, the teachers, the kids and their parents as miserable as possible. Here is a list of some of the requirements the bureaucrats have imposed on the day-care during their most recent visits:

1. The custom of bringing in bunnies from the neighboring farm for the kids to pet has to be abandoned because petting bunnies is dangerous to the kids.

2. An aquarium with goldfish cannot be installed in the day-care because kids can catch salmonella. From a closed down and locked aquarium. Probably by osmosis.

3. A carpet where children sit and play should be removed and kids should sit on the floor instead. Carpets are, apparently, unhygienic.

4. Children should not be fed soup. Even though they like soup and parents are happy that kids eat it. In case the day-care still insists on serving soup, beans should be added to it. Why beans and not something else is never explained.

I’ve been to this day-care on many occasions and I can testify to the fact that it is really great. Kids have to be dragged out of it to be taken home because they love being there so much. The day-care doesn’t get a dime in any kind of governmental funding. As a result, the government that allows its own state day-cares to do anything they want persecutes this private day-care viciously slapping endless fees and fines on it. This drives the day-care costs sky-high.

This is only a small instance of what I see as a full-scale effort to destroy small business in Quebec.

Rate this:

5 responses to “Governmental Bureaucracies Squeeze Small Businesses”

nominatissima

September 25, 2011

Those poor children. How can you explain something like that to them? “You can’t have fun anymore, because these adults you’ve never met say so.”

LikeLike

Reply
Anonymous

September 25, 2011

I have a neighbor who gasped when I told her that I cook on a gas stove. She doesn’t and her reason was due to her children and that they could get hurt.

The same neighbor doesn’t exclaimed how she hated the tile ledge around the windows and her reason is that the kids can hurt themselves.

She announced that she loves her dog, but if it ever bite the kid, she would have to get rid of it.

When I had a new hot water heater installed (to replace the old one that gave out) I was informed that the code basically dictated how hot the water could be and the reason stated was that kids could get burned and hurt themselves.

I’ve always been treated as if I’m some kind of idiot because I don’t have kids and know-it-alls who have them enjoy condescending to those people who don’t.

I made those observations to help explain, given my knowledge of people like the woman, to explain all the restrictions and fines for the examples you provided.

1. The custom of bringing in bunnies from the neighboring farm for the kids to pet has to be abandoned because petting bunnies is dangerous to the kids.

A bunny could possibly bite the kid and then there would be a LAWSUIT. We live in a litigous society. Tularemia is highly virulent infectious disease in humans and domestic rabbits.

2. An aquarium with goldfish cannot be installed in the day-care because kids can catch salmonella. From a closed down and locked aquarium. Probably by osmosis.

Again fear driven by potential LAWSUITS.

3. A carpet where children sit and play should be removed and kids should sit on the floor instead. Carpets are, apparently, unhygienic.

I’ve heard this and because they are synthetic they are also indicated as problematic for respiratory problems and so on and so on. Again fear of potential disease and lawsuits initiated by parent’s.

4. Children should not be fed soup. Even though they like soup and parents are happy that kids eat it. In case the day-care still insists on serving soup, beans should be added to it. Why beans and not something else is never explained.

Soup is hot and could create burns and again I smell another LAWSUIT by a parent or attorney seeking damages and money. Litigation for many has become a way to make money. Beans are healthy, etc.

I’m not saying I agree with any of it either, but that is what it has been reduced too and I think it is fueled by the parents like the mother above.

LikeLike

Reply
1. bloggerclarissa
  
  September 25, 2011
  
  The problem with explaining this as a result of a litigious society is that the day-care doesn’t impose these regulations. The government does. If the day-care gets sued, the government won’t suffer in any way. So why are they doing this, then?
  
  I have to say that your neighbor is a very weird person, though. As we say in my culture, “life is very dangerous. It always ends in death.”
  
  Children of such over-anxious parents always get sick a lot more than kids of normal parents.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. Anonymous
    
    September 25, 2011
    
    “The problem with explaining this as a result of a litigious society is that the day-care doesn’t impose these regulations. The government does. If the day-care gets sued, the government won’t suffer in any way. So why are they doing this, then?”
    
    Yes, of course and I don’t disagree. Fear of litigation is a part of the problem. The government doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It’s not an entity in and of itself. My point is that government is comprised of legislators and a host of useful idiots and they are influenced by their constituents—special interest groups, etc., and citizens who propose these types of regulations and laws. Initially, some of these laws may even be the result of the well-intentioned.
    
    I have to say that your neighbor is a very weird person, though. As we say in my culture, “life is very dangerous. It always ends in death.”
    
    Yes, life is fraught with dangers and I couldn’t agree more and I believe parent’s need to instill in their children consequence of behavior. It certainly is an example of stupid and lazy parenting wanting the government to step in and take over. How hard can it be to instill consequence of behavior? For instance using a gas stove. I grew up with one and as a child my mother instructed me not to turn it on or to touch the burners and I listened. I cook with a gas stove because that is what I learned to cook on and prefer them. This may not be a good example, but I just wouldn’t be the type of person to suggest that gas stoves be legislated given the inherent dangers that their use foists upon the responsibility-avoidant populace.
    
    Government does like to grow itself and finds useful all the myriad ways of imposing fines and taxes all in pursuit of the dollar. It has always appeared to me that certain Liberals tend to be proponents of big, intrusive government as well.
    
    “Children of such over-anxious parents always get sick a lot more than kids of normal parents.”
    
    I wouldn’t know, but I tend to believe you. They tend to raise very dependent kids as well, which I think inhibits intellectual development and people who can think outside of the box, let alone for themselves—a very useful trait in business. Perhaps they will develop more into individuals ready at the whim to addle government with more useless, inept legislation. God only knows useful idiots are a continual blight in our society.
    
    The neighbor tends to be a very narrow-minded, self-absorbed Catholic, which rubs me the wrong way. She makes all kinds of stupid comments. She works at a Catholic school in education. I’ve met plenty of people with beliefs similar to hers, so I cannot say how weird she may be in comparison to other people who tend to act the same. I thought it was commonplace given the numbers of people who I’ve met who act and behave like her. I tend to avoid her as I think she’s a selfish, idiot.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
Sister

September 25, 2011

Ironically, bunnies are not allowed, yet chicken are.
Snakes are also allowed, but not the fish.
No carpets, yet couches that are much harder to clean are ok.
What is the logic, you ask? I suspect that the point is to create as many confusing rules and sub-rules to then fine all the ‘offenders’.

LikeLike

Reply

Clarissa's Blog