Liberal Majority or Minority?

[franko]

My impression:

Daycare:

Liberals: money to the provinces, for new buildings and new daycare spaces.
Con: more adminsitration, provinces decide how to allocate, [in Ontario] subsidies based on debt-to-income ration rather than low-income need, typical daycare hours 6:00 to 6:00.
Pro: Daycare licensed and therefore accountable to provincial standards. More spaces.

Conservatives: money to individuals as well as to companies (and I thiknk provinces).
Con: As the Liberals have said, how far does $100. go? Non-licensed daycare paid for -- standards not necessary. No subsidies to those with greater need [again, probably provincial juristiction]. Companies getting into the daycare business? If they cared they'd be doing it already. Other new spaces? Who knows.
Pro: The guaranteed $100./month goes further than what the Liberal generalizations have promised. Some of those who are not subsidized cannot afford centre-based daycare and this will help them. If companies actually do create daycare centres in their exisiting buildings it will be a great help.

GST:

In the past 3 years my federal taxes have gone down about a dollar (and my provincial taxes assessment has risen because of the health care premium. In the past 3 years I have have not had a raise. In the past 3 years the COL has risen, interest rates have risen (so my mortgae is going up again). Last week I bought 4 new tires for my car and the first year's 1% GST lowering would have saved me 5 bucks. NOt a heack of a lot, but more than all those wonderful tax breaks Mr. Martin and the Liberals have given me.

[Toronthab]

Do you think I could find that terrific url shrinker ?

Martin will do well not to underrate Duceppe
Dec. 7, 2005. 06:16 AM
CHANTAL HEBERT


If there is another Quebec referendum anytime soon, Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe will be the man to beat.

He may turn out to be as tough a proposition for bewildered federalists as the charismatic Lucien Bouchard.

Many Canadians were surprised by Duceppe's strong performance in the 2004 televised leaders' debates.

The fact that the English-language media and the Bloc tend to mutually ignore each other went some way to turn the sovereignist leader into the revelation of the debates.

It is easier to dismiss Duceppe as a circumstantial byproduct of Liberal mismanagement than to address the reality of his rise as the enduring star of the sovereignty movement.

But that is also a strategic mistake that might cost the Liberals Quebec in the coming election and federalists the country in a referendum.

In this election, Duceppe is the senior and most accomplished leader on the ballot.

While Paul Martin has shrunk since his glorious beginnings 24 months ago, while Stephen Harper has been unable to break out of his rigid frame so far, while the jury is still out on Jack Layton, Duceppe has gone from being an object of relative ridicule in his first campaign in 1997 to what a commentator described last week as the closest thing Quebec has to a secular saint.

Like Jean Chrétien, Duceppe has thrived on being underestimated. Lacking some of the usual qualities that designate someone as a natural leader, he has made up for his shortcomings with persistence and hard work.

On any given question, Duceppe is likely to be as strong or stronger on substance than on rhetoric.

franko processed the URL to this story in a post below, and also provided a link to tinyurl. - M. B-E

[franko]

habsaddict said:

I am sure that you that they are going after her because she works in a cash business. The intent is two fold. Collect and deter. Collect what THEY think is fair and make sure that she id detered from any "cheating". The first part will aggravate and the second part just makes people more determined and crafty.

My complaint is not that they audit people. Deterent (in this case) works. My complaint is that those who are monied can work the legitimate system better than those who are not so as not to pay their "fair share" (though are taxes fair in the first place?).

Speaking of money....

Today, another six BILLION dollars promised away by our buddy King Martin. By the time we go to the polls, he should have bought every vote in Canada....China, India, Kazakhstan and four other 'stans of your choosing.

Don't forget, a Liberal promise is usually just that: a promise, soon to be forgotten after a successful election (but trotted out next time). His promises aren't going to cost us anything if he doesn't follow through.

[franko]

toronthab said:

Do you think I could find that terrific url shrinker ?

tinyurl.com

Your story is found at tinyurl.com/7thxw

[Toronthab]

franko said:

My impression:

Daycare:

Liberals: money to the provinces, for new buildings and new daycare spaces.
Con: more adminsitration, provinces decide how to allocate, [in Ontario] subsidies based on debt-to-income ration rather than low-income need, typical daycare hours 6:00 to 6:00.
Pro: Daycare licensed and therefore accountable to provincial standards. More spaces.

Conservatives: money to individuals as well as to companies (and I thiknk provinces).
Con: As the Liberals have said, how far does $100. go? Non-licensed daycare paid for -- standards not necessary. No subsidies to those with greater need [again, probably provincial juristiction]. Companies getting into the daycare business? If they cared they'd be doing it already. Other new spaces? Who knows.
Pro: The guaranteed $100./month goes further than what the Liberal generalizations have promised. Some of those who are not subsidized cannot afford centre-based daycare and this will help them. If companies actually do create daycare centres in their exisiting buildings it will be a great help.

GST:

In the past 3 years my federal taxes have gone down about a dollar (and my provincial taxes assessment has risen because of the health care premium. In the past 3 years I have have not had a raise. In the past 3 years the COL has risen, interest rates have risen (so my mortgae is going up again). Last week I bought 4 new tires for my car and the first year's 1% GST lowering would have saved me 5 bucks. NOt a heack of a lot, but more than all those wonderful tax breaks Mr. Martin and the Liberals have given me.

I have some very serioius reservations about daycare generally. I am not persuaded that that human life is enhanced by taking mothers away from their children especially in their eraliest years. I would far rather have you and me recognize parenting as the essential work that it is and make it possible for mothers who choose to to be with their children.

Studies have indicated that kids in daycare are more agressive and difficult.

That said, if indeed there is more merit in making SUV's and monster homes than being with your children to contrast some of our cultural values, and if we are determined to accept that a person's workday pay should not be enough to support say a pregnant wife and child at home, then one may consider provision of daycare.

Incidentally I think a lot of Reform Party types would agree with questionning day "care" where we take soome of the lowest paid people in our culture and very, very often, complete strangers with no oversight, to nurture the little ones.

I suspect that a lot of the money ($1200.) going directly to will go to general revenue for the family, a fact I don't mind, by the way.

It is consistent with the ideological slant of the right-wingers that mothers will still have to run around and scour ads to find daycare spots...wherever. Seems to me that this is a bit of an instance of "just throwing money at the propblem."

If there is to be daycare, then there must be the infrastructure and places in place. This requires government action and taxes. One might well ask, what is government doing establishing elementary and high schools, and even universities by God, but hey, big business can't be everywhere.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

habsaddict said:

I am sure that you that they are going after her because she works in a cash business. The intent is two fold. Collect and deter. Collect what THEY think is fair and make sure that she id detered from any "cheating". The first part will aggravate and the second part just makes people more determined and crafty.

My complaint is not that they audit people. Deterent (in this case) works. My complaint is that those who are monied can work the legitimate system better than those who are not so as not to pay their "fair share" (though are taxes fair in the first place?).

Speaking of money....

Today, another six BILLION dollars promised away by our buddy King Martin. By the time we go to the polls, he should have bought every vote in Canada....China, India, Kazakhstan and four other 'stans of your choosing.

Don't forget, a Liberal promise is usually just that: a promise, soon to be forgotten after a successful election (but trotted out next time). His promises aren't going to cost us anything if he doesn't follow through.

Franko, again I work from recall, but didn't the Liberals actually have a Red Book, and did they not make some considerable headway into it, while in contrast the Right wing did not have a policy convention and made up their stuff during the campaign?

Are you saying that they are not defending a one tier system, or other of theri key promises. Did they not pay down the debt, with all the problems that caused, while the Alliance factor was yelling for even more dramatics cuts and more serious inraods into social spending? Blanket statements of the "All Liberals are theives and liars" variety might be emotionally satisfying, but ..how can I say this...

Many right wingers and the fascist is the penultimate right winger carried to it's logical extreme, view the requirements of the community and the taxation required to finance the community as "stealing" from them. They really do. These are the morons you hear talking about how, "Income tax was introduced as a TEMPORARY measure durin the war." Then they stand there with this incredibly stupid agreived look in their uncompprehending eyes waiting for some red-faced look of startled moral outrage to emerge. The stunted people.
Taxes represent the concerns of the "others", and this utter blinding stupid selfishness underlies this sense of "stealing". Talk about a sack of hammers.

[franko]

Some thoughts to read on the Red Book:

Liberal Red Book Top 10 Liberal Broken Promises.

1. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs (Red book, Chapter 1) - Canada currently has 1.4 million unemployed, half a million not looking for work, youth unemployment at 18%, and one in every four Canadians worried about their jobs.
Comment: not sure that this is up-to-date
2. Preserving and Protecting Universal Medicare (Red book, p.74) - By 1998/99 the Liberals will have cut $7 billion in social transfers to the provinces.
Comment: And yet the Liberals blame Mike Harris in Ontario? And we wonder why the health care system needs help!
3. Scrap, Kill, and Abolish the GST - Prime Minister Chretien and Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps on the campaign trail made this promise. The Liberals will have spent $931 million to bury the hated tax in Atlantic Canada.
Comment: No more needs to be said.
4. Restore faith in Government (Red Book, p.92) - Sheila Copps, David Collenette, Jean Boyle, Michael Dupuy - 'nuff said.
Comment: HRDC, Gun Registry, Adscam [though I hate that term]
5. Stable Multiyear Funding for the CBC (Red Book, p.89) - The Liberals cut $377 million from the CBC - a third of the public broadcaster's budget.
Comment: and when the CBC loses HNIC to the CTV revenues will disappear and program will become even worse!
6. Renegotiate NAFTA (Red Book p.24) - Two months after taking power, Chretien signed NAFTA without any changes.
Comment: NAFTA has been good and bad . . . just looking at Red Book promises
7. A Code of Conduct for Politicians (Red Book, p.95) - no new code and the Prime Minister uses the secret Ministerial guidelines only when convenient.
Comment: we need a code of conduct for the Parliament too
8. Appointments Based on Competence (Red Book p.92) - The Governor General, the Ambassadors to Isreal and Britain, the Chairman of Canada Post, and the last 19 Senators are all partisan Liberal patronage appointments.
Comment: It's who you know that counts . . . plus ça change . . .
9. More Free Votes (Red Book p.92) - out of more than 200 government bills in three years, the Prime minister has allowed one free vote on government legislation. The Liberal government has restricted debate on more than 20 occasions.
Comment: you will vote freely how I tell you . . .
10. Eliminate Trade Barriers (Red Book p.22) - Internal trade barriers continue to cost the economy $6 - $10 billion a year.

Red Book

Other thoughts on the Red Book: mapleleafweb.com blog, THab's own wikipedia

On the GST:

It was Martin, we recall, who helped write the Liberal red book in the 1993 campaign -- a document that featured a solemn vow by the Liberals to wipe out the GST if Canadian voters would only let them back into office.

Once elected, of course, the Liberals did no such thing and we continue to pay an extra 7c on the dollar for anything from a ballpoint to a Buick.

Yesterday Tory Leader Stephen Harper announced his party's plan to trim the GST from 7% to 5%, forcing Martin in effect to defend the very tax he promised to eliminate.

"I don't believe that is the path to follow," said the prime minister of the Tory GST plan. "Canadians have been down this road before. They've heard this story."

Ottawa Sun

The goods and services tax is a stupid, inept and incompetent tax.

Paul Martin, House of Commons, 1989

[Skilly]

franko said:

My impression:

Daycare:

Liberals: money to the provinces, for new buildings and new daycare spaces.
Con: more adminsitration, provinces decide how to allocate, [in Ontario] subsidies based on debt-to-income ration rather than low-income need, typical daycare hours 6:00 to 6:00.
Pro: Daycare licensed and therefore accountable to provincial standards. More spaces.

This is what concerns me. Contructing buildings and providing spaces, while a noble effort, does not lower the cost of daycare. It might be cheaper at first just becuase of competition, but daycares struggle because of overhead costs. Daycares are now leaning towards the co-op daycares, where the cost is calculated to cover off the cost of overhead and salaries, but no profit. I have one at my work but there is no space, yet even if this money creates space by alowing them to hire more caregivers the price is not going to come down.

If Martin's plan is based on need. What kind of need? If it is a financial need, well I am not going to qualify since both my wife and I work. But we need a caregiver. Should working parents (nomatter there income) be penalized, when if both parents work they obvious have a need?

Conservatives: money to individuals as well as to companies (and I thiknk provinces).
Con: As the Liberals have said, how far does $100. go? Non-licensed daycare paid for -- standards not necessary. No subsidies to those with greater need [again, probably provincial juristiction]. Companies getting into the daycare business? If they cared they'd be doing it already. Other new spaces? Who knows.
Pro: The guaranteed $100./month goes further than what the Liberal generalizations have promised. Some of those who are not subsidized cannot afford centre-based daycare and this will help them. If companies actually do create daycare centres in their exisiting buildings it will be a great help.

I am not familar with the laws of the other provincial jurisdictions, but in Newfoundland all daycare providers are subject to the "Child Care Services Act". So standards are necessary even for non-licensed providers. For example, a child care provider, is defined as a caregiver for any child, and a child care provider has to be licensed if he/she cares for more than 3 infants under the age of 2. So, for lack of a better term, a babysitter caring for your child in her own home can only care for three kids. She is still bound by the laws of theland though ... negligence etc. So there are standards.

The thing I like about Harper's plan is that you can spend the money as you see fit and it applies to everyone. It is a concrete plan. Martin's is a promise to do what? Initiate a plan .... what kind of plan? The devil is in the details as they say. If someone has 2 kids and the mother stays at home .... well she gets $2400 a year to buy diapers, medicines, clothes, cribs, etc .... If both parents work well $2400 isn't going to pay for daycare, but it puts a dent into it. I currently pay $7200/year for one child (and that is actually cheap), in two years it could be astronomical. Today's parents are actually planning their families by not having a second child until the first child is in pre-school or kindergarten to avoid high daycare.

GST:

In the past 3 years my federal taxes have gone down about a dollar (and my provincial taxes assessment has risen because of the health care premium. In the past 3 years I have have not had a raise. In the past 3 years the COL has risen, interest rates have risen (so my mortgae is going up again). Last week I bought 4 new tires for my car and the first year's 1% GST lowering would have saved me 5 bucks. NOt a heack of a lot, but more than all those wonderful tax breaks Mr. Martin and the Liberals have given me.

A raise?? What's that? And that's also what I dont like about the Liberal plan. Reducing personal income taxes is mute if premiums raise for insurances, or the provincial taxes rise. It sounds good on paper, but show me the details.

[razor]

toronthab said:

franko said:

My impression:

Daycare:

Liberals: money to the provinces, for new buildings and new daycare spaces.
Con: more adminsitration, provinces decide how to allocate, [in Ontario] subsidies based on debt-to-income ration rather than low-income need, typical daycare hours 6:00 to 6:00.
Pro: Daycare licensed and therefore accountable to provincial standards. More spaces.

Conservatives: money to individuals as well as to companies (and I thiknk provinces).
Con: As the Liberals have said, how far does $100. go? Non-licensed daycare paid for -- standards not necessary. No subsidies to those with greater need [again, probably provincial juristiction]. Companies getting into the daycare business? If they cared they'd be doing it already. Other new spaces? Who knows.
Pro: The guaranteed $100./month goes further than what the Liberal generalizations have promised. Some of those who are not subsidized cannot afford centre-based daycare and this will help them. If companies actually do create daycare centres in their exisiting buildings it will be a great help.

GST:

In the past 3 years my federal taxes have gone down about a dollar (and my provincial taxes assessment has risen because of the health care premium. In the past 3 years I have have not had a raise. In the past 3 years the COL has risen, interest rates have risen (so my mortgae is going up again). Last week I bought 4 new tires for my car and the first year's 1% GST lowering would have saved me 5 bucks. NOt a heack of a lot, but more than all those wonderful tax breaks Mr. Martin and the Liberals have given me.

I have some very serioius reservations about daycare generally. I am not persuaded that that human life is enhanced by taking mothers away from their children especially in their eraliest years. I would far rather have you and me recognize parenting as the essential work that it is and make it possible for mothers who choose to to be with their children.

Studies have indicated that kids in daycare are more agressive and difficult.

That said, if indeed there is more merit in making SUV's and monster homes than being with your children to contrast some of our cultural values, and if we are determined to accept that a person's workday pay should not be enough to support say a pregnant wife and child at home, then one may consider provision of daycare.

Incidentally I think a lot of Reform Party types would agree with questionning day "care" where we take soome of the lowest paid people in our culture and very, very often, complete strangers with no oversight, to nurture the little ones.

I suspect that a lot of the money ($1200.) going directly to will go to general revenue for the family, a fact I don't mind, by the way.

It is consistent with the ideological slant of the right-wingers that mothers will still have to run around and scour ads to find daycare spots...wherever. Seems to me that this is a bit of an instance of "just throwing money at the propblem."

If there is to be daycare, then there must be the infrastructure and places in place. This requires government action and taxes. One might well ask, what is government doing establishing elementary and high schools, and even universities by God, but hey, big business can't be everywhere.

I agree with your assessment of daycare, a lot of times it comes down to choice, lifestyle or raise my own kids. For this reason, I find it a real stretch when the Liberals compare Government involvement in daycare to that of health care. Health care literally benefits every single person in the country. Subzidized daycare, paid for by everyone, only benefits a few - those families with kids in daycare.

The Liberals critisize Conservative plan, complaining that the money goes into the hands of the family and may not be put toward daycare. So maybe the Conservatives have named their program wrong, maybe they should have simply said they would double the child tax credit. The Liberals promised to eliminate child poverty and have failed. This promise by the Conservatives trumps anything the Liberals have done, and if people were smart, they would see through the Liberal critisism.

action.web.ca/home/c2000/alerts.shtml?x=82972

What the Liberals are saying is that they know what my family needs, and they are going to spend my money better than I can. What a load of B.S.

[Doc Holliday]

In Qubec we've had the Government take over Daycare 3-4 years ago and now it's a huge mess. Costs are out of control, CPE Commisioners making a couple hundreds of thousands in salaries, service level is droping, employees went from dedicated caretakers to unionnize civil servants that are, you guessed it, on strike for better this, better that. Government now wants to reform the whole thing and must do costy commissions and province wide consultations and the whole nine yard.

There you have the perfect exemple of a government getting involve somewhere they shouldn't. Governments are already too involved where the private sector can do a better and cheaper job.

The hell with these government daycare centers. We're now told where to send our children, where to go to school, where to receive health care and in all cases we must wait on never ending waiting list... we're becomming friggin communists in this country where we must send all of our money to the Party so that they provide one lousy option for public services...

Holly Crap, give us back some tax money and we'll be able to afford private daycare centers like we've always had.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

Some thoughts to read on the Red Book:

Liberal Red Book Top 10 Liberal Broken Promises.

1. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs (Red book, Chapter 1) - Canada currently has 1.4 million unemployed, half a million not looking for work, youth unemployment at 18%, and one in every four Canadians worried about their jobs.
Comment: not sure that this is up-to-date
2. Preserving and Protecting Universal Medicare (Red book, p.74) - By 1998/99 the Liberals will have cut $7 billion in social transfers to the provinces.
Comment: And yet the Liberals blame Mike Harris in Ontario? And we wonder why the health care system needs help!
3. Scrap, Kill, and Abolish the GST - Prime Minister Chretien and Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps on the campaign trail made this promise. The Liberals will have spent $931 million to bury the hated tax in Atlantic Canada.
Comment: No more needs to be said.
4. Restore faith in Government (Red Book, p.92) - Sheila Copps, David Collenette, Jean Boyle, Michael Dupuy - 'nuff said.
Comment: HRDC, Gun Registry, Adscam [though I hate that term]
5. Stable Multiyear Funding for the CBC (Red Book, p.89) - The Liberals cut $377 million from the CBC - a third of the public broadcaster's budget.
Comment: and when the CBC loses HNIC to the CTV revenues will disappear and program will become even worse!
6. Renegotiate NAFTA (Red Book p.24) - Two months after taking power, Chretien signed NAFTA without any changes.
Comment: NAFTA has been good and bad . . . just looking at Red Book promises
7. A Code of Conduct for Politicians (Red Book, p.95) - no new code and the Prime Minister uses the secret Ministerial guidelines only when convenient.
Comment: we need a code of conduct for the Parliament too
8. Appointments Based on Competence (Red Book p.92) - The Governor General, the Ambassadors to Isreal and Britain, the Chairman of Canada Post, and the last 19 Senators are all partisan Liberal patronage appointments.
Comment: It's who you know that counts . . . plus ça change . . .
9. More Free Votes (Red Book p.92) - out of more than 200 government bills in three years, the Prime minister has allowed one free vote on government legislation. The Liberal government has restricted debate on more than 20 occasions.
Comment: you will vote freely how I tell you . . .
10. Eliminate Trade Barriers (Red Book p.22) - Internal trade barriers continue to cost the economy $6 - $10 billion a year.

Red Book

Other thoughts on the Red Book: mapleleafweb.com blog, THab's own wikipedia

On the GST:

It was Martin, we recall, who helped write the Liberal red book in the 1993 campaign -- a document that featured a solemn vow by the Liberals to wipe out the GST if Canadian voters would only let them back into office.

Once elected, of course, the Liberals did no such thing and we continue to pay an extra 7c on the dollar for anything from a ballpoint to a Buick.

Yesterday Tory Leader Stephen Harper announced his party's plan to trim the GST from 7% to 5%, forcing Martin in effect to defend the very tax he promised to eliminate.

"I don't believe that is the path to follow," said the prime minister of the Tory GST plan. "Canadians have been down this road before. They've heard this story."

Ottawa Sun

The goods and services tax is a stupid, inept and incompetent tax.

Paul Martin, House of Commons, 1989

I don't have a prepared setpiece and don't remember what was in the redbook and I'm going to play tennis shortly, but

!. JObs Jobs jobs

Did they not jsut announce taht we have the lowest unemployment in 30 or 40 years ? I am not a fan of structural unemployment, but laisez -faire self-made capitalists, have never had jobs as a goal.

The deficit under Mulroney I read, went UP from 170 billion by 280 billion to $450 Billion

That's why the cuts, but Romanov's evaluation of healthcare was positive and TOTALLY supported 1 tier.

Gotta go for now.

[Skilly]

razor said:

The Liberals critisize Conservative plan, complaining that the money goes into the hands of the family and may not be put toward daycare. So maybe the Conservatives have named their program wrong, maybe they should have simply said they would double the child tax credit.

I would have definately voted Liberal if Harper came out and said he was doubling the Child tax credit. The CTC is income based. I got $21.74 for 6 months of the year under CTC. And the only reason I got that was because my wife's employer was late in processing her maternity allowance and thereby reduced her income unintentionally. It burned us the following year, because we had to pay taxes on all the maternity money in a year where she was working. C'est la vie.

But Harper's "childcare plan" right now goes to anyone with a child under 6 regardless of need or income. My first impression when I heard it was .... he is joking right, a politician that will actually implement a plan that will help the middle class?? If the Liberal plan is to create spaces, build more daycares, or need based .... well then I'll be taking the fork in the road that goes to the "right".

[Toronthab]

franko said:

toronthab said:

Do you think I could find that terrific url shrinker ?

tinyurl.com

Your story is found at tinyurl.com/7thxw

Thanks Franko and M.Bozo

[Toronthab]

franko said:

Some thoughts to read on the Red Book:

Liberal Red Book Top 10 Liberal Broken Promises.

1. Jobs, Jobs, Jobs (Red book, Chapter 1) - Canada currently has 1.4 million unemployed, half a million not looking for work, youth unemployment at 18%, and one in every four Canadians worried about their jobs.
Comment: not sure that this is up-to-date
2. Preserving and Protecting Universal Medicare (Red book, p.74) - By 1998/99 the Liberals will have cut $7 billion in social transfers to the provinces.
Comment: And yet the Liberals blame Mike Harris in Ontario? And we wonder why the health care system needs help!
3. Scrap, Kill, and Abolish the GST - Prime Minister Chretien and Deputy Prime Minister Sheila Copps on the campaign trail made this promise. The Liberals will have spent $931 million to bury the hated tax in Atlantic Canada.
Comment: No more needs to be said.
4. Restore faith in Government (Red Book, p.92) - Sheila Copps, David Collenette, Jean Boyle, Michael Dupuy - 'nuff said.
Comment: HRDC, Gun Registry, Adscam [though I hate that term]
5. Stable Multiyear Funding for the CBC (Red Book, p.89) - The Liberals cut $377 million from the CBC - a third of the public broadcaster's budget.
Comment: and when the CBC loses HNIC to the CTV revenues will disappear and program will become even worse!
6. Renegotiate NAFTA (Red Book p.24) - Two months after taking power, Chretien signed NAFTA without any changes.
Comment: NAFTA has been good and bad . . . just looking at Red Book promises
7. A Code of Conduct for Politicians (Red Book, p.95) - no new code and the Prime Minister uses the secret Ministerial guidelines only when convenient.
Comment: we need a code of conduct for the Parliament too
8. Appointments Based on Competence (Red Book p.92) - The Governor General, the Ambassadors to Isreal and Britain, the Chairman of Canada Post, and the last 19 Senators are all partisan Liberal patronage appointments.
Comment: It's who you know that counts . . . plus ça change . . .
9. More Free Votes (Red Book p.92) - out of more than 200 government bills in three years, the Prime minister has allowed one free vote on government legislation. The Liberal government has restricted debate on more than 20 occasions.
Comment: you will vote freely how I tell you . . .
10. Eliminate Trade Barriers (Red Book p.22) - Internal trade barriers continue to cost the economy $6 - $10 billion a year.

Red Book

Other thoughts on the Red Book: mapleleafweb.com blog, THab's own wikipedia

On the GST:

It was Martin, we recall, who helped write the Liberal red book in the 1993 campaign -- a document that featured a solemn vow by the Liberals to wipe out the GST if Canadian voters would only let them back into office.

Once elected, of course, the Liberals did no such thing and we continue to pay an extra 7c on the dollar for anything from a ballpoint to a Buick.

Yesterday Tory Leader Stephen Harper announced his party's plan to trim the GST from 7% to 5%, forcing Martin in effect to defend the very tax he promised to eliminate.

"I don't believe that is the path to follow," said the prime minister of the Tory GST plan. "Canadians have been down this road before. They've heard this story."

Ottawa Sun

The goods and services tax is a stupid, inept and incompetent tax.

Paul Martin, House of Commons, 1989

The majority of the promises were kept, however. Chrétien famously argued that 78% were honoured, a mark he could live with. Others contest whether some of these promises were kept or not. Some of the most notable promises from the Red Book that were kept was the pledge to cancel the purchase of new naval helicopters, canceling the sale of Toronto Pearson International Airport, reforming unemployment insurance, more gun control, and reducing the size of the armed forces with the end of the Cold War. Perhaps the most important pledge kept was that of returning Canada to fiscal solvency.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(Liberal_Party_of_Canada)

[Toronthab]

razor said:

toronthab said:

I have some very serioius reservations about daycare generally. I am not persuaded that that human life is enhanced by taking mothers away from their children especially in their eraliest years. I would far rather have you and me recognize parenting as the essential work that it is and make it possible for mothers who choose to to be with their children.

Studies have indicated that kids in daycare are more agressive and difficult.

That said, if indeed there is more merit in making SUV's and monster homes than being with your children to contrast some of our cultural values, and if we are determined to accept that a person's workday pay should not be enough to support say a pregnant wife and child at home, then one may consider provision of daycare.

Incidentally I think a lot of Reform Party types would agree with questionning day "care" where we take soome of the lowest paid people in our culture and very, very often, complete strangers with no oversight, to nurture the little ones.

I suspect that a lot of the money ($1200.) going directly to will go to general revenue for the family, a fact I don't mind, by the way.

It is consistent with the ideological slant of the right-wingers that mothers will still have to run around and scour ads to find daycare spots...wherever. Seems to me that this is a bit of an instance of "just throwing money at the propblem."

If there is to be daycare, then there must be the infrastructure and places in place. This requires government action and taxes. One might well ask, what is government doing establishing elementary and high schools, and even universities by God, but hey, big business can't be everywhere.

I agree with your assessment of daycare, a lot of times it comes down to choice, lifestyle or raise my own kids. For this reason, I find it a real stretch when the Liberals compare Government involvement in daycare to that of health care. Health care literally benefits every single person in the country. Subzidized daycare, paid for by everyone, only benefits a few - those families with kids in daycare.

The Liberals critisize Conservative plan, complaining that the money goes into the hands of the family and may not be put toward daycare. So maybe the Conservatives have named their program wrong, maybe they should have simply said they would double the child tax credit. The Liberals promised to eliminate child poverty and have failed. This promise by the Conservatives trumps anything the Liberals have done, and if people were smart, they would see through the Liberal critisism.

action.web.ca/home/c2000/alerts.shtml?x=82972

What the Liberals are saying is that they know what my family needs, and they are going to spend my money better than I can. What a load of B.S.

I'm not particularly interested in defending things because a Liberal government did them. I dont have universal wisdom in all things and their consequences. Liberal leaders have regularly done things that I take great exception to.

I was very much against free trade. I might have been wrong. I'm not sure. I came to the point of view that the GST was probably OK, and hate the god awful desision of conservatives to print it on all invoices setting off a fury of tax evasion that costs the honest folks billions, so the "cash" people can avoid their fair share.

If there is to be day "care" with the lowest paid workers in the land riding herd on over agressive little children who should probably be with mommy, and I strongly suspect that there's something wrong with this, then the tax they take from me for basic child care of other peoples' children, should not in my opinion, be an unregualted, ad hoc arrangement of convenience with God knows who and with what qualifications and no regulation.

I think that the Conservative option does not add one single space to daycare. It only theoretically makes it easier to pay for whatever you can find. And I'ver heard that a great many cannot find any daycare, suitable or otherwise. The abjective is at least to some small degree, to raise children, not to save money.

For the above reasons and as one who is not even strongly committed to the basic concept of farming out children, I am thrilled with neither option.

If the objective is at least to some degree to look after defenceless children, then the Liberal plan, is obviously targeted to acheive that goal in a considerably afer and intelligent way.

That's why our governments run our elementary schools too. It's not a big scary "My government is lying and stealing from me thing", it's us as a community intelligently ordering our shared lives in community. We are not self-made. That is a masturbatory fantasy. We are products, offspring of the community.

[Toronthab]

razor said:

toronthab said:

I have some very serioius reservations about daycare generally. I am not persuaded that that human life is enhanced by taking mothers away from their children especially in their eraliest years. I would far rather have you and me recognize parenting as the essential work that it is and make it possible for mothers who choose to to be with their children.

Studies have indicated that kids in daycare are more agressive and difficult.

That said, if indeed there is more merit in making SUV's and monster homes than being with your children to contrast some of our cultural values, and if we are determined to accept that a person's workday pay should not be enough to support say a pregnant wife and child at home, then one may consider provision of daycare.

Incidentally I think a lot of Reform Party types would agree with questionning day "care" where we take soome of the lowest paid people in our culture and very, very often, complete strangers with no oversight, to nurture the little ones.

I suspect that a lot of the money ($1200.) going directly to will go to general revenue for the family, a fact I don't mind, by the way.

It is consistent with the ideological slant of the right-wingers that mothers will still have to run around and scour ads to find daycare spots...wherever. Seems to me that this is a bit of an instance of "just throwing money at the propblem."

If there is to be daycare, then there must be the infrastructure and places in place. This requires government action and taxes. One might well ask, what is government doing establishing elementary and high schools, and even universities by God, but hey, big business can't be everywhere.

I agree with your assessment of daycare, a lot of times it comes down to choice, lifestyle or raise my own kids. For this reason, I find it a real stretch when the Liberals compare Government involvement in daycare to that of health care. Health care literally benefits every single person in the country. Subzidized daycare, paid for by everyone, only benefits a few - those families with kids in daycare.

The Liberals critisize Conservative plan, complaining that the money goes into the hands of the family and may not be put toward daycare. So maybe the Conservatives have named their program wrong, maybe they should have simply said they would double the child tax credit. The Liberals promised to eliminate child poverty and have failed. This promise by the Conservatives trumps anything the Liberals have done, and if people were smart, they would see through the Liberal critisism.

action.web.ca/home/c2000/alerts.shtml?x=82972

What the Liberals are saying is that they know what my family needs, and they are going to spend my money better than I can. What a load of B.S.

That 's a great link you put in.

Child Poverty should indeed be jsut about the highest priortiy imaginable for all of us. Call your MP and candidates on it, and I think that the prescription to increase the child tax credit saounds very plausible. That is also why I woudn't mind if the conservative plan resulted in people jsut spoendong it. How could I.

Child poverty, like most other signs of individual and community indifference is complex, including our to often really stupid notions of human sexuality, including being friends "with benefits." But the point of the daycare thing which I deeply question is nontheless about having good, available , high quality and competent daycare.

You may have put your finger on what is good about the Conservative plan, more money for at least some who need it, but it also illustrates that it doesn't improve the daycare situation per se.

Most important would be our real commitment to ending child poverty. Hiw many iof us can keep that noble work before our eyes. Good link.

action.web.ca/home/c2000/alerts.shtml?x=82972

[Toronthab]

docholliday said:

In Qubec we've had the Government take over Daycare 3-4 years ago and now it's a huge mess. Costs are out of control, CPE Commisioners making a couple hundreds of thousands in salaries, service level is droping, employees went from dedicated caretakers to unionnize civil servants that are, you guessed it, on strike for better this, better that. Government now wants to reform the whole thing and must do costy commissions and province wide consultations and the whole nine yard.

There you have the perfect exemple of a government getting involve somewhere they shouldn't. Governments are already too involved where the private sector can do a better and cheaper job.

The hell with these government daycare centers. We're now told where to send our children, where to go to school, where to receive health care and in all cases we must wait on never ending waiting list... we're becomming friggin communists in this country where we must send all of our money to the Party so that they provide one lousy option for public services...

Holly Crap, give us back some tax money and we'll be able to afford private daycare centers like we've always had.

Sorry to hear the program is suffering: lot's of people extolled it as a terrific role model of how to do it.

Do I read you correctly that these workers who used to be dedicated (everything I read is that they aren't paid ship for their highly demanding jobs, almost like we don't much care.

So if not paid by us as community-sponsored workers with some basic human job provisions, but rather as employees of profit-motivated corporation with presumably no benefits or decent wages, then this will bring back the caring? This seems almost completely counterintuitive to me. Are you aware of any jurisdictions where this has worked?

Should we switch the elementary schools over to corporations too?. Like the steamship lines in international waters we could maybe save by hiring Korean crews.

How cool is that . The corporations get both parents form the kids and then we have to pay the corporations so that our kids can get substandard care instead of our care.


OECD Report on Daycare in Canada

But the report also warns that devoting so much public money to child care would likely attract foreign corporate day-care chains, eager to be part of a growing market. The report recommends Ottawa ensure that the money it spends on day care be earmarked for the public/non-profit system.

It wants the federal government to pass legislation that protects provinces and territories that wish to expand services in the public/non-profit sector from being challenged by foreign for-profit chains that want to get into the act.

Those concerns are echoed in yet another report. This one – by two economists from the University of Toronto – found that the quality of care at non-profit centres averaged 10 per cent better than day-care centres established to make money.

Gordon Cleveland and Michael Krashinsky looked at 325 day-care centres across the country. They examined 42 different components of child care on a scale of one to seven. Components included personal care such as diaper changes, the educational character of toys, and how well information is exchanged with parents.

While most centres got mediocre rankings, the top-ranked ones were mostly non-profits and the bottom-ranked ones were commercial.

The report also concluded that sole proprietors provided the best care among the commercial operators. Incorporated businesses (a single centre or part of a chain) provide lower quality care. Partnerships and other commercial providers provide much worse quality on average.

"I'm not a politician and I don't know all the ins and outs of policy. But what I do know is that quality matters. It's hard to get quality in for-profits. A 10 per cent increase in quality at non-profits is very substantial," Cleveland told CBC News.

www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/

[HABsurd]

skilly said:

And another thing.

The GST. Martin was here in Newfoundland this week and someone asked him about the GST reduction. His reply "It will only save you 50 cents on the cost of a toaster." Then he boasted about how reducing personal income taxes will save hundreds of dollars for Canadians. People look at 50 cents and say "That's all" .... Well I'd have too spens an awful lot to save money that way." Yes you would .... but do you realize how much you spend a year?

A part of me really wants to vote Liberal, but at every turn the man seems to be insulting my intelligence. I want to buy a minivan (I know not every Canadian is considering a big purchase, but this is my vote I am condsidering) and a 2% reduction in GST will save me roughly $700+ dollars ...... will the Liberals reduction in income taxes save me that much? I am not sure .... but I don't see them putting concrete numbers to their policies.

i would argue the key difference in approaches is as follows. a cut in the GST might encourage you to buy a minivan. however, cuts in levels of income tax can encourage one to achieve higher levels of personal income without being penalized or seeing marginal difference. given that one of canada's greatest challenges is our very low level of productivity, i believe there is a good arguement that we should encourage higher levels of personal productivity. canada does not have a consumption problem.

[Skilly]

toronthab said:

The majority of the promises were kept, however. Chrétien famously argued that 78% were honoured, a mark he could live with. Others contest whether some of these promises were kept or not. Some of the most notable promises from the Red Book that were kept was the pledge to cancel the purchase of new naval helicopters, canceling the sale of Toronto Pearson International Airport, reforming unemployment insurance, more gun control, and reducing the size of the armed forces with the end of the Cold War. Perhaps the most important pledge kept was that of returning Canada to fiscal solvency.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(Liberal_Party_of_Canada)

What a politician defines as keeping a promise and what Joe Q Public defines as keeping a promise are two different things. I know the ROC got upset with Newfoundland over the Atlantic Accord but that argument was over the phrase "100%". Apparently it did not mean "all" to the federal government.

Looking at your noble promises that were kept.

1) naval helicopters. Feds would rather they fly around in death traps. Yet now they are going to buy new ones. Wrong decision back then?

2) reforming EI. Needs more reform because they refuse to go all the way. When you cut premiums minutely, and re-phrase the wording, without eliminating the loopholes .... well that isn't real reform to me .... it is to a politician though.

3) gun control? Do you really want to there? The gun registry, IMO, was worse than the sponsorship scandal. Gun registry should have been left to the provinces. Period. I don't own a gun, but my father-in-law does. When my wife's grandfather died he had old antique guns that were never fired, they all had to be registered just so my father-in-law could claim ownership of them and keep them in the family. It didn't make sense from the start.

4) redusing the size of the armed forces. And yet now they give Gen. Hillier hundreds of millions of dollars to increase the military.


Sounds like they should be called the "Flip-flop" Party of Canada.

[Skilly]

There seems to be a prevailing notion here that daycare is evil in raising children. As Mamma Boucher once said "Ya dun wanna be lacking in Da Social skillz" either. Studies have shown that children in daycare learn to listen better, they socialize better, they have stronger immune systems, and they learn earlier.

My child is not in a daycare. She is with a provider that we interviewed and did background checks on until the cows came home. She was a former law inforcement officer, and was pretty easy to do these checks on her. Don't think for a minute that a parent isn't going to move hell and high water to ensure their children are in an environment condusive to learning and healthy growing. My daughter blew me away when she came to me and counted to 10 before her second birthday. I can tell you this for a fact, without the interaction with the other children she wouldn't be as far along developmentally as she now is.

Now back to the topic at hand. This money does not have to be spent on daycare. It can be spent on any child rearing activity. What's wrong with that? To quote Harper "she is my child, shouldn't I have a say?" Some lower income families can take this money and pay a grand-parent to look after their children now, while the mother works to supplement the family income. Do you snub your nose as grand-parents also?

Daycare is one of the best things to happen to the high-schools, work environments, and Canadian society as a whole, no reasonable person would argue the merits of daycare. It is the cost that is the issue. Most places charge $50/day for a child under 2. Increasing maternity leave to a full year was a good help to mothers and families. Maybe they should increase it to 2 years, when rates go down to about $30/day. Imagine a working woman, who gets pregnant. Do you realize that she has to be making about $30,000 a year to even consider going back to work. We are basically using the cost of daycare as a means of birth control, or as a means to keep women out of the work force. Both concepts disgust me.


Whether you believe it to be moral or not is irrelevant, since morality is a moving target at best.

[franko]

Parties hope to win big on child care
Preschoolers: Competing plans have striking differences

Heather Sokoloff, National Post
Published: Thursday, December 08, 2005

Wobbly toddlers and dribbling babies have suddenly become the stars of the federal election. After years of putting off daycare to such higher-profile issues as health care and tax cuts, politicians are pledging billions to look after the charges of Canada's tired young parents.

The Liberals and the Conservatives are taking distinctly different approaches, and both parties believe their program will be a big winner with voters.

For anyone confused by three days of back-and-forth promises on child care from Paul Martin and Stephen Harper, here is the major difference: The Liberals want to spend billions creating new spots at regulated daycare centres; the Conservatives would give the billions directly to parents in the form of a $100-monthly allowance, for use on anything from nursery school to staying at home.

The Liberal plan has the backing of early childhood education experts who say good quality daycare prepares children for school, with the biggest beneficiaries being children whose parents do not have the education, time or resources to read to them every day.

But the Conservative plan is proving to be popular with parents who do not want to be forced into regulated care if other options better fit their needs.

Melanie Titus, a mother in Moncton, N.B., is a case in point. A full-time sales analyst with Moosehead Breweries, Ms. Titus hired a family friend who ran a small daycare in her home to look after her daughter, Emily, a few days a week. The rest of the time her husband, who worked nights and evenings for the RCMP, looked after the baby.

Ms. Titus doesn't mind that one-year-old Emily wasn't benefiting from a preschool curriculum.

"She was being snuggled and fed good-quality food," she said. "She was an important part of someone's day, not just one of a group."

After Mr. Titus received a promotion enabling him to work 9- to-5 hours, and the couple had a second child, Ms. Titus quit her job and became a stay-at-home mother, an arrangement she will maintain until her children are ready to start school.

"We are very happy with how things are going," said Ms. Titus. "Daycare is a good option, but there are also other good options that should be supported."

The majority of Canadian preschoolers do not spend their days in the types of centres the Liberals have in mind. Instead, they are looked after by a patchwork of relatives, neighbours, babysitters, commercial and non-profit nursery schools, and of course, the parents themselves.

Backers of the Liberal plan say this so-called patchwork exists largely because high-quality daycare does not, and Mr. Harper's monthly allowance will not contribute toward building the daycare capacity for those who need it.

"We have so little of it that it's not an option," said Kira Heineck, executive director of the Ontario Coalition for Better Childcare.

"We are not saying all children should use it, but it should be there for those who want it."

She points out that Mike Harris, Ontario's former Conservative premier, brought in a tax credit for corporations to build on-site daycare centres, similar to the $250-million in incentives proposed by Mr. Harper's Tories to create more child-care spaces. The Ontario credit was never used.

Ms. Heineck says the Liberal plan is the first step in creating a more family-friendly social network that would eventually include increased family-leave options, income supplements, parent drop-in centres and nursery schools.

"We want parents to have a wider range, so they are not limited by only having the women down the street."

But for now, the Liberal plan is little more than a collection of agreements between the federal and provincial governments, in which the provinces have promised to create new regulated child-care spaces in return for their share of $5-billion from Ottawa. But only three provinces -- Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec -- have signed actual multi-year funding contracts, meaning families will continue to wait for major changes.

The provinces do have some flexibility in how they deliver their spaces. British Columbia plans to bolster existing centres in the private and pubic sector, while Ontario is building new programs for four- and five-year-olds around junior and senior kindergarten. Saskatchewan plans to create a universal pre-kindergarten program.

Manitoba is the only province that has stipulated the federal dollars must go only to the non-profit sector, shutting out home-based operators.

On Tuesday, Mr. Martin said he wanted to create a child-care system that is as much a part of Canada's social fabric as medicare. The $6-billion he pledged after the original $5-billion runs out will be good news to provincial governments planning long-term programs, but could give pause to any Canadian who has used a hospital lately.

An expanded public daycare system could find itself facing the same ills as public medicine: chronic under-funding, soaring labour costs and strikes, as well as service levels that plummet outside cities.

In Quebec, for example, where the government implemented its famous $5-a-day daycare program in 1997 -- fees were raised to $7-a-day last year -- costs are expected to reach $1.7-billion as the program expands to serve 200,000 children by 2007.

Despite all the spending -- the ministry that runs child care has grown to the third-largest in the province, after health and education -- wait lists remain long and parents have to sign up when their children are born to have a hope of getting a spot.

The result is that the majority of Quebec's subsidized spots are scooped up by well-organized, middle-class and affluent families -- shutting out the neediest children.

Still, advocates like Ms. Heineck say every Canadian child should be entitled to a good quality child-care spot.

"The intent is that everyone in Canada has access to good quality health care services. We want the same thing for child care. We are a far, far cry from there."

COMPARING THE DAYCARE INITIATIVES

PROMISE

LIBERAL: $11-billion over 10 years

CONSERVATIVE: $10.9-billion over five years

DETAILS

LIBERAL: Money would go to provinces to create regulated child-care spots according to individual deals worked out with Ottawa.

CONSERVATIVE: Money would be paid directly to parents -- $1,200 a year for every child under six -- to spend as they wish.

GOAL

LIBERAL: Aim is to build national child-care network with similar standards and accessibility across the country.

CONSERVATIVE: Party says parents know best how to raise children and should have funds to spend according to individual needs.

BENEFITS

LIBERAL: Offers access for families that cannot afford private daycare.

CONSERVATIVE: Direct payment lets families use money on informal arrangements or non-traditional care.

CRITICISM

LIBERAL: Tories say plan is too restrictive and institutional. Helps parents in 9-to-5 jobs but excludes others. Handing money to provinces lets them spend as they see fit.

CONSERVATIVE: Liberals say $100-a-month buys little. Does nothing to set standards or expand existing daycare networks.

link

[franko]

fwiw, my wife has been a day care professional for xx years. She has managed day care centres, started and run after-care programs in elementary schools (on invitation), and now operates a licensed home day care center. She has chosen this career (initially whe worked on her Bachelor of Education but changed directions to child care). She has worked in both private and public centres. In fact, when we moved to Ottawa she was hired as assistant manager of a centre but decided to open a smaller centre in home.

She rates daycare in the following order, "worst" (for lack of a better word) to best: private centre-based, private in-home, public centre-based, public (licensed) home care. I guess it isn't a surprise that she rates what she does best/highest, but here are her justifications:

Private day care centre: although there may be decent care at most centres, cost-cutting measures are regularly taken, as there is little government funding available and the cost to run a program is expensive. Profit may not be the goal of the centre, but breaking even. A dollar saved is a dollar saved.

Private in-home: there may be government regulation, but whether it is followed or not is a different matter. In Ontario the maximum number of children allowed in a home is 5. It is not out of the ordinary to have up to 10 children looked after. (Even with the mimimum non-licensed centres are money-making machines. Private providers make more per child than those in the public system).

Public day care centre: strong government regulation and support. Subsidies for children/families. On-going training for providers. New equipment on an ongoing basis.

Public in-home: the same benefits as a centre, with the added bonus of a small number of children, which leads to greater interaction and (I hesitate to say) care.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

It's been a long time since I last heard the "lets join the United States and end Canada" mantra.
Don't any of you have children who would love the opportunity of an all expense paid vacation to exotic lands in the middle east?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

skilly said:

toronthab said:

The majority of the promises were kept, however. Chrétien famously argued that 78% were honoured, a mark he could live with. Others contest whether some of these promises were kept or not. Some of the most notable promises from the Red Book that were kept was the pledge to cancel the purchase of new naval helicopters, canceling the sale of Toronto Pearson International Airport, reforming unemployment insurance, more gun control, and reducing the size of the armed forces with the end of the Cold War. Perhaps the most important pledge kept was that of returning Canada to fiscal solvency.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_(Liberal_Party_of_Canada)

What a politician defines as keeping a promise and what Joe Q Public defines as keeping a promise are two different things. I know the ROC got upset with Newfoundland over the Atlantic Accord but that argument was over the phrase "100%". Apparently it did not mean "all" to the federal government.

Looking at your noble promises that were kept.

1) naval helicopters. Feds would rather they fly around in death traps. Yet now they are going to buy new ones. Wrong decision back then?

2) reforming EI. Needs more reform because they refuse to go all the way. When you cut premiums minutely, and re-phrase the wording, without eliminating the loopholes .... well that isn't real reform to me .... it is to a politician though.

3) gun control? Do you really want to there? The gun registry, IMO, was worse than the sponsorship scandal. Gun registry should have been left to the provinces. Period. I don't own a gun, but my father-in-law does. When my wife's grandfather died he had old antique guns that were never fired, they all had to be registered just so my father-in-law could claim ownership of them and keep them in the family. It didn't make sense from the start.

4) redusing the size of the armed forces. And yet now they give Gen. Hillier hundreds of millions of dollars to increase the military.


Sounds like they should be called the "Flip-flop" Party of Canada.

Reducing the size of the Canadian armed forces has the potential of saving almost two hundred dollars. Instead of reducing the size, why not just sell the current submarine fleet and replace it with an older model. (cheap shot, I know, sorry)

[franko]

habsfaninla said:

Reducing the size of the Canadian armed forces has the potential of saving almost two hundred dollars. Instead of reducing the size, why not just sell the current submarine fleet and replace it with an older model.

The Canadian Air Force and Navy in action (with apologies to our good people in the Forces -- I'm on your side!).

[franko]

Limousine liberals
Publicly, they're for the little guy -- privately, not so much. A new book tackles the hypocrisy of the left

DAVID EDDIE
December 07, 2005

"Thus 'tis with all; their chief and constant care / Is to seem everything but what they are," the playwright Oliver Goldsmith wrote in the 18th century. Then as now, of course, no particular group or organization could hope to hold the monopoly on hypocrisy. So why is it, Peter Schweizer asks in his new book, Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy, conservatives seem to be the only ones with a reputation as hypocrites? He cites the hullabaloo over recent revelations that William J. Bennett, author of numerous books promoting virtue, was a heavy gambler, and that Rush Limbaugh, who often inveighed against drug use, was addicted to the painkiller OxyContin. But "there has been very little investigation into hypocrisy on the left," he says. "Liberals pose as our moral superiors . . . less concerned with money and self-interest than anyone else." But "when it comes to the things that matter most in their personal lives they tend to behave -- ironically -- more like conservatives than liberals."

MacLean’s Article

[Skilly]

franko said:

Parties hope to win big on child care
Preschoolers: Competing plans have striking differences

Heather Sokoloff, National Post
Published: Thursday, December 08, 2005

Wobbly toddlers and dribbling babies have suddenly become the stars of the federal election. After years of putting off daycare to such higher-profile issues as health care and tax cuts, politicians are pledging billions to look after the charges of Canada's tired young parents.

The Liberals and the Conservatives are taking distinctly different approaches, and both parties believe their program will be a big winner with voters.

For anyone confused by three days of back-and-forth promises on child care from Paul Martin and Stephen Harper, here is the major difference: The Liberals want to spend billions creating new spots at regulated daycare centres; the Conservatives would give the billions directly to parents in the form of a $100-monthly allowance, for use on anything from nursery school to staying at home.

The Liberal plan has the backing of early childhood education experts who say good quality daycare prepares children for school, with the biggest beneficiaries being children whose parents do not have the education, time or resources to read to them every day.

But the Conservative plan is proving to be popular with parents who do not want to be forced into regulated care if other options better fit their needs.

Melanie Titus, a mother in Moncton, N.B., is a case in point. A full-time sales analyst with Moosehead Breweries, Ms. Titus hired a family friend who ran a small daycare in her home to look after her daughter, Emily, a few days a week. The rest of the time her husband, who worked nights and evenings for the RCMP, looked after the baby.

Ms. Titus doesn't mind that one-year-old Emily wasn't benefiting from a preschool curriculum.

"She was being snuggled and fed good-quality food," she said. "She was an important part of someone's day, not just one of a group."

After Mr. Titus received a promotion enabling him to work 9- to-5 hours, and the couple had a second child, Ms. Titus quit her job and became a stay-at-home mother, an arrangement she will maintain until her children are ready to start school.

"We are very happy with how things are going," said Ms. Titus. "Daycare is a good option, but there are also other good options that should be supported."

The majority of Canadian preschoolers do not spend their days in the types of centres the Liberals have in mind. Instead, they are looked after by a patchwork of relatives, neighbours, babysitters, commercial and non-profit nursery schools, and of course, the parents themselves.

Backers of the Liberal plan say this so-called patchwork exists largely because high-quality daycare does not, and Mr. Harper's monthly allowance will not contribute toward building the daycare capacity for those who need it.

"We have so little of it that it's not an option," said Kira Heineck, executive director of the Ontario Coalition for Better Childcare.

"We are not saying all children should use it, but it should be there for those who want it."

She points out that Mike Harris, Ontario's former Conservative premier, brought in a tax credit for corporations to build on-site daycare centres, similar to the $250-million in incentives proposed by Mr. Harper's Tories to create more child-care spaces. The Ontario credit was never used.

Ms. Heineck says the Liberal plan is the first step in creating a more family-friendly social network that would eventually include increased family-leave options, income supplements, parent drop-in centres and nursery schools.

"We want parents to have a wider range, so they are not limited by only having the women down the street."

But for now, the Liberal plan is little more than a collection of agreements between the federal and provincial governments, in which the provinces have promised to create new regulated child-care spaces in return for their share of $5-billion from Ottawa. But only three provinces -- Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec -- have signed actual multi-year funding contracts, meaning families will continue to wait for major changes.

The provinces do have some flexibility in how they deliver their spaces. British Columbia plans to bolster existing centres in the private and pubic sector, while Ontario is building new programs for four- and five-year-olds around junior and senior kindergarten. Saskatchewan plans to create a universal pre-kindergarten program.

Manitoba is the only province that has stipulated the federal dollars must go only to the non-profit sector, shutting out home-based operators.

On Tuesday, Mr. Martin said he wanted to create a child-care system that is as much a part of Canada's social fabric as medicare. The $6-billion he pledged after the original $5-billion runs out will be good news to provincial governments planning long-term programs, but could give pause to any Canadian who has used a hospital lately.

An expanded public daycare system could find itself facing the same ills as public medicine: chronic under-funding, soaring labour costs and strikes, as well as service levels that plummet outside cities.

In Quebec, for example, where the government implemented its famous $5-a-day daycare program in 1997 -- fees were raised to $7-a-day last year -- costs are expected to reach $1.7-billion as the program expands to serve 200,000 children by 2007.

Despite all the spending -- the ministry that runs child care has grown to the third-largest in the province, after health and education -- wait lists remain long and parents have to sign up when their children are born to have a hope of getting a spot.

The result is that the majority of Quebec's subsidized spots are scooped up by well-organized, middle-class and affluent families -- shutting out the neediest children.

Still, advocates like Ms. Heineck say every Canadian child should be entitled to a good quality child-care spot.

"The intent is that everyone in Canada has access to good quality health care services. We want the same thing for child care. We are a far, far cry from there."

COMPARING THE DAYCARE INITIATIVES

PROMISE

LIBERAL: $11-billion over 10 years

CONSERVATIVE: $10.9-billion over five years

DETAILS

LIBERAL: Money would go to provinces to create regulated child-care spots according to individual deals worked out with Ottawa.

CONSERVATIVE: Money would be paid directly to parents -- $1,200 a year for every child under six -- to spend as they wish.

GOAL

LIBERAL: Aim is to build national child-care network with similar standards and accessibility across the country.

CONSERVATIVE: Party says parents know best how to raise children and should have funds to spend according to individual needs.

BENEFITS

LIBERAL: Offers access for families that cannot afford private daycare.

CONSERVATIVE: Direct payment lets families use money on informal arrangements or non-traditional care.

CRITICISM

LIBERAL: Tories say plan is too restrictive and institutional. Helps parents in 9-to-5 jobs but excludes others. Handing money to provinces lets them spend as they see fit.

CONSERVATIVE: Liberals say $100-a-month buys little. Does nothing to set standards or expand existing daycare networks.

link

EXCELLENT read franko. I'd be interested to know which option (conservative or liberal) she likes better.

My daughter is in a person's home. We wrote up the contract with her, entirely enforceable too, and one of the clauses was that we were to be notified if she decides to take in more children, and we than can break the contract with her or not.

She currently has her own child (2), my daughter (2) and another child (2). To me that is an environment condusive to learning and my daughter absolutely loves her. If daycare spots opened up that were cheaper than what Iam paying now, I'd still leave my daughter where she is to. She gets so much one on one care and interaction with other toddlers. (As a side note, my work has a co-op daycare in which I could have her in for $100 dollars less than what I pay now .... but when the space came available I couldn't take her away from a place she loved.)

[Toronthab]

habsfaninla said:

skilly said:

What a politician defines as keeping a promise and what Joe Q Public defines as keeping a promise are two different things. I know the ROC got upset with Newfoundland over the Atlantic Accord but that argument was over the phrase "100%". Apparently it did not mean "all" to the federal government.

Looking at your noble promises that were kept.

1) naval helicopters. Feds would rather they fly around in death traps. Yet now they are going to buy new ones. Wrong decision back then?

2) reforming EI. Needs more reform because they refuse to go all the way. When you cut premiums minutely, and re-phrase the wording, without eliminating the loopholes .... well that isn't real reform to me .... it is to a politician though.

3) gun control? Do you really want to there? The gun registry, IMO, was worse than the sponsorship scandal. Gun registry should have been left to the provinces. Period. I don't own a gun, but my father-in-law does. When my wife's grandfather died he had old antique guns that were never fired, they all had to be registered just so my father-in-law could claim ownership of them and keep them in the family. It didn't make sense from the start.

4) redusing the size of the armed forces. And yet now they give Gen. Hillier hundreds of millions of dollars to increase the military.


Sounds like they should be called the "Flip-flop" Party of Canada.

Reducing the size of the Canadian armed forces has the potential of saving almost two hundred dollars. Instead of reducing the size, why not just sell the current submarine fleet and replace it with an older model. (cheap shot, I know, sorry)

Our war canoe is out for re-birching.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

fwiw, my wife has been a day care professional for xx years. She has managed day care centres, started and run after-care programs in elementary schools (on invitation), and now operates a licensed home day care center. She has chosen this career (initially whe worked on her Bachelor of Education but changed directions to child care). She has worked in both private and public centres. In fact, when we moved to Ottawa she was hired as assistant manager of a centre but decided to open a smaller centre in home.

She rates daycare in the following order, "worst" (for lack of a better word) to best: private centre-based, private in-home, public centre-based, public (licensed) home care. I guess it isn't a surprise that she rates what she does best/highest, but here are her justifications:

Private day care centre: although there may be decent care at most centres, cost-cutting measures are regularly taken, as there is little government funding available and the cost to run a program is expensive. Profit may not be the goal of the centre, but breaking even. A dollar saved is a dollar saved.

Private in-home: there may be government regulation, but whether it is followed or not is a different matter. In Ontario the maximum number of children allowed in a home is 5. It is not out of the ordinary to have up to 10 children looked after. (Even with the mimimum non-licensed centres are money-making machines. Private providers make more per child than those in the public system).

Public day care centre: strong government regulation and support. Subsidies for children/families. On-going training for providers. New equipment on an ongoing basis.

Public in-home: the same benefits as a centre, with the added bonus of a small number of children, which leads to greater interaction and (I hesitate to say) care.

Anecdotal, but it seems pretty common-sensible. I don't know just what Public-in-home is however.

I will post the OECD srudy of daycare in Canada . It unequivocally recommends public, not for profit.

The real point and a primary one is that THERE ARE SPACES FOR 20% OF HOUSEHOLDS WHERE BOTH PARENTS WORK.

Availabliity is not addressed in the Conservative plan.

Anecdotal stories of lovely individual situations are just that, anecdotal stories of lovley individual situations.

I do not in the least oppose good, individual, chosen situations, though child care experts have reservations about ultimate benefits to the child, but the point is that giving people 25 bucks a week does not provide the spaces for the other 80% for whom THERE IS NO DAYCARE.

[franko]

toronthab said:

The real point and a primary one is that THERE ARE SPACES FOR 20% OF HOUSEHOLDS WHERE BOTH PARENTS WORK.

Availabliity is not addressed in the Conservative plan.

I shouldn't . . . I really shouldn't . . . but why is it my responsibility to pay for someone else's day care wants/needs?