Child Care: Seeking Parliament's Consent

[FiveParadox]

It would appear that the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P., the Member for Calgary Southwest and the Prime Minister of Canada, and his Government of Canada, are making preparations to seek the consent of the House of Commons, through legislative measures, to start running their hot-button child care strategy in Canada — the program would commence as soon as the consent of the Parliament of Canada has been secured.

Mr. Harper indicated, after a meeting with children and parents in the Province of British Columbia today, that his Government is prepared to bring in legislation to implement the strategy — whether or not the support of the opposition in parties in relation to that strategy can be secured. The Prime Minister has indicated that the strategy is to be embedded in the next budget — the defeat thereof would, by convention, trigger another election.

If the budget were to be passed by the Commons, then it would move on the Senate (which is dominated by sixty-six members of the Liberal Party of Canada), where the worst-case scenario for the Government would be the rather short delay of the passage of the budget (since Senators do not have the right to force an Act under the recommendation of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Governor General of Canada — her recommendation is required for any measures which would appropriate funds, such as the budget).

Therefore, the fate of the Government rests with the Commons (as is the prerogative of the Commons), and I would suggest that the Government is tempting that prerogative by preparing to introduce measures (which they know, at no surprise, could be defeated by the opposition parties). I would suggest that the Government should reconsider its stance on this issue, and recognize that a majority of the citizens of Canada voted for parties who would not have pushed for a taxed direct-payment method of child care program.

Office of the Prime Minister of Canada[/color]]During the roundtable with parents and children, the Prime Minister discussed the components of the new government's universal child care plan - an allowance that will deliver a direct payment of $1200 per year, per child under the age of six to parents, and a space creation plan that will seek input from Parliament on how to best produce real spaces for real child care for all Canadians.

Click here to read the entire article in English.
Cliquetez içi pour lire l'article entier en français.

:?: Sources
1. Click here for the Web site of the Office of the Prime Minister of Canada.

:!: Revision : (1) Added a "Don't know / Prefer not to respond" option to the survey.

 

[FiveParadox]

Chow: Force to be Reckoned With

Olivia Chow, M.P., the Member for Trinity—Spadina and Children and Youth Critic for the New Democratic Party of Canada, today brought to the forefront the truth, in the opinion of her party, of the child care program to be introduced by the Government of Canada in the House of Commons some time in the near future. As per a report from the Caledon Institute on Social Policy, Ms. Chow highlighted the hidden clawbacks that would decimate the direct-payment method.

• Payment, per child, per year: Twelve hundred dollars (+CAD$1 200)
• Minus income tax: Three hundred sixty-two dollars (-CAD$362)
• Minus benefit clawback: three hundred ninety dollars (-CAD$390)
• Minus Young Child Supplement: Two hundred forty-nine dollars (-CAD$249)
• Total: One hundred ninety-nine dollars (+CAD$199)

If this information is correct, then the hype among supporters of the Conservative Party of Canada in terms of their child care agenda is, in my opinion, quite unwarranted (and perhaps incorrect). I hope that the New Democratic Party comes through on Ms. Chow's suggestions of enshrining the agreements with the provinces in legislation, and tearing up this new "direct-payment" faux program.

 

[I think not]

I'm not doubting anything Five, I don't follow Canadian politics that closely, but this sounds too stupid to be true, doesn't it? You're talking upwards of 85% in taxes. :?:

 

[MMMike]

I'm not doubting anything Five, I don't follow Canadian politics that closely, but this sounds too stupid to be true, doesn't it? You're talking upwards of 85% in taxes. :?:

No, 85% taxes seems about right in our little socialist paradise! :lol: Five, Olivia Chow is full of ottytrain4: The $1,200 may be taxed, but the other benefits and allowances will not be clawed back. And she should know better.

 

[FiveParadox]

I hope you are correct, MMMike, if this measure is indeed to go forward. However, it should be noted that, according to the Bloc Québécois, the Honourable Jean Charest, P.C., M.N.A., the Premier of Québec, has indicated that his Government of Québec intends to take measures to reduce their own spending if the Government of Canada goes through with this. I hope the other provinces don't follow suit.

 

[Said1]

Reduce spending on Child Care?

 

[JonB2004]

RE: Child Care: Seeking P

I want the budget to be defeated and an election to follow. I'm not interested in the Conservatives top 5 priorities, especially their child care plan.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Child Care: Seeking P

I want the budget to be defeated and an election to follow. I'm not interested in the Conservatives top 5 priorities, especially their child care plan.

I believe you would see the Conservatives gain seats.

Probably not enough for a majority, but enough to scare the Opposition into compliance on this, and probably a couple of other issues.

Edited to say:

Just look at the poll results on this thread, and this a very (small "l") liberal place.

Perhaps a majority!

 

[JonB2004]

RE: Child Care: Seeking P

There is the chance that could happen or the voters might not find the Conservatives capable of keeping a stable government and they could get thrown out.

 

[FiveParadox]

Heh, Colpy, you are going off of four votes — and one them (mine) was "Don't know", lol. Nonetheless, I don't think I'd want the budget defeated over this issue. It would only hurt the institution of Parliament at this point, for us to drag people through the drama of another election. (Sure, the Tories might gain seats, but I think that every party would lose some more respect from the electorate.)

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Child Care: Seeking Parliament's Consent

Heh, Colpy, you are going off of four votes — and one them (mine) was "Don't know", lol. Nonetheless, I don't think I'd want the budget defeated over this issue. It would only hurt the institution of Parliament at this point, for us to drag people through the drama of another election. (Sure, the Tories might gain seats, but I think that every party would lose some more respect from the electorate.)

Yeah, you're right!

I didn't look, just saw the percentages....never mind!

 

[LittleRunningGag]

RE: Child Care: Seeking P

I don't think that you'd see an increase. I think that we've already seen some of what everyone was worried about before the Conservatives took office.

As for the child credit, I see it as a worthless policy. The biggest problem is that instead of helping struggling families, this is going to give money to people just for having kids. This means that regardless of your income, whether you make a million dollars a year, or a thousand dollars a year, if you have kids you will get twelve hundred dollars.

Personally, I don't feel like giving my money to people who make more than me just because they have kids.

At least the liberal child credits were based off of income.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Child Care: Seeking P

I don't think that you'd see an increase. I think that we've already seen some of what everyone was worried about before the Conservatives took office.

As for the child credit, I see it as a worthless policy. The biggest problem is that instead of helping struggling families, this is going to give money to people just for having kids. This means that regardless of your income, whether you make a million dollars a year, or a thousand dollars a year, if you have kids you will get twelve hundred dollars.

Personally, I don't feel like giving my money to people who make more than me just because they have kids.

At least the liberal child credits were based off of income.

I think you have misunderstood.

I agree that I would prefer the payments be made on income, and I would like to see them doubled (and paid out to the lower income 50%)

However, the Child Tax Credit will NOT disappear, at least in my understanding. It will remain the same, and the $1200 is added to it.

As I have repeatedly argued on this forum, direct payments are the only way to help the working poor.

Poor people usually don't work 9 to 5, when day cares are open.

Poor people have transportation problems to and from day care.

Poor people often have one parent stay at home with the kids, and take in friend's or family's kids for a little extra money.

NONE of this is helped by increased child care spaces.

Nor are people who live outside cities helped.

 

[FiveParadox]

It is unfortunate that the direct-payment method is more accessible to citizens, yet simultaneously less effective (or on-target) than "program"-type initiatives. It would be nice if our Members of Parliament could co-operate for a few minutest, and attempt to search for some sort of agreeable compromise, but I think we're going to continue to see this sort of "grandstanding" (from both sides of the House) for some months to come.

 

[BitWhys]

I'd rather see a costing of the failed provincial programs before I cast a vote. My support of day care programs is only marginal at this point. By the same token I wouldn't call for a governments fall over its implementation, either.

I'm ambivalent about the program but am surprised at how quickly some people downplay the art of successfully getting all the provinces to agree on ANYTHING. and now its going to get thrown away.

 

[BitWhys]

Re: RE: Child Care: Seeking P

As I have repeatedly argued on this forum, direct payments are the only way to help the working poor.

Poor people usually don't work 9 to 5, when day cares are open.

Poor people have transportation problems to and from day care.

Poor people often have one parent stay at home with the kids, and take in friend's or family's kids for a little extra money.

NONE of this is helped by increased child care spaces.

Nor are people who live outside cities helped.

I'm always fascinated by predictably timely Conservative concern for the poor when acknowledgement of their very existence serves to add some questionably marginal benefit to otherwise dubiously justified programs.

a clawed back tax credit (once again the Cons are playing the wrong side of the supply/demand curve) and a brand new committee.

what an embarrassment.

 

[MMMike]

I'd rather see a costing of the failed provincial programs before I cast a vote. My support of day care programs is only marginal at this point. By the same token I wouldn't call for a governments fall over its implementation, either.

I'm ambivalent about the program but am surprised at how quickly some people downplay the art of successfully getting all the provinces to agree on ANYTHING. and now its going to get thrown away.

Ask Quebec about the costs... it is costing them some $2 billion a year for their daycare program, with costs rising rapidly and huge waiting lists.

As for getting provinces to agree... they will take the money no matter what strings are attached. I think it is a mistake, as there was no guarenteed long-term funding, and no analysis of the longer term costs.

I agree with Colpy... direct payments to parents are better, and they should be increased and targetted more to the lower income earners.

 

[BitWhys]

...As for getting provinces to agree... they will take the money no matter what strings are attached...

oh bullocks. signing on to an unsubstainable program is political suicide, and so is changing agreements on the fly. Harper is SO letting the premiers off the hook with this one its actually funny.

good thing its not a program I'm sold on or I'd be upset.

 

[#juan]

It looks to me like Harper

is going to force another election when there is no clear indication that there will be anything but another minority government. This would be the third election in a year. Since federal elections cost in the region of 300 million dollars each, do we want another stupid election? Another minority government, either party, would also be just as prone to defeat and yet a forth election would be in the offing. I think Harper is being awfully generous with our money. A better bet would be to hold off on the day care thing and try to reach a compromise with the other parties. I don't think Harper has overwhelmed anyone with his performance so far, certainly not enough to win a majority.

 

[MMMike]

It looks to me like Harper

is going to force another election when there is no clear indication that there will be anything but another minority government. This would be the third election in a year. Since federal elections cost in the region of 300 million dollars each, do we want another stupid election? Another minority government, either party, would also be just as prone to defeat and yet a forth election would be in the offing. I think Harper is being awfully generous with our money. A better bet would be to hold off on the day care thing and try to reach a compromise with the other parties. I don't think Harper has overwhelmed anyone with his performance so far, certainly not enough to win a majority.

I agree. As a matter of fact, let's get rid of these pesky elections all together. They are expensive, and force us citizens to walk all the way down to the local school to cast our ballots. Geez! That's the system Juan, and we should be thankful we live in a democracy and embrace every opportunity to cast a ballot.