So, the local Liberal is finally getting his campaign in gear. Bright red Liberal signs are going up right beside ours in prominent public places – intersections and boulevards – while our signs in more remote places are becoming what we refer to as “road kill.†Needless to say, the repair crew is not lacking in places to visit.
Still, we are the most prominent on the streets, and intend to stay that way – but here at just the Day Seven mark, planting signs is becoming a most difficult task. The ground is now frozen, making it next to impossible to shove the wire stakes of a lawn sign into the dirt, and there is not enough snow around to mount them into a bank. Sign purgatory!
The rest of the campaign seems to be firing on all cylinders. The phone bank started on Sunday afternoon, with the folks ringing in to about 800 homes on the first day. When I dashed into the office tonight to grab some signs for canvassing, it was a cool place indeed. The phone people were lined out at their tables, hard at it. Beth was juggling a few computer screens as she masterminded our new data system. Esther was programming some fresh helpers, and meanwhile I had two highly motivated door-knocking assistants waiting for me down in Burlington.
While I was chewing through poll 2030 tonight, the Returning Officer called me to say my nomination papers had been approved, which means I am an official candidate. He sounded happy for me, but I could only imagine what the feeling might have been – after seven months of campaigning – to be rejected on some technicality. In fact, this campaign is getting more and more intense for me as we enter the endgame.
On the doorsteps now, informal introduction is turning into more of a black-and-white experience. People are getting politicized as the media saturates them with the latest poll, the latest policy initiative, the latest picture of a leader doing something goofy or memorable. It’s good, of course, when I am greeted with a broad smile, a handshake, my name and a commitment to support me. It’s horrible when someone looks at me, says ‘I’m not voting Conservative’ and shuts the door in my face. Thousands of doors later, I just cannot get used to it. Especially in this weather, when being out there for two or three hours a night is hard as hell, the rejection is even sharper.
Fortunately, it does not happen too often. Just once tonight. And, of course, it was at the front door of the biggest mansion on the street, the one with the new Mercedes and the BMW in the driveway. In contrast, I was invited in to quite a number of more modest homes tonight where there were small children. The reason soon became clear – Harper’s bombshell announcement today that a Conservative government will give parents $1,200 a year for each kid under the age of six. It’s money they can do anything with, intended to help them make the child care choices that are right for each family.
It became apparent by eight tonight that this is a popular move. Halton’s suburbs are home to legions of families were one spouse has made the decision to stay home and raise a family. Many of these single-income families are, as a consequence, taxed more harshly than two-income families with the same amount of money coming in. It grates on them.
Susan and Tom made a point of telling me that while their kids – Spencer and Elliot (they both marched up and shook my hand) – played in the front room while I stood in my winter clothes in the foyer. Suddenly, the Conservatives have something profoundly interesting to say to these middle class Canadians. The GST cut, giving them more disposable income. Quicker access to medical care. Cash to help raise their kids. The potential for income-splitting between spouses to lessen the tax burden. It is all adding up to a powerful package which is commanding attention and, I am sure, will cause a lot of skin-deep Liberals to migrate to our cause.
Tomorrow will be a busy one for me. A major update of the Voters’ Guide for the thousands of homes I have yet to visit. Delivering tens of thousands of brochures to the post office. Writing some stuff for the local media. Mainstreeting in a business district. Walk lists to get organized for the three canvass blitzes planned for the rest of the week. Apologizing to Esther for leaning on her too hard tonight over some mail procedures that – in the scope of things – simply do not matter.
The woman’s first cheery email to me was at 8 this morning, then she went to work all day, then to the campaign office for 5:30 pm to oversee the evenings’ operations and deal with a thousand issues, then she reported in to me at 10:30 pm, as I returned from my canvass. She is turning in a Herculean effort, for no money, for constant stress, for a cause.
Without Canadians like Esther, and Doug, Paul and Beth, Charlie, Patric, Adam and, yeah, Dorothy, and thousands more, no political campaign would ever inspire a mind, motivate a voter, elect a decent person or pound in a sign. Whatever the colour.
82 comments ↓
I cannot express adequately how much I appreciate these updates on your day, Garth.
God Bless and keep up the great work.
Arm their pockets with screwdrivers to dig holes in the frozen ground.
…and wear red woolies. (you’ll feel like santa bringing good cheer!)
As for the grinches, stand there and sing Christmas carols, till they serve you with hot chocolate. “We wish you a Conservative Christmas…”
Yo G, I’m still trying to understand the GST cut thing, am I (and others) wrong when we think that the savings will get eaten by inflation and other forces before it trickles down to the consumer?
And I’m all for giving parents a few bucks to help pay the kid’s bills but a $100 a month doesn’t seem that much to me but I don’t know much about kids, they eat hay right? How much can that be?
And again these cuts and offers smack of bribes kinda like the ones y’all accused the Liberals of making.
And the ultimate irony is that it’s because the Liberals have built up a surplus that the cash is there to hand out.
Those people who maliciously deface or remove political signage during election campaigns are clearly against the concepts of free speech, and in all likelihood, are bigots.
This is unacceptable behaviour for a nation where acceptance, understanding, freedom, democracy, and cooperation is supposedly the norm.
Happy to report all the signs up on Appleby line (from upper middle to the QEW) seem to be fine.
Garth, can you please tell me what choice $100 a month gives me that I don’t have now?
Ask some parents. — Garth
It amazes me that any thinking Canadian would even consider supporting the Neo Conservative Party. No matter how much you might like their tax cuts, are you really ready to support a party that wants to take away minority rights? Do you want a government that has already declared that they’ll use the notwithstanding clause to thwart gay rights, not to mention freedom of choice; a party that wants to blur the line between church and state, a party that is intentionally trying to drive a social wedge between Canadians?
They’ve taken a page right out of the U.S. Neo-Con playbook. Is that the kind of government we want in Canada?
If Stephen Harper was just a fiscal conservative, I’d be all for giving him a chance to run the country, but his agenda is far more repugnant than just tax reform. Taking away people’s constitutional rights is a big deal! Forcing his religious views down our throats is a big deal! Disregard for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a BIG DEAL!
As long as Mr. Harper insists on following the U.S. model of social conservatism, Canadians will view him with suspicion and unease; as they should! The irony here is that after forcing us into a holiday election campaign, and spending millions of taxpayers dollars, we’re going to end up right back where we started, with a Liberal minority government. Maybe even a majority if we’re lucky.
I’m not trying to defend the Liberals past mistakes, but when it comes to the lesser of two evils… Until Mr. Harper gets out of the pulpit, plus accepts that ALL Canadians are equal under the Charter, he’s doomed to be nothing more than a footnote.
Ask some parents? That’s all the game you have? I’m surprised that you continue to expose your weak intellect with answers such as that.
Ask some parents? I am a parent Garth. And I know that $100 a month won’t let me quit my job and stay home. Choice? What choice?
Insults won’t get you far, my friend. $100 a month per child is intended to help defray the costs of day care, or to supplement routine parental costs. It is a hundred bucks a month more than parents are receiving now, and can equal substantially more in before-tax earned income. The families I spoke with in their homes last night were delighted with the prospect of this financial boost. — Garth
To be fair, Garth, apparently insults DO get you more detailed responses than a terse “Ask some parents.”
Your second response, however, doesn’t seem much better. “$100 a month per child is intended to help defray the costs of day care” is about as good a spin you can put on it, I suppose, since day care in Toronto and other cities averages about $700 a month.
How come Harper doesn’t just come out and say, “Vote for me and I’ll give you a hundred bucks”?
Apparently not enough to buy your vote. Do you have a price? — Garth
Hmm let’s do some math here (speaking of which Garth you ever going to educate me on the GST 2% being eaten by inflation thing?) this local day care randomly chosen by googling (I love that’s a verb now) “Ottawa day care rates” came up with:
Full Time (6 – 9.5 Hours): $175.00/Week
That sounds about average to me (but maybe not as they’re the only ones I could find that publish their rates) so we times that by 52 = $9,100 – $1,200 = $7,900.
Hmm what would be better? Howabout Quebec’s socialist nightmare of $7.00 a day because that $100 a month is going to get eaten quicker than Teddy Grahams after nap time.
PeterP and PB – true, it wouldn’t help cover your kid in day care in TO.
However it would help more families to afford to keep one parent home. My wife spent 10 years out of the paid work force being a mom to our 2 boys, and there’s no luxury like it. An extra $200 would have been a great help.
Spoken from a parent with three small children (five and under), the $100 per month, per child, certainly does not cover the total cost of day care. I don’t think that was ever the intention.
I think it’s a good start, and certainly a better policy than throwing more money to the provinces to fund more ’subsidized’ daycare spaces.
I favor of this policy because it gives the money directly to the parents, so they can make their own choices. Families can chose to either use it towards day-care or stay at home (either full time or part time). The last thing we need is more government involvment in our day-to-day lives! From past experiences, it doesn’t work.
Some commenting on the child care announcement have criticized the funding as being too little. No it will not off set the entire cost of institutionalized daycare. But it goes to everyone which a pre-school aged child. It provides equality. Savage (and others) fail to recognize that the liberal plan only goes to institutionalized care. Less than one-quarter of people choose this option. Since the Liberal plan in income tested, less than 50% of that quarter actually qualify.
What sounds like a better plan — one that can only be used by 12% of the population in institutionalized care or one that goes to everyone to help them support their own choices?
Why do liberals think they know what is better for our children than parents?
We have already seen what happens when liberals make choices for us – money wasted on sponsorship, money wasted on a gun registry, and not a single well managed program to point to. Do we really want to experiment with this again?
Editorial: Flawed child-care plan
“Conservative leader Stephen Harper believes the best way to provide care for preschool children is to give every family a cheque of $1,200 for each child under the age of 6.
The families could then spend the money, which will amount to $4 a day per child, any way they like — for daycare, babysitters, to pay the rent, to buy children’s clothing.
It’s a plan clearly designed to win votes, but it’s not a plan designed to address the serious issue of the lack of affordable and accessible child care in this country.
Instead of a comprehensive program providing subsidized, universal daycare, the Tories are callously tempting voters with cash…”
And do Canadians want “a comprehensive program providing subsidized, universal daycare,” or do they want the option of having their tax dollars returned to them to held defray the costs involved with providing parental care? That is the question. Liberals and Conservatives differ funamentally on the answer. This is what elections are for. — Garth
Stephen Harper said it again this morning: “We will provide choice in child care.” When will he be announcing how the CPC intends to do that? Is there something he hasn’t told us?
As a professional in the field of DayCare I can tell you first hand that this is one of the best ideas yet.
Many various circumstances conspire to keep those who would and do need to seek daycare simply cannot do so. They may need it desperately, but do not qualify for subsidized care. The facilities cannot afford to ‘give a special rate’ or to accomodate otherwise.
This break covers all circumstances and allows the parents to make the decisions, usually the ones most comfortable for them.
This is the brilliance of the plan: trusting the parent to make the right decision for their children. NOT the state.
It is not income tested. Another brilliant move. No social stigma applies ( and believe me that exists glaringly) and the parents control the decisions.
We are a welfare minded state and in many areas we should not be interfering. This is one of them.
A family with three children under the age of six would pay enormous rates for daycare utilizing the ‘allowable’ choices. In this plan, they make their own choices, even it it means staying home or seeking part time work, they still get the break.
It is what our parents need and it should be endorsed enthusiastically.
With a reduction of the GST and a break for parents with kids under six, along with the further tax breaks the Tories have planned we will head into the future with a renewed power to make our own decisions about how we spend our own money. Surely that is far superior to the way the libs have spent our money these last twelve years!
You’re right on the mark, Garth! This is a democracy, we’d like to make up our own minds on how to spend our money, and how to raise our kids is just one of those choices.
Call me crazy but I think my kid’s mom is a better choice than an employee of the state.
And sure, they cost more than $100 a month, but I’m hoping none of those intelligent critics like salvage are expecting to turn a profit on theirs …
Garth, do you really expect us to believe that your campaign does not have its own sign wrecking crew?
Wha….? That’s not the way we do it in Halton, dude. — Garth
In what world would $100/month help people to stay at home with their children? $100/month will buy us some diapers. My student loan repayments are $700/month! We need both our salaries to survive.
What we really need is more childcare spots, and good, REGULATED childcare. I have friends who have had a very very difficult time finding childcare for their kids because they didn’t get on a waiting list immediately upon becoming pregnant. That is ridiculous.
In the end it doesn’t matter whether a parent stays home, or the kids go to daycare — there are positive and negative aspects to both. However, we all know, the suggestion is that women stay at home — not men! Yes, the 1950s were a great time for men! Please, let’s go back.
Garth, I applaud your courage in allowing voters with differing views to ask questions and challenge you in this format.
Though I suppose it’s inevitable that you will continue get the electronic version of “getting a door slammed in your face”, don’t let it get to you.
People’s ability to hide behind the anonymity of the internet will inevitably make their negative comments sharper or, in some cases, allow the uninformed and ignorant to demonstrate their skills. Don’t get drawn in!
Stiff upper lip, keep fighting the good fight and keep standing up for families, the middle class and Canada!
umm.. Eddie — you need to pay a bit more attention buddy. By offering tax credits to families they are offering choice. The liberals would rather institutionalize day care. I don’t trust liberals to raise my kids. Do you?
Since NW is in to cutting and pasting one-sided opinions, I’ll provide the other opinion:
On child care, Harper’s got it right
National Post
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
On some key issues in the current election campaign — health care, for instance — there appears to be disappointingly little separating the two main parties. But on the issue of child care the Conservatives have set themselves apart. Stephen Harper’s proposal is a welcome antidote to the Liberals’ big-government approach to a national daycare program.
Far from being unsympathetic to the needs of working parents, the Conservatives are in fact proposing to spend more on child care than the Liberals. But rather than the heavy-handed approach taken by Paul Martin’s government, which will see $5-billion transferred to the provinces over five years in return for the creation of regulated daycare spots, the Tories would leave child-care decisions up to parents. Under their plan, parents would receive an annual allowance of $1,200 per child under age six (on top of current benefits) that could be spent on whatever form of care best suits their kids’ needs best — be it formal daycare, babysitting or stay-at-home parenting.
Equally laudable is the Conservative plan to increase the number of daycare spots not by building government-run centres, but by offering $250-million in tax credits to companies that build daycare centres to accommodate employees’ children. As Conservative child care critic Rona Ambrose has pointed out, “The infrastructure part is so expensive, we have to look at ways to bring other partners in the private and public sector on board.”
The Conservative plan is a mild deviation from the child-care alternative they previously proposed, which would have involved a tax credit rather than an allowance. But the basic principle of parental choice is the same. The Tories clearly recognize that every family’s circumstances are different, and that parents understand better than government officials what arrangements best suit their young children.
Mr. Harper’s party has properly set itself apart from the Liberals on this important issue, as he did last week on the GST. Keep going, Mr. Harper. You’re on the right track. And Canadians are better off for having clear choices to make come election day.
“along with the further tax breaks the Tories have planned” – Snowbunnie
Snowbunnie, Garth doesn’t like party hacks. Perhaps you could wait until those plans are announced before you start supporting them.
Do you guys think that Harper is going to pay for his plans with his own money or that of his party? Guess what, he’s showing how he’ll spend your tax dollars if he’s elected. Consider this though…how much administration is he going to need to determine who gets $1200, who gets taxed on it and who doesn’t, how to help those that no longer really have that much money for daycare because of taxes and no more government support.
So what’s insulting is that you can’t figure out that Harper is actually going to be wasting $5 billion of taxpayers money, much more than the sponsorship scandal and the gun registry that conservative supporters can’t let go of.
Wake up.
Choice is good but does an extra $100 a month really offer more choices? I’m thinking if you can’t afford $175 a week (and after doing a bit of poking around that’s price seems to be a bit on the low side, some of them HOLY CRAP am I glad that I’m never going to have kids, no way I could maintain a heroin habit with those kinds of bills to pay) that money isnt’ going to make a difference.
This whole guberment can’t do nuthin’ right! is a load of excrement. Sure the gun registry is a fiasco (in part because of lack of cooperation from certain quarters) and there are other government programs that safely qualify as boondoggle screw ups. And what percentage of total government programs do those SNAFUs make up?
Not even one percent.
You only hear about the bad ones, the ones that work smoothly? They function so well you don’t even notice them (this is not just because of the current Liberals but because of every government since WWII). So to write-off a plan without seeing it based on a small number of failures (miserable as they may well be) is silly.
I think Quebec has a pretty snappy day care thing going; it’s worth a look to see if it can be adopted across the country. Personally I think day care should be treated like pre-kindergarten, the reality is most parents work, the stay at home mom or dad just isn’t practical anymore (and isn’t going to come back, too much stuff to buy, it may be a bad thing but what can you do?) why not fold the whole thing into education?
Parents should have the choice of which day care to send their spawn sure, but that power means nothing if you can’t afford to send ‘em to the one you want.
The Liberals are offering only 1 billion a year. In Quebec, we spend over 2 billion a year and less than 1/3 of children can take advantage of this subsidy (7$ a day daycare). Now, to fund the rest of the kids in Quebec it would take 6$ billion at least. Ok, now Quebec is about 1/4 of the population, so we have a program that would cost about 24 Billion nationwide for truly universal daycare with no 2-3 year waiting lists. So Liberals offer a billion to make a few more spaces, or the Conservatives spend 2 Billion, most of it going back to the taxpayer. Well neither are perfect, but I’m inclined to go with option 2.
Okay Wesley, why don’t you answer the question then: What choice do I get for $100 a month that I don’t have now?
MM – Wake up ???
Back when mine were young enough, we got what we called the baby bonus on a monthly basis. Not sure if it still exists, but it couldn’t have been that terribly high tech … the criteria being “do you have a child 6 yrs old or less?” Not hard to understand ….
What’s difficult to understand is questioning how Harper’s going to pay for a plan than costs half of Martin’s plan. Brings to mind the joke about the robot bartender ….
So what’s insulting is that you can’t figure out that Harper is actually going to be wasting $5 billion of taxpayers money, much more than the sponsorship scandal and the gun registry that conservative supporters can’t let go of.
Wake up.
By MM on 12.06.05 12:39 pm
“Can’t let go of”!?!?! Spoken like a true Liberal apologist. By the way, where exactly do you think Martin is getting his 10 Billion and how much do you think it’ll cost the Liberal’s to administer their program?
The Tories are awake MM. It’s Liberal supporters who have been asleep for 12 years.
$1,200 is a joke – only Harper and his supporters can possibly believe that it would work to solve the child care problem. In Harper’s world, the women stay at home, raise kids and $1,200 is like found money. “Gosh Beav – Mom got some money from the Gov’t, keen!” It’s easy to come up with a “child care plan” when your model family is the Cleavers.
Gosh Mr. Layton! You read Garth’s blog too?
As hoped, this has become an historically interesting campaign (Thanks to Mr. Harper’s approach) giving voters who take the time to educate themselves, several new things to consider, that have direct impact on their daily life. I have noticed that the portion of the Conservative Child Care program that continues to get minimized attention from reports is that of the incentive for communities and organizations to create child care places that address the real needs of their particular community of parents. (e.g. rural working parents, shift working and weekend working parents, etc.) Only the monthly parent allowance seems to be making it into discussions of comparison. As a parent of young children, receiving a monthly allowance of $100 for each child under the age of 6 it would be more appealing than to pay out any additional $100X to a government-run institution with the potential of becoming another government scandal program managed by bureaucrats (federal and provincial). From the Quebec model, on which Martin/Dryden’s program is based, it’s the upper middle class Yuppies that benefit from the daycare, and not the lower income single parent families. If parents decide to sacrifice and have one parent stay home with the children, there is no $ reward for this. Although the Liberals announce today that their program is to be “extended” to a 10 year commitment, in fact, the agreements that the Federal Government has signed with the provinces is for only one single year! After that??
The other item – the GST – should be discussed more in terms of Goods AND SERVICES. An excellent letter to the Editor in today’s National Post highlights this, as it points out that in 1997 the Federal Liberals simply and “quietly introduced legislation to impose GST on mutual funds, segregated funds, wrap accounts and other managed savings products”. You are penalized 7% by the Liberal Gov’t for attempting to save. The GST is paid by everyone for SERVICES of their real estate agents, rental agents, lawyers, investment trades, etc…as well as goods: gas, telephone, hydro, cable and any SERVICES that are associated with these products. By the basic nature of the Liberal/NDP philosophy – to introduce bureaucratic programs to address every social need – taxpayers are left vulnerable to “scandals”. Programs run by bureaucrats are not known for their efficiency or the accountability to real results.
For all the “$1200 isn’t enough for daycare” crowd – don’t you get it? This money isn’t meant to pay for daycare!
My wife and I made the decision that she would not go back to work until our children are in school so that she could raise them, rather than someone else. Even if she did want to go back early, her wages would only cover the cost of daycare, so what’s the point?
I greatly welcome this $100 a month / child. It may not be much, but it can make a big difference in a one income household.
The Liberals’ plan to provide 11 billion for daycare doesn’t do us a lick of good. Why should we be forced to put our kids in daycare?
Okay Wesley, why don’t you answer the question then: What choice do I get for $100 a month that I don’t have now?
By Eddie on 12.06.05 12:58 pm
Well, you have a $100 that you can spend that you didn’t have before, for one thing! Under the Liberals’ plan, your only choice is to put your kids in daycare. Not much of a choice if you prefer to raise your own children.
I know, why on Earth would anyone want to do that? I guess I’m too old fashioned (only 30).
Why is it the responsibility of any gov’t to solve the child care problem? I get so tired of people expecting gov’t to solve their problems.
Let me see if I have this right; I pay taxes, and with those taxes in hand the Tory’s give a small chunk ‘directly’ back to me?!, to oh…, I donno, feed them, diaper/clothe them, hire a sitter once in a blue moon and stay sane or go make some more money?
‘I’ get to choose?! Wow! It’s like voting for dignity and responsibility.
Hey Mr., no, they don’t eat hay, they ‘do’ eat wheat, corn and rice and if it’s really going to be money in my wallet then I might even buy meat and fish and OhMy fruit and veg! Let’s see… meat once a week x milk ‘everyday’ x maybe for a treat some of those pricey little oranges they gobble too fast…beans away where do I sign with an ‘X”, I’m so excited I’m making a new grocery list for February and adding $200!
Hey buddy, if you don’t need those $100 diapers I’d be happy to take ‘em off your hands? Might clear up the bum rash and keep us out of the lineup at the doctors office.
Hi ho, hi ho, I’m gonna feed my kids on my own!
Money in hand is worth two in Liberal coffers.
Editorial from The Globe and Mail:
Harper’s prescription for choice in child care
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper’s new “choice in child-care allowance” is misnamed. It is a new entitlement program for all parents of children 5 and under, akin to Mackenzie King’s 1945 family allowance. All such parents would receive $100 a month per child, taxable in the hands of the spouse earning the lower income. The cost to all taxpayers would be roughly $2.5-billion a year. This seems little more than a symbolic gesture (albeit an expensive one) to appease frustrated stay-at-home parents. It is a tidy little Christmas present for an underappreciated segment of voters, but it will do little to assist anyone’s choice.
Choice is a laudable goal. A one-size-fits-all daycare policy focused largely on institutional daycare, as supported by the Liberals, is out of step with Canadian diversity. There is no consensus in this country supporting one form of child-rearing over another, and no evidence that one form is superior to another. A study by the respected Vanier Institute of the Family this year found that a large majority of both men and women think that, ideally, it is preferable for one parent to stay home and raise children when they are preschoolers. A parent’s choice to stay home with young children should be treated by the state as if it were as legitimate as the choice of going out to work.
In the real world, however, as the Vanier study recognized, many parents need to go out to work and require affordable daycare. As well, government has an obligation to make women’s equality concrete by supporting child care in various ways — through setting standards, enforcing regulations and offering financial support to help facilitate the choice to work.
Stay-at-home parents feel angry, and with some justification, that the current tax system penalizes their choice and makes it unaffordable for some. A two-income, two-child household with an income of $75,000 pays $5,887 in taxes; a one-income, two-child household with $75,000 in income pays $10,242. As well, a sizable proportion of the federal child-care tax deduction of up to $7,000 for each child winds up in the pockets of high-income earners. This federal tax subsidy cost taxpayers $545-million in 2005. Of that, $113-million went to individuals earning more than $100,000 a year. Since that money is paid to the spouse earning the lower income, most of this money (except that paid to single parents) went to families with incomes of more than $200,000. In those brackets, people do not need the state’s help in making choices.
Mr. Harper could have made some tougher choices himself with his new child-care policy. He might have targeted the support to those who need it; a family making more than $200,000 has far less need of a federal baby bonus or child-care bonus than some of the lower-earning two-income families who will receive the new allowance but be taxed on it.
He might have undertaken a broader review of tax policy as it affects families and child care. Or he might simply have used the $2.5-billion to lower tax rates across the board. While his child-care policy, with its element of choice, looks superior to that of his opponents, it would help those in need far more if it were actually targeted at them.
Michael, the Liberal plan no more forces parents to put their kids in daycare than the CPC plan gives parents the choice of staying home. So, yes, I have $100 to spend. I can choose whether to buy a new television or a new computer. But that still doesn’t provide me with any new choice in child care does it?
People don’t want hand-outs or subsidies…
Unless it’s a hundred bucks a month for daycare?
Huh?
It’s there own money being returned to middle-class taxpayers who happen to pay the freight in this country. — Garth
S in MB asks: “Why is it the responsibility of any gov’t to solve the child care problem?”
Good question S.
The Canadian economy requires a large workforce of low-paid workers in order to run. Lots and lots of low-paid workers. Immigration can supply some of those workers, but, if we want the economy to keep running, we need to have children. Problem is, it’s the low-paid workers who are, for the most part, having the children that will be our low-paid workforce down the road, and they need to have some place to put those children while they’re out being the low-paid workforce today. That means we need a child care system. Surely you can see now that our economy couldn’t run without one. And surely you would agree that the government has a responsibility to keep the economy running. Don’t you?
Eddie, ok, ‘forced’ is obviously not the right word. I guess I don’t understand what choice you are looking for. You either put your children in daycare and go to work or stay home and raise them yourself – what other options are there?
If you vote Liberal, the government will help you out should you want to put your kids in daycare. If you keep them at home, you lose out.
If you vote Conservative, the government (who has agreed to not renege on the existing childcare program) will provide you with a ’subsidy’ that you can use as you choose. You can put it towards daycare, pay a babysitter, or just off-set your cost of living.
I don’t know about you, but I see where the choices are.
My spouse and I both work, although I am currently on maternity leave. I will have to go back to work at the end of the year because we could not afford to have only one income.
And Stephen Harper’s $50 to $75 AFTER TAX monthly contribution would not change that at all.
Frankly, I find it fiscally irresponsible to simply throw money at people and claim to care about choice.
SR – If you consider the $100 to be in the $50-75 ballpark after tax, I’m sure income splitting would appeal to you.
income splitting is just discrimination against the un-married.
it’s plain to see that harper is focusing on his base – the good wholesome church-going people who understand that a woman’s place is in the home. no point offering daycare to people like that.
Neither the Liberal or Conservative plans are a panacea that will be all things to all people. Putting money in the hands of taxpayers with children to spend as they see fit is a very good idea, but a complaint is that it is not enough money to make a difference. Putting the money into a government sponsored daycare program also seems like a good idea, but it involves a lot money to be spent on administrative costs with not nearly enough daycare spaces made available to meet demand. In this sense, both plans have strengths and weaknesses. To decide which plan to support, the voter essentially needs to look to the philosophy underlying the development of each plan: (1) let people make their own decisions and be responsible for those decisions, (2) let the government make decisions for the people and subsequently be responsible for those decisions (hopefully). In this sense, “better” is probably not going to be realized in a practical sense (i.e., the daycare “problem” being solved), but in a philosophical sense (i.e., the role of government in making social decisions). As an aside, it is kind of funny that according to the Liberal philosophy government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, but apparently has a large role in deciding what happens to the offspring of these resultant unions!
The nugget of bald truth is that Harper does not want government providing money for programs for people.
This has been true of Harper for many years. He has boasted of having been part of the drive toward eliminating federal funding for many programs both during his time as an MP and during his time at the NCC. He’s boasted of his part in the reduction of transfer payments to the provinces, particularly in social programs.
His desire to reduce taxation levels ties in directly to his desire to remove federal government funding. Once the government coffers are sufficiently depleted by reducing taxation a Harper led federal government will be able to withdraw federal funding from the programs he has always said he does not believe in.
Exactly as George W. Bush and the republican party have done in the US.
it’s plain to see that harper is focusing on his base – the good wholesome church-going people who understand that a woman’s place is in the home. no point offering daycare to people like that.
By mike
Wow. I don’t see anywhere in Harper’s releases, this kind of talk. So what if several of the commentors (myself included) are in the situation where the female in the relationship is at home with the kids? Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but my wife literally made half as much as I do, so the descision as to who would stay home and raise our children was an easy one.
I don’t imagine my situation is uncommon.
Hey, does Harper plan to make this available to same-sex couples with kids? Or are we sticking with the ‘traditional’ definition of ‘family?’ Just curious…
Until I read the vitriol in this blog as presented by the obvious Liberal Party supporters, I was undecided as to how I would vote. I have now decided that I will vote for the Conservative Party just to eliminate the Liberal mantra of “we know best”.
Another thing…why is it that the Liberals and NDP seem to believe that I, as a taxpayer, am somehow responsible for taking care of their children via daycare spots paid for by my taxes? If you couldn’t afford a child in the first place, that’s not my problem.
You can talk about traditional family values all you want but the reality is that almost 50% of marriages end in divorce. How does a single parent survive without affordable daycare?
Staying at home to watch the children is not an option for a single parent. The non-custodial parent usually can’t afford to support the rest of his/her detached family, even if the family was single income before, as all the efficiencies of family living under one household are lost.
Perhaps affordable daycare that allows equal opportunity for both parents to pursue their careers and take care of their family together will prevent some divorces (obviously I have no idea if this would actually be the case but it’s a thought).
So remarriage is the answer right? Well I don’t know a lot of single guys/girls looking for divorced mothers/fathers and their children to support with a single income. And let’s be totally realistic: only people in the top income bracket can even think of a single income family if they are to live in a big city, own a place and drive a car.
Make sacrifices right? Tell that to a couple living a happy comfortable life on two incomes that hasn’t had children yet. Give up the car right? Well people without cars aren’t rushing to have kids because even in cities that have excellent public transportation, it’s extremely tiring and difficult to take one or more kids on public transit all day: never mind the shame that comes with having parents that can’t afford a car or a nice place or nice clothes for their kids.
And don’t get mad at me: I didn’t create this society and neither did the Liberals: it’s much worse in American cities.
I’d love my family to live on a single income but the reality is that an extra $100 a month will not help my family reach this goal. I’ll take the money but it’s nothing more than a bribe to keep quiet about the societal barriers to new couples.
Hmmmm. The Liberal plan envisages 250,000 daycare spaces, but there are 2,000,000 children 0-6 in the country, or enough for one in eight kids, or put another way 12.5% of the population. Hmmm. A program with a best case scenario of reaching 12.5% of the eligible recipients. Everybody pays, but the connected insiders get a full measure of benefit, and the rest get squat. Perfect Liberal program, redistribution from the many to our chosen few.
“why is it that the Liberals and NDP seem to believe that I, as a taxpayer, am somehow responsible for taking care of their children via daycare spots paid for by my taxes? If you couldn’t afford a child in the first place, that’s not my problem.”
Problem solved, Now-Decided! With Harper, your tax dollars go to anyone with a kid, whether they want daycare or not!
BTW, you may not have been decided, but if you didn’t notice the vitriol coming FROM conservatives on this blog, then I think I know which way you were leaning.
“His desire to reduce taxation levels ties in directly to his desire to remove federal government funding. Once the government coffers are sufficiently depleted by reducing taxation a Harper led federal government will be able to withdraw federal funding from the programs he has always said he does not believe in.
Exactly as George W. Bush and the republican party have done in the US. “-
So says the poster…
It is a known economic FACT that reducing taxes INCREASES government coffers.. JUST as George Bush has done in the States… one of the reasons the economy is humming.
All the money from taxpayers goes to the government to squander, which they have ad nauseum adscamming one program after the other throughout the system. In the meantime their responsibility to see to it we have what we have paid for goes begging.
People ought to start listening to other than liberal media and liberal paid pollsters and start thinking for oneself.
The money the Harper Administration intends to send to taxpayers makes a huge difference. That along with the reduction in the GST and the income tax reductions planned ( I would really like to see them announce a program of deduction for mortgage interest on one’s principle home as well) Those are powerful tools to not only return money to the taxpayer but in ways that are effective in moving the economy.
If it were not for George Bush’s tax incentives and cuts the US would not be humming along and Canada would not be riding on that coattail economically.
We are so overtaxed in this country, if it were not for the US economy we’d know straight away how harsh the taxation these last 12 has been.
When GST, supposed to be scrapped 12 years ago, has doubled, property taxes have increased expotentially and all manner of ’services’ cost the earth, not to mention the double and triple gst taxation at the gas pumps and elsewhere, we are gouged beyond belief.
That folks don’t UNDERSTAND that is just mindboggling.
Edmonton MP praises Tory child-care Published: December 6, 2005
Child care has turned into an unlikely battleground for the election.
Conservative Leader Stephen Harper on Monday promised a $10.9 billion child-care plan that would put $1,200 into the hands of parents each year for each of their pre-school children.
Prime Minister Paul Martin responded this morning by promising to double Liberal child-care spending to $11 billion.
Conservative MP Rona Ambrose, who represents Edmonton-Spruce Grove, worked with Harper to write the Conservative child-care policy. She spoke with Larry Johnsrude, reporter/editor for edmontonjournal.com.
Q: What’s the difference between the Conservative and Liberal policies?
A: Ours is vastly different. You can start from a philosophical point. Ours gives money, not to the provinces, but to parents, so they can make their own decisions about what child care best suits their family needs.
We feel very strongly that our plan should be universal and equitable. The Liberal plan is regulated nine-to-five public day care through an public infrastructure and is a small percentage of the total child-care options being used by parents right now and is their last choice. Their first choice is for one of them to stay at home if they can afford to. Their second choice is (to leave their children) with a trusted neighbour or friend and the last choice is institutionalized care. The Liberal plan gives funding to the province to deliver only one choice. We believe the only equitable way to do this is to deliver the funds directly to parents.
Parents right now are choosing another option. They’re making a lot of sacrifices in their lives to do that. They’re paying a lot out of their own pockets to access different kinds of child care and the government does not support them.
Q: When you say one type of child care is parents’ first choice and another is their last choice, how do you know that?
A: We’ve done a lot of research and also rely on study by the Vanier Institute of the Family, which is also used by the Liberal government. Their studies have a lot of insight. They found that 95 per cent of working moms and 85 per cent of working dads would choose to stay home if they could afford to. Sweden had a one-size-fits-all bureaucratic style of child-care system but have begun to dismantle it. Parents were revolting en masse. They’re moving to a system of direct payments to parents where parental choice can be facilitated.
There are a number of issues that come into play. If your are a shift worker, for instance, you can’t use the Liberal plan because there is no night-time day care available in this kind of system. So parents who work night shifts have to pay out of their own pockets to go somewhere else. Parents who use in-home care, parents who use a day home in their neighbourhood can’t access any funds. That’s the kind of challenges parents are facing today.
The modern family is very diverse and making all kinds of choices. We want to help them rather than restrict them.
Q: Why did Stephen Harper pick you to help come up with this plan?
A: It’s because I have a public policy background and child care was one of the policies I became involved in. It’s a very important issue and I’m happy to be involved in the process and contribute. We’ve been working alongside a number of different women’s groups. I have an interest in what makes good public policy and social programs should not be developed that discriminate against two-thirds of Canadians.
“It is a known economic FACT that reducing taxes INCREASES government coffers.. JUST as George Bush has done in the States… one of the reasons the economy is humming.”
Snowbunnie, I don’t want to sound like too much of a nerd here, but does Spock have a goatee in your universe?! Bush’s economic plans have driven the USA into possibly the worst deficit in its history! I don’t have much to add, except I’m wondering where you get your news, and if I am actually getting punk’d everytime I read one of your posts.
why is it that the Liberals and NDP seem to believe that I, as a taxpayer, am somehow responsible for taking care of their children via daycare spots paid for by my taxes?
Now that’s Reform Alliance thinking.
um, snowbunnie – you do realize that george jr has basically bankrupted the US economy with his tax cuts and his war, right? ask Garth what’s going to happen there when interest rates go up even 2%…
and “now-decided” – keep in mind that many of us here are traditional conservatives (well, maybe not savage, but he has his insights
, who wish we had a real conservative option. stephen harper and the reform/ncc agenda just don’t cut it for a great many ontarians who supported the PC party. like i said before, i’d like to vote for Garth (not impressed with Gary Carr at all), but i won’t contribute keeping harper around. if i can find a way to elect Garth and not help harper, i’ll do it.
“if i can find a way to elect Garth and not help harper, i’ll do it.”
I wonder if Garth would consider borrowing a page out of Belinda Stronach’s book and crossing over to the other side? Wadda ya say Garth?
The Conservative child care proposal is not a child care proposal. It is a tax cut dressed up like a “child care” proposal. I have no problem with that but I would have preferred that he be honest and call it what it is. After all, Mr. Harper has spoken alot about honesty and integrity in government in the last few months.
The Liberal program, as it exists right now, is about creating thousands of subsidized EARLY EDUCATION slots.
The program is not just about day care. It is about giving our children a head start at learning.
Studies have shown that if a child begins to learn the basics of reading and math early they generally have a much greater success rate as they continue through their education. I also know this from experience and I also know that they develop a love of learning that carries forward into the future.
With all due respect to those who want to raise their pre-schoolers at home, good on you. However, please do not interfere with the rest of us who would like to give our children early opportunities to start learning. That includes you Mr. Harper.
Hey Salvage and Mike:
If you like socialism so much, why don’t you move to a socialist country? I, and many other Canadians, are tired of people like you who think that they have the right, through government, to pick our pockets clean. If you want something, then pay for it yourself. Should be a concept simple enough for left-wing minds to comprehend!
By the way, Mike, all you seem to be is a Liberal-lite. Why don’t you go over to the Liberal Party and quit the charade?
While I certainly don’t disagree with the idea of stay-at-home parents receiving a credit, I think that the $10 billion that both the Liberal and Conservative plans require is much better spent establishing a daycare infrastructure and system that will last into the future.
Like many other Canadians, having one parent stay at home really isn’t an option for my family. As the daycare nearest my place of work – which currently has a waitlist of up to 18 months – costs $990/month, the Conservatives’ proposed taxable $1200 credit won’t provide us much relief.
The goal in my opinion should be rather to follow the example that already exists in Quebec and work toward building a national system that is affordable, available and reliable.
snowbunnie, what kind of crack or meth have you been smoking? You have lost all sense of reality. I suggest that you put away your crack pipe and stop watching Fox News. What a dunce.
Now Decided, you really must learn the difference between socialism and capitalism (perhaps you should look up communism too while you’re at it). Childcare is first and foremost an economic issue, not a social one. And, as I’ve said in an earlier comment, it is an essential element of our particular economy. That’s not socialist thinking, it’s capitalist thinking. Without sufficient childcare spaces, we won’t have a sufficient workforce to keep our economy running. In other words, unless we give the working class the tools they need in order to keep working at their low-paying jobs, the middle class is going to be screwed.
PeterP:
It’s collectivism (aka socialism). You’re requiring everyone else in the country to contribute toward the care of someone else’s child.
If taxes were cut across the board, people wouldn’t need to work 40-60 hours per week just to make ends meet and would be able to care for their own kids.
There is no better person to look after a child than one’s own mom or dad. Period.
Snowbunnie, you are living evidence that there is nothing that Harper zealots will not wilfully misinterpret.
Have you heard of Straussian Neo-Conservatism? One of Harper’s mentors at U. of Calgary is a Straussian. Harper’s well versed in it. He’s an ideological bench mate with the people who did the heavy lifting in and around the Bush White House to get the Iraq project marketed so deceptively.
Strauss argued that the people need to be deceived – told “noble lies” – to protect them from themselves. Harper’s “Calgary School” mentors and teachers, one of whom named Tom Flanagan is still a very close adviser who refuses any media coverage at all, and essentially put Harper where he is now. The campaign to oust poor Stockwell Day is rumoured to have been a machination of Flanagan.
Ted Byfield, formerly of Alberta Report Magazine, said “All these positions which Harper cherishes are there because of a group of people in Calgary — Flanagan most prominent among them…I don’t think he knows how to compromise. It’s not in his genes. The issue now is: how do we fool the world into thinking we’re moving to the left when we’re not?”
Obvious in remarks and retorts that those who question the economics of tax cuts and a reduction of the obscene level of taxation in this country as well as the reality of what good it does an economy is that there are many liberal supporters who will defend the indefensible beyond all reason.
Someone mentioned on the news today that the liberals asking for another mandate is tantamount to the arsonist, with match and gasoline can in hand, already having burned down most of the town now expects that they will be put in charge of putting out the fires.
As far as ‘Bush’s War’… let’s get this straight… The western world, certainly North America , was ATTACKED. Canadians were in those buildings and on those planes. As were many from other nations, including Australia and Great Britian.
George Bush and Tony Blair get it. They KNOW who the enemy was and is and where they are and how to fight them.
There is not one whit of gratitude , just simpleminded acceptance of media disinformation.
The Iraq front is a theatre in the war on terror as are many other areas around the world.
While you folks whine and battle that the libs should be running things in this country when they have lied, stolen, harranged, threatened ( ask Allan Cutler how Whistleblowers are treated in this country) you presume to throw namecalling into the mix.
Nothing close to a reasoned argument. Nothing close to having a clue about how the Conservative platform is actually good for the citizens of this country and that Stephen Harper would really make an excellent Prime Minister.
From the negative comments it also appears no one has actually bothered to find out just what the Conservative platform really is.
It’s Conservative, so let’s trash it.
It’s liberal, let’s support it.
When one bothers to arm themselves with real information rather than liberal party talking points it becomes crystal clear where the best interests of this nation lie. With Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.
We would be a lucky nation indeed to see them gain a majority government in this next election cycle. For in that is hope of real progress.
Liberals only have the same crime, corruption, lies and theft and social strangulation.
For this country to be truly united and to be able to move forward with hope and propserity it needs a Conservative win and a definitive one.
Hey Now Decided
I don’t have to; I live in Canada where we balance aspects of socialism with capitalism getting the best of both worlds. See there are some things that making a profit from doesn’t make much of a profit for society. Like health care for instance. Interesting that you claim to speak for “many other Canadians†you should pass that info onto the polling companies, they’ve got different data.
Your pockets are picked clean? May I suggest you get an accountant to walk you through your taxes? You may be missing something. My pockets are pretty full even after the largest tax bill in my personal history (business has been good). RSPs are a fine way to keep taxes down, (saved me a ton) maybe Garth can help you out?
Pay for it myself? So… you pay for cops, roads, streetlights, food and fire inspectors? Weights and standards enforcement? Health care? Well jeepers man! No wonder you’re broke, that stuff’s expensive, you should join Canadian society we let our taxes pay for the countless services we need and enjoy, it’s a lot cheaper than paying for it out of pocket!
And ND please don’t start insulting me, I’m trying to be as good and polite here as I can in respect to Garth and his campaign (I don’t think he want this place degenerating into a school yard troll fest) so be a grown up okay?
“It is about giving our children a head start at learning” … KB
unbelievable. Isn’t Junior Kindergarten early enough to “start learning”? When do kids have time to “be kids” anymore?
next you’ll want to supply expectant mothers with taped messages and “bellyphones”, the better to start them learning while they’re in the womb.
“If you like socialism so much, why don’t you move to a socialist country?…Why don’t you go over to the Liberal Party and quit the charade?”
Hey Now-Decided… For someone who “just decided”, you sure are learning to spit vitriol fast!
And speaking of being now decided, I hereby nominate Snowbunnie as next leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. He can’t lose!
Actually, Dumbfounded, “next” is “now”. Have you noticed the Baby Einstein DVD’s and CD’s for sale? All geared at before birth intelligence stimulation. BabysRUs sells them as does every video store.
I keep listening to the various explanations of the “Child Care” plans and trying to understand the intent and the features. The one aspect that continues to appeal to me is any plan that encourages families and extended families to care for each other and avoid big government interference. Cradle-to-grave big government does not seem to advance a caring society, but instead a dependent (and yes, entitled!) society.
Putting “parents on the government payroll” as someone stated earlier on this blog, isn’t quite accurate. Although the Conservatives are calling the first part of their plan a monthly “payment” to families with young children, it can be construed as a family “tax credit” in a different form. Whatever you want to call it – it still seems to me to be a recogonition of the value of families taking care of each other whenever possible. The second part of the Conservative plan – allowing organizations and communities to benefit from tax credits to build more spaces for child care for those families that need it seems like a good idea too…Although it seems the Conservatives need to continue to explain the intent and consequence of this plan (e.g. churches and charitable organizations don’t pay taxes. What incentive is there for them to continue to open Child Care facilities?).
What I have found interesting is that Martin and his “people” are now referring to their Child Care program as equal to Canada’s Health Care program. Now that’s scary!! So are we now to see Child Care as a RIGHT? Will there soon be court disputes from parents who aren’t able to have their children enrolled “in a timely manner” into their facility of choice? It was also interesting to hear that the Liberal Child Care program would have unionized care givers…One more weakness re: potential striking of workers in the future. Early childhood learning about strikes, I guess?
There was also a question earlier on this blog as to whether or not Mr. Harper would extend his monthly payment for children under the age of 6 to same-sex couples? Why not?? Mr. Harper has always said he believes the union of same-sex couples should have all of the same benefits as heterosexual couples. His only concern has always been to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. (No different than more than 30 of the Liberal caucus – plus some Liberal cabinet members who were not able to express their or their constituents’ views)
Thanks to Mr. Harper, Canadians are being given a chance to sort through the policies and make a solid choice as to where to place their valuable vote.
Just because a parent stays home with a child does not mean that that the child is actually getting proper care or learning anything. You would be amased by the number of kids, who have a stay at home parent, who show up to Kindergarten or grade 1 not knowing anything.
Ann has to be Ann Coulter.
truegrit,
is it not the school’s responsibility to educate the child? You don’t need to teach the child the ABC’s before the age of 5 to be a good parent.
As to previous comments about how early learning is good for kids there are studies out there that show that pushing academics at an early age lead to kids becoming burnout early in their acedemic careers. A headstart in early learning tend to help those children from disadvantaged homes. According to the studies that I read.
Mike: Your comment about christian families who know that a women’s place is in the home is so far off the mark. I know lots of non-christian parents who have mom at home. The desire to be a SAHM cuts across all lines.
PeterP: I guess we will have to agree to disagree that childcare is an economic issue.
Whoa there Turegrit, there’s no call for that sort of thing. She’s not a venom spitting harpy screeching complete bs on Fox News for knuckle dragging morons.
She’s simply stating her views, which are the same old tire chestnuts of “Canada doesn’t work! All our peace, prosperity and unimaginably high standard of living are a complete coincidence!†Hardly the stuff of Coulter. Not all conservatives are evil insane lunatics who should be stuffed into a rubber room. Not even a majority and even fewer in Canada.
I hear all this ragging about our health care yet the worse thing anyone can say is that there’s a wait. Well yeah, life is like that sometimes, I’d rather be a bit patient than pay Blue Cross a thousand dollars a month, but I’m silly that way. Thing is that people wait and die down south too, waiting for their insurance companies to pay up, waiting for their HMOs to catch up with their backlog. The difference is would you rather pay for it with taxes or out of your pocket each month? Guess which is cheaper? We have a good system, it needs fixing but so does everything, that doesn’t mean you throw it or the idea out.
Again Quebec’s system seems to work pretty good, we should take a closer look.
$1200 is a lot of money! It will help me pay for preschool and summer camps for the kids. There are tons of one income families in Halton that this will be a very big deal to!
Just wanted to add that most Canadians don’t even use daycares, they use babysitters or family members to take care of their kids. Glad to see some goverment is offering some financial assistance to the largely ignored one income families.
For those one income families wanting their children to get an early start in formal education the money can help pay for part time preschools and Montessori schools.
My daughter’s preschool costs $168 per month for 10 months. If I received $1200 a year, that would take care of most of the cost. I think that’s pretty generous and I’d be happy to get it!
Salvage said in response to Truegrit:
“knuckle dragging morons…evil insane lunatics who should be stuffed into a rubber room” when characterizing people he doesn’t agree with and then whines to me, “And ND please don’t start insulting me, I’m trying to be as good and polite here as I can”.
Typical Liberal nonsense of tossing the bombs and then claiming to be the victim.
“Typical Liberal nonsense of tossing the bombs and then claiming to be the victim.”
Did you… JUST decide that?
Well, I realize that it took me until 6:46 p.m. to respond but that just might have something to do with me having a job!
I can’t live on blog boards all day long like some people. I know this offends the socialist ’sensibilities’ which dictate that the government should look after me and take care of all my needs but, hey, I’d rather take care of myself.