NDP Policy Document

[Toro]

Let's pick it apart, shall we.

http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/pdfs...latformNote.pdf

1. Building the Country we Want

Municipalities

Re-starting a 10-year national housing program to build 200,000 affordable and co-op housing units (including homes for seniors, people with disabilities and students), renovate 100,000 existing units, and provide rent supplements to 40,000 low-income tenants, many of whom are single mothers who pay a large percentage of their income in rent.

200,000 units at $100,000 a piece is $20 billion.

Including in the housing program tax incentives for developers to renovate and restore buildings in downtown cores, creating new housing stock and rebuilding our city centres and downtowns as an alternative to more urban sprawl.

Good idea.

Implementing a permanent national infrastructure program so that accountable local governments can own and deliver clean drinking water, waste water reduction, sewage treatment and solid waste reduction strategies to their communities – and create jobs.

Sounds nice, but probably a lot of pork. Aggregate demand is not a problem in Canada so we shouldn't be investing in infrastructure unless it genuinely is needed.

Public Pensions/Creating Jobs/Cutting Pollution

Starting a national building retrofit program for conservations and energy efficiency, paid for through future energy savings. Participating businesses, institutions, apartment complexes, schools and recreation centres will receive an energy-efficient retrofit funded by a completely secure and guaranteed federal revolving fund leveraged by the Canada Pension Plan, offering low interest loans directly tied to utility bill reductions. Participants repay the loans through their deferred energy cost savings. The net cost of the retrofit to the participant will therefore be zero and they will reap major savings once the loan is paid.

This is a bad idea. Not the particular program necessarily but that they want to fund it through the CPP. Using your pension money to fund low-interest loans hurts your savings. Pension plans should have one purpose and one purpose only - to finance the obligations of the participants. Nothing else. If they want to have another program, find another way to fund it.

Protecting workers’ pensions by requiring broader representation of Canadian workers on the CPP Investment Board and changing the mandate to promote sustainable industrial and community development.

Ditto

Putting an ethical screen on our public pension management to avoid investing in companies that engage in the arms trade, pollute, exploit labour or undertake other unscrupulous practices that offend Canadian values.

You mean like the steel industry? Yet its pretty clear that the steel workers had a hand in drawing up this document down the page. In other words, we should provide special dispensation for the steel industry, but we can't invest in it.

I can also see countless challenges on the item "exploit labour".

Education

One question: How are all those programs going to be funded?

Children and Families

Same question.

Health Care

And again. (You get the idea.)

Creating a national public health agency, modelled on the Centers for Disease Control in the United States, to provide concerted national response and treatment protocols for public health emergencies such as SARS.

Good idea.

Strengthening the Canada Health Act to prohibit public money going to private, for-profit hospitals and responding to technological change by deeming diagnostics such as MRIs as medically necessary services, thus protecting them from privatization.

I italicized that because I have no idea what this means practically. If there's "technological change" they're going to deem the procedure "necessary"? So how does that, in any way, lower waiting times for an MRI in, say Saskatchewan, where one must wait 6 months before a patient can use an MRI machine?

[Toro]

2. Building The Planet We Want

Green, Clean Energy

I think there are some pretty good ideas in here. Some I'd question, but I shan't quibble.

Creating the Canadian Climate Exchange, using market economics to generate revenue for green energy and sustainable development by auctioning off emission credits to corporations, with a steady decline of available credits over time. As the price for pollution credits rises, the financial incentive for corporations to pollute will decline, with the auction proceeds funding Canada’s green energy transformation.

Phasing out the credits over time is impractical, but the general idea is a great one.

Sustainable Future/Kyoto

Cost?

Toxics

Shifting the burden of proof onto chemical companies, requiring them to produce scientific evidence of a chemical’s safety before it enters our environment.

Not necessarily a bad idea, but it will encourage chemical companies to leave Canada.

An Equal World

Increasing Canada’s international development aid to 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2015.

Its what, 0.2% now. I saw the number a few months ago but can't remember and don't feel like searching for it. But Canada's GDP is $1.3 trillion, so adding an incremental 0.5% to aid means an extra $6.5 billion in taxes. Are you willing to pay for it?

Working to cancel foreign debt developing countries owe to Canada while strongly encouraging democracy and human rights in those countries that are severely wanting.

A very good idea. This is better than development aid.

Working with like-minded governments and legislators to implement the Tobin Tax on currency speculation, as approved by Parliament, by placing a miniscule tax on currency speculation transactions to generate investment capital in health, education and sustainable electricity projects in the developing world.

The Tobin Tax is a bad idea. Most transactions in the currency markets are not attributable to speculation, but rather to hedging. I'll let you on a little secret, Lefties. Banks don't make much money in currencies, and there are relatively few investment funds that invest solely in currencies. Its a very efficient market. Plus, what will happen is that companies will merely shift this activity out of Canada into other jurisdictions. Its easy to do.

Working with progressive legislators in other countries to replace undemocratic, corporate-driven trade deals like NAFTA and the WTO with agreements based on the principles of fair and equitable trade, which respect fair wages and working conditions, human rights, the environment and communities’ right to develop in accordance with their values.

There are so many things wrong with this statement IMHO, it requires a thread all to itself.

Strengthening the Special Economic Measures Act to enable Canada to implement economic sanctions on Canadian companies that contribute to serious human rights violations overseas.

Nothing wrong with this.

[err]

Let's pick it apart, shall we.

http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/govrel/pdfs...latformNote.pdf

1.  Building the Country we Want

Implementing a permanent national infrastructure program so that accountable local governments can own and deliver clean drinking water, waste water reduction, sewage treatment and solid waste reduction strategies to their communities – and create jobs.

Sounds nice, but probably a lot of pork. Aggregate demand is not a problem in Canada so we shouldn't be investing in infrastructure unless it genuinely is needed.

I think you should have bolded the word ACCOUNTABLE. I've read the Ontario auditor's report for a few years in a row, and the existing system is not accountable... with many of the privately run water systems not reporting their testing even once in the year (when monthly is mandatory).... Since these sources are critical to our society's well being, I think they should not be risked to the "for profit" crowd....

Strengthening the Canada Health Act to prohibit public money going to private, for-profit hospitals and responding to technological change by deeming diagnostics such as MRIs as medically necessary services, thus protecting them from privatization.

I italicized that because I have no idea what this means practically. If there's "technological change" they're going to deem the procedure "necessary"? So how does that, in any way, lower waiting times for an MRI in, say Saskatchewan, where one must wait 6 months before a patient can use an MRI machine?

Officially, they aren't sure if MRI machines provide a "necessary" benefit over other non-invasive scans, and until deemed necessary, don't necessarily have to be provided by our health care system. So the premier's brother-in-law can open an MRI clinic and get all kinds of business referred to him by our health-care system. If the MRI technology becomes a "necessary" medical procedure, then there is a grey area surrounding the eligibility for payment to a private business when it should be provided by our health-care system.

[err]

Protecting Pensions

- Making employees and their pension plans the preferred creditors in the event of corporate bankrupcies.

- Making it illegal to underfund private pensions

I don't see how anyone could disagree with these two provisions in the NDP platform.

[tml12]

Protecting Pensions

- Making employees and their pension plans the preferred creditors in the event of corporate bankrupcies.

- Making it illegal to underfund private pensions

I don't see how anyone could disagree with these two provisions in the NDP platform.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There seems to be a lot of optimism and, even a bit of idealism, in this platform.

I am not sure I can flat-out disagree with any of these goals while on paper...BUT implicating them isn't a different story.

When I was a teenager I, like many others, used to be very, very left-wing and I would argue that I did not understand how conservatives could disagree with the goals of left-wing ideas unless they were self-centred bastards.

Yet, in my 20s I began to see that many left-wing ideas are just that, ideas. They cannot be implicated without serious consequences for the economy, the market, and the budget.

Thus, I believe centre-left is OK as long as you're willing to straddle the centre...otherwise stay on the university campus...you still have a lot to learn.

[August1991]

Protecting Pensions

- Making employees and their pension plans the preferred creditors in the event of corporate bankrupcies.

- Making it illegal to underfund private pensions

I don't see how anyone could disagree with these two provisions in the NDP platform.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would this mean that government taxes would be paid after pension payments in the case of bankruptcy?

In fact though, this policy would just increase interest rates on debt and make it harder for private firms to raise capital. The issue is how to share risk and I don't see why there should be a "one-size-fits-all" approach. Some employees may prefer to have a job with a riskier pension and others not. It depends.

I don't know what is meant by the term "underfund" private pensions.

----

Yet, in my 20s I began to see that many left-wing ideas are just that, ideas.

The Left often compares an ideal socialist world with the existing capitalist world - fantasy usually wins out over reality (although I enjoy finding instances where even reality is better than socialist fantasy).

[Toro]

I don't know what is meant by the term "underfund" private pensions.

Companies that offer what are known as "defined benefit pension plans" are required to pay employees a pension based upon a formula. An example would be something like 70% of the employees' average wages over the last five years of employment pro-rated based on the number of years he worked up to a certain amount. The employer then has a pension liability and must set funds aside to pay the liabilities. The company usually puts a certain amount into a pension fund and invests the money in stocks, bonds, real estate, private equity, etc. And if at a certain time, the liability is $100 million but the assets in the trust are $80 million, then the pension plan is "underfunded". If it had $120 million, its overfunded.

This is a nice idea, and companies certainly should have a fully-funded pension plan. The problem is that for funds that are underfunded, the costs to fully fund the plan, especially if its done immediately, may mean job losses at the company.

The Left often compares an ideal socialist world with the existing capitalist world

Absolutely.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

QUOTE(August1991 @ Oct 23 2005, 07:00 PM)

The Left often compares an ideal socialist world with the existing capitalist world

Absolutely.

I think you mean 'existing socialist world' (at least in Canada). Socialism is merely having taxes for the common good in a free market economy. Marxism, or 100% taxation, is the extreme end, and 0 taxes, or pure capitalism, is at the other. 'Socialism' is any form of taxation from 1-99%. (As long as that taxation is meant for 'government', or common needs)

[Toro]

Dear August1991,

QUOTE(August1991 @ Oct 23 2005, 07:00 PM)

The Left often compares an ideal socialist world with the existing capitalist world

Absolutely.

I think you mean 'existing socialist world' (at least in Canada). Socialism is merely having taxes for the common good in a free market economy. Marxism, or 100% taxation, is the extreme end, and 0 taxes, or pure capitalism, is at the other. 'Socialism' is any form of taxation from 1-99%. (As long as that taxation is meant for 'government', or common needs)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think what August means, and what I often think, is that the NDP puts forward idealistic solutions that aren't always workable in the real world. For instance, in the example of the underfunded pensions, what if funding up those pensions put the company into bankruptcy? Sounds good, but companies have gone under because of pension fund obligations. That doesn't mean companies shouldn't skirt their obligations, but to make it blanket illegal will have secondary and tertiary effects that probably haven't occurred to the drafters of the policy.

[tml12]

Dear August1991,

QUOTE(August1991 @ Oct 23 2005, 07:00 PM)

The Left often compares an ideal socialist world with the existing capitalist world

Absolutely.

I think you mean 'existing socialist world' (at least in Canada). Socialism is merely having taxes for the common good in a free market economy. Marxism, or 100% taxation, is the extreme end, and 0 taxes, or pure capitalism, is at the other. 'Socialism' is any form of taxation from 1-99%. (As long as that taxation is meant for 'government', or common needs)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think what August means, and what I often think, is that the NDP puts forward idealistic solutions that aren't always workable in the real world. For instance, in the example of the underfunded pensions, what if funding up those pensions put the company into bankruptcy? Sounds good, but companies have gone under because of pension fund obligations. That doesn't mean companies shouldn't skirt their obligations, but to make it blanket illegal will have secondary and tertiary effects that probably haven't occurred to the drafters of the policy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that is what he meant and it certainly was what I meant.

[Guest eureka]

The policy of the NDP would outlaw deliberate underfunding or negligent management of funds. The NDP is as practical as any other party. Any economis policy is produced by their own economists.

In that sense, they may be more practical since the economic policies of the other parties are often of the "wing and a prayer" variety.

[err]

Protecting Pensions

- Making employees and their pension plans the preferred creditors in the event of corporate bankrupcies.

- Making it illegal to underfund private pensions

I don't see how anyone could disagree with these two provisions in the NDP platform.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would this mean that government taxes would be paid after pension payments in the case of bankruptcy?

Currently, the employees (and their pension plans) have the last dibs on whatever finances there are to divide up when a company has gone bankrupt. The order of priority is as follows: Taxes first, banks ando other lenders second, then suppliers, and lastly, the employees. So often there is nothing left for severence pay, back-owed wages, and their pensions.

There is a compelling argument that banks are in the business of loaning money, and have to take some of the risks associated with that trade. The employees are not in the lending business.. All their eggs are usually in one basket... their employment, whereas the banks stand to suffer a less devastating effect should they not get all of their risked monies back.

You can argue that the employees are creditors to the company, especially when there are back-owed wages involved.

The NDP are currently pushing this on the Martin government. It is known as Bill C-281.

[err]

For instance, in the example of the underfunded pensions, what if funding up those pensions put the company into bankruptcy?  Sounds good, but companies have gone under because of pension fund obligations.  That doesn't mean companies shouldn't skirt their obligations, but to make it blanket illegal will have secondary and tertiary effects that probably haven't occurred to the drafters of the policy.

If the net effect is that the employees aren't going to get their pensions that they contributed to for years, just because the company stuck their head in the sand an "hoped" their situation would get better, and that they would be able to meet their obligations, there is something wrong.

The banks get their payments, or the company goes under... The suppliers get their payments, or the company goes under.... Why should the employees be the "risk takers" and losers, funding the company out of their pensio fun when the banks and other suppliers won't supply them... involutarily as well. I think that is classified as robbery....

[Toro]

The risk takers are the shareholders. They get nothing. The employees will at least get something.

[Toro]

The reason why capital gets priority over labour is because capital is initiates the business activity, not labour. 1,000 workers don't all get together and say, "We should find some capital so we can be employed." But someone with $1 million will say, "I want to start a business. I have the money, now lets find some workers." Capital is required first.

[Guest eureka]

And Capital should bear the risk. That is what profit is all about. Workers are the primary supplirts to any workplace and should be the primary creditors.

It should not be necessary to have them as crditors at all, though. Pay and pension should be kept separate in accounting as assets of the worker not the employer.

[Renegade]

The banks get their payments, or the company goes under... The suppliers get their payments, or the company goes under.... Why should the employees be the "risk takers" and losers, funding the company out of their pensio fun when the banks and other suppliers won't supply them... involutarily as well. I think that is classified as robbery....

Personally I am in favour of forcing company to fund a pension plan so that it is adequately funded to meet its obligations. This is an only an issue for Defined Benefit plans. The problems happen because there is not complete predictability on how much is required. Some companies will take advantage of this by being overly optimistic on assumptions so as to minimize their funding obligations.

To a certain extent employeers SHOULD be "risk-takers" afterall it is the company which takes the risk of flucatating interest rates and rates of return in order to gurantee employees a certain level of defined benefits.

The likely outcome of forcing a higher level of funding for defined benefit pension plans is that companies will hasten their move toward defined contribution plans. I expect that defined benefits will soon die out (except for the generous government pensions). This is likely to happen anyway regardless of legislation. In our economy today, companies have judged that the risk is just not worth it and by moving to defined contribution plans, the employees carry both upside and downside risk to their pensions.

[err]

The risk takers are the shareholders.  They get nothing.  The employees will at least get something.

And as risk-takers, as you call them, they should assume some risk. If their investment works, they can "get rich". If not, should they get all their money back, and have the employees bear the loss... lose their pensions, pay, etc...

The "Heads, I win, Tails you lose" scenario just doesn't cut it.

[Toro]

3. Respecting Who We Are

Women’s Equality

Introducing proactive and effective pay equity laws, including timely, efficient, non-bureaucratic ways to help workers and employers resolve disputes and funding for education, training, information and enforcement.

Working towards applying pay equity law to all employers in the federal sector regardless of size and to all employees regardless of employment status (full-time, part-time, temporary, casual, contract).

What does this mean? Does this mean equal pay for equal work or equal pay for equal value of work?

Cost?

Working with provinces and territories to provide stable, long-term federal funds to create an additional 200,000 high quality, affordable, publicly funded child care spaces within four years.

Cost?

Easing EI eligibility requirements to factor in a worker’s years in the workforce, a measure that would help more women qualify and reflect a worker’s true attachment to the workforce.

Why don't we make EI a true insurance program, like the word is supposed to mean? So if someone is continuously using EI, that person will see his premiums rise. This will give the worker greater incentive to find permanent employment.

Aboriginal Peoples

Creating Aboriginal seats in Parliament, just as New Zealand has, to ensure Canada’s first peoples’ voices are always present in national debate.

Boy, does that ever open a Pandora's box in a country with so many immigrants.

Diverse Canada

Working with provinces and territories to respect foreign qualifications of professionals.

Great idea.

Respecting Equality

Recognizing the equality of loving adult partnerships by extending civil marriage equality to same-sex couples, while respecting each religion’s right to determine its own definition of marriage.

All the Mormons will move to Canada. Can't wait to see the NDP defend polygamy.

Working with American authorities to ensure the Canadian passport is respected and that Canadian citizens are treated equally at our international borders and by refusing to share intelligence until we receive these assurances, as recommended by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This is nice, but recall the posts about about the Left offerring idealized solutions without fully understanding the secondary effects.

Democratic Choices

Implementing Parliamentary review of senior appointments to bodies such as Crown corporations, agencies, and boards.

Good idea

What makes us Canadian

Increasing and stabilizing funding for the CBC and Radio-Canada, recognizing the importance of public broadcasting in a large country in a larger world.

Why not pass a policy mandating better programing so people actually watch the damn channel?

[err]

3. Respecting Who We Are

Women’s Equality

Introducing proactive and effective pay equity laws, including timely, efficient, non-bureaucratic ways to help workers and employers resolve disputes and funding for education, training, information and enforcement.

Working towards applying pay equity law to all employers in the federal sector regardless of size and to all employees regardless of employment status (full-time, part-time, temporary, casual, contract).

What does this mean? Does this mean equal pay for equal work or equal pay for equal value of work?

Cost?

you can play with words, but you cannot argue with the sentiment...

Working with provinces and territories to provide stable, long-term federal funds to create an additional 200,000 high quality, affordable, publicly funded child care spaces within four years.

Cost?

How about the cost of not doing it.... How many single moms will have to stay home if they can't get affordable day-care. In a publicly funded modle, the cost can be far less than in a for-profit centre, so it can be an economically viable entity.

Easing EI eligibility requirements to factor in a worker’s years in the workforce, a measure that would help more women qualify and reflect a worker’s true attachment to the workforce.

Why don't we make EI a true insurance program, like the word is supposed to mean? So if someone is continuously using EI, that person will see his premiums rise. This will give the worker greater incentive to find permanent employment.

It's way harder to get, and way harder to stay on than back in the 70's... I don't see, with the strict rules they have, how anyone can 'continuously use EI'...

Diverse Canada

Working with provinces and territories to respect foreign qualifications of professionals.

Great idea.

(to be continued_

[err]

Respecting Equality

Recognizing the equality of loving adult partnerships by extending civil marriage equality to same-sex couples, while respecting each religion’s right to determine its own definition of marriage.

All the Mormons will move to Canada. Can't wait to see the NDP defend polygamy.

Ridiculous... Myth... Polygamy is not practiced by Mormons... Maybe 200 years ago, but in the USA, like in Canada, it is illegal...

Working with American authorities to ensure the Canadian passport is respected and that Canadian citizens are treated equally at our international borders and by refusing to share intelligence until we receive these assurances, as recommended by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This is nice, but recall the posts about about the Left offerring idealized solutions without fully understanding the secondary effects.

The topic appears to be marijuana useage... Try having a record for getting caught with one joint when you were a teen in the '70s, and see if you can take a holiday in Florida... Or if you can attend your uncle's funeral in Michigan... The idea is to protect Canadians against ridiculous right-wing draconic, hypocritical laws.

Democratic Choices

Implementing Parliamentary review of senior appointments to bodies such as Crown corporations, agencies, and boards.

Good idea

It's been needed for a very long time...

What makes us Canadian

Increasing and stabilizing funding for the CBC and Radio-Canada, recognizing the importance of public broadcasting in a large country in a larger world.

Why not pass a policy mandating better programing so people actually watch the damn channel?

Based on your wording, maybe Fox new would be more exiting... pretty girls, more exciting story-telling.... However, a huge number of Canadians tune into the CBC... including me...

[Toro]

you can play with words, but you cannot argue with the sentiment...

I can. If the government is going to deem certain types of work equal to other types of work, i.e. janitor v. secretary, then the government is getting into an area in which it has no clue. All it does it increase regulation, adds bureaucracy, makes the labour market less flexible and certainly increases the costs to the taxpayers. It also sets a very bad precendent if the concept of equal pay for "equal value" becomes enshrined in law as it will drive up labour costs and thus unemployment, all while making the Canadian economy less competitive.

How about the cost of not doing it.... How many single moms will have to stay home if they can't get affordable day-care.  In a publicly funded modle, the cost can be far less than in a for-profit centre, so it can be an economically viable entity.

I think that looking at programs for low-income, single parents is a good idea, but only for those people. But I don't know why the government has to run a for-profit center. I doubt the cost would be much lower than private care.

[Toro]

Respecting Equality

Recognizing the equality of loving adult partnerships by extending civil marriage equality to same-sex couples, while respecting each religion’s right to determine its own definition of marriage.

All the Mormons will move to Canada. Can't wait to see the NDP defend polygamy.

Ridiculous... Myth... Polygamy is not practiced by Mormons... Maybe 200 years ago, but in the USA, like in Canada, it is illegal...

Its not a myth. In some religions, polygamy is okay. If its law, then its secular society imposing its values on the religion. If the NDP is going to respect a religion's right to determine its own definition of marriage, then it would have to repeal polygamy laws. Plus, what if some religions bar gay marriage? If a gay couple in that religion wants to get married, is the NDP, since they're going to allow each religion to define the terms of marriage, disallow a gay union? Otherwise, this policy has no meaning.

Working with American authorities to ensure the Canadian passport is respected and that Canadian citizens are treated equally at our international borders and by refusing to share intelligence until we receive these assurances, as recommended by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

This is nice, but recall the posts about about the Left offerring idealized solutions without fully understanding the secondary effects.

The topic appears to be marijuana useage... Try having a record for getting caught with one joint when you were a teen in the '70s, and see if you can take a holiday in Florida... Or if you can attend your uncle's funeral in Michigan... The idea is to protect Canadians against ridiculous right-wing draconic, hypocritical laws.

I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. I thought it had to do with nationals of Middle East origin who held Canadian passports.

Based on your wording, maybe Fox new would be more exiting... pretty girls, more exciting story-telling.... However, a huge number of Canadians tune into the CBC... including me...

A huge number? Can anyone post the share of viewership in Canada? I had read somewhere that CBC's share was something like 5-10%. If that's true, that's not huge. Does it not trail Global and CTV? That's who you compare the CBC to, not Fox News.

[Black Dog]

Its not a myth. In some religions, polygamy is okay. If its law, then its secular society imposing its values on the religion. If the NDP is going to respect a religion's right to determine its own definition of marriage, then it would have to repeal polygamy laws. Plus, what if some religions bar gay marriage? If a gay couple in that religion wants to get married, is the NDP, since they're going to allow each religion to define the terms of marriage, disallow a gay union? Otherwise, this policy has no meaning.

Civil law will remain a monogamous institution. Respecting a religion's right to determine its own definition of marriage does not mean any laws would have to be repealed. What this policy means is that religions who oppose gay marriage will not be required to perform them.

[err]

you can play with words, but you cannot argue with the sentiment...

I can. If the government is going to deem certain types of work equal to other types of work, i.e. janitor v. secretary, then the government is getting into an area in which it has no clue. All it does it increase regulation, adds bureaucracy, makes the labour market less flexible and certainly increases the costs to the taxpayers. It also sets a very bad precendent if the concept of equal pay for "equal value" becomes enshrined in law as it will drive up labour costs and thus unemployment, all while making the Canadian economy less competitive.

I'll agree that there would be problems with implementation... It would be interesting to see how they would propose to pull it off...

How about the cost of not doing it.... How many single moms will have to stay home if they can't get affordable day-care.  In a publicly funded modle, the cost can be far less than in a for-profit centre, so it can be an economically viable entity.

I think that looking at programs for low-income, single parents is a good idea, but only for those people. But I don't know why the government has to run a for-profit center. I doubt the cost would be much lower than private care.

Paul Martin is already entertaining bids from "big box" day-care centres, as Martin has been promising "day-care" for years. The NDP is actively trying to fight the importation of huge American "big-box" day-care in favour of government run (or at least locally run) day-care. The government run or locally run models will be much better for our economy, and for our kids...