Harpers 5 Priorities, which is most important to you?

[SamStranger]

Harpers 5 Priorities, which is most important to you?

[Leafless]

SamStranger

The most pressing issue I think is ELECTORAL REFORM in the form of proportional representation.

After viewing vote results I was surprised to see federal accountability as number one within a system that is next to dysfunctional.

[tml12]

Harpers 5 Priorities, which is most important to you?

Gun crime sentenced...especially important to get right-wing voter turnout up in urban areas.

[apollo19]

For me it is a tie between the transit tax cuts and the minimum sentences. Although for the minimum sentences, I am not particularly concerned about gun crime as I am about crime in general -- and that involves reforming the justice system. I may be a little young to remember behind Chretien's years, but was crime always this bad? Did the Liberals intentfully lower the sentences (if they did at all), or have courts just resorted to taking their own initiative on giving easier sentences?

[tml12]

For me it is a tie between the transit tax cuts and the minimum sentences. Although for the minimum sentences, I am not particularly concerned about gun crime as I am about crime in general -- and that involves reforming the justice system. I may be a little young to remember behind Chretien's years, but was crime always this bad? Did the Liberals intentfully lower the sentences (if they did at all), or have courts just resorted to taking their own initiative on giving easier sentences?

apollo19,

I blame it on Liberal activist judges. Thoss who, for whatever reason, decide to take the law into their own hands and champion these iconoclastic measures which violate and drastically reform Canadian society.

Not good.

[SamStranger]

No one likes the $1200 a year for each kid under 6???

If I had kids under 6 that money would be great to get, it beats nothing.

[sage]

For me it is a tie between the transit tax cuts and the minimum sentences. Although for the minimum sentences, I am not particularly concerned about gun crime as I am about crime in general -- and that involves reforming the justice system. I may be a little young to remember behind Chretien's years, but was crime always this bad? Did the Liberals intentfully lower the sentences (if they did at all), or have courts just resorted to taking their own initiative on giving easier sentences?

apollo19,

I blame it on Liberal activist judges. Thoss who, for whatever reason, decide to take the law into their own hands and champion these iconoclastic measures which violate and drastically reform Canadian society.

Not good.

Liberal activist judges can be blamed for certain things; screwing up charter rights, extending aboriginal rights beyond that contemplated in the treaties (depending on your view), removing responsibility from the individual through tort law, but the criminal mess in the cities is not their doing.

To begin with, minimum sentences are set out in the criminal code, and are not imposed by the judiciary. Secondly much of sentencing is based on precedent. i.e. there is an established rule that if, for e.g., this is your second impaired driving charge in a short time frame, this is your sentence. Of course the judiciary has some discretion but it certainly is not as much as people are lead to believe.

Of course there are exceptions to every rule but to lay the rise in criminal activity at the feet of the judiciary is patently ridiculous.

[I Miss Trudeau]

No one likes the $1200 a year for each kid under 6???

If I had kids under 6 that money would be great to get, it beats nothing.

If i'm not mistaken, its a tax credit, not a direct welfare handout.

[geoffrey]

No one likes the $1200 a year for each kid under 6???

If I had kids under 6 that money would be great to get, it beats nothing.

If i'm not mistaken, its a tax credit, not a direct welfare handout.

You are mistaken, its a $1200/year payment, not a credit.

[lost&outofcontrol]

No one likes the $1200 a year for each kid under 6???

If I had kids under 6 that money would be great to get, it beats nothing.

If i'm not mistaken, its a tax credit, not a direct welfare handout.

You guys and gals do realize that $100 a month to spend on day care is a joke...right. An average daycare center charges $750 in Ottawa, Ont. The cheapest daycare you can find(Montreal, heavily subsidized) is more than twice of what the CPC is offering.

[Melanie_]

Here's some numbers about what that $1200 would really look like for different family structures. I posted this in another thread, I think it was called Confused and Concerned. When you take into account the taxes paid on the money, the lost GST rebate, and the lost Child Tax Credit, this is what it would look like.

The Caledon Institute of Social Policy has done some calculations about what the net benefit to families will be.

A single working parent earning $27,000 would net $481.

A two earner couple earning $36,000 would net $388.

A family with one parent working and one parent at home, with a total income of $33,000, would net $650.

A two earner couple earning $100,000 would net $778.

A family with one parent working and one parent at home, with a total income of $100,000 would net $1032.

http://www.caledoninst.org/

I know some of you disputed the numbers, but I haven't seen any recaluculations yet.

[fixer1]

What is the matter with you people? Daycare whether Liberal or Conservative was never going to paid the whole amount. Both plans were to help reduce the costs of daycare. You the parent will always have the bigger slice to pay on your own. The only time Daycare would have been paid fully was if the people were in the very low income brackets.

Quebec has has the model the Libs based theirs on and it still costs $300-$400 a month per child there. The conservatives plan does give the money direct to the parents. The libs to prov gov, and then some aid to daycare facilities to reduce costs. That is it.

[lost&outofcontrol]

For me it is a tie between the transit tax cuts and the minimum sentences. Although for the minimum sentences, I am not particularly concerned about gun crime as I am about crime in general -- and that involves reforming the justice system. I may be a little young to remember behind Chretien's years, but was crime always this bad? Did the Liberals intentfully lower the sentences (if they did at all), or have courts just resorted to taking their own initiative on giving easier sentences?

Total crimes commited has gone down since the late 80s linky

Since 1993, violent crimes have fallen 11%.

[Melanie_]

What is the matter with you people? Daycare whether Liberal or Conservative was never going to paid the whole amount. Both plans were to help reduce the costs of daycare. You the parent will always have the bigger slice to pay on your own. The only time Daycare would have been paid fully was if the people were in the very low income brackets.

Quebec has has the model the Libs based theirs on and it still costs $300-$400 a month per child there. The conservatives plan does give the money direct to the parents. The libs to prov gov, and then some aid to daycare facilities to reduce costs. That is it.

Please look at my numbers again. The Conservative plan doesn't help reduce the cost of child care; the people who don't use child care benefit the most. And there is no attempt in the Conservative plan to fully pay the care for people in the lowest income brackets (an issue for another debate ).

Child care is supposed to be a provincial responsibility, so the Liberal plan to send money to the provinces to enhance the current systems made sense. Its what Harper claims he is going to do about every other provincial responsibility, yet in his first few months he will contradict himself by revoking the bilateral agreements, going around the provinces, and creating his own federal "child care" (if you want to call it that) plan.

[Kiraly]

You guys and gals do realize that $100 a month to spend on day care is a joke...right. An average daycare center charges $750 in Ottawa, Ont. The cheapest daycare you can find(Montreal, heavily subsidized) is more than twice of what the CPC is offering.

And you should realize that many people do not want the government to heavily subsidize day care.

As I have stated before, I wasn't too keen on the $1,200 child care payment when I first heard it proposed by the Conservatives. The problem was that the other parties were going to or had already proposed some form of subsidized child care. The Conservatives likely felt that not addressing this issue would put them at a disadvantage.

$1,200 isn't very much but it is better than nothing and eveyoine will be able to take advantage of this program. The same cannot be said of the Liberal program. I'm hoping Harper will be uncompromising on this point kills all funding for the Liberal Childscare program.

[geoffrey]

For me it is a tie between the transit tax cuts and the minimum sentences. Although for the minimum sentences, I am not particularly concerned about gun crime as I am about crime in general -- and that involves reforming the justice system. I may be a little young to remember behind Chretien's years, but was crime always this bad? Did the Liberals intentfully lower the sentences (if they did at all), or have courts just resorted to taking their own initiative on giving easier sentences?

Total crimes commited has gone down since the late 80s linky

Since 1993, violent crimes have fallen 11%.

That doesn't change that criminals have no consequences for their actions. In my community, some hooligans beat up an off-duty cop, put him into a coma nearly killing him, and got 2 years.

It also is reflecting the huge amount of 'community' sentancing, where no criminal charges are laid in turn for just community service. If you just stop policing, of course less people will be caught.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Melanie,

Child care is supposed to be a provincial responsibility,

I contend that childcare is a parental responsibility.

If it is not, then the gov't might as well take over 'ownership' too. The Ads could read "We're not just going to nationalize childcare, we're going to nationalize your child!".

[geoffrey]

Dear Melanie,

Child care is supposed to be a provincial responsibility,

I contend that childcare is a parental responsibility.

If it is not, then the gov't might as well take over 'ownership' too. The Ads could read "We're not just going to nationalize childcare, we're going to nationalize your child!".

Agreed TLFB, since when did it become Ottawa's responsibility to raise children.

Don't have them if you can't afford them.

[Melanie_]

Of course child care is a parental responsibility; I don't think parents are abdicating their responsibilities to their children when they work for a living. But if they are to work, they need affordable, safe, appropriate care for their children - each province has a system in place to ensure that is available. Basically, the Liberal plan was to enhance that system, broaden it, make it more widely available; the Conservative plan is to say every parent for themself, find whatever you can, and we will give you a token amount to help pay for it.

[Melanie_]

Don't have them if you can't afford them.

Thats right, only rich people should procreate. The working class should just be drones for the rich.

[geoffrey]

Don't have them if you can't afford them.

Thats right, only rich people should procreate. The working class should just be drones for the rich.

Well I don't see why we should have to pay for the poor's kids. Seriously, work another job or something if they are so determined to have a kid. Next thing, we'll be buying everyone cars and stuff.

I don't know when this entitlement to have Ottawa pay for everything in your life came into effect, but I sure don't approve of it.

[lost&outofcontrol]

And you should realize that many people do not want the government to heavily subsidize day care.

As I have stated before, I wasn't too keen on the $1,200 child care payment when I first heard it proposed by the Conservatives. The problem was that the other parties were going to or had already proposed some form of subsidized child care. The Conservatives likely felt that not addressing this issue would put them at a disadvantage.

$1,200 isn't very much but it is better than nothing and eveyoine will be able to take advantage of this program. The same cannot be said of the Liberal program. I'm hoping Harper will be uncompromising on this point kills all funding for the Liberal Childscare program.

Where do you think they will get the money for the $1200 child care payment ? You can't reduce taxes, and keep the same level of social programs. You'll just end up paying more for day care since it won't be as heavily subsidized. I do agree that the liberal solution wasn't adequate. Parents had to wait months before space opened up. It's the same old liberal half-ass way of doing it. You have to either increase the subsidies so as to create enough space or don't subsidize it at all and do what the conservative are doing. my 2 cents

[Argus]

Don't have them if you can't afford them.

Thats right, only rich people should procreate. The working class should just be drones for the rich.

People can afford to raise their own kids - if they sacrifice a little. If they settle for the rental house and not the three bedroom, split level with the big mortgage, for example. If they buy an Echo - or gee, take a bus, instead of a big SUV. If they don't take those ski trips and vacations to the Dominicans. All of the people I know who complain about the cost of raising kids waste little effort in economising. Most of the couples I know have two cars and a mortgage, and take holidays every year. I know a couple whose combined income is about $120k. They have one kid and can barely make ends meet. I know another couple where the husband makes about $45k. The wife stays home (rental), husband takes the bus to work, though they have a car. They have three kids. And they have no trouble affording things. They're just very careful about what they spend money on, are big on sales, no name products, coupons, etc.

[geoffrey]

Don't have them if you can't afford them.

Thats right, only rich people should procreate. The working class should just be drones for the rich.

People can afford to raise their own kids - if they sacrifice a little. If they settle for the rental house and not the three bedroom, split level with the big mortgage, for example. If they buy an Echo - or gee, take a bus, instead of a big SUV. If they don't take those ski trips and vacations to the Dominicans. All of the people I know who complain about the cost of raising kids waste little effort in economising. Most of the couples I know have two cars and a mortgage, and take holidays every year. I know a couple whose combined income is about $120k. They have one kid and can barely make ends meet. I know another couple where the husband makes about $45k. The wife stays home (rental), husband takes the bus to work, though they have a car. They have three kids. And they have no trouble affording things. They're just very careful about what they spend money on, are big on sales, no name products, coupons, etc.

Agreed Argus. But don't you know that everyone deserves a 3-bedroom split level and a huge SUV. Not to mention 4 trips per year to Cuba. All paid for by you and me.

[Melanie_]

Well I don't see why we should have to pay for the poor's kids. Seriously, work another job or something if they are so determined to have a kid. Next thing, we'll be buying everyone cars and stuff.

I don't know when this entitlement to have Ottawa pay for everything in your life came into effect, but I sure don't approve of it.

Again, look at the numbers from the Caledon Institute. The Conservative plan benefits the rich much more than the poor.

The Liberal plan doesn't give anyone free child care, as far as I am aware. Here in Manitoba, it allowed for increased operating grants to licensed programs (centre and family child care based) so the staff could have raises without increasing fees (parents currently pay $18.80/day for a preschool child). It also allowed for 3100 new spaces to open in urban, rural and Northern settings. It also provided training grants for post secondary education in Early Childhood programs. When Harper rescinds that money in June, the spaces will close, the grants will dry up, and the raises will be reversed (unless parent fees go up, which is a distinct possibility seeing as how parents will supposedly have another $1200 for child care).

One of the arguments I have heard here over and over is that institutionalized care is going to produce a nation of government brainwashed little socialists. I wonder who you think is working in these programs? Or who you think is running them? Having a small amount of government funding, and a licensing and monitoring system in place, doesn't make a child care centre a mini gulag. A non profit centre is run by a parent board of directors, who decide policy and procedure for their children, hire and fire staff, and ensure any money is rolled back into the program. A private centre is accountable only to the owner, and the owner's bank account.